Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's look at the last 20 years. In the NFL the following teams have won a title:
New England Patriots
New York Giants
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
New Orleans Saints
Indianapolis Colts
Pittsburgh Steelers
Denver Broncos
Baltimore Ravens
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams
Green Bay Packers
11 different teams is pretty good.
Now let's look at teams to have played in the Super Bowl
New England Patriots
New York Giants
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
New Orleans Saints
Indianapolis Colts
Pittsburgh Steelers
Denver Broncos
Baltimore Ravens
Seattle Seahawks
St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams
Green Bay Packers
Oakland Raiders
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Atlanta Falcons
San Francisco 49ers
Arizona Cardinals
Philadelphia Eagles
Tennessee Titans
19 different teams, or 63% of the league have played in the Super Bowl in the last 20 years. Not too bad.
Lots of repeat winners, though ... It's all about who comes out on top.
Not when only 37.5% of the teams have won 86% of the Super Bowls ... I posted this because I was recently looking at a list of Super Bowl winners and I decided to do the math.
And there's still 13 (40.625%) teams who've never won one ...
What should the NFL do to increase parity? Teams like the Lions and Browns haven't had much success because they haven't drafted, traded, or coached as well as teams like the Patriots and Steelers. New England did get a little lucky (drafted Brady at pick #199), but for the most part some franchises are just better operations than others.
Also things can change. The Steelers were terrible in their first 40 years (1933-1973), while the Browns were considered a successful franchise during that span.
What should the NFL do to increase parity? Teams like the Lions and Browns haven't had much success because they haven't drafted, traded, or coached as well as teams like the Patriots and Steelers. New England did get a little lucky (drafted Brady at pick #199), but for the most part some franchises are just better operations than others.
Also things can change. The Steelers were terrible in their first 40 years (1933-1973), while the Browns were considered a successful franchise during that span.
Agreed.
Then there is an example how things go in reverse. Through all of the 1980's and most of the 1990's the 49ers were the class of the league, winning five super bowls and being in the playoffs most every year. Then from 1999 to 2010 they had but just two winning seasons. Then had three great seasons with one super bowl appearance. And then going into the tank-again. And with the problems they have, it's going to be awhile before they can contend again as they had their worst season in 12 years, finishing 2-14.
Packers were terrible in the 70s and 80s, got better when Favre arrive in the mid-90s. Because they have had 2 HOF QBs in a row, people forget they have had long bad stretches.
Lots of repeat winners, though ... It's all about who comes out on top.
When was the last time an NFL team won three championships in a row? (like the Yankees in the 1990s, or the Athletics in the 1970s? - like the Lakers in the 2000s, or the Bulls, twice!, in the 1990s - or the Islanders in the 1980s or Canadiens in the 1970s reeling off four in a row?)
The Lakers won five titles in nine years in the 1980s, while the Bulls won six titles in eight years in the 1990s. No NFL team has won four Super Bowls in less than a span of 14 years (the 49ers) and the only team with six Super Bowl titles (the Steelers) won their last 34 years after their first.
Furthermore, in the NFL any team can compete. There are 30 NBA teams - since 1978, only one of the teams from the bottom half of the league - the smallest 15 markets - has won an NBA title (the Spurs, who have done very well, winning five). MLB? Largely the same story. The Royals won recently. And occasionally a mid-sized market team wins (Miami when it was called 'Florida', Arizona, Cincinnati). But the big markets dominate.
Meanwhile, in the NFL, Green Bay - the smallest market in the Big Four sports by far in North America - has three Super Bowl appearances and two titles in 20 years. Pittsburgh, in the bottom third of NFL markets, consistently wins. Indianapolis, one of the smallest NFL markets, has been good for a decade and a half. Denver, in the bottom half of NFL markets, has consistently won, including going to 8 Super Bowls and winning 3, for decades. New Orleans won a title. Need I go on?
But in MLB and the NBA, the big-market teams buy talent and titles - it's not merit-based but simply a question of who can throw the most dollars at winning.
When was the last time an NFL team won three championships in a row? (like the Yankees in the 1990s, or the Athletics in the 1970s? - like the Lakers in the 2000s, or the Bulls, twice!, in the 1990s - or the Islanders in the 1980s or Canadiens in the 1970s reeling off four in a row?)
The Lakers won five titles in nine years in the 1980s, while the Bulls won six titles in eight years in the 1990s. No NFL team has won four Super Bowls in less than a span of 14 years (the 49ers) and the only team with six Super Bowl titles (the Steelers) won their last 34 years after their first.
Furthermore, in the NFL any team can compete. There are 30 NBA teams - since 1978, only one of the teams from the bottom half of the league - the smallest 15 markets - has won an NBA title (the Spurs, who have done very well, winning five). MLB? Largely the same story. The Royals won recently. And occasionally a mid-sized market team wins (Miami when it was called 'Florida', Arizona, Cincinnati). But the big markets dominate.
Meanwhile, in the NFL, Green Bay - the smallest market in the Big Four sports by far in North America - has three Super Bowl appearances and two titles in 20 years. Pittsburgh, in the bottom third of NFL markets, consistently wins. Indianapolis, one of the smallest NFL markets, has been good for a decade and a half. Denver, in the bottom half of NFL markets, has consistently won, including going to 8 Super Bowls and winning 3, for decades. New Orleans won a title. Need I go on?
But in MLB and the NBA, the big-market teams buy talent and titles - it's not merit-based but simply a question of who can throw the most dollars at winning.
That's all fine and dandy, but it's still pretty much the same franchises winning the Super Bowls. I didn't start the thread with the intent to blast the NFL or compare the NFL to the other leagues ... I just find it interesting that the same franchises keep winning titles.
RE: MLB - Since 1967 there have been 27 seasons where a smaller market team has won the World Series. That doesn't sound much like dominance by big-market teams.
If throwing money around was always a deciding factor, smaller market teams would NEVER win. And, as I've proven, that's not the case.
Last edited by 2002 Subaru; 01-08-2017 at 10:13 AM..
That's all fine and dandy, but it's still pretty much the same franchises winning the Super Bowls. I didn't start the thread with the intent to blast the NFL or compare the NFL to the other leagues ... I just find it interesting that the same franchises keep winning titles.
RE: MLB - Since 1967 there have been 27 seasons where a smaller market team has won the World Series. That doesn't sound much like dominance by big-market teams.
If throwing money around was always a deciding factor, smaller market teams would NEVER win. And, as I've proven, that's not the case.
It comes down to QB mostly. Look at the Pats for instance. They were largely irrelevant before Brady. A couple of spaced out super bowl appearances but not much success in-between.
I believe their is plenty of parity in the NFL. I mean, as a fan, when your team does get good, you do want them to stay relevant for more than one or two seasons. But their is enough fluidity that teams come and go every year even if the majority stay, their is movement.
That's all fine and dandy, but it's still pretty much the same franchises winning the Super Bowls. I didn't start the thread with the intent to blast the NFL or compare the NFL to the other leagues ... I just find it interesting that the same franchises keep winning titles.
RE: MLB - Since 1967 there have been 27 seasons where a smaller market team has won the World Series. That doesn't sound much like dominance by big-market teams.
If throwing money around was always a deciding factor, smaller market teams would NEVER win. And, as I've proven, that's not the case.
I don't see this as a problem with parity. The better teams have figured out a way to stay relevant in a changing league. I'm no Patriots fan, but one cannot deny they are the best franchise in this era of football. That's not a problem with parity in the league, but a franchise doing what a franchise is supposed to do: compete for titles.
The other thing is parity is often used in the context of "year to year." But it also means within a given year. In this regard the NFL has been pretty successful in creating parity. The difference between 9-7 and 13-3 is often razor thin. Not only that, but even "bad" teams are so good they can never be counted out any given Sunday. The 2011 Giants finished the regular season 9-7 and allowed more points than they scored. They reached the playoffs by the skin of their teeth and won their division in a down year. Then they proceeded to maul teams in the post season: The Falcons (10-6), the Packers (15-1) and the 49ers (13-3) before beating the Patriots (13-3) in the Super Bowl.
A lower seed in the NFL playoffs probably more so than any other sport has a shot against a higher seeded team, and that's in large part to the league's parity.
If the NFL played best of 5 or best of 7 game series like the NBA, MLB & NHL does I think you'd see the marquee teams win with the marquee players, and there wouldn't be as much parity as there is.
Take for example Cleveland: No one except maybe 4 or 5 teams in the league (if even that many) are beating the Cavs in a 7 game series. However, if it was a 1 game series than it's anyone's guess: Maybe LeBron can't shoot that day, maybe he sprains an ankle in warm ups, maybe a player on the other team has a career-defining day. Obviously a lot can happen in a 1 game series that isn't going to happen through a 5 or 7 game series. Now in the NFL anything can happen in these 1 games: Maybe the Texans defense (it is #1 in the league) never lets the Patriots offense cross midfield, maybe Osweiler throws 4 touchdown passes and 0 picks, maybe Brady is just "good" like most QBs are and not Brady like. It probably won't happen, but the Texans only really need 1 of those things above to happen to have a realistic chance of beating the Patriots since it's just a 1 game series while if the Patriots played the Texans in a 5 or 7 game series sure the Texans may win once or even twice, just like the Pistons might win 1 game in a best of 7 series, but there's a snowball's chance in hell they are winning 4 games.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
