The NFL is Not a Paragon of Parity

The NFL sells their fans on the idea that the league is built on parity and equality more so than other professional sports leagues. The NFL has done such a good job convincing fans and journalists about this supposed parity that is has become conventional wisdom. People throw out that the league is built of parity frequently without having to defend their claim at all. The NFL certainly has superior equity when compared to say Spanish La Liga, the top tier of Spanish soccer. However, when the NFL is compared to other American professional sports leagues it doesn’t stand out as a stalwart of parity. The belief of the NFL system somehow leveling the playing field for all the teams is false.

Twelve teams make the NFL playoffs each year. Since 2007 all but three NFL teams have made the playoffs at least once (the three fan bases that haven't witnessed a playoff game in a decade are Los Angeles/St. Louis, Cleveland, and Buffalo). This looks like a good sign pointing to parity of play, but when we dig deeper into the distribution of playoff teams we find things aren't so rosy. 

Take a look at Figure 1 for a distribution of all the NFL playoff spots between 2007 and 2016. Of the 32 total NFL teams just 9 have taken up over 50% of all available playoffs spots. Even more illuminating, two teams, the Packers and Patriots, have been to the playoffs nine out of ten chances. Those two teams are eating up 15% of all available playoff spots just between themselves. If all things were equal they should have taken only 6%. The continued dominance of a few top teams has taken away potential playoff spots from the rest of the league.

Figure 1

All these stats do not prove that the NFL is not a leader in competitive equality on the field of play. The way to see this is to compare the NFL to other professional American sports leagues. The league often held up for its dominate teams that can just buy championships is MLB. Writers, and radio hosts often whine that MLB quality is open to the highest bid and small market teams are priced out of competition. So how does MLB compare to the NFL?

Between 2007 and 2011 eight teams made the MLB playoffs. For 2012 and on ten teams have made the playoffs. This ratio of playoff spots to league size closely compares to the NFL. Also much like the NFL 9 out of 30 MLB teams account of 50% of all available playoff spots. The top three teams, the Dodgers, Yankees, and Cardinals, have each been to the playoffs six times in the last ten years account for 20% of available playoff spots. MLB also has a few cellar dwellers. Three teams that have failed to make the playoffs since 2007, The Mariners (ouch), the Marlins, and the Padres (at least our natural rivals are struggling also). 

Figure 2 shows a similar breakdown of MLB playoff teams between 2007 and 2016. It is pretty clear that the NFL and MLB are very comparable in their frequency of playoff teams. In both leagues a few teams are perennial powers taking far more than their fair share of playoff berths. Instead of suppressing the post season appearances for the whole league, these champions are eating up spots left open by weaklings at the bottom that seem unable to get out of their losing ways. For both there is a large chunk of middling teams bouncing in and more frequently out of the playoffs. In both leagues the expected number of  appearances for any given team is right around 3 (3.75 in the NFL and 3 in MLB). In the NFL 16 teams have made the playoffs between 2 and 4 times, while the number of teams is 19 in MLB. This shows that large group of middle tier teams.

Figure 2

The NFL is not bad at keeping all their teams competitive, but comparing them to the supposed worst of the other American leagues at maintaining parity of play, MLB, the NFL is not a clear winner. In fact the NFL is very comparable to MLB. The NFL and MLB both have a few dominate teams that appear in the playoffs every year and a few terrible teams that just can't figure it out. However, most of the league just sits in the middle reaching the playoffs about as frequently as we would expect if all things were fair. The sports media needs to stop parroting the NFL's marketing message of it being some sort of paragon of parity. The facts just don't back this claim up.

It's Still Time to Let Lorenzo Romar Go

The University of Washington's Men's Basketball team has had a long slow spiral down the drain. Their loss to UCLA by 41 points cements them as a truly bad team. Not only have the Huskies become a bad team they have also lost relevance (I know I for one don't bother to watch games anymore). In years past people would talk about the Husky men at work and at bars. Sports radio would do whole hours on the team. The team used matter to the sports scene in Seattle. Those days are gone.

All of this is especially sad considering the team continues to have top level recruits pass through the program on their way to the NBA. We have had the opportunity to watch future stars in the making lose more college games than they win. In 2016 the team had two NBA first round draft picks in Dejounte Murray and Marquese Chriss and they were still unable to make the NCAA tournament. The 2017 feature Markelle Fultz, the consensus projected number one pick in the upcoming NBA draft, yet the team is the worst they have been in years.

When all the players that has suited up and played for the Huskies recently is considered it becomes obvious that talent is not the issue. Instead the blame falls on the coaching staff and their inability to get these premier players to mesh together as a team. Ultimately that blame falls completely on head coach Lorenzo Romar, who has been a constant on the team throughout their decline. It is time for the university athletic department to cut bait and let Romar go.

Many will defend Romar because of his early success with the program. Others will defend him because of his stellar personal character and leadership. Both of these reasons seemed valid a few years into this downward trend, but after five straight years, and soon to be six, without an appearance in the NCAA tournament they have lost their weight.

The other commonly cited reason I hear to keep Romar in charge is ability to continuously recruit top tier high school talent. After all he has managed to bring NBA prospects previously mentioned to UW. Those are the kind of player that usually goes to Duke, UNC, Kentucky, or UCLA. More proof of his prowess is next seasons incoming class that feature Michael Porter, probably the best high school player in the country. Romar recruits players to UW like he is running a blue blood program.

The allure of having Porter in Purple and Gold is enough for many fans to want to risk keep Romar as the head coach for one more year. The see the potential for greatest that a player of Porter's ilk presents. The thing is Romar has recruited players like this before and has failed to find success with them. There is nothing to make us believe that Romar will find some secret formula over the off season to suddenly find success with uber talented freshmen. In fact his track record suggests the exact opposite.

Recruiting all these amazing players is pointless if they don't win games. These players stay only one season (I don’t think they should even have to do one season in the NCAA) and then jump to the NBA and its riches. So, the fans develop little to no report with them because our time with these guys is so short. Any attachment we might develop is further squashed by the lack of victories. There are just no marquee moments to look back upon. No event ties them to the school history. Romar's talent at getting 17 year old to commit to a year at UW is rendered moot by the results on the hardwood floor or Hec Ed pavilion.

The losing for the men's basketball team has grown tiresome. The fans, myself included, have stopped watching games. The most surefire way to fix this problem is to let Lorenzo Romar go. The Huskies need a new coach that can actually turn a collection of individually talented basketball players into a competitive team and win games. Romar's past on court successes, strong moral fiber, and recruiting coups do not justify the continued losing.

The Patriots Expose One of the NFL's Dirty Secrets

The NFL prides itself on the supposed parity of play in its league. They constantly reinforce the narrative that on any given Sunday any NFL team can beat another NFL team. Every year is a new year and your favorite team has a shot at winning the Super Bowl. Sports commentators eat this up and spew it right back out. They constantly parrot the NFL's lines about parity. As I have written before all this talk is just marketing hogwash when it comes to the bottom of the league, but it also applies to the top tier teams. The NFL is no more a of level playing field than any other major American sport. By winning Super Bowl LI the New England Patriots exposed the myth of NFL parity for all to see.

In the 16 years since they beat the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI the Patriots been to 6 another Super Bowls and won another 4. That is just Super Bowls. If we look at just the playoffs the Patriots have been dominate as well. They have made the playoffs 14 out of 16 seasons. One of the seasons they missed was 2008 when they won 11 games, but lost out on tie breakers to the Dolphins and Ravens. Basically the Patriots have dominated the NFL for 16 years and made a mockery of the concept of parity.

It is time to stop repeating the same banal sound bites about the league being one of equivalent talent where any team could win. It is time to admit that the NFL is as lopsided and dominated by super teams, like the Patriots, as every other league. It is time to find a new and original way to describe the power distribution of NFL's teams.

Source: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/