The Myth of NFL Parity

Well, the Super Bowl is almost here, which means that it's time for people to start talking about parity in the NFL and how teams can quickly turn their fortunes around, because of the structure of the salary cap and free agency.

Pundits will point out that, as recently as 2010, the Broncos were 4-12. As recently as 2011, they employed Tim Tebow. They'll mention that Seattle had back-to-back 7-9 seasons in 2010 and 2011. Both teams made the playoffs last season, so it's not a classic "worst to first" story for either of them, but it's quite a change in fortunes from just two seasons ago.

But, I don't think that captures the whole truth. I think the NFL has a great deal more parity than the NBA -- another league with a salary cap and free agency structure -- where the Heat, Celtics, Lakers, and Spurs have won almost every championship since 1998. The NHL has been through so many transitions since the turn of the century that it's really tough to try to compare apples to apples -- there are just too many variables.

That leaves Major League Baseball, home of no salary cap and the haves/have nots club (Yankees, Cardinals, Red Sox, Dodgers, possibly Giants and Angels). Since really only the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals have a shot to win it every year, baseball should take a long look at what the NFL is doing and try to parity themselves up... right? Given, the title of this post, I think you can safely assume the answer to that is wrong.

First of all, there's the stat that everyone seems to be mentioning, but glossing over: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Ben Roethlisberger have started at quarterback for the AFC representative in 11 of the last 13 Super Bowls. That basically means that the other 13 teams in the conference had no chance if they didn't have themselves a franchise quarterback. Add in the fact that the hated Ravens were the AFC representative in 2000 and 2012, and Rich Gannon's Oakland Raiders are the only real outlier.

Since 2000, nine different teams have won the Super Bowl, with four teams winning multiple titles (Patroits, Steelers, Giants, hated Ravens).

Since 2000, nine different teams have won the World Series, with four teams winning multiple titles (Cardinals, Yankees, Giants, and Red Sox).

Seems pretty balanced, even though baseball doesn't have all the parity enforcing rules in place that football does. Add to the fact that the playoff field for baseball is 8 teams a year (or had been until last season), while football admits 12 teams to the postseason, and it's pretty remarkable that the scales are that balanced. Then, think about the fact that NFL playoff games are single elimination and MLB playoffs are five and seven game series. In a long enough series, the team that can buy the most talent should be able to outlast a less expensive, less talented team.

The balance is almost as good when you go back further, even though the Yankees won four titles between 1996 and 2000.

Since the baseball strike that canceled the 1994 World Series, ten different teams have won World Series, with five teams winning multiple titles (Marlins, Cardinals, Yankees, Giants, and Red Sox).

Since free agency started in 1994*, 12 different teams have won the Super Bowl, with six teams winning multiple titles (Broncos, Packers, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, hated Ravens).

*I know free agency officially started in 1993, but they really didn't work out the kinks until '94 or '95.

If you go all the way back to the beginning of the Super Bowl era, it gets even more interesting, even though you also had clear baseball dynasties in the 60s (Yankees again) and 70s (Reds, A's), though no team emerged in baseball the way the 49ers did in football (ten different teams won the World Series in the 80s, a different team in each year). 

Since 1966, 18 teams have combined to win all 48 Super Bowls. There are 14 teams that have not won the Super Bowl, and 4 teams have not been to the Big Game. 

In baseball, 20 teams have combined to win 48 World Series, only 7 teams have not won (half the NFL number), and three teams have not been to the World Series. Hey, even the Pirates logged a couple of wins.

The telling statistic in my mind is this: There are just as many "have" teams in the NFL as there are in baseball. In 48 Super Bowls, there have been 96 participants. There are 13 teams that have appeared in 4 or more Super Bowls (Steelers 8, Cowboys 8, Patriots 7, Broncos 7, Niners 6, Phins 5, Raiders 5, Redskins 5, Packers 5, Giants 5, Vikings 4, Colts 4). Those 13 teams account for 73 of the 96 total appearances. Even if you just take the Top 6 -- like I had my Top 6 for baseball up above -- that's 41 of 96 appearances accounted for by only six teams.

So, the parity in both sports is more like the parity in Men's NCAA basketball: There a lot of different teams that qualify for the postseason, but only a handful of teams have a real shot at the title. Every now and again, there's an upset, but it's usually Duke, Kansas, UNC, Louisville, Kentucky, UConn, and Arizona (maybe Syracuse in recent years) that comes away with the big prize.

At this point in the NFL, you can't win it all if you don't have a franchise quarterback (Joe Flacco is totally elite, you guys). Before the rule change in 2003 that opened up the passing game, back to about 1990, you needed a great defense to win championships. From the last big rule change in 1978 through 1990, you needed a franchise quarterback and talented receivers. Prior to that, defense won championships for the most part.

Dallas won with their Doomsday Defense in the late 60s and early 70s, then shifted to offense with Roger Staubach and Tony Dorsett when the rules opened up. The Steelers went through the same progression. You could make a strong argument that Terry Bradshaw was the third best quarterback on the team that won Super Bowl 9. He wasn't that much improved by Super Bowl 10, but he was starting to get on solid footing, then they rode his right arm to titles in Super Bowls 13 and 14. Don Shula went to four Super Bowls (6, 7, 8, 17) and won two with defense, then re-booted and went to the Big Game with Dan Marino and a record-setting offense in Super Bowl 19.

The Cowboys got back to defense and a solid running game, for the most part, in the 90s to give themselves another title run. The Patriots started out with a focus on defense, then changed as the rules and game changed in order to sustain success. 

But, the common thread across all eras seems to be quarterback play. John Elway played in a Super Bowl in 1987 and 1997 and 1998. Joe Montana and Steve Young were able to give the 49ers a nice, long run of success. Tom Brady has been to five Super Bowls (so has Elway). So, parity hasn't been able to level the playing field if a team happens to draft a once-in-a-generation guy. Think about the stat I referenced at the beginning: Three quarterbacks have dominated the AFC for the past 13 years, amid changes in playing styles and rules and schemes.

In baseball, a lot of it comes down to luck as well. The richer teams have just been more consistently successful because they have the money to hedge more bets -- and safer bets on more expensive players -- than other teams.

In football, the most consistently effective teams are able to set themselves up to take advantage of any lucky breaks that they get. The Steelers struck while the iron was hot in the 70s -- they had the best run of scouting and luck in history from 1970-1974 -- but struggled in the 80s because luck wasn't on their side. They re-tooled in the 90s and had some success because of their defense, but didn't really get another lucky hit until Roethlisberger in 2004. They were set up well at that point to succeed, they just needed the final piece.

Basically, success is based too much in luck, right place/right time, and positioning yourself well to take full advantage. 

To say that one sport has a model that can tame that beast is silly. That's why NFL parity is a myth.

Super Bowl 48 Prediction

Super Bowl 48 (I hate Roman numerals, Arabic numbering is where it's at) is right around the corner, but it seems to have built up without much build-up. Everyone knew there would be a lot of talk about Peyton Manning's legacy and what the game means to him, but most of the Media Day stuff that I've seen has been grasping at straws.  Since Marshawn Lynch doesn't want to talk to the media much and someone needs to write something about him and the game, then the story is about how he's not talking and what ramifications there should be. Richard Sherman was a huge story right after the NFC Championship game, but a lot of that died down once they realized he's pretty boring when he has time to prepare for an interview (and he wasn't just coming off making a huge play that sent his team to the Super Bowl). Even the weather doesn't seem to want to add to the drama. Sure, it'll be pretty cold out, but they're not calling for precipitation. At 39 degrees and cloudy with moderate wind, the players probably prefer it. It's actually shaping up to be better football weather than it was for Super Bowl 41, which also involved Manning. (That was the first Super Bowl I watched on an HD TV and I was amazed by the detail you could see in each little raindrop on the camera lens. So, it rained a lot for that game.)

What I find interesting is that most of the storylines I've seen are actually about the game. Number 1 defense vs. Number 1 offense. Manning vs. Sherman. Manning vs. the league's best secondary. Russell Wilson vs. inexperience. How does adding Percy Harvin to the mix affect the outcome of the game? A lot of it seems to be about match-ups and how there are a ton of talented guys on both sides of the ball on both teams.

That means it's gotta come down to intangibles, right? Each side has a lot of those, too. Wilson is playing like a ten year veteran, is tough under pressure and throws a mean deep ball, which shoots holes in any argument that says he's just a game manager. Even though Manning threw a highly questionable interception in last year's Divisional round, he's beginning to shake off his "choke artist" image. He's still extremely dangerous in the two minute drill, is highly competitive, and has the respect and admiration of his teammates. Having won a Super Bowl and lost one, he knows how important and difficult it is to just get to the game, so he has no doubt impressed upon everyone that they can't get overwhelmed by the enormity of the game itself. Pete Carroll -- God help me -- is coaching out of his mind and has provided tremendous energy and inspiration to his team. John Fox knows what it's like to coach in the Big Game and lose.

Both teams have overcome injury and adversity to get to this point. Hell, Fox had heart surgery during the season and came back to the sidelines. The fact that Manning and Fox have been here before gives the Broncos a slight advantage. I wrote in the preview for Super Bowl 45 that having previous Super Bowl experience gives you a minor edge in the first five minutes and the last five minutes of game time. For the first five minutes, players who haven't been there before will probably be too hyped up and are more likely to make a mistake. Wilson certainly looked jittery at the outset of the NFC Championship game, but he and the Seahawks were able to overcome it. If he makes another mistake and the Broncos are able to capitalize on it, Seattle is in real trouble. They're not really built to overcome a big deficit without a huge play like a kick return or defensive touchdown. For the last five minutes, you're able to draw from personal experience what you did -- or didn't do -- to win. You certainly remember how you felt when that last five minutes was over and that can be used to focus and motivate.

Ultimately, I don't think it comes down to Manning vs. anyone. I think it comes down to how the Denver receivers match up against the Seahawks cornerbacks. Seattle had the best pass defense in the league throughout the regular season. They have a phenomenal secondary. Their cornerbacks are big and physical and have had their way with opposing wide receivers -- two talented groups in New Orleans and San Francisco -- thus far in the playoffs.

Where I think the Broncos have the advantage is that three of Manning's top targets -- Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, and Julius Thomas -- are all big, physical guys. While I don't think that their physical stature gives them carte blanche to win every battle and get an easy release on every play, I think they're going to win more battles than they lose. When those guys win those match-ups, Manning will get them the ball. I think this is going to be a fairly boring, very well-executed game. I don't think there are going to be a lot of big plays and momentum shifts. I think Manning is going to do what he did for most of Super Bowl 41: Take what the defense gives him, win several small battles, and hope to catch them sleeping deep. He picked his spots and wore the Bears defense down. He won the battle of mental attrition and kept his focus. I think he's going to do the same thing on Sunday to the Seahawks.

I think Denver's defense matches up well against Seattle's offense. I think they have the speed to stay with the Seahawks' playmakers and the edge rushers to keep Wilson honest and in the pocket. Their secondary has some big holes in it, but a lot of secondary issues can be covered up by a solid pass rush.

The Wildcard here is Marshawn Lynch. For all their athleticism, the Broncos can be undisciplined and take bad angles to the ball. They also don't tackle that well. If someone on Denver's defense takes a bad angle and/or misses a tackle, then Lynch can do a lot of damage in a hurry. If he has a big game, that swings things in Seattle's favor. I don't think that's going to happen, I think the Broncos will contain him as long as they need to and the Seahawks will eventually need to abandon the run and go into "comeback mode" which takes Lynch out of the game. But, that's why he's the Wildcard: Because I think that, but I'm not feeling really confident about it.

To quote the great John Madden, "The team that's able to score the most points is the team that's going to be able to win this game." To put a finer point on that obvious statement, both these teams are going to need to be able to score touchdowns when it counts: Inside the red zone. During the regular season, Denver had the best red zone offense (72% touchdown conversion rate) and Seattle had the best (39% touchdown allowed percentage). Denver was 28th on defense (62% allowed) and Seattle was 14th on offense (53% converted). The last three games, both teams have been trending in the wrong direction. The Seahawks have yielded 57% on defense and converted only 25% of the time on defense. The Broncos are giving up 75% on defense and converting 57% on offense.

The big difference is that Denver takes a lot of trips inside the red zone: 4.3 per game this season and 4.7 per game in their last three games. The numbers for Seattle are 3.4 and a very distressing 2.7. Both teams have a lot of weapons and a lot of options when they get inside the 20. The Seahawks will most likely be challenged more often. Are they up to that challenge and can they continue to hold the Broncos to field goals? My gut says that they will eventually fade, or at least they'll fail more often than they succeed.

That's why I'm taking the Broncos.

Prediction:
Denver 27, Seattle 20