Poseidon wrote:VM is correct, while the patriots do win the AFC East every year, parity is the rule in the other divisions.visualmagic wrote:3 of the 4 teams in the conference championship games last year were not in the playoffs the year before. Eagles, Vikings and Jaguars.BACONWAVE wrote:visualmagic wrote:Every year since the NFL went to a 12 team playoff there have been at least 4 teams in the playoffs that missed the playoffs in the previous seasonBACONWAVE wrote:So every year in the NFL there are several new teams in the playoffs? Don't think so.ml wave wrote:More parity means turnarounds are easier, see the NFL.BACONWAVE wrote:Couldn't that also mean way more parity than ever before, thus talent spread out more evenly, which can make turnarounds harder in some cases?ml wave wrote:Lol, where's the "objective proof" that I claim to be first to market with statistical support?Baywave1 wrote:For someone who claims to be first to market with statistical support, I don't see any data points here. Without them it's just an opinion which is cool but that's all it is. I don't know the answer here. Please educate us as with objective proof to why you're right and the other folk(s) aren't.ml wave wrote:With scholarship limits, roster churning, grad transfers, etc., it's much easier to execute a turnaround now than it was 30 or 40 years ago to the point that those comparisons are virtually meaningless.
Anyway, you want data points to things which are common knowledge enough to the point that anyone even approaching a functioning understanding of sports wouldn't need data points? Whoops, guess I just answered my own question there.
NCAA FB scholarship limits:
pre-1973: unlimited
1973-77: 105
1978-91: 95
1992-present: 85
Grad transfer rule: 2011
If kids can go play at Nicholls State & get same exposure as at Tulane.....you don't think they will take the easier route via school work? Or say as a walk-on... what tuition do you think they will choose?
I am not talking about the one year wonders. Why are there basically always the same teams getting to conference championships & Super Bowls? Shouldn't all that parity in the NFL allow teams like the Browns & Bengals get to a Super Bowl? Plus that playoff sample size is basically half the league & not NCAA where parity can hurt teams. Also what about my second part of statement? I am just pointing out the PARITY does not mean easier turnarounds. It can often make it harder since a lot of teams will just be mediocre.
Parity isn't going to matter much for you if you're a terribly run organization like the Browns.
Teams like the Steelers and Patriots are always in the playoffs because they are well run organizations with great Quarterbacks.
As for the Nicholls state part of your statement, if Tulane cant out recruit a kid against Nicholls, then we should just drop the program. If we're relying on walk-ons to turn the program around, we're screwed anyway.
Lets look at it..
NFC west: 4 different winners in 6 years.
NFC South: 3 different winners in 3 years.
NFC North: 2 different winners in 2 years.
NFC East: 3 different winners in 3 years.
AFC East: Pats have won 9 straight.
AFC North: 2 different winners in 3 years.
AFC South: 3 different winners in 4 years.
AFC West: 2 different winners in 3 years.
Parity is clearly the rule. The Pats are the clear exception. If you want to go further back your welcome. http://packers.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_N ... on_winners
I'll just leave these little links below since parity only helps turnarounds......
https://www.foxsports.com/college-footb ... 937-110712
https://www.foxsports.com/college-footb ... 281-120110
http://www.espn.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/ ... accs-image
