This is an idea I have been kicking around for a while.
I have a bad habit. When the talking heads at ESPN all parrot the same line, I become obsessed with proving them wrong. This is usually not that difficult.
For about two or three seasons now, an ESPN-mandated talking point has been that there is so much more parity in the NFL, as opposed to the NBA, MLB, and NHL.
Let's make this very stark:
MLB = 162 games
NBA = 82 games
NFL = 16 games
NHL = 82 games
My initial reaction is pretty simple. It is possible to be 17+ games out of first place in the other three sports. It isn't in the NFL. Therefore, the NFL's "parity" is an illusion created by an unbalanced, short schedule.
Just for example, as of today fourteen (14)MLB teams are at least 17 games out of first place in their league; this is nearly half of MLB. No NFL team has ever gone 0-16. In contrast, MLB has had losing streaks longer than 16 games numerous times. The longest are the 1899 Cleveland Spiders (24), 1961 Philadephia Phillies (23), and 1988 Baltimore Orioles (21).
At first, this is a sword that cuts both ways. One could easily argue that the fact that no one has lost 16 games in a row in a single NFL season just goes to show how much parity there really is in the NFL. Of course, the radically shorter season raises other related concerns. For example, is an entire NFL season even statistically significant when it is only 16 games? MLB plays over ten times as many games, and the metrics used in other sports are more or less adapted from baseball scoring and statistics. In the other major sports, almost everyone would agree that 16 games is at best a very small sample size for almost any form of analysis, and at worst, it is meaningless.
Due to expansion in the other three major sports (and Interleague Play in MLB's case) no one plays a true balanced schedule anymore. However, baseball, basketball, and hockey at least come close, because of their longer seasons. Therefore, strength of schedule does play a factor, albeit a small one, in MLB, the NBA, and the NHL. However, manipulation of the short schedule is HUGE in the NFL.
To make this clearer, the NBA has the only thing close to a true balanced schedule. A team faces opponents in its own division four times a year (16 games), teams from the other two divisions in its conference either three or four times (36 games), and teams in the other conference twice apiece (30 games). For example, the Spurs do not play all of their Western Conference opponents an equal number of time at home and away, but this is done on a rotational basis and can be determined years in advance.
The NHL plays 41 games at home and 41 games away. Each team plays all other divisional opponents 8 times (4 home, 4 away), all other conference opponents 4 times (2 home, 2 away) and 10 inter-conference games (1 game against each team in two of the three divisions in the opposite conference). This rotates, much like Interleague Play in MLB. Unlike MLB, it is completely predictable and without exception (no "rivals weekend").
For many decades, MLB had a true balanced schedule, since there were only 16 teams and no Interleague Play. Both the American and National Leagues consisted of eight teams. The schedule consisted of 154 games, or 22 games (11 at home and 11 away) against the other teams in the same league. Since 1969, expansion, divisional play, and Interleague play have changed this system considerably. The current system is extremely Byzantine and distorted by so-called "Rivals Weekend." For example, the 2008 Cubs will have played 31 games against the NL East, 33 games against the NL West, 82/83* games against the NL Central, and 15 Interleague games for a total of 161/162* games. There is a defined rotational system, except for the pre-determined "rivalries." (Can you tell I think "rivalry weekend" is bull ?)
* The final game against Houston may or may not be played.
At any rate, while we don't have true balanced schedules in the MLB, NBA, and NHL, the longer seasons impose a balanced approach, and the sheer length of their seasons tend to negate the strength of schedule problem.
Turning to the NFL, we can see that the league attempts to use the short season as a "band-aid." Each of the 32 NFL teams plays the other three teams in its division twice: once at home, and once on the road (6 games). Each team plays the four teams from another division within its own conference once on a rotating three-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (4 games). Each team plays the four teams from a division in the other conference once on a rotating four-year cycle: two at home, and two on the road (4 games). Each team plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division they were already scheduled to play: one at home, one on the road (2 games).
In other words, not only is the schedule unbalanced, it attempts to "self-correct" with a previous sample size of just 16 games.
Bottom Line:
1) Is their greater parity between teams in the NFL than the other major professional sports?
2) If so, is this purely a function of the scheduling process, or are there other factors involved, such as weekly (as opposed to daily) games, etc.?
EDIT: The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of wikipedia.
Last edited by Reggie Miller; 09-22-2008 at 06:40 PM.
Nice read, but I think the playoffs create the parity with the ONE and OUT format.
Most bad teams get exposed in the NFL, and having a longer season would be actually be a bad thing as good teams get inflated wins from crappier opponets. Football doesn't need a longer schedule, IMO.
All of the other sports play series, not individual games, which is very important.
I take you to be saying:
1) There is more parity in the NFL; and
2) This is a result of the shorter schedule and no "series" play in the qualifying rounds for the championship.
If I am incorrect, please explain.
In case you can't tell, I am working from the assumption that "parity" in the NFL is just a happy convergence of statistics, a talent diluted league, etc.
it doesn't give much room for bad play and you have to be on top of your game every week...unlike basketball and definately baseball where you can go for bad stretches in a season and still come out alright....if you're looking to make the playoffs.
That makes sense as well. Also, couple the importance of a single game with the fact that a team generally has a week to prepare.
The one thing about NFL "parity" that rings hollow to me is that crappy aphorism that any team could beat any other "on any given Sunday." Well, it actually happens all of the time in the other major sports, particularly baseball.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
