Another year of off-season drafting and free agency pretty much done. Despite the fact that NE has won 3 of the last 4 Superbowls, the league has much more parity that it used to. Those that remember the very early 90s, the 80s, the 70s, and even the 60s can remember times when you knew who would be good and who would not be. The Patriots withstanding, many teams rise from 4-12 to 12-4 and vice-versa from one year to the next. Is it good for you the fan? Time to sound off. How quickly the mighty fall. Teams are winning one year and missing the playoffs the next. Ask not the question of parity. It has been answered with a powerful, all-encompassing "We got it" for a few years now. Parity has had its say. The salary cap has had its utterly intended effect, which is to eliminate the habit of teams assembling dynastic models of success and replace it with the popular 'Anyone Can Win' notion, borrowed lovingly from your nearest Lotto outpost. It's a done deal, and it's no longer the question. Instead ask the question of memorability. Ask whether in two or three years anyone outside the local fanatic base will be able to remember who won the conferences, much less who contributed to those championships. Ask not so much where the dynasties are, but where a team resides that you'll be able to recall in 24 months. Ask this: Do memories count for anything in sports today? Of course they do, but are they the same type of memories you are accustomed to? I grew up nowhere near Pittsburgh and never once rooted for the Steelers in any capacity, but those Bradshaw-Swan-Harris-Lambert-Greene years are etched into my sports consciousness. The Dallas Cowboys? Landry and Meredith and then Morton and then Staubach, Bobby Hayes and Jethro Pugh and Walt Garrison all thrown together, just seemingly years and years of winning with the same batches of people -- not merely the same core, but very substantially the same roster at most of the skill positions. For all I know, the players regard those as the bad old days of indentured servitude, before the wonders of the controlled open market and cautious free agency. From a fan's perspective, those days were gold. You didn't have to ask who the Miami Dolphins were this year; you knew. You could actually buy a jersey and wear it for years without looking silly. It sounds nostalgic; in fact, I think it's closer to the heart of things than the league might care to admit. What parity has brought to the the NFL of a beneficial nature is almost entirely self-evident, and it includes the part about so many teams being able to claim themselves still in the running for postseason glory this late in the year. But, just as certainly, there is a cost, even if it seems more ethereal and harder to grasp. And maybe that cost is memory. Maybe the cost is the kind of memory that leads people to tell and write stories about classic teams and the great matchups, now less likely as those teams quickly disintegrate under the realities of the salary cap and franchises' flagging ability to retain their foundational talent under the structure. It comes; it goes. The Ravens came and went. The Rams made it a couple of good years. Tampa jumped up and fell hard. The Patriots jumped up and went on an inspired run. They are they closest we have left in the last 8-10 years. Football, of course, is a tough case in this regard. No one, not even a superior quarterback, can change a game the way a Michael Jordan can turn a basketball game. But, again, the conversation here isn't so much about efficiency as about memory. The Bulls and Jordan will be remembered as long as the NBA is standing. The issue with the Yankees, from my perspective, was never about them winning but rather about the mechanics of baseball's screwed-up money system under which they did that winning. The World Series titles themselves were, I'd argue, almost entirely to the good, because dynasties, no matter how frustrating to some fans in the short run, are good for sports. Consistently winning teams create sports memory. You don't hear anybody in the NBA crowing about the fact that the Lakers are off to a lousy start, because the league is savvy enough to understand that another title-threatening L.A. team is a good thing. It gives some people an image to root for and the rest of the people one to root against -- and, in both cases, it gives them a team to remember. That team doesn't exist in the NFL just now; I'll take your Tampa Bay and see you my Green Bay, or match your Raiders with the Colts. Whatever; it's all about the same. And, come January, somebody's going to walk out of that sameness with a Super Bowl trophy. The question in the age of parity, really, is whether anybody will remember it. In a way, I am glad that the Pats have won 3 out of 4. Loving them or hating them for their success is part of the fun of being a sports fan.
You brough out some awesome points in their but I like it being so unpredictable. SO what we remmeber great teams in the past, I found it awesome that every team has a chance in teh NFL. You can not blame it on anyone else besides the team poor performance. IN baseball its just a crazy unbalance of good overzealous ownership and cheap owners. Yankees---KC Royals. I like it how you know that in any given week The Redskins can beat the eagles or the colts or etc.
I agree with some of what you said Cowboy but I don't agree that we won't remember the teams that win now. I will never forget how dominant the ravens D was and that a QB considered to be washed up did just enough to get it done week in and week out...same with the year the Rams won..how can you forget Warner going from grocery store to winning a SB...I think anyone who watches football will remember the great teams and seasons they had even if they don't continue to win year in and year out...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giantsfan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>I like it how you know that in any given week The Redskins can beat the eagles or the colts or etc.</div> Of course, you and I both know how unlikely the Redskins winning is. Even Gibbs was realistic when he responded to a reporter who asked him how many games he believed the Redskins would win this year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giantsfan1)</div><div class='quotemain'>I like it how you know that in any given week The Redskins can beat the eagles or the colts or etc.</div> Of course, you and I both know how unlikely the Redskins winning is. Even Gibbs was realistic when he responded to a reporter who asked him how many games he believed the Redskins would win this year. http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1521/untitled13ou.png</div> lol, I was simply using th redskins as an example lol, but yea yoiu hit the nail right on thehead.
I had to call you on that one. Seriously, I wrote this to spark some response and comments, and my language was a little stronger than my beliefs. Of course, teams will be remembered, although I don't think one year wonders are remembered as strongly. It was the same before. At least now, it is the dynasties that are remembered and talked about, moreso than the 85 Patriots. Maybe the memories will be there, especially ones with story lines, but the emotions will be different. For what its worth, I like to hate teams, but I do like parity. The parity is what keeps me from being a big baseball fan. That and maybe living too close to the Royals.
great points cowboy but i have to agree with GF on this one. I love the fact that any team can go out there and be a winner. I mean the fact there are only a few teams that are obviously gonna make the playoffs there are so many teams that could break out and do great despite being in the top 10 draft picks the year before. look at the chargers and the steelers last year. I dont think anyone saw those teams doing as good as they did last year. It makes it great to be a fan in the league. Think about how bad it must be to be a Kansas City Royals fan (if there are any). Those fans know they have no chance to do anything in the next idk decade. They are disgracefully bad. But Chargers fans in 2003 had something to look up to. They looked bad for a long time, but they came close in gettin far in the playoffs and now are one of the sure playoffs teams. Its a great thing and i think thats what makes the NFL so popular.
I feel very fortunate to be a lifelong Green Bay fan. I've seen both sides of the coin... I grew up in the Lynn Dickey/Randy Wright/Anthony Dilweg/Don Majkowski era and watched a handful of teams like the 49'ers dominate every year, while the Packers and a lot of other teams were perennial doormats. To me, that wasn't fun...and not just because the Packers were terrible. Just because I hated seeing the same teams every single year in the playoffs. In the modern era, I've gotten to see the best of both worlds. The Packers have the best record in the NFL since the salary cap era began and I still get to see a different set of teams make the playoffs every year. That's nice... After Favre retires, it may be a different story. I try not to think about it...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'> After Favre retires, it may be a different story. I try not to think about it... </div> Yikes the return of the Dark Ages is upon us.
I have a Neil Smith jersey hiding somewhere in the closet. My Tim Couch Cleveland jersey isn't getting too much wear these days either. I guess I miss the way things used to be. But I'm still a fan nonetheless.
