Kerry J. Byrne doesn't understand what parity is

From his Cold Hard Football Facts piece for SI:

Six Signs the Parity is Dead in NFL

The NFL's decades-long effort to produce equality on the playing field is dead and buried. In fact, it suffered a gruesome, unwatchable demise in Week 7 of the 2009 season.

Perhaps it's only fitting that parity's final bloody demise came just days before Halloween,

No that's not really fitting at all. It would have been fitting if parity had died in the "Nokia Presents: The Parity is Dead Bowl."

1. The frightening pace of blowouts

Week 7 of the 2009 season offered more televised beatings than the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

Topical!

Six of the 13 games last week games were uncompetitive blowouts -- each decided by 28 points or more. If that rash of routs seemed unusual, there's a good reason: it was.
Pro football had produced six four-touchdown blowouts just once before in its history: back in Week 14 of the 1970 season, the very first year of the AFL-NFL merger.

Oh noez, there were a lot of blowouts in ONE week of ONE season. Parity is obviously dead.

We shouldn't expect those kinds of blowouts in these days of league-wide efforts to level the playing field. But we're seeing them.

You know why? Because parity isn't intended to mean every single team will be competitive every year. The hope is that every team will make the playoffs every few years, and aside from a few poorly managed franchises, most teams have been competitive at some point over the past decade.

This idea will continue to elude you for the next 5 points.

2. Last-second thrills and chills are hard to find

Year after year, week after week, one NFL game after another came down to a last-second play that determined the outcome. It made for great theater in a sport that thrives on televised drama. That drama is slowly disappearing.

Here in 2009, 84 of 103 games (81.6 percent) have been decided by more than a field goal. That's the most in nearly a quarter century (since 1985) and the third most since the AFL-NFL merger. The trend began last year when 206 of 254 games (80.5 percent) were decided by more than a field goal -- also among the most since the merger.

Double-digit blowouts, meanwhile, have become the rule here in 2009, not the exception: 56 of 103 games (54.4 percent) have been decided by 10 points or more -- the most in 17 years and also among the most since the merger.

Emphasis mine. Kerry, if you don't tell us specifically where it ranks with other years since the merger, and the other years it compares to, then there's really no frame of reference. We're like children who've wandered into a movie and ask "what's going on."

In addition, final scores aren't necessarily indicative of how close the game was. (Anybody remember the Steelers' double digit "blowout" of the Vikings?)

Furthermore, high number of blowouts in a year != lack of parity, because parity should not be looked at on a week-by-week scale.

3. The horrifying divide in the standings

For the first time in NFL history there are three undefeated teams after Week 7 -- Indianapolis, Denver and New Orleans. And all three look virtually unbeatable, dominating opponents week after week in virtually all phases of the game.

In hindsight we know that the Broncos got absolutely dismantled by a 3-3 Ravens team. Indy has been 7-0 about 100 times and not won the Super Bowl. The Saints have been to the playoffs three times in the past 20 years, so they may not be the best team to bring up in an article saying parity is dead in the NFL.

But at the very same time that the NFL boasts three unbeatens nearly halfway through the season, the league also fields three winless teams -- Tennessee, Tampa and St. Louis. These teams barely look competitive, getting dominated week after week in virtually all phases of the game.

Tennesse won their division last year. It took a monumental collapse on Tampa's part to not make the playoffs last year. St. Louis is 5 years removed from its last playoff appearance and 10 years from their last Super Bowl win.

This great divide, meanwhile, comes after a pair of historic NFL seasons. In 2007, the Patriots became the first 16-0 team in league history; in 2008, the Lions became the first 0-16 team in league history.

In two separate years, one team was historically good, and one team was historically bad.

In two separate years, Brett Favre was really bad, and Brett Favre was really good. What conclusions about Brett Favre's overall effectiveness throughout his career can we draw from this?

A league ruled by "parity" simply does not produce historically good and historically bad seasons year after year.

Yes, you can. The year the Patriots went 16-0, the rest of the league was competitive, and the Patriots lost the Superbowl to a team they beat in week 17. The year the Lions went 0-16, the Titans and Giants looked like favorites to make the Superbowl, but were bounced in the divisional round.

4. The gruesome disparity on the scoreboard

The Saints have scored 31 touchdowns this year (26 on offense).

The Browns have scored just six touchdowns (four on offense).

The Saints are good. The Browns are bad. This does not prove parity or lack thereof.

5. The bloodbath on the stat sheets

The gridiron Grand Canyon that divides the league's winners and losers is also evident on the stat sheet. In fact, we haven't seen these kinds of disparities in statistical performances since the early days of the AFL.

Peyton Manning, for example, once again leads the league in passer rating (114.5), a mark which could go down as one of the highest ever (he holds the record with a 121.1 passer rating in 2004).
Cleveland quarterback Derek Anderson, meanwhile, has posted an abysmal passer rating of 40.6. He's on pace to become the lowest-rated qualifying passer (14 attempts per game) since Ryan Leaf in 1998 (39.0). Oakland's JaMarcus Russell is not much better (47.2).

Peyton Manning will probably retire as the best QB ever in the NFL. The fact that Derek Anderson and JaMarcus Russel are still starting is a testament to bad team management, and not parity.

6. The haunting specter of elite powers

Advocates of NFL "parity" say any team can win in any given year. Sure, it happens from time to time. But the league's always been like that.

13 different teams have won the Superbowl in the past 20 years, so really, more than 50% of the time, some "random" team will win in a given year.

The fact of the matter in today's NFL is that four teams -- all in the AFC -- have held an iron grip over the NFL for more than a decade. Denver, Indy, New England and Pittsburgh can be counted on year after year -- with the occasional exception here and there -- to stand among the very best teams in the league.

See if you notice a trend:

Indy: #1 QB of all time
New England: Top 5 QB of all time
Pittsburgh: Likely HOF QB

Conclusion: All very white fan bases!

Also, Denver? Dominant for the past decade? They've made the playoffs four times this decade, but advanced to the divisional round just once, and were promptly shown the door.

Those four have won 11 of the past 14 AFC titles.

Somewhat of an arbitrary number, but yes, they've all had likely HOF QB's in that time frame.

They've won six of the past eight Super Bowls and eight of the past 12.

And eight of the past 39.

Over the past 15 years, the AFC's Big Four have filled 19 of 30 spots in the AFC title game.

HOF QB's will do that for your team.

There's a good chance you'll see the NFL's Big Four battling for the right to go to the Super Bowl once again. They're a combined 22-4 after Week 7, and if the playoffs began today, they'd hold four of the top five seeds in the AFC. There's a good chance one of the Big Four will hoist the Lombardi Trophy once again in February 2010.

I'll eat my hat if Denver wins the Superbowl, but I definitely wouldn't be surprised if New England, Indy, or Pittsburgh won. However, I don't think anyone would be shocked if Philly, New Orleans, Minnesota, or Baltimore won the Superbowl either. Damn this predictable, unbalanced league that only offers 7-9 likely winners of the championship!

The Colts, meanwhile, are in the midst of an unprecedented string of six straight 12-win seasons and well on their way to making it seven straight -- a fact that alone should kill any notion of "parity."

PEYTON MANNING IS THE BEST QB IN NFL HISTORY. HE IS THE ONE CONTROLLED VARIABLE IN THAT COLTS EQUATION.

The Patriots, of course, are two years removed from the first 16-0 season in history

In which they were not league champions.

they won a record 34 games over two seasons earlier this decade (2003-04), they need one postseason victory to set a record for most in a decade (15) and they've set every win streak in history this decade, regular season (21), postseason (10) and combined (21). Brady, meanwhile, has won a record 78.5 percent of every game he's started (106-29) in his career. Again, all facts that should, on their face, prove that concepts such as "parity" are dead.

The Pats have been the class of the NFL this decade. They have been fortunate to have: a HOF QB, a HOF coach, and one of the best front offices in the NFL which constantly turns over talent. This all came after being a middling team for most of the 90's.

Parity's postmortem

There's no perfect explanation for the death of parity, especially in the wake of the league's open efforts to keep it alive. But it's obvious the league's efforts to legislate equality have failed.

The NFL has a constantly adjusting salary cap which is death for many a would be dynasty (Anyone remember how quickly Tampa Bay faded into mediocrity after their Super Bowl win?). The fact that the Colts and Patriots have remained dominant is due in large part to their quaterbacks. Unless, you want to regulate how long a team can keep a quarterback, you can't do much better than the current formula for shuffling the deck of NFL teams.

Here's one guess why: the NFL, with so many players and so many coaches and so much turnover and so many moving parts, is all about management. And, right now, management has never been more important.

Agree.

Humans are not equal in talent, whether they're in the front office, on the sidelines or in the huddle, and the notion that a few rules will "level the playing field" is being mocked openly on the field right now.

What the NFL has done, actually, is create a system that ends up rewarding well managed teams and punishing poorly managed teams. The Colts, Patriots and Steelers continue to fine tune the system year after the year and win year after year. The Browns, Lions and teams like (in recent years) the Redskins make poor and sometimes desperate off-the-field decisions that make them uncompetitive on the field.

So what do you want? A rule against effective management?

Back in the day, before the efforts to "level the playing field," a poorly managed team could splurge for a season or two on talent and compete. Money is the great equalizer. But that weapon has been removed and now, more than ever, not less than ever, NFL teams are dependent upon smart decision-makers and good executives. The NFL has maximized, not minimized, inequality on the playing field by maximizing the importance of management.

That is...fucking...RETARDED. So a poorly managed team could splurge on a few big names and instantly compete? What happens when you get a well managed team that splurges on whoever they want, whenever they want? I'll tell you what you get: The New York Yankees. Is that what you want Kerry? Is that what you call parity?

Peter King: Fat, Annoying

If I have to tell you the two major themes in Peter King's MMQB column, then clearly you're not a golfer.

From his "Fine 15":

New York Jets (1-0). "We didn't even have a chance to discuss this before the play was called,'' Eric Mangini told me, regarding the lottery pick of a touchdown pass from Brett Favre to Chansi Stuckey in the first half at Miami. It was fourth-and-13 at the Miami 22, and the Jets had no kicker because, for the moment, Mike Nugent had a bum thigh, and so Favre, under heavy pressure, threw it up deep.

"That's something that only a smart player would know -- throw it down to the end zone, and the opposition catches it, who cares? The worst thing would be to take the sack and give them the ball in good field position. Brett knew just to throw it and take the chance.'' The ball, I said to Mangini, would not have been thrown by a quarterback who cared about his quarterback rating. "Absolutely not,'' he said.

Boom, bang, kablammo! (That's the sound of either your head or your bathtub whiskey distillery exploding)

1. Wouldn't an experienced quarterback have found an open reciever who was past the first down line, rather than heaving a jump ball into the endzone?

2. Quarterbacks who worry about their quarterback rating are usually worried about two things: throwing balls their receivers can catch, and not throwing interceptions.

3. When was the last time a QB was accused of purposely sabotaging a hail mary attempt because he didn't want his QB rating hurt by a likely interception? The answer: never.

From the: What I learned about football that I didn't know last week section:

The NFL passed a rule in April to allow communication between the sideline and one defensive player on the field, the same as offensive coach-to-quarterback communication. Theoretically, this would take away some of the advantage an offense has had for several years, with coaches being able to call plays into a quarterback's ear until the 15-second mark on the play clock.

But because many defensive players don't play every snap, the rule allowed for a second player to have a speaker in his helmet, but only if the first defensive player wasn't in the game. So the second player needs to have two helmets: one that he'll wear when he's not getting the play called into him, and one with a speaker in the helmet. To prevent a team from having both players with the speaker in the helmet in the game on the same play, the NFL decided to put a man in an official's hat and white official's pants on each sideline to guard the backup defensive-communicator's helmet.

Thoroughly confused? Or thoroughly disgusted?

There are 267 games in the NFL this year -- 256 regular-season games and 11 more in the playoffs. Thus, the NFL will spend $80,100 for those three employees to do their sacred duties at each game.

You know, I agree; it is pretty stupid that the NFL has to employ three people per game just to make sure this doesn't happen. You'd think that it'd be something that officials would notice. If the NFL were a government organization, and my tax dollars went to it, I might be pretty disgusted.

But guess what PK, the NFL makes a shit load of money. They make more than $80,100 off the first 100 people through the gate at most stadiums. And considering that they just had a season that was marred by a cheating scandal, that $80k seems like a small price to pay for peace of mind.

Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the NFL doesn't hire millionaires to make that cooshy $30/per hour salary, so it's probably going to people who will spend that extra 100 bucks a week immediately; thereby helping the economy (if you believe in the trickle up theory, which I do). So your righteous indignation is just idiotic in every way.

The Way We Were

The first in a year-long (or longer) series comparing players of today with those of long ago, or not so long ago. In this section, I'll compare players who, for reasons on and off the field, could have switched places in time and been similar.

Brett Favre vs. Sammy Baugh

I didn't read this comparison, nor will I ever. Let's see if I can stomach next week's comparison between Tom Brady and a former college quarterback that was killed in Vietnam.

Enjoyable/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week:

Sometimes I forget the things that annoy me on the road, and Saturday, at an NBC rehearsal for the 2008 TV season, Bob Costas reminded me of one.

At hotels now -- and this has been happening for four or five years -- when you order room service, the male or female waiter who comes to the door always asks: "May I come in?''

Which prompted Costas, coming off a month in a hotel in Beijing, to say: "May I come in?! No! I'll eat the meal in the hallway! What do you mean, 'May I come in?' ''

Good point, Bobby.

Choose your own adventure time:

Repulsed by hypocrisy: Weren't you outraged by the NFL spending $80,000 to make sure there was no cheating, and now you're talking about getting room service on NBC's expense account?

Sarcastic: Who's writing this column now, Jerry Seinfeld and Gregg Easterbrook?

Logical explanation (with sarcasm): I've never been with a woman in a hotel (or anywhere for that matter), but I imagine that many guys take women there. I wouldn't be shocked if these men and women often engage in sexual congress that goes on and off throughout the night, causing them to miss their dinner reservations and call down for room service. I know this is going to make me sound like a looney tune, but maybe, just maybe these men and women are naked when the room service guy arrives with the food. Maybe he asks "may I come in," because his hotel manager has gotten complaints from angry rich people about the room service guy coming in, when the people just wanted their food left outside. I know it's really far out there, but it's just a theory of mine.

From 10 Things I Think I Thought while washing down those 12 queso burritos from Qdoba with a Cinnabon/chocolate milk combo that I liquefied in my blender:

When Peter Gammons says the AL MVP is Dustin Pedroia, that gets my attention.

Mine too, like "Wow, should this guy still be allowed to communicate to a national audience?" or "Does he know who this guy on Pedroia's team is?" or "Can he even begin to fathom what this guy is doing statistically?"

The answer to all the previous questions: no.

For the record, Ocho Cinco is not "Eighty-Five'' in Spanish. It's "eight five.''

This is why Peter King gets paid the big bucks.

I think I'm starting to think Carson Palmer belongs in Jay Cutlerville. He hasn't been a commanding presence on the field for some time, I'd say going back to mid-2006, and I'm hard-pressed to think of him in the same league with the top five or six quarterbacks. I did put him there in my top 50 in the SI NFL Preview issue, but after watching him Sunday, I almost wish I could have that one back.

1. What exactly is the common denominator between Palmer and Cutler?

2. Really says a lot about your top 50 list that you're ready to abandon a guy after one week.

3. Did it ever occur to Peter King that Palmer's struggles might've had something to do with the fact that he was playing against a team that's only one year removed from being the best in the league? No because...

4. It's blatantly obvious to me that Peter King didn't watch the game, didn't read the AP report, didn't look at anything besides the score and Carson Palmer's numbers. If he had, he would've seen that Palmer was left out to dry by his offensive line and the one interception he threw was a pass that should've been caught but was bobbled into Ravens' CB, Chris McAlister's, hands.

Said McAlister, "good football analysis by Peter King, nevermore."*

*He didn't actually say that, but that's what I imagine him saying to me, if I ever get to hang out in his hotel room with him after the Ravens win the Superbowl after going 19-0.