I think this is the least parity in the NFL in years

Iceman · Nov 15, 2007

Everyone talks about parity in the NFL and it has been in the past but I think this year may be the least I have seen. Almost all the favorites are leading their divsions. The AFC everyone had NE, Indy, Pittsburgh and SD (all lead now) to win and in the NFC their is a little bit of a shakeup as New Orleans and Chicago arent as good as adveritised.

Indianapolis
New England
Pittsburgh
Dallas
maybe Green Bay
are so far ahead of the rest of the league it is unbelieveable. There will always be midle of the road teams in every year and in every sport.

Iceman · Nov 15, 2007

I should rephrase this and say there are more GREAT teams than in years past. I think these teams would all blowout any of the other teams in the league and most wouldnt have a prayer against them and that was not true in years past.

terps1313 · Nov 15, 2007

I wouldnt say everyone had Pitt. I think it was pretty split between them and the Ravens, but I def see what you are saying.

bonecrusher--banned · Nov 15, 2007

I'd say GB, Det and Cle are pretty big surprises.... Then we have teams that were looking pretty good last year that could of had a descent season this year and absolutely flopped: Stl, SF, NO, Chi, Phi.
I think it is safe to say that there has been parody in the league this year so far... NE and INDY will be where they are for a while because the cream always rises to the top.

FairWarning · Nov 15, 2007

And teams like Carolina, Atlanta, Oakland, 49ers, Jets, and Miami are God-awful. They have something in common - no QB production.

mj23 · Nov 15, 2007

This N ENG team might be one of the best of all times.

FairWarning · Nov 15, 2007

mj 23 said:
This N ENG team might be one of the best of all times.

They could lose one, roll through the playoffs and be a top-5 all-time team. Potentially the best team since the 49ers were 15-1.

jeckll · Nov 15, 2007

It's called simple statistical variation. The NFL is one of the most variable of all sports leagues, due to the general parity between teams but more importantly the SHORT SCHEDULE. With 16 games, there is simply too much luck to make any sort of worthwhile judgment about the quality of most teams; a call one way or another or the bounce of the ball can determine an entire game, and when there are only 16 games in the season, a few of those small instances can have a huge effect on a team's season.

The following graph is a graph of, for lack of a better word, the "predictability" of the NFL from season to season:

Basically what you're looking at is the degree to which the performance of a team in one year determines their performance the next year. So, as you can see, since 2000 the NFL beta has hovered around .250, meaning that performance in year x-1 (for instance 2006) predicts only 25% of performance in year x (for instance 2007). The other 75% is luck or statistical variability!

Contrast this to MLB, where it is about 50%, or NBA, where it is about 75%! The NFL isn't any more or less balanced this year, it just fluctuates wildly from year to year due to variability.

Q
E
D
:toast:

mj23 · Nov 15, 2007

FairWarning said:
They could lose one, roll through the playoffs and be a top-5 all-time team. Potentially the best team since the 49ers were 15-1.

Exactly i could see them losing at most 1 game.

TomGshotput · Nov 15, 2007

Parity is based on difference in talent, not in predictability. There may be some relation between the two, but they are not the same

The NFL season is so short as it is and it's still barely half way through, so really impossible to say. Even with New England, Dallas, Green Bay dominating it's not too much different than other years (Pittsburgh, New England, Philadelphia in 2004. . . )

jeckll · Nov 15, 2007

TomGshotput said:
Parity is based on difference in talent, not in predictability. There may be some relation between the two, but they are not the same

The NFL season is so short as it is and it's still barely half way through, so really impossible to say. Even with New England, Dallas, Green Bay dominating it's not too much different than other years (Pittsburgh, New England, Philadelphia in 2004. . . )

Of course...my point is simply that with a 16-game season you can't make any real judgment of parity.

A 16 game season creates a total lack of predictability, (i.e. randomness) and when randomness rules, making judgments about overall parity is a fool's errand.

BAGIANT · Nov 15, 2007

LEAST PARITY????? DYK, that after this weekend there could be potentially 15 teams with a 5-5 record! :scared:

steaktartar · Nov 15, 2007

mj 23 said:
This N ENG team might be one of the best of all times.

barring major injury i think is the best team ive seen since 1969 vikings...........yes they lost super bwol and two games reg season but beat teams 54-13 twice and 51-3 once..and im a homer

WVU · Nov 15, 2007

I think as the season finishes up the parity will become more clear. You have one team dominating. 3 or 4 others playing well and a bunch of wannabes and a couple super crappy teams. That is not so unlike lots of years in the past

I think this is the least parity in the NFL in years

Search

Iceman

Rx Wizard

Iceman

Rx Wizard

terps1313

Member

bonecrusher--banned

Banned

FairWarning

Official Rx music critic and beer snob

mj23

Member

FairWarning

Official Rx music critic and beer snob

jeckll

New member

mj23

Member

TomGshotput

Rx. Senior

jeckll

New member

BAGIANT

New member

steaktartar

powdered milkman

WVU

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page