Is the CFL the Most Competitive League in Sports?

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Your description of the NFL is closer to parity rather than competitiveness.

I'm just curious as I've always viewed them as being the same.

To you, what is the difference between parity and competitiveness?

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

I'm just curious as I've always viewed them as being the same. To you, what is the difference between parity and competitiveness?

Parity is when talent has been diluted to the point that marginal teams can jump up and have "one year wonder" type years and the great teams aren't always GREAT. Talent has thinned out to the point that any team, if they make the right moves can have a shot at being a championship team whereas in a more competitiveness the resources are more scarce and it takes a good GM/front office to spot the right talent.

To put it another way sports in general has become more player oriented rather than front office oriented where the impact is on the front office and coaching staffs to build a competitive team.

Parity also brings down the level of play somewhat. I think we can all agree that players today are bigger and stronger than they were 10-20 years ago but at the same time because the talent pool has been thinned out we're seeing talent that normally wouldn't be starters taking on starting roles. The dilution of talent means the fundamentals have been lost a bit.

This is a problem in all sports and I think that the NFL has seen parity bring down the level of play and made it easier for average teams to have a shot at winning it all but it sure as heck isn't as bad as the NHL and the NBA to a lesser extent where rapid expansion (NHL) and too many underclassmen (NBA) has really brought down the level of play AND made for an artificial competitive balance.

The NFL's expansion while not being extreme has helped to spread the talent pool a bit and the insistence on rushing drafted players to be impact guys has hurt the league and its level of play which has brought some parity to the fore. I still agree with untrugby's point that the NFL is quite competitive because it hasn't been bogged down as much by it the way other leagues have.

(For what it's worth MLB is probably the most bullet proof against parity as it actually takes some shrewd front office work to build a team and the willingness/money to keep a team's nucleus around)

[untrugby]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

Parity also brings down the level of play somewhat.

it brings down the top teams but raises the bottom teams and you end up with the same overall level of play but just more spread out.

Quote:

I think we can all agree that players today are bigger and stronger than they were 10-20 years ago but at the same time because the talent pool has been thinned out we're seeing talent that normally wouldn't be starters taking on starting roles.

i dont think theres anyway to objectively measure that statement. If the players are more talented today how can you measure them against talent from 20 years ago? If anything id say there more talent now becuase less of it gets lost. In the past scouring routinely missed great talent, now with all the extensive scouting great talent rarely goes unnoticed.

also look at the jumps from 1980 to now the nfl only expanded 14.2% while div1 football expanded 29% and the overall us population expanded 32.2%

The talent now is higher caliber in terms of rarity than before

Quote:

(For what it's worth MLB is probably the most bullet proof against parity as it actually takes some shrewd front office work to build a team and the willingness/money to keep a team's nucleus around)

i disagree entirely. MLB is insured against parity becuase of a salary cap and GMs with the most money do well. The supposedly best budget using GM billy beene was only ever able to make a team that won a total of one playoff series while the yankees consistently over pay for over the hill guys continue to win year after year.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by untrugby

it brings down the top teams but raises the bottom teams and you end up with the same overall level of play but just more spread out.

I won't argue about the other points except for this one. The raising of the bar for lesser teams is artificially induced by this kind of spreading out and while one can't objectively look at the product from 1980 vs today and say which is better but you CAN see that things like form tackling, the WR/CB battle and overall basics of the game has been lost a bit. You'd be blissfully ignorant if you can't at least see that.

Nonetheless I realize i'm one of a few people that hold this view in regards to parity so i'm not going to argue too streneously besides I did agree with your overall point that the NFL is quite competitive so it's not like we're arguing on opposite sides it's more like my coming to the same conclusion in a slightly different manner.

Like I said, the NHL and NBA has been ravaged by some of the arguments i'm making. Just look at the NHL and NBA of the '80s to mid '90s and you'll see that the level of play was better overall.

[untrugby]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

I won't argue about the other points except for this one. The raising of the bar for lesser teams is artificially induced by this kind of spreading out

the NFLs parity doesnt come from expansion its comes from free agency and a hard salary cap. Instead of one team with 10 HOF caliber players you have 5 teams with 2 each.

Quote:

and while one can't objectively look at the product from 1980 vs today and say which is better but you CAN see that things like form tackling, the WR/CB battle and overall basics of the game has been lost a bit.

this has nothing to do with talent and everything to do with coaching, rule changes and just overall game changes.

Quote:

Like I said, the NHL and NBA has been ravaged by some of the arguments i'm making. Just look at the NHL and NBA of the '80s to mid '90s and you'll see that the level of play was better overall.

the NHL and NBA did over expand and they are also losing talent and their loss of talent can probably be objectively measured.