NAOS
Well-Known Member
then why did you mention contracts?
btw, I tend to agree with you, but I've never done that comparison or read an article about it.
NFL 2015 Season Discussion Thread
- Thread starter The Midnight
- Start date
then why did you mention contracts?
btw, I tend to agree with you, but I've never done that comparison or read an article about it.
Well in the NBA if you sign a player to a bad deal, it's fully guaranteed.
In the NFL if you sign a player, they are all partially guaranteed to some degree, so escaping toxic deals is much easier.
In the NBA a bad contract can really handicap your team's ability to turn around a franchise and contend. How much better would the Jazz have been if we could have cut AK and recouped some money to sign a quality starting quality wing?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
gotcha. But I don't think that's a direct cause of more parity.
You could argue that AK's contract was good for league parity, since the jazz had recently been dominant.
Yeah, but if parity is different teams being able to compete at equal levels, then limiting a teams ability to operate from a managerial level should limit parity since it then relies more heavily on the ability of the players to influence outcomes (and puts more emphasis on FO errors). In the NFL managers can have a bigger impact with (or at least more impacts) with cutting/signing to effect the ability of their team.
Does the Jazz signing AK increase parity for other teams? Or does it create a bad precedent for other contracts, so more teams get locked into mediocrity while the few elite teams who have stars (who are impossible to overpay) succeed?
Does the Jazz signing AK increase parity for other teams? Or does it create a bad precedent for other contracts, so more teams get locked into mediocrity while the few elite teams who have stars (who are impossible to overpay) succeed?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I don't think you're using good reasoning. Just because the turnover in the NFL happens at a faster rate, that doesn't mean that the odds of parity are increased. Better-than-average teams will sign better contracts in either situation. Just because a team is able to reboot faster, doesn't mean it will. In either situation, if a bad team signs bad contracts, then they'll continue to be bad. Etc.
Well my reasoning was never that this was the only, or even the main reason behind parity. I just think it's a factor that helps increase it.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
and I have an open mind about it. But, you've failed to convince me. Anything you've posted in the way of a specific example is just as easily used as evidence in the opposite argument.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
when I said I "tend to agree with you" re: contracts, I thought you were referring to the free-agency era of the NFL. I've always thought that helped parity, but I haven't seen it thoroughly studied. I'm sure it has been.
These kind of arguments require statistical support, in my opinion. Your rationale has further convinced me of that necessity.
These kind of arguments require statistical support, in my opinion. Your rationale has further convinced me of that necessity.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Well, my Falcons won again, to go to 6-1.....but played so poorly that they will probably drop 3 spots in the "Power Rankings" this week! How did your team do?
This is the first time in NFL history that 5 teams have gone 6-0. Pats, Packers, Panthers, Bengals and Broncos.
Not week it will be whittled down to at least 4 as it is Packers @ Broncos.
Unless the Broncos O gets it's act together over this bye week it is going to be a rough game.
Not week it will be whittled down to at least 4 as it is Packers @ Broncos.
Unless the Broncos O gets it's act together over this bye week it is going to be a rough game.