However, since you asked, I looked up the numbers in the AFC East. Same as before, playoff appearances with division championships bracketed.

Buffalo 4 (1)
**Indianapolis 4(1)
Miami 7 (2)
New England 11 (10)
New York Jets 7 (2)

** Colts left division after 2001 season.

Even though I said I didn’t care, some analysis. Although this is still skewed towards Boston/NY, it’s not nearly as dramatic as it is in baseball. Also, if realignment didn’t remove the Colts from the equation, we could add another nine (!) playoff appearances to their ledger, which would essentially end the argument that you need a big city to run off success in the NFL. Painting the AFC/AL East comparison only hammers home the football argument that folks like Craig are trying to discount with this post….

…and this is why I think it is important for intelligent commentators to speak out on this issue. They sully their reputation as insightful analysts by refusing to acknowledge the real issue here, and we’ve seen in a number of ways that the general public and the powers that be in baseball will listen to intelligent arguments and respond accordingly.

b.) Restricting free agency, thereby increasing the owner’s take and reducing the amount of money players can make. Which leads to I don’t care how many millions either make. I don’t care if it’s 5-10 million or 20-25 million. Both make me sick. I’m a Red Sox fan. I’m happy, but if I was a Rays fan I’d be upset I didn’t even have a chance at keeping Crawford.

c.) Hold-outs, which never ever ever happen in baseball, because you know that even if a player doesn’t want to be on the team he signed with anymore that he has no one to blame but himself. Especially when you consider that I think hold-outs have a lot to do with not having guaranteed contracts. Even if they don’t, again, I don’t care at all about hold outs. They’ll all play eventually. As a fan, I just want my team to be able to compete for free agents on a level playing field.

d.) Supposedly unfair free agency practices in the MLB don’t actually lead to reduced parity

So in short, the numbers do have a lot to do with why the MLB is fair. Every free agency system in every major sport is unfair in some respect–to the players, to the teams, to different markets, etc. But it seems to me baseball’s is the least intolerable insofar as it lets supply and demand rule rather than make the owners richer and lead to bad feelings between players and owners. A cap isn’t a complete answer for parity, and no system is perfect. I don’t disagree with any of that. As I said above, I don’t care about bad feelings because players and owners are fighting over millions. As a fan I just want to know that want my team has an equal shot financially at getting players and competing. The MLB system doesn’t allow that.

b.) Restricting free agency, thereby increasing the owner’s take and reducing the amount of money players can make. Which leads to

c.) Hold-outs, which never ever ever happen in baseball, because you know that even if a player doesn’t want to be on the team he signed with anymore that he has no one to blame but himself. Especially when you consider that

d.) Supposedly unfair free agency practices in the MLB don’t actually lead to reduced parity

So in short, the numbers do have a lot to do with why the MLB is fair. Every free agency system in every major sport is unfair in some respect–to the players, to the teams, to different markets, etc. But it seems to me baseball’s is the least intolerable insofar as it lets supply and demand rule rather than make the owners richer and lead to bad feelings between players and owners.

The playoff numbers you cite are very interesting, and everyone has their theory why they are what they are, but achieving parity should not be the only factor in determining the value of a salary cap. I’m sure the system in the NFL has its flaws, but what we can all say without a doubt is that the MLB system is not even close to fair. It’s a simple and straightforward numbers game that’s not even debatably. Most teams may have a chance to win, but few teams have a shot at landing top free agents. That’s the problem.

Don’t you think Pittsburgh fans would have loved to see Lee pitching for the Pirates in 2011? There’s a lot more to landing a free agent than money of course, but they can’t even start a conversation. They certainly can’t afford to throw out the same payroll as the big market clubs. Here’s another certainty. I guarantee you wouldn’t see Manning playing football in Indiana right now if it weren’t for a cap. He’d probably have a star on his helmet.

Glad I could help.

15 (11) Yankees
9 (2) Red Sox
2 (2) Rays
2 (1) Orioles
0 (0) Jays

This is the heart of the matter when it comes to arguing parity in baseball, and I don’t think it behooves of intelligent commentators like yourself to ignore this simply because parity is excellent everywhere else.

That is 20 out of 32 teams for 8 sports. You’re telling me the NFL next year is somehow substantially more wide open when you consider that there are 4 more playoff spots available? GMAB.

The NFL is king because their super bowl has great TV ratings no matter who is playing, while the San Fran-Texas Series slipped in the ratings. If MLB is interested in closing the gap with the NFL, a better method must be installed for increasing the popularity of the game. Along with economic relief, perhaps an international draft.

nps6724 asked the question of “how many teams were within 5 games of the wild card last season?” The answer is 2, but since a football season is 10 times longer you should be looking at how many teams were within 10 games of the wild card if you want to be a little fairer. The answer to that is 6 teams. So for the 2 playoff spots there were 8 teams vying for them. That’s 8 out of 30, a pretty dang good percentage.

So how many NFL teams were within 1 game of the wild card spot? The answer is 3. So for FOUR playoff spots there were 7 teams in the hunt. Double the spots, fewer teams.

what a joke.

this guy is a baseball homer.

Falcons rise from 2007-2008 is more then just “they added matt ryan”. I probably can’t even name them all but here’s a start: New head coach, michael turner was added as running back, a easier schedule playing NFC north and afc west + the lions and eagles instead of afc south and nfc west + the vikings and giants, improved defense, and progression of roddy white. if i was to break it down even more i’m sure theres better luck from injuries and other draft and free agent improvements. Anyway basically the simple answer to a complex question is usually wrong

From ’89 to ’93, their offense was in the 20s every year in points scored and their defense was in the 20s every year except 1 (they were 15th) in points allowed. Parcells arrived and they went from that to 22/11, 8/12, 23/25, and 2/14. Under Pete Carroll, their best year was in ’97 when their ofense and defense were both 8th.

Most really good teams have BOTH a quality offense and a quality defense. The numbers bear this out. If one or the other isn’t above-average, chances are you won’t win a Super Bowl.

What is the big deal with a quick turnaround? The time it takes to build a quality team isn’t relevant because despite the difference between the two sports, it’s equal among all the teams in each sport. And if any football team can hit on the right combo of picks and signings and be on top in 2 seasons, all that does is support the case that football has more parity.

Any time you replace a QB with one of the worst examples of a QB in football, your team will suffer. Just like replacing a quality SP with one of the worst. If Atlanta had replaced Vick with a mediocre QB and still struggled, you may have a point. But the guys they used would’ve been bad #2 QBs on the majority of NFL teams.

You keep ignoring all the OTHER great HOF players that reach the Super Bowl as if they didn’t have anything to do with. And you can’t legitimately argue with the facts posted; nearly every Super Bowl winner since ’92 has had a defense equal to their offense.

Dilfer was a bad QB in 2000. He is known as the worst Super-Bowl winning QB in history. His TD-INT ratio that season was 1.09 (12 TD, 11 INT) and he played terribly in that Super Bowl. There is no argument that you can make that can paint him in a positive light for that season.

The disparity derives from the fact football has a handful of very well-run teams that leave some otherwise good teams out of the playoffs every year. Just this year, 2 10-6 teams missed the playoffs. A couple years ago, the 11-5 Patriots missed as well.

Going by just the numbers mentioned in the article is ridiculous. How many teams were within 5 games of the wild-card in baseball last season? 2. How many teams were within 1 game of the wild-card in football? 3. That tells you just as much about the parity of each sport as the number of different playoff teams. While the playoffs are what counts for each TEAM, parity means far more than that. I don’t know which sport comes out better in this regard, but it’s worth looking at.

Again, quote all the #s you want…the fact is that 15 of the last 18 Super Bowls were won by QBs who are HoFers. And who knows about Eli. Dilfer had an all-time defense and neither him, nor Brad Johnson sucked. You can’t win a Super Bowl with a terrible QB. Doesn’t mean that ALL great QBs win the Super Bowl(see Marino and Fouts to name 2) But Super Bowl winners, by and large, have special QBs.