Balance and Parity

I'm not a big believer in parity, whether you're talking about sports, or about life in general. For all the altruistic discussions (and intentions) about every man being equal, that is NOT the reality of our world. While we may all be (and for a just society, we reasonably MUST be) equal in the eyes of the law and the Lord (assuming you believe in such things) that philosophical equality not only is the end of it, but MUST BE the end of it.

The capable must be allowed the freedom to excel, and to reap the benefit of their efforts. Attempts to 'fix' things so as to grant opportunity and benefit to all people equally has the end result not of raising the weak to the levels of the strong, but instead of handicapping the strong, to the detriment of all. It is admirable for a society to wish all to succeed. But efforts to disperse success among all is a recipe for disaster. There must be a direct connection between capability and success, for if the incompetent are given a full share of the spoils of the competent, what then is the incentive to strive for victory? Life is not like little league. Kids can expect a shiny trophy just for showing up, but in Big Boy land, the only people who win trophies are the ones who earn them.

That having been said, there are ways to balance out inequities, to provide a level playing field, as it were. There are ways to do it right.

Take the NFL, for example. A while back, people On High decided that the Superbowl should be won by somebody other than San Francisco, Dallas, or Green Bay. So they instituted a salary cap. Which really wasn't a bad thing, since things really had reached the level where the strong just got stronger, and the weak just got weaker. Consider the 1994 NFC Championship game. Between the two teams playing that day, there were ELEVEN pro-bowlers in the game. A quarter of the NFC Pro Bowl roster came from just those two teams. Football was looking a lot like baseball, where championships were largely purchased in the free-agent market, and the best management and coaching in the world was not going to overcome the talent loaded at the top of the league. The capable were not succeeding, the wealthy were succeeding. So a salary cap was instituted.

Which I was not a believer in, because when you prevent the best from being the best, the usual result is not the worst catching up, but is instead the best being handicapped. When you say 'on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team,' what you're really saying is that 'on any given Sunday, a BAD teams could lose to a WORSE team.' Rather then elevating the weak, the salary cap just limited the ability of the great teams to stay great.

But - wonder of wonders - it really did work out. A new status quo evolved, where the most capable teams steadily rose to prominence, beating out teams that were just very wealthy. New England, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis came into prominence, while San Francisco and Dallas declined. That was because the former three teams did it right: good management, good coaching, good drafting. Built solidly from top to bottom, relatively small-market teams surpassed mighty DAL and SF, because the fact of the matter was that although DAL and SF could afford every big-free agent on the market, they were not strong throughout, starting with jackass ownership.

Under the new paradigm in the salary cap era, the capable prevail over the merely wealthy. Take Dan Synder's ownership in Washington. Snyder is among the wealthiest men in the world, and the Redskins are among the wealthiest teams in the league. But Snyder - who is not a career football guy - insists on calling all the shots, and has set up the organization with him at the top, surrounded by yes-men. The end result is that, despite great wealth, Washington is one of the worst teams in the league. There's a similar structure in Oakland, where Al Davis holds absolute power, handing down decrees to hand-picked yes-men. And Oakland doesn't even have the Snyder wealth to help, so the end result is that the team is a veritable garbage-can fire.

Both are trying to win with outdated models. Rather that building themselves into winners by getting good people and demanding good work from their good people, they look for quick-fixes and band-aids. WAS overpays for big-name free-agents, but draft poorly every year. In the rare circumstances that they do draft a good player, they are too busy paying free agents to hold on the home-grown talent. They make sweeping changes just about every year, usually to the coaching staff, but never fix the problem, which is not the players or personnel, but is the ownership. Without structure and continuity, no band-aid is going to make things work out. With caps on how much they can spend, they can't just buy their way into prominence. Meanwhile, the well-run franchises (NE, IND, PIT) continue to be successful, year after year, drafting well, coaching well, and winning, notwithstanding free-agent and front-office losses.

There are about five teams in the league that are not only cover-your eyes awful (WAS, OAK, KC, StL, TB), but also have no clear resurrection in sight. And none of them have anyone to blame but their own ownership, for a string of bad personnel and coaching decisions. They have nobody to blame because turnarounds can come as soon as the ownership of those teams start doing things right. SF finally built a good front office, started drafting well, and got a good coach. Hey, look at that: they're no longer an embarrassment. Likewise DET: after FAR too many years, they shit-canned Matt Millen, got quality management and coaching, and - surprise surprise - they're getting better. Miami was a laughing-stock not long ago. But add good management by career football professionals, and they're playing respectably in a very tough division WITHOUT A REAL QUARTERBACK.

The disparity between the haves and the have-nots is every bit as glaring in the NFL as it has ever been. But the difference between the haves and the have-nots is generally not wealth of ownership, strong markets, or a rabid fan base. The difference between the mighty and the meek is that the mighty DO IT RIGHT, year after year. Good drafting, good coaching, and good management add up to wins.

Rather than developing into a league of mediocrity, the NFL in the salary cap era is as strong as it has ever been, in large part BECAUSE wealthy teams and owners can no longer simply purchase a championship by splurging in the free-agent market. It has reached a point where the league is structured for the most diligent, best-run organizations to prevail over opponents who lack the talent and initiative to build themselves into winners, and who are now barred from simply buying victories.

As an American, it warms my heart. I don't like imposition of extrinsic limitations dictating results in dynamic systems. But when the goal of the extrinsic limitation is to limit the effect of extrinsic factors on the workings of such a dynamic system, that gets a big thumbs-up from HT.