NFC East is a sign of NFL going south

[dead_poet]

Interesting piece on the perception (or reality?) of NFL slowly working its way to mediocrity. Worth the whole read (excerpt below):

Yes, technically, the New York Giants remain alive in the NFC East race. But in 2013, all that means is that they haven't folded the franchise. In few cases throughout history would a team three games under .500 with seven to play -- and 1.5 games back of two teams against which it's a combined 1-2 -- have legitimate cause for hope. But in this year's NFC East, everyone gets to hope because no one's any good and the rules say someone has to win it.

For fans of the division's teams, this is fine. If you root for the Giants (3-6) or the Redskins (3-6) or the Eagles (5-5) or the Cowboys (5-5), and you care about nothing but your own team's results, it's great. Just get into the playoffs and anything can happen. Who cares that you were 9-7 or 8-8 or even 7-9, as the NFC West champion Seahawks were in 2010. If you get in, you have a shot, and that's all that matters.

But when you step back and examine the NFL as a whole, the NFC East represents pretty much everything that's wrong with the league in 2013. And it is nothing about which to feel proud, excited or encouraged.

Neither offense produced a touchdown when the Giants and Eagles met on Oct. 27.

Creeping mediocrity is one of the NFL's great unacknowledged problems. The league has assigned it a more innocuous word, "parity," and people have bought into it because people buy everything the NFL sells. "Parity" in NFL parlance means everyone has a chance. Someone who finished in last place last year will finish in first this year. Four or five new teams make the 12-team playoff field every season. Round and round it goes, and it's supposedly exciting because you never know what might happen.

The problem is that, rather than push its players and teams toward greatness, this concept draws too many of them gravitationally toward a mediocre middle ground, where poorly played games between backup quarterbacks too often end up too significant. George Will wrote that "Sports serve society by providing vivid examples of excellence." But in this regard, the NFL increasingly fails

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york-giants ... oing-south

[Crax]

I prefer the system where everyone has a chance. I absolutely hate the current college FB system where a single road loss on a bad day suddenly eliminates you from even having a chance. It sounds like he'd rather have the BCS system in the NFL where the 2 or 4 teams with the best record and/or writer/computer anking play each other and that's it. No thanks.

[The Breeze]

I prefer the system where everyone has a chance. I absolutely hate the current college FB system where a single road loss on a bad day suddenly eliminates you from even having a chance. It sounds like he'd rather have the BCS system in the NFL where the 2 or 4 teams with the best record and/or writer/computer anking play each other and that's it. No thanks.

I agree...and i'm not convinced that the quality of play is as bad as the writer suggests. It seems that the teams are much more evenly matched and that games consistently hinge on a handful of plays each game.

What I dislike about it is how teams that manage to acquire a great QB have a decade long advantage over many other teams due to those kinds of players being on the rare side.

But it is what it is, and I probably wouldn't mind it as much if the Vikes had one of those guys

[Eli]

Interesting piece on the perception (or reality?) of NFL slowly working its way to mediocrity. Worth the whole read (excerpt below):

Definitely worth a discussion.

Creeping mediocrity is one of the NFL's great unacknowledged problems. The league has assigned it a more innocuous word, "parity," and people have bought into it because people buy everything the NFL sells. "Parity" in NFL parlance means everyone has a chance. Someone who finished in last place last year will finish in first this year. Four or five new teams make the 12-team playoff field every season. Round and round it goes, and it's supposedly exciting because you never know what might happen.

The NFL's parity efforts alone don't account for someone finishing last to first or first to last from one year to the next. I don't care how someone wants to paint it. A lot of other things have to happen in that time frame.

The thing is this ... the alternatives are far worse. The Pittsburgh Pirates did not have a single winning season for 20 years. Would anyone honestly want a system where large market teams like the Giants or the Cowboys are able to dominate the sport for a decade at a time?

The problem is that, rather than push its players and teams toward greatness, this concept draws too many of them gravitationally toward a mediocre middle ground, where poorly played games between backup quarterbacks too often end up too significant.

Parity has NOTHING to do with teams playing backup quarterbacks.

I continue to say that if you want to field a better product: Reduce the number of teams and reduce the number of games played per season.

[dead_poet]

I continue to say that if you want to field a better product: Reduce the number of teams and reduce the number of games played per season.

The funny part is, there have been serious talks about doing the exact opposite.

[The Breeze]

The funny part is, there have been serious talks about doing the exact opposite.

greed

[PurpleHalo]

2 years ago, people were worried if the NFC West would have a division winner with a winning record. Maybe it goes in cycles. Not a big deal.

Didn't someone win the NFC west like 4 years ago with a 7-9 record?

[Funkytown]

Didn't someone win the NFC west like 4 years ago with a 7-9 record?

Ah, yes. The Seahawks. And they beat the Saints.

[Eli]

Right now the NFC East and NFC North are looking eerily similar. Both are the epitome of mediocrity. Wouldn't be surprised to see a division winners in either one at 9-7 or 8-8. The wildcard teams will be out of the South and West.