Parity... Really?

[soonerhubs]

You hear all the talking heads discussing the "Crazy" year of college football. All the "upsets" and "parity" that have taken place this season are just a standard season in the NFL. In fact the newsworthy stories of the Pros are the teams that go undefeated up to 6 or 7 weeks. Rather it's a shock in College if they don't last the entire season.

Didn't only one team in the pros go undefeated?
Miami or someone back in the 80s?

It's just, when I read articles like THIS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902548.html)by Michael Wilbon or THIS (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/10/10/mailbag/index.html)by Stewart Mandel, I wonder if people are looking at the wrong things in College Football.
Obi Wan said that only a sith speaks in absolutes. Yet the talking heads always say that THIS team is unbeatable. ANY TEAM is BEATABLE!

Perhaps college has become more equally distributed in their ranks. Or maybe even the best teams have off games.

Also, just because the pre-season pollsters didn't get it right doesn't make it parity. It just means that they didn't get the predictions right. (Big Shocker!)

I just wanted to comment that I think it's really not that much of a strange phenomenon.

Anyone else's insightful or inciteful ;) remarks are welcomed...:pop:

[Collier11]

The true definition IMHO of parity is when there are no GREAT teams and that is what is happening this year so parity is alive and well

[Aries]

The 1972 Miami Dolphins are the only NFL team to go through a season undefeated.

The NFL is designed to try to equalize the differences in talent selection in ways that college football just cannot duplicate. At the same time, it does seem like there have been more and stranger upsets this year than usual. I don't think I would call that "parity".

[fadada1]

mike wilbon should be wearing a helmet to go through life.

[StoopTroup]

I'm betting he won't. And this has nothing to do with Nebraska's rich history or Osborne's wherewithal or how good the Cornhuskers can once again be. We're at a new time and place in college football as evidenced by this season. Actually, this all began on Jan. 1 to be exact, when Boise State beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. While the game is remembered for having the greatest ending in bowl history, the greater significance is that the difference between football powers and rank-and-file had been reduced to very, very little.



Boise State is 3-0 in Conference play and 6-1 overall so far this year. They are a far cry from the team they were last year.

So much for parity.

They will not make it to a BCS Bowl this year

[Veritas]

mike wilbon should be wearing a helmet to go through life.
Him and Korny both. Those guys drive me nuts.

[TUSooner]

In the NFL parity comes mainly from revenue sharing & the salary cap [EDIT - AND THE DRAFT!]

In NCAA, there's no revenue sharing (as if!), but there are scholly limits and a growing pool of good players, so nobody can hoard too many good players on the bench. That tends to even things out a little and leaves room for dedicated upstarts. Plus, offenses are sophisticated enough that smarts can often beat talent.
Still, the NCAA has nothing close to NFL-type parity.

[TUSooner]

If you examine college football's history, there is definite parity.
Years ago, Yale and the Univ of Chicago were powerhouses. Oklahoma and the domers were inept hay seed teams.

But you are talking about DECADES.

[soonerhubs]

In all that typing... how easy would it have been for me to look up the word Parity?

Sorry, Shocking ... Really? would have been a better title.

[tbl]

But you are talking about DECADES.
Almost centuries...

[cheezyq]

I didn't finish Mandel's article. After he uttered the phrase "not even the mighty Trojans", the rest just turned into gibberish. And Michael Wilbon makes a living arguing with Tony Cornholio...'nuff said.

Anyhoo, I agree with you. The BCS became a joke when they went back to considering the polls to be more important than the computers. Essentially we're back in the 70s and 80s when the AP (or the Harris poll, now) decides who is the champion. The only difference is that now they're just deciding who plays in the championship. Given the fact that the pollsters are almost universally incorrect every single week, and especially at the beginning of the year, it's a sad measure for a system that determines a champion.

[fadada1]

Winky face, guys, winky face.

I think the 'pundits' are confusing journalism with being intelligent.
you are correct, sir.

[BoomerMcSooner]

Parity is a big myth....

People bring up the scholarship limits...And recent upsets to allege parity.

But nobody tries a real, data-driven analysis of parity today compared with, say, the '50s or '60s.

About 5 years ago, I actually did this analysis.

Two basic premises:

1. If there is greater parity, then it will be harder to achieve a dynasty, and dynasties will be more rare.

2. If there is greater parity, then there will be more fluxuations in the rankings form year-to-year, with fewer teams remaining ranked as consistently.

Low and behold, the '90s had more dynasties than the '50s or '60s, suggesting that there was more parity back then....And the top-20 polls of those eras also had more fluxuation, again suggesting greater parity.

Personally, I think it is a total myth. I think there is perhaps less parity today than at times in the past. People just repeat it over and over, and then when the inevitable upset happens, they say, "See - parity!", as if upsets are something new....And when asked to back up the notion of parity, they run from the data, unable to muster a results-based argument, and instead start discussing causes of the alleged increase in parity - of which scholarship limits is always cause #1.

[fadada1]

somebody is bringing logic into this discussion.

my brain is beginning to hurt.

[Stoop Dawg]

Welcome to 2007, people! Boise St made it to a BCS bowl. That's more than any other "mid major" team has ever accomplished. EVAR!

The fact that the same teams contend for (and win) the NC every single year is irrelevant! Parity is here!!

[tommieharris91]

Parity is a big myth....

People bring up the scholarship limits...And recent upsets to allege parity.

But nobody tries a real, data-driven analysis of parity today compared with, say, the '50s or '60s.

About 5 years ago, I actually did this analysis.

Two basic premises:

1. If there is greater parity, then it will be harder to achieve a dynasty, and dynasties will be more rare.

2. If there is greater parity, then there will be more fluxuations in the rankings form year-to-year, with fewer teams remaining ranked as consistently.

Low and behold, the '90s had more dynasties than the '50s or '60s, suggesting that there was more parity back then....And the top-20 polls of those eras also had more fluxuation, again suggesting greater parity.

Personally, I think it is a total myth. I think there is perhaps less parity today than at times in the past. People just repeat it over and over, and then when the inevitable upset happens, they say, "See - parity!", as if upsets are something new....And when asked to back up the notion of parity, they run from the data, unable to muster a results-based argument, and instead start discussing causes of the alleged increase in parity - of which scholarship limits is always cause #1.

There is too much logic and reason in this post. You should be baned. ;)

[Animal Mother]

You hear all the talking heads discussing the "Crazy" year of college football. All the "upsets" and "parity" that have taken place this season are just a standard season in the NFL. In fact the newsworthy stories of the Pros are the teams that go undefeated up to 6 or 7 weeks. Rather it's a shock in College if they don't last the entire season.

Didn't only one team in the pros go undefeated?
Miami or someone back in the 80s?

It's just, when I read articles like THIS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101902548.html)by Michael Wilbon or THIS (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/10/10/mailbag/index.html)by Stewart Mandel, I wonder if people are looking at the wrong things in College Football.
Obi Wan said that only a sith speaks in absolutes. Yet the talking heads always say that THIS team is unbeatable. ANY TEAM is BEATABLE!

Perhaps college has become more equally distributed in their ranks. Or maybe even the best teams have off games.

Also, just because the pre-season pollsters didn't get it right doesn't make it parity. It just means that they didn't get the predictions right. (Big Shocker!)

I just wanted to comment that I think it's really not that much of a strange phenomenon.

Anyone else's insightful or inciteful ;) remarks are welcomed...:pop:


Obi Wan?
Isn't that the #3 on the to go menu from Jade Gardens?