NBA vs NFL competitive balance

[CaptainJackLee]

Yeah, with the type of schedule the NFL has, there would be 20 legit contenders every year in the NBA. And the other 10 teams would still have a chance.

[Moranis]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

[Roy H.]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

[KCattheStripe]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

[PosImpos]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Well, has the NFL always had a hard cap?  If not, how does the competitive balance before and after compare?  From what Roy said, it sounds like the NFL has had a much wider variety of champions in recent years.

[Donoghus]

It's not much of a debate to me.  The NFL has a great system in place to ensure competitive balance and I sure find it to have more parity than the NBA.  

As others have stated, look at the string of different Super Bowl champions over the past 25 years.  You see a lot of different teams in there and in their salary cap era ('92 or '93 & beyond), there's just more parity.  That's not to say there hasn't been some great teams either, (Broncos, Packers Rams, Patriots come to mind).

I certainly think the hard cap has played a role in that.  However, I think there are several other factors to consider.

-NFL scheduling-  This, to me, plays a HUGE impact on creating some parity and competitive balance.  You finish 4th in your division?  You're playing a 4th place schedule the following season (in addition to your divison and intraconference opponents).  This has helped teams bounce back and even created some surprised division winners.  

- Single game elimination-  Certainly creates much great risk in the playoffs as opposed to best of 7 schedule.

- Team game aspect-  Football is much more team oriented than baskeball.  You can go miles with a superstar in the NBA while that isn't necessarily the case in the NFL.  (See Barry Sanders). That's not saying that you don't need supporting casts in the NBA, though. You need more of a "team" to succeed in football than basketball. 11 guys on each side plus special teams.  The onus is on NFL teams to supplement their stars much more heavily.

- Injuries-  Obviously losing a superstar is devastating to an NBA team as well.  However the NFL is a high contact sport than is more conducive to serious injuries.  How many times have we seen a NFL team's season derailed by injury a season after going relatively serious injury free?  Year to year, its major factor.

[Moranis]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Except the cap is what took away dynasties in the NFL, not the one and done.  The NFL has always been one and done, yet until 94 had plenty of dynasties.  From 70-78, the NFC representative in the Superbowl was the Cowboys or Vikings in all but one of those 9 seasons.  Pittsburgh won 4 in 6, Miami went to 3 straight.  The 80's and early 90's were both also dominated by just a handful of teams with the occassional outlier mixed in.  The 60's were dominated by the Packers.  The Browns dominated the 40's and 50's. 

And for the record, the last time the #1 seeds met in the Superbowl was 2009-10 when the Saints beat the Colts.  The last time it happened in basketball was 2007-08 when the Celtics beat the Lakers (and the time before that 99-00 when the Lakers beat the Pacers). 

[PosImpos]

How often does a team that's not over the luxury tax win the championship in basketball?  I think the goal for the NBA would to force teams to spend right beneath the current luxury tax level in order to contend, but not allow them to spend more.  

I think then we'd see more contenders along the lines of the Nuggets of the last couple years (pre-trade), last year's Bucks, and the Hornets of a few years ago.

A league with a hard cap would likely result in many teams that each have one superstar and maybe one or two other supporting stars.  I imagine that a league like that would have a lot of parity, even with the best-of-7 format.

[cman88]

How often does a team that's not over the luxury tax win the championship in basketball?  I think the goal for the NBA would to force teams to spend right beneath the current luxury tax level in order to contend, but not allow them to spend more.  

I think then we'd see more contenders along the lines of the Nuggets of the last couple years (pre-trade), last year's Bucks, and the Hornets of a few years ago.

A league with a hard cap would likely result in many teams that each have one superstar and maybe one or two other supporting stars.  I imagine that a league like that would have a lot of parity, even with the best-of-7 format.

exactly, its hard to build a competitor in today's nba the way it is set up. because a team willing to spend and with a better market can stockpile talent using loopholes etc..

another thing a hardcap would do, is eliminate the creation of superteams like The Heat, Free agents deciding to "team up" to create dynasties. those teams will be punished, because they wont be able to sign as quality roleplayers or even starters to put beside their "big 3". and thus as a whole would be on level with teams like Celtics etc.

[KCattheStripe]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Except the cap is what took away dynasties in the NFL, not the one and done.  The NFL has always been one and done, yet until 94 had plenty of dynasties.  From 70-78, the NFC representative in the Superbowl was the Cowboys or Vikings in all but one of those 9 seasons.  Pittsburgh won 4 in 6, Miami went to 3 straight.  The 80's and early 90's were both also dominated by just a handful of teams with the occassional outlier mixed in.  The 60's were dominated by the Packers.  The Browns dominated the 40's and 50's. 

And for the record, the last time the #1 seeds met in the Superbowl was 2009-10 when the Saints beat the Colts.  The last time it happened in basketball was 2007-08 when the Celtics beat the Lakers (and the time before that 99-00 when the Lakers beat the Pacers). 

In the 17 years before the the hard cap, 16 teams had made the superbowl. In the following 17 years, 21 have but ten of those teams had made at least one Superbowl in the previous era and two of the teams that hadn't are blue chip franchises-- The Colts and the Packers-- whose modern success was helped more by obtaining franchise quarterbacks than it was the cap. Meanwhile, the one and done playoffs has allowed the exceedingly mediocre 2008 Cardinals to get hot, the 2006 Bears' defense to carry them despite Rex Grossman, the 2002 Raiders to stumble in and the 1995 Steelers to find their way to the Superbowl. To me, that's not competitive balance, that's the one and done playoff system allows mediocre teams to get hot and make a run.

The bigger difference to me --that explains the five more superbowls in the last 17 years-- is that the talent pool for football teams to draw from has exploded. For example, you had one multiple Superbowl appearing QB who was baggin groceries at one point in his 20s and another from Southern Miss. Steve McNair was from Alcorn State. Football's popularity among kids exploded before this era and the talent pool deepened immensely.

[Moranis]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Except the cap is what took away dynasties in the NFL, not the one and done.  The NFL has always been one and done, yet until 94 had plenty of dynasties.  From 70-78, the NFC representative in the Superbowl was the Cowboys or Vikings in all but one of those 9 seasons.  Pittsburgh won 4 in 6, Miami went to 3 straight.  The 80's and early 90's were both also dominated by just a handful of teams with the occassional outlier mixed in.  The 60's were dominated by the Packers.  The Browns dominated the 40's and 50's. 

And for the record, the last time the #1 seeds met in the Superbowl was 2009-10 when the Saints beat the Colts.  The last time it happened in basketball was 2007-08 when the Celtics beat the Lakers (and the time before that 99-00 when the Lakers beat the Pacers). 

In the 17 years before the the hard cap, 16 teams had made the superbowl. In the following 17 years, 21 have but ten of those teams had made at least one Superbowl in the previous era and two of the teams that hadn't are blue chip franchises-- The Colts and the Packers-- whose modern success was helped more by obtaining franchise quarterbacks than it was the cap. Meanwhile, the one and done playoffs has allowed the exceedingly mediocre 2008 Cardinals to get hot, the 2006 Bears' defense to carry them despite Rex Grossman, the 2002 Raiders to stumble in and the 1995 Steelers to find their way to the Superbowl. To me, that's not competitive balance, that's the one and done playoff system allows mediocre teams to get hot and make a run.

The bigger difference to me --that explains the five more superbowls in the last 17 years-- is that the talent pool for football teams to draw from has exploded. For example, you had one multiple Superbowl appearing QB who was baggin groceries at one point in his 20s and another from Southern Miss. Steve McNair was from Alcorn State. Football's popularity among kids exploded before this era and the talent pool deepened immensely.

Dynasty, not one season abberation, is what I was getting at.  Baseball has no cap and is all about the money, which is why it has plenty of dynastic teams.  Every decade there are two or three teams that dominate the sport for the decade and in a sport where just 8 of 30 teams make the playoffs that is saying something.  Teams that spend more then other teams win more times then not.  Sure great management or a one or two season splurge gets other teams into the playoffs every so often, but the dynasties are the ones that just outspend the competition (by and large).

A hard cap will also pretty much do away with the dynasties.  It will make the league more balanced and give more teams hope year in and year out, but it definitely take away the dynasties.     

[PosImpos]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Except the cap is what took away dynasties in the NFL, not the one and done.  The NFL has always been one and done, yet until 94 had plenty of dynasties.  From 70-78, the NFC representative in the Superbowl was the Cowboys or Vikings in all but one of those 9 seasons.  Pittsburgh won 4 in 6, Miami went to 3 straight.  The 80's and early 90's were both also dominated by just a handful of teams with the occassional outlier mixed in.  The 60's were dominated by the Packers.  The Browns dominated the 40's and 50's. 

And for the record, the last time the #1 seeds met in the Superbowl was 2009-10 when the Saints beat the Colts.  The last time it happened in basketball was 2007-08 when the Celtics beat the Lakers (and the time before that 99-00 when the Lakers beat the Pacers). 

In the 17 years before the the hard cap, 16 teams had made the superbowl. In the following 17 years, 21 have but ten of those teams had made at least one Superbowl in the previous era and two of the teams that hadn't are blue chip franchises-- The Colts and the Packers-- whose modern success was helped more by obtaining franchise quarterbacks than it was the cap. Meanwhile, the one and done playoffs has allowed the exceedingly mediocre 2008 Cardinals to get hot, the 2006 Bears' defense to carry them despite Rex Grossman, the 2002 Raiders to stumble in and the 1995 Steelers to find their way to the Superbowl. To me, that's not competitive balance, that's the one and done playoff system allows mediocre teams to get hot and make a run.

The bigger difference to me --that explains the five more superbowls in the last 17 years-- is that the talent pool for football teams to draw from has exploded. For example, you had one multiple Superbowl appearing QB who was baggin groceries at one point in his 20s and another from Southern Miss. Steve McNair was from Alcorn State. Football's popularity among kids exploded before this era and the talent pool deepened immensely.

How you managed not to mention the 2007 Giants is beyond me.

[KCattheStripe]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Except the cap is what took away dynasties in the NFL, not the one and done.  The NFL has always been one and done, yet until 94 had plenty of dynasties.  From 70-78, the NFC representative in the Superbowl was the Cowboys or Vikings in all but one of those 9 seasons.  Pittsburgh won 4 in 6, Miami went to 3 straight.  The 80's and early 90's were both also dominated by just a handful of teams with the occassional outlier mixed in.  The 60's were dominated by the Packers.  The Browns dominated the 40's and 50's. 

And for the record, the last time the #1 seeds met in the Superbowl was 2009-10 when the Saints beat the Colts.  The last time it happened in basketball was 2007-08 when the Celtics beat the Lakers (and the time before that 99-00 when the Lakers beat the Pacers). 

In the 17 years before the the hard cap, 16 teams had made the superbowl. In the following 17 years, 21 have but ten of those teams had made at least one Superbowl in the previous era and two of the teams that hadn't are blue chip franchises-- The Colts and the Packers-- whose modern success was helped more by obtaining franchise quarterbacks than it was the cap. Meanwhile, the one and done playoffs has allowed the exceedingly mediocre 2008 Cardinals to get hot, the 2006 Bears' defense to carry them despite Rex Grossman, the 2002 Raiders to stumble in and the 1995 Steelers to find their way to the Superbowl. To me, that's not competitive balance, that's the one and done playoff system allows mediocre teams to get hot and make a run.

The bigger difference to me --that explains the five more superbowls in the last 17 years-- is that the talent pool for football teams to draw from has exploded. For example, you had one multiple Superbowl appearing QB who was baggin groceries at one point in his 20s and another from Southern Miss. Steve McNair was from Alcorn State. Football's popularity among kids exploded before this era and the talent pool deepened immensely.

How you managed not to mention the 2007 Giants is beyond me.

I tried not to mention winners.

[PosImpos]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Except the cap is what took away dynasties in the NFL, not the one and done.  The NFL has always been one and done, yet until 94 had plenty of dynasties.  From 70-78, the NFC representative in the Superbowl was the Cowboys or Vikings in all but one of those 9 seasons.  Pittsburgh won 4 in 6, Miami went to 3 straight.  The 80's and early 90's were both also dominated by just a handful of teams with the occassional outlier mixed in.  The 60's were dominated by the Packers.  The Browns dominated the 40's and 50's.  

And for the record, the last time the #1 seeds met in the Superbowl was 2009-10 when the Saints beat the Colts.  The last time it happened in basketball was 2007-08 when the Celtics beat the Lakers (and the time before that 99-00 when the Lakers beat the Pacers).  

In the 17 years before the the hard cap, 16 teams had made the superbowl. In the following 17 years, 21 have but ten of those teams had made at least one Superbowl in the previous era and two of the teams that hadn't are blue chip franchises-- The Colts and the Packers-- whose modern success was helped more by obtaining franchise quarterbacks than it was the cap. Meanwhile, the one and done playoffs has allowed the exceedingly mediocre 2008 Cardinals to get hot, the 2006 Bears' defense to carry them despite Rex Grossman, the 2002 Raiders to stumble in and the 1995 Steelers to find their way to the Superbowl. To me, that's not competitive balance, that's the one and done playoff system allows mediocre teams to get hot and make a run.

The bigger difference to me --that explains the five more superbowls in the last 17 years-- is that the talent pool for football teams to draw from has exploded. For example, you had one multiple Superbowl appearing QB who was baggin groceries at one point in his 20s and another from Southern Miss. Steve McNair was from Alcorn State. Football's popularity among kids exploded before this era and the talent pool deepened immensely.

How you managed not to mention the 2007 Giants is beyond me.

I tried not to mention winners.

Well, to me the '07 Giants are the perfect example of the one and done system favoring upsets.  95 out of 100 times, the Pats would have won the Superbowl that year.

[KCattheStripe]

Since 79-80 the following 9 NBA teams have won at least 1 NBA title.  Here is the breakdown

Lakers - 10
Bulls - 6
Celtics - 4
Spurs - 4
Pistons - 3
Rockets - 2
Heat - 1
Mavericks - 1
Sixers - 1

In that same 32 season span 15 teams have won the Superbowl.  Here is the breakdown

49ers - 5
Patriots - 3
Redskins - 3
Cowboys - 3
Steelers - 3
Giants - 3
Packers - 2
Raiders - 2
Broncos - 2
Bears - 1
Saints - 1
Rams - 1
Ravens - 1
Colts - 1
Buccaneers - 1

The reality is a hard cap makes it much more difficult to keep a dynasty in tact, which is why you see so many more teams winning titles in the NFL and not being able to sustain it.  Why historical bottom feeders like the Bucs and Saints can win a title with one correct GM or coach in place.

Even more so, since the NFL put its cap in place in the 1994 season, 12 different teams have won Super Bowls in 17 seasons.  There's never been a stretch like that in NBA history.  Part of that is due to the "one and done" format, but a lot is to be said for the parity under the cap system.

I'd put a lot more onus on the one and done format than the cap.

Except the cap is what took away dynasties in the NFL, not the one and done.  The NFL has always been one and done, yet until 94 had plenty of dynasties.  From 70-78, the NFC representative in the Superbowl was the Cowboys or Vikings in all but one of those 9 seasons.  Pittsburgh won 4 in 6, Miami went to 3 straight.  The 80's and early 90's were both also dominated by just a handful of teams with the occassional outlier mixed in.  The 60's were dominated by the Packers.  The Browns dominated the 40's and 50's. 

And for the record, the last time the #1 seeds met in the Superbowl was 2009-10 when the Saints beat the Colts.  The last time it happened in basketball was 2007-08 when the Celtics beat the Lakers (and the time before that 99-00 when the Lakers beat the Pacers). 

In the 17 years before the the hard cap, 16 teams had made the superbowl. In the following 17 years, 21 have but ten of those teams had made at least one Superbowl in the previous era and two of the teams that hadn't are blue chip franchises-- The Colts and the Packers-- whose modern success was helped more by obtaining franchise quarterbacks than it was the cap. Meanwhile, the one and done playoffs has allowed the exceedingly mediocre 2008 Cardinals to get hot, the 2006 Bears' defense to carry them despite Rex Grossman, the 2002 Raiders to stumble in and the 1995 Steelers to find their way to the Superbowl. To me, that's not competitive balance, that's the one and done playoff system allows mediocre teams to get hot and make a run.

The bigger difference to me --that explains the five more superbowls in the last 17 years-- is that the talent pool for football teams to draw from has exploded. For example, you had one multiple Superbowl appearing QB who was baggin groceries at one point in his 20s and another from Southern Miss. Steve McNair was from Alcorn State. Football's popularity among kids exploded before this era and the talent pool deepened immensely.

How you managed not to mention the 2007 Giants is beyond me.

I tried not to mention winners.

Well, to me the '07 Giants are the perfect example of the one and done system favoring upsets.  90 out of 100 times, the Pats would have won the Superbowl that year.

I still have the 97-7 2008 Cardinals making the Super Bowl, but I get your point.