NBA vs NFL competitive balance

[LooseCannon]

Once you make the final four playoff teams, you have at least a mild chance of winning a title.

In the past 17 seasons (since the NFL adopted a hard cap), 24 NFL teams have at least made the conference championship game.  In the same time span, the number of NBA teams that have at least made it to the conference finals is....23.

The NBA does have a lot more teams with one appearance in the final four (T-Wolves, Kings, and a few others), but the NFL has a lot more teams with either one or two appearances.

[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.

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

Teams get hot and make runs.  It happens in all sports.  The Celtics were the best team (regular season) in 07-08, but before that you had to go back to 99-00 to find the next time the best regular season team won the NBA championship.  Shouldn't that not happen in a sport that isn't one and done?

Look at baseball.  How many times has the #1 team actually won the World Series?  Sure the Yankees did it two season ago, but that is a rarity this century and it certainly didn't happen last year when the Giants made it into the post season on the second to last day of the regular season.

[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.

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.

They played just before the playoffs started and New England won by 3 points.  I think the difference in those two teams is greatly exaggerated on this board, seeing how it is based out of Boston that is understandable, but it isn't like New England beat New York by 45 points in the regular season and then barely lost the Superbowl.  Those teams played 120 minutes and each scored 52 points.

[wdleehi]

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.

They played just before the playoffs started and New England won by 3 points.  I think the difference in those two teams is greatly exaggerated on this board, seeing how it is based out of Boston that is understandable, but it isn't like New England beat New York by 45 points in the regular season and then barely lost the Superbowl.  Those teams played 120 minutes and each scored 52 points.

This is more an example of match ups and when teams play. 





And I love the aspect of upsets. 

[17wasEZ]

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.

I think you are reaching with some of your examples.

The 2002 Raiders were absolutely one of the AFC favorites before the season started and finished as the conference's #1 seed.  They went 7-1 in the 2nd half of the season and beat the Jets 30-10 in the divisional playoff game then whipped Tennessee 41-24 in the AFC Championship.

The 1995 Steelers were also favorites to win the AFC and finished the season winning 8 of their last 9 games before losing a close game to Dallas in the Super Bowl.  The season before that had the Steelers 1 play away from beating San Diego and going to the Super Bowl, so it wasn't like 1995 was a fluke.

[PosImpos]

Once you make the final four playoff teams, you have at least a mild chance of winning a title.

In the past 17 seasons (since the NFL adopted a hard cap), 24 NFL teams have at least made the conference championship game.  In the same time span, the number of NBA teams that have at least made it to the conference finals is....23.

The NBA does have a lot more teams with one appearance in the final four (T-Wolves, Kings, and a few others), but the NFL has a lot more teams with either one or two appearances.

Then how do we account for the fact that so few teams have actually won the whole thing?

[LooseCannon]

Then how do we account for the fact that so few teams have actually won the whole thing?

The whole single-elim vs playoff series thing that has been repeated in this thread over and over.  If the NFL didn't (by necessity) have single-elimination playoffs, the Steelers and Patriots would look as dominant as the Lakers and Spurs in recent history.

[PosImpos]

Then how do we account for the fact that so few teams have actually won the whole thing?

The whole single-elim vs playoff series thing that has been repeated in this thread over and over.  If the NFL didn't (by necessity) have single-elimination playoffs, the Steelers and Patriots would look as dominant as the Lakers and Spurs in recent history.

Yet if it were just single elimination making the difference, don't you think there would be more NBA champions if 23 different teams have made the conference finals in the last 17 seasons, considering that the NFL has had 24 different teams make the conference championship and many different champions?

In other words, if the number of teams in either sport that have made the conference finals in that span is so close, why is there such a disparity in champions?

[KCattheStripe]

Then how do we account for the fact that so few teams have actually won the whole thing?

The whole single-elim vs playoff series thing that has been repeated in this thread over and over.  If the NFL didn't (by necessity) have single-elimination playoffs, the Steelers and Patriots would look as dominant as the Lakers and Spurs in recent history.

Without doing any research, is it possible Home Court matters more in a 7 game series?


Yet if it were just single elimination making the difference, don't you think there would be more NBA champions if 23 different teams have made the conference finals in the last 17 seasons, considering that the NFL has had 24 different teams make the conference championship and many different champions?

In other words, if the number of teams in either sport that have made the conference finals in that span is so close, why is there such a disparity in champions?

[wdleehi]

Everyone is to blame. 



But I can not fault owners for making this move so that all have a chance to be competitive and make money. 




This is not like the NFL where the owners are not losing money and are making a greed grab.

[PosImpos]

Then how do we account for the fact that so few teams have actually won the whole thing?

The whole single-elim vs playoff series thing that has been repeated in this thread over and over.  If the NFL didn't (by necessity) have single-elimination playoffs, the Steelers and Patriots would look as dominant as the Lakers and Spurs in recent history.

Yet if it were just single elimination making the difference, don't you think there would be more NBA champions if 23 different teams have made the conference finals in the last 17 seasons, considering that the NFL has had 24 different teams make the conference championship and many different champions?

In other words, if the number of teams in either sport that have made the conference finals in that span is so close, why is there such a disparity in champions?

Without doing any research, is it possible Home Court matters more in a 7 game series?

It could be that home court matters more in the 2-3-2 format.  That format is notoriously punishing to the away team (this year's Finals notwithstanding).

[LooseCannon]

Then how do we account for the fact that so few teams have actually won the whole thing?

The whole single-elim vs playoff series thing that has been repeated in this thread over and over.  If the NFL didn't (by necessity) have single-elimination playoffs, the Steelers and Patriots would look as dominant as the Lakers and Spurs in recent history.

Yet if it were just single elimination making the difference, don't you think there would be more NBA champions if 23 different teams have made the conference finals in the last 17 seasons, considering that the NFL has had 24 different teams make the conference championship and many different champions?

In other words, if the number of teams in either sport that have made the conference finals in that span is so close, why is there such a disparity in champions?

Single-elimination increases the effect of luck on the outcome, giving the inferior team a better chance of winning.  The NBA has a playoff system where superior skill is more likely to win in the long run.  Given its playoff system, the NFL should see more variation in champions even if it has roughly the same distribution of skill levels that the NBA has.

One explanation for the disparity is that the Lakers and Spurs have been really, really good at winning when the make it to the end, while the Steelers and Patriots haven't. 

If New England and Pittsburgh had been a collective 7-4 instead of 5-4 in the Super Bowl and teams like the Nets and Jazz had pulled it out in one of their multiple trips to the NBA Finals, maybe this wouldn't be such a talking point, so the troubles of small sample size is another explanation.

Some people tend to over-exaggerate the lack of competitive imbalance because they don't understand statistics and instead rely on anecdote-based analysis.  Once you dive into the numbers, you start to realize that sometimes perception and "common" sense don't match reality.