Parity vs. Dynasty

Half way through the NFL season and there are still no clear cut favorites to win the Super Bowl. Five teams are listed as the favorites to win the Super Bowl and no team has been able to establish itself as the front runner. This isn't the first time the NFL has had this happen during the last decade, so it begs the question, do we really need dynasties, or as fans do we prefer the parity?

In the NFL during the '70's, '80's and '90's there were dominant teams. These dominant teams held the power and when the dynasties collided great games ensued. For example As fans, we can always argue about which teams were the best out of the 3 1990's Cowboy teams that won Super Bowls, but it is also fun to compare them to the Steelers teams in the '70's.

The last decade has provided some great individual champions in the NFL, but no real dynasties have been formed. This makes each season interesting because you never know where the champion is going to come from. Going into this season some prognosticators felt that the Dallas Cowboys could contend for the crown. They had the individual talent to win games, but as the first 8 games have shown, apparently the individual talent didn't translate into team victories.

Football hasn't been the only sport where parity has reigned supreme. Major League Baseball has also had 9 different champions in the past 11 seasons. Although we seem to get a new champion each season, we do talk about the same teams making the playoffs every season. If it isn't the Yankees and Red Sox, it is the Braves and Cardinals who get a shot at the trophy every October.

As a fan, I think I prefer the dynasty case. Whether it is my team or not, it is good to know who is going to be good and we can use them as a measuring stick. Also familiarity allows even the casual fan to be invested come the championship season. The dynasty team doesn't have to win every season, but if they are there it makes all the more fun.