RealGM

I was asked this question the other day and I answered .....

Free Agency.

The guy who asked the question said he'd give me half a point and his reply was the wild card.

Can some Football guru give me some insight to this?

Well, it's more than one factor. But if you are asking how wild cards dissipate the opportunity for dynasties, it comes down to 2 elements: basic math and talent disposition.

For the first, any time you add more teams to the playoff mix, you lower the odds of any one team being able to run the gamut, thus effectively lowering the odds for being able to repeat, thus reducing the chances for dynasties.

For the other, you have a decreased ability for high-level talent teams being able to be on the outside looking in just because they happen to be in a division with a team with more, even slightly more, talent. Suppose there is no wc whatsoever. Now suppose that the 2nd or 3rd most talented team is in the same division as the most talented team...or even suppose there is a tie.

Eliminate one of those teams abilities to challenge the other in the playoffs, and you ease the road for that other team to go all the way.

Not that this happens all the time, but it does happen, or close.

For the first, any time you add more teams to the playoff mix, you lower the odds of any one team being able to run the gamut, thus effectively lowering the odds for being able to repeat, thus reducing the chances for dynasties.

I can see your point or at least part of it. But on the flip side of the coin...Say you have a defending champion who the following year had a couple key injuries and they lose their division yet they make the wild card. Wouldn't the extra playoff birth give the said team an opportunity to repeat?

wiff wrote:

For the first, any time you add more teams to the playoff mix, you lower the odds of any one team being able to run the gamut, thus effectively lowering the odds for being able to repeat, thus reducing the chances for dynasties.

I can see your point or at least part of it. But on the flip side of the coin...Say you have a defending champion who the following year had a couple key injuries and they lose their division yet they make the wild card. Wouldn't the extra playoff birth give the said team an opportunity to repeat?

Yes, it would. But the odds are greater that the other occurs, and/or occurs more often if you take talent base as the greatest determinant of records.

Thanks

Old Age

parity

Offensive team + Defensive team + Special Team.

they all have to play decent enough to win a game. it's really hard to have one team carry the whole team through the regular season and the playoffs.

I disagree that there's even an end to dynastic runs in the era of Wild Card/free agency/parity. I think the Patriots have pretty much proven that.

Fatty wrote:parity

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers but isn't "parity" really more of a result and not a cause?

Does anyone have any other answers they think help contribute to the fall of the dynasty?

I think BJesus makes a good point that you could point to the Pattys saying that they are still around.

When you end of dynasties, do you mean dynasties in general or specific dynasties?

Coaching instability is a factor. When you're always turning over coordinators and assistants, the new guys always want to make their own mark.

I kind of agree with BBJ--I'm not sure there aren't still dynasties. The Pats and Colts have both been top 5 teams for this entire decade, barring major injuries. The "one loss and you're done" aspect of the playoffs makes it so hard for any team to have a Super Bowl run, but if you're in the playoffs and capable of winning it every year for 5+ years, that's pretty dynastic IMO.

dynasties on general

Dynasties are mostly a product of innovation, whether on-field (60s Packers, 1980s Niners) or off-field (2000s Patriots, 1990s Cowboys). Very rarely has there been a dynasty built on just a collection of great players. The 1970s Steelers are probably the only one.

There's a reason the NFL is called the copycat league: it's true. Because the NFL season is only 16 games long, there are not enough games for sheer talent to win out, like there is in baseball or basketball. The only way to consistently beat teams is to do something nobody else is doing, then when the rest of the league catches on, find a new edge.

This is the reason why most dynasties end up with a rather short time at the top and why today dynasties are a bit harder to come by: teams aren't able to find that edge as easy as they were in the past. Fluid defensive schemes have pretty much nullified any kind of new offensive innovation like the Niners enjoyed with the WCO and defenses are so diluted thanks to free agency/parity and the increase of injuries that there's no year-to-year dominance with the same unit like the Steelers did in the 1970s. Off-field the difference in scouting and training/development is to the point where its almost negligible so smart teams like the Cowboys in the 1990s don't have that distinct advantage anymore. The Pats have won with a Moneyball type philosophy of determining market inefficiencies but even that is starting to be a challenge since, again, copycat league and all.

There are no more dynasty's because this is an era of free agency and cry baby players. Its hard to keep a core of guys together for ten years because they all go crying for more money

HP and BBJ have both made good points but I'd like to expand upon what Icness said.

In the MLB, NHL and NBA, you tend to see a lot of dynastic teams winning exciting seven-game series or at least five or six. There are always a couple losses in there where the team makes its trimuphant strike back. There's no retaliation in the NFL - once you're down, you're done. You can't lose a single game. It's the same reason Florida was so legendary for repeating March Madness.

Boston's Future wrote:There are no more dynasty's because this is an era of free agency and cry baby players. Its hard to keep a core of guys together for ten years because they all go crying for more money

dont blame the players for bitching about money, its different than baseball and basketball b/c the span for a football player is small and you could be a star one day and a scrub the next, i dont blame anyone that holds out.

I understand about the whole issue of guareenteed money and no loyalty to player if he gets hurt, but c'mon, when a guy is making 7 million a year and then asks for 12, how can you like the guy? As if 7 isn't enough to begin with. Greedy