Mediocrity is not always bad

We have arrived at the half-way point in the NFL Season, and with no undefeated teams left, the season has been filled with what many analysts like to call "mediocrity". I agree that the fact that 22 of the league's 32 teams have between 3 and 5 wins, speaks to a great amount of parity within the league, but parity doesn't always equate to mediocrity. I would say the NFL's tightening restrictions on illegal hits speaks volumes about just how big and fast the athletes have gotten, and if athletes have gotten bigger and faster, it's only safe to assume the quality of play has gotten better as a result.

So what, then, to make of the parity in the league thus far if it's not because of mediocre play. Well, for one, I think it makes the league even more entertaining due to the obvious fact that parity allows more fans to believe their team has a shot to win week in and week out. Sure, having a dominant team chasing an undefeated season can be fun, but it can also be boring if there is no other team near the level of that one dominant team. Parity, on the other hand, keeps people guessing, and while that might anger some (ex. ESPN analysts and Gamblers), it is in the best interest of the sport in the long run.

The question remains, though, about what the NFL's parity should be attributed to. I mentioned that players have gotten bigger and faster, but there's also more bigger and faster players than there ever have been before. Also, coaching has gotten better, and as we saw a few years ago when the wildcat was introduced to the NFL, coaches aren't afraid to copy each other if they realize another coach has figured out a formation that works.

While better coaching and better athletes is also the case in baseball and basketball, the NFL has two rules in place to help promote parity, which cannot be said for the NBA or MLB.

1) The NFL has a hard salary cap (or at least did up until this year)

2) NFL team's can place a franchise tag on a player in order to not lose that player in free agency.

Though the NBA also has a hard salary cap, it doesn't have the franchise tag, which could have prevented Lebron James from leaving Cleveland had one been in place.

The NFL has both, and it is for that reason that we see the parity in the league that exists today. The NFL better remember this when it heads into negotiations with the players union this offseason, because in all likelihood the NFL is going to have to cede some power to the players in order for there to be football next season. But, two points the owners should never compromise on are the salary cap and franchise tag, because those two rules equate to parity, and it is parity that has allowed the NFL to easily become the most popular sport in the U.S.

The way the sports world defines a person's character

The Boss

With the recent death of Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, much has been written about his personality and accomplishments over the past few days. He has been described as a great owner who cared about winning second only to breathing, ( he once said "winning is the most important thing in my life, after breathing") and because he succeeded in winning many times he has been described as a great man.

This perception of Mr. Steinbrenner as a great human being, despite him being suspended from baseball for 2 1/2 years, seems a bit over the top to me. Sure, it's possible he may have been a loving father and husband who gave millions to charities, but that's not why he is being put on a pedestal by those writing about him since his death. The Boss, as he was commonly called, is being written about in such a positive manner because he won championships, seven of them to be exact, and in this country winning is all that matters in the eyes of sports fans. George Steinbrenner had that same mentality, that winning was everything, and while that worked for him professionally, you have to wonder about the character of a man who holds winning above all else except breathing (that includes his family). I'm not saying he was necessarily a bad person (though he obviously had character flaws that lead to his suspension), but I am saying that the sports media needs to look not just at a man's accomplishments in sports, but how he acts and what he values away from the sport before anointing him to such lofty levels.

And how about some praise before a man passes away? I realize we all want to leave people's legacies in the best of lights, but death should not change our view of how we perceive someone. So, if you blasted Steinbrenner before his death, don't change your view of the man now that he's dead.

And now for my comments about Lebron...

Only because everyone is commenting on the subject. From a basketball fan standpoint I couldn't be more excited to see Lebron, D-Wade, and Bosh team up on one team. I think the heat will be fantastic and this is a team that could bring about the same type of excitement to NBA regular season games that MJ's Bulls teams did back in the 90's. As a Wizards fan, I hate Lebron going to the Heat because I now think the southeast division may be the best division in basketball (certainly in the east) for the next few years. I agree with most opinions that Lebron should not have aired his decision to join the Heat in a one-hour special on ESPN, mostly because of the extra pain such a buildup and announcement was sure to cause cavaliers fans. That being said, Dan Gilbert's comments were a bit over the top as Lebron had every right to leave Cleveland, and I believe he did make the best basketball decision for himself (plus who wouldn't want to live in South Beach?). The Heat are now my favorites to win it all next year, but even if they don't you can bet the show will still be worth the price of admission.