With the NFL’s clear commitment to establishing and maintaining parity, a natural disagreement grew between those for and against.

I think most of us agree that the combination of the salary cap and the salary cap floor have been good for the game. Each team now must spend a minimum amount of money on player salaries, thus ensuring that even the cellar dwellers get off their rear ends and compete.

Those against the NFL’s commitment to maintaining parity argue that it’s not parity that’s being maintained, it’s mediocrity. Yes, there were bad teams before all this, they admit, but at least it was fun to watch dominance by a few. In the 1970s, teams committed to winning like Pittsburgh, Dallas, and Oakland dominated much of the league. In the ’80s it was San Francisco and Dallas. In the ’90s it was San Francisco and Dallas again. Those teams were way ahead of the curve when it came to scouting, coaching, and commitment to competing.

What I like about the salary cap, and especially the salary cap floor, is that it all but eliminated teams that simply avoid competing to save a buck. While it was fun to witness dominance like that if you lived in those cities, franchises like Atlanta, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay, New Orleans, New England, the St. Louis and Arizona Cardinals were allowed to flounder with no direction and no financial commitment.

The salary cap and salary cap floor change all that. And perhaps just as importantly, the fans now knew how much money their owners were pulling in from fat TV contracts and how much they were either spending or not spending. The books were opened. Since they had to spend the money anyway, most teams went about trying to put good management teams together. The quest to manage the salary cap properly, evaluate personnel, draft well, and pick up the key free agent became more universal.

I believe that what fans see as mediocre play on the field many times has more to do with injuries and natural cycles. The Age of Parity doesn’t look to have slowed the Patriots this decade. But understandably, when Tom Brady is not on the field, the Patriots are bound to look less dominant.

I believe the NFL would improve its product if it were to expand rosters. With the size of the players and the speed of the game today, injuries are a bigger part of the game than ever. You can’t get by with a roster of 45 active players and eight practice squad players anymore. As injuries quickly mount, it’s becoming all too common for teams to have to pull players off the street, thus affecting the product on the field. 

But the natural cycles of aging players, ownership changes, and draft order have historically always brought down dynasties and will continue to do so. New powers rise up every year. This year it could be the Cardinals, the Titans, or perhaps the Bills. Yet while there are still teams like Oakland and Detroit who still operate in a time warp, most have caught the bug of competition.

Parity or mediocrity aside, come December, the NFL playoff race is still the most compelling show there is.

Former Bears and Lions quarterback Erik Kramer writes a weekly blog for playerpress.com at www.erikkramerpass.com.