Is that the NFL has more parity, without doing any kind of research. From what you wrote, though, I guess it’s probably even or more in favor of baseball. In both sports you do see bad teams one year that rise up the next year, good teams that have an off year, retool, and come back. Then, of course, you have the teams that are there every year, especially in baseball—the Yankees come to mind, of course. I’m trying to think what the football equivalent is to baseball’s Yankees and Braves, who had that incredible run. Of course! The New England Patriots, the Colts are two teams. I would say, given the number of playoff spots and such, that it is even-steven.

There’s no inherit advantage to any one team in football based on payroll. But baseball teams have the advantage of minor league systems and limited salaries over the first few years, allowing smart teams to overcome payroll deficiences.

If we’re talking about the year-to-year ability to improve, football has the “advantage” of non-guaranteed salaries, meaning you can cut all your players and start over. In baseball, teams can suffer for years from bad contracts.

The short schedules adds to parity because it increases the chances that
mediocre teams will have a good enough record to make the playoffs and
also that good teams will have a poor enough record to miss the playoffs.