Prop Bets and the Super Bowl

If you came up to me and handed me $100 to bet on this Sunday’s Super Bowl, how would I bet it? Before I answer this fun and completely hypothetical question, I want to say something that is anything but fun or hypothetical.

Gambling is dangerous. As radio host Colin Cowherd repeatedly says on his show on ESPN Radio, you should never gamble more than you can afford to lose. The fear of becoming addicting to gambling is one of the biggest reasons that I’ve only set foot in a casino a handful of times since turning 21. It’s fun to win and the hope that the next hand will turn around a spell of bad luck can be the easiest lie we ever tell ourselves.

Please think long and hard before placing any money on any sporting event. If you have second thoughts about the wisdom of making that bet, you probably shouldn’t be placing it. On that note, I consider myself more than a casual NFL fan but far less than an expert. I’m looking to have some fun with a few of the many available prop bets associated with the Super Bowl; I’m not looking to make money. If you use my suggestions to make bets, you are assuming all of the risk as I am not claiming to know anything more than your typical NFL fan. To reinforce the fact that this is completely a thought exercise, I will be placing bets in simoleons, the currency of Sim City.

PROP BETS

The Super Bowl very clearly shows that the United States is simply obsessed with two things; the Super Bowl itself and gambling. Before going any further, I’d suggest reading the following piece by Bill Barnwell on Grantland.com about a few various prop bets associated with this Super Bowl.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8889349/bill-barnwell-prop-bets

There is one section that is especially important in this piece that I’m just going to quote here because before reading Barnwell’s piece, I had no idea what a line of +700 meant.

This is Barnwell’s explanation of what it means when the line of there being overtime is +700 and the line on there not being overtime is -1000:

“The "+700" figure next to "Yes" means that a bettor would receive $700 back in profit if they bet $100 on the event occurring before it actually happened. If you held this winning ticket with $100 and brought it to the counter, you would be handed back $800 (the $700 profit plus your initial $100 bet). The "-1000" figure next to "No" replaces the positive sign at the beginning with a negative sign; it indicates that you have to bet the dollar amount in question to win $100. In this case, if you wanted to win $100 betting against the possibility that there would be overtime, you would need to bet $1000. If there's no overtime, you would win $1100 (the $100 profit plus your initial $1000 bet).”

In other words, if you’re betting on a line with a negative number, you’re betting on an outcome that has a better than 50/50 chance of happening. In this context, it makes complete sense. NFL games rarely go to overtime so betting on there NOT being overtime and being correct only yields 10% on your bet.

MY BETS

In a lot of ways, I view the thought of determining which bets to make a lot like I would view a roulette table before the ball is rolled. It seems logical to me to bet smaller amounts on some longshot outcomes while betting larger amounts on more predictable outcomes to hopefully balance out the missed longshots and keep me above even. My goal is making these picks is not to maximize my potential outcome; it’s to maximize my outcome while minimizing my exposure to long odds bets.

Obviously, the list of bets that Barnwell puts forth isn’t comprehensive but I’m going to pick from that list and the list at one other website I found. First, the favorites:

MENTIONS OF THE “HARBAUGH BOWL, “HARBOWL”, OR “SUPERBAUGH”

OVER 2.5 (-110)

This seems like a complete no-brainer to me. Somehow there are people out there that think the broadcasters are going to resist using one of these catchy terms once or twice at most? While it might not be Phil Simms or Jim Nantz that goes here, you have to remember that the broadcast team includes the sideline reporters and the crew doing the halftime show. My bet is 20 simoleons on the over.

WILL THERE BE A SUCCESSFUL 2 POINT CONVERSION?

NO (-500)

In the first 46 Super Bowls, teams are 6-13 when going for two and those attempts have come in 8 different Super Bowls. However, for these purposes it must be considered that the San Diego Chargers were 2-2 in Super Bowl XXIX. Therefore, there has only been five Super Bowls with a successful two point conversion, or 10.9%.

A line of -500 implies that something has only an 83.3% chance of happening when, according to Super Bowl history, it actually has an 89.1% chance of happening. Statistically speaking, this bet feels like a very safe one. NFL coaches don’t like going for two unless they’re completely desperate and the game is basically over but the Super Bowl is the one venue where some coaches might be willing to put it on the line.

The only reason this bet doesn’t feel terribly secure is that all of the two point conversion attempts have occurred in the past 18 Super Bowls. If you use that as your sample size instead of all 46 Super Bowls, then the “yes” bet looks like a steal. This can be considered the “entertainment” portion of the post when you read along and watch me talk myself out of a particular bet…

They wouldn’t, would they? Two great running games, plus Colin Kaepernick… plus it looks like Jim Harbaugh is willing to take this kind of risk…

Oh, this is just icky… I’m putting 20 simoleons on No but this really doesn’t feel safe.

WILL THERE BE A DEFENSIVE OR SPECIAL TEAMS TOUCHDOWN?

NO (-200)

I’m just not feeling this one. I feel like the two quarterbacks are playing well enough right now to avoid a pick-6 (this is the point where I remember Kaepernick throwing one against Green Bay) and I don’t feel like either team has a particularly dynamic special teams to be able to bring one back.

I know that Baltimore gave up not one but two special teams TD’s against the Broncos but I saw a very different team in the second half against the Broncos and against the Patriots than I did in the first half in Denver. They’re playing very well and I just don’t see them giving up another one. Sometimes it feels like defensive and special teams TD’s come in bunches and I can’t help but think that for the 2012/13 playoffs, we’ve already seen the bunches.

On top of all that, -200 seems like a pretty favorable line. This seems like a fairly high reward for an outcome with a fairly high probability. Twenty simoleons on No.

WILL THERE BE A SUCCESSFUL 4TH DOWN CONVERSION?

YES (-250)

Between Jim Harbaugh’s aggressiveness (and his new QB) and the Ravens’ win-it-all-for-Ray mentality, I can’t imagine there not being at least one successful 4th down conversion. I know these are stout defenses but if one team gets down early, it would make this even more of a lock to come true. If there’s only one attempt the whole game, then I could see it going over to the “No” side, but if one team finds themselves in a situation where they need two scores in the final five minutes of regulation, there will definitely be a 4th down conversion. Fifteen simoleons on Yes.

THE UNDERDOGS

WILL THERE BE A SAFETY?

YES (+900)

I was looking up data on two point conversions and noticed there were quite a few safeties. In 46 Super Bowls, there have been 7, or one in 15.2% of the games. This line implies a 10% chance of something happening so I’ll be getting some pretty good value here.

I know that Barnwell points out that the two pass rushes are struggling coming into this game but their special teams are well coached (enough to pin the other team deep) and there are other ways to get a safety, such as in Super Bowl XLIII when the Steelers were called for holding in the endzone. It also happened last year when Tom Brady was called for intentional grounding in the endzone.

Crazy things can happen when a football bounces… five simoleons on Yes.

WHO WILL THE MVP BE?

COLIN KAEPERNICK (+175)
JOE FLACCO (+225)

I’m lumping these together for obvious reasons. In my opinion, these two have been the MVP’s of their teams’ respective Super Bowl runs and I see no reason why that should stop now. Many players will be important on both sides of the ball for both teams but nobody is more important than these two guys.

Let me put it another way; when I ponder all the ways in which both teams can win this game, there are few instances where I think a team can win with their quarterback playing poorly. Five simoleons on each.

WHAT COLOR WILL THE GATORADE (OR LIQUID) DUMPED ON THE WINNING COACH BE?

RED (+750)

This is an example of how ridiculous prop bets can be. Having said that, considering that just about every beverage maker (and especially those that specialize in sports drinks) have a flavor that is colored red, this feels like a steal to me. When you add in the fact that the 49ers primary color is red, it just reinforces the feeling to me that this is way too high of a line. Five simoleons on red.

THERE WILL BE NO TOUCHDOWNS

YES (+20,000)

This is the longshot of all longshots and it becomes even more so when you consider that these two teams have combined for 22 touchdowns in their combined 5 games. However, a bet offering a 200:1 payout when you have two very good defenses feels like a good longshot on which to put a little bit of action. To me, this is the equivalent of having a lucky number at the roulette table where you always put a penny at the table’s with a dollar minimum bet.

Working against me in this bet is the fact that the game is in the Superdome and, in case you haven’t seen him play, Colin Kaepernick is fast. Considering that next year’s Super Bowl is in East Rutherford, New Jersey, and the forecast for Sunday calls for highs of 37 degrees, 13 mph winds, and a few snow showers, this bet will look quite a bit better next year. However, there’s no way you’ll get a line of +20,000 next year in the Meadowlands. Five simoleons on nobody reaching the endzone.


SUMMARY

There you have it, I’m placed 100 simoleons on prop bets on the Super Bowl. Of my nine bets, only two are mutually exclusive (MVP race) so I could potentially go 8-9. If I were to do that with Flacco winning the MVP trophy, I’ll turn my 100 simoleons into 1,226.93 simoleons (1,224.43 if Kaepernick wins MVP).

Disregarding the fact that two of them are mutually exclusive, based solely on the lines, I have a 0.00014% chance of running the table. Of course, with my luck, Kaepernick will get hurt on the first series of the game and Alex Smith will come in and lead the 49ers to a thrilling victory, winning the MVP trophy by throwing four touchdowns (including the game winning two point conversion) after throwing a pick 6 to Ray Lewis to start his day. Jim Harbaugh will be doused in water (it’s better for you anyways) at the end of the game where the announcers forget to mention even once that Jim and John Harbaugh are related.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I don’t gamble.

As for who wins the game, the last I heard is that the 49ers are 4.5 point favorites. Part of me says that line is too generous and another part of me says it's not generous enough. My prediction is that it comes down to the kickers. David Akers (29-42 in the regular season) will miss his only attempt in the first quarter while rookie Justin Tucker (30-33 this year) while make three field goals, including one early in the fourth quarter, setting up Ray Lewis to make a huge tackle on fourth down inside of two minutes. Ravens 30-28.

Enjoy the Super Bowl everyone and I’ll be back next week to look at how well (or depressingly) these (fake) bets turned out.

Winning in the NFL

Another regular season is here and gone and seven more head coaches are searching for a new job. Well, technically six since it took Andy Reid about five minutes (rightfully so) to find a new job. Nevertheless, the common acronym Not For Long is more appropriate in the NFL than any other of the big professional leagues. While there are always examples of coaches let go by their teams after a curiously short stint (see Johnson, Avery of the Brooklyn Nets) in the other leagues, those instances are the exception, not the rule. In the NFL, the day after the final day of the regular season is known as Black Monday, the day when head coaches are given their pink slips. Sometimes it’s a veteran head coach that’s had more than a fair shot to win in a particular city but it feels like more often than not, the head coach is fired before he really has a chance to impart himself on the team.

Why is that important? When a new head coach is hired, he may get to hire his coaching staff but he doesn’t get to hire the general manager (unless he is the general manager) and for the most part, he inherits the players from the previous coach. Therefore, I could argue that in a coach’s first year, the expectations should be very low and gradually ramp up from there. Normally, I would say that a “fair shot” for a head coach would consist of four or five seasons but again, not all situations are normal. For instance, in his first four years as a head coach with their current team, Coach A was 22-42 and made one playoff appearance while Coach B went 39-25 and won the Super Bowl twice.

Coach B (Bill Belichick) inherited an 8-8 team that was the team’s worst record in the previous four years. Coach A (Jim Schwartz) inherited a team that from 2001-2007 went 31-81 before bottoming out in 2008, going 0-16.

At the end of the day, the question is very simple: how do you win in the NFL? There is an easy answer for those of you out there that are more sarcastically inclined and yes, the way to win in the NFL is to score more points than the other team. Now that it’s been said, we can move on with life… and this blog post.

If we were to liken football history to that of baseball, we are certainly in the “Live Ball” era of football. For much of football’s history, three yards and a cloud of dust was the norm and the way to win was to get 3 ½ yards every play while holding your opponents to 2 ½ yards per play. There has been a gradual shift from the running game to the passing game over the past 40 years starting with players like Johnny Unitas and Joe Namath and continuing today with Tom Brady and Peyton Manning but nothing jumpstarted passing football like the rule changes following the 2004 season. The rule changes enacted were in favor of the quarterback and the receivers as fans seemed to tire of watching defensive backs mugging receivers every play.

Since then, quarterbacks have set just about every relevant record that matters with regards to playing the position. Yards and touchdowns in a season along with yards and touchdowns in a career all fell. In 2012, three rookies and three second year quarterbacks made up half the playoff field. One of the more senior quarterbacks, Aaron Rodgers, sat for three years waiting for Brett Favre to take his sideshow to New York and Minnesota. In 2012, two of those three rookies were the starting quarterbacks from the word “go” and Russell Wilson was the starter coming out of training camp.

All of this leads me to believe that success in the NFL revolves around the quarterback position. While this is completely logical (look at the win-loss records for Tom Brady and Peyton Manning over the past ten years), I wanted to find something more. Would there be a way to come up with a formula with which a football team could be built to win?


SAMPLE SIZE

One of the biggest problems with the NFL is the fact that there are only 16 games per season. Attempting to predict something like winning based on that sample is problematic at best. By comparison, there are 162 games in every baseball season so in many ways, one season (or even half a season) is enough to draw some significant conclusions. Essentially, what I’m trying to say is outliers will exist in any analysis that looks at patterns of success in the NFL. This just needs to be accepted so we can move on.

For this set, I used 2002 to 2011, a ten year period that, for the most part, occurred after that 2004 cutoff I spoke of earlier. The rules may not have changed yet at the beginning of that window, but some of the elite quarterbacks that are still dominating the league today were either in their prime or coming into their prime by the time the window started.


MEASUREABLES

I believe that the NFL is currently a passing league first, so one of the first things I wanted to include in any analysis is quarterback play. There are many ways to measure quarterback play but of all the data I have access to, I chose to use the passer rating metric. The new metric that has recently been introduced, QuarterBack Rating (QBR) is a better overall measure of how well a quarterback plays but data is only available for the past five seasons (2008 onward) and in an attempt to draw more significant conclusions, I want a larger sample size.

Turnovers are a very large part of football but especially so in the NFL. When it comes to the success of a quarterback, the pass rush of the opposing team can have a drastic impact so it would seem that sacks would also be an important piece of this analysis. Finally, while the rushing game has been devalued in the past ten years, it can still be very important. This year, the Vikings made the playoffs with a (putting it nicely) suspect quarterback and it was because they had a very reliable running game. So, rushing yards per game will also be included in this analysis.

At this point we need to remember one critical thing; there is another team on the field during every game. Therefore, I’m going to break this analysis into three parts:

OFFENSE – The goal of the offense is to score points. Therefore, how do passer rating, sacks allowed, turnovers committed, and rushing yards per game come together in terms of points on the scoreboard?

DEFENSE – How do those statistics (defensive instead of offensive) go into the number of points that a team’s opponent scores in a season?

EFFECTIVE WINNING PERCENTAGE (more on this in a moment) – How do the number of points scored and allowed go into a team’s winning percentage?


THE ONE-POSSESSION CONUNDRUM

When I first started looking at the mountain of data that I obtained, I noticed that no matter what I did, there were a number of stubborn outliers that I simply could not explain. After who knows how long of staring at numbers and manipulating them every way I could imagine it, it finally occurred to me; one possession games.

I don’t know if I was watching a football game or reading a piece about the 2012 incarnation of the Indianapolis Colts but it got me to thinking and I eventually asked whether I should even include one possession games in my analysis.

Off the top of my head, the average NFL game is comprised of anywhere from 100-150 plays, including special teams. Essentially, a one possession game (where the margin is 8 points or less) could have swung the other way if just one of those plays had happened differently. Given this logic, it follows that over time, a team’s record in one possession games would regress towards the mean, or a .500 winning percentage.

To calculate the “effective” winning percentage, I took the number of one possession games each team played, divided it in half and added that number to the wins and losses a team had from 9+ point games. So, if a team was 12-4 (for a .750 winning percentage) but went 6-2 in one possession games, I normalized this record by putting in a .500 record in one possession games so I removed the 6-2 record and put in a 4-4 record to go with the team’s 6-2 record in 9+ point games. The result is a record of 10-6 for an “effective” winning percentage of .625.

When I did this, all of my regressions started to look much better than they originally had but while this solved one problem, it created another one. I appear to be getting closer to explaining how NFL teams can win but for the life of me, I have no idea how some teams do better in one possession games than others.

Out of all the regressions I conducted, the best r2 value I could get was about 0.19 and while the more statistically inclined of you might know that implication, for those of you who don’t, that’s not good. Essentially, in my search for an indicator, I was only able to find variables that could explain 19% of the variability of the dependent variable. For a perfectly linear relationship, the independent variable explains all of the variability in the dependent variable. When searching for a correlation, a regression isn’t worth much with an r2 value below 0.5.

I know that something dictates performance in close football games and if pressed, I’m inclined to say that it’s something subjective such as the quality of coaching. I don’t believe that it’s a coincidence that the only three teams that have won more than 60% of such games are New England Patriots (.708), Indianapolis Colts (.683), and the New York Giants (.600), while the only two teams to win less than 40% of such games are the Buffalo Bills (.375) and Detroit Lions (.338).


BY THE NUMBERS

For all of the regression analysis, I used the Ordinary Least Squares method and the advantage of this method is the r2 statistic I mentioned earlier. Using this method, I’ll be able to see how my variables mentioned above affect points scored and points allowed (and therefore winning percentage) and I’ll also be able to see how much of the picture is revealed by this analysis and how much is still murky.

Without further ado, the following equation determines how many point an offense will score in a season:

OFFENSE

Points = (RTN x 4.86222) – (Sck-All x 1.05405) + (Give x 1.5772) + (RYPG x 0.812841) – 144.606

RTN = passer rating of the team
Sck-All = sacks allowed
Give = turnovers committed
RYPG = rushing yards per game

DEFENSE

The following equation determines how many points a team will allow in a season:

Points = (OPP-RTN x 4.53191) – (Sck x 0.596579) + (Take x 1.42401) + (RYAPG x 0.89086) – 141.051

OPP-RTN = passer rating of the opponent
Sck = sacks
Take = turnovers a team creates
RYAPG = rushing yards allowed per game

WINNING

Finally, throw those together with effective winning percentage and you get the following equation:

EW% = (PF x 0.0214484) – (PA x 0.0208863) + 7.80691

EW% = effective winning percentage
PF = points scored
PA = points allowed


THAT’S A NICE BIT OF NUMERICAL NONSENSE, BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Fantastic question. First of all, the r2 values are all relatively high, which is desired. For points scored, the value was 0.750041 and for points allowed it was 0.743349 while for effective winning percentage, it was 0.928130. This tells me that there is more to scoring points than what I put into these equations (special teams contributions, third down efficiency, etc.) but for relatively straightforward analysis, I’d say this methodology was successful.

If we dig a little deeper into the equations, some interesting things emerge about the relative importance of the variables. For this following section, you have to keep in mind that when I’m talking about the effects of changing one variable, I’m holding all the others constant.

PASSER RATING

Given by the constant in the winning percentage equation, an “average” team in every part of this analysis would win 7.8 games. I realize that truly the average team wins 8 games but there isn’t one team that would have all of the league average statistics used in this analysis.

If a team’s passer rating improves by 10 points, from a league average 80.5 to 90.5 (a moderate but significant jump), that would imply that the offense would score 48.6 more points (4.86 x 10). Multiplying this by 0.02145 means that holding all else constant, an increase in 10 points of passer rating leads to 1.04 more wins, improving a record from 7.8-8.2 to 8.84-7.16.

SACKS ALLOWED

This season, the average number of sacks allowed was 36.5 while the fewest allowed was 20. Going from league average protection to the best pass protection in the league this season would increase a team’s point total by 17.39 points, or a bit more than a third of a win.

GIVEAWAYS

This is the one that doesn’t make intuitive sense. Given that the coefficient has a positive value, this implies that as a team turns the ball over more, they score more points. This is backed up by the same sign on the coefficient in the points allowed equation. The only possible explanation that I have is that a team that turns the ball over more is more aggressive and is more likely to score more points (call it the Brett Favre Effect).

Even though it makes no intuitive sense, the p-value for this variable was essentially zero. This means that the variable is statistically significant; in other words, it’s in the equation because it should be, it adds more descriptive value to the equation.

If we accept that it belongs, we can see that committing 10 more turnovers will lead to 15.77 more points scored. In 2012, this means that the difference between the best and worst performances for turnovers committed (23 turnovers) was worth 36.28 points, or 0.778 wins.

RUSHING YARDS PER GAME

When I started, I didn’t originally have any rushing stats in the analysis. Including this is basically a shout out to the incredible season that Adrian Peterson is having. Given that I’ve added a key component of my analysis because of one player, perhaps that shows just how good of a season he’s had.

Anyways, a league average offense rushed for 115.9 yards per game in 2012. The Redskins led the league (yes, even with Peterson, the Vikings didn’t lead the league in rushing) with 169.31 yards per game. That difference is worth approximately 43.4 points, or 0.93 wins.

SPELL IT OUT FOR ME…

Turnovers are important. Protecting the passer is important. Having a good running game is important. Nothing is nearly as important as having a good quarterback. In other words, if you were to replace a novelty quarterback with a passer rating of 72.9 (for sake of argument, let’s refer to him as Tim Tebow) with a first ballot Hall of Famer with a passer rating of 105.8 (let’s call him Peyton Manning), and everyone else plays just as well as they did over both years, the team will score 159.97 more points and win 3.43 more games.


OK, YOU’VE BEEN AVOIDING IT THIS WHOLE TIME… DID YOUR METHOD WORK?

Let’s put it this way… it shows what I wanted it to show and that’s that the team goes as the success of their quarterback goes. A quarterback’s play while throwing the ball is far more important than sacks allowed, turnovers, or rushing yards per game. On average, from 2002 to 2011, my equations were off by 1.4 wins on average and 73% of the time, it was within two wins of how a team actually did.

In 2004, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers went 5-11 when my method would have predicted a record of 8.9-7.1 due to quality play from the quarterback position. While it was predicted that the Bucs would have scored 362.8 points, they actually scored 301 (perhaps as a result of their 36 turnovers).

In 2009, the Colts went 14-2 but their numbers predicted a record of 9.3-6.7. That season, the Colts were outgained 126.5-80.9 in rushing yards per game, a deficit they most likely overcame with the help of a certain quarterback.

2012 RESULTS

This is how the 2012 season shaped up division by division with the records predicted by my methods next.

As can easily be seen, there were some hits and some misses but I would argue (as I mentioned before) that 16 games is a small enough sample size that it is easy to get outliers. So what happens when we start looking at teams over a longer time scale, say, 10 years?

Before I show you the results, I took the “different than expected” records in one-possession games and added that to the predicted number of wins. For instance, over the past ten years, the Patriots should have a record of 99.9-60.1 but their record in one-possession games was 46-19, or 13.5 games better than an even 32.5-32.5 record. When you add that in, the Patriots’ predicted record becomes 113.4-46.6. When you compare this to their actual 123-37 record, it compares favorably. While a difference of 9.6 wins might sound like a lot, you have to remember that over 10 years, that’s only one win per year. Here’s how the league looks:

The average difference between the team’s actual records and those predicted by my method? 3.31 wins per team over the ten year period so an average of a third of a win per year.

At the end of the day, if you take away only one thing from this post, you should take away that today’s NFL does indeed revolve around the quarterback position and there’s a reason why simply adding a player like Peyton Manning immediately makes the Denver Broncos Super Bowl contenders.

Essentially, this analysis confirms what we know simply watching games every Sunday during the fall: a good defense can take you far, a great running back can get you to the playoffs, but quarterbacks are ones that carry you to the Lombardi Trophy.

NFL Franchise Power Rankings

While realizing that I am far from the first person to explore a subjective ranking system for NFL teams (and honestly, I’m probably closer to the millionth than the first to explore this option), I’ve decided to go for it nonetheless. However, what I’d like to do is take a little bit of a longer view and instead of focusing on how each team is doing right now I’d like to rank the NFL franchises by their overall outlook.

The first line of numbers you’ll see under each team name is the win-loss record from the past three seasons (2009-2011) and the average point differential per game. The second line is the win-loss record and the point differential from the 2012 season. For some teams (see #1) it shows the remarkable consistency that they have had over the past several years. For others (#’s 3, 7, and 30) it shows how far they’ve come or fallen in the last year or two.

My attempt in ranking the teams is to take a bit of a longer view of the league and each franchise. I don’t want the rankings to be a of-the-moment style power rankings because that can be contingent upon what key players had for breakfast before a big game. Essentially, I’m answering the following question; if I could take over the day to day operations of any franchise, which would I choose? On top of that, once I did take over the franchise, how much work would need to be done to shape the franchise into a long-term contender.

Without further delay, the rankings:

SUPER BOWL CONTENDER DIVISION

1 – New England Patriots
37-11, 10.79
12-4, 14.13

The reasons for this ranking are simple; Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. Brady may not be as young as he once was (he’s 35) but the core of skill players around him are very young (top five receivers are, on average, 27, and the leading rusher this year, Stevan Ridley, is 23). As long as Brady is at his distributing best, this offense will be incredibly dynamic.

On the other side of the ball, the Patriots invested heavily in the last few drafts and their defense isn’t a complete joke. If they can continue to improve on the defensive side of the ball while simply maintaining their level of performance on the offensive side of the ball, they will continue to be in the short list of Super Bowl contenders for several more years to come.

2 – San Francisco 49ers
27-21, 3.31
11-4-1, 7.75

The 49ers are the most complete team in the league without question. In an era of explosive offenses, they have a solid, dependable defense. Their running game, led by Frank Gore, is physical and bruising but neither of those are the reason that they are the best team in the league right now. In the minds of many people, including myself, the only thing holding them back from true greatness was the quarterback position. Alex Smith has played very well the past two years but there have always been doubts about his ability to take the team on his back and lead them to victory. Even after his spectacular game against the Saints in the 2011 playoffs, those doubts persisted. While the returns are still very early, Colin Kaepernick looks like the kind of quarterback that can take this team to new heights.

The main issue is the inevitable growing pains with a new quarterback. At times Kaepernick has been brilliant but at times he has looked like a new starter. If you look at this category of teams, all have a dependable, Pro-Bowl level quarterback (Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Matt Schaub). The odd man out is clearly Kaepernick. The fact that I’m ranking them number 2 is a testament to the rest of this roster and if they continue to get improvement from their second year starter, the sky is the limit for this team.

3 – Denver Broncos
20-28, -4.29
13-3, 12.00

Of all the teams I’ve put in this first category, the Broncos had the worst record from 2009 to 2011 by five games. This is what Peyton Manning can do for a team.

Last year, they did go 8-8, win the AFC West, and win a playoff game playing a style that would have made the service academies proud. They even won a game completing two passes while attempting eight. I watched it and I couldn’t believe it. Everyone spent so much time talking about Tim Tebow that not nearly enough credit was given to the defense and the special teams who played spectacularly through their seven game winning streak.

Most of that same defense is back and they have played extremely well this year. In addition, with Peyton Manning under center, the offensive line is getting its due. They could afford to upgrade at running back (even though Willis McGahee has done very well for Denver) but to find any serious deficiencies in this team requires some serious nitpicking.

4 – Green Bay Packers
36-12, 10.69
11-5, 6.06

As of week 16 of the season, the Packers have 14 players on injured reserve and two key contributors (James Starks and Charles Woodson) who are out indefinitely but won’t go on injured reserve so they can be eligible to come back this season. On top of that, they basically had a win taken from them by the replacement refs in Seattle. Despite all of that, they won the NFC North again and it’s all because of Aaron Rodgers.

Their defensive personnel will change over the next few years, their personnel in the running game will change, and their receivers and tight ends will change. They will always be a threat to make a January run to another Super Bowl title because Aaron Rodgers is their quarterback and he just turned 29.

I initially had them ranked a little but higher but as long as their defense is this banged up (and when banged up, this bad) I have no choice but to drop them down some. A quarterback can only do so much to make up for the sins of their defense.

5 – Houston Texans
25-23, 2.52
12-4, 5.31

Remember when Gary Kubiak was on the hot seat every year? Last year he did a great job of coaching through various injuries to Matt Schaub, Arian Foster, Andre Johnson, and Mario Williams. Even missing their starting quarterback, they won a playoff game and very nearly went to the AFC Championship Game with their third string quarterback.

The future looks very bright for this franchise but they have not shown an ability to play from behind and depending on your opponent, that can be a major problem. I see this team going as far as Matt Schaub can take them.

I’m inclined to believe that the end of the season (as well as the first few games of the season) were aberrations at both ends of the spectrum caused by small sample sizes. The issue is that the playoffs are the ultimate small sample size and if I had to re-rank teams just for the playoff season, I’d put the Texans much lower. They have a good running game and a great defense anchored by one of the best defensive players in the NFL in JJ Watt. No matter how far the Texans go this year, the future is bright.


DIVISION CONTENDER DIVISION

This is a group of teams that for various reasons are not in the Super Bowl contender category. Obviously, any one of these teams could get hot and win a Super Bowl but unless something changes, I don’t see it happening in the next few years. When I say something needs to change, it might just be a mental block that a team has on playing in the playoffs (see team #6) or it might be that they are on the downslide after a long string of Super Bowl contention (see team #15).

6 – Atlanta Falcons
32-16, 4.50
13-3, 7.50

The Falcons are a team that seems poised to burst onto the scene and become a perennial Super Bowl contender any day now but before they can do that, they need to do something first; win a playoff game. Not make it to the Super Bowl or a conference title game, they have to win a single game in a win-or-go-home playoff atmosphere.

Their last two playoff losses have both been to the eventual Super Bowl champions but they have been in devastating fashion. Two years ago Aaron Rodgers was 31-36 for 366 yards and 3 touchdowns in the Packers’ 48-21 demolition of the Falcons in Atlanta. Last year, the Falcons’ offense put up exactly zero points in a 24-2 loss to the Giants.

This team has it all. They have a good defense, great skill players, and a very good and smart quarterback. They are on the cusp of great things but before they can win the Super Bowl, they have to win a playoff game.

7 – Seattle Seahawks
19-29, -4.19
11-5, 10.44

Everyone ridiculed the Seahawks for spending a third round pick on Russell Wilson. For all of his faults (and by that I mean his height), Wilson is a guy who has won and played well wherever he has played. In a league where the all-time leader for passing yards in a single season is Drew Brees, it’s beyond ridiculous that Wilson should have fallen so far in the draft because he wasn’t tall enough.

The Seahawks are a team with a very good defense and a great running game led by Marshawn Lynch. Adding a good decision maker at quarterback elevates this team even further but the biggest reason they crack my top ten has nothing to do with anything that happens on the field.

The 12th man. The Seahawks have an unbelievable home-field advantage right now. With the team they currently have, going 7-1 or 8-0 at home isn’t an unreasonable assumption which means if they only win half their games on the road, they will be able to get to 11 or 12 wins which increases the likelihood of playing playoff games at home. I’m not sure if they can win the Super Bowl as they are currently constructed but they are definitely a team on the rise.

8 – Indianapolis Colts
26-22, -0.65
11-5, -1.88

I’m sure there are 31 teams in the league that were a little miffed at the Colts this past year. Now, I’m not at all insinuating that the Colts tried to lose intentionally in order to secure the number one overall pick. Last year showed just how good Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck are and how much they can add to a team and make the players around them better.

This is a young team with a budding superstar at quarterback. The sky is the limit for this franchise and it looks like they replaced one all-time great with another. From last year to this year, 37 of the 53 roster spots were turned over with new additions from free agency and the draft. As this group of players becomes more familiar with each other and they add a key contributor here and there, it appears that the Colts might be right back at the top of the AFC South where they’ve spent much of the last fifteen years.

9 – Washington Redskins
15-33, -4.67
10-6, 3.00

It would be a completely legitimate question to ask how I can rank the Redskins ahead of 21 teams that have won more game the past three years (only the Browns and Rams have a worse record from 2009-2011) and the answer is very simple; Robert Griffin III.

This team hasn’t been relevant for a long time but this past April they saw a chance to change the direction of the franchise. While the Rams might end up building a good team around Sam Bradford with the picks they got, there is no doubt that the Redskins are now a threat to make the playoffs and/or win the NFC East as long as RGIII is healthy…

But that’s the ultimate rub. He needs to learn how to protect himself. Yes, Kirk Counsins has shown that he is a competent back-up but there’s a big difference between a back-up or even a starting quarterback and a superstar. RGIII is a superstar and the fortunes of the Redskins will be tied to his health for the near future.

10 – Dallas Cowboys
25-23, 1.90
8-8, -1.50

One of these days, I might figure out the Cowboys. They have a very good quarterback, they have excellent skill position players, and they have a decent to good defense. Many have pointed to the culture of the franchise starting with owner Jerry Jones as the main culprit for the failings of the Cowboys over the past, well, 20 years. It’ll be interesting to see if he will be willing to take a step back for the good of the franchise. Personally, I wouldn’t bet on it and as long as Jones runs the whole show, look for this team to underachieve.

11 – New York Giants
27-21, 0.33
9-7, 5.31

From 2009 to 2011, the Giants only made the playoffs one time and that season they were 7-7 with two games to go. They then won six straight including their second Super Bowl win in five years. To be brutally honest, I don’t trust this team. I have seen some truly brilliant and dominating performances from this team followed immediately by games where their practice squad showed up instead of the starters. Because of their recent success, I wanted desperately to put them in the first category but couldn’t bring myself to do so. Sure enough, in week 17, with their odds of making the playoffs being very slim indeed, they played brilliantly in a 42-7 win over the Eagles. Until they can play more consistently, I’d have a very hard time moving them up into the Super Bowl Contender category.

12 – Cincinnati Bengals
23-25, -0.79
10-6, 4.44

There is a lot to like about the Bengals on the heels of back-to-back playoff appearances. Their defense is good and the combination of Andy Dalton and AJ Green has done wonders for this team. If there is one thing I don’t trust about the Bengals franchise, it’s owner Mike Brown. For years, various players have talked about how bad it is to play for the Bengals and for this franchise to take a step forward, that perception will need to change.

Having said that, they are on the uptick at the right time. The Steelers and Ravens are both on the downswing for various reasons so the AFC North is there for the taking. The Bengals won’t be handed anything but they are a promising looking team for the next few years.

13 – Chicago Bears
26-22, 0.25
10-6, 6.13

The Bears started 7-3 last year and 7-1 this year and both times, they looked like one of the most complete teams in the league. The second half of both seasons has shown this isn’t necessarily the case. Can they overtake the Packers to win the division and make sure they play at home in the playoffs? Is Jay Cutler a Super Bowl level quarterback? Lovie Smith took this team to the Super Bowl several years ago with Rex Grossman at QB but can he take them back there?

There are a lot of questions surrounding this team but not many answers.

14 – Baltimore Ravens
33-15, 6.85
10-6, 3.38

Only three teams won more games from 2009-2011 than the Ravens’ 33; the Packers (36), and the Saints and Patriots (37). How can I possibly rank them this low?

Last year looked like it was going to be the breakout year for the Ravens. If one play had gone differently, they would have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl instead of the Patriots. Joe Flacco outplayed Tom Brady for most of the game but as a team they just couldn’t quite get over the hump. This year, the Ravens have taken a huge step back. Flacco is inconsistent and that’s the nice way to put it. They have one of the best running backs in the game in Ray Rice and they seem to be unable to give him the ball. Their defense, which once upon a time won them a Super Bowl, is old and injured and doesn’t instill the fear it once did.

Their offense can take this team far as presently constructed but their defense is going to need a serious overhaul in the near future and that will determine the viability of this franchise going forward.

15 – Pittsburgh Steelers
33-15, 5.94
8-8, 1.38

This is a team that has won two Super Bowls already but the last few years they haven’t gotten any younger and they just can’t stay healthy. Ben Roethlisberger is beyond deadly on third down but for all of the good players and good coaches associated with this team, their offensive line has been downright dreadful for years. On top of that, their most important defensive player (Troy Polamalu), the one who allows Dick Lebeau to do all of his crazy things has been battling injuries for years.

Like the Ravens, their defense is also getting old and needs to be retooled if they want to compete for another Super Bowl with Big Ben at quarterback.

16 – New Orleans Saints
37-11, 9.46
7-9, 0.44

I firmly believe that the Saints will be one of the more fascinating teams to watch over the next couple years. Three years ago, the Saints were the toast of the league in winning the Super Bowl. Last year, they were the focal point again as their offense set numerous records. This past offseason, they were up front and center yet again for all the wrong reasons with the bounty situation.

This season is showing everyone how much a head coach can mean to a team. Sean Payton is the single biggest missing piece this season and they went from a perennial playoff team to a mediocre team at best. You also can’t forget that they have a new defensive coordinator this year who has had troubles adjusting to the new personnel. If Sean Payton comes back to New Orleans and Steve Spagnuolo continues to progress with this defense, there’s no reason why they can’t move back up these rankings in the next couple years.


THE CURSED MIDDLE DIVISION

In professional sports, the middle is a horrendous area that you never want to be in. If you are in the upper third of the league, you are winning and that means that getting free agents to come play for you will be easier. It also means that you are a more complete team and you are more in need of role players than superstars. If you’re in the lower third of the league, you have lots of needs but the good part is that will lead to losing records which puts you into the top portion of the draft and that way you’ll be more likely to get a once in a generation player (see Luck, Andrew). You have many needs but it’s easier to get that cornerstone player.

The middle is a more difficult position than either one of those. You don’t have a terrible team but you have lots of holes. You’re going to be picking somewhere between 11 and 21 (in the NFL at least) and while you can definitely find good players, you’re never going to be selecting those surefire Pro-Bowlers. While the middle is a more precarious position in the NBA, it’s still difficult in the NFL.

17 – Tampa Bay Buccaneers
17-31, -7.08
7-9, -0.31

The Bucs have the misfortune of playing in a brutal division; one which I would say is one of the best in the league. Finishing third in this division isn’t too much of a knock given what the Saints and Falcons have done the past few years.

Apparently Greg Schiano can have some success in the NFL. He took a team that looked truly pathetic in losing the last ten games of the 2011 season and instilled some pride in it. Josh Freeman looks like he can be a good NFL quarterback and Doug Martin looks like an incredibly dynamic back. The process of building a winning franchise can be lengthy but if they stay the course, they have a good chance of becoming a playoff contender.

18 – Cleveland Browns
14-34, -5.83
5-11, -4.13

Despite their record, the Browns haven’t been a complete pushover this year. They have good young dynamic players on both side of the ball and it’s possible that a new ownership group will bring more winning experience to the franchise (the new owner is a former executive for the Steelers).

As with many teams, the fortunes of the Browns seem to be tied up in the status of Brandon Weeden. He has played well this year but given that he is not a conventional rookie (he’s 29 years old) their window for success with Weeden at quarterback is potentially much shorter than with your typical rookie.

Given the sorry state of the franchise since it came back into the league in 1999, the arrow is definitely pointing up for the Browns. While I don’t think they’ll be playing in the Super Bowl soon, I could potentially see a reversal in the AFC North in the next few years with the Browns and Bengals competing for the title and the Steelers and Ravens having some down years.

Having said that, the past ten years of management of those four franchises says to me that that won’t happen.

19 – St. Louis Rams
10-38, -10.71
7-8-1, -3.06

The Rams are hoping that they found their franchise quarterback a couple years ago in Sam Bradford. They went all-in on that theory when they auctioned off the number two pick in the draft this past year (which became Robert Griffin III).

Jeff Fisher has come in and the Rams are playing better but the single biggest problem they have is that Sam Bradford has very few good players to get the ball to. Stephen Jackson has been the consummate professional through the losing years and just passed 10,000 career rushing yards but he’s 29 and if the past decade has taught us anything, 30 is the end or near the end of productivity for NFL running backs.

Right now they are in the wrong division at the wrong time. The 49ers and Seahawks are poised to compete for playoff spots for the next several years so for the next several years, the best the Rams can hope for is a strong third place, keep developing their young players, and get some offensive weapons around Bradford. If they are able to do that, there’s no reason to think they won’t be able to become a playoff team in the future.

20 – Miami Dolphins
20-28, -1.54
7-9, -1.81

The Dolphins spent a first round, top-ten pick on a quarterback just last year and they’re hoping that Ryan Tannehill is the answer to the question that has plagued Miami since 1999; can we please find a quarterback who will adequately replace Dan Marino?

There’s a lot to like about this team with Reggie Bush having a bit of a resurgence in Miami but if they are going to be successful with Tannehill, they need good players for him to throw the ball to. The Dolphins have famously given up on both Wes Welker and Brandon Marshall in the past several years and those are the type of decisions they can’t make if they want to have any chance of dethroning the mighty Patriots in the AFC East.


WE NEED A QUARTERBACK DIVISION

Quarterback in the NFL is the single most important position in professional sports. It is possible to hide a suspect quarterback for a game and sometimes even for a season but in this era of offensive football, the only way to win and to win consistently is to have stability and excellence from the quarterback position.

21 – Minnesota Vikings
21-27, -0.38
10-6, 1.94

Adrian Peterson is simply phenomenal and he is being wasted with Christian Ponder at quarterback. As I said in the lead-in to this section, you can hide a suspect quarterback with a good running game and defense and that’s exactly what the Vikings have done in 2012.

To put the issue in as stark relief as is possible, the one year out of the past five that they’ve had good quarterback play, they went 12-4 and played in the NFC title game with Brett Favre at quarterback. Given how well Peterson is running, it wouldn’t take much to turn their offense into a serious threat but Ponder does not appear to be the answer.

What Peterson has done this year is truly amazing but I cannot consider them legitimate contenders for the NFC North title until they get more competent play from their quarterbacks. With all of the failings of Chicago and Jay Cutler, he has Pro-Bowl level talent and if they can put it together with the passing game, they will leapfrog the Vikings in the standings. That is the main reason why the Bears are #13 in these rankings and the Vikings (a 2012 playoff team) are just outside the top 20.

22 – Buffalo Bills
16-32, -5.67
6-10, -5.69

The Bills tried to make a big splash in the offseason by acquiring Mario Williams via free agency but they have once again fallen flat and won’t have a winning record for an eighth straight year and they will miss the playoffs for the thirteenth straight year.

Ever since receiving a huge contract extension, Ryan Fitzpatrick has been nothing special and despite some dynamic offensive playmakers, they haven’t beaten a single team with a winning record. Like the Dolphins and Jets, the Bills have the current misfortune of competing with the Patriots during one of the more impressive streaks of sustained success in pro sports history.

23 – Arizona Cardinals
23-25, -2.73
5-11, -6.69

I have the sneaking suspicion that coach Ken Whisenhunt has called Kurt Warner (who turned 41 back in June) at least once this year asking how much he really likes his new job with the NFL Network.

The Cardinals quarterback play has been historically bad this year and one of the truly great receivers is languishing on a terrible team. Having said all of that, I believe they are a good quarterback from once against being a threat in the NFC West. The road to the playoffs is far more difficult now than several years ago with the emergence of Seattle and the dominance of San Francisco but that doesn’t mean they can’t make it.

They have several holes but nothing bigger than the quarterback position. It is the falling tide that is sinking all boats (I know that’s not the saying and it doesn’t make sense but that’s what’s happening in Phoenix this year). A better passing game would lead to a better running game and with their defense, they could be a dangerous team with someone else under center.

24 – Oakland Raiders
21-27, -4.52
4-12, -9.56

The Raiders thought Carson Palmer was the answer but clearly that is not the case. Darren McFadden has been healthy this year but that’s all you can say that’s positive about his season. One could easily argue that there are far more issues than just Palmer (such as a bottom-5 defense) but the fact is that they were 5-3 at the time of the trade and in the driver’s seat in the AFC West.

Carson Palmer has always been a bit overrated as an NFL quarterback but he hasn’t been terrible. The Raiders overpaid for him hoping that he was going to be able to go back to his 2005 form and they got burned for it. Given all they gave up for him, they’ll be paying for this mistake for several years and given the ascendance of Peyton Manning in Denver, don’t look for the Raiders in the playoffs for several years to come.

25 – Tennessee Titans
23-25, -0.48
6-10, -8.81

Chris Johnson rushed for 2,000 yards and since then, he’s been one of the more overpaid players in the entire league. His statement that he can rush for 2,500 yards in a season is beyond ridiculous. I don’t want to focus my wrath on Johnson alone but the Titans were 9-7 last year and were in the mix for the final playoff spot and the fact of the matter is that Johnson is not the same player that he was when he rushed for 2,000 yards in a season. Granted, some of that blame belongs to the passing game and some belongs to the offensive line but whatever the case, he is not the same back and he is certainly not performing as he should be given his salary.

But the quarterback position is also an issue. Jake Locker has had periods of brilliance but he has also not yet shown that he is the long-term answer at the position. Matt Hasselbeck stepped in and played well last year and despite having some good play left in the tank was benched this season (he’s at the top of my I’m-shocked-he’s-not-starting-somewhere list).

Hasselbeck can still be a serviceable starter and Locker has shown flashes of why they drafted him in the top-ten. What the Titans needs is better play around the quarterback position and stability within it.


LOST IN THE WOODS DIVISION

Some teams just need to blow up the roster and the front office and start over again. Very few franchises in any sport are able to compete year in and year out and even they have years here and there when they need to focus on rebuilding their roster, sometimes from the ground up. Only four teams made the playoffs each year from 2009 to 2011, the Saints, Ravens, Packers, and Patriots. Sooner or later, every team has an off year and needs to address some need here or there.

26 – New York Jets
28-20, 3.94
6-10, -5.88

Rex Ryan came into town and made all sorts of bold proclamations. He even made it to the AFC Championship Game in back-to-back years with Mark Sanchez outdueling Peyton Manning and Tom Brady in back-to-back weeks at one point. The past two years have been a train wreck and they added to the ridiculousness by adding Tim Tebow and then not doing anything with him.

The roster is nowhere near as deep as it was several years ago and Mark Sanchez desperately needs a change of scenery. Rex Ryan and their front office have done a terrible job of maintaining the success they had in Ryan’s first two years and it just shows that they are not the answer long-term to run this team. The only thing that’s harder to understand than the performance of the team and the decisions made by the front office are the decisions made by their owner and that’s the one thing that nobody can change.

The Jets need wholesale changes all over their roster and their front office and all the while, the Jets’ nemesis, Bill Belichick, has retooled the Patriots with younger players to supplement his first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback. The Dolphins have a promising young quarterback and the Bills look like they are finally fed up with losing. The Jets, meanwhile, owe Mark Sanchez $8.5 million next year.

On top of it all, Rex Ryan emphatically said he is the man for the job with the Jets. That really says about everything you need to know about the level of dysfunction with the Jets.

27 – Detroit Lions
18-30, -3.17
4-12, -4.06

There are many reasons why I feel like this team should be ranked much higher than this. Matt Stafford is one of four quarterbacks to throw for more than 5,000 yards in a season. Calvin Johnson just set the single season record for receiving yards. The Lions defensive line is one of the best in football. When you put all that together, how can you get a bottom five ranking?

I believe the tone of a franchise starts from the top and while Jim Schwartz has brought a much needed edge to this team, it has led to a lack of discipline that has shot them in their collective foot numerous times in the past two years.

This is a team that could become a top ten team if they became more disciplined and developed more of a running game. It would also help if Matt Stafford could develop a more consistent throwing motion but one thing at a time. Last year they were a dynamic offense with Jahvid Best but once Best sustained his last concussion, the Lions appeared to abandon the running game and haven’t been the same since. Now, they are reduced to Stafford throwing the ball to Calvin Johnson and seeing if Suh can get to the quarterback without kicking someone after the play. That is no way to build a team.

28 – Carolina Panthers
16-32, -4.75
7-9, -0.38

This team was 2-14 in 2010 and got to draft Cam Newton number on overall. In his rookie year, they showed great promise in improving to 6-10 and this year, the Panthers were a popular pick to make the leap to becoming a playoff contender.

What they have done is fall flat on their face. Newton has shown his immaturity in dealing with adversity and these losses have shown that they had more holes than just at quarterback in going 2-14.

Overall, the arrow is pointing up for the Panthers because they have a dynamic quarterback who, with any luck and health, will only get better. However, they have a long way to go before they can be considered serious playoff contenders, especially in the same division as the Falcons, Saints, and improved Bucs.

29 – San Diego Chargers
30-18, 5.88
7-9, 0.00

The acquisition of Peyton Manning shifted the balance of power in the AFC West and it won’t be reshuffled anytime soon (I’d say until Manning retires). Phillip Rivers has put up great numbers and many regular season wins in his career but that hasn’t translated to any sort of postseason success. As veteran offensive players have either moved on (LaDanian Tomlinson and Vincent Jackson) or been injured (Antonio Gates), Rivers has been somewhat exposed as the caretaker of a great offense instead of the reason for it.

On top of that, Norv Turner has one again showed that he doesn’t belong as a head coach in the NFL. He took over a team that was at the crest of the wave and had just gone 14-2. They have since fallen very far very fast and the future is bleak for the Chargers.

30 – Philadelphia Eagles
29-19, 4.63
4-12, -10.25

The Eagles immediate future will most likely be tied to who their head coach is next year. Coaching changes always lead to a certain amount of turmoil and except for one notable example (Jim Harbaugh with the 49ers) they lead to a regression in on-field performance as the players have to learn a new system.

Nick Foles has played well but given that he’s a rookie, there’s no way to know how he’ll turn out. The Michael Vick era is clearly at an end in Philadelphia. The Eagles have an overabundance of dangerous skill position players between DeSean Jackson, LeSean McCoy, and Jeremy Maclin but the problem they’ve had the last few years is who gets the ball to all of them?

Given the progress made by the Redskins, the overall talent in Dallas, and Eli Manning, it appears that the Eagles are several years away from serious contention.

Originally, I had the Eagles significantly higher than this but then the news has come out that Andy Reid will be fired after the season. It’s far from confirmed but with a very good accomplished head coach, this team drastically underachieved the past two years. It will take a very special personality to be able to come in and get good results out of this team and if I had to bet on it, I’d say it won’t happen.

31 – Kansas City Chiefs
21-27, -4.50
2-14, -13.38

Romeo Crennel is a good defensive coach but has had little to no success as a head coach. Given that he’s only coached the Browns and the Chiefs, this isn’t all that surprising.

Jamaal Charles has had a great season coming back from injury but that’s about the only bright spot for the Chiefs this year. It’s gotten so bad that the home fans infamously booed Matt Cassell when he got hurt (in one of the more classless moves in the NFL this year).

This year has been a trainwreck for the Chiefs and it starts with the front office. Big changes are needed which means the Chiefs won’t be very competitive for several years to come.

32 – Jacksonville Jaguars
20-28, -5.04
2-14, -11.81

What does it tell you when the Jaguars are doing so poorly to fill the seats in their stadium that they’re considering bringing in Tim Tebow? When you put selling tickets ahead of winning on the field, it says all you need to say about the state of the franchise.

The Rime of the Ancient Sports Leagues

Money money everywhere and all the leagues did shrink
Money money everywhere and not a drop to drink

Ah, few things take me back quite like the poem based on Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “Rime of the Ancient Mariner”… anyway, enough nostalgia. At some point, the NFL Players Association and the NFL owners will sign a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. It might be sooner and it might be later (my better half is hoping for later… she tolerates me watching American Football of any kind). Between “The Decision” of LeBron James and “The Manipulation” of Carmelo Anthony, the hard line taken by the NFL owners, and the sounding of Hank Steinbrenner, I think that there is a larger issue that is troubling all of the major professional leagues in North America. In the interest of full disclosure, I did feel the need to say North America instead of the United States because of the 8 teams (out of 122) that reside north of the border.

So what is the larger issue? That millionaires and billionaires can’t agree over who gets the money? I hate to be so blunt about it but if you are under the impression that this problem is a new one to the economic model of this country, you’ve obviously been living under a rock for the past few decades. What is the solution? Nationalize the whole industry? While that might be the answer for some problems, it is not the answer for this one (although it would probably help reduce the deficit significantly).

What I’d like to do is examine each sport and see where they stand with regards to the specific issues which are plaguing them publicly. I don’t delve into the inner workings of professional sporting leagues and it’s entirely possible that the biggest problem facing each league isn’t the one I mention. However, these are the issues that are getting the most play in the press and it’s there that I will focus this post.

Before we get into it, I have to apologize to all of you hockey fans out there. I don’t understand hockey and the only time in my life that I’ve ever watched a hockey game from start to finish was the 2010 gold medal game. Having said that, I don’t know what is plaguing the league other than the fact that it’s getting closer and closer to being replaced as a member of the “Big 4” club by NASCAR. I don’t follow hockey and I still say that would be a sad day.


NBA

Last summer we were bombarded by “The Decision”. Starting last year and going almost all the way up to the trade deadline this year we were treated to “The Manipulation”. The big picture issue is whether or not superstars should team up and form these trios in an attempt to win with three stars and ten role players. Many say that it started with Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett being traded to the Celtics to team up with Paul Pierce and has continued today with the Miami Heat and the New York Knicks (and you could probably throw the Lakers in there… especially if the rumors are true and Dwight Howard ends up there soon). The question is, is this good for the league?

I’ve heard and read about many former players that are condemning these actions, saying that they would rather beat the best than play with the best and I completely understand this mentality. However, how many titles did LeBron James win in Cleveland as the lone superstar? How about Dwayne Wade in Miami? How about Kobe Bryant in LA?

In this day and age, the titles follow the superstars and while that last example may not quite hold water (Kobe) that would depend entirely on your definition of superstar. While I personally would not put Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom into that category, I also don’t think they’re that far off.

Going back further, how many titles did David Robinson win as the dominant inside force he was before Tim Duncan came along? How many did Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett combine for before they teamed up?

As I’m sure you can guess the answer to all those questions is zero. One player can’t take a team all the way in the NBA today and I would argue that the same has been true throughout the history of the NBA. In 1997, a panel consisting of members of the media, former players and coaches, and former and current front office members selected the greatest 50 players from the first fifty years of NBA history. By the logic exhibited by several former players, you would never want to team up with those guys; you would want to beat those guys. Of those 50, only 4 never played with another member of the exclusive club.

George Mikan
Bob Petit
Isaiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing

Another noteworthy factoid from that list; only once has a team has had five players that ended up being named one of the NBA’s 50 greatest players ever playing on the same team. They were:

1973-74 New York Knicks
Willis Reed
Walt Frazier
Dave DeBusschere
Jerry Lucas
Earl Monroe

Considering that Mikan and Petit played in an era where there were so few good players, much less stars, I think we can safely exclude their combined 6 championships from this discussion. Thomas and Ewing combined to play 30 seasons in the NBA and won two titles (both by Thomas). At that time the Lakers and Celtics dynasties of the ‘80’s were winding down and the Bulls weren’t quite ready for the spotlight yet, leaving a perfect void for a very good and tough team led by one great player.

I fully understand that very few of the players on that list manipulated their way from one team to another or staged an hour long primetime special to say nine words but the fact remains that championship teams have always formed around the combination of great players with role players filling in the gaps.

So what is the harm with great young players wanting to team up in an attempt to win a championship? If they don’t care about winning and only want to set records and make money, they can easily go to a team like Cleveland or the Clippers, make $20 million a season and get the lion’s share of the ball. Instead, you have three young superstars in James, Wade, and Bosh who are all willing to take a slightly diminished role in order to play with one another. That, in this day and age of prima donnas, isn’t such a bad trait.

The problem I have is not that they wanted to team up, it’s how they did it; through the media. Carmelo Anthony very publicly wanted out and that drastically reduced Denver’s leverage in the trade negotiations as teams knew they were desperate to get something back for him. On the other hand, LeBron James wrangled a three ring circus and then left the Cavaliers with nothing.

Now you have the formation of an aristocratic class of teams in the NBA, the Heat, Celtics, Knicks, Lakers, and Spurs with the Bulls and Mavericks close behind, while the rest of the league is left high and dry.

Is there a solution? Yes.
Will the owners like it? No.
Why? The almighty dollar.


THE NFL

Whenever it comes to labor renegotiations in professional sports, you have to maintain some semblance of perspective. According to figures researched by Plunkett Research, LTD (a firm that looks into industry trends, statistics, and analysis of top companies) the NFL produced $7.8 billion in total revenue last year. The numbers vary slightly from year to year but the exact numbers aren’t really necessary; ballpark figures will suffice. Under the current collective bargaining agreement (hereafter abbreviated CBA) the owners take $1 billion off the top of that number to distribute amongst themselves. After that, it goes into a pool that is shared by the owners and players. Under the current agreement (if my memory serves me this today) the players cut of that is 60%. If we assume that revenue figure is accurate, that comes out to $4.08 billion that goes to the players, both past and present.

However, the owners are shrewd businessmen and like more zeroes in their bank accounts. They want to take another billion off the top before the revenue sharing kicks in. With these figures, the owners’ share of the pie would go from $3.72 billion to $4.32 billion. If we were to simply spread the remainder of the pie amongst the roughly 1,600 NFL players and we were to ignore things like pension plans, then the average salary in the NFL would drop 14.7% from $2.55 million to $2.18 million.

Again, we have a situation where millionaires are arguing with billionaires over a very large, lucrative pie. I’ll admit that there are certain issues that the owners have (such as a rookie salary wage) that make a lot of sense. However, trimming another 13% of their leagues revenues out for themselves is nothing short of ridiculous. The problem is it’s entirely possible that they’ll get it.


MLB

Is the league’s business model straying towards socialism? Perhaps, a little but I don’t have any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is teams like the Yankees and Red Sox paying vast amounts of money that eventually ends up in the hands of teams that simply deposit it in their bank accounts. The entire point of the revenue sharing agreement was for teams who didn’t play in a market that could justify a $100 million payroll (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa Bay) to have a $100 million payroll and compete directly with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox.

First of all, I’m not suggesting that every team should be spending $100 million on its 25 man roster. However, it’s difficult to call the Yankees and Red Sox the problem when the Pirates have spent less money in the last five years (while posting a 321-488 record) than the Yankees did to go 95-67 this past year.

What is the solution? A salary cap? The problem with a cap of any kind is the players don’t want anything to do with it and the player’s union is the strongest of any of the Big 4 sports (in my opinion). What’s another solution?

What are the solutions to these problems?


ARE THERE SOLUTIONS?

All of them center on the almighty dollar. Everyone wants more money and they want to sacrifice less and less to the guys on the other side of the bargaining table. On top of that, none of the parties that are actually doing the bargaining (the player’s rep and the commissioner) want to appear weak by giving too much or else they’ll be out of a job very quickly and you must remember that these are not minimum wage jobs.

All of these problems are easy to solve one of two ways (though really it just ends up as one big problem) as long as you don’t include the players in the decision making process… or the owners for that matter.

In the NBA, eliminate the salary structure that is now in place. How much help will that provide with regards to keeping players in smaller markets? Quite a bit. The difference right now between a max contract in Miami and a max contract in Cleveland is one additional year. The Average Annual Salary (AAS from now on) remains roughly the same. Now imagine that the Cavaliers were able to offer a contract worth an additional $10 million per season… or $20 million. Would that be enough to offset the desire to go to more tourist friendly cities? Absolutely, but here comes the problem… payrolls explode and now, the Cavaliers can’t afford that kind of payroll and neither can the Clippers or the Kings or the Nets. Finally, after much consternation and realizing that all the great players end up in big markets anyway, the NBA eliminates four teams.

In the NFL, the player’s union records some landmark deals in order to secure more of the revenue pie for active players but also much more for retired players and the NFL owners are exposed as the 19th century businessmen that many of them are, putting profits ahead of the well-being of the workers. Salaries continue to escalate to the point that some teams can keep the high priced players and some can’t. In a stunning move by what has been for years the most popular sport in America, Commissioner Roger Goodell announces that he will be contracting four teams.

In Major League Baseball, Hank Steinbrenner wins his argument and in an amazing turn of events, the owners are no longer forced to pay a luxury tax on their high payrolls or share revenues with the less fortunate teams. After a Cinderella run to the ALCS, the Kansas City Royals (who have a nice trim $15 million payroll) lose to the monstrosity that is the Yankees (with their $400 million payroll) and the Yankees go on to win yet another World Series. Admitting that eliminating the luxury tax was a terrible idea, the commissioner of baseball decides to contract four teams in an attempt to level the playing field.

There is one other solution other than contraction and that would be moving the teams to markets that will actually support a professional franchise. However, in this day and age of being able to choose any one of dozens of leisure activities, how many franchises can these major markets support? New York currently has seven teams and they all seem to prosper. Los Angeles has five with a glaring lack of an NFL team and again, they all seem to be well supported. Can other cities support that many teams?

Like I said, the solutions are all tied together but the roots of them all lead back to the same place.

The almighty dollar.

Salary Structure in Major League Baseball

In light of the fact that we might be within a year of having the upper end of the salary scale in Major League Baseball redefined, I wanted to throw out two statements. The point of these statements is to get you in the right frame of mind for the numbers that I’m going to be throwing at you.

The salary structure in Major League Baseball is absurdly out of hand.

A salary cap would go a long ways to helping fix MLB’s salary problem.

THE NUMBERS

In 2001, Major League Baseball teams spent $1.66 billion on payroll and in 2009 the teams spent $2.23 billion, an increase of 34.2%. Considering that this represents an increase in average team payroll from $55.4 million up to $74.4 million, it doesn’t really sound like an extraordinary increase. However, when its compared with the Consumer Price Index, one of the most commonly used tools to measure inflation, that rate of payroll increase is well over the increase in the CPI (20.6%).

Does this mean that MLB salaries are getting too high? Not necessarily. Over the same time period, NFL payrolls have increased by 55.7% while NBA payrolls have gone up 69.8%. The difference between Major League Baseball and those other two leagues is that they have a salary cap while baseball does not. So why then are their payrolls numbers rising faster than the league that has no salary cap?

Is it because revenue streams are better in the NFL and the NBA? Not really. Major League Baseball has had record setting revenues the past few years. Is it because of labor uncertainty that has caused baseball owners to be more reluctant to hand out dollars to players? Nope. In fact, Major League Baseball is the only of these three leagues that is not heading into uncertain waters with regards to labor negotiations between the players and the owners. It is entirely possible that the dramatic rise in payrolls figures in the NBA and NFL are contributing to their current labor situations.

Basically what all of that says is that if the Major League Baseball salaries are rising at alarming rates, then salaries in the NFL and NBA are rising at an even more alarming rate. So then the question becomes whether or not there is any truth to the first statement above and most of that answer depends on what your definition of “absurdly out of hand” is.

In that case, why have salaries been in the news so much in the past few years? Well, a lot of it has to do with the Yankees and other than that, it mostly has to do with the high profile signings of the past few years. Joe Mauer, Ryan Howard, Matt Holliday, Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, and Troy Tulowitzki are just a few of the players who have signed contracts or contract extensions worth an amount in excess of $100 million. On top of that, three high profile players are going to sign very large contracts within the next year; Adrian Gonzalez, Prince Fielder, and the man who will be resetting the curve when it comes to large contracts, Albert Pujols.

Maybe this is the question we should be asking. Overall payrolls in Major League Baseball have been climbing at a much steadier rate through the past ten years than those of the NBA or the NFL. However, the higher end of MLB contracts has skyrocketed to the point where the highest paid player now makes roughly ten times the league average. Is the payroll situation in baseball getting its reputation because of the aristocratic class of players that are getting paid much more than the league average?


FORMATION OF AN ARISTOCRACY?

In 1997, Albert Belle became the first player to earn $10 million in a single season and he earned exactly that amount. In 2010, 79 different players were paid at least $10 million and Alex Rodriguez was paid more than triple that amount ($33 million). Over that time period, the overall salary figure in MLB has jumped from $969 million to $2.61 billion, an increase of 169.5%.

That’s great and all but the active roster of a Major League Baseball team is 25 players and if we assume that as many as 8 or 9 players get included into the payroll numbers, that still gives us a pool of roughly 1,000 players. If only 8% of players are earning that amount of money, can it really skew the payroll numbers that much? The answer is absolutely.

If we assume that there is a pool of 1,000 players that go into baseball-reference.com’s payroll numbers that means that 999 players earned less than $10 million in 1997 and that number shrunk to 921 by last year. In the past 14 years, the amount of money paid to those players has gone up from $959 million up to $1.46 billion. This represents an increase of just 52.7%, far below the overall increase.

Here’s the amazing part. Last year, the 79 players who earned over $10 million were paid a grand total of $1.15 billion, or 43.9% of the total money paid out in salaries. In 1997, that was just 1.03%.

An aristocracy is a system of government where the power is consolidated amongst a few of the citizens. If the question is whether or not a sort of aristocratic class has developed in Major League Baseball, the answer is an emphatic yes. If there is a problem with the salary structure in baseball, it lies in the fact that the top 8% of wage earners are earning 44% of the money being paid to players.

Is a salary cap a solution to this “problem”? The problem with imposing a salary cap on Major League Baseball is that it provides no disincentive to teams wanting to sign a player to a contract worth $20 million per season. Teams will simply start paying one player that much money and the rest of the roster will be filled with players somewhere on the lower end of the payroll spectrum. If they want to reduce the salaries of the top tier of players, they would need to institute rules in the collective bargaining agreement limiting the maximum size of a contract a player can sign, much like the NBA. Being the highest paid player in the NBA isn’t that big of a deal anymore because the amount of money the top tier of players are getting paid is all the result of an equation based on how long they’ve been in the league.


CONCLUSION

Does the salary structure in baseball need fixing? In my opinion, it does not. Teams that have enormous revenue streams from ticket sales, merchandise sales, advertising, and broadcasting contracts can spend whatever they want on a team. However, if they spend too much too often, they have to pay the luxury tax which goes to teams that do not have the type of revenue streams that the Yankees and Red Sox have.

This system works for baseball and would not work as well for the NBA or the NFL. In the NBA if you have the best player at every position, you’re probably going to win 75 games and win the NBA title. If you have the best player at every position in the NFL, you’ll win 14-15 games every year and play in the Super Bowl more years than not. If you have the best player at every position in baseball, it will give you an excellent shot at the playoffs every year but not necessarily the World Series. From 1996-2001, it can be argued that the Yankees didn’t have one player on their roster that could be considered the best at his position and they won four World Series title in those six years and played in another. Baseball is all about having good players at every position with as few holes as possible. In other words, no matter how much money you spend on putting together the best roster in the history of baseball, it still doesn’t guarantee you a World Series title.

For all of you out there who think the system is broken and a salary cap is necessary, don’t forget that in the last ten years, only one team with the highest payroll in baseball has won the World Series (the 2009 Yankees).

The system isn’t broken, it just might need a tweak or two…