With the college football season nearing the end of October, talk of a playoff system is heating up again. Having 7 teams undefeated and a handful of very strong one-loss teams makes the noise a bit louder than in typical years. As well, it's almost a certainty that Boise State and either TCU or Utah, who play each other, will wind up undefeated. And so there's a chance we'll have three or four undefeated teams prior to bowls. And thus a "deserving" team would be left out of the Championship if that happens.
The problem with a playoff system, and why I don't like any of the ideas I've heard, is what we're seeing in baseball this year. The playoffs have been competitive and entertaining for sure. And having the Rangers and the Giants in the World Series is a compelling story and a nice change from Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies. However each league is represented by the weakest of its four playoff teams. We played 162 games to determine that the Yankees, Rays, Phillies, and Braves were the best team and then played 10-12 games to decide to send someone else to the World Series.
I'm not suggesting we go back to two divisions and only four team in the playoffs. However I think college football "fans" are oblivious to what would happen in a playoff system. I think there will be a lot of noise about TCU/Utah being left out of the National Championship, but would having Alabama play Missouri or Michigan State for the Championship make anyone feel better about the title?
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24
Sunday, October 17
Bears: Bad News, Good News, Bad News
The bad news is that the Bears lost at home to an inferior team that's been particularly bad on the road. And the offense didn't look good at all. Honestly the offensive line is going to have to step up and give Cutler some time. If they can't run and can't pass, they can't win long term. Hopefully Garza and Briggs are back soon because they team doesn't have enough depth to play hurt. And 0-12 on 3rd down conversions should clue them in whatever they're doing isn't working.
The good news is that after 6 weeks, the number of NFC team with a better record than the Bears is 0. There are 4 other teams at 4-2. And the Bears are one of only 8 teams fighting for 5 playoff spots. This assumes that only the NFC West champion will make the playoffs (likely but not a guarantee), the Cowboys at 1-4 are done (hard to see them going 8-3 and 9-7 probably isn't a playoff team anyway), and the Bucs 3-2 is simply an artifact of an easy first two games. And the 8 includes Washington and Minnesota, neither of whom are necessarily good.
Unfortunately there's a bad, bad side. The Bears next three weeks are Washington at home, bye, and at Buffalo. They should be 6-2 after that but the Redskins have shown some flashes; we can re-assess in another two hours. However the second half of the season is a nightmare. Except for one game at Detroit, they play potential playoff team every week. By the time they play the Vikings in week 15, Minnesota's goose may have been cooked but that still looks to be team you won't walk over. The good news is the Jets, Patriots, and Eagles all come to Soldier Field which means they're likely to win one of those. Still 3-5 or even 2-6 isn't out of the question.
You play the games one at a time, but basically the Bears have to beat Washington and Buffalo then home they can manage to go 4-4 the rest of the way and finish at 10-6, which almost certainly gets them in the playoffs. Or it's going to be a disappointing season that started 4-1 and didn't finish with a playoff berth, which would sadly mean the end for Lovie Smith.
The good news is that after 6 weeks, the number of NFC team with a better record than the Bears is 0. There are 4 other teams at 4-2. And the Bears are one of only 8 teams fighting for 5 playoff spots. This assumes that only the NFC West champion will make the playoffs (likely but not a guarantee), the Cowboys at 1-4 are done (hard to see them going 8-3 and 9-7 probably isn't a playoff team anyway), and the Bucs 3-2 is simply an artifact of an easy first two games. And the 8 includes Washington and Minnesota, neither of whom are necessarily good.
Unfortunately there's a bad, bad side. The Bears next three weeks are Washington at home, bye, and at Buffalo. They should be 6-2 after that but the Redskins have shown some flashes; we can re-assess in another two hours. However the second half of the season is a nightmare. Except for one game at Detroit, they play potential playoff team every week. By the time they play the Vikings in week 15, Minnesota's goose may have been cooked but that still looks to be team you won't walk over. The good news is the Jets, Patriots, and Eagles all come to Soldier Field which means they're likely to win one of those. Still 3-5 or even 2-6 isn't out of the question.
You play the games one at a time, but basically the Bears have to beat Washington and Buffalo then home they can manage to go 4-4 the rest of the way and finish at 10-6, which almost certainly gets them in the playoffs. Or it's going to be a disappointing season that started 4-1 and didn't finish with a playoff berth, which would sadly mean the end for Lovie Smith.
Sunday, December 20
Seahawks and Mora
I'm a firm believer that you need to give a coach a chance to build a team. But at some point there has to be a level of play where you conclude you have a PURE (previously undiscovered recruiting error) as a coach and should let him go.
Before the season, the Seahawks were talking playoffs. Obviously the absence of Walter Jones has hurt them. But this team has been terrible. They're 5-9 and just lost to a Tampa Bay team that hadn't scored a touchdown since November and might be the worst team in the league. Three of their five wins are against St Louis and Detroit. You could argue that the game against Jacksonville is the only time they've played well all year. Somehow when the team seems to underachieve every week and gets worse as the season goes on, you have to blame coaching.
I'd fire Mora. It's not all his fault, but it's hard to believe a good coach could get such a terrible effort out of this team.
Before the season, the Seahawks were talking playoffs. Obviously the absence of Walter Jones has hurt them. But this team has been terrible. They're 5-9 and just lost to a Tampa Bay team that hadn't scored a touchdown since November and might be the worst team in the league. Three of their five wins are against St Louis and Detroit. You could argue that the game against Jacksonville is the only time they've played well all year. Somehow when the team seems to underachieve every week and gets worse as the season goes on, you have to blame coaching.
I'd fire Mora. It's not all his fault, but it's hard to believe a good coach could get such a terrible effort out of this team.
Friday, November 27
NFL Update
After 10+ weeks, the NFL looks exactly like I called it after 3 weeks. While it's nice to be right, it's also disappointing the the league is so predictable. The eight teams I called out as terrible are a combined 18-64 (22%) but 10 of those wins are against each other. Against the "non-terrible" teams they're 8-54 (13%), which means it's almost a guaranteed win if you play one of them. The Lions have two wins not because they're improved but because other teams have fallen to their level. As noted, 2-2 was a schedule fluke for the Redskins whose 3-7 is a better representation of the team's skill level. The Panthers, who were the top of the terrible group, appear to have upgraded to "bad".
The top is a bit trickier. I gave the Ravens too much credit for wins against bad teams and they're 2-5 since. That said all five loses are to division leaders and they were close in every game. The schedule looks more favorable the rest of the way.
The Titans shaped up from their start and people are actually talking playoffs. I think they have too many teams to catch, but 8-8 would be a great accomplishment after starting 0-6. Sadly it might help Jeff Fisher keep his job.
Beyond the Colts, I still think there's a lot of smoke and mirrors with the top teams. The Saints and Vikings have played the two easiest schedules in the league this year. (Followed by the Packers and Redskins, see I told you Washington was awful.) But no one in the NFC looks that good, so I'd expect the Vikings and Saints to win in the playoffs, but bet against them and take the points.
The top is a bit trickier. I gave the Ravens too much credit for wins against bad teams and they're 2-5 since. That said all five loses are to division leaders and they were close in every game. The schedule looks more favorable the rest of the way.
The Titans shaped up from their start and people are actually talking playoffs. I think they have too many teams to catch, but 8-8 would be a great accomplishment after starting 0-6. Sadly it might help Jeff Fisher keep his job.
Beyond the Colts, I still think there's a lot of smoke and mirrors with the top teams. The Saints and Vikings have played the two easiest schedules in the league this year. (Followed by the Packers and Redskins, see I told you Washington was awful.) But no one in the NFC looks that good, so I'd expect the Vikings and Saints to win in the playoffs, but bet against them and take the points.
Saturday, October 10
College Football, SEC Dominates
Because of the baseball playoffs, my car radio is usually on ESPN Radio in the evenings, so in the mornings I've been listening to much more sports talk than normal.
There's a lot of talk about SEC dominance in football. Florida and Alabama are #1 and #2. And they've mentioned that the SEC has won the last three national championships. I was looking at it and was surprised the SEC run is actually deeper than that. LSU won after the 2003 season, Florida after 2006 and last year and LSU again in 2007. That's 4 of 6 and in 2004, Auburn finished 12-0 but was shut out of the title game by two other 12-0 teams. And Georgia and LSU have had top 3 finishes in years the SEC won the title.
So the interesting question is could you have two SEC team play for the National Championship. The consensus was "no" and I agree the pollsters wouldn't let it happen. But it's pretty stupid -- if Alabama and Florida are the clear best teams in the country, go undefeated and settle the SEC Championship in double overtime, and LSU is the third best team (losing only to Florida and Alabama) do you really want Cincinnati, Boise State, or USC in the the title game?
There's a lot of talk about SEC dominance in football. Florida and Alabama are #1 and #2. And they've mentioned that the SEC has won the last three national championships. I was looking at it and was surprised the SEC run is actually deeper than that. LSU won after the 2003 season, Florida after 2006 and last year and LSU again in 2007. That's 4 of 6 and in 2004, Auburn finished 12-0 but was shut out of the title game by two other 12-0 teams. And Georgia and LSU have had top 3 finishes in years the SEC won the title.
So the interesting question is could you have two SEC team play for the National Championship. The consensus was "no" and I agree the pollsters wouldn't let it happen. But it's pretty stupid -- if Alabama and Florida are the clear best teams in the country, go undefeated and settle the SEC Championship in double overtime, and LSU is the third best team (losing only to Florida and Alabama) do you really want Cincinnati, Boise State, or USC in the the title game?
Wednesday, October 7
NFL So Far
I figure it takes three weeks to really have any idea about the football season. Any given game can be an outlier and with two games it's hard to know which is real and which is the outlier. After four weeks, we have a really good idea.
The Browns, Chiefs, Raiders, Redskins, Lions, Buccaneers, Rams, and Panthers are terrible. Despite being 2-2, Washington has beaten Rams and Buccaneers, by five points total, and lost to the Lions. Incredibly they get the Panthers and Chiefs next and might make it to 3-3 or 4-2; but then they'll finish 2-8 or 1-9. If Matt Hasselback doesn't return soon, the Seahawks join that group. That's a quarter of the league that's horrible.
Giants, Ravens, Patriots, Colts, and Saints appear to be the elite teams. Despite being 4-0, I'm not convinced the Broncos and Vikings are better than average the rest of the way; of course 6-6 will get them to 10-6 and likely playoffs. Next batch of teams -- Bears, Bengals (maybe), Eagles, Falcons (maybe), and 49ers (maybe).
The rest of the league looks mediocre. Despite being 0-4, the Titans should be decent. Of course, you can't overcome an 0-4 start and make the playoffs.
Check back in 12 weeks.
The Browns, Chiefs, Raiders, Redskins, Lions, Buccaneers, Rams, and Panthers are terrible. Despite being 2-2, Washington has beaten Rams and Buccaneers, by five points total, and lost to the Lions. Incredibly they get the Panthers and Chiefs next and might make it to 3-3 or 4-2; but then they'll finish 2-8 or 1-9. If Matt Hasselback doesn't return soon, the Seahawks join that group. That's a quarter of the league that's horrible.
Giants, Ravens, Patriots, Colts, and Saints appear to be the elite teams. Despite being 4-0, I'm not convinced the Broncos and Vikings are better than average the rest of the way; of course 6-6 will get them to 10-6 and likely playoffs. Next batch of teams -- Bears, Bengals (maybe), Eagles, Falcons (maybe), and 49ers (maybe).
The rest of the league looks mediocre. Despite being 0-4, the Titans should be decent. Of course, you can't overcome an 0-4 start and make the playoffs.
Check back in 12 weeks.
Sunday, September 13
Maybe they need an exhibition season
The first half of the Rams-Seahawks game is the worst exhibition of pro football I've seen in a long time.
The Rams fumbled the opening kickoff and the Seahawks started the season on the Rams 19 yard line. Incomplete, incomplete, interception in the end zone. The Seahawks also turned the ball over on the first play of their third possession. Oh but it gets worse, check out the Rams next possession.
Incomplete pass, offensive holding, defensive offside, timeout Rams, incomplete pass, timeout Rams, bad snap followed by Bulger throwing the ball in the ground to avoid a sack (marginally legal), punt downed at the 4 and the Seahawks waste a challenge. One set of downs, six bad plays and that doesn't count the three incompletions.
Oh, it keeps going. The Rams have third and one on the Seahawks nine -- false start, delay of game, missed field goal.
With the half winding down the Seahawks attempt a 49-yard field goal which the Rams block and run back for a touchdown. Then the replay official notices the Rams had 12 men on the field.
One half: four turnovers, 11 penalties (nine by the Rams), two botched field goals, an a bad challenge.
Maybe if they had an exhibition season like baseball where the starters got to play under game conditions, it would look like pro football out there.
The Rams fumbled the opening kickoff and the Seahawks started the season on the Rams 19 yard line. Incomplete, incomplete, interception in the end zone. The Seahawks also turned the ball over on the first play of their third possession. Oh but it gets worse, check out the Rams next possession.
Incomplete pass, offensive holding, defensive offside, timeout Rams, incomplete pass, timeout Rams, bad snap followed by Bulger throwing the ball in the ground to avoid a sack (marginally legal), punt downed at the 4 and the Seahawks waste a challenge. One set of downs, six bad plays and that doesn't count the three incompletions.
Oh, it keeps going. The Rams have third and one on the Seahawks nine -- false start, delay of game, missed field goal.
With the half winding down the Seahawks attempt a 49-yard field goal which the Rams block and run back for a touchdown. Then the replay official notices the Rams had 12 men on the field.
One half: four turnovers, 11 penalties (nine by the Rams), two botched field goals, an a bad challenge.
Maybe if they had an exhibition season like baseball where the starters got to play under game conditions, it would look like pro football out there.
Monday, January 19
Super Bore
Is anyone excited about this game, outside of Cardinals and Steelers fans of course.
The Cardinals either got hot at the right time or simply survived among 6 not-so-good NFC teams, one of which had to go to the Super Bowl. In the regular season they were 9-7 and outscored their opponents by 1 point. They made the playoffs by winning their division by default. In the last five weeks of the regular season they were routed by New England, Minnesota, and Philadelphia. And in the NFC finals they got by a Philadelphia team who got every break the last two weeks to sneak into the playoffs.
The Steelers are pretty good and arguably the best team in the NFL. But they're boring.
With neither city being among the dozen largest markets, and I assume Phoenix being relatively low on % of football fans due to transplants, snow birds, and relatively short and horrid tenure of the Cardinals in the city, this is almost guaranteed to be the lowest rated Super Bowl in 20+ years. I guess it could have been worse -- the Titans could be playing the Panthers.
The Cardinals either got hot at the right time or simply survived among 6 not-so-good NFC teams, one of which had to go to the Super Bowl. In the regular season they were 9-7 and outscored their opponents by 1 point. They made the playoffs by winning their division by default. In the last five weeks of the regular season they were routed by New England, Minnesota, and Philadelphia. And in the NFC finals they got by a Philadelphia team who got every break the last two weeks to sneak into the playoffs.
The Steelers are pretty good and arguably the best team in the NFL. But they're boring.
With neither city being among the dozen largest markets, and I assume Phoenix being relatively low on % of football fans due to transplants, snow birds, and relatively short and horrid tenure of the Cardinals in the city, this is almost guaranteed to be the lowest rated Super Bowl in 20+ years. I guess it could have been worse -- the Titans could be playing the Panthers.
Thursday, January 1
College Bowl Games
Today is January 1st. For the first time in what might be my lifetime, I didn't watch a single minute of college football. I actually watched hockey (the Winter Classic) and baseball (part of Don Larsen's perfect game on the new MLB Network) instead of New Year's Day Bowls.
Which gets to a post I've been kicking around for a few weeks but never typed out about college bowls.
Point 1: I've been really undecided what to think about Vanderbilt being in a bowl. On one hand it's nice that Vanderbilt no longer appears near the top of "longest bowl drought" lists. And a six-win season is the best Vanderbilt has had in a long time so this qualifies as a great year by Vanderbilt standards. On the other hand, it's not like Vanderbilt is actually any good. After starting 5-1, they finished the regular season 6-6 which isn't exactly something to be proud of. Their offense is horrible, their defense is OK. They basically win by not making mistakes and getting some breaks. They may not even be in the top 50 this year heading into bowl season. I'd like being excited that a C and D student got one B on her report card.
Having played the game, it was a lot of fun to watch them on National TV and pull off a big upset. While the line was only 3-4 points, Boston College was a top 25 team and I think 90% of ESPN viewers picked them to win. A guy I know was in a contest where he ranked the bowl games by likelihood of winners and made BC his #1 pick.
Point 2: On the BCS, I had a long talk with Glenn about the selection process and options and we came to a couple of interesting conclusions. There's no good way to decide a three-way tie for a conference or division title when each team has lost to one of the others. And it's a bit disconcerting that who plays for a national championship comes down to the arbitrary selection of which tie breaker rules the conference happens to have in place. I can't argue against the approach utilized by other conferences to "eliminate" the #3 team then look at head-to-head and that approach would likely have put Texas in the championship game. Not sure how the conference strength of victory would have determined a winner. What's really tough is a lot of the computer polls have Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech 1-2-3 so it's very close. I suspect some weird things can happen in the Pac Ten with USC being the dominant team but coming very close to NOT winning the conference title.
What Glenn and I found very interesting is that even though this is a year where there's a good argument that the best team in the nation isn't playing for the National Championship (Texas), the BCS does a better job of ensuring that the best team IS in the championship than a playoff. Let's declare best team to mean if the top 21 teams each played each other 50 times, the team with the best record is the best team. This year is pretty extreme, but even so there's only a 35% chance the best team isn't in the game. It's hard to argue Texas being so much better than Oklahoma and Florida that it wins more than 1/3 of the time. In general, I'd say the best team is left out of the BCS Championship 20% of the time. But if you switch to a 16-team playoff or even an 8-team playoff, the best team missed out of the championship game much, much more often.
Let's be optimistic and say the #1 team has a 100% chance of beating the #16 team, and then a 90% chance of beating the #8/9 team and a 70% chance of winning in the national semifinal against the #4 or 5 team. That would give the team a 37% chance of NOT making the championship. And really it's greater than that since those win % are inflated. Rank your top 8 teams and see if you think the top team would really beat #8 9 times in 10 or #4 70% of the time.
This is the dark side of the beauty of March Madness. While it's good entertainment to see upsets and close games and 64 teams in, it's also almost a crapshoot once you get to the final 16. I believe last year was the first time ever that all 4 #1 seed made it to the Final Four. Quite simply, the more teams you involve, the LESS likely it is that you crown the best team as champion assuming the selection process isn't arbitrary.
Net net, so while I firmly believe Texas got screwed even though I think Oklahoma is better, I much prefer the current system to a 16-team playoff. I would like a 6-team playoff, though it will never happen.
Which gets to a post I've been kicking around for a few weeks but never typed out about college bowls.
Point 1: I've been really undecided what to think about Vanderbilt being in a bowl. On one hand it's nice that Vanderbilt no longer appears near the top of "longest bowl drought" lists. And a six-win season is the best Vanderbilt has had in a long time so this qualifies as a great year by Vanderbilt standards. On the other hand, it's not like Vanderbilt is actually any good. After starting 5-1, they finished the regular season 6-6 which isn't exactly something to be proud of. Their offense is horrible, their defense is OK. They basically win by not making mistakes and getting some breaks. They may not even be in the top 50 this year heading into bowl season. I'd like being excited that a C and D student got one B on her report card.
Having played the game, it was a lot of fun to watch them on National TV and pull off a big upset. While the line was only 3-4 points, Boston College was a top 25 team and I think 90% of ESPN viewers picked them to win. A guy I know was in a contest where he ranked the bowl games by likelihood of winners and made BC his #1 pick.
Point 2: On the BCS, I had a long talk with Glenn about the selection process and options and we came to a couple of interesting conclusions. There's no good way to decide a three-way tie for a conference or division title when each team has lost to one of the others. And it's a bit disconcerting that who plays for a national championship comes down to the arbitrary selection of which tie breaker rules the conference happens to have in place. I can't argue against the approach utilized by other conferences to "eliminate" the #3 team then look at head-to-head and that approach would likely have put Texas in the championship game. Not sure how the conference strength of victory would have determined a winner. What's really tough is a lot of the computer polls have Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech 1-2-3 so it's very close. I suspect some weird things can happen in the Pac Ten with USC being the dominant team but coming very close to NOT winning the conference title.
What Glenn and I found very interesting is that even though this is a year where there's a good argument that the best team in the nation isn't playing for the National Championship (Texas), the BCS does a better job of ensuring that the best team IS in the championship than a playoff. Let's declare best team to mean if the top 21 teams each played each other 50 times, the team with the best record is the best team. This year is pretty extreme, but even so there's only a 35% chance the best team isn't in the game. It's hard to argue Texas being so much better than Oklahoma and Florida that it wins more than 1/3 of the time. In general, I'd say the best team is left out of the BCS Championship 20% of the time. But if you switch to a 16-team playoff or even an 8-team playoff, the best team missed out of the championship game much, much more often.
Let's be optimistic and say the #1 team has a 100% chance of beating the #16 team, and then a 90% chance of beating the #8/9 team and a 70% chance of winning in the national semifinal against the #4 or 5 team. That would give the team a 37% chance of NOT making the championship. And really it's greater than that since those win % are inflated. Rank your top 8 teams and see if you think the top team would really beat #8 9 times in 10 or #4 70% of the time.
This is the dark side of the beauty of March Madness. While it's good entertainment to see upsets and close games and 64 teams in, it's also almost a crapshoot once you get to the final 16. I believe last year was the first time ever that all 4 #1 seed made it to the Final Four. Quite simply, the more teams you involve, the LESS likely it is that you crown the best team as champion assuming the selection process isn't arbitrary.
Net net, so while I firmly believe Texas got screwed even though I think Oklahoma is better, I much prefer the current system to a 16-team playoff. I would like a 6-team playoff, though it will never happen.
Sunday, October 26
NFL Update
At the start of the season, I remarked that the Bears could be pretty good if they got average play at QB and RB. Well Kyle Orton has actually been quite good this year. Not at Pro Bowl level but in the top 1/3 of QBs in the league, outperforming well-known names like Manning and Favre. Likewise Matt Forte has been an average running back. While that doesn't sound like much, last year Cedric Benson was so bad that his NFL career is over.
The Bears are 4-3 but if not for a fluky and poorly played final 30 seconds against the Falcons would be 5-2. And with some luck could have been 6-1! They aren't awesome, but they look like a playoff caliber team. As well, the league is pretty even with a lot of teams within a game of 500 so anything could happen in the playoffs.
The Bears are 4-3 but if not for a fluky and poorly played final 30 seconds against the Falcons would be 5-2. And with some luck could have been 6-1! They aren't awesome, but they look like a playoff caliber team. As well, the league is pretty even with a lot of teams within a game of 500 so anything could happen in the playoffs.
Sunday, September 14
NFL and the Bears
Baseball has always been my #1 sport and still is. However unlike other professional sports, the NFL plays once a week and there's something magical about being able to sit down for one day (really 6 hours) and catch a week's worth of action. So I'm psyched about the start of the NFL season and have all the games on NFL Sunday Ticket even though my favorite team the Bears aren't supposed to be very good this year.
The consensus is that the Bears are a 6-10 or 7-9 team. However I'm actually excited about their potential. This would look a lot smarter before the first game against the Colts but I was really thinking it. 6-10 is based on an assessment that like last season they have no running game and no quarterback. However if their second-round draft pick or perhaps even Adrian Peterson can emerge as a solid running threat and Orton is mediocre instead of terrible, this team is really good in a hurry. As well, I've always felt a decent offense would improve the defense as they'd get longer breaks, spend fewer plays on the field and not have to defend a short field as often.
So far, so good.
The consensus is that the Bears are a 6-10 or 7-9 team. However I'm actually excited about their potential. This would look a lot smarter before the first game against the Colts but I was really thinking it. 6-10 is based on an assessment that like last season they have no running game and no quarterback. However if their second-round draft pick or perhaps even Adrian Peterson can emerge as a solid running threat and Orton is mediocre instead of terrible, this team is really good in a hurry. As well, I've always felt a decent offense would improve the defense as they'd get longer breaks, spend fewer plays on the field and not have to defend a short field as often.
So far, so good.
Monday, October 8
Pro Football
Truly the NFL has become the most bizarre major professional league out there. With a couple of exceptions on any given Sunday any team can win or lose.
The Bears got crushed in the fourth quarter against the Lions last week. And then Brett Favre tore them apart in the first half last night -- 19 of 22 for 243 yards and at least one incompletion was a spike. The Packers had played 4.5 solid games at this point. In the second half, Favre was 10 of 18 for only 79 yards and two interceptions and half the yardage came against the Bears prevent defense in the last series. Hard to believe it was the same two teams out there as it had been so far this season.
But it's bigger than the Bears, who moved to 2-3 with the win. The top four teams in the NFC last year were the Bears, Saints, Eagles, and Seahawks. The Seahawks are 3-2, the Eagles are 1-3, and the Saints are 0-4 and among the worst handful of teams in the NFL. In the AFC, the Chargers were 14-2 last year and have already lost three games, and the Jets went from the playoffs to 1-4. If the season ended today, the Raiders, Redskins, and Titans would be in the playoffs. Of course, there are still 12 weeks to go, so we'll see how it sorts out.
The Bears got crushed in the fourth quarter against the Lions last week. And then Brett Favre tore them apart in the first half last night -- 19 of 22 for 243 yards and at least one incompletion was a spike. The Packers had played 4.5 solid games at this point. In the second half, Favre was 10 of 18 for only 79 yards and two interceptions and half the yardage came against the Bears prevent defense in the last series. Hard to believe it was the same two teams out there as it had been so far this season.
But it's bigger than the Bears, who moved to 2-3 with the win. The top four teams in the NFC last year were the Bears, Saints, Eagles, and Seahawks. The Seahawks are 3-2, the Eagles are 1-3, and the Saints are 0-4 and among the worst handful of teams in the NFL. In the AFC, the Chargers were 14-2 last year and have already lost three games, and the Jets went from the playoffs to 1-4. If the season ended today, the Raiders, Redskins, and Titans would be in the playoffs. Of course, there are still 12 weeks to go, so we'll see how it sorts out.
Saturday, February 3
Super Bowl Prediction
I think ESPN summed it up best -- "Super Bowl picks are like opinions, everyone has one". And opinions are like... well, never mind. And prior to the Saints-Bears game I wrote a lot about the fallacy on trying to pick an individual game.
The consensus is the Colts are likely to win. 14 of 21 ESPN experts picked the Colts. 68% of 340,000 voters in ESPN SportsNation picked them, 71 of 98 "celebrities" picked them, and the Vegas money line is -240/+200. All of which says the Colts have a 2 in 3 chance of winning according to a wide number of sources. Of course, whether that's reasoned analysis or believing what you hear, I don't know and by definition the Vegas line reflects popular opinion not reality.
That said, while I acknowledge that Indianapolis is the better team, I pick the Bears to win 30-21. Here's why.
The consensus is the Colts are likely to win. 14 of 21 ESPN experts picked the Colts. 68% of 340,000 voters in ESPN SportsNation picked them, 71 of 98 "celebrities" picked them, and the Vegas money line is -240/+200. All of which says the Colts have a 2 in 3 chance of winning according to a wide number of sources. Of course, whether that's reasoned analysis or believing what you hear, I don't know and by definition the Vegas line reflects popular opinion not reality.
That said, while I acknowledge that Indianapolis is the better team, I pick the Bears to win 30-21. Here's why.
- The emotional reason. The Bears are my team and in a close game it seems silly to pick against your team. And while the Colts are better, they're only 2-3 points better in my mind.
- The Bears are on a roll. Did you see the NFC Championship game!!
- The match-ups. The Colts have trouble stopping the run, an all-time worst run defense I believe, though they've done well in the playoffs, and the Bears like to run with Jones and Benson to control the game. Even if the Bears have some trouble stopping the run, the Colts run offense isn't good enough to beat them. The Bears have a strong pass defense which matches up against the Colts greatest strength. And the Bears kickoff and punt return team should take advantage of the Colts bottom of the league kick coverage.
- Peyton Manning. Manning is one of the great quarterbacks of all time. But he's consistently been erratic in the playoffs. For every good game he's played, he's also had a clunker. Even this year with the Colts in the Super Bowl, his post season passer rating is lower than Rex Grossman's (!), and they have the same number of TD passes though Manning has played an additional game. In his great performance against the Patriots, his rating was 79.1. The week before against Baltimore his rating was 39.6 and they won in spite of him not because of him. I don't know whether it's nerves, playing against consistently good competition, teams being more focused on stopping the Colts passing offense, too many TV commercials, or something else. Whatever it is, there's no reason to believe it won't continue against a strong Bears defense. While the QB story of the week has been which Rex Grossman will show up, really the question should be asked about Peyton Manning.
Sunday, January 21
Da Bears!!!
Woo hoo! We're going to the Super Bowl.
In my last post I noted that the teams were close and those backing the loser might not concede the other team was better even after the game. Well, scratch that. The Bears killed 'em. It was 39-14 and not even that close. Strange as it is to say, in a game where the Saints had almost 400 yards of offense, the Bears defense dominated. Then again 166 of those yards were in the space of five minutes where the Saints had the Bears number. After the Saints nearly took the lead with a field goal, in their final six drives, they totaled 49 yards. It will be interesting to hear what those pundits have to say now.
I think my analysis of the Saints was on the money -- "Those that favor the Saints overlook some of their weaknesses, like being 10-6 against weak competition, a negative turnover ratio and having to play on the road". The Saints had four turnovers plus a safety and the crowd, if not the weather, was a factor. As well an early luck break -- the fumbled kickoff where the Saints return man appeared to be down -- played a role.
Miami here we come.
In my last post I noted that the teams were close and those backing the loser might not concede the other team was better even after the game. Well, scratch that. The Bears killed 'em. It was 39-14 and not even that close. Strange as it is to say, in a game where the Saints had almost 400 yards of offense, the Bears defense dominated. Then again 166 of those yards were in the space of five minutes where the Saints had the Bears number. After the Saints nearly took the lead with a field goal, in their final six drives, they totaled 49 yards. It will be interesting to hear what those pundits have to say now.
I think my analysis of the Saints was on the money -- "Those that favor the Saints overlook some of their weaknesses, like being 10-6 against weak competition, a negative turnover ratio and having to play on the road". The Saints had four turnovers plus a safety and the crowd, if not the weather, was a factor. As well an early luck break -- the fumbled kickoff where the Saints return man appeared to be down -- played a role.
Miami here we come.
Friday, January 19
Bears-Saints and small sample size
There's a basic principle in statistics known as small sample size error. It means if you don't have enough data, your can't draw conclusions that are accurate. If you ask five people who they're voting for in an upcoming election and four pick the same candidate, you really can't conclude anything much less that "80% of voters support Smith".
An individual sporting event and thus single elimination tournaments like the NFL playoffs suffer from the same fate, which is why you rarely see the best team win the NCAA basketball championship. Over the course of the 16-game season, it's pretty easy to conclude that the Bears are better than the Dolphins and the Saints are better than the Redskins. But when they met on the field, the teams that will be playing on Sunday both lost.
I already wrote my thoughts on the game. I think the Bears have a 60-65% chance of winning. The national view is pretty interesting. On ESPN, all eight of their experts picked the Saints to win though their computer picked the Bears. In their unscientific poll, about 61% of the voters have picked the Saints (though of course that's popularity as much ability). When people have to put their money where their mouth is though, the Bears are still 2 1/2 point favorites.
The truth (as much as one can divine truth from subjective data) is that the teams are close. Those that favor the Saints overlook some of their weaknesses, like being 10-6 against weak competition, a negative turnover ratio and having to play on the road, while playing up the Bears weaknesses like Grossman's wide variance and the Bears defense having fallen off the past few weeks. I think there's also the destiny and "great story" card in play here. It's just the opposite for those who favor the Bears.
Come Sunday, one team will win and one will go home. But, and here's the interesting part, because it's just one game, the people who picked the losing team weren't necessarily wrong in their analysis. It's possible the game is a blowout and the backers of the team that loses really say "oops, we were wrong". But the likely outcome is a close game where the "fans" of the winners say "I told you so" and the losers claim the better team didn't win or got unlucky. (While as fans we hate to admit it, luck plays a huge role in the outcome of a game -- we're a couple of "lucky" breaks away from this game being the Cowboys and Eagles; the total margin of victory in the four NFC games so far is 10 points.) And really we have no way of knowing if team X won because they were better or if this time was the 30-40% of the time the lesser team won. While the outcome will determine the NFC Champion, I don't think it will change many people's minds on the two teams involved.
An individual sporting event and thus single elimination tournaments like the NFL playoffs suffer from the same fate, which is why you rarely see the best team win the NCAA basketball championship. Over the course of the 16-game season, it's pretty easy to conclude that the Bears are better than the Dolphins and the Saints are better than the Redskins. But when they met on the field, the teams that will be playing on Sunday both lost.
I already wrote my thoughts on the game. I think the Bears have a 60-65% chance of winning. The national view is pretty interesting. On ESPN, all eight of their experts picked the Saints to win though their computer picked the Bears. In their unscientific poll, about 61% of the voters have picked the Saints (though of course that's popularity as much ability). When people have to put their money where their mouth is though, the Bears are still 2 1/2 point favorites.
The truth (as much as one can divine truth from subjective data) is that the teams are close. Those that favor the Saints overlook some of their weaknesses, like being 10-6 against weak competition, a negative turnover ratio and having to play on the road, while playing up the Bears weaknesses like Grossman's wide variance and the Bears defense having fallen off the past few weeks. I think there's also the destiny and "great story" card in play here. It's just the opposite for those who favor the Bears.
Come Sunday, one team will win and one will go home. But, and here's the interesting part, because it's just one game, the people who picked the losing team weren't necessarily wrong in their analysis. It's possible the game is a blowout and the backers of the team that loses really say "oops, we were wrong". But the likely outcome is a close game where the "fans" of the winners say "I told you so" and the losers claim the better team didn't win or got unlucky. (While as fans we hate to admit it, luck plays a huge role in the outcome of a game -- we're a couple of "lucky" breaks away from this game being the Cowboys and Eagles; the total margin of victory in the four NFC games so far is 10 points.) And really we have no way of knowing if team X won because they were better or if this time was the 30-40% of the time the lesser team won. While the outcome will determine the NFC Champion, I don't think it will change many people's minds on the two teams involved.
Sunday, January 14
Go Bears!
Bears win, Bears win!
While many people in the Seattle area are bummed about the end of the Seahawks season, you can tell we're not. I thought the game would be a blowout -- and had Tillman made that early interception it might have been -- but the Seahawks played pretty well and sent the game to overtime. There the Seahawks achilles heel -- poor pass defense -- did them in once again.
Bring on the 'aints.
A funny story about the ending of the game. Monica ordered pizza for lunch which arrived just before overtime, so I paused the game on TiVo and was watching the game delayed by about a minute. As the Bears lined up to kick the field goal, I got concerned because the phone wasn't ringing (my dad wasn't calling after the win). Finally as they got ready to snap the ball, the phone rang and we knew the kick was good even before the snap.
While many people in the Seattle area are bummed about the end of the Seahawks season, you can tell we're not. I thought the game would be a blowout -- and had Tillman made that early interception it might have been -- but the Seahawks played pretty well and sent the game to overtime. There the Seahawks achilles heel -- poor pass defense -- did them in once again.
Bring on the 'aints.
A funny story about the ending of the game. Monica ordered pizza for lunch which arrived just before overtime, so I paused the game on TiVo and was watching the game delayed by about a minute. As the Bears lined up to kick the field goal, I got concerned because the phone wasn't ringing (my dad wasn't calling after the win). Finally as they got ready to snap the ball, the phone rang and we knew the kick was good even before the snap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
