Super Bowl Aftermath-The Regular Season Is for Suckers
Darren Everson at the Wall Street Journal touches upon a dirty little secret of single-game playoff systems: It doesn't really determine who the best team is, either.
4 months ago
Dogrel
44 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
The NFL has the highest of those percentages
Meaning every other league (that uses the series playoff format) has less of a chance of crowning the best regular season team as champion. How exactly is this a dirty little secret? What other alternative is there except to merely end the season at 16 games?
Besides
Playoffs ensure equal competition—one could argue that the main reason the 49ers had such a great regular season and the Giants had such a mediocre season (record-wise) is the relative competitive distance between their two divisions. Thus a team from a much harder division isn’t disqualified at a chance to compete for a championship after winning against its regular foes.
A few things:
1) The 46% quoted in the article is probably a flawed number. The article touches on the dominance vanishing because of the NFL’s salary cap, and the author is right.
If you count from the institution of the NFL salary cap, only 4 teams had both the NFL’s best record and a Super Bowl title over the 19-season Salary Cap Era (21%), vs 17 such teams in the 27 years (63%) of the Super Bowl Era before that. That’s a MUCH lower incidence than the 46% quoted in the article, and it strikes me as a far more accurate portrayal of things to come than the simple historical SB-era perspective given in the chart.
2) The NFL is centralized and CFB is not. The NFL, therefore, can make parity an objective in their league, impose a salary cap and easy scheduling for bad teams and the member franchises have to toe the line. The same does NOT happen in CFB.
3) One of the advantages the NFL has with its playoff system is that it’s very small relative to CFB. Everybody plays everyone else, and so you CAN get a sense of the “relative competitive distance” of the teams. The same cannot be said of the CFB world. FBS alone is nearly 4x bigger than the NFL and those teams also play a multitude of FCS opponents as well, so there are well over 200 teams that play in at least one FBS game in any given season. Teams with no common opponents meeting in a NCG is not only possible, it’s been likely most years.
Given all of that, how can you realistically ensure “equal competition”? How can you even gauge that competition? There are models and estimates, but even then with the small sample size, you simply can’t determine it in any concrete way-it’s just too big of a mess.
4) The “solution” for CFB has been to just let that big mess be what it is, and play a bunch of games at the end of the season that produces a lot of winners and gets everybody paid a decent amount of money. I’m not saying it’s the best idea out there, or even that it’s impossible to clean up, but right now that huge mess has the decided advantage of actually working in the here and now. The “mid-major” schools get a piece of the pie under this system. The same cannot be said of any sort of FBS playoff system yet-they’d be completely left out in the cold.
Everyone knows that the huge interest generated by a playoff system would suck the money away from the other bowls and the schools who have no shot at ever winning a NC. It’d turn the bowls into the new NIT, and nobody wants that. The lack of money for the also-rans absolutely MUST be addressed in any kind of playoff scenario, and it hasn’t been yet.
"My mistress is pooped, the reds have Oklahoma, and I'm going to bed."
-Hodge Podge, Bloom County
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. "
"In practice, there is."-Yogi Berra
It's a sample size issue.
Advanced metrics say that the Giants were mediocre this year. But hey, they had that one good win streak at the end.
Yea, single elimination playoffs are fun for the fans
but don’t do much to prove who is best. They just show who happened to be best during the playoffs.
Versus who happened to be best during the regular season.
But the great thing about the pro system is that the six best teams from both sides of the league are going to play eachother. Every year. No matter what. And college football has never been able to say the same thing. So perhaps the number six team, who is strong but had a tougher schedule (hypothetically) could outplay the number one team in the conference. The number one team still earned home field advantage, and if you choke at home to an underdog, thats your problem. Not the problem of the sixth seed who beat you.
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part."
Follow me on Twitter! @DutchFSU
I’m more in favor of forcing changes to the regular season schedule. Why not make scheduling a FPS team disqualify you from playing in a BCS game? Or, if more than half the games on your schedule end up sub .500 for the season, no BCS bowl. Force improvements to the regular season. Make it so the heavy hitters HAVE to play each other during the regular season, and I think we’d all get what we want.
Thanks to the automatic playoff bids for all division winners, the NFL system doesn’t guarantee that the six best teams in each conference play in the playoffs.
Do you really think the 2010 Seahawks, at 7-9 and outscored by their opponents over the course of the regular season, were better than the 10-6 teams that sat home?
Not necessarily. Due to auto bids, a lot of garbage gets into the playoffs.
Well, not garbage, but teams that were completely mediocre, like Denver and the eventual Super Bowl Champ, get a shot at the crown.
What bowl game would you have assigned to the Giants had they been in the BCS system? Would they have even been in the convo for a BCS bowl?
Apparently some folks can't take a 9-7 team winning the Super Bowl.
There is a reason most team sports have a tournament playoff.
Sports is an entertainment business and this is true for the NFL. We are entertained by the regular season games that in the end determine the best 12 teams in the league, which then provide MORE entertainment in the championship tournament, which then crowns the CHAMPION. Seasons are marathons and not sprints. Consistency is defined by winning to get into the tournament and then winning said tournament, that is what makes a champion. I’m sure if perhaps one day some 13 seed team won the NCAA mens basketball tournament then all the angry duke fans of the world would pull their pitchforks out of their closets and march on Indianapolis. Jealousy and misplaced immature anger never changes.
Go Giants.
When Tim Tebow met Bjoren Werner he was so in awe of his presence that he spontaneously knelt upon one knee and placed his head upon his hand, and Tebowing was born.
Its always when you look at record and not reasons that people cant take it
Giants were hurt for much of the season. Lost to some bad teams. And only got blown out once. By the Saints. But also beat good teams along the way, Pats, Jets, Bufflo, eagles, Dallas, and when they did lose they barely lost to SF in SF and they took GB to the final minute almost beating them earlier.
They got healthy and made plays and won when it counted. Bottom line is they beat the #1 and #2 seed from the NFC and the #1 seed in the AFC twice on way to win the Superbowl. And like all teams had some luck along the way.
Just my way of getting in a Go Giants myself lol
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
To be honest.
I felt like Baltimore and SanFran should have been the two teams playing in the SB.
But I think fluke games (Denver vs Pittsburgh) and fluke moments (Lee Evans, 49ers backup punt returner) make the emotions of football that much better.
Plus, theres no other way to do a football playoff.
"Nothing like a tight one." -Heather Cox
I am done with the NFL
I wanted the Pats to win on Sunday but when the lost I was not really disappointed about the result so much as I was wondering why I wasted time watching the regular season. This everyone gets a ribbon crap and you only need to be hot at the end of the season is just old to me at this point. I want to see the team that played the best over the course of a year be rewarded not the team that took a month and a half off and backed into the playoff. At least with the bowl system everyone knows what it is an extra game at the end of the season.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
by TheJim on Feb 8, 2012 3:44 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
So you're saying you thought the Pats played the best all season?
“I want to see the team that played the best over the course of a year be rewarded not the team that took a month and a half off and backed into the playoff.”
I know you’re not talking about their defense. So their offense was consistent and made big plays when it counted. Do you think that the Pats offense as a whole was better than the Saints and Packers? If not, added to the fact of their poor defense, why is it that they should have won? They were far from the best team during the regular season.
Pats played the best over the course of the year when compared to the NFC alternative(Giants)
Greatness courts failure.
But giants also beat them in regular season
So who was better. giants won twice over the #1 AFC seed. and were 1-1 over the #1 and 2 in the NFC with both losses by a total less then a TD
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Football isn't always about who is the better team.
Match ups, match ups, match ups.
Most Miami fans have a bad case of SARS. Slap Ass Retarded Syndrome.
by Nole Resurrected on Feb 9, 2012 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
Point about Pats defense
They did not have a poor defense they had an average defense like it was almost perfectly the league average. They have a poor defense only if you look at total yards which is just stupid. The Bucs who really did have an awful pass defense only looked good compared to the pats, saints and packers because they had almost 150 less pass attempts against them.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
32nd rated defense is pretty poor
Total yards means they gave up more then anyone. 32nd is 32nd
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Rated on yards per game though is of course flawed
Not saying they had a stellar defense. .
Greatness courts failure.
by PalmAireNole on Feb 9, 2012 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
Games aren't won and lost by whoever had the most yards.
The Pats defense was a mediocre bend but don’t break too much defense.
Most Miami fans have a bad case of SARS. Slap Ass Retarded Syndrome.
by Nole Resurrected on Feb 9, 2012 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
Total yards mean little to nothing
Of course the Pats are going to give up more total yards because the play at a higher pace and have more total possesions. Its about the yards you give up each drive and here the Pats allowed almost exactly the league average.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Lets not make excuses that they give up more cause they score more
They were still last, Not close to last but last, New Orleans wasn’t last, Packers weren’t last. They were last because they did not have a great secondary. They had WR playing DB. First time the Giants played them Eli had over 300 yards passing without Nicks or Bradshaw. Even in a close game in the Super bowl the Giants could have blown them out early. Had to settle for FG and sacks knocked them back. manninham gets a ton of attention for the catch. Cruz scored a TD. Somehow people dont even realize Nicks had like 10 receptions for over 100 yards in the game. They had to eventually bring up the safties cause the Giants who had the worst run in the reg season were running against them.
I know total yards is not a definitive stat. But the whole the best team didnt win is the team that did not beat a team above 500 till the playoffs. They were not the best team. And the giants beat the best teams of the NFC which is better then the AFC right now. Both on road, And the pats on road before the SB.
So being disappointing they lost to what you consider an inferior team shows that the inferior team was the pats. Giants lost to Sf anf GB in reg season by 6 total pts, beat the pats and the teams the pats play each year in the Jets, Fins, and Bufflo. Giants were also injured all year. Nicks missed games, Bradshaw missed games, And they had there D Line healthy and together for first time in like week 12. They beat the toughest teams on the road when it counted. If the great pats team that you think hould have won would have beat the Giants at home with the Giants missing at the time te 2 most productive offensive lineman and a pro bowl DE, then the Giants miss the playoffs, Giants won, got in by a game, won the Super Bowl
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Their defense wasn't as bad as advertised.
You do realize that the Patriots defense gave up less PPG than the Ravens did, right?
Most Miami fans have a bad case of SARS. Slap Ass Retarded Syndrome.
by Nole Resurrected on Feb 9, 2012 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
I agree 100%
Tired of season mediocrity and injuries during the regular season turn into “best team in the league”.
In a league of Parity/“Any given sunday” with 16 grueling games the regular season should mean even more. Instead 38% of the league gets into the play-offs.
Greatness courts failure.
But teams dont play the same schedule
Cowboys and Eagles are not bad teams despite there record. While the Pats play the Fins twice, who lost there what first 7? Bufflo twice, Giants beat them, Jets twice, Giants beat them, Giants beat the Pats, barely lost to @Sf and last minute loss to GB. The regular eason team that played best over the year is hard to tell. I mean if a semi decent team from the AFC South came along they could win all the games in that division and a couple more and look great even though they played sub par competition. Its sort of like saying your done with college football because a Houston or a Boise didnt play for the title even though they may have the best regular season record.
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I understand the schedule problem
but even factoring this in the Giants this year, Giants their last time, Green Bay last year, Cards, seahawks getting in the playoffs to name just a few off the top of my head are still a joke. The difference between the hardest and easist NFL schedule is about 2 wins for an average team. That would still put the Giants at 11 wins.
I just see no point anymore in watching the regular season. The games are meaningless.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Well. Giants were 7-7 going into week 16
And needed to win there final 2 games to make the playoffs. So it mattered enough that if they dont bet the ets with a 99 yard TD catch, Or they lose to Dallas in week 14 when they were down by 10 with less then 4 mins to go and they dont even make it. So when you need to win games in the reg season it still matters. If Romo doesnt totally mis Austin in week 14 at the end. Dallas wins, giants eliminated and it never happens. So it matters quite a bit
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I know no one here believes in clutch, intangibles, or any of that nonsense, but
you can’t look at the Giants last two Super Bowls and not believe in luck.
Most Miami fans have a bad case of SARS. Slap Ass Retarded Syndrome.
by Nole Resurrected on Feb 9, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Doing enough things right so that luck actually makes a difference is key though
If you get a lucky bounce losing by 21 it does no good. If you get a lucky bounce when the game is tied then you put yourself in that position. I do know manning only threw 1 int in the post season. Second most TDs in 1 post season. And the defense also shut down everyone. No one wins a Super Bowl without luck somewhere. But its not why you win. Pats getting in cause a missed FG from extra point depth? Everone gets lucky at some point. Skill breeds luck
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Giants also got lucky in the 49ers game that the runner was called down for forward progress waaaay early, saving them from a fumble. They also got the bounces in their fumbles in the actual Super Bowl. Not saying that the only reason they won a super bowl is they’re lucky, but they are pretty lucky.
Yeah, I'm not saying they're not a good team.
Luck does seem to follow them pretty regularly.
Most Miami fans have a bad case of SARS. Slap Ass Retarded Syndrome.
by Nole Resurrected on Feb 10, 2012 9:13 AM EST up reply actions
Totally agree. When things don’t go their way, they lose. They were better than the Falcons, Packers killed themselves (somewhat luck, I guess), and they were very fortunate in the SF game and Super Bowl.
They are a lucky team, but not on Michigan’s level of lucky
Even Tebow can't muster up Michigan's luck.
Most Miami fans have a bad case of SARS. Slap Ass Retarded Syndrome.
by Nole Resurrected on Feb 10, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
And last year the Giants missed the playoffs with a 10-6 record
By an idiot kicker kicking to DeSean Jackson with 3 seconds left and it gets returned for a TD and giants are done. It all works out.
Think of it this way. Maybe the pats dont make the Superbowl if Cundiff hits an 8 yard FG. Maybe they lose to the Steelers if Denver doesnt beat them after only making the playoffs because Marion barber runs out of bounds and gives Jesus boy a shot at a comeback. Sometimes you can point directly to the luck. Sometimes its a play somewhere that changes the season that isnt noticed because of when it happens. the pats and SF were + a good margin in fumble recoveries. As said being pretty random it bounced the other way and if not for luck at different times then who even knows who plays in the Super Bowl
A Seminole warrior killed in battle is a legend remembered. A Gator lost in battle becomes a pair of boots and a belt.
twitter of random stuff and tons of confessing FSU love Follow @caine115
F THE ACC ..|.. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
New England didn't beat a team with a winning record until Denver (9-8) and Baltimore (13-4)
in the playoffs. I have no idea how you’re able to claim that New England “deserved” anything more than what they got.
If all sports fandom is a form of emotional gambling, football is poker and hockey is Russian roulette.
This is the regular season schedule of what many claim as the greatest team in NFL history.
Kansas City 8-6
Houston Oilers 1-13
Minnesota Vikings 7-7
New York Jets 7-7
San Diego Chargers 4-9-1
Buffalo Bills 4-9-1
Baltimore Colts 5-9
Buffalo Bills 4-9-1
New England Patriots 3-11
New York Jets 7-7
St. Louis Cardinals 4-9-1
New England Patriots 3-11
New York Giants 8-6
Baltimore Colts 5-9
Most Miami fans have a bad case of SARS. Slap Ass Retarded Syndrome.
by Nole Resurrected on Feb 9, 2012 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
The Pats' WRs are the reason that they lost that game
And I’m really not even talking about Welker’s drop of the would be game-sealing catch. I’m talking about their inability to get any sort of separation down field, their routine misreads of the defense, and the drops that plagued all of them throughout the course of the game.
Overall, they were probably the better team. And with a healthy Gronk the Pats probably win. But what happened to New England could have just as easily happened in the college system. Their receivers had an off night and it cost them a championship. Oklahoma State had an off night and not only did they not win a championship, they didn’t even get the opportunity to play for one. An injury came about at the worst possible time and screwed NE in the championship game. Same thing happened to Texas in 2009. I don’t really have a firm stance one way or the other as to how college structures its postseason, but the single game argument applies to college just as readily as it does to the NFL.
It does
but the teams that play at least where at worst 2 of the best 3 or 4 teams over the course of the whole season and most of the time the 2 best teams. This is not happening in the NFL anymore.
F the Deacs - Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn to the ACC
Yeah, but how much of that is due to the level of parity in the NFL? Can you really even consider one or two teams as head and shoulders above the rest in that league? Not only are talent levels relatively even, but the players and coaches know each other’s tendencies so well that most NFL games basically come down to turning it over less than the other team and you win.
by BobLoblaw113 on Feb 10, 2012 6:41 PM EST up reply actions
Had this conversation with my Dad the other day
He used to coach high school basketball, and he stressed the importance of peaking at the right time being key to winning state championships. That meant that sometimes you lost regular season games, because a) you were resting your best players, 2) you were holding back on your play book, d) you were getting your back-ups good playing time so they would be valuable in the post-season, and Wooden) you were slowly building your system, and getting your team to play together cohesively.
Goal one was to win enough games to make the playoffs, and possibly win the district so you had the top seed. Goal two – the ultimate goal – was to win the championship. It didn’t matter if you lost ten games in the regular season or zero. If you won it all, all was forgiven.
Of course, since college football doesn’t have a playoff, it’s a different beast. You HAVE to win all your games, and thus who’s best is determined by dominance, because there’s no room for error.
The nice thing about the playoff system is there’s a lot more room for bad luck. Let’s face it, there have been some teams in college football recently who were a lot better than their post-season bowl, but injuries, bad calls, bad luck, etc. took their toll. You lose a key player to an injury and consequently lose that game, and you’re done. No championship for you. With a playoff, you get another chance to prove you’re the best team.
The same strategy works within individual games
You obviously try to exploit your opponent’s weaknesses for the entire game, but many coaches will hold something back as long as the game is relatively even. That way you know you’ve got a twist to throw at them late. Sometimes it works, other times your adjustment flops and you probably get beat. Understanding how to manage a game in this manner (or in your example, a season) is an immeasurable but important part of greatness.
Maybe a point should be brought up that the best team should not be limited to just starters?
Let’s have 2 teams meet for a game and assume everything other than the players is evenly matched. Team A has the best starting talent but mediocre backups, but is still favored because nobody assumes an injury will occur. Team B’s starting talent is very good, but the backups are just as good too. Both teams lose the same amount of starting players to injury. Now Team B has better talent on the field and eventually wins.
Should we be surprised though? The best overall “team” was Team B. You just can’t put all the players on the field at the same time.
Absolutely
When my dad won a state championship (private school), his team was lead by a talented point guard who went on to play college soccer, a forward who went on to be a Div II All-American B-ball player, and a good big man. BUT, on his bench he had three sophmores who would all go on to play college or professional sports. He had a forward who was drafted into the MLB (never made it out of the minors, but got a million dollar signing bonus), and a 6’8" post man who played NFL ball as an o-lineman. In fact, he was recruited by FSU, and ended up at Notre Dame (where he lost to us back in 2003). In other words, when his three senior stars got tired, he had a bench of sophmores who were future superstars.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE TOMAHAWK NATION STORE
