NFL vol. 5

[Zadok]

Miami fans would like you to believe that the game came down to that one call but the reality is they had several chances to put Pittsburgh away early and failed, and also got the ball back after that FG with plenty of time left only needing a FG to win and mounted one of the saddest 4 and outs you'll ever see with a game on the line.

[Jaime L]

After watching college and watching how lame a lot of the last couple games of a season are, I'd actually be okay with shortening the season and making each game be a bit more important.

Totally against shortening the schedule. 16 is pretty much the perfect number and there's a near perfect symmetry in the schedules right now. The NFL is really the only sport, professional or college (remind me why again there's only 4 teams in the AL West but 6 in the NL Central? Just to screw Jaxom or what?), that really creates the most fair possible schedule for every team involved.

Also the "resting the starters" issue only affects the Colts and 2-3 other teams every year. It's not a big enough issue to alone merit a change in the schedule.

[Kalbear]

While it's fair, there are a lot of weeks and a lot of games where it feels kinda...meh. Like if the team wins or loses, it doesn't really matter as long as they turn it on at some point.

I don't like rewarding teams for not playing their starters; there should always be a quantitative value for playing past 'perfect season' bragging rights. While reducing games would have that effect (and again - college shows a shorter schedule means every game really matters), changing the system as it stands now is really needed in some way. I don't want the Jets to luck out by playing two teams with nothing to play for to allow them to waltz into the playoffs. The final week of the regular season should matter more, not less.

I'm not sure what to do about it, though. Having a 1-8 model instead of a division model might matter. Having a weighted (but not absolute) system of playoff seeding might work too, based on the number of wins and your place. In other words, if you're the #1 team you get 16 points, and then you get a point for each win. Every point is 1 chance to get the top seed in the playoffs. The 2 seed would get 8, the 3 gets 6 and the 4 gets 4, 5 and 6 get none. Or something like that. Because stochastic randomness is AWESOME.

[Jaime L]

Apparently Childress isn't just blasting Brett Favre, now he's set his sights on Belichick:

"I'm mindful of the last time we faced [the Patriots] here on Monday Night Football," Childress told reporters. "It was like a surgical procedure. That’s back when we used to signal [plays] and things like that. I remember having a conversation with [then-defensive coordinator] Mike Tomlin about that. These were some of the all-time great signal stealers. In fact, that's what was going on. They were holding, holding, holding. We were signaling from the sideline. They were good at it. It's like stealing signals from a catcher."

Chilly's comin' out guns a-blazin'!

He's like that one drunk guy in a bar fight throwing haymakers in all directions.

*Grabs popcorn for Rockroi's response*

I'm not sure what to do about it, though. Having a 1-8 model instead of a division model might matter. Having a weighted (but not absolute) system of playoff seeding might work too, based on the number of wins and your place. In other words, if you're the #1 team you get 16 points, and then you get a point for each win. Every point is 1 chance to get the top seed in the playoffs. The 2 seed would get 8, the 3 gets 6 and the 4 gets 4, 5 and 6 get none. Or something like that. Because stochastic randomness is AWESOME.

You want to bring the NBA Draft Lottery to NFL Playoff seeding? You, my friend, have gotten into the hooch on a random Tuesday Afternoon. Don't lie!

[Chuck Klingbeil]

Miami fans would like you to believe that the game came down to that one call but the reality is they had several chances to put Pittsburgh away early and failed, and also got the ball back after that FG with plenty of time left only needing a FG to win and mounted one of the saddest 4 and outs you'll ever see with a game on the line.

Zadok would like you to believe that I didn't already say this game was not decided by the fumble call. But again, Zadok is wrong. Oh Zadok, will you ever win?

[Original Ned's Bones]

But the "meaningfulness" is a zero sum game. I would say that part of the reason baseball is boring is because the regular season features 162 essentially meaningless games. As a whole, they make up the season, but each individually is completely not worth watching.

Whether there are 16 or 18 games, the meaningfulness of each game is going to be 1/number of games in the season.

We could have a 32 team single elimination tournament and no regular season. Each game would be meaningful as hell. It would of course be ridiculous, because half the teams in the league would get only one game.

I think the NFL season is plenty long. I'm a big Skins fan, and I still have never seen every game in a season, because I have things to do on the weekend. But I try and see it if at all possible, and I usually can catch 13-15 games a year, which is good enough. But I would never miss a Skins playoff game (there aren't many to begin with), because it is just so much more important that I would cancel whatever I'm doing. Importance of the games is decreased whenever you have more games to play. "More meaningful games" is not a compelling argument to expand the season.

I think they should increase the roster size by 3-5 spots, and that's all. There are already enough walking-wounded teams in the playoffs, we don't need more.

Agree with this!

I don't want to lengthen it, or shorten it (unless they get rid of a couple of pre-season games). Whoever made the point about it being a fair schedule makes a good point. I typically can't get into MLB or NHL until the season is halfway over. There are way too many games.

[Rockroi]

Miami fans would like you to believe that the game came down to that one call but the reality is they had several chances to put Pittsburgh away early and failed, and also got the ball back after that FG with plenty of time left only needing a FG to win and mounted one of the saddest 4 and outs you'll ever see with a game on the line

Oh for God's sake ... NOBODY is saying this. In fact, Chuck K stated THE EXACT OPPOSITE (and just a note: I once argued with Chuck for 16 weeks straight on how much I hated... NOT THE DOLPHINS but how much I hated the MEDIA ATTENTION the Dolphins receive... it takes a special kind of crazy person to hate a team NOT BECAUSE OF THE TEAM but because of the media attention it receives... BTW I am a Patriots fan; you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a story about the Pats).

Fight the fight, Chuck.

"I'm mindful of the last time we faced [the Patriots] here on Monday Night Football," Childress told reporters. "It was like a surgical procedure. That’s back when we used to signal [plays] and things like that. I remember having a conversation with [then-defensive coordinator] Mike Tomlin about that. These were some of the all-time great signal stealers. In fact, that's what was going on. They were holding, holding, holding. We were signaling from the sideline. They were good at it. It's like stealing signals from a catcher."

I heard this story this morning and I cannot get the nerve to get angry at this idiot for this. Childress is actually just saying the truth AND ... its not illegal to steal signals. Never has been; never will be. Childress is not accusing the Pats of cheating.

But he is accusing the Pats of gaining an advantage NOT from the ability of its players (btw: Brady threw for like 370 yards and 4 TDs; he went crazy that game), but from some tangential advantage: stealing plays (legal), recording signals (illegal), HGH (illegal, thanks Rodney), putting a camera out during Rams Super Bowl practice (remember that?) and refs taking control of the game ("... after reviewing the play, the quarterback's arm was coming forward ..."). I suddenly feel like Stewie from Family Guy when he beats another kid over the head with a stick the kid gave Stewie...

"What have we learned?"

We have learned that you don't mess with Evil Patriots. No. Spread. High. Enough.

[Kalbear]

You want to bring the NBA Draft Lottery to NFL Playoff seeding? You, my friend, have gotten into the hooch on a random Tuesday Afternoon. Don't lie!

Gods, if only.

It's the only thing I can think of that would continually reward a team for playing for wins while taking care of every possible seed issue or combination of factors. It allows some luck but rewards skill, primarily. Another alternative is to give points based on the difference between you and the next one, and make it scale so that you can get a lot more weight that way; like 16 points for first place, but 10 points per win above 2nd place. Or something like that.

Ooh, and here's another idea - make it so that you're only betting on the first two spots. If you lose, you're automatically going to get at least one playoff home game, but the seeding is for the playoff bye.

It's weird, but I don't know how to get rid of the final games not mattering otherwise, and I'm always in favor of rewarding those who play well, not punishing those who choose to gain advantage by resting starters.

[Maithanet]

It's weird, but I don't know how to get rid of the final games not mattering otherwise, and I'm always in favor of rewarding those who play well, not punishing those who choose to gain advantage by resting starters.

Given the dubious record of teams who choose to rest their starters, coaches are already leery of cruising too much at the end of the season. I really think this is a drastic solution to a very minor problem. It certainly wouldn't eliminate the much bigger problem of teams who are already eliminated from the playoffs playing one another and having no incentive to provide competitive games.

I know I've said this in the past, but I really really like the NFL schedule. 6 divisional games. 4 games against the in conference division your division is playing this year (rotates every three years). 4 games against the out of conference division your division is playing this year. 2 games against the teams that had the same in division finish as you who are out of division, but in conference.

The fact that it is different every year - nice.

At the end of each season, you can determine exactly who your team is playing next year - really cool.

The fact that divisional teams play 14 of their 16 games against the same opponents - very cool.

The fact that it adjusts so that better teams get slightly harder schedules and more marquee matchups - excellent.

If you take a step back, it is almost beautiful.

18 games would ruin that. Ruined!

[Bronn Stone]

<trimmed>

18 games would ruin that. Ruined!

In an 18 game schedule, you'd simply cancel the 2 'different' games and add another division. Each team would skip one division in their conference on a three-year rotating basis, but play the other two. The schedule would be more predictable, years in advance. Like clockwork. There would no longer be a penalty for teams that do well in the preceding year.

[Piper]

remind me why again there's only 4 teams in the AL West but 6 in the NL Central? Just to screw Jaxom or what?)

There are 30 MLB teams; if we divided it 15 AL, 15 NL, then every night we'd either need 1 inter-league game, or one team from each league sitting idle. So keeping it 14 AL, 16 NL means that every team can play an in-league game any given night, but also requires the AL to have one 4 team division and the NL to have one 6 team division.

You probably knew that and it was a rhetorical question, but anyways.

[Kalbear]

Given the dubious record of teams who choose to rest their starters,

There is very little to support this notion that resting starters is bad. The Saints won the superbowl doing so. The Colts got there. The teams that were 'hot' (Baltimore, Pats) didn't make it past one game. The Eagles didn't rest their starters, but Arizona did. The Pats in 2007 didn't rest their starters and lost to a team that was the worst playoff team in many, many years to make a superbowl (at least by win-loss record).

There's just no statistical reasoning behind it, and there's certainly very little to even suggest correlation, much less causation.

[Jaxom 1974]

No 18 games.

In addition to all the injury problems, you also have to probably expand rosters. Essentially, adding an expansion team, which dilutes talent and harms the game.

Sixteen games are plenty.

Hell, 14 games would be plenty.

It's easy to say "14 games" until it happens and we start hearing that there isn't enough football out there.

Totally against shortening the schedule. 16 is pretty much the perfect number and there's a near perfect symmetry in the schedules right now. The NFL is really the only sport, professional or college (remind me why again there's only 4 teams in the AL West but 6 in the NL Central? Just to screw Jaxom or what?), that really creates the most fair possible schedule for every team involved.

Seriously. WTF, Bud?

There are 30 MLB teams; if we divided it 15 AL, 15 NL, then every night we'd either need 1 inter-league game, or one team from each league sitting idle. So keeping it 14 AL, 16 NL means that every team can play an in-league game any given night, but also requires the AL to have one 4 team division and the NL to have one 6 team division.

You probably knew that and it was a rhetorical question, but anyways.

Oh it was rhetorical. And an opportunity to swipe at me. :P

Also the "resting the starters" issue only affects the Colts and 2-3 other teams every year. It's not a big enough issue to alone merit a change in the schedule.

Resting the players at the end of the year because you need to, or don't need to. Are we a coasting playoff bound team at the end of the season or not? It's all an added layer to the chess match that is NFL football. 14, 16 or 18 game seasons, it would be the same.

This year could be an interesting litmus test for the argument as there is really not a clear front running team that might find itself locking up that playoff spot by week 12...

[Rockroi]

There is very little to support this notion that resting starters is bad. The Saints won the superbowl doing so. The Colts got there.

No argument.

The teams that were 'hot' (Baltimore, Pats) didn't make it past one game.

Eh... the Pats sat their starters for the vast majority of the last game of the season v. the Texans. The game where Wes Welker was injured (seems more important that resting their starters).

The Pats in 2007 didn't rest their starters and lost to a team that was the worst playoff team in many, many years to make a superbowl (at least by win-loss record).

And for the record, the Giants ALSO did not rest their starters at the end of THAT season. And I find it odd that you would say that the Pats NOT RESTING their starters and making it to the super-bowl is a sign of failure, but the Colts RESTING their starters and making it to the Super Bowl is a sign of success.

Colts have rested their starters pretty much every season since 2004, and have been eliminated from the playoffs in their first game MANY times.

I agree, there is no real correlation, but don't cherry pick.

[Jaime L]

There are 30 MLB teams; if we divided it 15 AL, 15 NL, then every night we'd either need 1 inter-league game, or one team from each league sitting idle. So keeping it 14 AL, 16 NL means that every team can play an in-league game any given night, but also requires the AL to have one 4 team division and the NL to have one 6 team division.

You probably knew that and it was a rhetorical question, but anyways.

Actually I did know this, at some point, but it helps to be reminded of it. Normally I'm behind any policy that screws Jaxom but it still seems blatantly unfairness built into the system.

There is very little to support this notion that resting starters is bad. The Saints won the superbowl doing so. The Colts got there. The teams that were 'hot' (Baltimore, Pats) didn't make it past one game. The Eagles didn't rest their starters, but Arizona did. The Pats in 2007 didn't rest their starters and lost to a team that was the worst playoff team in many, many years to make a superbowl (at least by win-loss record).

There's just no statistical reasoning behind it, and there's certainly very little to even suggest correlation, much less causation.

As far as I know no-one's done a statistical study of the performance of teams who rest their starters (the sample size is too small to come up with anything definite) but if they did I think it would clearly point to those teams underperforming in the playoffs compared to how they performed all season long. There's a definite trend in the small sample. Think we primarily need to judge these teams by Superbowl Titles because only the very best teams in football can afford to rest their starters (basically the #1 seeds in a conference) and for these teams anything less is a bit disappointing to a team who has achieved that much.

As it turns out, until the Saints own the Superbowl, the team who went all the way the four years prior was one who played hard every game.

The Steelers in '05, the Colts in '06, The Giants in '07 all went through the hard way coming out of the wildcard round. The '08 Steelers, despite getting a bye, played their starters in Week 17. Heck, Big Ben even suffered a concussion that day. The Saints are the first team to win the Superbowl in quite awhile who actually rested their starters and really even there they only did so by beating another team who rested its starters.

Look at the Colts failures in the playoffs and contrast it to the one year they were successful. It was the one year they played hard all the way through. Look at other disappointing teams with byes in recent years...the Cowboys in '07, the Giants in '08, the Chargers in '09 - all rested their starters.

Time and time again you see better teams at home losing to inferior opponents who are just hotter than they are. They took their foot off the pedal.

[Kalbear]

\And for the record, the Giants ALSO did not rest their starters at the end of THAT season. And I find it odd that you would say that the Pats NOT RESTING their starters and making it to the super-bowl is a sign of failure, but the Colts RESTING their starters and making it to the Super Bowl is a sign of success.

Colts have rested their starters pretty much every season since 2004, and have been eliminated from the playoffs in their first game MANY times.

No, I'm saying that there's no correlative value. The Colts lost the Superbowl after resting their starters; the Pats lost the superbowl after not. The Steelers didn't rest their starters the first time they won and they did rest 'em the second time they won. The Colts have had more success in the playoffs than the Pats have in recent times, but both teams have rested or not rested their starters depending on where they were and who they would get to play. Arizona (when they went to the superbowl) didn't rest their starters, but lost.

There's just nothing there. The playoffs are such a crapshoot anyway that it doesn't matter. Now, I do think that the Colts might have been better had they not rested their starters - they might have come out a bit more pumped for the Saints game. But at the same time, it didn't help the Pats overcome their struggles either. It just doesn't matter, one way or another (except for when you lose your starters, in which case it sucks balls).

What it does do is rob the fans of 1-2 games every year. And that sucks.

[Jaime L]

There's just nothing there.

Think it's just happened too many times to chalk it up to random chance. It's like saying that teams playing prevent defense still win most of the time. Maybe, but they don't win nearly as much they should considering all the built in advantages they have. I think gradually the common consensus has come around to general understanding that the prevent defense is a bad idea (though there's a few holdouts, still)...I think the same will found to be true of resting starters even if it takes another 5 years of Colts disappointments to prove this to everyone.

[Kalbear]

Time and time again you see better teams at home losing to inferior opponents who are just hotter than they are. They took their foot off the pedal.

And time and time again you see the exact opposite. It's selective bias.

FO did study this in the past, and found nothing to indicate that. I can't find the article now, so let's go through the last few years, starting (for no reason) with the Colts SB win.

The Colts were the #3 seed, didn't rest at all and won the superbowl. They beat the Chiefs in the wildcard (no rest), beat Baltimore (no rest), and beat NE (no rest).

The Bears were the #1 seed. They rested and lost the superbowl after beating the Seahawks (no rest) and the Saints (rested).

The Saints were the #2, and won their first before losing their second.

The Chargers were the #2, did not rest their starters, and lost their first game.

So in 2006, the 1/2 teams that rested (Chicago, NO) went 3-3 in the playoffs. There were no teams that rested for the AFC.

In 2007, New England (#1) did not rest and lost the superbowl. SD did rest (#3) and won their first game. Indianapolis did rest and lost their first game. So resters in the AFC went 1-2, non resters 2-1. In the NFC, the Packers rested and went 1-1. Seattle rested and went 1-1. Dallas rested and went 0-1. Everyone else did not rest. In that year, rested definitely got beaten by non-rested.

In 2008 Arizona oddly rested in week 16 but not 17, and then went 3-1 in the playoffs. Philly did not rest and went 2-1. New York rested and went 0-1. Carolina did not and went 0-1. Pittsburgh rested and won the superbowl (while Ben did play the plan was always for him to play a half). Tennessee (#2) rested and went 0-1. Seemed like rested worked out here.

In 2009, the Colts rested and lost in the superbowl (2-1). The Saints won (3-0). The chargers rested and went 0-1. Cinci rested and went 0-1. NE did not rest and went 0-1. Baltimore did not rest and went 1-1. The Vikings did not rest and went 1-1. Philly did rest and lost to Dallas. Dallas didn't rest and went 1-1. In this year the resters went the furthest, but didn't do well other places.

Again, if you can find some kind of random correlation here, I'm all ears. If you're curious the Seahawks rested in 2005 and the Steelers didn't, though I don't remember more than that.

[Stego]

Kalon,

Much like in the real world, better is and will never be the priority so long as we're talking about a capitalistic endeavor.

A 20 game season will be next, no doubt.

[Kalbear]

Ugh. I hate that idea. LOATHE it. Bleh. One of the reasons that the NFL is so popular is because it's exclusive! Because chance, weird luck and randomly awesome people do make huge differences in one week, and games matter more! Getting more people injured, having fewer stars, and playing more games...hate.

You're likely right, Stego, but I hates it.