Loose thoughts from the sporting weekend…
- I’m not in favor of reseeding the NFL playoffs based on record, but I do have one question: How is it that the Miami Dolphins get to host a playoff game AND draft higher than the Colts? Obviously, I understand the mechanics of the situation, but that seems ridiculous to me. The draft (with the exception of the two Super Bowl teams) is based strictly on record. It seems there should be more uniformity. My solution would be to slot the draft by record 1-20. The final twelve slots should go to playoff teams first by seed, then by record (to slot the NFC/AFC disparity). So the highest that a division winner could draft would be 24 and the lowest a wild card team could draft would be 23 (unless they made the Super Bowl). Otherwise, reseed the playoffs. I don’t think having two totally different systems makes any sense.
- Derek Jeter is an embarrassment at short stop. Why any manager would play him there over Jimmy Rollins is beyond me. I can’t see how the Yankees will contend with his defense at such a key position. He’s awful. As soon as the ball was hit to him in the 8th inning, my buddy Rich and I looked at each other in horror. We knew he had no chance of making what was really just a routine play. Awful
- Korea v Japan may not stir anyone’s passions around here, but it will be a war tonight.
- The NCAA Tournament is dangerously close to jumping the shark. Last year’s chalk dance seemed like an aberration, but this year 14 of the top 16 seeds advanced to the Sweet 16, with only a mild seeding ‘upset’ in Purdue and Arizona serving as ‘Cinderella’. There were precious few really close games, and the whole tourney is turning into the combination of an idiot’s luggage (1-2-3-4). I don’t know why the drama is leaking out of the tournament, but part of me wonders if the new ‘science’ of bracketology isn’t leading the committee to doing such a good job of seeding teams that there aren’t as many flaws in the bracket. They may be becoming so efficient at slotting the tournament, that they are unwittingly draining out all of the drama.
- I generally don’t root for Purdue in hoops, but I’m glad MSU and the Boilers are in the Sweet 16. It would have been a serious blow to the Big 10s already shaky credibility if they hadn’t landed two teams in the top 16. Don’t worry mid-westerners…the Hoosiers will be back to save you soon.
- JC got me thinking about the Patriots this week. A large part of me wants to believe their run is over, and honestly, I’d go out on a limb and say that, if it wasn’t for Randy Moss. We’ve said many times that Randy Moss is the most unique weapon in football. When he’s healthy and motivated, he’s an unstoppable force. I think he’s singlehandedly covered up all other failings by the Pats organization in the last few years. That being said, he’s going to drop off the table one of these years, because that’s what happens to wide outs. It’s hard to know what to make of the 2009 Pats. They have the potential to be horrible. If Moss suddenly gets old, they are done. They have a harder schedule, a gimpy QB, and their ‘free agent moves’ amount to signing a bunch of old cast offs like Fred Taylor and Joey Galloway. They could be a train wreck. Or…Moss could still be Moss and nothing else will matter. He’s only 32, so my gut says he still has at least two more good years in him. For that reason and that reason only, I expect the Pats to be back near the front of the pack next year.
Links:
Old gyms are dying in Indiana.
Peter King says Marvin is done. Here’s the exact quote:
I think I keep hearing that Marvin Harrison
is finished. He’s not even being pursued by any teams now, and I think
he’ll never play again. He’s too proud to be someone’s third receiver,
he doesn’t love the game enough to play third or fourth receiver
somewhere, and he has no interest in limping through a season for $3
million plus incentives
King is a bit of goof, but he’s a well connected goof. When he shares what he hears (rather than what he thinks) he tends to be right. This makes me sad. In fact, I just cried a little.
It’s no Jon Hamm’s John Ham, but it’s still pretty funny…
“Lex Luthor Bailout” with Jon Hamm from Jon Hamm
The compensatory picks are out. Indy gets an extra 4th for Jake Scott. That’s what was expected.
The compensatory picks are out. Indy gets an extra 4th for Jake Scott. That’s what was expected.
March 23, 2009 at 9:44 am |
I’ve really given up on all basketball. The night of the brawl was probably the last full basketball game I ever watched. I’m a Purdue grad (though I grew up an IU basketball fan and had never really given up that loyalty) so I should be interested in the tourney this year, but I’m not. I use to be the guy that ran the bracket pools and I haven’t even filled out a bracket in 4 years. It’s interesting to hear others feel that same way because I thought it was more about my own shift in interest but maybe it is something inherent in the sport. Unlike Football, basketball has not continued to evolve. If anything it seems to have devolved. The NBA has been ruined by too many players with little to no college and mostly trained on me first AAU basketball. The College game ruined by early departures, and the same bad influence of AAU. Football continues to “reinvent and refresh itself” with constant adjustments in strategy, tactics, counter tactics. Basketball seems to have flushed out all of the strategy and is now purely a game of one on one match-ups which is never as interesting to me.
March 23, 2009 at 10:11 am |
You might be right.
I hope you are wrong.
But you might be right.
March 23, 2009 at 10:39 am |
I think King is right. And I really hate saying that. Marvin has already passed on the best deal that was coming his way.
March 23, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
You can trace a lot of the deterioration in Indiana basketball to the adoption of the class system with the IHSAA. Five State Champions? That’s bullcrap. There should be ONE State Champion. However, the smaller schools would be virtually shut out, and whoever wins Class 5A, with their top tier college recruits, would probably win the tournament every year.
And we knew that Marvin had a fork in him. What team wants to pay an aging wide receiver that kind of money?
I’m not sure you can say the NCAA’s are in danger of jumping the shark. I mean, either the organization has been incompetent for years and been improperly seeding people, or there are teams that come together on the court that don’t on paper. It should be noted that no Final Four has had all four #1 seeds. When that happens, THEN you can start talking about jumping the shark.
Regarding the Patriots, I think all judgement has to be reserved until we see Brady play and take some hits. Yes, we want them to sink back to the cellar and stay there, thus proving Manning’s greatness, but more likely than not they’ll hang around the middle of the pack for a while before finally rebuilding. Teams tend to start rebuilding about a year or two too late. In the Pats case, last year would have been a good time to start.
March 23, 2009 at 12:30 pm |
Why is 14/16 for higher seeds in the tourney jumping the shark? Couldn’t it be more an example of “good seeding” or more consistent play from top teams?
I THINK of JTS as someone trying too hard to reclaim former relevance. I don’t see any of these guys in leather jackets on water skis. Don’t know that the tourney was ever really relevant (1985 excepted-I was alone at college in NY for spring break and 3 big east teams made itto the FF. No cable, no heat in the dorm and huddled around my roomie’s little TV for warmth as much as entertainment.), but it has always been exciting. Exciting is not just looking for upsets–great play can be exciting as well. And it is such a dense experience–good guys and bad guys all around, flamboyant coaches, staid guys, up-and-comers and guys way past their primes. With so manmy games in so little time, it’s like having all the NFL playoffs in one weekend. Never boring IMO.
That being said, it’s been 11 years since I filled out my last bracket–I won $400 and within hours it was stolen from my locker at the gym. After that, marriage, kids, too much work… so I may be viewing this with naive envy–I wish I could still watch 99% of the televised games.
RE: 88–I think deep down we all knew he passed up on the best offer he’d get–”best offer” encompassing money and opportunity, fit and welcome. He may return, but if he waits til July, I am not sure he’ll be welcome back. And that’s fine, isn;t it? Most 88 partisans were saying “either re-sign or just retire (or maybe go to Philly),” so this would be, while not entirely voluntary, the retirement option. And maybe for us as fans, this IS the best. Certainly better than seeing him stumble through a 20-catch, 6-win final season for some losers willing to pay. I am not predicting that would happen, but if it did, we’d all be coveirng our eyes thinking, “I wish you just rode off into the sunset, man.”
March 23, 2009 at 12:48 pm |
A couple of points:
My point about 14/16 top seeds advancing is that there weren’t upsets, and for the most part, not very many close games (save for the last few on Friday night). Maybe the next two round will be more entertaining, but I didn’t feel like the tourney paid off for me. As for brackets, what’s the point anymore? Just pick all chalk and you’ll do fine. All that bodes poorly for the Madness going forward. Also, last year’s Final Four was all #1 seeds for the first time. So yeah, I guess I can talk about the shark having been jumped.
(BTW: There are 4 ISHAA basketball champs in Indiana, not five, but whatever. The point is the same, and I agree with it)
March 23, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
As someone who took a good amount of chalk, I can tell you that their have been plenty of games that were making me nervous until pretty late. I think it’s just some random chance that bounced a lot of close games in favor of the top seeds.
March 23, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
Maybe random chance, but it’s the Cinderella stories that make the NCAA Tourney truly special. IF the Final Four is once again all #1 seeds, I’d say it’s officially jumped the shark (though it clearly jumped the shark for me many years ago)…
March 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
I do not care for college hoops nearly as much as I used to due to the change in styles. Years ago the tournament was great because there were more clashes in style. Teams could adapt to their personnel. Some walked it up and played half court man (Coach K’s Duke) while some ran and trapped full court(Tark’s UNLV). Some teams went motion offense (Knight’s Indiana) while others went drive and dish (Pitino’s Kentucky). The schools really mixed it up. Since Pitino, the 3-pointer, and later the shot clock teams now really all play the same way. Spread the floor, beat your man off the dribble and either lay it in or pass off for a three.
The way the game is refereed also hurts. Position counts for very little and the game has become too physical. Nobody runs a motion offense effectively anymore because you can just hold people all day long.
The funny thing is that the scoring these days is really not any more than the old days. Despite the fantastic athleticism the players are not nearly as efficient due to having to take hurried shots (shot clock) and low percentage shots (3-pointer). I don’t see why the college game has to mirror the NBA in these ways. Who wants to watch their team shoot 37%? It just makes the game stale.
March 23, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
Hey im psyched for korea vs. japan. Being half japanese and having suck passion for my background, I hope Japan wins big today and brings home the title. GO TEAM JAPAN!!
March 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm |
DZ: Your system for drafting order makes no sense. The division-winner/wildcard playoff system already allows better teams to get worse seeds, and you want to incorporate that into the draft as well? The draft is supposed to increase parity by having worse teams draft before better teams, but you want to make room for better teams to get higher picks? The fact that the Colts were a wildcard team this year is because of a flaw in the seeding system, and in no way should make us get a higher draft pick. The drafting system going off of record is the perfect way to do it, because your record is the clearest indication of the quality of your team, not your playoff seeding. I would even go so far as to remove the super bowl teams getting 31 and 32. Just because the Cards made it to the super bowl doesn’t mean they have fewer needs than say, Tennessee. We all know the Cards truly need a higher pick than the Titans. I know you are looking at this year’s Colts draft slot in a vacuum, but you need to look at the reverse side of the picture. If you were a dolphin fan, would you really support the Colts getting a higher draft choice than them just because of the seeding system? No way, man.
March 23, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
“If you were a dolphin fan, would you really support the Colts getting a higher draft choice than them just because of the seeding system? No way, man.”
So why should the Dolphins get a better playoff slot? Are they are worse team or not? How does the current system make any sense? It rewards the lesser team both with a better playoff slot AND a better draft pick. It should be one or the other. What we do now is what doesn’t make sense.
March 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
The Dolphins shouldn’t get a better playoff spot. But they do. Now, don’t go and support further flaws by changing the draft order to reflect the already screwed up seeding system. That just makes things worse. It doesn’t make sense to criticize the seeding system and then support a mirroring of it in the draft order. The only way to make it fair is to change the seeding system, which you have already stated you do not support.
March 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
The Thursday opening night game has been announced, Titans at Steelers:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcsouth/0-8-105/Opening-night-spotlight-for-Titans-in-Steel-City.html
I’d pay to see that game. I’m already getting excited for the ’09 season.
March 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
I don’t favor reseeding for the following reasons:
1. An unbalanced schedule makes it too hard to compare teams across divisions. Because almost everyone in the division plays the same record, we have a good idea which team is the best in the division, but an 11-5 in the AFC Central may be better than a 12-4 in the AFC East.
2. Divisions help foster rivalries which are good for the game
3. Rewarding division championships encourages teams to improve quickly because it opens the door for them to make the playoffs more quickly.
I like the division system and the current seeding. The only flaw it creates is by double rewarding lesser teams both a with a home playoff game and a better draft pick. I think fixing the draft is less problematic than reseeding the playoffs.
March 23, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
So… You think it is hard to compare teams across divisions, and you like the idea of rewarding a division champion.
But then you have problems with “double-rewarding” a “lesser team.” But… how can you know who is a lesser team across divisions? You already said you can’t compare them. And if they win their division, you SHOULD reward them… right? You said that.
The only reason you think the Dolphins are a lesser team than the Colts is because of…. we’re having a breakthrough here…. wait for it… REGULAR SEASON RECORD!
But wait. You don’t support drafting based on regular season record, you support drafting based on the playoff seeding of teams you “can’t compare across divisions.” Something doesn’t add up here.
March 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
Patriots go 14-2, clinch homefield throughout.
March 23, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
Guy,
I think you’re missing DZ’s point. I don’t think he means to call the Dolphins a “lesser team” at all (even if he may have used that term). He’s saying that the league should not award any team with BOTH home-field advantage AND a higher draft pick. I think you agree, but because you believe the Dolphins to be a “lesser team” because of their record, you would fix the inequity by adjusting the playoff seeding rather than the draft order, thereby preserving the Dolphin’s ability to “better” themselves through the draft, and honoring what you see as the Colt’s superiority through a higher seed in the playoffs. For me, I think the benefits of the division system, which DZ points out, outweigh the benefits for the league derived from ordering the draft based on record. To use an obvious example of why ordering the draft by record doesn’t necessarily improve parity, ask yourself what position you’d rather be in: having Polian/Irsay draft for your team at the end of Round 1 or having Dan Snyder draft for your team near the front . . .
BP
March 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm |
Do you really want to start this again? I have other (better) things to do than argue this (again).
March 23, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
Instead of putting words in DZ’s mouth, maybe I should just say that if DZ thinks the Dolphin’s are a “lesser team” just because of a weaker record, that is irrelevant to his basic argument (with which I agree) that no team (better or lesser) should be get both the advantage of a higher seed and a higher draft pick.
BP
March 23, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
Seriously, Guy, we already have one jackass around here. We don’t need another one. Next you’ll expect DZ to strike up a secret G-chat relationship with you.
I’ve clashed with my brother at times over this issue. I agree with him that winning your division should matter. Division rivalries are fun and add spice to the league. (What else could randomly make the citizens of Indianapolis loathe the people of Jacksonville, Florida?) But with 8 divisions and only four teams in each division it is way too easy for good teams to get screwed. Like the Colts were last year. And we didn’t complain. Thems the rules.
If we intend to keep divisions as something more than just a way to determine a teams schedule then there is no perfect system. Personally I think the reward for winning your division should be an automatic playoff berth. Be realistic: You only beat out three other teams so you get a great perk (a berth), but not necessarily a home playoff game. Winning your division could also be used as a tiebreaker for home field with teams of the same record.
My plan is a compromise I could live with. It doesn’t eliminate the 9-7 or 8-8 teams sneaking in and stealing a spot from a 11-5 or 10-6 team, but at least it doesn’t further reward them with home field.
March 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
Dan Snyder drafting higher is better than Dan Snyder drafting lower. Polian drafting at #24 is better than Polian drafting at #28. That point is completely irrelevant.
We pretty much agree on the rest. The only problem with changing the draft order is the penalty it gives to teams that in fact won their division. Let me make this clear by using the Chargers as a better example than the Dolphins. You want to tell San Diego that even though they went 8-8 last year, they have to draft after the 12-4 Indianapolis Colts just because they happened to win a weak division? I don’t think so.
And furthermore, the fact that they won with an 8-8 record shows that the west division is much weaker than the south, which means they had an easier schedule than the Colts did, right? That’s another reason they should be drafting first. Also, look at the gap it would place between the 8-8 Chargers and the 8-8 Broncos. Both played in the same division, both have the same record, but Denver would be drafting higher? And in that case, MUCH MUCH higher. It just doesn’t work that way.
If you want some way of calculating strength of schedule/common opponents/etc. and use that as a drafting system instead of record, I could see that. But using playoff seeding? Not going to happen. It would just further screw things up.
March 23, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
Sounds great, but it would never get passed by the owners. Bill Polian and the Competition Committee voted for it last year, but the full panel of owners shot it down. The vote wasn’t even close. The owners really want the division title to guarantee a home playoff game…sadly.
March 23, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
DEMOND: Am I not making good points? Why would you call me a jackass?
Here’s a thought: Go fuck yourself.
The propensity of this blog to throw insults in the face of argument is ridiculous. If you can’t argue a point, then don’t. But don’t be a prick about it.
Oh, and I thought I was talking to DZ? Why did his brother jump in to save the day?
March 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
“And furthermore, the fact that they won with an 8-8 record shows that the west division is much weaker than the south, which means they had an easier schedule than the Colts did, right? That’s another reason they should be drafting first.”
That’s some fuzzy math there, and why should they draft first if they have an easier schedule? It may be that my brain is still fried from my AP Calculus test today (fun!), but something about that just doesn’t add up to me.
March 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
LOL. I almost added a “I’m just messing with you.” disclaimer because I thought you might lose it like that. You must chill.
Also if you care to notice, I disagreed with DZ in my post. I didn’t defend him.
March 23, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
CASS:
Why should San Diego draft first if they had an easier schedule? Because they went 8-8 with an easier schedule and the Colts went 12-4 with a harder one. That means the Colts are a better team. We all agree the draft is supposed to increase league-wide parity, so it is obvious the Chargers should be drafting higher than the Colts (which they are).
The fact that they won their division at 8-8 shows the flaw in the PLAYOFF SEEDING, not the DRAFT SYSTEM.
Leave the draft how it is, and change the playoff system. OR change nothing.
March 23, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
If the inequality in the schedule were the only reason for my position, I would accept your statements. It is not. Ultimately, we have to use some standard by which to judge which team is better and which team is worse. Clearly wins are losses are the best way to do that, despite gross schedule inequalities (we could use DVOA I suppose
). I would rather protect the playoffs via the current seeding than I would protect the draft.
I think that there is something in division play that merits keeping seeding in the current form. I merely wish that teams that benefit in the playoffs would not receive a double benefit from the draft. I see two courses which make sense:
1. Seed and draft based on record. I don’t favor this for the reasons I already listed.
2. Seed and draft based on division records. This rewards teams for winning their division in the playoffs, but then slightly punishes them in the draft.
Either course is more sane than doing one thing for the playoffs and another in the draft. I’m not sure what is unclear about my position.
March 23, 2009 at 7:39 pm |
Guy -
Thanks for the clarification. That’s all I was asking for. I’m not looking to get involoved in this argument. I pick and choose my fights, and this one is not worth it.
Also, my username is Cass. MVN automatically capitalizes all letters in every username, so please do without the extra caps when you reference me.
DZ – The day ESPN uses DVOA to judge which team is better is the day Lex Luthor asks for a federal bailout to kill Superman with krytonite children. (Wait…)
March 23, 2009 at 7:51 pm |
I think Demond’s compromise might be the best, but would you extend the logic to byes in addition to homefield advantage? E.g., this year, the Colts and Steelers were both 12-4 and the Colts held the head-to-head tie-breaker. That might be taking it too far.
And it doesn’t solve the draft problem entirely because of the current system’s inconsistent feature of putting the Superbowl teams last, yet ordering all other teams exclusively by regular season record. Why not base the draft on playoff success rather than playoff seeding (with ties broken by regular season records). So this year the reverse draft order would by Pittsburgh, Cardinals, Ravens, Eagles, etc. Because, really, what’s a better measure of which team is “better” than “playoff success.” Isn’t that why we had the playoffs instead of just crowning the Titans at the end of the year?
Demond’s compromise would have the added benefit of making weeks sixteen and seventeen matter more to more teams. If we were playing for a bye even if we couldn’t win the division in week 17, we might have played our starters more to guarantee the victory.
BP
BTW, I’m grateful to this site for drumming up a meaningless 30-post controversy in the middle of March.
March 23, 2009 at 7:54 pm |
DZ: Just think about what the draft is for. It is supposed to make all 32 teams more equal. Tying the draft in with the playoffs just hurts the integrity of what the thing is for. Divisions are for seeding, the draft is for parity. Just because some team wins their division and gets a home game doesn’t change their status in the grand scheme of things, which is that they (teams like San Diego) are not yet equal to teams like Indianapolis. Your system would change the meaning of the draft. Thus it is better to leave the draft FAIR and playoff seeding UNFAIR, than to make both of them equally unfair.
Cass: You got it.
March 23, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
The draft is already tied to the playoffs (slots 31 and 32).
The purpose of the playoffs is to determine the best team.
The purpose of the draft is to help the worst team.
In both cases, I think it is wise to seed according to divisions.
You choose a poor example in San Diego. They were every bit the team Indy was. They won 4 fewer games, but their Pythagorean record was IDENTICAL. They then beat the Colts in the playoffs. It is unfair to say, “San Diego deserves to host Indy because they won their division” but then a few months later say, “San Diego deserves to draft many slots higher than Indy because they weren’t as good”
That is what we do now, and it is utterly ridiculous.
March 23, 2009 at 8:01 pm |
Guy,
Why is regular season record the only measure for who is “better” or who is in greater need of a higher draft pick?
Your statement that “teams like San Diego) are not yet equal to teams like Indianapolis” doesn’t make much sense in light of their head-to-head matchup in January.
BP
March 23, 2009 at 8:07 pm |
So, hypothetically, if Marvin DOES retire, do we get that cap money back? Or is it permanently on our hands?
March 23, 2009 at 8:26 pm |
Goes on the cap no matter what. It’s money that’s been paid to Marvin that hasn’t been counted on the cap yet. It has to be paid no matter what. Cut, retired or even if he stayed with the team (then it would just be split over the rest of the contract instead of all this year).
March 23, 2009 at 8:28 pm |
FO writes stories for ESPN. The day is coming. It’s coming slowly, but some day.
March 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm |
Triple Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indy gets the last pick of the 4th round as a compensatory pick for losing Jake Scott. No other compensatory picks for Indy.
March 23, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
As expected (That guy who projects those compensatory picks really knows his stuff.)
March 24, 2009 at 1:45 am |
BP: We beat the Chargers last year in the regular season. Why make the playoff game the deciding factor on which team is better? The truth is that one game in the NFL cannot determine who is the better team. The best way to determine that is record.
DZ: What about the disparity between the conferences? If the top seed in the AFC is 15-1 and the top seed in the NFC is 12-4, you want to shove all NFC playoff teams farther back in the draft? What if there is a 13-3 and 14-2 team in the AFC, they draft BEFORE the NFC’s #1 seed who was 12-4? You are penalizing the NFC playoff teams just because they play in a weaker conference. You haven’t thought this thing through.
Also, you need to stop thinking of the Miami Dolphins as having a “double reward.” Their one and ONLY reward was for winning their division. They got a home playoff game for that. The Colts did not win their division, and thus had to play on the road. The draft order does not reward Miami and penalize the Colts, it only puts them in their appropriate slots. In fact, your system would only PENALIZE Miami for having WON THEIR DIVISION! Think about that! “Congrats on winning your division Miami, now you get to draft 8 slots later than you would have if you were only a wild card, even though you are the exact same team.”
Your idea just DOES NOT WORK. The fact that the NFL has completely separated playoff seeding from the draft should be enough of an indication as to why it is such a bad idea.
The only reason playoff seeding hasn’t been changed is because of rivalries and tradition. Otherwise we all pretty much agree that it is a flawed system. The draft system, on the other hand, has NOTHING keeping it from being modified however the league deems best. And yet it is based on regular season record. Hmmm, I wonder why they haven’t adopted your brilliant idea? Maybe it isn’t quite as good as you think?
Your little quip about the ‘Phins getting a home playoff game AND a higher draft slot seems to have swayed your readers to agreeing with you. But, that anomaly is a result of the flawed seeding system, NOT THE DRAFT SYSTEM!
I don’t know how I can make it any clearer.
March 24, 2009 at 8:14 am |
Let me break down your arguments:
1. First you ask: Why make the playoffs the deciding factor about which team is better?
Response: Uh, because that’s what the playoffs are for…to decide which team is better. One game in the NFL determines the ‘best’ team every year. That’s why the Super Bowl champion and runner up draft 31st and 32nd. The goal of the NFL is the playoffs, not the draft. The playoffs determine NFL reality. The NFL has rightly used a complicated method to determine playoff seeding; that should also determine the draft because it more closely corresponds with NFL “reality” where records don’t matter in a pure sense.
2. Disparity between conferences:
Response: One conference is weaker; one is stronger. Playing in a weaker conference carries with it its own rewards intrinsically.
3. Playing a home game for the Dolphins isn’t a reward-
Response: yes it is. Under a more ‘intuitive system’ the teams would all be seeded by record. Instead the NFL has chosen to build in rewards for team that win their divisions. The NFL is saying to Miami: Congrats on winning your division. You now get a home game you don’t ‘deserve’ (if only raw records are considered). Under my plan, Miami would draft only one spot lower than the spot they have now! The real team that gets penalized is the Chargers-an underachieving club that was better than their record (again, Pythag wins show that), and already got a home game as a bonus for their season. The draft would go:
20. New England (+3)
21. Philadelphia (-1)
22. Baltimore (+4)
23. Atlanta (+1)
24. Indianapolis (+2)
25. San Diego (-9)
26. Minnesota (-4)
27. Miami (-1)
28. Carolina (NC)
29. NYG (NC)
30. Tennessee (NC)
31. Arizona (NC, although it’s a -11 over where they would draft strictly by record)
32. Pittsburgh (NC)
You keep acting like I’m “penalizing” teams by having them draft lower. They aren’t being penalized by getting a lower draft pick. They are being rewarded with a home playoff game. Don’t separate out the two things. Would Indianapolis rather have had a home playoff game or the 24rd pick in the draft? Obviously, they would rather have played at home. The penalty is making them play on the road. It’s a deserved penalty for not winning their division. Currently they are doubly penalized. That is what I’m trying to rectify.
Here’s the joke…the NFL ALREADY USES THIS PLAN.
Arizona should be drafting between San Diego and Philadelphia, but the NFL has said, “Congrats on making the Super Bowl, Cardinals, now you get to draft 10 spots lower”. They already do what you say can’t be done. They have partially adopted this plan. I just think they should go all the way with it and carry it through for the rest of the playoff teams.
March 24, 2009 at 9:21 am |
Enough already about the Draft/Playoff Seeding. You both have valid arguments for competing methods. Both systems would be better than what we have now. We all agree the current system is stupid. The only question is what to change the draft seeding or the playoff seeding. Either system would be better then what we have but the owners aren’t inclined to change either.
Back to sharks and basketball:
1.) I heard on Mike and Mike this morning that this year’s Sweet 16 has the lowest ever seed total. I think we all kind of intrinsicly knew this but interesting to get the data on it.
2.) I agree with C Biscuit that in addition to the points I made early that the vanilla NBA styles that everyone plays makes the games less interesting too. I also think this is caused by the AAU affect.
3.) It seems universally agreed (with the exception or Agents, Shoe Companies, and the AAU coaches themselves) that AAU basketball is bad for the sport of basketball at all levels: High School, College, and Pros. So why isn’t anything done about it? Maybe you can’t do anything about it but nobody seems to be even trying. Basketball as it exists is pretty boring. I think maybe Basketball as a whole has jumped the shark.
March 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
1. The playoffs determine a league champion and a runner-up AFTER the playoffs are over! The SEEDING does NOTHING to determine this. And yet you want to use seeding to set up the draft.
2. This is a RIDICULOUS response to a question you were not prepared for. Playing in a weaker conference is an “intrinsic” reward??? Give me a break, man.
3. Re-read my last post. I didn’t say what you said I said. Since you got the complete opposite out of what you read I suggest you read it more closely and you will see why no teams are getting “double-rewarded.” I swear you aren’t even trying to understand my point of view.
P.S. – I’ve already said multiple times that I don’t agree with the 31/32 slots going to the super bowl teams, so I don’t know why you use that as an argument.
March 24, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
No, Guy. I understand all your arguments…I just disagree with them. You don’t like using divisions to seed the playoffs, and therefore don’t want to extend that to the draft. I do like using divisions to seed the playoffs, and recognize the NFL already extends it partially to the draft. I would just like to see them extend what is already done to its logical conclusion.
Your question about the inferior conference was irrelevant to the discussion. Some teams get to play in weaker conferences. It does have an intrinsic reward: less competition. See the Philadelphia Eagles for a good example. They have gone to what, 6 NFC Title games this decade? a 12-4 #1 seed in the NFC is closer to the Super Bowl than a 13-3 #5 seed in the AFC. Yes, they get dropped a couple of slots in the draft, but that is only fair. The point of the draft is create a competitive balance. The uneven conferences give some teams a better shot than others. Drafting by seed instead of record helps the teams that need it. I don’t think it’s really that important of an issue, to be honest, so I didn’t give it a full reply. I’m sorry if that somehow offends you.
Now I’ll quote you:
The playoffs determine a league champion and a runner-up AFTER the playoffs are over! The SEEDING does NOTHING to determine this.
This is nonsense. Seeding helps determine the outcome of the playoffs. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t seed at all. Saying seeding does nothing to determine outcomes ignores what happened with the Cardinals this year. They got a 4 seed and played 2 of three games at home in the playoffs. Seeding does matter. It certainly didn’t help the Colts any.
I’ve already said multiple times that I don’t agree with the 31/32 slots going to the super bowl teams, so I don’t know why you use that as an argument.
I use it as an argument because you said that my idea “just DOES NOT WORK”. It clearly does work. The NFL uses a variation of it currently, just not to its logical conclusion. You continue to argue that the NFL has (and I quote) “completely separated playoff seeding from the draft”. That’s sort of true, but incomplete. You may not like it, but they currently tie playoff results into the draft, but only in an incomplete way that creates inequality.
I get why you say Miami only gets one reward (the home game). In fact, teams like San Diego get two rewards…a playoff spot AND a home game. I think that moving them down in the draft as a recognition of their accomplishments makes sense. You don’t. The league SHOULD say to San Diego, “Congrats for winning your division. We recognize that you won and got a home playoff game. Therefore, you shouldn’t be treated like any other 8-8 team. you are better than that and your draft position will reflect the on field reality”
It’s not that I don’t understand you…I don’t agree with you. You think doing everything (playoffs and draft) on the basis of just regular season record makes more sense than the current system. However, I think the consequences of that will be a decline in rivalries and off-season strategy. I like the division system, and think the best fix for the problems it creates is to extend the regular season seeds to the draft. Since you don’t like the seeding system to start with, you don’t want to extend it any farther (compounding the mistake as you put it). Since I think seeding is a good thing overall, I don’t see it as compounding a mistake at all, but rather more accurately reflecting the results of the season in the draft. Again, the NFL already does this. I just want to see more of it. You favor a simplistic solution to a problem that I think is complex. Your way would be easier for sure. It would also be less nuanced and worse overall.
March 24, 2009 at 9:51 pm |
Well, you are wrong. If this great idea of yours ever gets adopted by the NFL than I will eat my words. But, as of now, you are being shortsighted and stubborn and only trying to back up a blog that you posted without much thought.
March 24, 2009 at 10:21 pm |
I’m not wrong that seeding by divisions is better than seeding purely by record. The NFL already does this, and the owners rejected an attempt to change it overwhelmingly last year.
I’m not wrong that the current system creates an inequity whereby the Chargers draft some 10 slots higher than the Colts despite having beat them in a playoff game they hosted. Even you admit this is poor system.
Proposing a system that utilizes the NFL’s current (and intractable) division system that normalizes where teams are slotted in the playoffs with their draft position is neither shortsighted, stubborn, or poorly thought out. In fact, it is not dramatically different from what the NFL already does by moving the Super Bowl participants to the back of the draft.
I’m sorry you can’t handle someone disagreeing with you without resorting to name calling. I’ve reasonably and rationally responded to all your arguments. The real issue is that you don’t like the division method of seeding. I do. NFL owners do. You’ve offered no defense for seeding by record, nor any rebuttal to the reasons I like seeding by divisions, and in the end you’ve impugned me by trying to guess my mental state at the time I posted (twice now).
I understand your position, and have declared it workable, but simplistic and drab. It would radically alter the NFL regular season for the worse, and destroy some of the key rivalries that make the NFL great. It is simple though. It makes sense. It is not, however, the best solution the problem at hand.
By the way, don’t ever accuse me of not having thought through the things I post. It’s wildly inaccurate and simply rude.
March 25, 2009 at 2:24 am |
You don’t have a clue as to what I’ve been talking about this whole time. Not once have I said they should “seed by record.” Yet this is what your entire last post is about. REEEEAAAAD MY POSTS. READ THEM.
R. E. A. D.
YOU: “In fact, it is not dramatically different from what the NFL already does by moving the Super Bowl participants to the back of the draft.”
Response: Drafting by record is only TWO SLOTS AWAY from what they do already. If your system not being “vastly different” is a PLUS argument for YOU, then it is a GAME WINNING argument for ME.
YOU: “Some teams get to play in weaker conferences. It does have an intrinsic reward: less competition…. Drafting by seed instead of record helps the teams that need it.”
Response: It helps the teams that need it? Really? Doesn’t it make the weaker conference playoff teams draft LATER in the draft and sometimes AFTER stronger opposite conference teams? It not only does NOT help the teams that need it, it makes the weak conference WEAKER and the strong conference STRONGER, widening the gap between conferences and decreasing parity. This is the exact opposite of what the draft is intended to do! This is why I accuse you of not thinking things through. Most of the responses you give me are so lame and untrue it’s as if you think just typing a bunch of words will do the trick.
And btw, I didn’t call you any names. I called your views shortsighted and stubborn. Now I will call them shortsighted and INCREDIBLY stubborn. The only name calling was done by your brother. He called me a jackass.
March 25, 2009 at 7:04 am |
Listen dude, I’ve R.E.A.D your posts. You say, “Not once have I said they should “seed by record.”
Yet you say things like:
“The Dolphins shouldn’t get a better playoff spot. But they do. Now, don’t go and support further flaws by changing the draft order to reflect the already screwed up seeding”
And:
“The fact that the Colts were a wildcard team this year is because of a flaw in the seeding system, and in no way should make us get a higher draft pick. The drafting system going off of record is the perfect way to do it, because your record is the clearest indication of the quality of your team, not your playoff seeding”
That sounds like you are arguing seeding by record.
I DON’T AGREE WITH EITHER STATEMENT. I agree with no part of either statement. Especially the part about your record being the clearest indicator of the strength of your team. That is actually patently untrue. Pythagorean wins are a better indicator of actual performance. That’s why the Colts and Chargers were actually of identical quality despite a 4 game gap in record. Their PF/PA were dead even, indicating two evenly matched teams. An overtime playoff game illustrated that. San Diego should not be drafting 10 spots below Indy. If the only point of comparison was Pythag wins, I could let it go, but SD also got to host Indy in a playoff game, which they won. I don’t buy your conclusion that they are a dramatically worse team. Other than regular season records there is no evidence of that. There is actually a lot of evidence to the contrary.
You also say:
“Just because the Cards made it to the super bowl doesn’t mean they have fewer needs than say, Tennessee. We all know the Cards truly need a higher pick than the Titans.”
Again, I totally disagree. They were essentially a play or two from winning the Super Bowl. That is the goal of the NFL. The goal is to help teams to have an equal shot at winning the Super Bowl, and NOT just to help teams to have the best regular season record. That’s why I said that being in a weaker conference has its own rewards. You are defining weaker and stronger based only on record. Ultimately, how close a team is to winning the title is the standard that should be used (and the NFL recognizes this by dropping the Super Bowl participants to 31 and 32). I would favor drafting either by seeding or by playoff results. Seeding is a better way, I believe, because it reflects the regular season more (and it should count for something), but I wouldn’t argue with drafting by playoff results.
I say that wins/loss records aren’t the best way to determine a team’s quality. The schedules are too slanted (6 division games) to truly compare one teams regular season record to another’s. Hence, Pythagorean wins give us better insight to future performance than straight Ws and Ls.
“It not only does NOT help the teams that need it, it makes the weak conference WEAKER and the strong conference STRONGER, widening the gap between conferences and decreasing parity.”
No, it helps the teams that are further from the Super Bowl, while hurting teams closest to it.
Again, you don’t have the right goal in mind.
You also said, “You are being shortsighted and stubborn” You said that about me, not my views. Maybe your problem is that you are inarticulate and can’t remember what you actually say.
March 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
You are being shortsighted and stubborn (in your views). Read between the lines.
And I have never said they should seed by record. That’s why you need to read closer. I swear your retention level is at 5%. My whole goal has been to show you how wrong your idea is and why it would never work. The ONLY thing I would change is the 31/32 slots. That’s it. Obviously I know seeding by record would be a solution, but I also know it would never happen so I do not advocate it.
It doesn’t matter anyway. The Dolphins and Chargers will be drafting before the Colts this year, parity will increase, and the world will keep spinning. Your half-baked idea will never see the light of day for all the reasons I have argued.
You are so hung up on this “injustice” that has been given the Colts this year. But if they won the AFC South, they would have gotten a home game just like Miami and San Diego. Period. Blame the Colts, not the system.
March 25, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
Read between the lines…cute. Now I have to try and read your mind.
I’m sorry if I took your previous comments (which I already quoted) as you saying you don’t like seeding by division. Using words like “mistake” and “wrongly” naturally lead someone to understand that you feel that the current system of playoff seeding does something wrong.
I don’t think you’ve shown why extending seeding to the draft doesn’t work. All your arguments seems to hinge on the following assumptions:
1. Record is the best indicator of team strength
2. It would disrupt parity to draft by seed.
3. Seeding teams by division is bad, so ordering the draft by seed extends the problem.
I fundamentally disagree with all three assumptions. My plan does work because the goal of the NFL is to win the Super Bowl NOT to attain the best record. The draft is merely ordered around record now for the sake of simplicity. Wins and loss certainly provide some clue as to a team’s proximity to a title. Unfortunately, because the way the playoffs are seeded recognize the deceptive nature of only looking at wins and losses without the context of divisions, the simplicity of the draft system produces inequity.
Thus, the Colts/Chargers situation is merely the impetus for my examination of the problem. The system contains a gross inequity. Because I support the nature of the way the playoffs are seeded, I chose to address the inequity in the draft. Many fans would rather change the playoffs to reflect the draft. I’m merely arguing that the reverse is a valid theory.
Again, I find your arguments weak and unconvincing. Your assumptions are flawed. Every time I contradict one argument, you change course and say, “But that’s not what I’m saying”. Fortunately for everyone, there is a clear record of your statements and your course corrections are easy to spot.
March 25, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
“Every time I contradict one argument, you change course and say, ‘But that’s not what I’m saying’.”
Yeah, because you keep saying things that I never said. LOL.
The conference disparity ALONE is enough to keep your plan from becoming reality. Your rebuttal on this point has been ridiculously weak. You think the stronger conference is “farther” from the super bowl (because they have a harder schedule?), and therefore deserve better draft choices than the weaker conference playoff teams. Here’s the flaw in your thinking: If you help ALL THOSE STRONGER-CONFERENCE PLAYOFF TEAMS, then they ALL improve and therefore NONE of them have an easier path to the super bowl. Meanwhile, the weaker conference is now weaker. Do you see that? Can you grasp that concept? Furthermore, even beginning with the premise that a the stronger conference has a harder path to a championship is FUBAR. When that stronger conference reaches the super bowl they play the WEAKER conference, which your system would like to make even WEAKER! And furthermore, the weaker conference teams are all relative in strength to each other so that they have NO EASIER PATH TO THE SUPER BOWL! Man, this is so ass-backwards. And I think you know it, too. You just don’t have any better way to counter.
God, Bill Polian would laugh in your face if you proposed this to him.
March 25, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
You never said the things that I put in quotes? I’m sorry I didn’t know someone else was posting as Guy. I’m sorry I confused things you said with things you said.
A team in a weaker conference has an easier path to make the Super Bowl. That isn’t debatable. Let’s illustrate it:
In Conference A, there are two good teams, and 4 weaker ones in the playoffs. The good teams will have to win two hard games to win the Super Bowl (1 against the other good team, another to win the Super Bowl against a good team in Conference B)
In Conference B there are 4 good teams and two weaker ones in the playoffs. Each good team will have to beat at least 3 good teams to win the Super Bowl (one each in round 2 and the Conference Championship game, and a third good team in the Super Bowl). The odds of beating two good teams are better than beating three good teams. Therefore, each individual team good team in Conference B has a lesser chance to win the title than the good teams in Conference A, simply because the competition is better. Just because one conference is weaker as a whole, doesn’t mean their Super Bowl representative is inherently weak as well. That’s the flaw in your reasoning.
In the end, the entire conference argument isn’t that important (which I said from the start). Because record would be the “tie breaker” after seed, the weaker conference teams would still draft before their seeded counterpart from the stronger conference. What it would do is bring the extreme outliers in a conference back into line (namely the Arizonas and San Diegos of the world). It punishes a weak division, but not necessarily a weak conference. This year, the net result would be the NFC moving up a net total of 1 slot and the AFC losing 1 slot. In short, that renders your entire argument about the conferences is basically irrelevant.
My plan doesn’t help ALL the stronger conference playoff teams. Only the ones that don’t win their division. It allows them to get closer to the team on top of the division.
I’m not being argumentative. I’m still a little shocked you find this all so confusing. Let me ask you an honest question: when I talk about things like Pythagorean wins and the percentages of beating three hard teams instead of two hard teams, do you understand what I mean? I feel like you might not understand these concepts. They aren’t made up…
March 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
I like seeing DZ get cornered like Stringer Bell by Omar and Brother Mouzone….then flop and flail like a goldfish dumped on the kitchen floor.
March 25, 2009 at 7:05 pm |
I AM THE SMARTEST MAN ALIVE!!
SUCK IT GUY! I WIN
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4015265
March 25, 2009 at 7:06 pm |
What I meant to say was…
I’m glad the owners saw the reasonableness of my position. Congratulations, Guy on a spirited debate, and may you fair better next time.
March 25, 2009 at 7:07 pm |
Noooo, I was right the first time
SUCK IT!
March 25, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
Ahem . . . I do believe that the adopted rule is what I proposed in comment #30 . . thank you very much (j/k).
Also noteworthy is that the Jaguars were pushing for Demond’s compromise re: home-field advantage in the WC round (from Comment #21).
Demond, now that you’ve been shown to think like the Jaguars’ organization, promptly turn in your Colts-blogger credentials. I’m afraid that might be a disqualifying mark on your record (Let’s, of course, ignore the fact that I agreed with you).
March 25, 2009 at 7:31 pm |
That was me, btw
BP
March 26, 2009 at 12:57 am |
The Yankees deal with Jeter’s shit at short because he’s second in hits in the Yankees Franchise behind a guy named Lou Gherig.
b
Maybe you’ve heard of him?
Also – he puts the fear of God into you innings 7-9 because his punk ass is always on base.
March 26, 2009 at 6:48 am |
Sure, but he’d be a lot more valuable anywhere on the field but at short.
March 26, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
re: Jeter
Ever since Jeter demanded to stay at SS rather than let the best SS in the game play there (A-Rod), the Yanks have failed to win a WS. Selfishness like that produces much Bad Karma.
re: NCAA tourney
The idea that game results reflect proper seeding is backward. Seeding influences game results. And there is just way too much chance, luck, etc. to draw any conclusions from one set of results.
Darth Vader and the BCS conferences are strangling the golden goose. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402021.html
CBS paid 6 Billion because non-fans play hookey on Thurs and Fri hoping to see David slay Goliath. Check out the ratings differences when Davidson and George Mason made their runs. Cinderella produces the huge extra revenue and the BCS conferences aren’t content to get the vast majority of it. They want all of it. They’ll get ALL of the pie, but they are going to shrink the hell out of the size of the pie by doing so.
With apologies to Dean Wormer — “fat, greedy and stupid is no way to go through life.”