Today, persuaded no doubt by my rhetorical excellence, the NFL owners voted 32-0 to change the way the bottom 12 picks of the draft are allotted. Whereas this year, the San Diego Chargers are picking far ahead of the Colts, starting next year, draft picks will be awarded based on how teams finish in the playoffs. This is essentially a parallel proposal to the one I suggested on Monday which would have slotted teams by playoff seed, and one which I approved of in the extensive debate with “Guy” that took place in the comments section. Under the new plan, teams are slotted 1-20 based on record and then 21-32 based first on what round of the playoffs they were eliminated and then by record to break the ties. I favored using playoff seeds just to increase the value of the regular season in determining the draft picks, but recognize that this plan accomplishes the same end and is consistent with current NFL practice (namely the reslotting of the Super Bowl participants).
Special props to BP for suggesting the very change the NFL adopted in the comments of the previous post. As I said then, I have no argument with this version either.
Also on the table was a proposal to give home games to teams with the best records and not to division champions (a plan supported by the Jaguars and Demond). That plan was withdrawn due to lack of support.
Again the final vote on this change was 32 in favor of the new system and zero in favor of the current system. Apparently, the specific injustice of the Colts/Chargers was the impetus for the change. Interesting.
For those who care to know, I did do an embarrassing dance around the house when I heard. And yes, I am just a little ashamed of myself.
Links:
Kuharsky on the Colts draft needs:
Just a note of thanks to John Oehser for his props on his excellent Indyfootballreport blog (a daily read of mine…you can find it in our sidebar links). By the way, in his commentary he rightly asks for my source on the “all the good DTs in the first 15 picks” comment. It must be Kuharsky, who repeats in the video above that Polian told him that before the combine. We’ll be doing 18 Questions with John very soon.
Tags: Playoff reseeding
March 25, 2009 at 8:27 pm |
Here’s the specific Kuharsky story and Polian quote that you referenced:
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afcsouth/0-7-539/A-Colts-DT–A-Titans-WR–Not-likely-in-Round-1.html
Just call me your research monkey
By the way, I consider it very strange and creepy that while you are having that argument with Guy, the owners actually voted on that. Really makes you look like some kind of genius/psychic…
March 25, 2009 at 8:42 pm |
He’s neither, he just got lucky.
He’s wrong about shit all the time.
March 26, 2009 at 8:43 am |
You’re hilarious, DZ. If you had proposed THIS change, I wouldn’t have had as big of a problem with it. I was arguing against your idiotic idea of drafting based on seeding, which is absolutely not the same as drafting based on playoff results. Your system still sucks. This one is actually pretty fair. It FIXES the injustices of the seeding system rather than EXTEND them, like yours does. Thinking this validates your proposal is a joke.
Also, thinking you’re the only one who understands “pythagorean” shows what a stuck up a-hole you are. Heck, you have to be full of yourself just to write a blog every day, so I guess that’s obvious.
March 26, 2009 at 8:58 am |
Can I throw a vote in for a response ban on “Guy”. I’m not talking a ban, but can we treat him like the Troll that he acts like. Everyone here likes a good argument. Hell even a good fight, but when you start throwing insults like this it’s just not worth debating with them. JC is one thing. He’s a drugged/liquored up goof, who can be fun to exchange jabs with but to be honest “Guy” your rants of near hatred giving no ground only make you small. I read your whole exchange with DZ, and you seemed only to want to fight. DZ pretty clearly stated in my view that as a slight alternative he’d settle for seeding the draft by playoff results just like spots 31 and 32 are now. You seemed to insist that even that was foolish though 32 team owners seemed to disagree with you.
Most importantly if you don’t like DZ, and think he’s full of himself. Don’t come here and start your own haters blog with the time you’ll save.
March 26, 2009 at 9:01 am |
Oh, please. I called him an a-hole because he insulted my intelligence in his last response in the other blog. I was arguing specifics with him the whole time, and if you don’t think that’s a good debate, then that’s your problem.
March 26, 2009 at 9:03 am |
And yeah, I still don’t think this system they agreed on is perfect, but it is much better than what he wanted to do, which is all I was debating against. So he can’t use this to say he won the debate. He will, of course, but that’s just how he is I guess.
March 26, 2009 at 9:32 am |
Before DZ comes on here and tells me why this validates his arguments, let me tell you why it doesn’t.
First, this system allows wild card teams to draft based on whether they win or lose the game. DZ wanted to make them draft higher automatically. So, if we had beaten San Diego this year, we would still be drafting ahead of them under his system, and isn’t that the same problem that we are having with them? That they beat us and still draft first? At least this system gives the wild card teams an automatic higher draft choice if they should lose, and doesn’t screw the division winner if the wild card team wins. DZ’s system doesn’t have this flexibility.
I still don’t like the idea that one playoff game can decide your draft spot however. A weaker division winner can win these games simply because they are at home (San Diego). But, as they already draft the SB teams 31/32, this is a workable solution. It is still a band-aid on the bleeding seeding system, but at least it’s a little more fair and balanced.
Make no mistake, though, this is not the same as what DZ proposed.
March 26, 2009 at 9:52 am |
One more thing. DZ’s most important argument, the one he based his entire idea upon, was that no team should get both a home playoff game and a higher draft pick. He repeated that continuously. But, wait, this new system they voted on allows for that to happen if the division winner loses in the wild card round. OOPS. How can you honestly say you won the argument now?
March 26, 2009 at 11:00 am |
1. I doubted your ability to understand my arguments because you never respond to them. It was an honest question. You acted like someone who was embarrassed he didn’t know what was going on and postured against it. I wasn’t trying to insult you, but you showed such little ability to engage the argument, I assumed you didn’t understand the terms I was using. I apologize if that offended you. It wasn’t my intent.
2. This change is only slightly different than mine. Yes, I still favored seeding rather than playoff results, because I still think it’s unfair the Dolphins get a home game and a a better pick. I think that’s inconsistent, but this method, which I clearly advocated as well is a big improvement. It doesn’t address the original problem I posted about, but resolves most of the ones that came out in the course of the argument.
In case you forgot to read what I wrote in the argument:
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.
The NFL recognized that my view of the league and its goal (to win the Super Bowl…NOT to accumulate wins), is the accurate one. Fortunately, there is a record of everything was said. By they way, your response was more hilarious nonsense about conference inequity. Very funny stuff which I stomped forever in comment #51 (in case you didn’t read it). You were barking up the wrong tree the whole time, and the NFL owners clowned you.
You have officially achieved legendary clown status on this blog. You are always welcome here, the way JC is welcome. From now on, whenever someone comes on and is abusive and argumentative, while constantly changing their opinion and then refusing to admit defeat even after everyone else plainly acknowledges that said person got their ass kicked, we’ll refer to him as “Guy”. As in, “Hey, did you see that the Guy on the board today talking about why the Colts should run a 2 TE, 2 RB, 2 WR offense?”
I admire your guts in showing up here, utterly ignoring reality, and claiming I was wrong. It takes a special kind of crazy to do that.
March 26, 2009 at 11:13 am |
I understand why the owners wouldn’t want division winners to give up their home games in the playoffs. But it’s a relatively rare circumstance. 9 times out of 10, the wild card teams won’t have better records than their division opponents.
March 26, 2009 at 11:20 am |
By the way, I mean no offense to JC by comparing him to Guy.
March 26, 2009 at 12:39 pm |
None taken, but I like the way Guy called you out on your fence sitting, flip flopping, agenda serving, revisionist history bullshit.
Maybe living in a third world country has made you soft…..
March 26, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
Lol. Fence sitting? Flip flopping?
Do you care to elaborate?
Guy should feel worried that you are his lone defender.
March 26, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
DZ, I have been nothing but consistent in my responses. Claiming that I’ve changed my opinions on anything is flat out wrong, and you know it. I was neither “abusive” or “argumentative.” We were going back and forth, man. That’s how a debate works. I didn’t respond directly to your “Pythagorean wins” crap because that is intangible. You want to create a system for seeding and drafting, you need something you can measure. They certainly aren’t going to consult you on which team has had a better Pythagorean season. LOL.
You are right that the NFL places more emphasis on postseason success than accumulative wins. But your system was closer to drafting by record (seeding is 90% total record) than drafting by postseason success. So again, this change they voted on does not clarify you a victor. And I never argued against drafting by postseason results. I was arguing against drafting by seed.
The bottom line is that the NFL has adopted a plan that you were not proposing. How you claim that as a victory is astonishing. Even when your fundamental issue (that a team shouldn’t get a home game and a higher pick) isn’t resolved, you still say that you were right. Well, that’s just BS. Truly.
And you’ve given me “legendary clown status”? LOL. For what? Disagreeing with you? Debating with you? Holding my ground on a topic I feel strongly about? If those things make somebody a clown, than I’m a clown. Guilty as charged.
March 26, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
Guy,
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your stance all along. Please correct whatever errors you see in my representation of your beliefs:
1. You believe that seeding by divisions is a mistake that creates injustices
2. You believe that slotting teams by record is the best way to create parity in the league. You also believe it is a mistake to award picks 31 and 32 to the Super Bowl participants and would prefer to see the draft slotted only by record.
3. You believe that any attempt to slot by seed would create an imbalance between strong conferences and weak conferences
4. You believe that the best measure of a team’s strength is their regular season record.
5. You believe that a good team in a weak conference has the same chance of winning the Super Bowl as a good team in a good conference.
6. Ultimately you believe that because seeding by divisions is an inherently flawed way to rank teams, it makes no sense to extend that mistake to the draft.
Now here’s my beliefs:
1. I believe that seeding by divisions is the best way to seed the playoffs for many reasons.
2. I believe that slotting teams by seeding is the best way to create fairness, but that slotting by playoff results would produce a similar result.
3. I believe that slotting by seed would have no effect on the distribution of talent between conferences.
4. I believe the best measure of a team’s strength is a combination of factors including: standing in their division, Pythagorean wins, and playoff results.
5. I believe that a good team in a weak conference has a superior chance of winning to Super Bowl to a good team in a good conference.
6. Ultimately, I believe that divisional seeding represents a team’s real opportunity to win the Super Bowl, and the draft slotting should reflect which teams have the best opportunities. Thus, teams with home playoff games are more likely to win than teams that have to go on the road (regardless of actual outcome). I also accept that actual outcome is valid solution that while doesn’t address all the problems presented by the current system, does solve many of them.
I would appreciate a point by point response here. You have a habit of abandoning arguments that go against you, and would like your confirmation that I have understood and represented your beliefs accurately.
March 26, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
Wow, what a debate! The only thing wrong with that was that it drowned out my sublime critique of what’s wrong with college hoops. Nothing wrong with dudes duking it out respectfully (well, until the end). Demond coming from nowhere to drop the jackass label didn’t exactly elevate the discussion even if it was in the name of fun. I don’t think calling Guy a clown is productive, however. Disagree with his points but he made his case with good intentions. Compared to 99% of the crap out there this is good clean debate – hard to find on the web. Don’t screw it up! Whatever, on to the next subject!
March 26, 2009 at 3:35 pm |
Post #15 came in while I was typing #16. Now that’s what I’ve come to expect. Way to go!
March 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm |
Guy -
Just an aside to correct something. You claim “I didn’t respond directly to your “Pythagorean wins” crap because that is intangible. You want to create a system for seeding and drafting, you need something you can measure. They certainly aren’t going to consult you on which team has had a better Pythagorean season”
In fact, Pythagorean wins isn’t intangible. It’s a real stat calculated by a formula. Here is a link to the formula: http://www.imarc.net/communique/view/21/pythagorean_wins_for_the_nfl
I had to ask DZ a couple of months ago what Pythagorean wins are, and he provided me with that link and this explanation:
Simply put, it comes from the observation that Points Scored and Points Against are more reliable indicators of future performance than wins and losses are.
In other words, a team like Denver that gave up more points than it had allowed, was actually a mirage when it sat at 8-5.
For instance, this year, the Chargers and Colts were dead even in Pythagorean wins. Even though the Colts had four more wins than the Chargers, going forward it was more useful to think of the two teams as dead even (which bore out in their game which went to OT). Both teams were basically 10 win teams. The Colts were a little “lucky” and the Chargers “unlucky”. “Experts” who claimed that a 12 win team should stomp an 8 win team didn’t know what they were talking about. This was essentially a matchup of two 10 win teams. And, as can be expected, the home team won.
This theory accounts for things like Miami’s improvement this year. Last year, they were a “5 win” team that won once. This year they were a “9 win” team that won 11 times. It looks like they improved 10 games, but they really only played about 4 wins better than last year. They just got some breaks that they didn’t get before. They were better, but not quite as much better as it looked.
There are some coaches who seem to ‘bust’ the Pythagorean formula, consistently beating expectations. Dungy is the best at this, usually finishing about 2 games better than expected (exactly like this year). Belichick has been phenomenal if you only count his NE stint. He is generally close to three wins better (although this year it was only .5). The general term is “lucky” and “unlucky” for over/under performing, but those are just labels and not meant to be pejorative.
So next year, when picking teams, don’t even bother looking at wins and losses from this year. Just look at PF/PA against and you’ll do better.”
Hope that helps!
March 26, 2009 at 4:52 pm |
“1. You believe that seeding by divisions is a mistake that creates injustices”
-I believe that seeding by divisions is flawed and creates wild card teams with better records than division winners and gives home games to teams that do not deserve it (sometimes, not always). Everybody recognizes its imperfections. But, I do not think it is a “mistake,” nor would I change it. You have been getting me wrong on this point the entire time.
“2. You believe that slotting teams by record is the best way to create parity in the league. You also believe it is a mistake to award picks 31 and 32 to the Super Bowl participants and would prefer to see the draft slotted only by record.”
-I think it is a mistake slotting SB teams 31/32 when the rest of the playoffs teams are slotted by record, yes. That is inconsistent. My stance on drafting by record was in defense of your system. I was arguing for the status quo as compared to your proposal. I never did argue against drafting by playoff results because it wasn’t your stance. I believe, since the seeding system will never change, that drafting by playoff results seems like the fairest system they could have adopted. I still contend that drafting purely by record is better than drafting by seeding, however.
“3. You believe that any attempt to slot by seed would create an imbalance between strong conferences and weak conferences.”
-There is no doubt about it. Drafting by seed allows teams from the better conference to draft before weaker conference teams even though they have better records. That is unrefutable. If you want to argue that record doesn’t signify the strength of the team, fine, but it is the best indicator we have. Drafting purely by record solves this. Drafting by playoff success may or may not allow this to happen, however it is fair because no team is going to argue a low draft position if they earned it in the playoffs. It still isn’t perfect, and it still is only a band-aid on a bleeding (albeit permanent) seeding system. But it works. Your system is the only one that would allow it unjustifiably.
“4. You believe that the best measure of a team’s strength is their regular season record.”
-It is the best way we have. Obviously it isn’t perfect. And obviously they aren’t going to go by DVOA, or weigh it with difficulty of schedule or anything like that. If you want to argue that what you do in the playoffs is a better way, that is somewhat reasonable. However, because the seeding system allows lesser teams to get home games, even that is not perfect. We all know what home-field advantage can do in football, especially in the postseason.
“5. You believe that a good team in a weak conference has the same chance of winning the Super Bowl as a good team in a good conference.”
-This is all dependent on how weak that entire conference is (including the best team in that conference) when compared to the other conference. But it doesn’t matter because that can and will fluctuate between seasons. My stand is that a weaker conference team has no “intrinsic” reward for playing in that conference and should draft based on their strength compared to the rest of the teams in the league, without adjusting for this unmeasurable and fluctuating “intrinsic” reward that you keep talking about. Imagine telling Jerry Jones that his Cowboys (at say, 12-4), will be drafting after the Colts (14-2) and Patriots (13-3) because they have already been rewarded for playing in a weak conference. You think that would fly? This has been far and away your weakest argument.
“6. Ultimately you believe that because seeding by divisions is an inherently flawed way to rank teams, it makes no sense to extend that mistake to the draft.”
-Bingo. And the NFL agrees with me. They have been drafting based primarily on record for years, and will begin drafting by playoff results in 2010 or whatever it was. Neither of these extends the flaw. Drafting by seeding does.
“Now here’s my beliefs:
1. I believe that seeding by divisions is the best way to seed the playoffs for many reasons.”
-And I agree…
“2. I believe that slotting teams by seeding is the best way to create fairness, but that slotting by playoff results would produce a similar result.”
-Slotting by seed does not create fairness, it extends unfairness. Automatically giving wild card teams higher draft slots allows for better teams to draft before lesser teams (regardless of the results of wild card weekend) because the seeding system allows for better teams to be wild cards and lesser teams to be division winners. This is not my opinion, it is undeniable fact. If you draft by record, you have unfairness in seeding alone. Drafting by seed, you have unfairness in both the draft and the seeding. Drafting by playoff results may or may not allow better teams to draft before lesser ones, but it creates results that cannot be deemed unfair to anyone as they are earned in the playoffs.
“3. I believe that slotting by seed would have no effect on the distribution of talent between conferences.”
-Whether you believe that record is a fair measurement of a teams strength or not, giving teams with better records higher draft choices will, over time, widen the gap between the conferences. There is no two ways about that.
“4. I believe the best measure of a team’s strength is a combination of factors including: standing in their division, Pythagorean wins, and playoff results.”
-Firstly, division standing cannot be compared across divisions, and that is your own contention. So, that cannot be used to arrange the draft when there are 8 divisions. Pythagorean wins, as you call them, are immeasurable. Playoff results are indeed not a bad way to do it. However, your proposed system completely did away with playoff results (even the 31 and 32 slots). So, I’m glad you think playoff results work, but they weren’t incorporated into your plan, were they? Not only were they not incorporated, the ones that were in place were eliminated.
“5. I believe that a good team in a weak conference has a superior chance of winning to Super Bowl to a good team in a good conference.”
-Again, this fluctuates based on a number of variables. But even if that team has a superior chance of getting to the super bowl, do they have a superior chance of winning it? Not when your system continues to give the stronger conference higher draft choices! And don’t you agree that your system will decrease the weaker conference’s total wins and increase the stronger conference’s total wins? Where does it end, when the strong conference is going 16-0, 15-1, 14-2, and the weaker conference’s best team is 11-5? Does that seem right to you? To anybody? Can your “intrinsic reward” theory bridge the gap? Even if you don’t believe total wins measure strength, eventually they will be so disparate that the flaw will be obvious.
“6. Ultimately, I believe that divisional seeding represents a team’s real opportunity to win the Super Bowl, and the draft slotting should reflect which teams have the best opportunities. Thus, teams with home playoff games are more likely to win than teams that have to go on the road (regardless of actual outcome). I also accept that actual outcome is valid solution that while doesn’t address all the problems presented by the current system, does solve many of them.”
-The Indianapolis Colts went 12-4 this year, the Titans went 13-3. This gave the Colts a wild card berth. Your contention is that the Colts are now farther from the super bowl than the 8-8 Chargers and the 11-5 Miami Dolphins, and should be given a higher draft choice than those teams. But what if the Titans went 10-6 this year? This same Colts team (same players, coaches, lucky bounces, weather, injuries) is now a division champion! Now, because of this, they should draft lower than the Dolphins and Chargers? But nothing has changed with the Colts! The Titans changed. Are the Colts any better or worse than the Dolphins or Chargers? No! They are exactly the same as before, but are drafting much lower? This is a fundamental flaw in your system. It willy-nilly tosses draft choices around regardless of a team’s actual strength. Drafting by playoff results at least gives these teams a chance to battle it out, but yours does not.
March 26, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Cass-
Ok, so there is a formula for calculating “Pythagorean wins.”
1. -It would NEVER, absolutely NEVER, be adopted by the NFL under any circumstance. It would lead to running up the score and would absolutely diminish the importance of “Just getting a W.” After all, aren’t wins all that matters in the NFL? That’s what we’ve always heard…
2. -DZ’s proposal in no way incorporated this formula. So why would it be brought up in the debate if he doesn’t even use it? He uses the current NFL’s playoff seeding system and copies it over to the draft. Where and how is this formula involved? It is absent.
March 26, 2009 at 5:31 pm |
And, DZ, you will notice in my point-by-point response that nothing I said this time I haven’t already said in the debate, which completely debunks your accusation that I “have a habit of abandoning arguments that go against” me. Perhaps you forget my responses because you aren’t open to them, or just don’t read them closely enough, or simply choose to.
March 26, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
If I were standing in the middle of the two of you in a black and white striped shirt…..I’d lift Guy’s arm.
March 26, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
Ok Guy,
Here’s where we look at what you said originally and compare it with what you say now:
1. You now say you are fine with seeding by divisions. In the original debate you said, “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.”
Forgive me, but that sounds like a direct contradiction of what you say now
2. You now say seeding by record is the fairest system. In the original debate, that idea was suggested, and I found it an acceptable middle ground between my proposal and the current system. You responded at the time “Leave the draft how it is, and change the playoff system. OR change nothing. and 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.
Again, what you said at the time is the opposite of what you say now
3. You have been consistent on this point. Unfortunately, you are consistently wrong. I showed in comment 51 of that post that my system would have cost the AFC (the stronger conference)1 draft slot this year. The entire conference argument was a red herring because the ‘strength’ of the conference won’t always show up in the records of the top teams. On this you are simply incorrect.
4. Again, we agree on what you said. Regular season record is clearly not the best method we have. The NFL just proved that slotting according to playoff result. Therefore, they felt there was at least one method BETTER than regular season record.
5. I’m not sure you understand my argument. Playing in a weaker conference puts good teams in a better position to make the Super Bowl than a good team would have in the stronger conference. Consider the Colts this decade. They lost to a string of very good teams in the playoffs (Pats, Steelers, Chargers). In the NFC, they wouldn’t have had to face so many tough teams so early in the playoffs.
6. Again you use the phrase “extends the flaws of seeding”. But in point one, you say you agree with seeding by division. On this I’m not clear. Do you accept seeding by division because it’s not likely to change, or because you believe it is the best method? You don’t seem to be consistent on this point.
Now to my arguments:
1. You say we agree. Fine.
2. Again, you are assuming the Wild Card team is “better” than the division winner with the better record. That isn’t true. It wasn’t the case with the Colts/Chargers this year. You have fallen back on the assumption that regular season record is the best measure of a team’s strength. The league has rejected that premise in favor of the standard “how close did they get to the Super Bowl”. My plan was a slightly different tact on the same line. It rewarded teams for how close they started the playoffs to the Super Bowl. This plan rewards them for how close they finished. Slotting by record ignores the playoffs all together.
3. Again, you are wrong here because you can’t see how things shake out. If one conference consistently sent multiple 8-8 teams to the playoffs as division winners, while the other consistently sent 13-3 WC teams, I suppose that could happen. That’s not the way it usually works. It is true, I haven’t gone over the last 10 years of the draft to see how it would have gone, but this year at least would have helped the weaker NFC slightly (by one pick), not hurt it. Again, you are equating strength with record. I don’t think that’s a very accurate way to do it. Ultimately, all that happens is that teams tend to reshuffle WITHIN the conference. IE…the Dolphins drop a spot, the Colts gain a spot. The records of the playoff teams tend to be similar even when the overall strength of the playoff teams aren’t. If you are really obsessed with this, I’ll try to go back a few years and see what the net result would have been. I doubt it will be significant.
4. You were incorrect in your assessment of my plan. I retained the old Super Bowl participants get 31 and 32 in my system (see post 40). I later endorsed the playoff result plan in post 47.
5. The weaker conference team my not have a better chance of beating any one of the stronger conference teams in the Super Bowl, but their overall odds of winning the SB before the playoffs are better than any individual team’s odds in the stronger conference. This isn’t debatable. There is an built in advantage to playing in the weaker conference.
6. The Colts were further from the Super Bowl than the Chargers. They had to play a team they were dead even with on the road. The Chargers played at home. The record was irrelevant to which team was closer to the Super Bowl. Had the Titans gone 10-6, the Colts would have had the #1 overall seed, and played Baltimore at home in round two. They would have been much closer to the Super Bowl in that instance, and would deserve a lower pick for that. My system would have ensured that the best the Colts could have picked in that hypothetical circumstance would have been 30 (depending on tie breaks with the NYG). Under the new system, even if the Colts had lost in round 2, the best they could have picked was 28. Personally, I don’t like rewarding teams for losing in the playoffs. I like to consider where they started. I like both options BETTER than the old way, which was insane.
I hope this clarifies both why I disagree with you, and why I accused you of changing course. If you care to explain the discrepancies, I welcome you to do so.
March 26, 2009 at 6:55 pm |
Doesn’t have much weight coming from a biased party, does it? I’m just enjoying a good argument in the middle/end of March. Otherwise, I would be bored out of my mind.
Guy, in response to #1, remember that Pythagorean wins is just a stat. Just like time of possession, passing yards, and # of stats. It is not intended to replace wins or determine playoff seeding. It’s just a discussion point. I’ll leave DZ to defend the use of it in his arguments.
March 26, 2009 at 7:39 pm |
I’m currently trying to recalculate 5 years of the draft based on both my plan and the plan that was adopted to see if Guy’s claim that the my plan would knock the conferences out of whack more than either the current system or the adopted one… It’s slow work, so be patient.
March 26, 2009 at 7:49 pm |
You have time for that between running a soup kitchen and playing soccer with the neighborhood homeless kids??
March 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
Urk! That’s supposed to be # of sacks, not # of stats.
JC-
I can’t tell…Is your post #26 supposed to be an insult?
March 26, 2009 at 10:29 pm |
DZ, dude, you can’t go back and look at past drafts. The whole point is that your system gives the better conference better players, and therefore increases their strength and the cycle keeps growing in that direction. You can’t go back and see what would have happened because you can’t know how different draft picks would change the strength of the conferences. Besides, 5 years isn’t a large enough example to begin with. So you will only be wasting your time. Give me a minute to respond to the rest.
March 26, 2009 at 11:02 pm |
Sigh, guy. Sometimes I don’t know how to talk to you. I realize that each year’s draft would have changed the subsequent years. What that little side project would have done is shown how often my plan and the adopted plan would have ‘thrown the draft out of whack by conference’ to see if your criticism was correct. It wouldn’t change history, but it would show whether or not your charge that my plan slants the draft toward tougher conference would actually do just that with any regularity.
As it stands, I’m not doing it because it’s way too time consuming, and my internet service was down all night. What I did find for the year I studied was interesting:
In the 2005 draft, we saw a particularly weak NFC. Slotting the draft my way would have cost the NFC 14 draft slots. That would seem to support Guy’s theory. There’s just one problem. The plan the NFL did adopt would have cost the NFC 12 slots. Because both plans effectively do the same thing (give better slots to teams that have good records that either don’t make, or don’t do well) in the playoffs, they will always cost one conference or another a similar amount of slot. For instance this year, my plan costs the AFC 1 slot. The adopted plan costs the AFC 2 slots. The numbers are always going to be fairly close because in the end, there’s not much difference between slotting by seed and slotting by playoff result, since playoff results tend to follow seeding to some degree.
I check the 2006 draft, and my plan was back down to a net loss of one slot. I didn’t have time to check the effect of the new plan, but I imagine it would have been close to that. The massive swings probably only occur in truly odd seasons.
Therefore, Guy’s criticism of my plan would appear valid, BUT the plan the NFL adopted has the exact same effect. So, Guy challenged my plan as unworkable, impossible, and ridiculous, but in the end the NFL adopted a plan with the same ‘flaw’. Some years, the NFL plan would create a larger conference shift; some years my plan would, but the numbers would always be fairly similar. Ultimately, the only difference between my plan and the NFL’s is whether you judge where a team starts the playoffs or where a team finishes the playoffs as a better indicator of where they should draft. Either way you slice it, you are helping teams with good records that don’t make the playoffs, and lowering the draft status of 9-7 and 8-8 playoff qualifiers.
Neither the NFL nor I have any problem with that.
So, in an interesting twist…Guy, you were may right about the criticism, but wrong about how important it would be to the NFL. It’s doesn’t make my plan any more unlikely to be adopted than the plan the NFL chose. So if you want to keep hammering my plan as bad for the conferences, you have to withdraw your support for the adopted plan on the same basis.
March 26, 2009 at 11:20 pm |
1. You now say you are fine with seeding by divisions. In the original debate you said, “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.”
Forgive me, but that sounds like a direct contradiction of what you say now
-This is not a contradiction at all. I said the Dolphins shouldn’t (theoretically) get a better playoff spot, but indeed they do. Did I say I would change the system? No. I said the system was “screwed up”, but did not say I would change it. So, what exactly is the contradiction?
2. You now say seeding by record is the fairest system. In the original debate, that idea was suggested, and I found it an acceptable middle ground between my proposal and the current system. You responded at the time “Leave the draft how it is, and change the playoff system. OR change nothing. and 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.
Again, what you said at the time is the opposite of what you say now
-You lost me in your first sentence when you said I support “seeding by record.” I do not. I’ve said a hundred times the current seeding system is best. So this whole paragraph is meaningless after that. Just what exactly are you trying to say?
3. You have been consistent on this point. Unfortunately, you are consistently wrong. I showed in comment 51 of that post that my system would have cost the AFC (the stronger conference)1 draft slot this year. The entire conference argument was a red herring because the ‘strength’ of the conference won’t always show up in the records of the top teams. On this you are simply incorrect.
-1 draft slot this year. 2 draft slots next year. 4 the year after. Eventually the conference disparity will be undeniable, and it WILL show in the records. That’s what happens when you consistently send better players to an already better conference…
4. Again, we agree on what you said. Regular season record is clearly not the best method we have. The NFL just proved that slotting according to playoff result. Therefore, they felt there was at least one method BETTER than regular season record.
-What are you talking about? Point 4 was about the best way to judge a teams strength. I said record was the best way… So, what the heck are you responding to here?
5. I’m not sure you understand my argument. Playing in a weaker conference puts good teams in a better position to make the Super Bowl than a good team would have in the stronger conference. Consider the Colts this decade. They lost to a string of very good teams in the playoffs (Pats, Steelers, Chargers). In the NFC, they wouldn’t have had to face so many tough teams so early in the playoffs.
-And what if the best team in a weak conference is proportionately weaker than the best team in the strong conference? Your argument assumes there is a team of equal strength (to the better conference’s best team) at the top of the weak conference, which isn’t always the case… In that situation, their path to the big dance is proportional to the stronger conference team’s (because not only is their competition weaker, THEY are weaker). And then, when they reach the super bowl, they have to play the stronger conference team to whom you have been giving (over time) better draft picks. You are making the weaker conference’s journey to a championship progressively harder the longer your system is in place. You have been grasping for straws on this point.
6. Again you use the phrase “extends the flaws of seeding”. But in point one, you say you agree with seeding by division. On this I’m not clear. Do you accept seeding by division because it’s not likely to change, or because you believe it is the best method? You don’t seem to be consistent on this point.
-I can think it is the best way, I can think it is unlikely to change, and I can think it is flawed all at the same time. In fact, that is exactly what I think. Just because I agree with using that system doesn’t mean I find it flawless. Nobody finds it flawless. You don’t. I don’t. Your readers don’t. And yet we all pretty much agree it is the only way to go. I have already said this. You are making me repeat myself for no reason whatsoever.
Now to my arguments:
1. You say we agree. Fine.
2. Again, you are assuming the Wild Card team is “better” than the division winner with the better record. That isn’t true. It wasn’t the case with the Colts/Chargers this year. You have fallen back on the assumption that regular season record is the best measure of a team’s strength. The league has rejected that premise in favor of the standard “how close did they get to the Super Bowl”. My plan was a slightly different tact on the same line. It rewarded teams for how close they started the playoffs to the Super Bowl. This plan rewards them for how close they finished. Slotting by record ignores the playoffs all together.
-Think carefully here. I am not assuming the wild card team is “better” than the division winner. I am pointing out the FACT that A wild card team CAN BE better than the division winner. Who cares about the Colts/Chargers example? Stop thinking in specifics here. The seeding system allows this to happen. It is a FACT. Does it always happen? No. But it CAN happen. You cannot deny this flaw. So mirroring this system in the draft WILL allow a better team to draft before a lesser team on certain occasions. Drafting by record will allow this to happen at a far lesser rate than drafting by seed. Furthermore, drafting by record would never piss anybody off, whereby your system would be reviled by every 10-6 division winner who just lost their prospective player to the 13-3 wild card team that just drafted.
3. Again, you are wrong here because you can’t see how things shake out. If one conference consistently sent multiple 8-8 teams to the playoffs as division winners, while the other consistently sent 13-3 WC teams, I suppose that could happen. That’s not the way it usually works. It is true, I haven’t gone over the last 10 years of the draft to see how it would have gone, but this year at least would have helped the weaker NFC slightly (by one pick), not hurt it. Again, you are equating strength with record. I don’t think that’s a very accurate way to do it. Ultimately, all that happens is that teams tend to reshuffle WITHIN the conference. IE…the Dolphins drop a spot, the Colts gain a spot. The records of the playoff teams tend to be similar even when the overall strength of the playoff teams aren’t. If you are really obsessed with this, I’ll try to go back a few years and see what the net result would have been. I doubt it will be significant.
-You are overlooking the impact of the draft picks! Even attempting to “go back” in time to see what would happen shows that you don’t grasp my point. The TALENT you give the stronger teams will WIDEN THE GAP between conferences (over several years, mind you) to a point that your above example would be more than possible. And AGAIN, even if you DON’T equate strength with record, eventually the disparity in total wins would be UNDENIABLE.
4. You were incorrect in your assessment of my plan. I retained the old Super Bowl participants get 31 and 32 in my system (see post 40). I later endorsed the playoff result plan in post 47.
-You CHANGED your original idea to include the SB teams at 31 and 32. Your original idea (the one I have been debating) is that the top two seeds draft 31 and 32 with record as a tiebreaker. You said drafting by playoff result could work, but you didn’t use that in your plan. I have been debating YOUR plan, DZ. Not some other plan that you may or may not endorse. Your plan. Besides, this point (point 4…) was about how you measure a team’s strength. You said division standing, Pythagorean wins, and playoff results. You’ve also said you can’t measure teams across divisions, that the NFL wouldn’t use anything similar to Pythagorean wins to calculate anything, and you didn’t incorporate playoff wins into your plan at all. So the ways you would like to measure strength are absent from your plan. And, you didn’t even talk about this stuff in your “response.” And you say I’M dodging? Please.
5. The weaker conference team my not have a better chance of beating any one of the stronger conference teams in the Super Bowl, but their overall odds of winning the SB before the playoffs are better than any individual team’s odds in the stronger conference. This isn’t debatable. There is an built in advantage to playing in the weaker conference.
-I have already shown this not to be the case. But, for sake of argument, assume that an NFC team DOES have a better chance of getting to the super bowl. That team will NEVER agree to give their draft slot to the opposite conference team based on this unmeasurable, intangible thing, when their total record is less than the other team’s. So even if there IS an “intrinsic reward” (which there isn’t), your plan would NEVER PASS.
6. The Colts were further from the Super Bowl than the Chargers. They had to play a team they were dead even with on the road. The Chargers played at home. The record was irrelevant to which team was closer to the Super Bowl. Had the Titans gone 10-6, the Colts would have had the #1 overall seed, and played Baltimore at home in round two. They would have been much closer to the Super Bowl in that instance, and would deserve a lower pick for that. My system would have ensured that the best the Colts could have picked in that hypothetical circumstance would have been 30 (depending on tie breaks with the NYG). Under the new system, even if the Colts had lost in round 2, the best they could have picked was 28. Personally, I don’t like rewarding teams for losing in the playoffs. I like to consider where they started. I like both options BETTER than the old way, which was insane.
-Your Colts/Chargers example is tired. Even if this year the 12-4 Colts are of equal strength than the 8-8 Chargers, that is only one example. If you compare all 12-4 teams to all 8-8 teams from now until eternity, which ones will be better? Use your Pythagorean formula, for all I care. The 12-4 teams will more often than not be better. Trying to use ONE example to support your plan just doesn’t hold water, brother.
I hope this clarifies both why I disagree with you, and why I accused you of changing course. If you care to explain the discrepancies, I welcome you to do so.
-This clarifies to me that you have been more inconsistent than I have, and that you avoid addressing specific arguments more than I do. Congrats!
March 26, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
What you fail to address here, is that while your plan may only be different by a few draft picks NOW, it also CONTRIBUTES to disparity on a CONSTANT basis. The NFL’s adopted plan may or may not hurt the weaker conference, but it will always change and will be even over the long haul. Your system WILL NEVER HELP the weaker conference, and therefore the TALENT distribution will be unbalanced and will lead to even more disparity. This is why your “results” of past seasons don’t look quite so damning. But what would those 14 slots in 2005 being doing now? They sure as hell wouldn’t be HELPING the weak conference. That is why your plan would not work and the NFL’s would. The fact that you are researching this now and finding “interesting” results verifies that it was under-thought to begin with.
March 26, 2009 at 11:45 pm |
Cass
-He has no reason to use Pythagorean wins in his arguments because he doesn’t use them in his system. He wants to draft based on seed (which is based primarily on total record). “Pythagorean wins” should never have entered this discussion.
And JC is biased against DZ the same way the rest of you are biased for him. This isn’t a carefully selected jury here. It is laughable that he tries to validate himself based on his reader’s opinions. How about I ask what my mom thinks? LOL.
March 26, 2009 at 11:58 pm |
I could write a computer program that would input seeding and record and then calculate draft position for all three systems… if I find the time. It wouldn’t show the impact of the draft choices though. It might be interesting, nonetheless.
March 27, 2009 at 12:35 am |
It’s not even funny how itchy I am right now from the oxycontin.
Guy:
I gotta give you credit man. As I once did, you have the patience and obstinance (not abstinence) to waste five thousand words on DZ and refuse to let him laugh last.
You just went Snoop and Chris on his ass.
And I’m not biased against anyone, I just like to fight. Especially when I know I’m right, as you are convinced that you are right.
To be completely honest…..I haven’t read more than a couple of sentences that either of you have written to each other because I don’t care.
But anyone who refuses to allow DZ to simply declare himself the victor receives my endorsement…..whether you want it or not.
March 27, 2009 at 1:02 am |
Maybe I accidentally got too involved, so let me clarify a couple of points about me here:
1. I am not, nor have I ever been, biased for/against anybody. I call shots as I see them. I have disagreed with DZ some, but most of the time, I determine that it is not worth the fight or my time. With high school and the other stuff I read daily (I am getting behind in a few of that stuff), I have to be very selective on what I start a 4-day argument on. I do also like to watch TV and play video games too, you know.
2. What are you talking about a jury here? For at least the past 3 days, nobody has really been involved in this argument besides you and DZ. I don’t remember anybody (Besides JC, but he doesn’t count since he didn’t read the arguments) declaring a winner. I sure didn’t.
3. I hadn’t read the last couple of long posts yet (I was watching Missouri OWN Memphis), but I also never remember DZ using our opinions to validate his arguments. I believe the only outside opinions he used to validate himself were the 32 owners who voted a day or 2 ago.
4. To be clear, I have no opinion in this argument. I believe that both of you make excellent points, and both of you used ample evidence to back up your respective points. I do respect you for going toe-to-toe with DZ, as DZ is one of the best debaters I have ever seen. Another top debater would be Shake, who seems to have disappeared as of late.
5. You mom comment reminded me of a link that pretty much summarizes this whole debate, courtesy of Shake on Stampede Blue, I believe:
http://www.reallifephotos.org/wp-content/photos/2008_05/wrong.jpg
Have a good night. I’m going to bed.
March 27, 2009 at 12:12 pm |
http://18to88.com/2008/03/dz-reponds-to-guy-again.html
If anyone even cares…go here to continue the discussion