This topic first surfaced way back in week 17's Sunday Night Football game on NBC and became far more evident a week later when NBC covered the Wild Card playoff round. The suits at NBC had decided that, instead of promoting the fact that they would be broadcasting the Super Bowl this season, instead gave us a series of commercials about Bruce Springsteen's halftime performance. Now, I'll admit that Springsteen is a little before my time, but I've been surprised by how sportswriters and football people are swooning over "The Boss." I know he's a big rock star and all, but the NFL has had big names perform at halftime before, so what's so special about this one?
I suppose the biggest question that's bugging me is: will Springsteen bring more viewers to the game than it normally would have? I mean, I heard recently that of the top 17 rated television programs of all time, 17 were Super Bowls, so what difference does it make what the halftime show is? If you're not going to watch the game for the game's sake (or for the commercials as many non-football fans do), then are you really going to tune in for a three-song halftime performance? I guess because I'm a football fan and would be watching the game no matter who performed (I usually don't even bother watching halftime shows anyway; I even missed the "Wardrobe Malfunction" because of this, but that's what youtube is for), I don't see how this act could change someone's viewing mind.
And what if the game's a blowout in the first half? Are people that lose interest in the game going to tune back in for the halftime show? The way everyone's been gushing about Springsteen, this wouldn't surprise me, and this is hard to understand. Most halftime shows are only mediocre: the sound's usually bad, they rush a bunch of idiot fans down to the field to act like they're having a great time, and it's over in 12 minutes or less. That's three songs (or two if Springsteen stops in the middle for one of his long personal stories that he evidently is famous for at concerts). And anyone trying to tell me that this isn't a sell out by The Boss is kidding themselves. He's apparently got a new CD out/coming out, and you know at least one of the three songs he plays will be from that. Is this really so appealing that non-watchers will tune in???
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Fan Five Super Bowl Preview Extravaganza
By now you've probably heard 17,235,871 different views on the Super Bowl and I'm sure you're thoroughly confused or simply exhausted by the media blitz the game is receiving. Fear not! The Fan Five is here to clear up the jargon and give you a pick you can('t) trust! If my picking record is any indication, and I think it speaks for itself, then simply read what I have to say, digest it, then pick the opposite and you'll be all set.
Playoff picks:
vs. the spread (1-9)
straight up (3-7)
I was 1-1 on the conference championship picks, largely because I missed the "obvious game" potential of the Cards-Eagles match. That is, I followed the sheep to the Eagles along with everyone else in the world, and this (as usual) turned out to be the wrong decision. I was 0-2 against the spread, again because of the Eagles pick and because of the Polamalu pick. That is, if Troy freaking Polamalu hadn't intercepted Joe Flacco's fourth quarter pass and returned it for a touchdown, I'd have been golden on that pick. But he did, and Pittsburgh covered. C'est la vie.
It's painfully obvious that I should not be a professional sports gambler after this mortifying postseason performance (ask the others in my pick 'em league and they'll tell you that this comes as no surprise...). However, it is my duty as a sports blogger to give you my take on the game, because that's the kind of hard working sportswriter I am! So here we go, Super Bowl XLIII (that's 43 for those of you that haven't been in 4th grade yet, or watched enough Rocky movies). As usual, odds are provided by Yahoo! Sports.
The Game: Pittsburgh Steelers (-7) vs. Arizona Cardinals
The Site: Tampa, Florida
The Time: Exactly 6:28 EST (according to ESPN)
The Take: As I said, my biggest failure of conference championship weekend was not recognizing the "obvious game" that was staring me right in the face. Not this time. Rarely does a Super Bowl come along that gets picked so consistently for one team. Last year, despite the New England Patriots opening as a 10-point favorite, many experts were jumping on the Giants bandwagon and, if not picking the G-men to win, at least picking them to cover. I have mentioned before that I was of that mindset as well. The last Super Bowl I can remember that had almost 100% of experts and fans alike favoring one team was the St. Louis "Greatest Show On Turf" Rams against the New England "Tuck Rule" Patriots in early 2002 (the 2001 season). Everyone liked the Rams in that game, myself included. So what happened? The Pats win their first of 3 Super Bowls in 4 seasons in one of the greatest Super Bowl upsets of all time.
Back to this year. The love is clearly with the Steelers, and it really surprises me that the line has not moved up from 7. A friend of mine even stated that he thought that it was ridiculous that the line was only 7 and said he couldn't fathom a scenario where the Steelers don't cover. Very strong statement, indeed, but this seems to be consistent thinking everywhere I look. This is terrifying if you think the Steelers are going to win, because it's games like these that have a tendency to go the exact opposite of what was expected.
In recent years, we have seen "parity" strike the NFL, and as ESPN.com's Bill Simmons writes, the NFL playoffs have become little more than March Madness for football. (The reason I put parity in quotes is that there's no real good excuse for this, and at times it has seemed more like mediocrity than so-called "parity.") In other words, it doesn't matter who the best team is during the regular season, it just matters who gets hot in January (as the Giants did last year, the Colts did the year before that, and the Cardinals did this year). In fact, many teams (including the three just listed) have practically reinvented themselves in some way in the playoffs, somehow becoming a completely different team from the one that played in the regular season. The Colts found their run defense in the playoffs after being historically bad in the regular season. The Giants figured out how to use their pass rush to help their poor secondary. The Cardinals also found their run defense and even figured out how to fit in some running plays on offense.
So what's my point in all this? Just because we think we know the teams from their 16-game regular seasons, doesn't mean those 16 games have anything to do with the one game about to be played this Sunday. We've also learned the true power of the "Nobody Believes In Us" philosophy. "Nobody Believes In Us" was the rallying cry of last year's Giants, of the Patriots in 2002, of the Tampa Bay Rays in baseball last year, of the Boston Celtics in the NBA last year, etc. And this is absolutely the focus of the Arizona Cardinals. The idea that it's "Us Against The World" somehow motivates players beyond the usual "Us Against The Other Team" mindset. I'm not a scientist, I don't know how the brain works, but this seems to be an irrefutable law of sports right now.
For the Steelers, things are different. 20 Steelers players have played in a Super Bowl before, many of them with the Steelers team that won in 2006 against the Seattle Seahawks. Only five Cardinals have played in a Super Bowl before, but their most important player (QB Kurt Warner) is among them. Is Super Bowl experience important? History is mixed on this question. There are numerous examples of veteran teams with Super Bowl experience winning, and there are plenty of examples of teams in their first trip pulling it off. If I had to take a side, I'd say it's nice but it's going to be low on the list of deciding factors. The Steelers biggest concern has to be the overconfidence trap, which is basically the opposite of the "Nobody Believes In Us" philosophy. It's the "Everybody Believes In Us" mentality, and it's dangerous because it can seriously affect a team's ability to be fully prepared. This killed the 18-0* Patriots last year as they seemed to treat the game very casually until the second half, and when they realized they needed to turn it on to avoid the stunning upset, it was too late and the Giants had gained tremendous confidence simply by hanging around.
This could certainly affect Pittsburgh. All the signs are there. The crowd will be like a home crowd (thus fueling the Cardinals' feelings of being up against the World). Remember, the Cards biggest, most convincing win of the postseason was on the road against 10-point favorite Carolina. Was that matchup so much different from this one? Frankly, no. The Steelers and Panthers have many striking similarities, and the Steelers do everything on defense that the Panthers did, they just do it much better. Could Ben Roethlisberger have a day to rival Jake Delhomme's historic implosion? Certainly. Roethlisberger was among the worst players on the field for the Steelers in their Super Bowl win in 2006, and he's all but admitted as much. A repeat performance is definitely possible.
Finally, the coaching matchup is quite interesting. As I'm sure you've now heard, the Cardinals head coach Ken Whisenhunt was the offensive coordinator for the Steelers in their Super Bowl run and was basically passed over for the job of Steelers head coach when Bill Cowher retired the next season. So this will be a bit of a grudge match in that sense. Since Mike Tomlin, the Steelers current head coach, is more of a defensive guy, it stands to reason that the Steelers offensive schemes may still be very similar to what they ran two years ago, and with many of the players being the same, this should give the Cards coaching staff a lot to work with. I think there's a distinct advantage for the Cardinals when it comes to gameplanning for this game.
So how is it all going to turn out? My gut says that the Steelers are the better team, but what I've seen from the Cardinals this postseason has really impressed me. This would be a huge upset if the Cards could pull it off, obviously, and it would also cement Kurt Warner's legacy as an all-time great postseason quarterback. Looking at the quarterback matchup, I think I'd have to go with Warner over Roethlisberger in a close game, even though both have proved to be very clutch this year.
If I do the analysis that I used for the conference championship games, using the four-outcome method, there are three that I see as legitimate possibilities. I can see the Cards winning close, or the Steelers winning close or winning big. I really can't imagine a scenario where the Cardinals win the game in a blowout. Even if everything goes right for Arizona, I still think the Steelers defense will be good enough to keep the game close. But if everything goes right for Pittsburgh, or things go very wrong for Arizona, this could turn into a rout in no time. Still, I keep feeling like the Cardinals have figured something out in the playoffs and their pass-protection and defensive schemes are far batter than they were in the regular season, making a blowout seem much less likely.
The Pick: In the end, I'm going to go against my gut here and say the Cardinals "Shock The World" (this is their fans' mantra this postseason) and pull this one out 27-20. Sorry for the kiss of death, Cardinals fans.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Playoff picks:
vs. the spread (1-9)
straight up (3-7)
I was 1-1 on the conference championship picks, largely because I missed the "obvious game" potential of the Cards-Eagles match. That is, I followed the sheep to the Eagles along with everyone else in the world, and this (as usual) turned out to be the wrong decision. I was 0-2 against the spread, again because of the Eagles pick and because of the Polamalu pick. That is, if Troy freaking Polamalu hadn't intercepted Joe Flacco's fourth quarter pass and returned it for a touchdown, I'd have been golden on that pick. But he did, and Pittsburgh covered. C'est la vie.
It's painfully obvious that I should not be a professional sports gambler after this mortifying postseason performance (ask the others in my pick 'em league and they'll tell you that this comes as no surprise...). However, it is my duty as a sports blogger to give you my take on the game, because that's the kind of hard working sportswriter I am! So here we go, Super Bowl XLIII (that's 43 for those of you that haven't been in 4th grade yet, or watched enough Rocky movies). As usual, odds are provided by Yahoo! Sports.
The Game: Pittsburgh Steelers (-7) vs. Arizona Cardinals
The Site: Tampa, Florida
The Time: Exactly 6:28 EST (according to ESPN)
The Take: As I said, my biggest failure of conference championship weekend was not recognizing the "obvious game" that was staring me right in the face. Not this time. Rarely does a Super Bowl come along that gets picked so consistently for one team. Last year, despite the New England Patriots opening as a 10-point favorite, many experts were jumping on the Giants bandwagon and, if not picking the G-men to win, at least picking them to cover. I have mentioned before that I was of that mindset as well. The last Super Bowl I can remember that had almost 100% of experts and fans alike favoring one team was the St. Louis "Greatest Show On Turf" Rams against the New England "Tuck Rule" Patriots in early 2002 (the 2001 season). Everyone liked the Rams in that game, myself included. So what happened? The Pats win their first of 3 Super Bowls in 4 seasons in one of the greatest Super Bowl upsets of all time.
Back to this year. The love is clearly with the Steelers, and it really surprises me that the line has not moved up from 7. A friend of mine even stated that he thought that it was ridiculous that the line was only 7 and said he couldn't fathom a scenario where the Steelers don't cover. Very strong statement, indeed, but this seems to be consistent thinking everywhere I look. This is terrifying if you think the Steelers are going to win, because it's games like these that have a tendency to go the exact opposite of what was expected.
In recent years, we have seen "parity" strike the NFL, and as ESPN.com's Bill Simmons writes, the NFL playoffs have become little more than March Madness for football. (The reason I put parity in quotes is that there's no real good excuse for this, and at times it has seemed more like mediocrity than so-called "parity.") In other words, it doesn't matter who the best team is during the regular season, it just matters who gets hot in January (as the Giants did last year, the Colts did the year before that, and the Cardinals did this year). In fact, many teams (including the three just listed) have practically reinvented themselves in some way in the playoffs, somehow becoming a completely different team from the one that played in the regular season. The Colts found their run defense in the playoffs after being historically bad in the regular season. The Giants figured out how to use their pass rush to help their poor secondary. The Cardinals also found their run defense and even figured out how to fit in some running plays on offense.
So what's my point in all this? Just because we think we know the teams from their 16-game regular seasons, doesn't mean those 16 games have anything to do with the one game about to be played this Sunday. We've also learned the true power of the "Nobody Believes In Us" philosophy. "Nobody Believes In Us" was the rallying cry of last year's Giants, of the Patriots in 2002, of the Tampa Bay Rays in baseball last year, of the Boston Celtics in the NBA last year, etc. And this is absolutely the focus of the Arizona Cardinals. The idea that it's "Us Against The World" somehow motivates players beyond the usual "Us Against The Other Team" mindset. I'm not a scientist, I don't know how the brain works, but this seems to be an irrefutable law of sports right now.
For the Steelers, things are different. 20 Steelers players have played in a Super Bowl before, many of them with the Steelers team that won in 2006 against the Seattle Seahawks. Only five Cardinals have played in a Super Bowl before, but their most important player (QB Kurt Warner) is among them. Is Super Bowl experience important? History is mixed on this question. There are numerous examples of veteran teams with Super Bowl experience winning, and there are plenty of examples of teams in their first trip pulling it off. If I had to take a side, I'd say it's nice but it's going to be low on the list of deciding factors. The Steelers biggest concern has to be the overconfidence trap, which is basically the opposite of the "Nobody Believes In Us" philosophy. It's the "Everybody Believes In Us" mentality, and it's dangerous because it can seriously affect a team's ability to be fully prepared. This killed the 18-0* Patriots last year as they seemed to treat the game very casually until the second half, and when they realized they needed to turn it on to avoid the stunning upset, it was too late and the Giants had gained tremendous confidence simply by hanging around.
This could certainly affect Pittsburgh. All the signs are there. The crowd will be like a home crowd (thus fueling the Cardinals' feelings of being up against the World). Remember, the Cards biggest, most convincing win of the postseason was on the road against 10-point favorite Carolina. Was that matchup so much different from this one? Frankly, no. The Steelers and Panthers have many striking similarities, and the Steelers do everything on defense that the Panthers did, they just do it much better. Could Ben Roethlisberger have a day to rival Jake Delhomme's historic implosion? Certainly. Roethlisberger was among the worst players on the field for the Steelers in their Super Bowl win in 2006, and he's all but admitted as much. A repeat performance is definitely possible.
Finally, the coaching matchup is quite interesting. As I'm sure you've now heard, the Cardinals head coach Ken Whisenhunt was the offensive coordinator for the Steelers in their Super Bowl run and was basically passed over for the job of Steelers head coach when Bill Cowher retired the next season. So this will be a bit of a grudge match in that sense. Since Mike Tomlin, the Steelers current head coach, is more of a defensive guy, it stands to reason that the Steelers offensive schemes may still be very similar to what they ran two years ago, and with many of the players being the same, this should give the Cards coaching staff a lot to work with. I think there's a distinct advantage for the Cardinals when it comes to gameplanning for this game.
So how is it all going to turn out? My gut says that the Steelers are the better team, but what I've seen from the Cardinals this postseason has really impressed me. This would be a huge upset if the Cards could pull it off, obviously, and it would also cement Kurt Warner's legacy as an all-time great postseason quarterback. Looking at the quarterback matchup, I think I'd have to go with Warner over Roethlisberger in a close game, even though both have proved to be very clutch this year.
If I do the analysis that I used for the conference championship games, using the four-outcome method, there are three that I see as legitimate possibilities. I can see the Cards winning close, or the Steelers winning close or winning big. I really can't imagine a scenario where the Cardinals win the game in a blowout. Even if everything goes right for Arizona, I still think the Steelers defense will be good enough to keep the game close. But if everything goes right for Pittsburgh, or things go very wrong for Arizona, this could turn into a rout in no time. Still, I keep feeling like the Cardinals have figured something out in the playoffs and their pass-protection and defensive schemes are far batter than they were in the regular season, making a blowout seem much less likely.
The Pick: In the end, I'm going to go against my gut here and say the Cardinals "Shock The World" (this is their fans' mantra this postseason) and pull this one out 27-20. Sorry for the kiss of death, Cardinals fans.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Why Don't NFL Teams Tank?
With the NFL season winding to a close, most teams have their eyes ahead to this April's draft. Many NFL scouts are busy visiting college all-star games that act as pre-draft workouts for top prospects. The Combine will be upon us next month and then the speculation and debate will heat up as to whom each team will draft. In recent years, the value of the draft has increased as the price of quality free agents has continued to grow, so it becomes more and more important that teams make the right pick in the draft, and the higher picks gain greater value. Knowing this, the question becomes: why don't NFL teams that are out of postseason contention lose intentionally to improve their draft position?
At first glance, it would seem that this is an obvious choice; the higher you pick, the better chance you have of getting an impact player in the draft that will make your team significantly better the next season. Not only that, but the worse your record, the higher you pick in each of the seven rounds of the draft, not just the first round, so the incentive is even greater to tank. So why don't teams do it? I believe there are seven reasons for this:
1. Financial Cost of First Round Picks - Since the most recent collective bargaining agreement was reached in 2006, the NFL's salary cap has been increasing at an ever greater rate; the salary floor (or minimum amount each team must commit to players) also increases yearly. With this increase in cap room comes the demand by players (and their agents) for more money each year and up front in the form of signing bonuses. This demand has translated to rookies as these players, knowing that the average lifespan of an NFL career is less than three years, try to grab as much money at the start of their careers as possible. And each year players expect to get paid more than the player taken in the same slot the previous year, making the money given high draft picks grow at an increasing rate. This makes high draft picks so expensive they almost become a detriment to the team. It also leads to the next reason...
2. Potential Failure of Drafted Players - With the growing amount of money being given to rookies, it has become more costly to teams if their drafted players fail to deliver. A miss can hurt more than a great hit can help, and the higher that player is drafted, the more costly the mistake. Not only does a failed high pick cost the team money and cap room, but that player also costs the team on the field as highly drafted players usually get playing time regardless of their play. Teams feel obligated (as they should) to put these highly paid players on the field and give them a chance to prove themselves, and if the player fails, especially at certain positions (quarterback, middle linebacker, safety and even some line positions), it can seriously hurt the team. On top of all that, because of said highly paid prospect, the team may be forced to release a veteran or multiple veterans that would have turned out more useful to them.
3. Lower Value of Individual Players to Teams - ESPN.com's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" by Gregg Easterbrook constantly asserts the idea that football is the "ultimate team sport." In other words, no individual (with the possible exception of a great quarterback) has the ability to completely change a game. This is because 22 players (at least) must all perform their duties for a team to succeed. Even great QBs can't ensure that their passes are caught, or that they don't get sacked constantly because of poor pass protection, or that their defense doesn't allow 50 points per game, etc. So if one player (particularly a rookie) isn't likely (read: possibly) going to change the team from a loser to a winner, an also-ran to a contender, then what value is there in tanking? All you are likely to do is drive up the financial cost of your draft pick. Not only that, but because of the number of players needed for a competitive NFL team, the "best player" in college football is often fluid from week-to-week and even from team-to-team. There is almost never a consensus number one (there are no LeBron James's in football) and even those thought to be (Reggie Bush, anyone?) often don't turn out that way.
4. Coaches Seeking to Keep Their Job - Of all the reasons, this one may be the most accurate and yet the most ridiculous. First, all coaches' primary motivation is to keep their job, especially if they know the team isn't very good. Usually coaches and people around an organization know pretty early on whether or not their team has the talent to compete for a playoff berth; most teams do not (20 teams miss the playoffs every year). So presumably once a team discovers that it is not a playoff-caliber squad (which can be as late as week 11, 12, maybe even 13, or as early as the preseason), it stands to reason that they should stop trying to win in order to improve their draft position and presumably be better the next year. The problem is that the worst mark a coach can receive is the belief that his team "quit on him." If the players are just terrible and the team loses but at least plays hard, then the coach can be saved, and may even be praised as a great motivator. But if it looks like the team gave up on the season, that is the ultimate sign of coaching failure and the coach will likely be fired. Thus, coaches don't tank because tanking is seen as giving up, even if it means making the team better in the future.
5. Players Seeking to Remain in the League - Even if coaches encouraged their players to tank, most players wouldn't do it because they, too, are playing for their jobs. If a player is labeled a quitter, he better be an All-Pro type athlete or else no team will want any part of him. Even if it is clear that the players on a bad team are a bad fit and will be gone after the season, they still must play hard because they are then auditioning for a position on the other 31 teams in the league. This leads to another topic (one I'll address in a later column): teams must be wary of the guys that put up huge stats on a bad team. There are many examples of this that I'll get into another time.
6. Pride? - One would hope that this would be an issue for both professional athletes and their coaches. If these people actually care about the game they are playing and the fans that shell out huge amounts of money to watch them do it, then they absolutely should be trying their hardest in every game. Football is not a sport that lends itself to half-hearted play (which is why the Pro Bowl has never gained the notoriety of the other major all-star games) and players that don't go all-out are believed to be more susceptible to injury. Players, then, are motivated to play their hardest because of their competitive nature and, frankly, desire for self-preservation. Pride is less of a factor for coaches (although they certainly must have that same competitive fire to have devoted their lives to a sport) because the game is looked at from a much more business-like perspective. If the coaches know the team is very bad, they can inadvertently tank by playing backups and younger players under the guise of "evaluating the talent."
6a. Rivalries - A sub-point of the Pride reason is that teams that lose intentionally would likely be losing games to division rivals (as most teams play each of their divisional foes once late in the year). This would be absolutely unacceptable to fans and thus would be a major concern for coaches and owners. As poorly as a team may be playing, they are always expected to "get up" for games against division rivals, and a tanking team would be required to instead "lay down" in such a game. This is definitely something coaches and owners would want to avoid, because for many teams, fans will consider a season a success if their team simply defeats its rivals, especially if it hurts those rivals' playoff chances.
7. Competitive Balance - Clearly tanking is bad for the sport. If teams intentionally try not to win, this means that their opponents are given free victories which clearly upset the competitive balance of the league. For example, if two teams are locked in a tight playoff race and one team has a tanker on its schedule while its competitor does not (say they played the tanker early in the year before tanking became the best option), the team with the tanker has a huge advantage. This goes back to the previous point (6a) in that a division could be decided simply by the timing of certain games on the schedule. And there's also the disaster that would happen if two tanking teams were to meet in a pivotal late-season game. (This has actually happened before, in the 2005 season, although neither team involved was truly tanking (or so they claim) at the time. The game pitted the Houston Texans and the San Francisco 49ers, the two worst records in football, with the loser presumably winning the right to draft USC running back Reggie Bush. The Texans lost the game 20-17 and went on to finish 2-14, only to stun the world by drafting defensive end Mario Williams with the top pick instead of Bush, who fell to New Orleans at #3.)
These are the most reasonable explanations for why NFL teams don't (seem to) tank. Do I think NFL teams should tank? Given these different factors, I'd say no. For now. But rumors are that the owners (who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement effective after next season) will be seeking a stricter rookie salary cap (one already exists but is easily circumvented through bonuses) or even a rookie salary scale like the one used by the NBA. If this happens, then you can toss reasons 1 and 2 out the window and it opens the door for tanking in a big way because many of the financial concerns are allayed.
So what do you think? Are there any reasons I've missed, or do you think there are teams that actually do tank? Please comment below.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
At first glance, it would seem that this is an obvious choice; the higher you pick, the better chance you have of getting an impact player in the draft that will make your team significantly better the next season. Not only that, but the worse your record, the higher you pick in each of the seven rounds of the draft, not just the first round, so the incentive is even greater to tank. So why don't teams do it? I believe there are seven reasons for this:
1. Financial Cost of First Round Picks - Since the most recent collective bargaining agreement was reached in 2006, the NFL's salary cap has been increasing at an ever greater rate; the salary floor (or minimum amount each team must commit to players) also increases yearly. With this increase in cap room comes the demand by players (and their agents) for more money each year and up front in the form of signing bonuses. This demand has translated to rookies as these players, knowing that the average lifespan of an NFL career is less than three years, try to grab as much money at the start of their careers as possible. And each year players expect to get paid more than the player taken in the same slot the previous year, making the money given high draft picks grow at an increasing rate. This makes high draft picks so expensive they almost become a detriment to the team. It also leads to the next reason...
2. Potential Failure of Drafted Players - With the growing amount of money being given to rookies, it has become more costly to teams if their drafted players fail to deliver. A miss can hurt more than a great hit can help, and the higher that player is drafted, the more costly the mistake. Not only does a failed high pick cost the team money and cap room, but that player also costs the team on the field as highly drafted players usually get playing time regardless of their play. Teams feel obligated (as they should) to put these highly paid players on the field and give them a chance to prove themselves, and if the player fails, especially at certain positions (quarterback, middle linebacker, safety and even some line positions), it can seriously hurt the team. On top of all that, because of said highly paid prospect, the team may be forced to release a veteran or multiple veterans that would have turned out more useful to them.
3. Lower Value of Individual Players to Teams - ESPN.com's "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" by Gregg Easterbrook constantly asserts the idea that football is the "ultimate team sport." In other words, no individual (with the possible exception of a great quarterback) has the ability to completely change a game. This is because 22 players (at least) must all perform their duties for a team to succeed. Even great QBs can't ensure that their passes are caught, or that they don't get sacked constantly because of poor pass protection, or that their defense doesn't allow 50 points per game, etc. So if one player (particularly a rookie) isn't likely (read: possibly) going to change the team from a loser to a winner, an also-ran to a contender, then what value is there in tanking? All you are likely to do is drive up the financial cost of your draft pick. Not only that, but because of the number of players needed for a competitive NFL team, the "best player" in college football is often fluid from week-to-week and even from team-to-team. There is almost never a consensus number one (there are no LeBron James's in football) and even those thought to be (Reggie Bush, anyone?) often don't turn out that way.
4. Coaches Seeking to Keep Their Job - Of all the reasons, this one may be the most accurate and yet the most ridiculous. First, all coaches' primary motivation is to keep their job, especially if they know the team isn't very good. Usually coaches and people around an organization know pretty early on whether or not their team has the talent to compete for a playoff berth; most teams do not (20 teams miss the playoffs every year). So presumably once a team discovers that it is not a playoff-caliber squad (which can be as late as week 11, 12, maybe even 13, or as early as the preseason), it stands to reason that they should stop trying to win in order to improve their draft position and presumably be better the next year. The problem is that the worst mark a coach can receive is the belief that his team "quit on him." If the players are just terrible and the team loses but at least plays hard, then the coach can be saved, and may even be praised as a great motivator. But if it looks like the team gave up on the season, that is the ultimate sign of coaching failure and the coach will likely be fired. Thus, coaches don't tank because tanking is seen as giving up, even if it means making the team better in the future.
5. Players Seeking to Remain in the League - Even if coaches encouraged their players to tank, most players wouldn't do it because they, too, are playing for their jobs. If a player is labeled a quitter, he better be an All-Pro type athlete or else no team will want any part of him. Even if it is clear that the players on a bad team are a bad fit and will be gone after the season, they still must play hard because they are then auditioning for a position on the other 31 teams in the league. This leads to another topic (one I'll address in a later column): teams must be wary of the guys that put up huge stats on a bad team. There are many examples of this that I'll get into another time.
6. Pride? - One would hope that this would be an issue for both professional athletes and their coaches. If these people actually care about the game they are playing and the fans that shell out huge amounts of money to watch them do it, then they absolutely should be trying their hardest in every game. Football is not a sport that lends itself to half-hearted play (which is why the Pro Bowl has never gained the notoriety of the other major all-star games) and players that don't go all-out are believed to be more susceptible to injury. Players, then, are motivated to play their hardest because of their competitive nature and, frankly, desire for self-preservation. Pride is less of a factor for coaches (although they certainly must have that same competitive fire to have devoted their lives to a sport) because the game is looked at from a much more business-like perspective. If the coaches know the team is very bad, they can inadvertently tank by playing backups and younger players under the guise of "evaluating the talent."
6a. Rivalries - A sub-point of the Pride reason is that teams that lose intentionally would likely be losing games to division rivals (as most teams play each of their divisional foes once late in the year). This would be absolutely unacceptable to fans and thus would be a major concern for coaches and owners. As poorly as a team may be playing, they are always expected to "get up" for games against division rivals, and a tanking team would be required to instead "lay down" in such a game. This is definitely something coaches and owners would want to avoid, because for many teams, fans will consider a season a success if their team simply defeats its rivals, especially if it hurts those rivals' playoff chances.
7. Competitive Balance - Clearly tanking is bad for the sport. If teams intentionally try not to win, this means that their opponents are given free victories which clearly upset the competitive balance of the league. For example, if two teams are locked in a tight playoff race and one team has a tanker on its schedule while its competitor does not (say they played the tanker early in the year before tanking became the best option), the team with the tanker has a huge advantage. This goes back to the previous point (6a) in that a division could be decided simply by the timing of certain games on the schedule. And there's also the disaster that would happen if two tanking teams were to meet in a pivotal late-season game. (This has actually happened before, in the 2005 season, although neither team involved was truly tanking (or so they claim) at the time. The game pitted the Houston Texans and the San Francisco 49ers, the two worst records in football, with the loser presumably winning the right to draft USC running back Reggie Bush. The Texans lost the game 20-17 and went on to finish 2-14, only to stun the world by drafting defensive end Mario Williams with the top pick instead of Bush, who fell to New Orleans at #3.)
These are the most reasonable explanations for why NFL teams don't (seem to) tank. Do I think NFL teams should tank? Given these different factors, I'd say no. For now. But rumors are that the owners (who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement effective after next season) will be seeking a stricter rookie salary cap (one already exists but is easily circumvented through bonuses) or even a rookie salary scale like the one used by the NBA. If this happens, then you can toss reasons 1 and 2 out the window and it opens the door for tanking in a big way because many of the financial concerns are allayed.
So what do you think? Are there any reasons I've missed, or do you think there are teams that actually do tank? Please comment below.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
