Football Frontier

Tony Romo’s announced retirement has people talking about the Hall of Fame and quarterbacks. Is he good enough? What is the criteria? What will the Hall of Fame committee do?

Since I’ve put so much work into my quarterback research, I thought I’d take a shot at answering the question. The simple answer? No. Romo will not reach the Hall of Fame. He simply didn’t play enough games.

But what’s the fun of an analysis without sharing a little more about what went into the conclusion?

I limited my work to quarterbacks who played in the modern NFL. As I’ve written many times, I think analysis of quarterback play before 1974 is completely different from analysis of today’s game. In 1974, the NFL changed the rules to open up the passing game. Before then, receivers could be bumped, tackled, you name it. This greatly limited strategies. The rules were fine-tuned over the next few years, and offenses took some time adjusting to the new NFL.

There have been 15 quarterbacks inducted into the Hall who played in the modern NFL. Roger Staubach, who retired after the 1979 season, was the first. Fran Tarkenton retired a year earlier, but didn’t get in until his third year of eligibility.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame committee is notorious stingy about offering the gold jacket to quarterbacks – about one every two years on average. And when a quarterback has the votes to emerge from the nominating process and is one of the finalists, he’s almost certainly getting the call. Only five quarterbacks haven’t been voted in the first time they were nominated. Of those five, four eventually reached the Hall. There’s only one exception, which I’ll get to later.

Point being: the committee knows what it wants in a quarterback and it’s not that hard to figure out what they did.

In my analysis, I looked at a large number of factors. But I found that the simpler I made the criteria, the more easily I could tell who was in and who was out. The committee doesn’t care about long delays between inducting quarterbacks, and they don’t care about inducting several in a short amount of time if they feel it’s deserved. Five got in between 2004-2006, all when they were first eligible. None got in for the following nine years. We’ve since had three in two years.

I found only two factors mattered. One is purely the number of games the quarterback won. I fine-tuned this a tiny bit by adding an eight-game bonus for a Super Bowl win and a three-game bonus for a Super Bowl loss, but the numbers work almost as well without that. The second is my quarterback metric, which is a way of easily comparing performance across different eras. Obviously, the committee doesn’t call me and ask for my metric. They have different sources of material – probably just experience knowing who, year after year, were the quarterbacks opponents respected the most.

The committee doesn’t seem to care about touchdown passes or total yards or when a player was drafted. It’s just a combination of winning and excellence.

Back in the ’80s, when the first of these modern quarterbacks was eligible, the committee was a little more like baseball’s committee; they seemed to view induction in the first year of eligibility as a special honor. Hence Tarkenton and Bob Griese had to wait, even though they had exceptional careers and weren’t close to the minimum threshold for induction. Later, it was more an up-or-down vote.

Not much needs to be said about the “easy” choices. You know the names: Montana, Favre, Marino, Bradshaw, Young, Elway, Aikman, Staubach, Tarkenton, Griese and Kelly. All excellent quarterbacks who won an enormous number of games.

So I focused more on the four quarterbacks who didn’t seem as though they were easy choices, plus those who were close. The ones who are in: Dan Fouts (1993), Warren Moon (2006), Ken Stabler (2016) and Kurt Warner (2017).

Moon’s case is unique. Generally, the NFL has a very good record when it comes to race, but black quarterbacks faced considerable discrimination for a long time. Despite having all the tools, Moon went undrafted in 1978. So he went to the CFL, and in six years broke so many records and led the Edmonton Eskimos to so many titles that in just that brief amount of time, he’s considered one of the best ever to play the game north of the border.

And then what did he do? He went and had an exceptional career in the NFL, putting up more than 100 wins. So even without the first six years of his career, he’d be on the borderline, maybe a little short. It seems quite reasonable for the committee to give Moon some extra points for what he did in the CFL – it is, after all, a professional league. Moon was inducted in his first year of eligibility.

Stabler is another unique case. His win total puts him solidly in the “long look” category. Not enough to make it automatic, but enough where his statistical excellence should make it an easy call. But Stabler was a character. And controversy followed him. You can look up reports of connections to known gamblers, even some suspicion of thrown games. The committee wrestled with Stabler like no one else. He was a finalist three times, starting in his first year of eligibility. He was a semifinalist six straight years (2004-2009) before dropping out of consideration. After he died, the veteran’s committee inducted him in 2016.

Warner and Fouts did not have high enough win totals. But both were leaders of top offenses and put up exceptional numbers. Fouts was inducted in his first year, Warner not until his third. These are the cases I used to establish minimums for the committee.

Warner is up there with Montana and Young in my quarterback metric. This seems to kick in when a quarterback has more than 75 wins. Warner had 78 (including playoffs) and I bump that to 92 with the Super Bowl title and two losses (no eligible quarterback with three Super Bowl starts isn’t in the Hall). Fouts had 89 wins, as well as 57.3 in the metric, which is one of the top all-time scores for an established quarterback.

There really aren’t that many quarterbacks who have more than 80 wins (even with the Super Bowl bump) and aren’t in – 17 total. I used Elway’s career score of 52.7 in the metric as the bottom of the acceptable range. Elway is in because he won so many games and had such a high winning percentage that it would be ridiculous not to include him. He won Super Bowls. He won 14 playoff games. And 52.7 is solidly above average when it comes to the general quarterback population. Maybe he had the benefit of great teammates. I track fourth-quarter game-winning drives as well – he’s among the best in that category.

I’m not a big believer in clutch quarterbacking – generally teams that are good but not great have more of those drives than teams that consistently dominate. Tom Brady (15%) and Aaron Rodgers (11%) are among the lowest in NFL history when it comes to percentage of their wins that come from late fourth-quarter drives. You want to tell me they aren’t “clutch,” whatever that means? Or that Jay Cutler (29%) is the guy you really want when the game is on the line? Not that Cutler is a bad quarterback – he’s just not someone they’ll consider for the Hall.

Nevertheless, if anyone had that late-game magic, it was Elway. You look at his per-game numbers and wonder how he did what he did, because it stands out. So of the 15 quarterbacks with 80 wins (including the Super Bowl bump) who aren’t in the Hall, I have no problem removing those with a sub-52.7 metric and less than 110 wins. That eliminates eight. Take out those between 52.7 and 54.2 and less than 100 wins and you lose another six. Dave Krieg had 101 wins and a 54.2 in the metric. He’s an excellent example of the best of the “Hall of the Very Good.” As is Rich Gannon (77 wins, 0-1 Super Bowl record, 54.7 in the metric).

And that leaves us with one quarterback who isn’t in the Hall: Ken Anderson. He had 91 wins and a 58.7 in the metric. The 91 wins, especially with just an 0-1 Super Bowl record, isn’t enough on its own. But the 58.7 is behind only Young, Montana, Warner and Griese. Anderson belongs.

I’m hardly the first person to want to campaign for Anderson. Others have broken down the case for Anderson looking at Pro Bowls, years leading the league in passer rating, even showing that he had fewer Pro-Bowl teammates than just about any other candidate. I can’t do a better job than they’ve already done.

But just based on this relatively simple analysis combining my metric with wins, he’s the only modern quarterback not in the Hall that passes these tests. I sincerely hope the veteran’s committee reviews his case soon. He was a finalist in 1996 and 1998 – so he is also the only modern quarterback who has reached the finals not to make it. The committee knows he was great. I think that now that we’ve had another 20 years to digest his candidacy and get a better picture of the role of the modern quarterback in the Hall, this omission stands out like nothing else.

Will the criteria change? I wanted to spend some time discussing the future of the modern quarterback in the Hall.

Of current nominations, none meet the elimination test. Donovan McNabb (first eligible in 2017, but not reaching the semifinals) is the closest. He had 105 wins and an 0-1 Super Bowl record, which puts him in serious consideration. But only a 51.7 career metric. Like Krieg, the Hall of the Very Good. Phil Simms (99 wins, 1 Super Bowl win, 52.0 metric), also nominated but not a semifinalist in 2017, also falls firmly in this category.

As far as new candidates go, there are none until Peyton Manning in 2021. I don’t need to tell you which way that will go. Matt Hasselbeck (91 wins, 0-1 Super Bowl, 52.0 metric) is also eligible in 2021, but won’t get more than a nomination. And Romo will come up in 2022. With an exceptional metric (60.2), Romo deserves a long look. But he only had 80 wins. So on the surface, Romo’s candidacy looks a lot like Warner’s. But here’s where having the three Super Bowl starts makes a difference.

The second piece of this analysis is that quarterbacks are lasting longer these days. While the committee has and should go with the flow when it comes to letting in several quarterbacks in a small number of years, we’re in a slightly different era when it comes to the franchise quarterback. Training methods are improving, and losing an elite guy like Aikman at age 34 or Bradshaw at 35 probably wouldn’t happen as often today. Romo is 36, and his retiring now stands out – but he has faced some unusually unlucky and severe injuries.

Still, we have Tom Brady (207 wins plus 5-2 in Super Bowls, 58.7 metric) coming up. Brady could divide his career in two and each half would make the Hall. Drew Brees (137, 1-0, 60.5), Ben Roethlisberger (135, 2-1, 58.4) and Aaron Rodgers (99, 1-0, 61.6) are also automatic choices (Rodgers still has a few good years left). I have a hard time believing Matt Ryan won’t be automatic – he’ll be only 32 next season. That’s five who are over 30 right now who likely get in on the first ballot, no hesitation.

It’s the next batch of 30-somethings that will force the committee to examine that statistical standard. Eli Manning (age 35, already at 116 wins with a 2-0 record in Super Bowls) may be a lock as well. But his 50.1 career metric isn’t that far from replacement level. Joe Flacco (age 31, 93 wins, 1-0 in Super Bowls plus a remarkable 10-5 playoff record) has a 50.9 career metric. On the other end of the scale, you have Philip Rivers (age 35, 98 wins, no Super Bowls, but a 58.4 career metric).

When you add Peyton Manning, that’s nine potential Hall quarterbacks who entered the league from 1998-2008. Maybe that’s a reflection of the current game, and what we need in the Hall. Or maybe it’s best to draw a line right under Elway from a statistical perspective and ignore Eli Manning and Flacco no matter how many wins they accumulate. Do they add Rivers because the statistics are exceptional? Hard to say which path is best, just that these are the cases that will determine the shape of the Hall in the future.

I’ve included charts of this information at the bottom of this article.

Quarterback	Adjusted Wins	In Hall
Brett Favre	210	Yes
John Elway	186	Yes
Joe Montana	162	Yes
Dan Marino	157	Yes
Terry Bradshaw	151	Yes
Fran Tarkenton	139	Yes
Troy Aikman	127	Yes
Jim Kelly	119	Yes
Roger Staubach	117	Yes
Bob Griese	115	Yes
Steve Young	109	Yes
Ken Stabler	109	Yes
Donovan McNabb	108	No
Phil Simms	107	No
Warren Moon	105	Yes
Drew Bledsoe	104	No
Dave Krieg	101	No
Steve McNair	96	No
Ken Anderson	94	No
Jim Plunkett	94	No
Vinny Testaverde	93	No
Joe Theismann	93	No
Kurt Warner	92	Yes
Craig Morton	91	No
Kerry Collins	90	No
Dan Fouts	89	Yes
Boomer Esiason	87	No
Brad Johnson	85	No
Mark Brunell	84	No
Randall Cunningham	84	No
Ron Jaworski	82	No
Rich Gannon	80	No
Quarterback	Average Metric	In Hall
Steve Young	64.2	Yes
Kurt Warner	61.7	Yes
Joe Montana	61.5	Yes
Bob Griese	59.6*	Yes
Roger Staubach	58.8*	Yes
Ken Anderson	58.7*	No
Ken Stabler	57.5*	Yes
Dan Fouts	57.3*	Yes
Fran Tarkenton	56.9*	Yes
Troy Aikman	56.3	Yes
Terry Bradshaw	56.2*	Yes
Brett Favre	56.2	Yes
Dan Marino	56.2	Yes
Jim Kelly	56.1	Yes
Rich Gannon	54.7	No
Dave Krieg	54.2	No
Brad Johnson	54.1	No
Warren Moon	53.8	Yes
Joe Theismann	53.8	No
Steve McNair	53.4	No
Mark Brunell	53.3	No
Craig Morton	53.2*	No
Boomer Esiason	53.0	No
John Elway	52.7	Yes
Jim Plunkett	52.4*	No
Phil Simms	52.0	No
Randall Cunningham	51.7	No
Donovan McNabb	51.7	No
Ron Jaworski	50.1	No
Vinny Testaverde	49.8	No
Drew Bledsoe	49.1	No
Kerry Collins	46.5	No
Quarterback	Age (end of 2016)	Adjusted Wins	Average Metric	Retired
Tom Brady	39	253	58.7	No
Peyton Manning	40	222	61.2	Yes
Ben Roethlisberger	34	154	58.4	No
Drew Brees	37	145	60.5	No
Eli Manning	35	132	50.1	No
Aaron Rodgers	33	107	61.6	No
Joe Flacco	31	101	50.9	No
Philip Rivers	35	98	58.4	No
Matt Hasselbeck	41	94	52.0	Yes
Matt Ryan	31	90	58.7	No
Carson Palmer	37	89	53.9	No
Tony Romo	36	80	60.2	Yes
Alex Smith	32	80	50.8	No
Jay Cutler	33	70	51.6	No

(* – does not include quarterback metric scores before 1974)

Much will be written about Super Bowl LI. As Super Bowls go, it was a thriller. As comebacks go, it’s the new definition of extreme comeback. My son was asking me about New England’s chances as they entered the fourth quarter with the Patriots still trailing, 28-9. I said it has to be close to zero percent. He has school tomorrow, so he wanted me to take him back to his mom.

Then the Patriots settled for a field goal on a 4th-and-15 that I thought was ill-advised. So I said, just a couple more minutes, and we’ll head out. And then Dont’a Hightower reached out and knocked the ball away from Matt Ryan, and suddenly, the chances were at least somewhat within the realm of once-in-a-lifetime. So we stuck it out and witnessed something fairly amazing.

I am a Patriot fan these days, as I’ve written before. It’s because I moved to the Nashua, New Hampshire area in 2000 – a few months after the Patriots were forced to use a compensatory pick near the end of the sixth round. Compensatory picks could not be traded. So, reluctantly, no doubt (Bill Belichick is legendary for his love of wheeling and dealing for future draft picks – he could rival Siddhartha himself when it comes to delaying gratification), Belichick picked. And with the 199th pick in the 2000 NFL draft, the Patriots select… yeah, you know.

I cared, though. Tom Brady was the Michigan quarterback following the National Championship in 1997. Never quite got a fair shake under Lloyd Carr, but he had a presence back there. Something Belichick saw. So when franchise quarterback Drew Bledsoe went down with a terrible injury in 2001, the Patriots were in good hands. I felt part of that – something as simple as moving and seeing my home-town guy lead my new home team to their first title… that was cool.

I should note that I grew up in Ann Arbor. My dad was a Michigan professor and all my degrees are from Michigan. It’s why I was fairly neutral about the NFL. Passion in football is about the Maize and Blue. The NFL is about research and work for me. I allow myself this one rooting interest. When Brady retires, I’ll probably return to neutral. I’m back in the Ann Arbor area now, and it would seem hypocritical to get on that bandwagon should the Detroit Lions start winning.

Of course, Deflategate was difficult. I read about Ideal Gas Law and Roger Goodell’s desire to prove that he has the legal right to act as judge, jury and executioner. So this one meant a little more, and it was nice sharing that with my son, who wore his Brady jersey as we watched and went from sad to sad to sad to at least this won’t be a total embarrassment to “I’ve been watching football my entire life and I’ve never seen anything like that.” And we stayed to watch Goodell hand the trophy to Bob Kraft and enjoy the announcement of Brady’s unprecedented fourth MVP award in his unprecedented fifth win as a Super Bowl quarterback.

So, what about the game? What to write? I tried looking up the record for most points scored by an NFL team without a single extra point. According to Pro Football Reference, 34 today ties the Eagles (week 14, 2013) for most in a game since they added extra points to their tracking tool (at least the 1960s). So there’s that.

I’ll stick with one concept for now: Brady’s 62 passing attempts. He went 43-62-466-2-1.

Generally, you don’t get to 60 without a large deficit. As I’ve written many times, I keep a database of quarterback performances dating back to 1974 – when the passing rules in the NFL were changed to open up the passing game. Before 1974 (and a subsequent adjustment in 1977), you could basically pick up a receiver, hog-tie him, carry him to the sideline and put him in the equipment trunk (along with the deflated footballs) without getting a penalty.

Today’s game was the 49th time a quarterback has made 60 or more passing attempts in a game since 1974. Their team’s record in those games: 8-41. Of those 49 games, four were in the playoffs – tonight’s and three divisional-round games. Drew Brees lost in 2012, Steve Young lost in 1996 and Bernie Kosar of the Cleveland Browns mounted a fourth-quarter comeback win over the Jets in 1987, going 33-64-489-1-2.

I don’t know that Brady’s legacy needed any cementing, but, in the end, all I can say about Super Bowl LI and his team’s comeback win is… incredible.

With Week 16 games completed, here is the playoff picture…

AFC East

New England won the division, and has a 79% chance at the 1st seed, 21% chance at the 2nd seed, though the Patriots have a tough game next week and often don’t perform well in week 17.

Miami has clinched a wild card, with a 10% chance at the 5th seed and a 90% chance at the 6th seed.

AFC North

Pittsburgh won the division and has clinched the 3rd seed.

AFC South:

Houston won the division and has clinched the fourth seed.

AFC West:

Oakland clinched a playoff spot. The Raiders have a 21% chance at the 1st seed and a 48% chance at the 2nd seed, adding up to a 69% chance of winning the division. They have a 31% chance at the 5th seed. Oakland holds the tie-breaker over New England. But Kansas City holds the tie-breaker over the Raiders.

Kansas City clinched a playoff spot. The Chiefs have a 31% chance at the 2nd seed. They have a 59% chance at the 5th seed and a 10% chance at the 6th seed.

NFC East:

Dallas won the division and holds the 1st seed.

The New York Giants have clinched a wild card spot and hold the 5th seed.

Washington has a 53% chance at the 6th seed. Since the Redskins are at home and the Giants have nothing to play for next week, that 53% chance is likely far too low. However, shenanigans are a potential problem for the Redskins.

NFC North:

Detroit has a 57% chance of winning the division (3% 2nd seed, 19% 3rd seed, 35% 4th seed), and a 20% chance at the 6th seed, adding up to a 77% chance of reaching the playoffs. The division winner will be the winner of next week’s game against Green Bay. A Washington loss clinches a playoff berth as does any win or tie.

Green Bay has a 43% chance of winning the division (10% 3rd seed, 33% 4th seed) and a 27% chance at the 6th seed, adding up to a 70% chance of reaching the playoffs. If Washington loses or ties next week and the Packers and Lions tie, the Packers win the division and the Lions are a wild card. However, if Washington wins next week and the Packers and Lions do not tie, the loser of the game misses the playoffs. Hence potential shenanigans. Just make it look good, guys, or your friendly commissioner may deflate your playoff hopes anyway. There will be a lot of extra attention given this game, as it has been broken out to the late time slot.

What about the tie-breakers between Tampa Bay and a 9-7 North team, with Washington losing next week? Detroit holds that tie-breaker based on common games, and Green Bay and Tampa Bay come down to strength of victory. The best Tampa Bay can do is tie Green Bay on strength of victory, which would require Chicago beating Minnesota and San Francisco beating Seattle. If that happens, strength of schedule breaks the tie. And, again, Green Bay has an edge there – under these conditions insurmountable. However, if Washington ties the New York Giants and Green Bay loses, this creates a three-way tie for the final wild-card slot, which will come down to strength-of-victory most likely, and in this case, there’s a tiny window for Tampa Bay to hold a percentage-points advantage. The odds of this happening are somewhere around 1 in 100,000 – maybe lower. At first, I did not see this case, but a reader pointed it out. Front Office Football does get this correct in that it recognizes 8-7-2 and 9-7 are considered identical records. But the playoff simulator won’t always see this sort of thing. Detroit, if it loses and Washington ties, takes the wild-card – either in a three-way tie with Tampa Bay or alone with Washington. Washington holds the tie-breaker over Green Bay.

NFC South:

Atlanta has clinched the division and has an 81% chance at the 2nd seed, a 10% chance at the 3rd seed and a 9% chance at the 4th seed. With a win next week, the Falcons gain that bye. Atlanta holds the tie-breaker over Green Bay, but Detroit holds the tie-breaker over Atlanta.

NFC West:

Seattle has clinched the division and has a 16% chance at the 2nd seed, a 61% chance at the 3rd seed and a 23% chance at the 4th seed. In case you’re wondering about Seattle at 9-5-2 against other division winners at 10-6, the North teams hold tie-breakers over the Seahawks and the Seahawks hold the tie-breaker over Atlanta.

Projected Matchups

AFC:
6. Miami (10-6) at 3. Pittsburgh (11-5)
5. Kansas City (12-4) at 4. Houston (9-7)
1. New England (14-2), 2. Oakland (13-3)

NFC:
6. Washington (9-6-1) at 3. Seattle (10-5-1)
5. New York Giants (10-6) at 4. Detroit (10-6)
1. Dallas (14-2), 2. Atlanta (11-5)

Draft Order

Cleveland is 1-14, and clinches the #1 pick with a loss. With a win and a San Francisco loss, the 49ers hold the #1 pick and Cleveland picks 2nd. The 49ers won’t pick lower than #2. Chicago holds the edge over Jacksonville for #3/4. Los Angeles holds the edge over the Jets for #5/6. The Rams would hold an edge at 4-12 over Chicago and Jacksonville, so they could go as high as #3. Jacksonville could drop to #6 with a win, though it’s close at 4-12 with the Jets. If Chicago wins and the Jets lose, they would be very close fighting over the #5/6 (or #4/5 if the Rams win). San Diego picks #7 with a loss.

Just a brief update on playoff percentages following the early afternoon games of Week 16.

This is just about wild card percentages.

AFC:

Team that doesn’t win AFC West (OAK/KC): 98% (note: Oakland has clinched a playoff berth)
Miami: 92%
Denver: 7%
Pittsburgh: 3%

NFC:

New York Giants: 99%
Team that doesn’t win NFC North (DET/GB): 44%
Team that doesn’t win NFC South (ATL/TB): 31% (note, Atlanta has clinched a playoff berth)
Washington: 26%

A look at the NFL playoff picture updated with Week 15 complete. Percentages based on 25,000 simulations with expected point spreads for the remaining games:

AFC East:

New England (12-2): Clinched division and first-round bye. 88% chance of top seed.
Miami (9-5): 54% chance of wild card. While the Dolphins enjoy a one-game lead for the final wild-card spot, Denver holds the tie-breakers over Miami at 10-6. Still, while Miami does finish against New England and won’t be favored in that game, the Patriots are likely to have sewn up that top seed and usually do not bring their A-game in Week 17.
Buffalo (7-7): 1% chance of wild card. The Bills have some favorable 9-7 tie-breakers, enough to reach the playoffs in 228 of the 25,000 simulations.

AFC North:

Pittsburgh (9-5): 87% chance of winning division, 5% chance of first-round bye, 7% chance of wild card. The Steelers host Baltimore next week and will be strongly favored. They also have an easier Week 17 game. But the Ravens hold the tie-breaker.
Baltimore (8-6): 13% chance of winning division, 13% chance of wild card. The Ravens hold every possible tie-breaker advantage, so if they lose to the Steelers next week, while they’d need a lot of help they’re still in it at 9-7.

AFC South:

Houston (8-6): 36% chance of winning division, 3% chance of wild card. Houston visits Tennessee in Week 17 for what’s likely the division title. Houston holds all divisional tie-breakers.
Tennessee (8-6): 63% chance of winning division, 2% chance of wild card.
Indianapolis (7-7): 1% chance of winning division, +0% chance of wild card. The Colts need to thread a needle to get in a tie with Tennessee at 9-7, where they would hold an advantage.

AFC West:

Oakland (11-3): 70% chance of winning division, 69% chance of first-round bye, 12% chance of top seed, clinched playoff berth. The Raiders have a one-game edge over the Chiefs, but a tougher remaining schedule. The Chiefs also hold the tie-breaker. Should New England falter, the Raiders almost certainly hold the tie-breaker for that top seed.
Kansas City (10-4): 30% chance of winning division, 27% chance of first-round bye, 69% chance of wild card. The Chiefs are almost certainly in the playoffs, even holding the tie-breaker over Denver. The only risk is with two losses, the Chiefs lose tie-breakers at 10-6 to Pittsburgh and Miami.
Denver (8-6): 21% chance of wild card. The Broncos still have games with Oakland and Kansas City, and only win a tie-breaker with Miami, Houston and Indianapolis. However – and this could be important given expected point spreads for remaining games – in a three-way tie with Houston and an AFC East team, Houston would win the tie-breaker.

NFC East:

Dallas (12-2): 98% chance of winning division, 98% chance of top seed, clinched playoff berth. The Giants hold the tie-breaker, though it’s fairly unlikely they’ll win two while Dallas loses two.
New York Giants (10-4): 2% chance of winning division, 2% chance of top seed, 97% chance of wild card. The Giants do not fare well in 10-6 tie-breakers, except with Detroit. But they missed the playoffs in only 16 of 25,000 simulations.
Washington (7-6-1): 15% chance of wild card. The tie makes tie-breaker math pretty much moot. Monday’s loss to Carolina took 48% off of the Redskins’ playoff chances.

NFC North:

Detroit (9-5): 69% chance of winning division, 4% chance of first-round bye, 15% chance of wild card. Since Detroit hosts Green Bay in Week 17, the Packers hold the tie-breaker. Next week’s game at Dallas is surprisingly irrelevant – irrelevant enough that the Lions should consider a vanilla game plan and resting Stafford early next Monday should Green Bay beat Minnesota on Saturday.
Green Bay (8-6): 31% chance of winning division, 21% chance of wild card, +0% chance of first-round bye. If it does come down to a battle of the Bays for the final wild card at 9-7, it will come down to strength-of-victory, where the Packers hold only a slight edge.
Minnesota (7-7): 4% chance of wild card. In that tiny scenario where they tie teams at 9-7, they do not hold tie-breakers.

NFC South:

Atlanta (9-5): 81% chance of division, 17% chance of first-round bye, 17% chance of wild card. The Falcons lose the divisional tie-breaker to Tampa Bay. They hold almost every possible out-of-division tie-breaker.
Tampa Bay (8-6): 19% chance of division, 28% chance of wild card, 1% chance of first-round bye. The Buccaneers need help from someone. And even in the very unlikely scenario that Detroit beats Dallas then loses to Green Bay, the Lions would hold the tie-breaker at 10-6. In the slightly more likely scenario that Tampa Bay and Detroit tie for the final wild card at 9-7, it matters which game Tampa Bay lost – a Week 16 loss is more harmful than a Week 17 loss.

NFC West:

Seattle (9-4-1): won division, 78% chance of first-round bye (but no chance of top seed).

Projected playoff matchups, based on remaining games and expected point spreads:

AFC:

6. Baltimore (9-7) at 3. Pittsburgh (11-5)
5. Oakland (12-4) at 4. Tennessee (10-6)
1. New England (14-2)
2. Kansas City (12-4)

NFC:

6. Green Bay (9-7) at 3. Atlanta (11-5)
5. New York Giants (12-4) at 4. Detroit (10-6)
1. Dallas (14-2)
2. Seattle (11-4-1)

Brief Draft Order Discussion:

If teams all “lose out” and things go as expected, keeping in mind that Los Angeles hosts San Francisco in Week 16:

1. Cleveland, 2. San Francisco, 3. Jacksonville, 4. Chicago, 5. New York Jets, 6. Los Angeles.

What if San Francisco beats Los Angeles, which is entirely possible given how bad the Rams are on offense lately and that the 49ers’ lone win this season was 28-0 over the Rams in Week 1?

Los Angeles would probably switch places at 5/6 with the Jets. The 49ers would still pick #2.

What if Cleveland wins a game and ties San Francisco at 1-15?

San Francisco would almost certainly take the #1 pick.

And Jacksonville/Chicago at 3/4, should they both finish at 3-13?

Chicago would very likely pick #3.

What about Chicago/Jets at 4/5, both at 4-12?

Far too close to call.

Who had the toughest and easiest schedules this season, based on projections for the last two weeks?

Toughest – Philadelphia (.582). Easiest – Seattle (.414). It looks like both will very likely hold on to these rankings.

The college football playoffs are set, and definitive statements made. Aftermath?

After the math, it turns out everything came down to the number of losses. Major schools with 0 or 1 losses are in. Major schools with 2 or more losses are out.

There are no egregious omissions here. The controversy comes down to whether you reward conference champions and whether you penalize schools that avoid risk in non-conference games. The playoff committee answered those questions definitively: no and no.

No, Penn State, the Big Ten champion, is not ranked ahead of Ohio State. Perhaps a more convincing head-to-head victory would have made a difference. The Nittany Lions beat the Buckeyes on October 22, but only due to a freak play in a contest that the Buckeyes dominated. Washington, the Pac 12 champ, is ranked behind Ohio State as well.

No, Penn State, which lost a close game at 8-4 Pittsburgh (who also defeated Clemson) in September and defeated AAC champion Temple (10-3) a week later, is not given the benefit of the doubt over Washington, which faced a much easier schedule than most major schools – avoiding road non-conference games. Their September challenges? The Sun Belt’s Idaho Vandals, outscored 115-20 in their two-game road trip in the state of Washington. Portland State, a 3-8 FCS team, and Big Ten cellar-dweller Rutgers, which lost to the three top-ten teams in their division by a combined score of 175-0 (accumulating a total of 86 yards on 12-of-51 passing in those games, yet somehow throwing 24-40-168 against Washington).

This is not a claim that any of the four top Big Ten schools were flawless, or robbed, or otherwise dissed. Ohio State faded late and fate rewarded them with a couple of season-ending victories that more than made up for the unlucky loss at Penn State. Penn State finished as strong as any team in the country, but if you had claimed that, at 5-2 and coming off that crazy win over the Buckeyes, the Nittany Lions would emerge as conference champion six weeks later, you would have been deluged with offers to purchase real estate near Brooklyn. Michigan’s offense looked anemic in road games. Wisconsin couldn’t close out games.

It’s not an indictment of Washington, either. Non-conference schedules are set years in advance. The Huskies are addicted to that annual FCS candy, but in 2018, they will also take on BYU and will even venture to the southeast for a neutral-site game against Auburn.

Still, the scheduling criticism rings loud and clear. If Penn State had avoided the fan-pleasing challenge of visiting long-time rival Pittsburgh and instead had treated the home fans to an exhibition victory over a spirited, but hopelessly overmatched FCS school, the Nittany Lions would be focused on Clemson’s Tigers right now and not on a Rose Bowl consolation prize against USC – another school that embraced September risk (a devastating drubbing at the hands of Alabama) and finished strong.

At least no one outside of Kalamazoo is claiming that Western Michigan was robbed. The Broncos were 13-0 and did what they could out-of-conference, beating a pair of Big Ten teams on the road that happened to be down this year, but anyone who watched the MAC Championship on Friday and claims that this is a team that deserves a playoff match-up against Alabama probably isn’t watching with an unbiased eye. Under the college football system we have, where schedule strength is incredibly varied, it’s just too much of a stretch to assume this record would hold up in a major conference.

In recent years, the Big Ten has done what it can to improve its schedule. Like the Pac 12, they’ve gone to a nine-game conference schedule. But they’ve also encouraged non-conference challenges, setting up games with the Pac 12 and taking the additional step of banning future non-conference games against FCS opponents. Should scheduling be more flexible? Next year, Washington will venture Piscataway-ward with a road game at Rutgers.

What if the Big Ten/Pac 12 challenge were late in the season and opponents were set a couple of weeks earlier to enhance schedule strength? What if every major conference team had to schedule two non-conference games against other majors? Measures like this would give people confidence that playoff teams were more tested. Given the inequities of recruiting and the need to have almost 100 athletes under scholarship, parity like we have in professional leagues is impossible. But major college football remains the only national sport we have in the United States that doesn’t have a playoff structure designed to address these problems.

If the current structure remains unchanged, today’s committee decisions will result in weaker non-conference games down the road. No one will return Kathy Beauregard’s phone calls this winter*. Arrangements, like Michigan’s home-and-homes with Notre Dame, Oklahoma, UCLA, Texas, Virginia Tech and, yes, even Washington over the next decade will become the exception to the norm.

(* – Beauregard is Western Michigan’s athletic director)

I think the fans lost today, in that it will be harder to schedule non-conference challenges. Though it would be reasonable to say the fans also gained from having four of the major conferences represented rather than three. Inclusion is also a factor here.

All told, I just hope we’re one step closer to a real playoff system in college football.

The scenario everyone foresaw is here.

The NCAA was thoroughly warned and yet here we are anyway. The problem with setting up a four-team playoff and keeping the conference championship games is the likelihood that either the blowout loser of a championship game will have locked up an invitation before the game started or a team will deserve an invitation despite not even reaching its conference championship. Add in the danger of having a top-heavy conference warrant two or possibly even three invitations and you’re guaranteed to make everyone angry more sooner than later.

The NCAA was lucky, frankly, not to have fallen deeply into either trap in the first two seasons under the new system.

The problem is very simple. Four teams out of 128 in football is too few. We don’t need 64 or 68 in the playoffs, like basketball, where everyone accepts that going undefeated is a once-in-a-generation thing and the tournament itself is an important spectacle. With only 12 games in the regular season, there just isn’t enough time to separate four elite teams from the rest of a fairly deserving crowd.

This four-team event is a compromise – and one that not only preserves the flaws in the system; it emphasizes them.

I think we’re long past the point where anyone has any illusion that major college football players on scholarship are students. The difference between a maximum of 16 games (12 plus the potential Hawai’i clause plus a conference championship plus two playoff games) and a maximum of 18 games doesn’t seem like that much, especially when you consider you can begin a playoff before Christmas.

An 11-team playoff seems ideal to me. The five major conference champions receive byes. That’s the bonus for winning a major conference and it gives those games renewed importance. If Florida upsets Alabama, Florida deserves the bye and Alabama still gets in. And six at-larges play each other in the first round. Add in a rule that an undefeated (and only an undefeated, because the schedule differences are enormous) Group of Five school may receive consideration for an at-large invitation and the committee can come up with a compelling tournament.

Here’s mine…

1. Alabama versus (8. Florida State versus 9. Wisconsin)
2. Clemson versus (7. Michigan versus 10. USC)
3. Penn State versus (6. Ohio State versus 11. Colorado)
4. Washington versus 5. Oklahoma

You still have legitimate beefs from WMU and from the SEC, which suffered from having one world-beating team and a tremendous amount of not-quite-great evenly-matched talent knocking each other around. But it’s quite a compelling tournament. I’d keep the Broncos out because of that schedule. I can’t imagine them finishing without at least three losses in a major conference.

I’m sure there are bowl purists around who wouldn’t appreciate the further evisceration of the unique characteristics of a Rose is a Rose is a Rose or an Orange and a Sugar and a Cotton are cool, too. Even though these are usually more a “thanks for being good, but not great” reward than anything else these days. I felt that way myself around the turn of the millennium. Now, I can’t for the life of me remember who gets what assignment and why. Just that there are semifinals and finals and a bunch of other games. The later you play the better your team, except that there’s seemingly always a MAC team playing on a Tuesday somewhere.

However… we’re still dealing with a four-team playoff. So here’s how I see it:

First, my accumulated accomplishment per game metric:

1. Alabama 71.7
2. Ohio State 69.0
3. Clemson 67.9
4. Penn State 62.5
5. Washington 61.5
6. Colorado 60.6
7. USC 60.3
8. Michigan 58.2
9. Wisconsin 56.9
10. Florida State 56.8
…
14. Oklahoma 53.4
…
70. Western Michigan 37.2

SEC

Somewhat controversially, I think Alabama (13-0) deserves an invitation.

Big 12

Somewhat controversially, I don’t think Oklahoma (10-2) even belongs in the conversation. Why? Well, they’ve done everything right. Nine straight wins sweeping the Big 12. Challenging non-conference games (unlike seemingly everyone else in the Big 12). But a really bad year for the conference as a whole, and, well, the Sooners lost their two quality non-conference games.

The Big 12 thinks it can fix this problem with a conference championship game pitting the top two teams in the standings. Reason? Attention at a critical time. But what would have happened this year under such a system? Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would have played last week, each team having sewed up a berth in the championship. So last week’s game would have been dreadfully bland. The starting quarterbacks would have played one series, the playbooks expunged of anything Barry Sanders or Billy Sims wouldn’t recognize.

Of course, that wouldn’t happen every year. But it would be a rematch every year, and that doesn’t give a game a championship feel – especially with no divisions to conquer. It’s a bad idea.

The Big 12 is in a poor position here, I recognize this. They’ve lost four quality schools in recent years. One can argue that’s their own fault for letting Texas get away with too much over the years, but there’s still some depth and some greatness here. Expanding to 12 may be a good idea – especially since getting West Virginia a rival in Cincinnati is valuable and Houston, while not exactly bringing in television revenue, would add significant sports credibility. If not, then better non-conference scheduling has to happen.

ACC

Clemson (12-1) won a thriller at Florida State (9-3) in October, and, given Louisville’s late collapse, that ended up being the game of the year in the ACC. Clemson is a deserving champion with a solid win in the ACC championship and a high-quality win at SEC power Auburn in its resume. There simply isn’t any compelling reason not to invite the Tigers.

PAC 12

Based on everything that’s happened since September, USC (9-3) is the best team in the Pac 12. The Trojans even beat both division champions. They played a top-notch schedule. But look at September. An evisceration against Alabama, a really poor effort at Stanford, then a bit of bad luck in a loss at Utah. The quality wins are the wins against Colorado and Washington. This is an at-large resume in a bigger tournament. You just can’t rank USC ahead of Washington (12-1). So what about the Huskies? The win over Colorado (10-3) Saturday solidifies Washington as the only PAC 12 team that deserves attention under the four-team system. So do you take the Huskies over a second Big Ten team? I think it comes down to this non-conference resume: Rutgers, Idaho and Portland State. If your out-of-conference schedule is that weak, you have no room for error, and the loss at home to USC was a convincing loss. Under the circumstances, that takes away the “automatic” from Washington.

Big Ten

First, I’ll deal with the bad luck. Michigan (10-2) has no case. I’ll spare the rant about the officiating at Ohio State. It’s a compelling rant, but in the end, if you want to take the game out of the hands of the guys in stripes, don’t keep turning the ball over. Best defense in the country? Probably. Quality wins over top ten teams? Absolutely. Wins over both division champions? Check. Ok, you’re in the same at-large boat as USC. But third in their division and an absolute stinker of a November performance at Iowa. Out of the conversation.

Wisconsin (10-3) also has no case. Even with a quality non-conference, neutral-site win over LSU to open the season, those three losses to the other three conference candidates are the deal-breakers.

Penn State (11-2) has won nine straight games, including wins over Ohio State and Wisconsin. The Ohio State win was at home and more than a little lucky. The two losses were on the road, both in September and both to quality teams. The loss to Michigan was a blowout. Clemson also lost a close one to Pittsburgh. Is this a top-four resume? Hard to say for certain. But the Nittany Lions played a top-notch schedule (even the win against Temple ended up being a decent achievement) and came out champions of the conference with the most depth at the top.

What about Ohio State (11-1)? Due to tie-breaking procedures, the only one-loss team in the Big Ten didn’t get to play for the championship. There’s the huge non-conference win at Oklahoma. The one loss was due to a freak play at Penn State. On the down side, their wins over Wisconsin and Michigan required overtime. They were a two-point conversion away from losing at Michigan State two weeks ago and were outplayed most of the game last week against Michigan. On results alone, the Buckeyes are in. But can you take a team that didn’t win its division and hasn’t been convincing against a quality opponent in a few weeks?

Summary

In the end, we have five candidates for four positions. I think Alabama is an easy #1 and Clemson is an easy #2. The next two spots are tougher. Penn State’s head-to-head edge over Ohio State is mitigated because they played at home and Ohio State dominated most of that game. I don’t like the system in that a team that didn’t play for its conference championship probably shouldn’t be in a four-team tournament, but all three of these remaining teams are flawed. I think Ohio State takes #3 because of strength of schedule. That leaves Penn State and Washington, and I give the edge to Penn State because of its nine-game current winning streak and, again, strength of schedule. But I wish there was room for more teams.

Feed the guy. For he has changed the NFL.

One of the challenges in developing Front Office Football Eight was dealing with ol’ Zeke. I want the game to run properly out of the box, so to speak. And a big part of that is making sure it produces “realistic” NFL statistics.

If you fire up the game for the first time, and a running back is gaining 3,000 yards in a season, for example, if you’re like most Front Office Football customers, you’re going to raise more than an eyebrow.

So a big part of my job, perhaps the only part that really matters, long-term, is ensuring that the numbers Front Office Football produces feel like professional football numbers.

Running backs are tough. Their careers ramp up as early as any position. Research suggests that a rookie running back can and will perform at peak or close to peak performance. Certainly by year two. More playing time often comes later because running backs get on the field by being explosive and holding onto the football. They stay on the field by learning effective pass protection and doing useful things on third down.

The running back model changes faster than other positions. The NFL of years past… star running backs were almost as important as the quarterback. The idea that you’d talk about a wide receiver before a running back? Maybe if you had a Lynn Swann or a Fred Biletnikoff. But still, there was Franco Harris and, well, OK, the Stabler-Biletnikoff-Casper-Branch Raiders had that passing identity and I had to look up Mark van Eeghen’s name to find that monster fullback (he did, in fairness, rush for more than 1,000 yards).

Gradually, coaches have had more success with running backs who are willing to sacrifice everything for a year or two of relative glory. Drafting premier running backs became a costly mistake. They have the shortest careers. And drafting a mistake early in the first round could cause your franchise enormous harm.

Then, in 2012, Trent Richardson was the third overall pick. Cleveland Browns. We know this story. He didn’t last long with Cleveland. At least they got a first-round pick back from Indianapolis (of course, being Cleveland, they turned that pick into Johnny Manziel). So Richardson got to play in three playoff games. His statistics from those three games: 1 yard gained, 1 fumble lost. He’s no longer in the NFL.

It wouldn’t be fair to say Richardson was the only cause of this trend, because he was decent, but not earth-shattering, as a rookie. But in 2013, the first running back selected was #37 and in 2014, the first running back lasted all the way to #54.

Last year, Todd Gurley went #10 and played quite well. Melvin Gordon went #15 and reviews are mixed. But Gurley’s success may have led to what Dallas did at #4 this year – Ezekiel Elliott. Zeke. On a pace to gain 1,750 yards with 16 touchdowns. More importantly, he’s forcing defenses to plan against him in a way we really don’t see with running backs anymore.

Back to Front Office Football… I make relatively undetailed player files for use with the game. I try and provide accurate demographic information, but I don’t try and fully model each player. For a career sim, this works best. But there’s still that out-of-the-box experience. I give each player a 0-9 rating and let the game calculate the details each time you start a new career. Elliott deserves a 9. I haven’t had a 9 running back in years, but I don’t think it would be right not to give him one, because he’s already the top back in the league and research suggests he’ll be even a bit better next year.

I also made massive changes to the game engine for Front Office Football Eight. Part to handle the new game planning and part just because engines could always use a tune-up. In testing, I was having trouble with Elliott. Given my philosophy of how the game should work, I like that the game can produce very different results given different inputs. In Elliott’s case, that meant I was seeing the NFL rushing record broken in 2016 or 2017 on a somewhat frequent basis. Honestly, I don’t think that’s all that unrealistic. I did tune peak rushing down a bit, but if you create an unrealistic game plan, you can probably get Elliott over the record.

Whatever the case, Zeke has changed the NFL and when the 2017 draft comes, you can expect more first-round running backs than we’ve seen in a long time. It’s too bad that if anything is harmed by the new CBA that limits rookie salaries, it’s the short-career, early-peak running back position. One should feed the guy.

Front Office Football Eight, the eighth version of our popular professional football simulation for the PC, was released this afternoon.

The new version of Front Office Football includes dozens of new features, designed to enhance your simulation experience. This is our most ambitious new product to date, and you’ll find it a much more realistic professional football experience.

The new game features custom offensive playbooks, new player participation charts, a more realistic game planning system modeled after how professional coaches prepare for games, enhanced multi-player support and a more efficient, cleaner user interface.

Front Office Football is designed to represent a snapshot of professional football as it exists under the current salary cap system. You play the role of the general manager of a team and try to maximize team performance and your franchise’s finances.

Front Office Football was originally released in 1998 and was nominated for several major Sports Game of the Year awards for the PC.

After probably the longest and most intense development cycle of my career, I feel confident in announcing the pending release of Front Office Football Eight. When, you might ask? I’m hoping it will be out on Steam on Wednesday. But that will be up to them. I will submit a final build by Monday morning.

You’ll notice a lot of changes in the new product. I think it looks a lot better. Another fantastic main background and branding from Cyril Chong – he’s also been wonderful working with my admittedly intense and varied development schedule. A new menu system designed to get you wherever you want in lightning speed. Non-modal windows mean you can have a lot of information on your screen(s) all at once.

There’s a new game planning system that’s modeled after how NFL coaches prepare for each game. And, each year, you’ll be able to install your own playbook, complete with plays designed to fit your team’s strengths. Of course, Rex is improved, and you’ll have more options for letting him get you through the complicated stuff at first.

Numerous other improvements and new features round out the package. This is definitely the biggest leap between new versions I’ve ever tried. This is the final major piece of new development for my vision of Front Office Football. After a good rest, I hope to start on TCY2. No promises there, but the vision has always been about having both products.

The price of Front Office Football Eight is $29.95. I will offer a 10% discount upon release to reward existing customers who know this is something they want right away.