Football Frontier

A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Tony Grossi, has been removed from the Cleveland Browns beat because he posted an insulting comment about Browns owner Randy Lerner on his Twitter page.

ProFootballTalk Grossi story

There’s discussion on various forums, including ProFootballTalk, that Grossi should be allowed to keep his beat since he apologized, and since there’s apparent evidence that the public posting was intended as a private message to a friend. Since Lerner is a billionaire, he is a public figure and so he should be immune to criticism.

Supposedly, the Plain Dealer is afraid of Lerner’s financial power and is acceding to an alleged request from Lerner to remove Grossi.

I don’t agree. I think the Plain Dealer made the right move. We’ve forgotten in this day of celebrity journalism that the fundamental purpose of a newspaper is to inform. When Grossi tweeted (and that is apparently a verb now) his personal opinion of Lerner, the perception that Grossi was an impartial observer was violated. Now that the public knows that Grossi considers Lerner an “irrelevant billionaire,” it’s difficult to believe that Grossi can write a story about Browns management without bias.

The Plain Dealer, if it continued to employ Grossi in this fashion, would be reduced to blog status (like this one) credibility in stories about the ownership and management of the local professional football franchise.

I’m glad Plain Dealer management made this decision. I don’t think it’s a decision many newspapers would make these days, and that’s a major part of the reason why newspapers are dying throughout the country. When I was in journalism school, the Plain Dealer had the reputation of being one of the three or four great papers in the Midwest, and integrity was a big part of that reputation.

That no one in the blogosphere has even looked at the Grossi story from this angle (at least, in my limited search) is a sign of just how far our expectations of journalistic ethics have fallen.

This season, the San Francisco 49ers were the 21st NFL team since the advent of the 16-game schedule to improve seven or more games from the previous season.

How did these teams fare in the playoffs?

Of the 21 teams, 17 made the playoffs. And of those 17, two (the 1981 49ers and the 1999 Rams) won the Super Bowl and one (the 1998 Falcons) was Super Bowl runner-up. Eight failed to win a game.

The overall playoff record of those 17 teams is, through Saturday, 14-14.

However, the average number of regular-season wins for those 17 teams is 12.06. And the average number of regular-season victories for a playoff team since 1978 is 11.00. That’s a fairly big difference.

It’s a small sample size, so there’s nothing approaching conclusive in this data, but that type of spectacular improvement from season-to-season is not quite as believable as it looks.

The playoff record of teams that were 12-4 during the regular season and improved less than five wins from the previous season is 71-31 (69.6%). This is why, despite the 49ers’ stunning comeback win on Saturday and home-field advantage next Sunday, I’d hesitate to establish them as much of a favorite to beat the Giants.

With just two weeks remaining in the regular season, it’s time for a detailed look at the BCS situation in college football. And “situation” is a good way to describe the BCS. Aside from the SEC having a team in the championship game and an at-large team, very little is settled right now.

The champions of the six major conferences earn BCS bids. Automatic bids also go to teams ranked in the top four, provided no more than two teams go from any one conference. A mid-major conference receives an automatic bid if its champion is ranked in the top 10. Otherwise, teams with nine wins ranked in the top 14 are eligible for at-large bids, subject to the rule limiting participation to two BCS teams from one conference.

ACC

Clemson (9-2) will represent the Atlantic Division in the ACC Championship. The winner of Saturdays Virginia Tech (10-1) at Virginia (8-3) game will represent the Coastal Division. Clemson at 10-3 or 9-4 would not be ranked in the top 14. An 11-2 Virginia Tech, with a loss to Clemson in the championship, would be a strong at-large candidate. Even at 10-2, it would be hard to ignore Virginia Tech. Georgia Tech (8-3) would not rise enough in the rankings to qualify if it beats Georgia on Saturday.

Big Twelve

Four schools are still eligible for BCS consideration. Both Oklahoma State and Oklahoma control their own destiny. Oklahoma (8-2) plays Iowa State on Saturday. A win, and Oklahoma’s game the following Saturday at Oklahoma State (10-1) decides the conference championship. A loss, and Oklahoma State wins the conference regardless of the outcome of that game. Kansas State (9-2) plays Iowa State in two weeks, but cannot win the conference. Baylor (7-3) has games remaining against Texas Tech and Texas.

Any of these schools could qualify as an at-large candidate. Oklahoma State at 10-2 would be ranked around tenth, but would have finished with two straight losses. Oklahoma at 9-3 would probably be outside of the top 14, and I doubt, unless there are a lot of upsets, that a three-loss team would be considered this year. Baylor at 9-3 would be on the fringe of the top 14. Kansas State at 9-3 would be outside of the top 14, but at 10-2 would be ranked around tenth. I see Kansas State and Oklahoma State as possible at-large picks, but not particularly strong picks.

SEC

The SEC has five schools eligible already for BCS selection. Georgia (9-2) has won the East Division. I don’t see Georgia as having a chance of an at-large bid. South Carolina (9-2) hosts Clemson on Saturday. A win, and 10-2 South Carolina would be ranked around tenth, but that’s not going to be enough, since the SEC is limited to two bids, and both will be automatic.

On Friday, Louisiana State (11-0) hosts Arkansas (10-1) and on Saturday, Alabama (10-1) visits Auburn. If Louisiana State beats Arkansas, it will be the West Division champion, and will probably play in the BCS championship game regardless of the outcome against Georgia. Alabama will probably finish second in the BCS standings if it beats Auburn and doesn’t play in the SEC championship. If Alabama loses and Louisiana State loses, Arkansas wins the division. If Alabama wins and Louisiana State loses, there’s a three-way tie atop the division, and the winner will be the team with the highest BCS ranking (likely Alabama).

Two of these West Division teams are certain to be in the top four in the final rankings, meaning there will be at least one West representative in the BCS, regardless of the SEC championship outcome. However, voters don’t like rematches in the National Championship game. They changed their votes to avoid this in 2006. This bodes well for Oklahoma State, which is favored by most computer ranking systems.

Big East

There could be a 9-3 Big East school that doesn’t win the conference. There’s no way, however, that this school will be in the top 14. At this point, with five teams essentially sharing the conference lead and two games remaining, even speculating on the Big East winner seems pointless.

Pac Twelve

Oregon (9-2) hosts Oregon State on Saturday, and with a win would win the North Division. A loss would give the North Division to Stanford (10-1), which hosts Notre Dame on Saturday. An 11-1 Stanford would be an at-large BCS pick. A 10-2 Stanford would be ranked around 12th and would remain in the discussion. Oregon would not be in the top 14 at 9-3.

The South Division is complicated by Southern California’s ineligibility. There is no at-large candidate from the South. UCLA visits Southern California on Saturday. A UCLA win would put the Bruins in the Pac Twelve title game. A loss, and Arizona State and Utah enter the discussion, Arizona State holding some key tie-breakers.

Big Ten

Penn State (9-2) visits Wisconsin (9-2) on Saturday for the Leaders Division title. The loser of this game will not be ranked highly enough for at-large consideration. The winner, should it lose in the Big Ten title game, is not likely to be ranked in the top 14.

Michigan State (9-2) is the Legends Division champion. A Big Ten title-game loss will likely knock the Spartans out of the top 14. Nebraska (8-3) would gain its ninth win and eligibility with a win against Iowa this Saturday, but won’t be in the top 14. That leaves Michigan (9-2), which hosts Ohio State on Saturday in The Game. A 10-2 Michigan would be ranked around 13th, most likely, with two strong performances to finish the season. And that would have great appeal to the BCS powers that be.

Mountain West

Boise State (9-1) is loved by the computers, but cannot win the Mountain West, so is ineligible for automatic inclusion in the BCS. Boise State is still an at-large possibility, but not a strong one.

Conference USA

Houston (11-0) plays at Tulsa on Saturday for the West Division title. If Houston wins this game and wins the Conference USA championship the following weekend against either Southern Mississippi or Marshall, Houston will be ranked in the top ten and will earn an automatic BCS berth. One loss, and Houston’s dreadful strength of schedule and lack of strength from computer ranking systems will drop it far behind Boise State for at-large consideration.

Summary…

There are effectively seven clinched berths for the ten BCS spots, because the SEC is locked into two berths.

Houston could clinch an eighth berth with two more wins.

Other possibilities include (in order of candidacy strength):

- Stanford (at 11-1 a certainty, or at 10-2 still a possibility).
- Virginia Tech (at 11-2 or 10-2 if it doesn’t win the ACC).
- Michigan (at 10-2 with a win over Ohio State).
- Oklahoma State (at 10-2, with a loss to Oklahoma).
- Kansas State (at 10-2, with a win over Iowa State).
- Boise State (at 11-1, with two wins).

After that, we’re looking at a lot of shuffling in the top 14, and that would get a three-loss Big Twelve school into the discussion, as well as the loser of the Big Ten championship game, in that order.

The fallout from Nebraska’s jump from the Big XII to the Big Ten is still very much alive. You’d think a drop of only two “bigs” would quickly be absorbed by the college football world, but every week sees new stories and rumors develop.

I took a long look at this issue last year, and came up with a method for ranking schools. But what’s changed in the last year is the apparent willingness of mid-major conferences to ignore geographic boundaries if it means gaining a new slice of television money.

So I’m revisiting and updating my analysis from last year. I’ll review everything, conference by conference.

I’m going to make two rather unsettling assumptions. One, that anything you read that isn’t accompanied by a quote from an official who has the authority to make decisions can easily be disregarded. So, when you read rumors that Texas is definitely moving to the SEC, take them with more than one grain of salt.

And two, the four major conferences – the ACC, the Big Ten, the SEC and the Pac Twelve – seem to have some sort of unwritten agreement that they will not pursue each other’s schools. The Big Twelve would have been on this list if it hadn’t imploded over its problems dealing with Texas and ESPN. I’m making this assumption because the SEC could easily raid the ACC, but those rumors have had no life whatsoever.

That locks up 51 schools – including 39 of the 45 most valuable college properties. Those schools are guaranteed a chance at whatever playoff/bowl championship the conference presidents can whip up for the future.

Which means there are three questions we have to answer for the future:

1) Are the four major conferences done expanding? Each had 12 schools going into this season. But the SEC will expand to 13 next year, and the ACC will expand to 14 in 2014.

2) What will the two “‘tween” conferences – the Big East and the Big Twelve – do to preserve their access to this playoff/bowl structure? Those automatic bids expire after the 2013 season. There is currently no algorithm in place to make this determination.

3) What will the smaller conferences do to gain access? The Mountain West and Conference USA are combining in an attempt to make a case that the best team in the combined conference should have an automatic bid.

QUESTION 1: Expansion of the four major conferences.

This is a discussion fueled by money and money alone. If ESPN (or any competing entity) can offer 10% more money if a new school joins a conference, then it could be worth expanding. Tradition isn’t as important these days. The problem is that there are only a handful of schools worth inviting.

I’ll look at this question, conference by conference:

Big Ten: At some point, it’s inevitable that Notre Dame will want to join a conference. When it does, the Big Ten is its logical choice. Otherwise, the Big Ten seems happy with twelve schools. No new opportunity stands out. I think the Big Ten would quickly grab a 14th school if Notre Dame joined. Under the assumption I made that the ACC can’t be raided, that bid would either go to Rutgers or Kansas, unless Missouri doesn’t end up moving to the SEC.

ACC: In 2014, the ACC will have 14 schools. That seems unwieldy, but possible. I think it’s unlikely that the ACC will want 16 any time soon, unless the SEC makes that move and it’s very successful. In that case, the ACC will probably look at Rutgers, West Virginia and Connecticut, in that order.

SEC: It’s entirely possible to run a conference with 13 schools and two divisions. It requires a slightly unbalanced schedule, with only three schools in the seven-team division playing all six possible opponents. This means it’s both slightly more random and slightly more difficult for a good team to win a division. But it can be done. The SEC probably wants to go to 14, though. Its first choice would be Texas, all things considered. But that might not be possible. It could also jump to 16 with Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which would be a daring and very lucrative move. I think that’s slightly more possible, though we’re not hearing any rumors along those lines. The conventional wisdom right now says the SEC will try and add one school. And that will likely be Missouri. I think either West Virginia or Missouri will work fine for the SEC, though not as well as Texas or Oklahoma.

Pac Twelve: Barring a resurrection of the Texas/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Texas Tech rumors, the Pac Twelve will happily remain intact for a long time. It would take a package of that kind of value to make it worth while to even discuss further expansion.

QUESTION 2: Preservation of the Big East and Big Twelve.

As the major conferences expand, they’re grabbing up schools from these conferences. They’ve had experience competing at a BCS level. The question is whether the remaining teams can continue at that level.

Big Twelve: Despite organizational problems that rival the government itself, the Big Twelve is still remarkably successful. Unless it loses Texas and Oklahoma, it will easily retain prime access to the BCS moving forward. Texas Christian will join next year. Missouri may leave next year. That would leave the conference with nine schools. The easiest move would be to get to twelve schools by taking Louisville, Cincinnati and West Virginia. Or add one to get to ten. As long as Texas and Oklahoma remain happy, all sorts of options are on the table. The conference could even reach down and take Houston, Tulane or Rice if needed. Tulane and Rice are interesting options because they are excellent academic schools, and that still matters a little these days. The new Big Twelve won’t be nearly as strong as last year’s version, but it can remain very healthy anchored only by Texas and Oklahoma.

Big East: The Big East is in serious trouble right now, and has to hope that the Big Twelve doesn’t want to be accurately named any more. Rumors abound that as many as six new schools will receive invitations to join the Big East. The automatic BCS bid is secure while the current structure is in place, until the end of the 2013 season. After that, it’s all up in the air, and what will be a rag-tag amalgamation of schools from all over the country and a few basketball-only schools isn’t much of an image of stability. In 2014, only Rutgers and West Virginia will remain from the schools that founded the football portion of the conference in 1991. Ask again next week, and that might only include Rutgers. And next year, maybe no one. So this is a pure scramble to assemble as many good football teams as possible, with no interest whatsoever in the long-term health of the conference.

QUESTION 3: How do the mid-majors gain access to the BCS?

To answer this question, understanding two concepts are important. One is that the current BCS arrangement expires after the 2013 season and no one knows exactly what form the BCS will take moving forward. The second is that the current arrangement is designed to emphasize conferences with teams that place highly in the standings. There’s really only a slight difference between the level of achievement necessary to gain an automatic bid and the level required to play in the BCS. So the entire fight right now is all about what happens when a conference does not have a high achiever.

This means the BCS will make its decisions based on trying to get the best teams into the top bowls. It was definitely burned by Connecticut’s mediocre season (and Big East championship) last season.

This is why the strategy of Conference USA and the Mountain West makes a lot of sense. By putting 20-24 schools together, one of them is bound to be fairly good. The Big East is countering this strategy by allegedly offering invitations to the schools in that group that look most likely to be good enough to win a bid.

My guess is that the new BCS arrangement won’t give this new conference an automatic bid. Nor will it give the Big East a bid. But it will continue to add slots where a team from one of these conferences receives a bid if it’s ranked amongst the top teams. The bottom line is that the top school from the mid-majors has consistently received a bid the last few years. We can argue all day as to whether that’s warranted, but it seems a fair compromise between rewarding teams that don’t lose and not over-rewarding teams that don’t play an elite schedule. College football can’t give every team a similar schedule. Not even close. It has to use the BCS to balance this problem.

CONCLUSION:

We still have look at the most valuable franchises in vulnerable positions if we want to know how this will shake out. For now, that means continuing to watch Texas closely. Oklahoma and Notre Dame are also elite franchises that could make moves.

I would add a third tier made up of Missouri, West Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma State and Brigham Young. Those schools belong securely in any major conference discussion, though in Brigham Young’s case the school’s refusal to consider playing minor sports games on Sundays makes an invitation much more difficult. After the third tier there are maybe 20 schools that could make the move up, but that would depend on factors specific to the inviting conference. Most likely current performance level is at the top of the list these days.

I’ve updated my college football ratings for the 2011 season, and, as always, the first thing I examine is the strength of schedule numbers.

This is the 15th season I’ve been rating Division I-A (FBS) football teams. Sadly, the BCS has not come calling, so I toil in obscurity.

With the advent of the 12-game schedule, many schools have added an FCS (I-AA) team to use as a paid whipping boy. That trend is only getting more prevalent. The Big Twelve, however, has shifted to a nine-game schedule, like the Pac Twelve. That means teams from those two conferences dominate the strength of schedule ranking because they’re less likely to add that FCS opponent – or any opponent from a weak mid-major.

By conference, the list of average number of FCS opponents per team: Sun Belt 0.44, Conference USA 0.58, Big Twelve 0.60, WAC 0.63, Pac Twelve 0.67, Independents 0.75, Big Ten 0.83, MAC 0.92, Big East 1.00, SEC 1.00, ACC 1.08, Mountain West 1.13.

North Carolina State is the only school from a major conference with two FCS opponents. Air Force, Wyoming and Eastern Michigan play two as well. As for the major schools, Michigan and Ohio State are the only two that have four or more non-conference opponents, but no FCS opponents.

Of course, schedule analysis isn’t that simple. I’ve run a formula that takes into account ratings and whether games are home, on the road or on a neutral site. That’s how the list above is compiled. Colorado has by far the toughest schedule in the country this year. The Buffaloes are one of a handful of schools playing 13 regular-season games. That’s because games played in the state of Hawaii do not count toward the 12-game limit.

But Hawaii is hardly representative of Colorado’s schedule. Because of an old home-and-home arranged with California, the Buffaloes and the Golden Bears play in September, but it doesn’t count as a Pac Twelve game. Colorado therefore has ten opponents from its own conference. Add in a trip to Ohio State, and it’s a nightmare of a schedule for a team that wasn’t expected to compete in its new conference anyway.

Southern California, Notre Dame, Oregon State, Arizona, Iowa State, Auburn, California, Washington and Texas round out the top ten toughest schedules. Notre Dame is considered a major school because of consistent (until recently) top performances and the ability to schedule elite opponents. Seems like Michigan, Michigan State, USC, Stanford and Pittsburgh are always on the list. Brigham Young went independent this year and clearly desires the same type of national television deal and special place in the BCS that Notre Dame has earned. But the Cougars play the 77th-toughest schedule of 120 schools.

Sure, trips to Texas and TCU are no picnic in the park, but playing five of the eight WAC teams – four at home – is not going to earn you much attention in the polls. Only three major schools play an easier schedule (Connecticut, North Carolina and North Carolina State). Keep North Carolina’s 87th-ranked schedule in mind if the Tar Heels are 10-0 in November and about to visit Virginia Tech for by far their toughest game this season.

Auburn is a team to examine. The defending-champion Tigers have plenty of talent, but lost more starters than any school in the FBS. Their non-conference schedule isn’t daunting, with only a visit to Clemson resembling any kind of challenge. But they have road games at South Carolina, Arkansas and Louisiana State before finishing the season hosting the Iron Bowl. A couple of bad breaks, and this is a 7-5 or 6-6 team. Louisiana State has a better conference split, but a neutral-site challenge against Oregon and a visit to West Virginia give the Fighting Tigers a very un-SEC-like non-conference schedule.

In the ACC, Boston College has an extraordinary schedule, and will need a perfect start just to hang on to a bowl bid. Miami (Florida) hosts Ohio State, and has a rough in-conference road.

Boise State has moved up to the Mountain West, and is playing a schedule that’s easily twice as difficult as any it has ever played in the past. A 12-0 record from the Broncos, and maybe people will consider them worthy of a spot in the title game. San Diego State, with a much easier schedule (and an attention-grabbing visit with their old coach who just took over at Michigan) gets Boise State at home and conceivably could be BCS-worthy.

Other mid-major schools with some talent and relatively easy schedule include Southern Mississippi and Northern Illinois (which has a cake-walk aside from a neutral-site matchup with Wisconsin in September).

Starting with the 2002 season, the Houston Texan franchise was born, we had 32 NFL teams, eight divisions and a healthy sport with plenty of parity, a salary cap and a fair scheduling algorithm. All was well in the world, and we had a framework we thought could last decades.

Of course, the salary cap went away last year. The owners have instituted a lockout. The economy is sicker than Deadwood’s Doc Cochran on a stagnant July afternoon and all we can do is hope that all these silly people can come to an agreement in time to save the 2011 season.

So I thought I’d pass some time by rating the franchises over the last nine seasons. Who has best navigated the salary cap? Who wins, year after year? And who simply doesn’t get it?

1. New England Patriots. The Patriots are first in total victories (110), and tied for first in playoff victories (11) and Super Bowl wins (2). The only blemishes on an incredible run are not completing the first undefeated 19-game season in NFL history, then not winning a playoff game since that Super Bowl XLII loss. New England is riding an NFL-best ten consecutive winning seasons.

2. Indianapolis Colts. The Colts have the NFL’s first run of nine straight seasons with ten or more wins. They last had a losing season in 2001. Combine that with 109 regular seasons wins, a 9-8 record in the playoffs and one Super Bowl win, and they’re right up there with the Patriots. They’re the only team that has been to the playoffs all nine seasons since realignment. No other team has more than seven.

3. Pittsburgh Steelers. There’s no surprise at number three, either. The Steelers are third with 93 wins in nine seasons, and tied with the Patriots with eleven playoff wins and two Super Bowls. When you think of extraordinary success since realignment, you think of these top three teams.

4. Philadelphia Eagles. Without a Super Bowl win in franchise history (the Eagles won the NFL championship game in 1960), some might question why Philadelphia is fourth. It’s those 91 wins and seven playoff appearances. The Eagles even have seven playoff wins and are one of three teams riding a playoff streak of three or more seasons. They’re always a threat and have had only one losing season in the last nine.

5. Green Bay Packers. The Packers have 84 wins, six playoff appearances and last season’s Super Bowl win. They had a couple of bad seasons this decade, but always rebound quickly.

6. Baltimore Ravens. Name the only team with playoff victories each of the last three seasons? That’s right, the Ravens. While his playoff statistics are borderline atrocious, Joe Flacco has been on the winning side in the post-season more times than not. And always on the road. The Ravens have 82 regular-season wins, seventh on the list.

7. New York Giants. With 79 regular-season wins and the one fantastic come-from-nowhere Super Bowl odyssey, the Giants belong high up on the list. They haven’t had a losing season since 2004.

8. San Diego Chargers. The Chargers would be much higher if rankings were based solely on regular-season dominance. They have 88 regular season wins, and haven’t had a losing season since 2003. But they play in a weak division and they have a 3-5 playoff record, so they are marked as underachievers.

9. New Orleans Saints. The Saints have that great Super Bowl run of 2009 and only one truly bad season in the last nine. The 77 regular-season wins ties for 12th, but the three playoff appearances is far down the list.

10. New York Jets. The Jets are tied for seventh with five playoff appearances, but have not appeared in a Super Bowl since 1968. They’ve done some damage with a 6-5 playoff record, however. The 72 regular season wins (.500 record) keeps them from moving any higher.

11. Seattle Seahawks. The Seahawks reached a Super Bowl in 2005, and are tied with the Raiders for the most consecutive playoff appearances with at least one win (4). They are 5-6 in the playoffs since 2002. Three straight losing seasons and 74 regular-season wins in nine years keeps them out of the top ten.

12. Atlanta Falcons. The Falcons have 77 regular-season wins and are tied for the fourth-longest current streak of  winning seasons (3). A 2-4 playoff record hurts their profile.

13. Tennessee Titans. The Titans also have 77 regular-season wins and a 2-4 playoff record.  They have been on the way down lately, however.

14. Carolina Panthers. The Panthers stand out with five playoff wins in their three appearances, including a Super Bowl appearance in 2003. The 73 wins, including last season’s NFL-low two keep them from rising a few places.

15. Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys have 78 regular-season wins, but only a 1-4 playoff record. They have not been in a Super Bowl since 1995.

16. Denver Broncos. The Broncos had won at least seven games every season since realignment until last season’s four-win disaster. That and a 1-3 playoff record keeps them down the list. They have 78 regular-season wins.

17. Chicago Bears. The Bears have 74 regular-season wins and a 3-3 playoff record that includes a Super Bowl appearance.

18. Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The last of the seven teams that has won a Super Bowl since realignment. That came in 2002, and there’s only been one playoff appearance since. Tampa Bay has 70 regular-season wins.

19. Minnesota Vikings. The lowest-ranked of the teams with a winning regular season record (74-70), the Vikings are just 2-3 in the playoffs and have not appeared in the Super Bowl in 35 years.

20. Kansas City Chiefs. The Chiefs have not won a playoff game since 1993. That’s six straight one-and-outs in the post-season, which ties an all-time record set long before there was a Super Bowl. The Chiefs have 67 regular-season wins.

21. Jacksonville Jaguars. With 71 wins and just two playoff appearances, the Jaguars are this high only due to consistency.

22. Arizona Cardinals. While the Cardinals haven’t won an NFL Championship since the franchise was in Chicago in 1947, they did appear in the Super Bowl just three years ago. They have 57 regular-season wins, even though they started the realignment with five straight losing seasons, part of an eight-year streak.

23. Miami Dolphins. The Dolphins have 64 regular-season wins, but no playoff wins in two attempts. Jay Fiedler was the last quarterback to lead Miami to a post-season victory, after the 2000 season.

24. Washington Redskins. The Redskins last appeared in the Super Bowl in 1991. They have 60 regular-season wins since realignment, and a 1-2 playoff record.

25. Cincinnati Bengals. With 62 regular-season wins and no playoff victories since Ickey Woods was shuffling in the 1990 playoffs, the Bengals lead off the bottom quarter of NFL franchises since realignment.

26. San Francisco 49ers. The 49ers last had a winning season and a playoff appearance in 2002. They have 56 wins since realignment.

27. St. Louis Rams. The Rams were a powerhouse nine years ago, and reached the playoffs as late as 2004. But they have only 54 regular-season wins, and were 1-2 in the playoffs. Their four straight losing seasons is the third-longest current streak in the NFL.

28. Buffalo Bills. The Bills last had a winning season in 2004 and are on a six-season streak of losing seasons, second only to Detroit. They haven’t appeared in the playoffs since the 1999 season, and beat the Lions by just a few hours for the longest time since their last playoff game. They have 59 regular-season wins.

29. Houston Texans. The Texans have 55 regular-season wins. Realignment began with Houston added as an expansion team. The Texans have never made the playoffs, and have had only one winning season, in 2009.

30. Oakland Raiders. The Raiders began realignment with an 11-win season, and a Super Bowl appearance. That was their last playoff appearance and their last winning season. They are tied with Seattle (4) for most current consecutive playoff appearances without a one-and-out, but that streak goes back to Los Angeles. They have 48 regular-season wins since realignment.

31. Cleveland Browns. Some might say the Browns haven’t won the NFL championship since 1964 and haven’t won a playoff game since 1994. Others would argue it has never happened, as this Browns team was an expansion team in 1999, and the Ravens are the holders of Browns records. I believe the NFL sides with the Browns, officially. Either way, only 52 regular-season wins and a playoff appearance in 2002 since realignment.

32. Detroit Lions. The Lions’ record for futility is outstanding. It’s big news when the team wins six games – that’s happened only three times since realignment, including last season. That’s led to only 37 wins in the last nine seasons. The last playoff appearance was in the 1999 season, just hours after Buffalo lost its last playoff game. They have a streak of five consecutive one-and-outs in the playoffs, going back to 1991. They have ten straight losing seasons, by far the longest current streak. And they last won an NFL championship in 1957 and have never appeared in a Super Bowl. There’s not much question which franchise belongs at number 32 here.

Nowhere in the NFL these days is a fan base as excited as it is in Detroit. So excited they might even be ignoring the lockout that threatens the 2011 season.

The Lions are just two years removed from the NFL’s only 0-16 season. So forgive a little irrational exuberance over a 6-10 record in 2010. Moreover, the Lions won their last four games in 2010. It took them 44 games to win their previous four.

Add to the mix a new coach, Jim Schwartz, who took over after the winless season and drafted Matthew Stafford, a quarterback who has all the tools, but can’t stay healthy. Stafford is 3-8 in his career and was not on the field for those last four wins (journeymen Drew Stanton and Shaun Hill were at the helm).

And we can’t forget rookie Ndamukong Suh, who took the city by storm, starting in the Pro Bowl and leading all defensive tackles with ten sacks. Most organizations following the league named Suh the NFL Rookie of the Year.

Behind Suh’s massive frame, the Lions became the 53rd team in modern NFL history (since the league expanded to 16 games 1978) to improve by six wins or more over a two-year period. Apparently the Lions were the third of four teams to turn down HBO’s Hard Knocks last month.

What can we expect from the Lions this year, should the owners and players come to their collective senses and take collective bargaining seriously?

Of those 53 teams, 46 played a regular 16-game season the following year. And of those 46, the average team was 2.02 games worse in that following season.

Of course, the Lions are the only team in this list that went from 0-16 to 6-10 in two seasons.  The average team in this list won 11.1 games (dropping to 9.1). Detroit is definitely on the other side of this regression to the mean. Breaking it down, I found the 16-win team dropped five games, the 15-win teams dropped 3.0 games, the 14-win teams dropped 6.0, the 13-win teams dropped 4.1, the 12-win teams dropped 2.7, the 11-win teams dropped 0.8, the 10-win teams dropped 0.2, the 9-win teams dropped 0.8, the 8-win teams were even and the 7-win team was even as well.

Trying to assign a slope to that data, the Lions should be in the six-to-seven-win category next season. Not quite the division-winning predictions of the more exuberant fans (Suh himself said the Lions will go 16-0), but at least respectable given the recent past.

But trying to assign predictive validity to a curve where the team you’re “curving” is off one end of the chart is a difficult proposition.

So I looked at all the teams during this era that had a 6-10 record. There have been 71 teams in the modern era with a 6-10 record that played a 16-game season the following year.

Of those teams, the average gain in performance was 1.62 games (7.62 wins).  Only 27 of the 71 were 6-10 or worse (38 percent).

How did those 71 do in the two years previous to the 6-10 season? There are 68 data points (strike years took three teams off the list two years prior to the 6-10 year).

Of the 68, 37 were rebounding from being better than 6-10 two seasons earlier. Those 37 teams were 2.86 wins better the following year. I think you know where this is headed. Three teams were also 6-10 two seasons earlier, and averaged 2.0 more wins the following year. And 28 teams were on the rise over the past two seasons, and averaged 0.1 more wins the following year.

Again, this curve points toward a six-seven-win season for the Lions in 2011. Improving teams tend to regress back to the team’s historic mean.

We still have one little piece of hope for the Lions, and that’s those four victories to close out the 2010 season. How ’bout breaking those 71 6-10 teams into those which closed out the 6-10 year on a winning note, and those that didn’t?

The 29 teams that were below average using a measure of the second half of the season averaged a gain of 1.24 wins the following season. The 33 above-average teams gained 2.15 wins the following season. That’s fairly encouraging. The Lions are the only 6-10 team (with presumably a 16-game season next year) that won their last four games. The eight teams that won three of their last four averaged a 2.5-win gain. Conversely, the six 6-10 teams that lost their last four games averaged only a 0.5-win gain the following year.

Adding up all these factors, I’m not willing to join those calling for an NFC North title next year. Especially with Aaron Rodgers returning to lead the defending Super Bowl champs. But history indicates we can expect about seven wins against what looks like a solid schedule (.520 opponents’ composite record, games against the AFC West and NFC South). And that’s encouraging in a city that hasn’t seen a playoff appearance this century, and has one playoff victory since 1957.

Nowhere in the NFL is youth better served than at the running back position.

As the 2010 season comes to a close, I wanted to take a quick look at who is running the ball in the NFL. I’m often driven to examine little pieces of the professional football picture in order to make the Front Office Football game engine more realistic. Though (standard disclaimer), I can’t say when or if a new version of the game will ever see light of day.

For this study, I sampled all the running backs in the NFL averaging two carries or more per game. This included 82 backs in the regular season. They generated 92% of what we would call standard rushing attempts in NFL play. The standard rushing attempts (handoff or pitch to a player lining up in the backfield) not included in this study added up to less than two carries per team per game.

The 82 backs carried the ball 11,423 times for 48,428 yards – 4.24 yards per carry – this season. That’s the bench line.

The first chart here is perhaps the most striking. It breaks down the 82 backs based on when they entered the NFL.

Year	Backs	Carries	Yds per Carry
2010	12	1,115	4.16
2009	11	1,500	4.56
2008	19	3,387	4.52
2007	7	1,120	4.11
2006	6	615	4.30
2005	9	1,434	3.90
2004	5	795	4.05
2003	2	320	4.11
2002	5	376	3.50
2001	3	316	3.90
2000	1	245	3.66
1999	1	157	4.27
1998	1	43	3.61

I’ve long understood that running backs have the shortest careers in the NFL, and it’s not even close. But this table surprised even me. First of all, 53% of the carries come from players with three or less years of service. And 62% have four years or less, which means they’re just becoming eligible for free agency under the old salary cap system.

What’s more, only 13 of the 82 backs entered the league before 2004, and they only averaged 3.83 yards per carry – more than half a yard less than the 4.46 posted by the group that entered in 2008 or later.

Now if you’re like me, you think of players like Steven Jackson and Michael Turner as in the middle of their prime. Game-changers who deserve their incredibly rich contracts. But next year marks an eighth season (they entered the league in 2004) and the odds are excellent they will teeter on the verge of ineffective and will consider retirement.

That got me thinking. If I’m an NFL GM, I do not want to even consider signing a veteran free agent running back. I had better obtain one during the draft or look amongst the young cast-offs. Houston struck gold with second-year back Arian Foster, who was undrafted. It appears Tampa Bay did the same thing this year with undrafted LaGarrette Blount, who received more publicity for decking a taunting Boise State lineman and getting suspended than he did for a rather decent college career until that point.

My next chart matches performance and when those 82 backs were drafted. After all, the pay for any player with less than four years of service is almost completely dependent on draft position.

Round	Backs	Carries	Yds per Carry
1	26	4,558	4.00
2	9	1,370	4.36
3	5	724	4.85
4	10	958	4.10
5	5	742	4.52
6	5	321	3.60
7	7	918	4.52
None	15	1,832	4.45

And just to look a little further, I broke down the first round:

Round 1	Backs	Carries	Yds per Carry
Picks 1-8	9	1,806	4.08
Picks 9-16	6	838	4.06
Picks 17-24	6	1,288	3.98
Picks 25-32	5	626	3.71

Not only are effective running backs being drafted in later rounds, there isn’t a tremendous advantage on the field even if you do pick a guy in the first round. Minnesota definitely hit some sort of jackpot with Adrian Peterson in 2007. But can you say the same about the Saints and Reggie Bush a year earlier?

I can only conclude that the most efficient coaches and GMs are not only filling their rosters with very young running backs, they’re waiting until the later rounds to even consider acquiring them.

Finally, just because I enjoy this sort of question, I looked at where the 82 running backs played their college football.

Level	Backs	Carries	Yds per Carry
FBS, Majors	57	8,016	4.18
FBS, Mid-Majors	10	1,804	4.15
FCS	7	865	4.59
Division II	6	467	4.80
Division III	1	221	4.25
NAIA	1	50	6.30

(As an aside, I tracked this by conference as well – among the 82 backs, 14 are from the Pac 10, 13 from the SEC, nine from the Big Ten, seven from the Big Twelve and the Big East, six from the ACC and Conference USA).

My perception is that the concentration here is more heavily tuned to the major conferences than most positions. But I could be wrong. If it’s true, it means that running backs are harder to scout, so teams are basing draft decisions on pure athleticism. Just line up the best athletes you can find, and see if they’re effective.

That’s a cynical thought, of course. Summarizing, you find some great athletes, use them up by crashing them into the pile for three years, then start over with a new batch. Running back may be a glamorous position in the NFL, but it’s not necessarily an enviable one.

Congratulations to Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers for their Super Bowl victory tonight.

The final quarterback grades of the season:

A: Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay (W).
B-: Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh (L).

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is back in the negotiation news today, claiming that fans have told him, overwhelmingly, that they want an 18-game regular season. This despite a recent AP survey which showed very limited support.

This seems more like a cynical negotiation tactic than anything else. He knows players are adamantly against extending the regular season by 12%. With the average player getting close to seven figures in annual compensation, earning a little more money is not a huge carrot to wave. Injuries are a huge issue here. Only 39.6% of NFL players who started the first game of the season ended up starting all 16 regular-season games in 2010. Most of that is due to injury.

Goodell claims this issue is moot because the pre-season would be shortened to two games. The players disagree, because the intensity is not the same in the pre-season, and because starters are not expected to play more than half of these games. They would probably trade the entire pre-season to add a 17th game and call it even.

The cynic in me says that Goodell knows he can’t win on this issue, and is only including it because he wants a concession elsewhere to remove it from the table. That tactic has worked for the players many times in the past (typically they start negotiations by assuming a 5% annual pay raise – this is essentially why unions in all sectors are quite effective in negotiations). I hope that’s the case, because it means he has hope for a settlement this year.

If not, it means he’s delusional. If you ask season-ticket holders how they feel about his plan, they will support it. Why? Because right now they pay full price for two pre-season games in order to get the opportunity to purchase eight regular-season games. Many throw away the pre-season tickets. So if you ask them if they’d rather get ripped off on only one pre-season game, of course they will respond positively. As long as owners promise not to raise the cost of the regular-season games. And if you believe that, then you are probably already an investor in the new NFL stadium in Brooklyn.

From a fan perspective, it’s really a question of whether we want two more regular-season games. The pre-season is immaterial. The teams go to training camp. Exhibition games are just extended practices. Interesting if you know what to look for, but you have to do a lot of reading before you watch, because the interesting pieces are individual position battles amongst the watered-down strategies and veterans trying to get into game shape without getting hurt. Even the most ardent fans don’t have the patience for four full weeks of this. Ratings are about one-fourth of regular-season ratings. So the Goodell proposal is worth about about one quarter of one billion dollars per year to the league as a rough estimate.

I really don’t want 18 games. There’s a nice balance between regular season and playoffs right now. Twelve teams is about right for a 16-game season. Baseball’s big mistake was expanding to an eight-team playoff for the 162-game season. There was a huge associated ratings decline when they went that route. More isn’t always better. And the additional wear-and-tear on the players means shorter careers and more backups playing late in the season, which means a watered-down product in the long run.

And finally, from a personal perspective, it would be a massive amount of work to add an 18-game schedule to Front Office Football – maybe even the only thing I could add for a new version. So I’m against it for purely selfish reasons as well.