Two-Point Conversions

From time to time, I like to take the opportunity to challenge my own perceptions about football. One strategy that’s often debated is whether teams should attempt a two-point conversion after a touchdown.

Decades ago, legendary coach Dick Vermeil, then a coordinator at UCLA, created a chart that’s still in popular use today. It’s not a chart I used when developing Front Office Football, but it’s not that different. Some of it is obvious; for instance if you trail by two after scoring a touchdown, you should try and tie the game. But even then, when in the game should you start consulting the chart?

Some of it is complex, or even controversial. You’re supposed to go for two when you lead by four after scoring. The idea is that if you make it, a subsequent field goal will give you a two-score lead. But if you miss, a subsequent field goal will leave your opponent the opportunity to tie on a touchdown without going for two.

Since the two-point conversion rate in the NFL is about 45% and the extra-point rate with the new distance rule is about 97%, I’d hesitate to start using any chart until well after halftime. Just take the point.

A few months ago, when working on a percentage win calculator that I’ve yet to put into any product, I analyzed a few seasons’ worth of play-by-play data and compiled a chart that could be useful for making these decisions. As an aside, I do this kind of thing a lot. Most of what I discover on these odysseys never amounts to meaningful work within my products. This might well fall into that category. But it could also be useful in compiling a more fine-tuned chart – one that even incorporates time remaining.

Today, I watched a good part of the Lions’ opener against Arizona. With 3:07 left in the third quarter, the Lions scored to cut the Cardinal lead to two. Some might say it was too early to start using a chart, but no one would question the wisdom of the decision in the closing moments. The Lions tried the conversion and failed. How did that change their win chances?

I have my play-by-play data broken into 100-second increments. To take a broader brush to include as much as is reasonable, I used the categories from the end of the third quarter to 6:40 remaining in the third quarter. There have been 2,797 plays undertaken with the score tied and a team with the ball, 1,031 plays with a one-point lead and 397 with a two-point lead. Not an overwhelming amount of data, especially since you can’t assume a reasonably uniform distribution of field position within that small a data set with the two-point lead. But in 1,629 of the tied scenarios (58%), the team with the ball won (possession matters – Arizona would have possession after the ensuing kick). In 574 of the one-point lead scenarios (56%), the team with the ball won and in 280 of the cases with a two-point lead (71%), the team with the ball won.

This is a great example of where sample size lets you down. The reason I’m writing about this is to give you some insight into my process when examining a particular question. When do you make a conclusion and when do you accept that you just don’t have enough information? This is several seasons’ worth of complete play-by-play data (350,000+ plays broken down by lead and time to go blocks), and the raw data set still isn’t good enough to make solid conclusions.

What the above numbers suggest is that the value of the extra point is immaterial, but there’s a 10-15% game-win cost in going for two and failing. That just doesn’t feel like a reasonable conclusion. When I was doing the initial work with this particular data set, I ran a whole series of rolling averages to come up with a win-percentage chart that supported the data with less precision, but a consistent set of percentages that required the least amount of intervention on my part (making “decisions” about interpretation and then using those decisions to influence how the rolling averages were applied). I feel more confident in presenting that chart as reasonable, at least in the sense that it could be used to help with this kind of decision. If this work results in use in any product, I would use that more processed chart.

Going back to the analysis of the first Lions decision: I come up with a 55.8% Arizona win percentage when tied during that time block, 61.1% with a one-point lead, 64.3% with a two-point lead. So, -3.2% for Detroit with a failure, +5.3% with success. Assuming 45% success on two-point tries and 97% success on extra points, the decision to go for it, in itself, raises Detroit’s win percentage by about a half a percentage point. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that it was a good decision. In general, my data supports this case up to about midway through the third quarter. Earlier than that, I would advise against ever going for a two point conversion except when desperate and in need of multiple positive results (let’s say you score and trail by 18).

The second Lions decision came with 9:27 remaining in the game. This time, they led by four. Vermeil’s chart says “go for it.” I don’t know if Jim Caldwell uses this particular chart, but he went for it. The Lions failed. The value of success and penalty for failure is explained at the start of this article. Now to break down it down using the data…

If the Cardinals gain possession with a six-point deficit (Detroit makes the conversion), they have a 29.2% chance of winning. With a five-point deficit, that’s 36.0% and a four-point deficit, that’s 41.0% percent. Factoring in analysis of success and failure, that amounts to, again, about a half-percentage-point increase in the Lions’ win chances. This surprised me a little, but, as it turns out, a six-point lead is quite a bit better than a five-point lead, even relatively early in the game.

Vermeil’s chart may be old, but it holds up even in the modern game.

NFL Quarterbacks for 2017

Now that the preseason is over and around 1,000 players were released this weekend, we have a good picture of the quarterback situation for 2017. I’ve put together a chart that I use as a quick reference.

Teams usually activate two quarterbacks for a game. Many keep a third quarterback on the 53-man roster and leave him inactive most weeks. This is a good place for a draft pick that isn’t expected to contribute his rookie year. Teams that don’t have three quarterbacks on the 53-man roster often have a quarterback on their practice squad. This is often a young player, but since any team can sign someone else’s practice-squad player by offering a roster spot, it’s not a place to stash a draft pick with a high upside.

There are some exceptions. A handful of teams won’t have a third quarterback, figuring on holding tryouts the next Monday in case of an injury. After all, 37 quarterbacks were released this week. Even though that group has a combined record of 26-78, there’s some talent in there, presumably in playing shape. And there are a few injured quarterbacks who need to be protected because they could be activated later in the season.

Practice squads will be formed this week. These will include at least a few of the quarterbacks released this week. A team will sometimes sign a quarterback to its practice squad that it just released.

A quarterback’s age and NFL record is in parenthesis. For rookies, their draft position is included rather than a record. For a quarterback’s record, I calculate wins and losses much like baseball does. Playoffs are included, though. Age is as of opening day next week.

*A – Indicates player is on Injured Reserve and won’t play this season. *B – Indicates player is on 53-man roster, but is likely to be placed on Injured Reserve with the possibility of returning later in the season. *C – Indicates player is on 53-man roster, is injured, but is likely to be healthy early enough to be worth keeping off of the PUP list. *D – Indicates player is on the non-football injury list and could be reinstated later in the season. *E – Indicates player is on the PUP list and will be eligible to return to the active roster after six weeks.











































AFC East
BuffaloMiamiNew EnglandNew York Jets
Tyrod Taylor (28, 15-15)Jay Cutler (34, 70-70)Tom Brady (40, 207-60)Josh McCown (38, 17-41)
Nathan Peterman (23, 171st)Matt Moore (33, 16-15)Jimmy Garoppolo (25, 2-0)Bryce Petty (26, 1-3)
T.J. Yates (30, 5-3)Ryan Tannehill *A (29, 36-40)
Christian Hackenberg (22, 0-0)
AFC North
BaltimoreCincinnatiClevelandPittsburgh
Joe Flacco (32, 93-59)Andy Dalton (29, 54-39)DeShone Kizer (21, 52nd)Ben Roethlisberger (35, 135-65)
Ryan Mallett (29, 3-5)A.J. McCarron (26, 2-2)Cody Kessler (24, 0-7)Landry Jones (28, 3-2)

Jeff Driskel *B (24, 0-0)Kevin Hogan (24, 0-1)Joshua Dobbs (22, 135th)
AFC South
HoustonIndianapolisJacksonvilleTennessee
Tom Savage (27, 2-2)Andrew Luck *C (27, 46-30)Blake Bortles (25, 11-34)Marcus Mariota (23, 11-16)
Deshaun Watson (21, 12th)Scott Tolzien (30, 0-3)Chad Henne (32, 19-37)Matt Cassel (35, 37-46)

Jacoby Brissett (24, 1-1)
Alex Tanney *A (29, 0-0)
AFC West
DenverKansas CityLos Angeles ChargersOakland
Trevor Siemian (25, 8-6)Alex Smith (33, 80-58)Philip Rivers (35, 98-85)Derek Carr (26, 22-25)
Paxton Lynch *C (23, 1-1)Patrick Mahomes (21, 10th)Cardale Jones (24, 0-0)E.J. Manuel (27, 6-10)
Brock Osweiler (26, 12-9)Tyler Bray (25, 0-0)
Connor Cook (24, 0-1)
Chad Kelly *D (23, 253rd)


NFC East
DallasNew York GiantsPhiladelphiaWashington
Dak Prescott (24, 13-3)Eli Manning (36, 116-94)Carson Wentz (24, 7-9)Kirk Cousins (29, 20-23)
Cooper Rush (23, undrafted)Geno Smith (26, 11-19)Nick Foles (28, 21-18)Colt McCoy (31, 8-17)

Davis Webb (22, 87th)

NFC North
ChicagoDetroitGreen BayMinnesota
Mike Glennon (27, 4-14)Matthew Stafford (29, 52-57)Aaron Rodgers (33, 99-50)Sam Bradford (29, 32-44)
Mitchell Trubisky (23, 2nd)Jake Rudock (24, 0-0)Brett Hundley (24, 0-0)Case Keenum (29, 9-15)
Mark Sanchez (30, 40-39)

Teddy Bridgewater *E (24, 16-12)
NFC South
AtlantaCarolinaNew OrleansTampa Bay
Matt Ryan (32, 87-62)Cam Newton (28, 54-44)Drew Brees (38, 137-105)Jameis Winston (23, 15-17)
Matt Schaub (36, 48-46)Derek Anderson (34, 21-27)Chase Daniel (30, 1-1)Ryan Fitzpatrick (34, 49-67)



Ryan Griffin *B (27, 0-0)
NFC West
ArizonaLos Angeles RamsSan FranciscoSeattle
Carson Palmer (37, 89-85)Jared Goff (22, 0-7)Brian Hoyer (31, 14-16)Russell Wilson (28, 64-27)
Drew Stanton (33, 9-7)Sean Mannion (25, 0-0)C.J. Beathard (23, 104th)Austin Davis (28, 3-8)
Blaine Gabbert (28, 9-29)


Preseason Prodigies

There’s some buzz in Cleveland because the Browns won all four of their preseason games. This coming off a 1-15 season and just 38 wins in the nine seasons since they last posted ten wins.

Is this buzz rational?

It’s easy to dismiss the preseason. Established starters see about 4-5 quarters’ worth of action in four weeks. Playbooks remain vanilla. Youngsters are fighting for jobs and a third of the players won’t play a single down during the regular season. Wins and losses aren’t that important.

I’ll also point out that the 2008 Detroit Lions, the only 0-16 team in NFL history, were 4-0 during that preseason.

Studying the issue going back to the beginning of the eight-division format, 30 teams have gone undefeated in the preseason and 32 teams have gone winless. How have they done?

The undefeated teams are more-or-less average during the regular season, with 7.97 wins per team.

How did they fare the previous season? These teams averaged 8.29 wins. So there was a slight decline – nothing too exciting given the small sample size.

What about teams that won six or less games the previous season? They averaged 1.8 wins more, on average. The Lions even made the playoffs in 2011 after an undefeated preseason following a 6-10 mark in 2010.

I’m not convinced Browns fans should be ecstatic about their 4-0 preseason, but it’s certainly not a negative.

The flip side of this argument is more interesting. Of the 0-4 preseason teams, their average record was only 7.34 wins that season. That’s a bit concerning. It gets even more concerning when you consider that the average wins for these teams the previous season was 8.77. While I’m not certain this is significant with the sample size, either, that’s potentially a study.

The average decline, season-to-season, of teams with ten or more wins the previous season that went winless in the preseason, is 3.9.

Atlanta and Oakland fans, maybe there is something there to worry about this year.

Hall of Fame Quarterbacks

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.




















































































QuarterbackAdjusted WinsIn Hall
Brett Favre210Yes
John Elway186Yes
Joe Montana162Yes
Dan Marino157Yes
Terry Bradshaw151Yes
Fran Tarkenton139Yes
Troy Aikman127Yes
Jim Kelly119Yes
Roger Staubach117Yes
Bob Griese115Yes
Steve Young109Yes
Ken Stabler109Yes
Donovan McNabb108No
Phil Simms107No
Warren Moon105Yes
Drew Bledsoe104No
Dave Krieg101No
Steve McNair96No
Ken Anderson94No
Jim Plunkett94No
Vinny Testaverde93No
Joe Theismann93No
Kurt Warner92Yes
Craig Morton91No
Kerry Collins90No
Dan Fouts89Yes
Boomer Esiason87No
Brad Johnson85No
Mark Brunell84No
Randall Cunningham84No
Ron Jaworski82No
Rich Gannon80No



QuarterbackAverage MetricIn Hall
Steve Young64.2Yes
Kurt Warner61.7Yes
Joe Montana61.5Yes
Bob Griese59.6*Yes
Roger Staubach58.8*Yes
Ken Anderson58.7*No
Ken Stabler57.5*Yes
Dan Fouts57.3*Yes
Fran Tarkenton56.9*Yes
Troy Aikman56.3Yes
Terry Bradshaw56.2*Yes
Brett Favre56.2Yes
Dan Marino56.2Yes
Jim Kelly56.1Yes
Rich Gannon54.7No
Dave Krieg54.2No
Brad Johnson54.1No
Warren Moon53.8Yes
Joe Theismann53.8No
Steve McNair53.4No
Mark Brunell53.3No
Craig Morton53.2*No
Boomer Esiason53.0No
John Elway52.7Yes
Jim Plunkett52.4*No
Phil Simms52.0No
Randall Cunningham51.7No
Donovan McNabb51.7No
Ron Jaworski50.1No
Vinny Testaverde49.8No
Drew Bledsoe49.1No
Kerry Collins46.5No



QuarterbackAge (end of 2016)Adjusted WinsAverage MetricRetired
Tom Brady3925358.7No
Peyton Manning4022261.2Yes
Ben Roethlisberger3415458.4No
Drew Brees3714560.5No
Eli Manning3513250.1No
Aaron Rodgers3310761.6No
Joe Flacco3110150.9No
Philip Rivers359858.4No
Matt Hasselbeck419452.0Yes
Matt Ryan319058.7No
Carson Palmer378953.9No
Tony Romo368060.2Yes
Alex Smith328050.8No
Jay Cutler337051.6No

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

Throwing and throwing and throwing… at the Super Bowl

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.

College Football Playoff Discussion

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.

College Football Playoffs, Version 2016

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.

The Zeke Factor

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 Released

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.

Front Office Football Eight News

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.