Now that we are just a few days removed from the Super Bowl, we have just seen another Pro Bowl being anything but competitive. Every year the media are complaining that the game is boring and that players are essentially playing something closer to flag football than professional football. But why is this the case? While all-star games in other major sports leagues are tremendously popular, the Pro Bowl is a fringe event on the verge of coming to an end.
Why is the Pro Bowl different to the MLB all-star game or to the NBA all-star weekend? Well, the most important thing is the danger of being hurt. While Basketball and baseball feature a substantially lower probability of sustaining an injury, football is a game where injuries are an accepted part of the game. So why should a football player risk an injury for a meaningless game like the Pro Bowl?
This brings incentives into play. The NFL has set the prize for being a member of the winning team to $ 50k and the losers walk away with "only" $ 25k. Considering the fact that most participants are multi-millionaires already the mere difference of $ 25k will not matter at all. Even significantly increased financial incentives will be weak, as a severe injury can not only reduce expected income for a certain period but also bring a career to an end. As "direct" financial incentives might not work, what else could make the Pro Bowl a competitive football game? I say the NFL should make it count! Make a similar move as the MLB (where the winner of the all star game will have home-field advantage in the World Series) and make the result of the Pro Bowl count. One possibility would be to award the winning conference a bonus in the draft. The Pro Bowl could also be played ahead of the playoffs or even the regular season and the winning conference could be awarded home-field advantage in the Championship games.
There are certainly various different possibilities to make the Pro Bowl a competitive contest with participants who actually want to win. Financial incentives will not do the job, however. My suggestion is that the NFL either makes the result count in some way or finally ends this now meaningless tradition.
Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012
Freitag, 27. Januar 2012
Gigantic loss?
When in about one week the New York Giants meet the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl some bookmakers in Las Vegas will have a nail-biting evening. The odds of the Giants to win the Super Bowl in September were set somewhere around 80 to 1. And according to some sources in the Vegas betting industry there is a significant number of tickets on the Giants out there.
The traditional view of economists on betting markets was that sports books set their books so that they balance out, which means that they attract enough money on both sides of a be perfectly balanced. This view of the market was challenged by a seminal article by Steven Levitt (2004) in The Economic Journal. His hypothesis was that sports books set prices to maximize profits instead of being balanced. Although Levitt's findings are still debated, this could explain why Las Vegas sports books are nervous about the Giants winning the Super Bowl.
Another aspect of the story is the value of betting odds as predictors for who will eventually win a contest. As the odds were 30 to 1 against the Giants when the playoffs started, obviously something went wrong in terms of predicting the winner. So is there a rational strategy behind this or were odds makers simply terribly wrong? If they were simply wrong then they should be nervous because the Giants are actually pretty good...
The traditional view of economists on betting markets was that sports books set their books so that they balance out, which means that they attract enough money on both sides of a be perfectly balanced. This view of the market was challenged by a seminal article by Steven Levitt (2004) in The Economic Journal. His hypothesis was that sports books set prices to maximize profits instead of being balanced. Although Levitt's findings are still debated, this could explain why Las Vegas sports books are nervous about the Giants winning the Super Bowl.
Another aspect of the story is the value of betting odds as predictors for who will eventually win a contest. As the odds were 30 to 1 against the Giants when the playoffs started, obviously something went wrong in terms of predicting the winner. So is there a rational strategy behind this or were odds makers simply terribly wrong? If they were simply wrong then they should be nervous because the Giants are actually pretty good...
Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2012
Change in sight? Is it?
BCS officials are currently mulling changes to the current BCS format. After a season filled with scandals and a media campaign calling for changes in the way a champion in FBS football is designated even the most optimistic athletic directors of BCS colleges know that they have to make changes to ensure at least most of the current system and their power remains. One of the changes would involve a move to a mini-playoff, i.e. four-team, three-game, "plus-one" format where the best 5 teams in the BCS rankings would engage in a playoff to find a champion. Well, what would actually change?
The answer is plain and simple: NOTHING.
The only thing that would change is that we would now know who is really the better team: LSU, Alabama or OSU. Not too bad, really! But the fact that it would still be very hard for non-BCS schools (I know, one should call them non-automatic qualifiers, but it is simply true that non-BCS is closer to the truth) to get into such a playoff is obvious. The BCS rankings are a bigger problem after all. Maybe the introduction of a large-scale playoff similar to college men's basketball would be a good idea, but that would essentially end the cartel called BCS.
In addition to this a mini playoff format would not change the way current BCS revenues are split among FBS conferences. Powerhouses like the SEC or the PAC 10 (find the exact number here) receive millions while non-BCS schools get much less. This has to change as well, or collegiate football will never return to the noble principles it was founded on.
Changes are needed. Conference commissioners and BCS officials have realized that. Not only because of the numerous scandals but also because the audience sees that the current system is terribly wrong from a year to year basis. Each and every season there is continuing debate on who actually should be champion and who should not be.
My suggestion would be a large-scale playoff system including a clear revenue sharing system, where each college gets the proportional share according the success in the playoffs. This would be an immediate change that would be beneficiary for the competition on the field. And it would bring back college football closer to a competitive market by weakening the BCS colleges' market power. After this the question of fair compensation for players can be addressed. Well, at least one can still dream about it....
The answer is plain and simple: NOTHING.
The only thing that would change is that we would now know who is really the better team: LSU, Alabama or OSU. Not too bad, really! But the fact that it would still be very hard for non-BCS schools (I know, one should call them non-automatic qualifiers, but it is simply true that non-BCS is closer to the truth) to get into such a playoff is obvious. The BCS rankings are a bigger problem after all. Maybe the introduction of a large-scale playoff similar to college men's basketball would be a good idea, but that would essentially end the cartel called BCS.
In addition to this a mini playoff format would not change the way current BCS revenues are split among FBS conferences. Powerhouses like the SEC or the PAC 10 (find the exact number here) receive millions while non-BCS schools get much less. This has to change as well, or collegiate football will never return to the noble principles it was founded on.
Changes are needed. Conference commissioners and BCS officials have realized that. Not only because of the numerous scandals but also because the audience sees that the current system is terribly wrong from a year to year basis. Each and every season there is continuing debate on who actually should be champion and who should not be.
My suggestion would be a large-scale playoff system including a clear revenue sharing system, where each college gets the proportional share according the success in the playoffs. This would be an immediate change that would be beneficiary for the competition on the field. And it would bring back college football closer to a competitive market by weakening the BCS colleges' market power. After this the question of fair compensation for players can be addressed. Well, at least one can still dream about it....
Montag, 9. Januar 2012
Because of Tim Tebow? - How to evaluate a "miracle".
In one of my last postings here I talked about a milestone in passing yards set by Drew Brees. He set a new record in single-season passing yards and had one of the most prolific seasons ever. Today the news are full of articles on another outstanding event in the NFL: The Denver Broncos, lead by Tim Tebow, beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in the NFL Wildcard playoffs and advanced to play the New England patriots next week. And all eyes are on Tim Tebow and his "milehigh magic".
But what is behind it? Tim Tebow had one of the worst passing seasons in the history of the NFL for a team that made the playoffs. He had a 46.5 % completion rate for 1,729 yards and 12 touchdowns along with 6 interceptions. For a Quarterback who started 11 games this is, objectively speaking, bad. If not to say terrible. But how do these statistics translate in terms of the final standings? Well, the Broncos went 8-8 and limped into the playoffs losing their final game of the season. As a starter Tebow went 7-4 to finish the season after his predecessor K. Orton was let go. So the Broncos won 64 % of the games Tebow started. Perhaps more important: They lost the three games that arguably counted the most, i.e. the final three games. Evidently enough to label Tebow a winner in professional football.
So what was the difference in Tebow's performance during the first 8 games (7-1) and the last 3 games? Well, his average passing yardage was, believe it or not, almost identical. He passed for 151 yards when he went 7-1 and 146 when he went 0-3. His completion percentage has not changed either and his worst game in that category was actually a win in week 10 with 25%. His rushing yardage also stayed the same. What did change, however, is the number of interceptions Tebow threw. He threw 2 in his first 8 and 4 in his final 3 games.
So Tebow started to turn the ball over, which is certainly critical in football. But what else happened? The Denver Defense did not play well. They allowed 29.34 points per game during the 3 games finale while allowing just 20.25 points during the 8-1 run. This explains a lot, as Denver, on average, only scored 18.5 points per game with Tebow as a starter. What also has changed was the amount of tape on the Broncos teams had. They slowed down their pass rush, defended the run better and forced Tebow into turnovers.
Yesterday Tebow's Broncos won because of a few plays. Tebow had only 10 completions, averaging 15 yards. This average per pass is a career high, whereas his completion percentage was even below his career average. Why was the average that high? I would argue a lot of that has to do with a number of mistakes by Steelers corner Ike Taylor and a nice run after the catch by Broncos WR Thomas. Tebow had some throws right on target and some throws were as bad as they get. All in between was not outstanding at all and definitely not the reason why Denver won the game. And do not forget the Steelers injuries and the fact that their Quarterback played on one foot.
The bottom line is that the Broncos have won and that is what experts, coaches and players tell you. And that is what Tebow is known for: winning. But that is only the media friendly story of it. US sports produce a ton of statistics and analysts have always been good in using them to evaluate players and their performances. In the case of Tim Tebow they fail because most of them have fallen in love with the image of Tebow as the "chosen one" who just wins. The truth is that the Denver defense along with an outstanding running game, injuries of opponents and opposing defenses that did not know how to defend them created the successful season. I am going as far as saying that Denver won a number of games DESPITE having Tebow as the starter.
Right now the number of observations on Tebow's performance is too small to take an even closer look. Usually NFL teams need some time to adapt to novelties. Remember Miami's wildcat? We will see next year how the story continues. Still, I wonder how the Broncos would actually perform with a Quarterback producing stats anywhere near what Drew Brees put up this year...
But what is behind it? Tim Tebow had one of the worst passing seasons in the history of the NFL for a team that made the playoffs. He had a 46.5 % completion rate for 1,729 yards and 12 touchdowns along with 6 interceptions. For a Quarterback who started 11 games this is, objectively speaking, bad. If not to say terrible. But how do these statistics translate in terms of the final standings? Well, the Broncos went 8-8 and limped into the playoffs losing their final game of the season. As a starter Tebow went 7-4 to finish the season after his predecessor K. Orton was let go. So the Broncos won 64 % of the games Tebow started. Perhaps more important: They lost the three games that arguably counted the most, i.e. the final three games. Evidently enough to label Tebow a winner in professional football.
So what was the difference in Tebow's performance during the first 8 games (7-1) and the last 3 games? Well, his average passing yardage was, believe it or not, almost identical. He passed for 151 yards when he went 7-1 and 146 when he went 0-3. His completion percentage has not changed either and his worst game in that category was actually a win in week 10 with 25%. His rushing yardage also stayed the same. What did change, however, is the number of interceptions Tebow threw. He threw 2 in his first 8 and 4 in his final 3 games.
So Tebow started to turn the ball over, which is certainly critical in football. But what else happened? The Denver Defense did not play well. They allowed 29.34 points per game during the 3 games finale while allowing just 20.25 points during the 8-1 run. This explains a lot, as Denver, on average, only scored 18.5 points per game with Tebow as a starter. What also has changed was the amount of tape on the Broncos teams had. They slowed down their pass rush, defended the run better and forced Tebow into turnovers.
Yesterday Tebow's Broncos won because of a few plays. Tebow had only 10 completions, averaging 15 yards. This average per pass is a career high, whereas his completion percentage was even below his career average. Why was the average that high? I would argue a lot of that has to do with a number of mistakes by Steelers corner Ike Taylor and a nice run after the catch by Broncos WR Thomas. Tebow had some throws right on target and some throws were as bad as they get. All in between was not outstanding at all and definitely not the reason why Denver won the game. And do not forget the Steelers injuries and the fact that their Quarterback played on one foot.
The bottom line is that the Broncos have won and that is what experts, coaches and players tell you. And that is what Tebow is known for: winning. But that is only the media friendly story of it. US sports produce a ton of statistics and analysts have always been good in using them to evaluate players and their performances. In the case of Tim Tebow they fail because most of them have fallen in love with the image of Tebow as the "chosen one" who just wins. The truth is that the Denver defense along with an outstanding running game, injuries of opponents and opposing defenses that did not know how to defend them created the successful season. I am going as far as saying that Denver won a number of games DESPITE having Tebow as the starter.
Right now the number of observations on Tebow's performance is too small to take an even closer look. Usually NFL teams need some time to adapt to novelties. Remember Miami's wildcat? We will see next year how the story continues. Still, I wonder how the Broncos would actually perform with a Quarterback producing stats anywhere near what Drew Brees put up this year...
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)