Mittwoch, 23. Januar 2013
Sabotage?
No, it was not me who was sabotaged as I have not posted anything recently. It was more a mixture of holidays, NFL playoffs and a heavy workload.
But now let's start the new year of sports and the recent news from the NFL are a good way to start off. Today the front pages of all sports news are filled with the alleged "sabotage" of Super Bowl XXXVII by then Oakland Raider head-coach Bill Callahan. Well, such rumor might not be that shocking if it came from the "usual" unknown source, but it definitely is almost shocking that the allegations come from two Hall of Fame wide receivers: Tim Brown and Jerry Rice, both played for the Raiders back then.
So how credible is this? When Rice made his allegations on ESPN and backed comments by his former teammate he, well, sounds like somebody who is still not over the loss. And he seemed to fully understand what he was actually saying. But could this be true? Could it really be that a coach, who has a chance to win the most prestigious title in US sports, intentionally sabotages his team to hand the win to his former boss, who happened to be his mentor and the coach of the opposing Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
To pull this off, you certainly must have the means to succeed. This could arguably be the case, as the head coach of a team certainly could influence any game in order to sabotage it. But could he do it without anybody realizing what he is doing? It is hard to imagine, as NFL sidelines are crowded with coaches who would at the very least be highly suspicious if their boss influenced the game in a negative way. The same is true for the players. It takes a joint effort of all participants to win a game and I am not convinced the effort of a single person - even the head coach - could lose a game.
But let's turn to the incentives side of things. Why would he do it? Because of loyalty to his friend/former boss/mentor Jon Gruden? Losing a Super Bowl will certainly cost you. It will cost you in terms of money and discounted lifetime earnings. In addition to this you will lose a lot of "utility", as winning this title is the ultimate achievement in any career in professional football. But could the benefit from letting Gruden win out-weight the losses and the associated risk of getting caught while doing so?
I do not think this is plausible at all. Callahan is now an Offensive Coordinator (Dallas) and I think his career would have taken some different (more favorable) turns had he won back then. I think it is save to put this to rest and think of it as the bitterness of two former great players.
Dienstag, 27. November 2012
Learning on the Job
Or: the art of introducing a rookie Quarterback.
The most important position in team sports might be the Quarterback in Football. Quarterbacks learn how to play the game in the NCAA - or let us better put it this way: they learn the fundamentals of the game. The game of football is so different on the collegiate level that it can hardly be compared to Professional Football as it is played in the NFL.
So where do these people learn how to win in the Pros? In the past the conventional wisdom was to "bring on a QB slowly". This often meant that a rookie QB was basically assigned to be a "clipboard holder" and an understudy to the current starting QB for his first couple of seasons. Teams used "in-firm training" to develop the future franchise QBs.
This, however, has changed dramatically over the last few years. Rookie QBs are nowadays often thrown into game action on the very first days of their careers. Players like Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Blaine Gabbert, Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco, Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan and many other names are examples for this trend. And along with all rookie QBs who were inserted as starters immediately there is a second line of players who played at some point during their rookie seasons because the incumbent starter either went down due to an injury or failed to perform.
Concerning the performances of the mentioned young QBs, most of them did fairly well. This is especially true for this season, as guys like Andrew Luck, RGIII and Wilson are having sensational rookie seasons. And had it not been for the downfall of Gabbert and the major struggles of Nick Foles, rookie- (and still young) QBs flat out could be called great.
Has the collegiate game converged with the Pros? The answer is obviously: NO. College football has changed into a wide-open high-scoring shootout game, with only few programs still focusing on the art of playing defense. What might have changed, however, is the approach of the teams. Instead of waiting a couple of seasons before the actual talent of the new QB commodity is revealed, young guys have to show early what they are capable of. It is now literally: either do or die! And it is probably not failure in some games that might decide the fate of a rookie QB these days, but his ability to progress, refine and develop his game. QBs now have to be mentally tough enough to pick up the pro-game on the fly and being a quick learner is more important than a rocket arm.
There is an interesting case in the NFL now. 28-year-old quarterback Brandon Weeden (Cleveland Browns) was put in as the starter on day 1 and has struggled heavily at times. But he is obviously progressing and he shows some promises for the future. What makes his case interesting is his age. He is a rookie at 28, an age when most other QBs are usually seasoned veterans. Having him sit for a couple of seasons would move him over the 30s. At this age some QBs already show signs of decline. We will see how Weeden's career evolves. If Weeden succeeds along with the success of some other senior rookie QBs (Luck) teams could be looking for some "experience" out of college.
Only the time will tell if the new approach to rookie Quarterbacks will pay dividends for teams and players...
The most important position in team sports might be the Quarterback in Football. Quarterbacks learn how to play the game in the NCAA - or let us better put it this way: they learn the fundamentals of the game. The game of football is so different on the collegiate level that it can hardly be compared to Professional Football as it is played in the NFL.
So where do these people learn how to win in the Pros? In the past the conventional wisdom was to "bring on a QB slowly". This often meant that a rookie QB was basically assigned to be a "clipboard holder" and an understudy to the current starting QB for his first couple of seasons. Teams used "in-firm training" to develop the future franchise QBs.
This, however, has changed dramatically over the last few years. Rookie QBs are nowadays often thrown into game action on the very first days of their careers. Players like Cam Newton, Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Blaine Gabbert, Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, Joe Flacco, Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan and many other names are examples for this trend. And along with all rookie QBs who were inserted as starters immediately there is a second line of players who played at some point during their rookie seasons because the incumbent starter either went down due to an injury or failed to perform.
Concerning the performances of the mentioned young QBs, most of them did fairly well. This is especially true for this season, as guys like Andrew Luck, RGIII and Wilson are having sensational rookie seasons. And had it not been for the downfall of Gabbert and the major struggles of Nick Foles, rookie- (and still young) QBs flat out could be called great.
Has the collegiate game converged with the Pros? The answer is obviously: NO. College football has changed into a wide-open high-scoring shootout game, with only few programs still focusing on the art of playing defense. What might have changed, however, is the approach of the teams. Instead of waiting a couple of seasons before the actual talent of the new QB commodity is revealed, young guys have to show early what they are capable of. It is now literally: either do or die! And it is probably not failure in some games that might decide the fate of a rookie QB these days, but his ability to progress, refine and develop his game. QBs now have to be mentally tough enough to pick up the pro-game on the fly and being a quick learner is more important than a rocket arm.
There is an interesting case in the NFL now. 28-year-old quarterback Brandon Weeden (Cleveland Browns) was put in as the starter on day 1 and has struggled heavily at times. But he is obviously progressing and he shows some promises for the future. What makes his case interesting is his age. He is a rookie at 28, an age when most other QBs are usually seasoned veterans. Having him sit for a couple of seasons would move him over the 30s. At this age some QBs already show signs of decline. We will see how Weeden's career evolves. If Weeden succeeds along with the success of some other senior rookie QBs (Luck) teams could be looking for some "experience" out of college.
Only the time will tell if the new approach to rookie Quarterbacks will pay dividends for teams and players...
Dienstag, 20. November 2012
The monster is growing.
US Today has just published the 2012 version of the NCAA Football coaches salary database. And what we see is hard to believe. As they state only "six years ago 42 major college football coaches made at least $1 million. Today, 42 make at least $2 million." Coaches salaries in FBS schools are up 12% over last season and have increased an eye-whopping 70% since 2006. Alabama's Nick Saban is the highest paid at $5.5 million.
This is amazing! Institutions of higher education are paying enormous sums to coaches, who have no academic background, to run a football program, which should at best be an activity for students to spend their free time in a healthy way. Well, that ideal is long gone. I have mentioned that numerous times in the past. But why is the monster NCAA still growing that fast? College Football is popular for a long time and the growth rates in media attention and TV contracts is far from what is going on with coaches salaries.
Is something fundamentally wrong with the labor market for FBS coaches? In the past we used to see coaches move from the collegiate level to the NFL because of greater job opportunities. Obviously, this could change. Data shows that--on average--colleges do not profit financially from their sports programs. There is also some evidence that running large sport programs can influence student achievements. It is still debated whether it is fair to leave participating students without financial compensation. Looking at the current figures in terms of coaches wages we see that, for whatever reason, colleges pay enormous sums for something they might not actually benefit from. Rents seem to be generated - and as for now it seems as they are almost exclusively shared with the coaches. Most likely this a result of the non-competitive character of the BCS system.
This is amazing! Institutions of higher education are paying enormous sums to coaches, who have no academic background, to run a football program, which should at best be an activity for students to spend their free time in a healthy way. Well, that ideal is long gone. I have mentioned that numerous times in the past. But why is the monster NCAA still growing that fast? College Football is popular for a long time and the growth rates in media attention and TV contracts is far from what is going on with coaches salaries.
Is something fundamentally wrong with the labor market for FBS coaches? In the past we used to see coaches move from the collegiate level to the NFL because of greater job opportunities. Obviously, this could change. Data shows that--on average--colleges do not profit financially from their sports programs. There is also some evidence that running large sport programs can influence student achievements. It is still debated whether it is fair to leave participating students without financial compensation. Looking at the current figures in terms of coaches wages we see that, for whatever reason, colleges pay enormous sums for something they might not actually benefit from. Rents seem to be generated - and as for now it seems as they are almost exclusively shared with the coaches. Most likely this a result of the non-competitive character of the BCS system.
Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2012
Intertemporal Substitution
Week 6 of the 2012 NFl season is in the book and while we might have entered a new era of parity and competitive balance in Football, we also saw an (aging) icon of the game go down: Baltimore Ravens Linebacker Ray Lewis.
Lewis is probably the best Inside Linebacker in the long tradition of great players at this position in the NFL. He was the first draft pick of the relocated Baltimore Ravens and has lead the mostly great Defense ever since. He is an icon, not only for Ravens fans. He was elected to thirteen Pro Bowls and has one the Super Bowl once as a member of one of the best defensive units ever in the 2000 season. Once he is retired (a time that could come sooner than later) he will enter the Hall of Fame right off the bat.
But Lewis is also 37, playing his 17th season in the NFL. This is quite an accomplishment, as he clearly played longer than the average career at his position. And he played on a higher level. Only recently critics came to the front. They called him out for missing tackles and looking slow and (well actually he is in terms of football age) old. On Sunday Lewis injured his triceps while playing the Dallas Cowboys and on Monday he was ruled out for the season. Immediately speculations started if that might be the end of his career - only to be countered by the newest question: Would he be ready to play in a (possible) Super Bowl?
I am not convinced that the Ravens will eventually get to the title game, as they are beat up in terms of injuries and have played badly on Defense even when healthy. If they do it would have to be the (currently) high-powered Offense to carry the team. Sounds odd to say that about the Ravens, doesn't it?
If there is the slightest possibility that Lewis could return for the Super Bowl in February, the Ravens have to make a tough decision: Do they put him on injured reserve (IR) and sign somebody to replace him, or do they keep him on the roster and hope he will return for a game that is all but certain. There was a similar situation for the New York Jets, who also lost their best player on Defense, Darelle Revis, to injury and discussed his return for the Super Bowl. He was soon put on IR and all hopes for a return in the current season were put to rest. While I wish all the best to Lewis, my guess is that he will share Revis' fate.
In terms of economics the Ravens face a simple question: Is it good to save for the future? Are future returns larger than immediate returns? Is the team better off waiting for Lewis, or does it have to fill glaring holes on the roster? In this case we do not have a clear setup where we compare the utility of today's consumption to utility of consumption in t+1 because the Ravens do not know if they will still be there in t+1 if they do not consume today. So many interesting questions to think about!
Lewis is probably the best Inside Linebacker in the long tradition of great players at this position in the NFL. He was the first draft pick of the relocated Baltimore Ravens and has lead the mostly great Defense ever since. He is an icon, not only for Ravens fans. He was elected to thirteen Pro Bowls and has one the Super Bowl once as a member of one of the best defensive units ever in the 2000 season. Once he is retired (a time that could come sooner than later) he will enter the Hall of Fame right off the bat.
But Lewis is also 37, playing his 17th season in the NFL. This is quite an accomplishment, as he clearly played longer than the average career at his position. And he played on a higher level. Only recently critics came to the front. They called him out for missing tackles and looking slow and (well actually he is in terms of football age) old. On Sunday Lewis injured his triceps while playing the Dallas Cowboys and on Monday he was ruled out for the season. Immediately speculations started if that might be the end of his career - only to be countered by the newest question: Would he be ready to play in a (possible) Super Bowl?
I am not convinced that the Ravens will eventually get to the title game, as they are beat up in terms of injuries and have played badly on Defense even when healthy. If they do it would have to be the (currently) high-powered Offense to carry the team. Sounds odd to say that about the Ravens, doesn't it?
If there is the slightest possibility that Lewis could return for the Super Bowl in February, the Ravens have to make a tough decision: Do they put him on injured reserve (IR) and sign somebody to replace him, or do they keep him on the roster and hope he will return for a game that is all but certain. There was a similar situation for the New York Jets, who also lost their best player on Defense, Darelle Revis, to injury and discussed his return for the Super Bowl. He was soon put on IR and all hopes for a return in the current season were put to rest. While I wish all the best to Lewis, my guess is that he will share Revis' fate.
In terms of economics the Ravens face a simple question: Is it good to save for the future? Are future returns larger than immediate returns? Is the team better off waiting for Lewis, or does it have to fill glaring holes on the roster? In this case we do not have a clear setup where we compare the utility of today's consumption to utility of consumption in t+1 because the Ravens do not know if they will still be there in t+1 if they do not consume today. So many interesting questions to think about!
Mittwoch, 26. September 2012
Back to the replacements
While my last entry in this blog was dealing with the possible repercussions of the current referee situation in the NFL, reality has once again overtaken me and it is now even worse than I had expected. While during the last weeks the replacement refs made many critical and obviously wrong calls, it has reached a new level with the result of Monday Night Football.
On Monday the Green Bay Packers played at Seattle to match the Seahawks. Most of the game was a brilliant defensive effort (sadly nobody is talking about that) from Seattle and not much offense took place. And it was a "usual" replacements game, as there were numerous dubious pass interference calls, some critical penalties and a general feeling that they were not 100% in control of what was going on all the time.
But then there was th final play. And it was a big one, as Seattle was back 5 points and they needed a hail mary pass to win the game with the final play. So Seattle QB Wilson, after avoiding a sack, threw it up for grabs into the end zone in the general area where Golden Tate was waiting for it. He was surrounded by at least four Packers and Packers DB M. Jennings was in perfect position to defend the pass. Instead of doing what defenders are tought to do in such a situation, i.e. knocking the ball down, he tried to catch it. And he DID catch it and all replay angles showed he caught it first and although Tate might have had simultaneous possession of the ball while going to the ground for a split second, it was Jennings who had the ball in the end.
By now everybody knows the end of the story. The catch was awarded to Tate (even after review) and the NFL has admitted the mistake. However, they are only admitting that Tate was actually pushing off before the "catch" (enough to overturn it) and still call it a simultaneous catch which, by rule, should go to the offense. Everybody who saw what happened knows that this is wrong. There was a push off, yes, but Tate never caught the ball. It was a clear mistake that I do not think regular NFL refs would have made.
The way the NFL is handling the situation is definitely deciding games. We saw that on Monday. The integrity of the game is in danger. Some Packers have come forward and argued that the NFL was "more about money than the integrity of the game". Well, that's news! The NFL is the best sports business in the world. Of course, it is all about money. If it was just about competing in the game of football it would not be a billion dollar industry. Interesting, though, that this criticism comes from the only NFL team which is publicly owned (Packers). So there is no owner involved who wants his profits maximized rather than the success of his team on the field of play.
I agree. The integrity of the game is in danger. But I would go a step further: the only fans who might be happy right now live in the city of Seattle. If fans see that the current situation goes on and more games are decided by wrong officiating, they will turn away and the NFL as a whole product could suffer.
The NFL could have changed the call or set a rematch. They decided to stick to the result and come up with bad excuses. Fine, but please, for the sake of the game and the league, pay the regular refs and bring them back!
On Monday the Green Bay Packers played at Seattle to match the Seahawks. Most of the game was a brilliant defensive effort (sadly nobody is talking about that) from Seattle and not much offense took place. And it was a "usual" replacements game, as there were numerous dubious pass interference calls, some critical penalties and a general feeling that they were not 100% in control of what was going on all the time.
But then there was th final play. And it was a big one, as Seattle was back 5 points and they needed a hail mary pass to win the game with the final play. So Seattle QB Wilson, after avoiding a sack, threw it up for grabs into the end zone in the general area where Golden Tate was waiting for it. He was surrounded by at least four Packers and Packers DB M. Jennings was in perfect position to defend the pass. Instead of doing what defenders are tought to do in such a situation, i.e. knocking the ball down, he tried to catch it. And he DID catch it and all replay angles showed he caught it first and although Tate might have had simultaneous possession of the ball while going to the ground for a split second, it was Jennings who had the ball in the end.
By now everybody knows the end of the story. The catch was awarded to Tate (even after review) and the NFL has admitted the mistake. However, they are only admitting that Tate was actually pushing off before the "catch" (enough to overturn it) and still call it a simultaneous catch which, by rule, should go to the offense. Everybody who saw what happened knows that this is wrong. There was a push off, yes, but Tate never caught the ball. It was a clear mistake that I do not think regular NFL refs would have made.
The way the NFL is handling the situation is definitely deciding games. We saw that on Monday. The integrity of the game is in danger. Some Packers have come forward and argued that the NFL was "more about money than the integrity of the game". Well, that's news! The NFL is the best sports business in the world. Of course, it is all about money. If it was just about competing in the game of football it would not be a billion dollar industry. Interesting, though, that this criticism comes from the only NFL team which is publicly owned (Packers). So there is no owner involved who wants his profits maximized rather than the success of his team on the field of play.
I agree. The integrity of the game is in danger. But I would go a step further: the only fans who might be happy right now live in the city of Seattle. If fans see that the current situation goes on and more games are decided by wrong officiating, they will turn away and the NFL as a whole product could suffer.
The NFL could have changed the call or set a rematch. They decided to stick to the result and come up with bad excuses. Fine, but please, for the sake of the game and the league, pay the regular refs and bring them back!
Freitag, 21. September 2012
Their A game!
One of this year's big stories in sports is the season the Oakland A's are having. They are currently ranked 2nd in the American League West and tied for first in the Wild Card race with the Baltimore Orioles. While they are technically not yet in the playoffs, they are in a good spot and there is no indication that they will fall off.
But is is the way they reached their current spot that is so amazing: The A's are playing with rookie starters (5 at one point), they have really no major names on their roster and their lineup does not scare anyone in the American League. AND they are doing it with Major League's second lowest payroll at $ 55,372,500. This is substantially lower than what the Texans spend ($ 120,510,974), who they trail by just 4 games in the AL West. The A's are ranked 5th in the majors in pitching with a team ERA of 3.50. They rank 9th in terms of home runs with 172. So they have it all: pitching and power. And they are doing it while they should actually be rebuilding.
The A's manager Bob Melvin seems to be doing a lot right. But the whole organization from top to bottom does a perfect job. In sport economics the final word on the causal relationship between team payrolls and success has not yet been said. The A's once again show that maybe it is not money you need to win.
Donnerstag, 20. September 2012
NFL replacement refs - dangerous for the game?
We are well into the current NFL season, and apart from the usual media buzz, injury news and endless discussions about the performances of rookies Quarterbacks, there is one thing standing out: the usual NFL referees are locked out and replacement crews are refereeing the games. These replacement crews were installed in preseason and mostly consist of non-BCS conference referees from the NCAA. While this might not sound too spectacular, it might actually be a big deal for the league.
It is still a debate how good a job these referees are doing. The media are highly critical, while the broadcasting TV networks are still hesitant to be overly critical regarding the product they offer. But the first two weeks of regular season games showed that the replacement officials got at least a few major calls wrong, mixed up some penalties and generally made more mistakes than the usual referees.
The entry salary for an NFL official is $78,000. While this might not sound bad for a season of 16 plus postseason games, their salary is significantly below those of the other major sports leagues. The talks between the officials and the NFL have basically been suspended. Both sides could not come even close to an agreement so far.
So is it really about a few blown calls or some misplaced balls on the field? I guess not, because now that two weeks of regular season play are in the books something else - even more problematic - has emerged. Numerous personal fouls were not called on the field by the replacements and the atmosphere in numerous games was more than just competitive. So my guess is that while they try to avoid any mistakes, the replacements referees miss many overly rough plays. The NFL was quick to fine the guilty players (ask Golden Tate of the Seattle Seahawks) , but on-field calls would certainly be better to stop the extracurricular chippiness and unnecessary roughness between players. Some media observes have even gone as far as arguing that the replacement refs might actually be the reason why the game is more violent and dangerous at the moment.
One of the big objectives of NFL boss commission Roger Goodell was to make the NFL saver and reduce the risk of severe (head) injuries. Rightfully so, with the high number of potential lawsuits lingering. But by being overly strict in the negotiations with the referees he might have reached the contrary. Maybe it would just be better to give the referees what they want instead of having to deal with the consequences of an increase in the number of injuries. And it is not just about the general perception of the NFL as a "save" league, but I do not think that fans want to pay for watching teams that are substantially decimated by injuries.
It is still a debate how good a job these referees are doing. The media are highly critical, while the broadcasting TV networks are still hesitant to be overly critical regarding the product they offer. But the first two weeks of regular season games showed that the replacement officials got at least a few major calls wrong, mixed up some penalties and generally made more mistakes than the usual referees.
The entry salary for an NFL official is $78,000. While this might not sound bad for a season of 16 plus postseason games, their salary is significantly below those of the other major sports leagues. The talks between the officials and the NFL have basically been suspended. Both sides could not come even close to an agreement so far.
So is it really about a few blown calls or some misplaced balls on the field? I guess not, because now that two weeks of regular season play are in the books something else - even more problematic - has emerged. Numerous personal fouls were not called on the field by the replacements and the atmosphere in numerous games was more than just competitive. So my guess is that while they try to avoid any mistakes, the replacements referees miss many overly rough plays. The NFL was quick to fine the guilty players (ask Golden Tate of the Seattle Seahawks) , but on-field calls would certainly be better to stop the extracurricular chippiness and unnecessary roughness between players. Some media observes have even gone as far as arguing that the replacement refs might actually be the reason why the game is more violent and dangerous at the moment.
One of the big objectives of NFL boss commission Roger Goodell was to make the NFL saver and reduce the risk of severe (head) injuries. Rightfully so, with the high number of potential lawsuits lingering. But by being overly strict in the negotiations with the referees he might have reached the contrary. Maybe it would just be better to give the referees what they want instead of having to deal with the consequences of an increase in the number of injuries. And it is not just about the general perception of the NFL as a "save" league, but I do not think that fans want to pay for watching teams that are substantially decimated by injuries.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)