A few days ago the NBA All-Stars were officially announced, and the results of the voting were in some places shocking to me. However, in hindsight, I realize that I probably shouldn't have been as surprised as I was because it seems every year the vote leaves many people scratching their heads, wondering why the people that got in did. The fan-vote, which selects the starters, made mistakes, just as always, but the coach vote for reserves was really disappointing. I think they made errors in several spots. These errors are the reason that I think the system just needs to be changed.
Obviously the major plus that comes with the current system is that the NBA gets the fans involved and interested in all-star weekend. It allows people to choose who they want to see, and that probably gets more people to watch the event. Additionally, it allows the NBA to shift the blame on the fans and coaches for errors deciding who gets in. But for these couple pros, there's a lot of cons.
Firstly, any fan vote will reward the big names. LeBron James could sit the entire first half of the season and still be an all-star starter. He's just that popular. And just in case you didn't believe me, it's happened. Multiple times. Just last year, Kobe Bryant played just six games, averaging 13 points per game. All-star starter. If he isn't the top vote-getting shooting guard, the coaches aren't voting him in. But he was, so the coaches were put in a difficult place, having to snub someone who much deserved it. Similarly, Yao Ming was voted into the 2011 All-Star Game despite playing only five games that year. It also allows players on the tail end of their careers to make become all-stars, despite not really deserving it. In 2009, Allen Iverson was an all-star, despite being at the tail end of his career and clearly not worthy of a selection. Yet he was a starter due to his popularity.
Also, players from big name teams are more likely to be selected as all-stars than smaller market teams. Fans will put in almost any Laker in over a member of the Timberwolves, just because not as many people care about a team in Minnesota than one in LA, despite how good that T-Wolve might be. This impact also extends down to the coach vote, because the coaches might want to please the fans over making the correct decision on who to select. They get to see how many votes the fans gave each player, so they have the opportunity to please the fans.
Here's a rundown of the players that shouldn't have made the all-star game.
Western Conference:
OUT: a Thunder player- I just don't believe that players who miss half the season prior to all-star voting deserve a spot. I don't think players can really have an impact and be the best in the league if they're sitting on the bench. Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook have each missed a bunch of games and were put in over other players who have really good, but have meant more to their team and played every game. If I have to choose one to omit, it'd be Russell Westbrook, but neither should be there in the first place.
IN: Damian Lillard- Lillard averages 22 points and over six assists per game. He means just as much to his team as almost anyone, and is seventh in the NBA in win shares, which calculates how many wins a player has contributed to his team. He is one of the league's most underrated players, and deserved a spot.
OUT: Tim Duncan- Mr. Fundamentals falls into the categories of popular players and aging players who make the all-star game primarily for these reasons. Tim has had an incredible year - for a 38 year-old, and nobody's denying that. He's still a very fundamentally sound player and one of the smartest guys in the league. He just can't play as many minutes now, and his body is declining. Regardless of how good he can be, there are probably three big men in the West more deserving.
IN: DeMarcus Cousins- Seriously? How hard could it possibly be to make an all-star game? This guy is the only player in NBA history to have a PER of 25 twice and not be an all-star. He has been an absolute animal averaging 23.7 points, 12.4 rebounds, and 1.6 blocks per game, 7th, 3rd, and 14th in the NBA respectively. He's putting up numbers that some years would make him the best center in the league, yet he's getting no credit for it. I know he's just been put in as Kobe Bryant's replacement, but to me if you're not originally in, getting put in as an alternate just isn't the same.
OUT: Kobe?- Kobe has been declining pretty quickly the last couple years, and while he's had his moments, like setting a career high for assists in a game, he's been shooting an atrocious 37% from the field, and turning the ball over four times a game. Some people considered him a detriment to the Lakers this season, and if I know anything, it's that "detriment" is not a word used to describe an all-star. He's done great things for his age, including one of his best passing years ever, but I think the popularity contest of the fan vote is what actually got him in.
IN: DeAndre Jordan or Zach Randolph: While still having no offensive game, Jordan has only gotten better at his strengths, leading the league in rebounds again, while also continuing to dominate the paint with 2.4 blocks per contest, second in the league. Additionally, he's shooting an unreal 73% from the field (although most of it is from dunks), which leads the league. Only two other players shoot 60%. Zach Randolph is starting to get up there in years, but he's still a great post player, and a strong rebounder, averaging 17 and 12 per game while shooting over 50% from the field.
Eastern Conference:
I actually don't have any backcourt snubs for the East. A lot of people say Kyle Korver was snubbed, but I don't actually agree. Kyle Korver is on pace to have the best true shooting percentage season of all-time, and is shooting over 50% from three, along with over 90% from the line. He could have the first ever 50-50-90 season with a 24'9" three point line. His year has been absolutely mental. But he's still just a three point shooter. Korver is a decent rebounder and passer, decent defender, and basically decent everything else, just an incredible shooter. When you compare him to the guys who made the team- John Wall, Kyle Lowry, Dwyane Wade, Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, and Jeff Teague, I don't think he's a better all around player than any of them. I would've been okay with him making it over Wade or Teague, and I think he will be Wade's injury replacement, but it's not enough for me to call it a snub.
OUT: Chris Bosh- Bosh has had a good year adapting to the loss of LeBron, but his defense has been lacking at times and there are some other guys who have done a better job of showing hustle and crashing the glass than Bosh, namely the guy I'm about to mention.
IN: Nikola Vucevic- Vucevic has fallen prey to unfortunate circumstances. 1) He plays for the Magic, and they're really bad. 2) He's up against bigger name guys like Pau Gasol, Chris Bosh, and Al Horford for his spot. 3) He has an unusual name, and although that should have nothing to do with his success, I think it makes it more difficult people to talk about him. Regardless of why people have let him fall through the cracks, he deserves to be an all-star. His numbers are near identical to those of Pau Gasol, who is the starting center for the East, and at 19.5 points, 11.3 rebounds, and a PER over 22, there's no way this guy shouldn't have been in.
So what would I change the system to? I'm not sure a really perfect system out there exists, but I have one that I think would be better. I propose the vote be divided three ways: the fans get one third of the vote, the coaches get one third, and the players themselves get one third. This way, players can vote for who they believe the best are (they are the ones playing them after all). Maybe it'd have to be a specific group of veterans so players wouldn't be biased, or maybe players couldn't vote for players on their own team or some kind of distinction like that, but I think the players deserve part of the vote.
What this system also does is allow all parties to vote independently, without knowledge of what others have voted. This eliminates the potential influence of the fan vote on the coaches, and should result in a fairer conclusion, as where the fan vote currently is 100% of the vote for starters, it would only be 33%, so no injured player would become a starter, and hopefully no injured player would make the team.
The system needs to be changed, it's just a matter of what the NBA decides to do.
Subscribe To Top Level Sports
Posts
All Comments
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
The Issue with Hockey's Scoring System
For my first ever post about hockey, I'd like to tackle what I believe is a huge issue with the game. That issue is the scoring system in hockey, meaning how teams accumulate points through playing games in an attempt to finish high enough in the standings to make the playoffs. I believe the current format hockey uses seems to encourage teams to play for a tie, and not a victory, which could be a horrible thing for the game. But before we get into why that is, let's take a look at the evolution of scoring in hockey.
We'll start our look into the scoring of hockey in 1942 (if you really want earlier than that look it up on your own time). Due to wartime restrictions on train scheduling, overtime was eliminated from the game. From the 1942-43 season to the 1983-84 season, the points system was just about as easy to understand as possible. If one team won, they earned two points while the losers earned none. If at the end of the third period the score was tied, the teams split the points, each taking one.
From the 1984-85 season through the 1998-99 season, if a game was tied after regulation, a five minute golden goal overtime would be played. An overtime winner would take the two point, and the overtime loser would again earn no points. If the game was tied after the five minute overtime, the points were still split one apiece. Still pretty easy to comprehend (I'd be perfectly okay with this system being used today).
The 1999-2000 season is where things begin to get a little more difficult. It's also the season that began to ruin hockey. Starting in this year, each team began to be assured one point for making it to overtime. Basically, if a team scored a winning goal in overtime, they'd earn their second point for that game, but the losers would still receive one point just for drawing the game in regulation. Just as before, a tie at the end of overtime results in one point for each team.
The current system, adopted for the 2005-06 season, is even worse. The NHL had the great (sarcasm) idea of just dropping ties altogether. Instead, the idea of an overtime loss, instituted in the 1999-2000 season, just replaced ties entirely. If a game ends tied after five minutes of overtime, the game now goes to a penalty shootout, instead of a tie. The shootout itself is identical in format to a penalty shootout in soccer. To recap, what this means is that if a team wins in regulation, they get two, while the other team gets none. If a team wins in overtime, they get two, the other team gets one (called an overtime loss or OTL), and if a team wins in a shootout, similar to winning in overtime, they get two points, and the other team gets an OTL for one.
But why is this such a huge deal, you ask? It's simple. The idea of an OTL alters the amount of points available to be won in a game. In a game where a team either wins, loses, or draws, the amount of points awarded in a game is always two. Either one team gets both points or they each take one. However, in an OTL game, if the game goes to overtime, the points awarded in the game is increased to three. But, still, so what?
Here's what. It makes it theoretically possible for a team to make the playoffs by winning zero games in regulation, using an extremely simple strategy, that to be honest I'm surprised no one has used yet. All a team would in theory have to do is to make an agreement with their opponent to draw every game in regulation. If this were to occur, the chances of earning no points from a game is eliminated, guaranteeing each team to increase their overall point total in each game. Then in overtime, the competing teams actually compete against each other for the third point to be won in the match. One team will get the second point, but the other will also pick up a point, and probably be satisfied with that.
In theory, there would be no reason for any team to object to doing this. If you earn at least one point in each game, and half the time win in overtime or the penalty shootout, you will earn an average of 1.5 points per match. If you multiply that by the 82 games in an NHL season, you would have a point total of around 123 points. For reference, last season the Boston Bruins were the best team in the league with 117 points. The last team to hit the 123 mark was the Detroit Red Wings, who picked up 124 points in the 2005-06 season, the first season with no ties. Based on pure numbers, everyone would want to try this strategy.
But we all know that in the real world, things don't work this way. A much better team would probably reject an offer to tie a game intentionally, forcing overtime. In overtime or a penalty shootout, their odds of winning are around 50%, just because a five minute overtime is so short and penalties are basically a coin toss. If they feel they are a truly superior team, they'll probably feel confident they can win the game over the 60 minutes of regulation, as it gives them ample time to break down their opponent. Plus, even if they can't win, there's still a good chance it goes to overtime anyway.
Additionally, teams in the same conference, and especially division may be unwilling to intentionally draw with each other, as one team may feel it unwise to allow direct competitors to gain free points. It's still mathematically smart, just not something people do. A team going up against its biggest rival only has one thing on their mind prior to the game: smashing the losers on the other team.
But, what if two teams from opposite conferences, with relatively similar skill level play each other. Actually, they don't even need to be that similar, as long as one isn't at the top of their conference and the other at the bottom of theirs. If the game is not one where people would be shocked if the worse team won, this strategy could, and should, be implemented. Both teams get at least one point to help them in their respective conferences, and one gets a bonus. There is a higher chance for each team to move up in their standings, which, if you only play each other once a year, is something you really aim to do whenever you play them.
Since the 2005-06 season, the amount of points a team needs to accumulate on average to attain the final spot in the playoffs is has been around 90-95. This makes a lot of sense. In a season without ties, the average team would have 82 points, and the average team now has about 10 overtime losses per season. That would be 92 points, and then there's a range of a few points on each side. So in a world where a team, say the worst team in the league based on skill of players, was able to make a deal with every opponent, they would need to win the overtime/penalty shootout in at least around 10 of their 82 games. Even a high school team could probably the take the third point in a match 10 of 82 times if their only mission was to play defensive and take their chances in a penalty shootout. For an actual NHL team, no matter how bad? It'd be simple. If an average team wins 41 of these overtimes/shootouts, the odds of a team winning at least 10 are probably like 99.999%, or a guaranteed playoff appearance.
The system encourages teams to play to draws, as it allows them greater chances for long term success the more frequently they play in overtime. In my opinion, that's a horrible rule.
In soccer, if one team finishes the game with more goals than the other, they take three points, and the losers get zero. If the game is tied, each team gets one point. You may have realized that those point totals aren't equal. However, since there are more points available in a game where there is an outright winner, teams are encouraged to go for the win in every match they play, and are actually penalized by drawing games in the same way a hockey team would be penalized for not playing any games in overtime. In soccer, a team with two draws finishes with two points, but a team with a win and a loss has three. Hockey is the reverse. In a season, if a team went 45-37, they'd have 90 points. But if a team went 40-30-12, they'd have 92. They've won fewer games, but while the first team didn't receive any points for their losses, the second team has stolen 12, which for some reason means they're better. In reality, they're 40-42, but that's simply not how we look at it in today's game.
What scoring method do I propose? Well, I believe there are two distinct options the NHL could choose, both of which would be far superior to the current one. The first is the same system implemented from the 84-85 to 98-99 seasons, where if a game is tied in regulation, the game goes to a five minute overtime, and if a team can score in that overtime they take both points from the match, and otherwise the game ends in a tie with each team earning one point.
Alternatively, there is a method which I only learned about through research for this post. This method, used by the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), combines the current system with the soccer system. A team that wins in regulation receives three points, and the loser gets none. However, a team that wins in an overtime/shootout would receive two points, and the loser of the overtime or shootout would receive one. I would be very happy with either of these systems.
The issue with the current system was never really its elimination of the tie and inclusion of an overtime loss, but instead that it alters the amount of points that can be won in a match, and not in a way that incentivizes victory in regulation the way soccer does, where teams "lose" a point if a game ends in a tie because one of the points available in the matches was won by neither team.
So there you have it. I've made my case for the altering of the points system used by the NHL, now it's time for the NHL to realize the issue themselves and actually make a change.
We'll start our look into the scoring of hockey in 1942 (if you really want earlier than that look it up on your own time). Due to wartime restrictions on train scheduling, overtime was eliminated from the game. From the 1942-43 season to the 1983-84 season, the points system was just about as easy to understand as possible. If one team won, they earned two points while the losers earned none. If at the end of the third period the score was tied, the teams split the points, each taking one.
From the 1984-85 season through the 1998-99 season, if a game was tied after regulation, a five minute golden goal overtime would be played. An overtime winner would take the two point, and the overtime loser would again earn no points. If the game was tied after the five minute overtime, the points were still split one apiece. Still pretty easy to comprehend (I'd be perfectly okay with this system being used today).
The 1999-2000 season is where things begin to get a little more difficult. It's also the season that began to ruin hockey. Starting in this year, each team began to be assured one point for making it to overtime. Basically, if a team scored a winning goal in overtime, they'd earn their second point for that game, but the losers would still receive one point just for drawing the game in regulation. Just as before, a tie at the end of overtime results in one point for each team.
The current system, adopted for the 2005-06 season, is even worse. The NHL had the great (sarcasm) idea of just dropping ties altogether. Instead, the idea of an overtime loss, instituted in the 1999-2000 season, just replaced ties entirely. If a game ends tied after five minutes of overtime, the game now goes to a penalty shootout, instead of a tie. The shootout itself is identical in format to a penalty shootout in soccer. To recap, what this means is that if a team wins in regulation, they get two, while the other team gets none. If a team wins in overtime, they get two, the other team gets one (called an overtime loss or OTL), and if a team wins in a shootout, similar to winning in overtime, they get two points, and the other team gets an OTL for one.
But why is this such a huge deal, you ask? It's simple. The idea of an OTL alters the amount of points available to be won in a game. In a game where a team either wins, loses, or draws, the amount of points awarded in a game is always two. Either one team gets both points or they each take one. However, in an OTL game, if the game goes to overtime, the points awarded in the game is increased to three. But, still, so what?
Here's what. It makes it theoretically possible for a team to make the playoffs by winning zero games in regulation, using an extremely simple strategy, that to be honest I'm surprised no one has used yet. All a team would in theory have to do is to make an agreement with their opponent to draw every game in regulation. If this were to occur, the chances of earning no points from a game is eliminated, guaranteeing each team to increase their overall point total in each game. Then in overtime, the competing teams actually compete against each other for the third point to be won in the match. One team will get the second point, but the other will also pick up a point, and probably be satisfied with that.
In theory, there would be no reason for any team to object to doing this. If you earn at least one point in each game, and half the time win in overtime or the penalty shootout, you will earn an average of 1.5 points per match. If you multiply that by the 82 games in an NHL season, you would have a point total of around 123 points. For reference, last season the Boston Bruins were the best team in the league with 117 points. The last team to hit the 123 mark was the Detroit Red Wings, who picked up 124 points in the 2005-06 season, the first season with no ties. Based on pure numbers, everyone would want to try this strategy.
But we all know that in the real world, things don't work this way. A much better team would probably reject an offer to tie a game intentionally, forcing overtime. In overtime or a penalty shootout, their odds of winning are around 50%, just because a five minute overtime is so short and penalties are basically a coin toss. If they feel they are a truly superior team, they'll probably feel confident they can win the game over the 60 minutes of regulation, as it gives them ample time to break down their opponent. Plus, even if they can't win, there's still a good chance it goes to overtime anyway.
Additionally, teams in the same conference, and especially division may be unwilling to intentionally draw with each other, as one team may feel it unwise to allow direct competitors to gain free points. It's still mathematically smart, just not something people do. A team going up against its biggest rival only has one thing on their mind prior to the game: smashing the losers on the other team.
But, what if two teams from opposite conferences, with relatively similar skill level play each other. Actually, they don't even need to be that similar, as long as one isn't at the top of their conference and the other at the bottom of theirs. If the game is not one where people would be shocked if the worse team won, this strategy could, and should, be implemented. Both teams get at least one point to help them in their respective conferences, and one gets a bonus. There is a higher chance for each team to move up in their standings, which, if you only play each other once a year, is something you really aim to do whenever you play them.
Since the 2005-06 season, the amount of points a team needs to accumulate on average to attain the final spot in the playoffs is has been around 90-95. This makes a lot of sense. In a season without ties, the average team would have 82 points, and the average team now has about 10 overtime losses per season. That would be 92 points, and then there's a range of a few points on each side. So in a world where a team, say the worst team in the league based on skill of players, was able to make a deal with every opponent, they would need to win the overtime/penalty shootout in at least around 10 of their 82 games. Even a high school team could probably the take the third point in a match 10 of 82 times if their only mission was to play defensive and take their chances in a penalty shootout. For an actual NHL team, no matter how bad? It'd be simple. If an average team wins 41 of these overtimes/shootouts, the odds of a team winning at least 10 are probably like 99.999%, or a guaranteed playoff appearance.
The system encourages teams to play to draws, as it allows them greater chances for long term success the more frequently they play in overtime. In my opinion, that's a horrible rule.
In soccer, if one team finishes the game with more goals than the other, they take three points, and the losers get zero. If the game is tied, each team gets one point. You may have realized that those point totals aren't equal. However, since there are more points available in a game where there is an outright winner, teams are encouraged to go for the win in every match they play, and are actually penalized by drawing games in the same way a hockey team would be penalized for not playing any games in overtime. In soccer, a team with two draws finishes with two points, but a team with a win and a loss has three. Hockey is the reverse. In a season, if a team went 45-37, they'd have 90 points. But if a team went 40-30-12, they'd have 92. They've won fewer games, but while the first team didn't receive any points for their losses, the second team has stolen 12, which for some reason means they're better. In reality, they're 40-42, but that's simply not how we look at it in today's game.
What scoring method do I propose? Well, I believe there are two distinct options the NHL could choose, both of which would be far superior to the current one. The first is the same system implemented from the 84-85 to 98-99 seasons, where if a game is tied in regulation, the game goes to a five minute overtime, and if a team can score in that overtime they take both points from the match, and otherwise the game ends in a tie with each team earning one point.
Alternatively, there is a method which I only learned about through research for this post. This method, used by the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), combines the current system with the soccer system. A team that wins in regulation receives three points, and the loser gets none. However, a team that wins in an overtime/shootout would receive two points, and the loser of the overtime or shootout would receive one. I would be very happy with either of these systems.
The issue with the current system was never really its elimination of the tie and inclusion of an overtime loss, but instead that it alters the amount of points that can be won in a match, and not in a way that incentivizes victory in regulation the way soccer does, where teams "lose" a point if a game ends in a tie because one of the points available in the matches was won by neither team.
So there you have it. I've made my case for the altering of the points system used by the NHL, now it's time for the NHL to realize the issue themselves and actually make a change.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Top 5 Lessons Learned From Year 1 of the College Football Playoff
Now that the college football season has concluded, it is time to reflect on the year that transpired. This year was especially special due to it being the first season to use the four-team playoff system, and to have the four teams competing in the playoff determined by a committee of actual humans instead of a computer program that only served to arise anger out of every college football fan whose team wasn't undefeated. So how did the new system fare, and more importantly, was it better than the old system? What did this season tell us about how the system will act in the future? Here are the top five things we can take away from the college football playoff after its inaugural year.
1) The committee is not afraid to be controversial: The BCS system felt highly predictable, as from week to week as long as a team didn't lose they seemed to only be able to go up in the rankings. However, this season the committee has made it clear that they are looking far beyond just the win-loss record and evaluating each team freshly every week based on their entire body of work. If a team won every game they played, but only by a few points per game while a one-loss team was slaughtering opponents, the one-loss team came out ahead in the rankings. Through this, an undefeated Florida State team which would have never fallen from the #1 spot in the BCS rankings ended the season at #3, which I view as a win for the system. This doesn't only apply to the top few teams either. Throughout the entire top 25, it really seemed like each individual game was only part of a team's resume, which was evaluated on a week to week basis. If the committee felt a team had been underperforming or over-performing, they could pass other teams that weren't losing, but weren't winning as dominantly. The committee proved they would do what they believed as right, and that's important.
2) Winning your conference is essential: All four teams that ended up making the playoff won their conference championship game, and the only power five conference that didn't receive a spot in the playoff was the Big 12, the only conference with regular season co-champions, and the only conference without a conference title game. Both Baylor and TCU would probably have made the playoff if they were the outright winner of the conference, but the opinion of the committee seemed to be that a team is not deserving to play for a national title if they can't even lock up their own conference, which while it is a shame, is understandable. Additionally, by winning a conference championship game, a team gets another high quality victory to improve their resume. Ohio State wouldn't have made the playoff if not for a thrashing of Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game, and while in the end we know they deserved to make it, TCU and Baylor didn't get a chance to get that statement win that could've put them through.
3) We need more teams: It's a great start, but just a four team system doesn't feel like enough teams. For starters, it'll always leave out at least one power conference altogether from the playoffs, which means not all the best teams will be represented. Also, it is my opinion that an undefeated team from a non-power five conference deserves a spot in the playoffs as well. However, this will almost definitely not happen under a four-team playoff. Marshall started the season 11-0, but was only ranked #24 prior to their first loss, behind six three-loss teams among others. Sure, Marshall played an incredibly weak schedule, but even so, that means going into the season they have no chance regardless of if they win every game they play, which is unfair. Based purely on reputation, Boise State would be the best chance for a smaller school to make the playoff, but even that seems unlikely. I also believe that, for instance, if Alabama lost the SEC championship game this season to finish the year 11-2, they would still deserve a spot in the playoff based on their overall performance. Ideally, an eight team playoff leaves room for the five power conference champions, any undefeated teams, and the best second place teams from a few conferences (which, in the Alabama case, would include some teams who were the best in their conference but just lost their championship game). Any more than eight would really seem to be a stretch, but eight sounds like a good number.
4) We're still working out the kinks: Should head to head play be the sole determining factor in who is better between two teams of similar quality, like TCU and Baylor? Can two teams from one conference make the playoff in this system? How much do we value a team's ability to go undefeated versus strength of schedule and margin of victory? Can a two-loss team make the playoff under any circumstances? These are just a few of the questions the committee has been forced to make or will be forced to make at some point in the future, and it's too early to tell how the committee really feels about these dilemmas, just because we've only experienced one season in this format. The rankings seemed inconsistent at times, most notably how TCU went from #5 to #3, then down to #6 and back up to #3 in the last three rankings of the year despite winning all of those three games by at least 38 points, seemingly gipped out of the playoffs. Just with any new system, there will be flaws that need to be fixed, and hopefully over time the committee gets a better feel for how they should act and make decisions.
5) It's the right system at the end of the day: This is really the most important part, isn't it? The playoff system is better for college football than the BCS system, and that's what really matters. Ohio State won this year's playoff. In the BCS system, they wouldn't have been ranked in the top two (possibly not even in the top four), and thus would not be able to win the national championship even though we all can agree that they earned the title and proved themselves to be the best team in college football. The BCS system would have chosen Florida State to play Alabama in the championship, because Florida State was undefeated and Alabama seemed to be the strongest team with one loss. However, in reality both of these teams were eliminated in the national semifinals. What the playoff system does is allow more teams the opportunity to compete for the national championship so we can be more confident in naming a true champion than having a team win the title but then wondering what would've happened if they played the #3 or #4 team. I think we can all agree that that's a good thing.
Thanks for reading,
Connor
1) The committee is not afraid to be controversial: The BCS system felt highly predictable, as from week to week as long as a team didn't lose they seemed to only be able to go up in the rankings. However, this season the committee has made it clear that they are looking far beyond just the win-loss record and evaluating each team freshly every week based on their entire body of work. If a team won every game they played, but only by a few points per game while a one-loss team was slaughtering opponents, the one-loss team came out ahead in the rankings. Through this, an undefeated Florida State team which would have never fallen from the #1 spot in the BCS rankings ended the season at #3, which I view as a win for the system. This doesn't only apply to the top few teams either. Throughout the entire top 25, it really seemed like each individual game was only part of a team's resume, which was evaluated on a week to week basis. If the committee felt a team had been underperforming or over-performing, they could pass other teams that weren't losing, but weren't winning as dominantly. The committee proved they would do what they believed as right, and that's important.
2) Winning your conference is essential: All four teams that ended up making the playoff won their conference championship game, and the only power five conference that didn't receive a spot in the playoff was the Big 12, the only conference with regular season co-champions, and the only conference without a conference title game. Both Baylor and TCU would probably have made the playoff if they were the outright winner of the conference, but the opinion of the committee seemed to be that a team is not deserving to play for a national title if they can't even lock up their own conference, which while it is a shame, is understandable. Additionally, by winning a conference championship game, a team gets another high quality victory to improve their resume. Ohio State wouldn't have made the playoff if not for a thrashing of Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game, and while in the end we know they deserved to make it, TCU and Baylor didn't get a chance to get that statement win that could've put them through.
3) We need more teams: It's a great start, but just a four team system doesn't feel like enough teams. For starters, it'll always leave out at least one power conference altogether from the playoffs, which means not all the best teams will be represented. Also, it is my opinion that an undefeated team from a non-power five conference deserves a spot in the playoffs as well. However, this will almost definitely not happen under a four-team playoff. Marshall started the season 11-0, but was only ranked #24 prior to their first loss, behind six three-loss teams among others. Sure, Marshall played an incredibly weak schedule, but even so, that means going into the season they have no chance regardless of if they win every game they play, which is unfair. Based purely on reputation, Boise State would be the best chance for a smaller school to make the playoff, but even that seems unlikely. I also believe that, for instance, if Alabama lost the SEC championship game this season to finish the year 11-2, they would still deserve a spot in the playoff based on their overall performance. Ideally, an eight team playoff leaves room for the five power conference champions, any undefeated teams, and the best second place teams from a few conferences (which, in the Alabama case, would include some teams who were the best in their conference but just lost their championship game). Any more than eight would really seem to be a stretch, but eight sounds like a good number.
4) We're still working out the kinks: Should head to head play be the sole determining factor in who is better between two teams of similar quality, like TCU and Baylor? Can two teams from one conference make the playoff in this system? How much do we value a team's ability to go undefeated versus strength of schedule and margin of victory? Can a two-loss team make the playoff under any circumstances? These are just a few of the questions the committee has been forced to make or will be forced to make at some point in the future, and it's too early to tell how the committee really feels about these dilemmas, just because we've only experienced one season in this format. The rankings seemed inconsistent at times, most notably how TCU went from #5 to #3, then down to #6 and back up to #3 in the last three rankings of the year despite winning all of those three games by at least 38 points, seemingly gipped out of the playoffs. Just with any new system, there will be flaws that need to be fixed, and hopefully over time the committee gets a better feel for how they should act and make decisions.
5) It's the right system at the end of the day: This is really the most important part, isn't it? The playoff system is better for college football than the BCS system, and that's what really matters. Ohio State won this year's playoff. In the BCS system, they wouldn't have been ranked in the top two (possibly not even in the top four), and thus would not be able to win the national championship even though we all can agree that they earned the title and proved themselves to be the best team in college football. The BCS system would have chosen Florida State to play Alabama in the championship, because Florida State was undefeated and Alabama seemed to be the strongest team with one loss. However, in reality both of these teams were eliminated in the national semifinals. What the playoff system does is allow more teams the opportunity to compete for the national championship so we can be more confident in naming a true champion than having a team win the title but then wondering what would've happened if they played the #3 or #4 team. I think we can all agree that that's a good thing.
Thanks for reading,
Connor
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
"Deflate-gate" is a Joke
UPDATE: Within half an hour of the release of this blog, ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported that 11 of the Patriots' 12 game balls were under inflated by 2 psi. This report is a total game-changer, and while the Patriots say they will comply fully with the NFL's investigation, it doesn't exactly look great for them. Since it is nearly all the balls that have been found to be deflated, it seems extremely likely that ball-deflating did occur, although as always the Patriots are innocent until proven guilty, as we still do not know how these footballs came to be deflated. This is a great example of how a single piece of information can turn a situation on its head. While I stand by my point that the Patriots would've won the game regardless, this does mean that there could be upcoming punishment facing the Patriots. This means that for the third time this postseason, the result of a game is highly disputed, and now the Patriots will be playing the role of the bad guy in the upcoming Super Bowl.
There will be more to come, as I will continue giving my opinions as the NFL's investigation proceeds and we come to know how these footballs were deflated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a brief period of time following the NFL conference championship games when people were actually talking about the games. All the talk was about how the Packers managed the fourth quarter horribly and did just about everything possible to let the Seahawks back in the game, basically begging to go down in flames. Then there was the news of Richard Sherman's injury, how the Patriots demolished the Colts, how the Seahawks would be looking to be the first team in back-to-back years to win the Super Bowl since the Patriots ten years ago, and how Tom Brady would be looking for his NFL record-tying fourth Super Bowl victory in his record sixth start.
But like I said, all of this lasted for only a few hours until the first reports came out of an NFL investigation, looking into whether or not the New England Patriots intentionally deflated game balls in order to gain an unfair advantage over the Colts. Upon seeing this for the first time, I immediately cringed and thought to myself, "great, all we need is another Patriots controversy". And then I actually looked specifically at the allegations and the circumstances surrounding it, and realized this: deflate-gate (which, is actually a pretty awesome scandal name), is a huge joke. So now, I am going to explain why this supposed cheating scandal a) had no effect on the game, b) would have been extremely difficult to accomplish, and c) is absolutely incapable of being proven.
First off, let’s go over basic procedure for the inflation and monitoring of footballs. On gameday, each team provides 24 footballs to the referees roughly two hours prior to the start of the game, where the referees inspect each ball. Every football must have an air pressure of between 12.5 and 13.5 psi, as well as a weight of between 14 and 15 ounces. Additionally, the teams may “break in” the footballs to suit each individual quarterback’s preferences, such as trying to smooth the surface of the ball. This is legal as long as the ball’s shape remains about the same. Following this, each team’s specific balls are returned to the team to be rotated throughout the game. The Colts claim that after the balls had been inspected by the referees, an equipment manager let out some of the air from at least one Patriot football, making it an illegal ball. The advantage in using a lighter ball is that in inclement weather, the ball is easier to grip, throw, and catch, which would seem to give the Patriots an advantage.
However, it would give anything remotely similar to an advantage that would have made the game a lot closer than it was. The Colts lost the game 45-7, and as ESPN’s Ron Jaworski put it, the Patriots could’ve won the game using a Frisbee. They were just that dominant, basically throughout the course of the game. The Patriots wreaked havoc in the run game with running back LeGarrette Blount, who rushed for 148 yards and three touchdowns. While a lighter ball would’ve made the ball easier to throw and catch, it shouldn’t have any effect on the running game. It also should have no effect on the Colts offense. Since the Colts used separate balls from the Patriots (each team’s balls are marked with their team name), the Colts have no excuse for only managing to score seven points in the game. They couldn’t get anything accomplished on that side of the ball and Andrew Luck played the worst game of his career. Additionally, the incident where the Colts reported that the game ball the Patriots were using felt light was late in the second quarter. That ball wasn’t used in the second half, and in that half the Patriots blew the game out of the water, outscoring the Colts 28-0.
Let’s talk how about the Colts became suspicious of the Patriots. After a Tom Brady interception late in the second quarter, Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson (the interceptor) thought that the ball felt a little light. That’s it. The expert insight on the air pressure of the football comes from a linebacker, who rarely is the one touching the football. Why would Jackson of all people be able to tell the slight difference between a legal and illegal ball? Sounds a little fishy to me. Especially since before every play, the referees have to touch the ball to place it at the line of scrimmage. Usually two referees hold the ball between plays, and these guys actually know what the balls should feel like and are the ones who inspected the balls. So naturally, one would think they would notice if a ball felt light, and would check the air pressure or throw the ball out altogether (something referees actually do frequently when for whatever reason they believe a ball is not in ideal playing condition).
So how would the Patriots be able to get away with this? The referees check the balls before the game and before every play, so they would probably be able to spot any funny business. Additionally, why would the Patriots even need to deflate their balls? They were favorites to win the game, had home field advantage on their side, and from only the first few minutes of the game it seemed obvious that it was going to be the Patriots’ day and that there would be nothing stopping them. Not to mention how extremely risky it would be if they got caught. The Patriots are already notorious for spy-gate, and their image would get even worse if they were to get caught up in another scandal (too late). Additionally, they would lose draft picks, and the Tom Brady/Belichick-era Patriots have been some of the most successful teams ever due largely in part for their ability to dominate the draft, always making smart trades and choosing the right players.
The Patriots basically can’t get caught here, due to the actions taken directly after the ball in question was intercepted. D’Qwell Jackson took the ball to the Colts sideline and explained that he thought the ball was light first to the equipment manager of the Colts, who then told coach Chuck Pagano, who then told the general manager, who then told the head referee about the ball situation. In all the time required to do this, who’s not to say the Colts couldn’t have taken air out of the ball? I’m no conspiracy theorist, but the possibility definitely seems to be there, especially considering a desperate team losing might try to use some underhanded tactics to keep their season alive. Essentially, if no one from the Patriots admits to being involved with the deflating of footballs, and there is no video evidence of any such acts being performed, there is absolutely no way the Patriots can be considered guilty, and since I highly doubt a Patriot would spill the beans and there has been no talk of any evidence suggesting the Patriots did anything, in my mind they’re in the clear.
The dumbest part about this is that I don’t even think the referees checked the air pressure of the ball in question. At least no information of that nature has been released yet, and there’s the basis for this entire argument right there. We can’t trust D’Qwell Jackson’s perception of what is or isn’t a light ball, we need numbers. I have no idea why no one seems to even know the air pressure of that ball because the balls should’ve been rechecked at halftime if there was any suspicion of deflated balls.
At the end of the day, there is absolutely NO story here, whatsoever, period. The media, as usual, has blown something completely out of proportion, when there is nothing to suggest anything wrong had been done.
What do I think actually happened? It’s pretty simple. The ball the Patriots were using was probably a little light. Obviously, in these conditions the Patriots wanted to use as light a ball as possible, so they probably inflated their balls to the minimum 12.5 psi. Then in the cold weather, the pressure of the ball probably reduced slightly, making it just a tad under 12.5 psi. This isn’t a huge deal, and isn’t really detectable by referees. However, to D’Qwell Jackson, the ball may have felt a little on the light side because in good conditions, the ball is probably closer to 13.5 psi. He may have noticed a slight difference, and decided to tell people about it, knowing that with the Patriots previous allegations of cheating, he might be able to get the Patriots in some kind of trouble.
The only reason any of this ever happens is because of the Patriots’ notorious spy-gate scandal, which even to this day some fans are reluctant to leave in the past. People pounce on the bad reputation of Coach Belichick and always try to make something out of nothing, and in this case trying to fabricate a huge scandal when there isn’t any evidence to support it.
So there you have it. The deflate-gate scandal is nothing but a farce, intended to stir up trouble where it isn’t necessary, and until I hear anything that points otherwise, the whole situation is absolutely meaningless. Feel free to move on with your lives, and to all the conspiracy theorists and Patriots haters, try again next time, because God knows you will.
There will be more to come, as I will continue giving my opinions as the NFL's investigation proceeds and we come to know how these footballs were deflated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a brief period of time following the NFL conference championship games when people were actually talking about the games. All the talk was about how the Packers managed the fourth quarter horribly and did just about everything possible to let the Seahawks back in the game, basically begging to go down in flames. Then there was the news of Richard Sherman's injury, how the Patriots demolished the Colts, how the Seahawks would be looking to be the first team in back-to-back years to win the Super Bowl since the Patriots ten years ago, and how Tom Brady would be looking for his NFL record-tying fourth Super Bowl victory in his record sixth start.
But like I said, all of this lasted for only a few hours until the first reports came out of an NFL investigation, looking into whether or not the New England Patriots intentionally deflated game balls in order to gain an unfair advantage over the Colts. Upon seeing this for the first time, I immediately cringed and thought to myself, "great, all we need is another Patriots controversy". And then I actually looked specifically at the allegations and the circumstances surrounding it, and realized this: deflate-gate (which, is actually a pretty awesome scandal name), is a huge joke. So now, I am going to explain why this supposed cheating scandal a) had no effect on the game, b) would have been extremely difficult to accomplish, and c) is absolutely incapable of being proven.
First off, let’s go over basic procedure for the inflation and monitoring of footballs. On gameday, each team provides 24 footballs to the referees roughly two hours prior to the start of the game, where the referees inspect each ball. Every football must have an air pressure of between 12.5 and 13.5 psi, as well as a weight of between 14 and 15 ounces. Additionally, the teams may “break in” the footballs to suit each individual quarterback’s preferences, such as trying to smooth the surface of the ball. This is legal as long as the ball’s shape remains about the same. Following this, each team’s specific balls are returned to the team to be rotated throughout the game. The Colts claim that after the balls had been inspected by the referees, an equipment manager let out some of the air from at least one Patriot football, making it an illegal ball. The advantage in using a lighter ball is that in inclement weather, the ball is easier to grip, throw, and catch, which would seem to give the Patriots an advantage.
However, it would give anything remotely similar to an advantage that would have made the game a lot closer than it was. The Colts lost the game 45-7, and as ESPN’s Ron Jaworski put it, the Patriots could’ve won the game using a Frisbee. They were just that dominant, basically throughout the course of the game. The Patriots wreaked havoc in the run game with running back LeGarrette Blount, who rushed for 148 yards and three touchdowns. While a lighter ball would’ve made the ball easier to throw and catch, it shouldn’t have any effect on the running game. It also should have no effect on the Colts offense. Since the Colts used separate balls from the Patriots (each team’s balls are marked with their team name), the Colts have no excuse for only managing to score seven points in the game. They couldn’t get anything accomplished on that side of the ball and Andrew Luck played the worst game of his career. Additionally, the incident where the Colts reported that the game ball the Patriots were using felt light was late in the second quarter. That ball wasn’t used in the second half, and in that half the Patriots blew the game out of the water, outscoring the Colts 28-0.
Let’s talk how about the Colts became suspicious of the Patriots. After a Tom Brady interception late in the second quarter, Colts linebacker D’Qwell Jackson (the interceptor) thought that the ball felt a little light. That’s it. The expert insight on the air pressure of the football comes from a linebacker, who rarely is the one touching the football. Why would Jackson of all people be able to tell the slight difference between a legal and illegal ball? Sounds a little fishy to me. Especially since before every play, the referees have to touch the ball to place it at the line of scrimmage. Usually two referees hold the ball between plays, and these guys actually know what the balls should feel like and are the ones who inspected the balls. So naturally, one would think they would notice if a ball felt light, and would check the air pressure or throw the ball out altogether (something referees actually do frequently when for whatever reason they believe a ball is not in ideal playing condition).
So how would the Patriots be able to get away with this? The referees check the balls before the game and before every play, so they would probably be able to spot any funny business. Additionally, why would the Patriots even need to deflate their balls? They were favorites to win the game, had home field advantage on their side, and from only the first few minutes of the game it seemed obvious that it was going to be the Patriots’ day and that there would be nothing stopping them. Not to mention how extremely risky it would be if they got caught. The Patriots are already notorious for spy-gate, and their image would get even worse if they were to get caught up in another scandal (too late). Additionally, they would lose draft picks, and the Tom Brady/Belichick-era Patriots have been some of the most successful teams ever due largely in part for their ability to dominate the draft, always making smart trades and choosing the right players.
The Patriots basically can’t get caught here, due to the actions taken directly after the ball in question was intercepted. D’Qwell Jackson took the ball to the Colts sideline and explained that he thought the ball was light first to the equipment manager of the Colts, who then told coach Chuck Pagano, who then told the general manager, who then told the head referee about the ball situation. In all the time required to do this, who’s not to say the Colts couldn’t have taken air out of the ball? I’m no conspiracy theorist, but the possibility definitely seems to be there, especially considering a desperate team losing might try to use some underhanded tactics to keep their season alive. Essentially, if no one from the Patriots admits to being involved with the deflating of footballs, and there is no video evidence of any such acts being performed, there is absolutely no way the Patriots can be considered guilty, and since I highly doubt a Patriot would spill the beans and there has been no talk of any evidence suggesting the Patriots did anything, in my mind they’re in the clear.
The dumbest part about this is that I don’t even think the referees checked the air pressure of the ball in question. At least no information of that nature has been released yet, and there’s the basis for this entire argument right there. We can’t trust D’Qwell Jackson’s perception of what is or isn’t a light ball, we need numbers. I have no idea why no one seems to even know the air pressure of that ball because the balls should’ve been rechecked at halftime if there was any suspicion of deflated balls.
At the end of the day, there is absolutely NO story here, whatsoever, period. The media, as usual, has blown something completely out of proportion, when there is nothing to suggest anything wrong had been done.
What do I think actually happened? It’s pretty simple. The ball the Patriots were using was probably a little light. Obviously, in these conditions the Patriots wanted to use as light a ball as possible, so they probably inflated their balls to the minimum 12.5 psi. Then in the cold weather, the pressure of the ball probably reduced slightly, making it just a tad under 12.5 psi. This isn’t a huge deal, and isn’t really detectable by referees. However, to D’Qwell Jackson, the ball may have felt a little on the light side because in good conditions, the ball is probably closer to 13.5 psi. He may have noticed a slight difference, and decided to tell people about it, knowing that with the Patriots previous allegations of cheating, he might be able to get the Patriots in some kind of trouble.
The only reason any of this ever happens is because of the Patriots’ notorious spy-gate scandal, which even to this day some fans are reluctant to leave in the past. People pounce on the bad reputation of Coach Belichick and always try to make something out of nothing, and in this case trying to fabricate a huge scandal when there isn’t any evidence to support it.
So there you have it. The deflate-gate scandal is nothing but a farce, intended to stir up trouble where it isn’t necessary, and until I hear anything that points otherwise, the whole situation is absolutely meaningless. Feel free to move on with your lives, and to all the conspiracy theorists and Patriots haters, try again next time, because God knows you will.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
NFL Conference Championship Reactions
Now that both of the conference championship games have been played, it's time for me to give my first impressions on the games, while everything's still fresh in my memory.
Wow. That's the first word that comes to mind when thinking of game one of the day. In one of the most improbable comebacks in postseason history, and what I'd call the best postseason finish since Colts vs. Chiefs last season, the Seahawks came back from a 16-0 halftime deficit, and a 19-7 deficit with three minutes left to take the lead, only to have the Packers make a game tying final-minute drive to send the game to overtime at 22 apiece.
None of this should've happened, however. The Seahawks turned the ball over five times, and the Packers were only able to put up 13 points off these mistakes. Mason Crosby kept the Packers in the game by making all five of his field goals, but his first two kicks were essentially extra points, from 18 and 19 yards away. In big games like conference championships, and especially on the road, and even more so when you're playing the best defense in the game, it is essential that you put up touchdowns. Even one touchdown instead of a field goal could've ended the game much sooner.
On the Seahawks side, boy did they start out slow. It almost seemed as if the offense didn't know what team they played for by all the turnovers and miscommunications. Russell Wilson didn't even complete a pass until their was three minutes left in the first half, and then proceeded to throw a third interception before halftime. The Packers were going into their home field and absolutely wrecking them. The only reason they were able to stay anywhere's near contention in the fourth quarter was the defense. Four times the Packers were in goal to go situations in just the first quarter, and the Seahawks were able to force two field goals along with Richard Sherman snatching his second interception of the postseason.
Something needed to change quickly, and the big momentum play that began to change the game was the fake field goal touchdown scored by the Seahawks in the middle of the third quarter. The Seahawks, still down 16-0, could've elected to kick a field goal, but then they would still be down 13 points, and momentum would have probably stayed with the Packers. However, by making the risky call to go for it and succeeding, the 12th man was able to really get back in the game and the Packers began to get a little nervous, never really getting their groove back on offense.
Still, it wasn't until the Seahawks gained possession of the ball with just under four minutes remaining that they had built on their previous touchdown. In fact, they probably shouldn't've even gotten the ball back, but the Packers three-and-outed on both of their possessions late in the fourth while trying to kill time.
From this point on, the Packers defense really couldn't do anything to stop the Seahawks, because it was time for Russell Wilson to stop being the Russell that had thrown four picks earlier in the game, easily his worst career game to that point, and become clutch Russ who leads the Seahawks to victory consistently. Also not to be underestimated was Marshawn "Beast Mode" Lynch's contributions to the final two drives, with big yardage gains on each drive. He finished with 157 yards and a touchdown
But again, none of this occurs if the Seahawks can't miraculously recover an onside kick just prior to the two-minute warning. The Seahawks scored rapidly once they had recovered the kick, putting up another six in under a minute, then proceeded to go for two and get it to improve the lead to 22-19, another crucial play the Seahawks don't win without. If they fail and only take a 20-19 lead, the Packers ensuing drive gives them the 22-20 victory. The Packers really shouldn't've allowed this conversion to succeed, and it really cost them big time. They perfectly executed a blitz, chasing Russell Wilson all the way to the 20 yard-line where he finally just tossed the ball up near the goal line on the opposite side of the field, where Luke Willson bobbled and then caught the ball and walked in the end zone after poor defense from Ha-Ha Clinton-Dix (although he did have two picks earlier in the game).
Aaron Rodgers was able to lead a great one minute offense to get Mason Crosby a good field goal to tie the game and send it to overtime, but Seattle quickly scored a touchdown in overtime, completing the biggest comeback in Super Bowl era conference championship history, and surely leaving the Packers with a sour taste in their mouths, knowing one really got away from them. You have to play good four all four quarters to beat Seattle in Seattle, and they struggled on both sides of the ball in the second half.
The Patriots-Colts game went very similar to how I thought it would go. I expected the Patriots to win this game pretty easily, despite most people expecting this to be the closer of the two games, but even I wasn't expecting the Patriots to have such an easy time offensively. These guys were basically unstoppable, and the Colts especially couldn't stop LeGarrette Blount, who was plowing through defenders en route to 148 yards and 3 touchdowns. That's the fifth straight game that the Patriots have had someone rush for triple digits against the Colts.
As for Andrew Luck, the struggles only continued against the Patriots, as he falls to 0-4 in his career against Tom Brady. Today set new lows for Luck, however, as he completed a horrendous 12 of 33 passes for a season low 126 yards and two interceptions. Besides their touchdown drive, nothing came on offense. In their sole scoring possession, the Colts gained 93 of their 208 offensive yards, essentially have their offense in just four minutes of the game.
This game was basically over by the middle of the third quarter, and there wasn't much doubt in this one pretty much the whole way. The Patriots had a complete performance, stellar on both sides of the ball, and definitely deserve to advance to Phoenix for the Super Bowl.
The Patriots will now advance to their sixth Super Bowl in the Brady era, where they currently sit at 3-2, but haven't one a title in ten seasons.
Now that these games are done, it's time to relax for a week before media week begins and all the talk of the sports world is shifted to the Super Bowl.
Wow. That's the first word that comes to mind when thinking of game one of the day. In one of the most improbable comebacks in postseason history, and what I'd call the best postseason finish since Colts vs. Chiefs last season, the Seahawks came back from a 16-0 halftime deficit, and a 19-7 deficit with three minutes left to take the lead, only to have the Packers make a game tying final-minute drive to send the game to overtime at 22 apiece.
None of this should've happened, however. The Seahawks turned the ball over five times, and the Packers were only able to put up 13 points off these mistakes. Mason Crosby kept the Packers in the game by making all five of his field goals, but his first two kicks were essentially extra points, from 18 and 19 yards away. In big games like conference championships, and especially on the road, and even more so when you're playing the best defense in the game, it is essential that you put up touchdowns. Even one touchdown instead of a field goal could've ended the game much sooner.
On the Seahawks side, boy did they start out slow. It almost seemed as if the offense didn't know what team they played for by all the turnovers and miscommunications. Russell Wilson didn't even complete a pass until their was three minutes left in the first half, and then proceeded to throw a third interception before halftime. The Packers were going into their home field and absolutely wrecking them. The only reason they were able to stay anywhere's near contention in the fourth quarter was the defense. Four times the Packers were in goal to go situations in just the first quarter, and the Seahawks were able to force two field goals along with Richard Sherman snatching his second interception of the postseason.
Something needed to change quickly, and the big momentum play that began to change the game was the fake field goal touchdown scored by the Seahawks in the middle of the third quarter. The Seahawks, still down 16-0, could've elected to kick a field goal, but then they would still be down 13 points, and momentum would have probably stayed with the Packers. However, by making the risky call to go for it and succeeding, the 12th man was able to really get back in the game and the Packers began to get a little nervous, never really getting their groove back on offense.
Still, it wasn't until the Seahawks gained possession of the ball with just under four minutes remaining that they had built on their previous touchdown. In fact, they probably shouldn't've even gotten the ball back, but the Packers three-and-outed on both of their possessions late in the fourth while trying to kill time.
From this point on, the Packers defense really couldn't do anything to stop the Seahawks, because it was time for Russell Wilson to stop being the Russell that had thrown four picks earlier in the game, easily his worst career game to that point, and become clutch Russ who leads the Seahawks to victory consistently. Also not to be underestimated was Marshawn "Beast Mode" Lynch's contributions to the final two drives, with big yardage gains on each drive. He finished with 157 yards and a touchdown
But again, none of this occurs if the Seahawks can't miraculously recover an onside kick just prior to the two-minute warning. The Seahawks scored rapidly once they had recovered the kick, putting up another six in under a minute, then proceeded to go for two and get it to improve the lead to 22-19, another crucial play the Seahawks don't win without. If they fail and only take a 20-19 lead, the Packers ensuing drive gives them the 22-20 victory. The Packers really shouldn't've allowed this conversion to succeed, and it really cost them big time. They perfectly executed a blitz, chasing Russell Wilson all the way to the 20 yard-line where he finally just tossed the ball up near the goal line on the opposite side of the field, where Luke Willson bobbled and then caught the ball and walked in the end zone after poor defense from Ha-Ha Clinton-Dix (although he did have two picks earlier in the game).
Aaron Rodgers was able to lead a great one minute offense to get Mason Crosby a good field goal to tie the game and send it to overtime, but Seattle quickly scored a touchdown in overtime, completing the biggest comeback in Super Bowl era conference championship history, and surely leaving the Packers with a sour taste in their mouths, knowing one really got away from them. You have to play good four all four quarters to beat Seattle in Seattle, and they struggled on both sides of the ball in the second half.
The Patriots-Colts game went very similar to how I thought it would go. I expected the Patriots to win this game pretty easily, despite most people expecting this to be the closer of the two games, but even I wasn't expecting the Patriots to have such an easy time offensively. These guys were basically unstoppable, and the Colts especially couldn't stop LeGarrette Blount, who was plowing through defenders en route to 148 yards and 3 touchdowns. That's the fifth straight game that the Patriots have had someone rush for triple digits against the Colts.
As for Andrew Luck, the struggles only continued against the Patriots, as he falls to 0-4 in his career against Tom Brady. Today set new lows for Luck, however, as he completed a horrendous 12 of 33 passes for a season low 126 yards and two interceptions. Besides their touchdown drive, nothing came on offense. In their sole scoring possession, the Colts gained 93 of their 208 offensive yards, essentially have their offense in just four minutes of the game.
This game was basically over by the middle of the third quarter, and there wasn't much doubt in this one pretty much the whole way. The Patriots had a complete performance, stellar on both sides of the ball, and definitely deserve to advance to Phoenix for the Super Bowl.
The Patriots will now advance to their sixth Super Bowl in the Brady era, where they currently sit at 3-2, but haven't one a title in ten seasons.
Now that these games are done, it's time to relax for a week before media week begins and all the talk of the sports world is shifted to the Super Bowl.
NFL Conference Championship Picks + Review of Preseason Picks
The Super Bowl is only two weeks away, but before we get there are two conference championship games tomorrow to decide who will play for it all on February 1st in Phoenix. The interesting thing about these matchups is that both games are rematches of games earlier in the season.
In the first week of the season, the reigning Super Bowl champion Seahawks hosted and defeated the Green Bay Packers 36-16. Then in week 11, Tom Brady's Patriots went into Indianapolis to dominate Andrew Luck's Colts 42-20 in Jonas Gray's breakout game, where he rushed for 201 yards and 4 touchdowns, leading to him being a top fantasy waiver wire pickup before only rushing for 80 yards the rest of the season.
Before I get into my picks for the Super Bowl, I'm going to first see how me and my dad's preseason picks fared. Before week 1 started, we podcasted and gave our predictions for the division winners along with Super Bowl predictions. Additionally, if you didn't know, you can find my podcast at this link: http://kiwi6.com/artists/TopLevelPodcast.
AFC East:
Me: Patriots
Dad: Patriots
Actual: Patriots
AFC North:
Me: Steelers (they did make the playoffs though)
Dad: Bengals
Actual: Bengals
AFC South:
Me: Colts
Dad: Colts
Actual: Colts
AFC West:
Me: Broncos
Dad: Broncos
Actual: Broncos
NFC East:
Me: Eagles
Dad: Eagles
Actual: Cowboys
NFC North:
Me: Packers
Dad: Bears (at 5-11 easily our worst pick)
Actual: Packers
NFC South: (I labeled this division a juggernaut in the podcast. Oh boy was that wrong, although many expected every team to be pretty good, I was far from the only one. Additionally, everyone's surprise team to make the playoffs (the Bucs) currently hold the #1 pick).
Me: Saints
Dad: Saints
Actual: Panthers
NFC West:
Me: Seahawks
Dad: 49ers
Actual: Seahawks
Overall:
Me: 5/8
Dad: 3/8
Super Bowl Predictions:
Me: Broncos over Saints
Dad: Patriots over Eagles
So it looks like I won the division picks, but my Super Bowl predictions definitely weren't on point. My dad and I both had a Super Bowl team that missed the playoffs, but at least our winners managed to have strong seasons although Peyton Manning fell short again. My dad definitely has a strong chance of nailing the Super Bowl champion.
Alright, so who do I have advancing to the Super Bowl? Well, before the playoffs started I had the Patriots beating the Packers in the Super Bowl, and since they've both made it this far, I have to stick with them. That's just how I operate, I won't change my picks until they're out.
Sure, the majority of people seem to believe that the Seahawks will advance to the Super Bowl for the second consecutive season, and there's certainly good reason for that. However, I do feel like if anyone is going to go into Seattle and win, it's going to be the Packers. They simply have so many offensive weapons that when matched up against the incredible Seahawks defense they may be able to produce the few big plays they'll need to come out victorious. Another reason I really like the Packers is that they led the league in turnover differential this season at +14. As we all know, turnovers can drastically affect the outcome of a game, and they've been forcing on average one more turnover than they commit, which could give them a huge advantage if they're aggressive defense can come up with some big plays. Interestingly enough, the second best team in terms of turnover differential at +12 is the Patriots, my other pick to advance to the Super Bowl.
I feel pretty comfortable overall with my Patriots pick, and I think that regardless of how good Andrew Luck may be, a lot of great quarterbacks just seem to fall apart when they go into New England. The weather might have an impact on the game, and Andrew Luck does commit far too many turnovers for me to like the Colts chances. Their offense will also be hurt by the lack of Trent Richardson in the game, who did not make the trip for personal reasons. On offense, the Patriots have been absolutely rolling for the majority of the season, and averaged 37 points per game at home during the regular season. Additionally, the Patriots just seem to be Andrew Luck's kryptonite, as he is 0-3 against the Pats in his career thus far. In my opinion, Tom Brady's quest for a forth ring will continue on to February where he will try to win his first ring since the 2004-05 season (and he's lucky the Giants aren't there to stop him again).
Well, those are my picks. Regardless of the outcome, both games should be very enjoyable to watch, and I hope you all are as excited as I am to see who will play for the Lombardi trophy.
Friday, January 9, 2015
NFL Divisional Round Predictions Podcast
Hey everyone. As promised, I'm back on the podcast again this week, this time with Luis as we go over all the NFL playoff games this week.
Click this link to view the podcast. http://kiwi6.com/artists/TopLevelPodcast/nfl-divisional-playoffs-1-9-15.
Thanks,
Connor
Click this link to view the podcast. http://kiwi6.com/artists/TopLevelPodcast/nfl-divisional-playoffs-1-9-15.
Thanks,
Connor
Friday, January 2, 2015
NFL Wild Card Predictions Podcast
It's been a long time since the blog has seen a podcast, but what better time to revive it than for the NFL playoffs? The podcast can be found here: http://kiwi6.com/artists/TopLevelPodcast/nfl-wild-card-podcast-1-2-15, and in it my dad and I discuss our picks for each of the four wild card round games taking place over the next few days, as well as give early Super Bowl predictions.
Happy listening!
Connor
Happy listening!
Connor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)