Hitler, John Junker, DeLoss Dodds, Mike Brown ... Arthur Blank

This one is from last week, but it was a theme that I had been considering for quite a while.  Here is the conclusion:

I mention all of this as a cautionary tale for the Falcons. The local professional football franchise is seeking to replace the Georgia Dome - a facility that is only twenty years old and is a perfectly good place to watch a football game - with a retractable roof facility. The price tag for the new stadium is estimated at $948 million, although that seems to be a conservative estimate. Additionally, the only funding source listed so far has been a hotel/motel tax. The remaining funding is undetermined, but could very well come in the form of either additional tax revenue or in the form of charging fans more for the privilege of supporting the local team through PSLs and higher ticket prices.

I feel leery about any analogy that has Mike Brown and Arthur Blank in a sequence. Mr. Blank is widely popular in Atlanta for a variety of reasons, two of which are his various philanthropic endeavors and his generally good stewardship of the Falcons. That said, the Falcons risk the same sort of backlash that the bowls, Texas, and Bengals have all seen for pushing their position too hard. A new Falcons stadium promises little or nothing for an average fan, save for fewer seats, higher ticket prices, and the opportunity cost involved with $300 million in tax revenue going for a private business as opposed to schools, police, and other public services. The Falcons rely on the local community for much of their revenue. They ought to consider that fact when pushing for an unnecessary new stadium.

Arthur Blank faces an interesting quandary.  Mike Brown has no reputation to protect, either in Cincinnati or elsewhere.  The fact that the Cincinnati Bengals remain in the NFL despite decades of miserly mismanagement is a testament to the cartel nature of the league, one free from the competitive pressures that the possibility of relegation creates in the rest of the world.  Brown does not care about his reputation locally, so he has no issue driving a hard bargain with his city and county and then turning a deaf ear when the effects of that bargain affect the services that the local government can provide. 

Blank, on the other hand, has a sterling reputation in Atlanta.  His commercial creation - Home Depot - is generally popular, as are his philanthropic endeavors.  He has done a good job as the owner of the Falcons.  Moreover, he simply has a pleasant demeanor because he smiles and speaks well.  If I were casting a movie and wanted to fill the role of doting grandfather, I would pick someone who looks and acts like Blank.  Because of that reputation, Blank cannot credibly make the threat that would get him a new stadium: "give me this or I'll move the team."  He has too much to lose if he becomes the person known as the guy who killed professional football in Atlanta, a city that loves the sport.  This positive reputation works against him.

That last paragraph, by the way, can operate as a criticism of Liberty Media and Atlanta Spirit.  Whereas Blank has roots in the community and therefore wants the Falcons to do well to enhance his local reputation, Liberty Media, as an out-of-state media company, has no such interest.  Nor does Atlanta Spirit, which (at least in terms of ownership share) is predominantly composed of individuals from out-of-state.

Fisking Buzz Bissinger

I'm not going to lie; this was a lot of fun. 

It occurred to me while I was writing that Bissinger and John Feinstein occupy the same place in my head.  Both wrote indisputably great sports books in the late 80s.  Both are now grumpy old men, writing screeds against college football from the Acela Corridor.  In both instances, I read their writing and remember the day when my childhood ended: the day that I read the obituary of Roald Dahl (my favorite author as a boy) obituary and learned that he said the following:

There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity ... I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.

Bissinger also reminds me of Don Draper at the end of last week's Mad Men, left behind in a world where he didn't understand The Beatles in their "Hard Day's Night" stage, let alone their new "Tomorrow Never Knows" style, and having a drink while his actual wife is meditating and his office wife is smoking a joint while writing copy.  Buzz sees a world where college football has become a national sport, outpacing baseball in a number of ways.  The barbarians are at his gates.  For a guy already prone to angry outbursts, his WSJ column was entirely predictable. 

The Giants' Owners, the Georgia Dome, and the NFL as Crony Capitalism

Sometimes, my column ideas come as the result of days of thought.  Other times, the idea comes to me in the shower.  This column is the latter, so I'm interested in your thoughts on whether I'm off the reservation.  Here is the gist:

Last May, FC Barcelona won the Champions League for the third time in six years. On the two previous recent occasions that the club won the title, the trophy was presented to team captain Carles Puyol. Puyol is an iconic figure, a native Catalan who came up through the team's youth ranks and is noted both for being a great leader on the field and for looking like a caveman (or at least a Dokken roadie). When Barcelona won the title last May, Puyol gave the honor of lifting the trophy to Eric Abidal, the team's French left back. Abidal had had an excellent season for Barca, playing both left and center back because of injuries, before he was felled by a liver tumor early in 2011. Abidal recovered in time to play in the Final, where he shut down Manchester United right-winger Antonio Valencia. Thus, there were few fans around the world who weren't a little touched by the scene of Abidal receiving the Champions League trophy from his countryman Michel Platini, himself a French legend who led the French side that won the European Cup in 1984 and made the semifinals of the World Cup in 1982 and 1986.

Forgive me for sounding like a Eurosnob* for a moment, but the presentation of the Lombardi Trophy last night didn't quite have the same flair. (Watch trophy presentation video here.)

Instead of a football icon handing the trophy over, we get Roger Goodell, a life-long NFL suit who is most noted for giving himself the power to suspend players for any reason he sees fit and for persuading Peter King to write the most sycophantic cover story that I can recall reading in Sports Illustrated. Instead of a club totem like Puyol or a cancer-survivor like Abidal accepting the trophy, we had the New York Giants' owners getting the honor. Puyol and Abidal got the right to hold the trophy aloft because they established themselves as some of the best players in the world at their positions; John Mara and Steve Tisch got the right to hoist the Lombardi Trophy because they inherited the team from their parents. On the list of individuals about whom Giants fans were feeling very strong affection last night, I doubt that the team's owners were in the top 20.

This leads to a complaint about the Falcons having the gall to ask for a new stadium to replace the Georgia Dome, a facility in which they have all of twenty seasons under their belt.  The overall point is that the NFL is a perfect illustration of crony capitalism, an entity that socializes profits by extorting concessions from local government and minimizing the incentives for good management.  Somehow, the awarding of the Lombardi Trophy to the Giants' owners and the Falcons' chutzpah in asking for a $700M new stadium seem linked in my head, although I'm not sure that I properly explained why.

Other thoughts for the director's cut:

1. You'll notice that there is an asterisk with no footnote.  That was going to be a paragraph where I list all of the reasons why the US is better than Europe, including the fundamental contradiction that is the EU (putting Greece and Germany under the same roof isn't a recipe for stability) and our bad-ass technology for blowing things up.  (Generally speaking, I could have just said "our technology.")  When I was done with the footnote, it read like a loyalty oath, so I took it out.  But, just in case you are concerned, G-d bless the USA! (HT: Lee Greenwood.)

2. I was also going to include a footnote to the effect of "I'm not saying that everyone should love soccer because of the way the sport is structured in Europe.  I grew up playing and watching the sport, so I'm not offended by a nil-nil.  Your mileage may vary.  In the old days, I would get mad at Americans who didn't like soccer because that sentiment kept it off of TV.  With the Internet and digital cable, that's no longer an issue, so if you find the sport desperately boring, that's your choice and I respect it."

3. Is there anyone out there who thinks that the Georgia Dome needs to be replaced?  Seriously.  I know the selling point is going to be that the new stadium will be funded by a hotel tax, but a significant number of Georgians will end up paying that tax.  Additionally, if we are going to raise $700M, then I can think of 20 better ways to spend the money.  For starters, how about a moratorium on plunking metal plates down on our roads?  $700M would pay for some pretty smooth surface streets.  The public gets this, hence the significant opposition to a new stadium.  If there are any Polisci students out there, this issue would make for a really interesting thesis.

Cam Newton and the Death of a Meme

Remember when Georgia fans touted Mark Richt's pro-style offense as a recruiting advantage vis a vis Urban Meyer's spread?  Remember when Matt Stafford going first in the Draft was a big deal for the future success of the Georgia program, just like Tim Tebow's anticipated struggles in the NFL would be a big deal for Florida?  I do.  Meyer may be gone and replaced by a coach who favors a pro-style offense, but the question of whether the spread offense is a recruiting disadvantage remains relevant.

We are close to getting an answer on the question, at least as far as quarterbacks are concerned, and the answer is not an affirmative one for Georgia fans.  While Tebow's NFL status is indeed murky, Cam Newton, the reigning top pick in the Draft, is sixth in the NFL in yards per attempt as a rookie.  He is actually leading Drew Brees in that statistic.  He is fourth in the NFL in yards passing, trailing only the holy trinity of Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Tom Brady.  If you use more advanced stats, then Newton drops down a little towards the middle of the pack, but he is still performing extremely well for a rookie, especially one on a team that went 2-14 last year.

Newton is almost single-handedly destroying the trope that pro-style coaches use on the recruiting trail that their way is the only way to prepare a signal-caller for Sundays.  This argument shouldn't have carried too much weight as NFL offenses have evolved.  A high school quarterback can watch Brady, Rodgers, and Brees play and will almost certainly note that they are regularly in the shotgun with three- and four-wide receiver sets.  The NFL has transitioned to a pass-based version of the spread, which invalidates the argument that a quarterback has to be under center with a fullback behind him in order to simulate what he will see on Sundays. 

However, there was still a valid criticism that the run-based spread - as practiced by Rich Rodriguez, Urban Meyer, Chip Kelly, Gus Malzahn, and numerous imitators - is not used in the NFL.  That offense makes a quarterback's job easier because the threat of the QB as a runner puts all sorts of pressure on opposing defenses and therefore makes the passing game simpler and easier to execute.  I will admit that I was skeptical of Newton as a pro prospect, especially early in his career, because Malzahn's offense made things so easy for Cam.  Newton has shown that these concerns were totally misplaced. 

In the old days, the play that made college football unique was the option.  Whether it came from the wishbone, the I, the veer, or the flex, college option quarterbacks didn't stand a chance in the NFL because they didn't learn anything beyond the most basic passing concepts.  The college run-based spread has replaced most of those old college offenses.  It's unique in that we have not seen it on Sundays as anything more than a change of pace, but because it uses spread formations and more advanced pass routes, a college spread quarterback has options in the pros that his option predecessors did not.  We all thought that Tim Tebow would be the test case for whether run-based spread quarterbacks could succeed in the NFL, but as it turns out, it's his back-up who is proving the point.      

Vickkampf: the Panther is in the Shop Again

At the end of the Falcons-Eagles game last night, I had the same feeling as I did after Michigan-Notre Dame: should I be happy that my team won or concerned by the manner in which they won.  On the one hand, the Falcons got a critical win to avoid an 0-2 start.  They kept pace with the Saints and Bucs.  They came off the mat when they were down by ten in the fourth quarter.  With the game in the balance, they mounted two long touchdown drives against a defense that had been shelling them for most of the game.  And they did all of this against a team that is clearly one of the two best in the NFC.  (The hierarchy in the NFC: Green Bay and Philly are clearly on top, the Saints are third, and then everyone else fills in behind in some convoluted order.)

On the other hand, yeesh.  The Falcons pretty clearly won because Michael Vick sustained an injury in the third quarter.  Prior to Vick’s injury, the Eagles were pretty much moving the ball on the Falcons at will.  After the injury, the Eagles had to deploy third-string quarterback Mike Kafka, leading a bunch of NFL types to make the same Metamorphosis jokes that college fans exhausted several years ago.  Despite this good fortune, the Falcons still let the Eagles mount a late drive, a drive that ended not because the Falcons made a great defensive play, but rather because Jeremy Maclin – a player who had killed the Falcons all night – dropped a pass on fourth down.  At one point before Vick’s injury, the Falcons were being outgained 350 to 152.  The local pro football collective looked at times like they belonged in the NFC West.  Only the good fortune of scoring touchdowns after a lengthy fumble return by Ray Edwards (great play by Peria Jerry to force the fumble, but everything that happened thereafter was luck) and then an interception that wasn’t really an interception by Kelvin Hayden* had kept the Falcons in the game in the middle stretches. 

* – All of Andy Reid’s game management issues that Bill Simmons has lampooned for years were on display in this game.  Reid erred by not using his timeouts at the end of the first half when the Falcons were inside the Eagles ten and time clearly wasn’t an issue.  He didn’t challenge the Hayden pick.  He wasted a timeout discussing the fourth down play at the end with Kafka, thus depriving the Eagles of a chance to mount a drive after the fourth down attempt failed.  Reid is a good coach in most areas, but he is usually found wanting in the areas that fans can most easily judge. 

There was really no aspect of the Falcons team that looked good.  The running game was productive on Michael Turner’s first two and last two carries, but in between, there was a whole lot of nothing.  Matt Ryan threw two picks and averaged only 5.6 yards per attempt.  Whether the failings of the passing game were the result of Ryan playing poorly or the offensive line getting abused on just about every dropback is an open question.  If the NFL is a passing league and the key on defense is getting a pass rush without blitzing, then Eagles fans have to be feeling a lot better than Falcons fans this morning.  On defense, the Falcons struggled to cover Maclin and DeSean Jackson and they didn’t get a sack on any of the Eagles’ 37 pass attempts.  But hey, the Falcons injured Vick by throwing him into one of his teammates, so there’s that.

On the surface level, this was a win straight out of the 2010 playbook in that the Falcons got outgained, but still managed to beat a good opponent.  However, the formula isn’t even working anymore.  The Falcons won last year despite pedestrian yardage numbers because of three strengths, but none of the strengths were evident last night:

1. They were fourth in the NFL in first downs, showing a low variance offense that was able to control the clock and score.  Last night, the Eagles had 27 first downs to the Falcons’ 20.

2. They were third in the NFL in fewest turnovers surrendered.  Last night, the Falcons threw a pair of picks.  In a similar vein, the Falcons were third in the NFL in fewest sacks allowed, but last night, Ryan was sacked four times and was running for his life on most of the rest of his dropbacks.

3. They were excellent on special teams.  Last night, the Falcons had an 18-yard punt from Matt Bosher (Bosher is a major step down from Michael Koenen) and also saw Pro Bowler Eric Weems make a series of dreadful decisions on punt and kickoff returns.

There are two possibilities here.  The first is that the Falcons simply played two bad games to start the season and they will right the ship in the coming weeks.  The second is that the 13-3 season in 2010 was a mirage based on factors that will not or cannot be repeated and regression to the mean is going to hit with force this fall.  I’m leaning towards the latter.   

Steak Shapiro Knows How You Should Feel

One of the virtues of writing for a major newspaper as opposed to an eclectic (read: marginal) blog in the hinterlands of the Internet is that a writer can gauge how a fan base is feeling at a given time.  Because of his position, Mark Bradley gets to interact with tens of thousands of Atlanta sports fans by e-mail, Twitter, and the comments sections of his articles.  So, when Bradley writes that his sense is that Falcons fans aren't especially excited for the upcoming season, he is making an interesting observation.  I can watch the same games that Bradley does and come to my own conclusions as to what I just saw.  I can’t, however, claim to have my finger on the pulse of how Atlanta fans are feeling about a given issue. Bradley can, so when he says that Falcons fans don’t seem as excited about the upcoming season as one would expect for a team that just went 13-3, he is performing a useful function.

Based on the emotionally incontinent* reaction of Steak Shapiro, we should feel differently.  It was hard to tell from his rant whether Shapiro is mad with Bradley for reaching an incorrect conclusion (although, this being sports talk radio, Shapiro didn’t offer any evidence for his assertion) or whether he is mad at Falcons fans for feeling this way.  The claim appeared to be something along the lines of “the franchise is in much better shape than it was before, so how can you people not be fired up!?!  Have I mentioned that we are the new home of the Falcons?”  (I’m not pretending to be quoting him directly.)  Well, yeah, but saying that the franchise is exceeding its historical norm is damning with faint praise. 

* – I stole that term from Graham Hunter, who used it to describe Jose Mourinho.

I found the rant to be remarkably lacking in self-awareness for a couple reasons.  First, Shapiro was mockingly citing the names of the fans that Bradley cited in the article.  Hello, you’re a sports talk radio host!  Your whole format is based on giving a voice to average fans.**  The implication of your criticism that Bradley put quotes from Average Joes on the front cover of the paper is that a newspaper is a more legitimate format than sports talk radio and should not reduce itself to quoting the ticket-buying proletariat.  Second, your whole view of the sports world is buzz-based.*  Is buzz only legitimate when you agree with it?  When the buzz isn’t against your commercial interests?

* – Man, it’s odd to read what I wrote six years ago and say to myself that I was once an unapologetic fan of the format.  I guess that was the age before podcasts.  

** – And for f***’s sake, please stop referring to commenters on AJC articles as “bloggers.”  The people who call your station are not hosts or analysts, so why would you make the equivalent mistake about people using the Internet?

Personally, I’m not overly excited about the Falcons season for two main reasons.  First, my two loves are college football and European soccer and both are starting their seasons at the same time as the Falcons.  With a finite amount of intellectual and emotional energy, thinking about the Falcons’ pass rush comes in behind Al Borges designing an offense for Denard Robinson, the prospect of Isaiah Crowell tearing through holes, and Cesc and Alexis Sanchez fitting into the best XI in the world.  I’m unusual in liking soccer so much, but I am hardly unusual in this market in thinking that the NFL is dessert after the main course is served on Saturday.  That’s how this market operates.  Second, my view is that the Falcons were a mirage last year, a nine- or ten-win team masquerading as a 13-win team.  I doubt that there is wide-spread belief that the Falcons were not a great team last year because of their yards-per-play margin, but I do suspect that there is a general sense that the team wasn’t as good as its record.  Fans in this market watch enough NFL to know that there are often teams that have great records in a given year and then regress to the mean.  I would guess that the Falcons fan base is taking a wait-and-see approach because they remember that at this time last year, the Vikings and Cowboys were coming off of seasons where they were the second- and third-best teams in the NFC.  Those teams both finished 6-10 in 2010.  But why should historical memory get in the way of a good buzz?

And one last, related point: it’s hilarious to me to listen to a sports talk radio host try to use the “don’t overrate the importance of a small sample size playoff over the large sample size regular season” argument when it suits his purposes.  Shapiro constantly rants about the fact that there is no playoff in college football.  He killed the Braves for their postseason failures in the first part of the Aughts.  Now, his personal affection for the Falcons and the people who run the franchise has caused him to see the light that putting all importance on playoff results might not be the most rational way to evaluate a team or a season. 

Pesky Numbers

The more I think and read about the Julio Jones pick, the more skeptical I become. Football Outsiders has created a statistical formula to analyze receivers and before the Draft, they wrote that Jones only came out as the 13th best receiver in the class ($) based on his college numbers. Anticipating the claim that Jones played in a run-first offense in a great conference and that it is to be expected that his numbers will be low, take a look at FO’s criteria:

The exact formula behind Playmaker is too complicated to get into here, but it is based on six factors:

• Receiving yards per game
• Receiving touchdowns
• Average yards per catch
• The team's yards per pass
• The team's passes per game
• The conference the receiver played in

In short, Playmaker accounts for both the style of the offense and the level of competition. Jones’s pedestrian numbers go into that system and come out with the projection that he’ll be a pedestrian receiver in the NFL. As FO acknowledges, their system is by no means perfect. We are simply talking about probability here. Combining the history of receivers taken in the top ten spots in the Draft and Jones’ numbers leaves us with the conclusion that the odds are against Jones producing at anywhere near the level that would justify his price tag.

Speaking of the list of top ten receivers, look at the college numbers of Jones and the three receivers who have lived up to their lofty draft positions as exceptions to the "don't take receivers at the top of the Draft" rule:

	Catches	Yards	TDs	Yds/R
Andre Johnson	92	1,831	20	19.9
Larry Fitzgerald	161	2,677	34	16.6
Calvin Johnson	178	2,927	28	16.4
Julio Jones	179	2,653	15	14.8

None of these four receivers played in pass-heavy spread offenses and they did not play with quarterbacks who would go onto success in the NFL. With that groundwork out of the way, there are two issues that jump off of the table. First, Jones’s yards per catch is lower than any of the three receivers on the list. Second, he caught fewer touchdowns. The touchdown issue is especially worrying when you account for the fact that Andre Johnson - the only one of the three whose TD total is close to that of Jones - only started for two years in college, whereas Jones started for three. Those 15 touchdowns look a lot more like Troy Williamson (13 TDs in three years as a starter at South Carolina) than they do Johnson & Johnson or Fitzgerald. Thus, we have to go on faith that Jones was a decoy for most of his time at Alabama and that he will thrive when he has Roddy White on the other side of the formation as opposed to Marquise Maze. I’d rather have more than faith in my corner when trading five picks for one guy.

One last thought: for the first time, I’m a little anxious for the NFL owners and the NFLPA to reach a deal. Previously, I was ambivalent about the prospect of a lockout eating some or all of the season. I do like watching NFL games, but on the other hand, a fall where college football doesn’t have the share the spotlight is an appealing thought. Now, I’m so interested to see how the Jones gamble pays off that I want a resolution so we can start getting reports on how the Falcons’ passing game looks in August.

And as if on Cue...

Arthur Blank channels Hyman Roth:

The Atlanta Falcons moved a step closer toward a possible new home field Tuesday, after the Georgia World Congress Center Authority signaled it is ready to move into detailed talks on the matter.

The Authority agreed to enter into a “memorandum of understanding” with the Falcons on plans for a potential $700 million open-air stadium downtown.

Both parties emphasized the memorandum does not constitute a done deal, but rather allows them to begin negotiations over details of the project, including financing.

But the Falcons have made it clear that they want a new open-air stadium, rejecting alternatives such as expanding the Georgia Dome, adding a retractable roof to the facility or building a new dome with a retractable roof.

I suppose that we are supposed to feel good that the new stadium is going to be paid for by a hotel tax, so the expense of Blank's new palace will fall on out-of-towners, but why can't we keep the tax and spend it on something useful like, say, roads or college tuition? And has anyone gone to the Dome and said "gee, this facility is inadequate and outdated?" There is nothing wrong with the existing facility and the Falcons are perfectly capable of competing in the NFL with their existing revenue streams. This isn't about keeping the Falcons, improving the fan experience, or maintaining the team's ability to compete. It's simply about maximizing profit for a private entity.

Speaking of revenue streams, it's interesting to me that the socialist structure of the NFL ends up undercutting the rationale of its teams to demand public money. Because Major League Baseball payrolls are uncapped, a baseball team can argue that it needs a sweetheart stadium deal in order to spend on better players. In that instance, the local electorate can weigh the expense against the positive psychological impact of having a winning team. In the NFL, teams are going to have roughly the same player payroll regardless of how much they are making on their stadium. There's no reason for a city to enrich the local NFL team in order to produce wins. Instead, the NFL is ruthless enough to leave the second biggest market in the country without a team as a way to extort other cities, so they provide the stick rather than the carrot.

We Have Now What we Have Always Needed, Real Partnership with the Government.

Deadspin is pretty much useless to me because it’s become the US Weekly of sports blogs, but I remain a fan of its slogan: “without access, favor, or discretion.” That saying is the “all the news that’s fit to print” of the blogosphere. Think about the slogan when you read two pieces: Peter King’s hagiography of Roger Goodell ($) and S.M. Oliva’s dissection of the NFL as an embodiment of crony capitalism at the Mises Economics Blog. (HT to Chris Brown for the latter link. And yes, I get the point that I’m left-of-center and quoting the von Mises Institute.)

I finally got around to reading the King piece this weekend and found myself wondering whether it would be any different if it were written by the NFL’s PR department itself. (The irony here is that Goodell got his start as a PR guy for Ken O’Brien when the Jets took O’Brien as one of the least heralded members of the famed 1983 quarterback class.) In Cliff Notes style, here’s what you can learn from King’s eight-page piece:

1. Goodell successfully handled a racially-loaded incident in a bar in college.

2. Goodell sent a security detail to Tank Johnson’s house instead of Johnson buying a gun.

3. The NFL is very popular, but the labor dispute will be complicated.

4. Goodell’s childhood was marked by protecting his siblings, realizing that he would have to outwork everyone else, and following his Dad’s political career, which ended with a principled stand against the Vietnam War. We end up with this rancid comparison:

Goodell lost the 1970 Senate election, receiving just 24% of the vote in a three-party race. "But what did he retain?" Roger says. "His principles. His integrity. His character. It had a big effect on all of us."

On the future NFL commissioner, especially. "Roger has so much of his father in him," Tagliabue says. "He listens to all sides and has the courage of his convictions. I used to see it a lot when he was dealing with state legislators and governors. He understood the pressure elected officials were under."

Yes, Peter, we all see the similarity between Charles Goodell taking a stand against Vietnam that provoked a backlash from his own party and Roger Goodell convincing politicians to fork over large chunks of the public treasury to enhance the bottom lines of the NFL and its wealthy owners. Real conviction on both sides.

5. Goodell took care of his mother when she had terminal cancer.

6. Goodell convinced Jerry Rice not to go to the USFL, returned pro football to Cleveland, and was correct to side with Jerry Jones on the potential of local sponsorship deals.

7. Goodell is a man of the people who talks to his ordinary customers.

8. Mike Vick wants to make Goodell proud after lying to him about his involvement in dog-fighting. (Seriously, this story about Goodell’s steely glare to Vick is ludicrous. Was Vick really going to admit to a serious federal offense and thus make the Commissioner of the NFL a material witness? Goodell’s question to Vick was a classic sideline reporter question with only one potential answer, but Greg Aiello King retells it with vim so fans can feel good that the NFL commissioner takes a hard line on scofflaws with cornrows.)

9. Goodell will bend on the NFL’s position that the season should be extended to 18 games – an unprincipled, meritless position in light of the emphasis on head injuries and thus, an obvious negotiating ploy - but he is a stalwart negotiator who will win in the end.

The inclusion of the 18-game schedule issue is the only nugget in a long cover story that could possibly be construed as negative for Goodell and King promptly defuses it by saying that Goodell and the owners will back off that demand. Hell, even the cover – a ground level shot looking up at Goodell, surveying all he has conquered as the serious man of industry – comes right out of your average political campaign. Sports Illustrated is the major national media entity that should be able to display critical thinking when it covers the labor dispute because ESPN and the other networks are beholden to the league as a result of their broadcast deals. Instead, SI devoted major space to allow the NFL to fire an early salvo in a PR war. (In SI’s defense, they did a very good job covering head injuries in a lengthy cover feature this season, so it’s not as if they have nothing to contribute.) King’s piece reeks of a writer who wants to maintain a good relationship with the entity that he covers. The desire for access pollutes the final product.

In contrast, the Oliva piece is a great takedown of the NFL and Goodell. In the same way that lots of voters are against “big government” while ignoring the fact that they are beneficiaries in a host of ways (their position isn’t “I don’t like spending;” it’s “I don’t like spending on other people”), lots of otherwise conservative people love a sport that makes a mockery of the free market. Inept owners like the Fords in Detroit and the Browns in Cincinnati continue to rake in profits from unassailable positions because the NFL protects bad management. (I would pay through the nose to see a meeting of NFL owners in which a promotion/relegation system is discussed.) These owners benefit from the heavy public subsidies that every franchise receives in one form or another. Oliva then lights into Goodell as being emblematic of the league’s authoritarian bent:

There is, in fact, a strong “intellectual property” mentality throughout the NFL. Literally this is reflected in the league’s fanatical prosecution of its trademarks and copyrights. But on another level, there’s a belief in “The Shield,” the image of a league that must be protected at all costs from any hint of negative press.

When Roger Goodell became commissioner, he took this idea to laughable excess. No longer content to enforce the league’s on-field rules, Goodell anointed himself a crusader against all perceived wrongs. He routinely suspends players for off-field incidents – even mere allegations — that have nothing to do with the actual game of professional football. His rationale is that any action by an NFL player that may reflect poorly on him also hurts the league somehow. (Of course, that doesn’t apply to Goodell’s employers, the franchise operators, who are free to be sleazy, racist, and dishonest businessmen, e.g. Daniel Snyder).

Then again, as a lifelong NFL bureaucrat, Goodell is simply extending the league’s on-field thinking to off-field situations. The NFL product is increasingly bureaucratic and not very “consumer friendly.” The league obsesses over trivial matters — fining players $5,000 for wearing the wrong socks, banning all truthful criticism of officiating mistakes, changing rules on the fly in the middle of the season — to the point where we’re no longer talking about private businessmen but quasi-governmental officials. Indeed, what private business outside of professional sports has a “Commissioner”?

Not that any of this is surprising. When the majority of league stadiums are government finances, that mentality seeps into the league’s operations. When you attempt to circumvent the laws of economics by continually subsidizing poor management, what you’re left with is a even poorer management.

The one problem with Oliva’s critique is that Goodell’s crackdown on players who are not charged with crimes (Ben Roethlisberger) or, in one case, are alleged to have committed a tawdry offense that isn’t even illegal (Brett Favre) is actually a free market response. The NFL has to be careful with resentment on the part of its fans towards its players. That resentment has elements of race and class (a combination of conservative and liberal themes!) and is stoked by the sports media, which often have little food on their table, but have a lot of forks and knives and have to cut something. (See the comment in King’s piece by a tailgater in Cincinnati.) By becoming the avenging angel for fans, Goodell is responding to taste of the market. Not all bad qualities of the NFL are the result of its suckling at the government teat. Then again, if the point is that the NFL is an emblem of authoritarian, state-aided capitalism, then Sheriff Goodell fits right in.

Yes, Phil, it's Rude to Acknowledge Reality

If this account of the now-famous Phil Simms/Desmond Howard tete-a-tete is correct, then we have a perfect encapsulation of one of the problems with modern commentary. Simms allegedly told Howard that Howard's criticism of Matt Simms as one of the three worst quarterbacks in the SEC (a criticism that was not far off and possibly shared by Derek Dooley, who replaced Simms with Tyler Bray by the end of the season) was out of bounds because "you don’t say that about anyone else." In other words, if a player is not performing well, it's rude to point this fact out. And this, in a nutshell, is why sentient people would rather hear Cris Collinsworth call a game as opposed to listening to Phil Simms follow the custom of telling us that everyone is wonderful.

Answering Mark Bradley

Mark Bradley is surprised that the Packers opened as a slight favorite over the Steelers:

The AFC champ has won nine of the past 13 Super Bowls. Pittsburgh was the No. 2 seed in the AFC, going 12-4. Pittsburgh has won two of the past five Super Bowls, and now, facing a wild-card qualifier that won two fewer games this season, Pittsburgh is …

A 2 1/2-point underdog.

Mark, you’re just looking at the wrong numbers.  Someone with serious skin in the game, i.e. the sharps who would kill the sports books if they based their lines on the wrong numbers, won’t look at who won the last 13 Super Bowls.  Maybe that issue was relevant in the 80s and 90s when the NFC won every year, but if the AFC had moved ahead of the NFC, that era has ended, as the NFC has won two of the last three.  The NFC was a whopping four games under .500 against the AFC this year, despite being dragged down by the NFC West. 

Sharps also won’t pay too much attention to the record of the two teams.  When we’re looking at a season of 16 games, there is the potential for a lot of noise in the records.  One or two bounces of the ball can cause one team to go 12-4 and another team to go 10-6.  Sure enough, the Packers went 4-6 in one-score games while the Steelers went 6-2.  Did that stat show that the Packers lacked a magical ability to win close games?  Probably not, since Green Bay has won a pair of one-score games en route to the Super Bowl.  In short, no one putting a $50,000 wager on a game is going to base his bet on the teams’ records.

So what it a sharp going to consider?  Yards per play.  Here is a reprint of a Chad Millman column making this point regarding the 2009 Michigan-Michigan State game:

Michigan State should have been the favorite when it opened. In fact, wise guys played some money on Michigan at first just to move the line a bit, so they could go back and play the other side for a better price. They knew most sharps would be on Michigan State. There were guys doing this with Cal and Oregon last week. Cal got bet up to 7.5 by wise guys looking for a better price because they were so sure of Oregon. Now, most college sharps build their math models around average yards per play. If you look at Michigan, it has gained 6.1 yards per play and allowed 5.5. Michigan State has gained 6.6 and allowed 5.1. Plus, I think MSU has played a tougher schedule, so that's why this game changed favorites.

Michigan came into the game at 4-0, having won a pair of nail-biters.  Michigan State was 1-3, having lost three tight games.  The yards per play numbers indicated that Michigan State was the better team.  Sure enough, the Spartans dominated the game and only won in overtime because Mark Dantonio did his best to make the game close.  Here is a podcast in which Millman explains in great detail why yards per play matters. 

So what does yards per play tell us about the Super Bowl?  Over the course of the season, it tells us that Pittsburgh was the best team in the AFC (+1.1 YPP) and that the Packers were one of the three best teams in the NFC (+.6).  However, YPP also shows that Green Bay has been dominant in the playoffs, as they were +1.0 against Chicago and +2.4 against the Falcons after a –.8 against the Eagles.  Pittsburgh was –.6 against the Jets after a +1.4 against the Ravens.  Green Bay has been great for the past two weeks, whereas the Steelers were a little lucky to survive against the Jets after being dominated in the second half.  So, yards per play reflects that the Steelers might be a slight favorite, but the Packers are the hotter team.

So what if we look at points-based models?  This is where we get the answer.  Sagarin would make the Packers a two-point favorite.  SRS would make the Packers a favorite of a half a point to a point.  When Green Bay has won, they have won comfortably.  The Steelers have won a number of close games.  We would expect these results from points-based rankings.

The overall point is that Bradley isn’t looking at the right numbers.  He is looking at the small sample – overall record – instead of the big sample – points and plays – that will give us a better sense of how good the two teams are.  I have to admit that I was a little surprised to read Bradley’s column.  He’s surely smart enough to realize that there are better ways to set a spread than “Pittsburgh was a higher seed and the AFC has been better over the past 13 years.”  His own sidebar reflects that he reads a lot of numbers-based sites (KenPom, Peachtree Hoops, Beyond the Boxscore, etc.), so he’s clearly aware of the blogosphere’s trend to being a reality-based community.  I’m inclined to reject the “can’t teach an old dog new tricks” conclusion, so are we left to believe that his editors don’t want him using meaningful numbers in his columns?   

It’s All Bob Costas’s Fault

According to betting odds, we are headed for a Green Bay-Pittsburgh Super Bowl.  The NFL would have to be pleased by such a match-up, as it would pit two of the largest, most passionate fan bases in the league.  The optics of thousands of Cheeseheads and Terrible Towels descending on Dallas, filling local hotels and driving up the secondary market for tickets, would make for a great event.  Moreover, these two teams are consistent draws on television, so the NFL’s broadcast partners would be happy covering a Super Bowl with extra eyeballs. 

Now think about this: Pittsburgh and Green Bay are two of the smallest media markets in the NFL.  Pittsburgh is the 22nd largest MSA in the country, while Milwaukee is 39th.  It’s a testament to the NFL’s structure that two of its most popular teams come from smaller MSAs.  (One can make the same point regarding the Saints, who have been the “it” team over the past two years and hail from the 46th largest MSA.  The Saints’ crowing achievement was winning a Super Bowl over the team from the 34th largest MSA.)  This would never happen in baseball.

The immediate explanations for why teams from small markets are so successful are the salary cap and revenue sharing.  Teams from the larger markets cannot leverage their natural advantages into success on the field because: (1) they can’t spend much more on players than their smaller rivals can; and (2) they can’t sign lucrative local TV deals based on being in bigger MSAs, as the NFL has national, evenly distributed TV contracts.  Thus, when a team like the Jets makes it to the NFL’s final four, they are doing so on the basis of good player acquisitions and a smart head coach, as opposed to when one of the baseball teams from the nation’s largest MSA succeeds by virtue of the innovative “let’s identify the two best free agents and pay the most money for them.”

That said, there is another factor at play here that further distinguishes the NFL from MLB: the NFL does a much better job of mythologizing its past.  The Steelers were one of my first two rooting interests.  (In case you’re scoring at home, Virginia hoops with Ralph Sampson was the other.)  I became a Steelers fan at age five in 1980 because my Mom would take me to the Charlottesville public library and I would read about Super Bowls.  Because the Steelers had won twice as many Super Bowls as any other team at that time and they had cool helmets, a fan was born.  My rooting interest was cemented by watching NFL Films videos of the Super Bowls.  Super Bowl Sunday was nirvana for me because ESPN would run all of its half-hour Super Bowl programs in order, leaving me with the dilemma of when to watch and when to play outside.  (The good Super Bowls to skip: V, VIII, and XI.)  I suspect that I’m not especially unusual in this respect.  NFL Films does a terrific job of selling the story of past champions.  The Packers – the team that won the first two Super Bowls under Vince Lombardi – and the Steelers – the team that won four of six in the 70s – are the major beneficiaries of the gauzy treatment of the past.

Despite its reputation as a traditional, stuck-in-the-past sport, Major League Baseball doesn’t have any equivalent to NFL Films.  MLB doesn’t create fans of the Big Red Machine or the Earl Weaver Orioles with string music and John Facenda.  (If you want a modern example, compare the America’s Game series on NFL Network with the one-hour documentaries that MLB Network runs on specific baseball seasons.  The former are outstanding; the latter are forgettable.)  In the void left by MLB not producing features on its past that come close to the product of NFL Films, we end up with “blurry-eyed nostalgia about the Only Great Era In Baseball History, i.e. the time in which an especially narcissistic generation of New York writers were growing up.”  Take it away, Scott Lemieux:

But what really gives away the show, I think, is the complaint about too many teams. In large measure, this complaint is about New York sportswriters craving a return to to what Ken Burns called “the Capital of Baseball” era — the 2/3rds of the 50s in which baseball was completely dominated by New York teams and large parts of the nation were deprived of major league baseball. This New York domination was terrible for baseball, of course, creating stagnating or declining attendance during a boom economy, but this is something we’re never supposed to notice. And to draw a line under it, he devotes another long paragraph to the elevently-billionth assertion that the Brooklyn Dodgers mattered more than any team has ever mattered to anyone ever, although this has nothing to do with either Willie Mays or the book under review.

In the end, the NFL ends up as the most popular league in the country because of its ability to create Steelers fans in Charlottesville, Virginia, whereas MLB experiences declining popularity because all it can offer is fetishization of when New York City had three teams instead of two.  The NFL has a democratic structure in which teams from any market can win, whereas MLB has an oligarchy in which the only factor that prevents the rich teams from winning every year is the lottery nature of the playoffs.

Preparing for the Invasion of Styrofoam Cheddar

Let’s get this out of the way up front: the Packers are a better team than the Falcons.  Vegas think so by making the Falcons a two-point favorite, which means that the Packers would be a slight favorite on a neutral field.  Football Outsiders puts the Packers ahead of the Falcons on both offense and defense.  Sagarin would make the Pack a five-point favorite on a neutral field, as would SRS.  Yours truly’s Lazy Ass Ranking System (hereinafter “LARS”) shows an even wider gap, as the Packers are +.6 in yards per play margin, while the Falcons are –.6. 

So why bother on Saturday night?  Here’s how the Falcons win:

1. Turnovers – the Falcons are slightly better at protecting the ball.  (The teams are a push in terms of forcing turnovers.)  If Atlanta wins, I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that they will end the night with a positive turnover margin.  With homefield advantage and a loud Dome, John Abraham should be close to unblockable, which means that Aaron Rodgers is going to make throws under pressure.  Also, because they have had two weeks to prepare, Brian VanGorder should be able to throw a blitz or two at Rodgers that he hasn’t seen before (not unlike the home game against New Orleans, in which the Falcons turned in an excellent defensive performance).

2. An advantage in close games – my regular readers will know that I abhor explanations that come down to clutchiness, but run with me here.  The Falcons are 7-2 in one-score games this year; they are 17-8 in such games during the Mike Smith/Matt Ryan era.  The Falcons’ conservative offensive style tends to lead to close game and then for whatever reason, the Falcons are very good in such games.  None of us would feel bad about the prospect of Ryan having the ball with the team down three and three minutes to go.  In contrast, the Packers are 9-17 in one score games during the Mike McCarthy/Aaron Rodgers era.  McCarthy is 18-21 in such games overall, which means that either Brett Favre was more reliable than Rodgers in close and late situations.  I’d prefer to believe that the Packers struggle in close games because of McCarthy because I like Rodgers.  Moreover, McCarthy does seem to struggle in game management tasks.  His use of timeouts isn’t good (such as not using one when the Eagles were lining up for a field goal at the end of the first half last week) and if either of the the games in Philly is any indication, he tightens up with a lead.  That said, to the extent that we can determine anything from the small sample size, Rodgers is a problem in close games.  I don’t really buy this explanation because it’s the kind of claim I’d expect on sports radio, but I’m looking for reasons to be optimistic when I’m attacking a liter at Der Biergarten before the game.  (Speaking of which, how does one insult someone from Wisconsin in a biting, but non-offensive way?  I tend to do these things when drinking, but I’m at a bit of a loss here.  "Fat Fuck!” only goes so far.  “You live in an ice box” doesn’t exactly work this week.  “Thanks for sticking humanity with Brett Favre?”  “Paul Hornung was a drunk?”)

3. A week off – With the exception of Mike Mularkey, I like the Falcons coaches.  I like the idea that they have had two weeks to prepare this team.  And speaking of Mularkey, he has a reputation of liking trick plays.  Wouldn’t this be a good game to use one or two?

4. Special teams – this is where the Falcons have a major advantage.  According to weighted DVOA, the Falcons have the best special teams in the NFL, whereas the Packers are 17th.  The Falcons are outstanding on both kickoffs and kickoff returns; the Packers are terrible.  If the Falcons are starting drives on the 35 and the Packers are starting on their own 20, then that will make up for a significant yardage disparity.  (Note: this advantage will matter more in a shootout than in a 21-14 game.)

Overall, I’d say that the game is a coin flip.  Green Bay is better at the two basic elements of football: moving the ball and stopping the other team from doing so.  Atlanta is better at all of the garnishments.  This is a game between a very good piece of New York Strip unadorned on a plate and a really good hamburger with a bevy of great toppings and the best onion rings in the NFL.  So let’s eat.

A Few Follow-up Thoughts on the Falcons Post

• It's worth mentioning that a low variance offense can be very effective, even though it ends up with a lower yards per play number. Georgia Tech's 2009 ACC Championship team is a perfect example. Tech averaged 6.2 yards per play, which is good, but only ranked 17th in the country. According to Football Outsiders' FEI rankings, however, Tech had the best offense in the country. Why? Because FEI is drive-based and Tech's offense was excellent at scoring by consistently stringing together five-yard gains and by avoiding long yardage situations that kills drives. All things considered, you would rather have an offense that gains five yards on every play than one that gains seven yards per play on two 35-yard plays and eight plays stopped for no gain. The Falcons seem to follow that model. The Eagles are the polar opposite; they have an offense that generates a high yards per play number on the strength of a wealth of big plays, but they are also high variance, which is how they found themselves down 31-10 to the Giants with eight minutes to go on Sunday.

• A second benefit of a low variance offense that strings together consistent, medium-sized gains is that a team with that sort of offense will hold onto leads very well. Remember the stat during the Cowher years about how the Steelers almost never lost games in which they led in the fourth quarter? Mike Mularkey has brought that tendency to Atlanta. Here's your stat of the day: the Falcons have not lost a game in which they held a fourth quarter lead since the road game against the Saints in 2008. The Smith/Mularkey regime has only lost two times when the Falcons had a lead in the fourth quarter: the games against New Orleans and Denver in 2008. For Falcons fans like me whose formative memory is the home playoff loss to Dallas in 1980, this is a refreshing feeling. It's like rooting for a team with a great bullpen. If the Falcons have a lead heading into the fourth quarter, they're in great shape, even with a suspect pass defense.

• Watching Michigan on Saturdays and then the Falcons on Sundays has been an Elvis-like experience of taking uppers and downers. Even with an appalling defense, Michigan had a reasonably good yards per play margin this year because the offense averaged 6.9 yards per play, which was 7th nationally. However, Michigan's yardage advantages didn't translate onto the scoreboard because of what I described as the "dumb shit" factor: red zone turnovers, missed field goals, and terrible kickoff coverage and punt returns that gave opponents field position advantages. The Falcons are 180 degrees from that. The Falcons are outgained by a significant margin on a per-play basis, but they get the dumb shit. They don't turn the ball over, they make field goals, they don't commit penalties, and they are good on special teams. If "dumb shit" is a way to measure the effect of coaching, then Mike Smith should be coach of the year and Rich Rodriguez should be making way for Jim Harbaugh.

• When I did the chart of conference champions from the pas decade, 2008 stood out to me for a couple reasons. First, Arizona was better than their record. The '08 Cardinals were not strong in terms of points and Football Outsiders was very down on them, but their yardage margin was better than the margins of a number of Super Bowl champions (admittedly against a weak schedule). It shouldn't have been a massive surprise that they made the Super Bowl. The team they played in the Super Bowl had the best defense on a yards per play basis of any Super Bowl team in the decade. The '08 Steelers were three-tenths of a yard better than the '02 Bucs and four-tenths of a yard better than the team that struck me as having the best defense at least since the '85 Bears: the '00 Ravens. (The '85 Bears allowed 4.4 yards per play, which is surprisingly high, although that team did force a ridiculous 52 turnovers. The '76 Steelers - the Steel Curtain at its best - allowed 3.8 yards per play.) Given the quality of the teams in the game and the way that it played out, Super Bowl XLIII deserves consideration as one of the best Super Bowls of all time.

• One argument in favor of the way that championships are awarded in college football: the two best teams of the past decade in the NFL were the '01 Rams and the '07 Patriots and neither team won the Super Bowl. In both instances, those teams lost the Super Bowl to opponents with demonstrably inferior records whom the '01 Rams and '07 Pats had beaten on the road during the regular season. It strains the meaning of "champion" to assign that title to the '01 Patriots and '07 Giants. I remain in favor of a small college football playoff; four teams would be good, six teams would be very good, and eight teams would be OK. However, we shouldn't ignore the fact that the absence of the playoff reset button in college football is a good thing in a significant way.

Follow-up on the Rooney/Favre Post

So it turns out that Wayne Rooney is staying after all. I don't know what this says about my complaint that the American sports media is starting too look too much like the Fleet Street tabloids. It is interesting that I went for a run this morning and listened to a Guardian podcast in which Kevin McCarra made the point that it's hard to know what's going on in the saga because everybody is lying. That point seems especially salient now.

A few other thoughts:

1. The NFL's stance on Favre illustrates a major difference between American pro sports leagues and the EPL. In the U.S., it's possible for the NFL to suspend a player for legal activity. The commissioners of the major sports leagues have enormous power over their players and franchises. In contrast, the English Premier League has very little power over its teams. The big story across the pond last week was the legal wrangling over the sale of Liverpool to John Henry's New England Sports Ventures. Liverpool were in a financial pickle in the first place because Tom Hicks (owner of the Texas Rangers) and George Gillett (owners of the Montreal Canadiens) bought the club, but had to take out an enormous amount of debt to do so. They dumped that debt onto the club, which meant that Liverpool's operating profits went to interest payments instead of upgrading the squad or building a new stadium at Stanley Park. The EPL either could not or would not prevent Hicks and Gillett from buying the club in a manner that made future problems very likely. Manchester United faces similar problems, as its American owners - the Glazer family of Tampa Bucs fame - took out debt to buy the club and are now paying unsustainable interest rates to maintain ownership. Thus, the two most famous teams in the EPL faced the same issue - crippling debt - because of the EPL's lax stance towards ownership. It's interesting that the U.S. is considered to be more of a free market economy than England, but England's biggest sports league takes a laissez-faire approach to ownership, whereas American sports leagues (and especially the NFL) are tightly regulated.

2. In my defense of Favre, I didn't mention that it is fitting that a guy who clearly seeks out media attention as evidenced by his now-annual summer Hamlet imitation was hoist by his own petard. If you encourage close media scrutiny, then it's probably a good idea to make sure that your personal conduct with withstand the scrutiny. Sending pictures of your jewels is not a good idea, especially when the recipient came to fame in a contrived manner and thus would be exactly the sort of person who would disclose the pictures.

3. As to the sexual harassment angle, there are a variety of reasons why that doesn't seem to hold water (at least when looking at the angle from 30,000 feet). One issue is that Jenn Sterger was probably an independent contractor when working for the Jets. I raised this in the comments and someone asked if her wearing of a Jets jersey would make her an employee. The answer is no, but if you want to know more about the never-ending employee/independent contractor test, this is a good place to start.

My First (and Likely Last) Post Defending Brett Favre

For those of you are are not inclined to like or follow the rest of the world's version of football, the big story this afternoon is that Wayne Rooney - the best player in England - has apparently demanded a transfer from Manchester United. Rooney suffered an ankle injury last spring and never fully recovered in time for the World Cup. As a result, he was one of the scapegoats for England's disappointing performance. (Note: the performance was only disappointing to those who are unaware that the English cannot pass and mover properly.) Rooney took a barracking from the English media for his performance in South Africa. The criticism went to new heights this fall when the tabloids reported that Rooney cheated on his pregnant wife with a prostitute. (Most amusing part of the story: the prostitute in question saying something to the effect of "he's not as ugly in person.") Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson kept Rooney on the bench for the matches following the revelations, presumably to protect Rooney from abuse from the fans. (The fact that Rooney's first match after the infidelity story broke was at Everton, the club that Rooney left to join United, was also a factor.)

Now, it appears that Rooney's relationship with Ferguson is damaged, almost certainly because of the media firestorm. Ferguson famously decided that David Beckham was surplus to requirements after he appeared more interested in his wife and celebrity than football. Additionally, Rooney is not the first England star to suffer as a result of the Fleet Street tabloids' obsessions with the private lives of England stars. John Terry lost the England captaincy last year because of revelations that he cheated on his wife with a teammate's ex. England left back Ashley Cole has also dealt with intense attention after his cheating on his wife became a major story. England manager Fabio Capello has also been distracted by a row with the media after this back cover of The Sun:



In short, English football has a real problem with its tabloid culture. This isn't the only reason why England haven't made a major tournament final since 1966. It probably isn't even in the top five. However, it is an unappealing aspect of English football culture.

I mention England because the excessive focus on the sex lives of their star players has migrated across the Atlantic. I'm not going to be a Pollyanna and claim that Deadspin's "expose" on Brett Favre allegedly sending pictures of his package to Jenn Sterger is something new. Deadspin, TMZ, and the like have been engaged in this game for some time. What is new about the Favre situation is that the NFL appears to be giving serious consideration to punishing Favre, either by suspending him or by some other means. The buzzword that gets thrown around is that they are "protecting the Shield." If a player embarrasses the league through his personal conduct, then the NFL must punish that player to preserve its brand.

Leaving aside the ugly, authoritarian quality of punishing a player for behavior that is completely legal (and doesn't even involve cheating on his wife, although it implies that result as a possibility), the worst aspect of the NFL's stance is that it empowers gossipmongers. We're not talking about losing sponsors like Tiger Woods. We're not talking about an instance in which there is a good chance that a crime was committed even though no charges were brought like Ben Roethlisberger. We're talking about quasi-legal discipline by a sports league for completely private behavior. Assuming that the NFL punishes Favre in some manner, Deadspin will have a new power. When it uncovers evidence of famous athletes behaving badly, the Deadspin editors will know that their decision to run with the story could cause the athlete to be suspended. None of us should be happy about the notion that entities like Deadspin are going to have the power to cause a palace coup.

The Most Boring Genre of Post

My fantasy team, in draft order:

Rashard Mendenhall
Jamaal Charles
Matt Forte
Greg Jennings
Hines Ward
Matt Cassel
Steve Breaston
Kyle Orton
Kellen Winslow
Donovan McNabb
Louis Murphy
Bears Defense
Donald Brown
Cardinals Defense
Matt Prater

(This is a 12-team league and I picked eighth in the first round.)

• I relied heavily on the Football Outsiders' rankings. FO has Mendhall as their second-ranked player (behind only Chris Johnson) and Forte and Charles in their overall top ten. They have Ward as their eighth-ranked receiver, which surprised me. I wouldn't have taken Donald Brown (#55 overall) without looking at FO.
• Once the top four quarterbacks (Brees, Rodgers, Manning, and Brady) were taken, I decided to wait on taking a QB until later in the draft because the rest of the options were all fungible. Then, I got nervous about the prospect of being weak at QB and took three in five picks. The McNabb pick was a bit of a panic pick, but I was feeling so good about my backs and receivers that it was worth rolling the dice.
• When Chaz Schillens gets healthy, I'm hoping against hope that Al Davis doesn't force his coaches to throw the ball to Darius Heyward-Bey. Relying on rationality from the Raiders is a fool's errand, right?
• Seven of my 15 picks come from the AFC and NFC West. We're relying on a bunch of our players benefitting from playing six games against terrible opponents.
• With the Cassel-Charles combo, I'm putting my faith in Charlie Weis. Oy vey.
• Yes, I know that the Bears' defense isn't what it used to be. That was a Devin Hester pick.
• I feel very good about my team, but I always feel good after drafts and then remake my rosters within four weeks. The best battle plan never surivives first contact with the enemy.

Can't you Hear me Knocking on your Window? Can't you? Now? Anything?

I went for a run yesterday morning and was listening to Bill Simmons' podcast with Mike Lombardi. (My opinion on Simmons' podcasts: they are highly dependent on the guest. I pass on any of his interviews with celebrities and his friends. I like the podcasts with subject matter experts. Lombardi falls into the latter category.) Simmons started off by making the point that football has snuck up on us this year because this has been a sports year full of interesting stories. If the American sports scene were struggling for stories, then we would get a lot of college football and NFL coverage because those are the two most popular sports in the country. Instead, we've had the Winter Olympics, above-average NHL and NBA seasons (although the NBA playoffs lacked a compelling series between the first round and the finals, save for the Boston-Cleveland matchup), Tiger's return, the Big Dance (although Simmons was wrong that this year's edition was in any way above average), and the World Cup.


I nodded when Simmons made this point, as he was hitting on something that I've been feeling, as well. Football hasn't grabbed me like it normally does over the summer. I normally get Phil Steele the moment that it hits the rack at Borders, but I got it as an afterthought this year. I had to remind myself to order the Football Outsiders preview, despite the fact that they have done a great job in beefing up the college coverage. I'll freely grant that as someone who has always been a soccer fan and has become more intense in that preference over the past several years - in part because so many games are on the TV and in part as a coping mechanism because Michigan football and the Braves have been weak while Barca has been very strong - I'm not a representative example. Or at least I felt that way until Simmons voiced similar thoughts.

It was interesting to me that Simmons omitted baseball from his list of stories that have reduced the anticipation for the season, especially in light of the fact that he just wrote a column explaining why Red Sox fans are feeling a sense of ennui about this year's edition. If any fan base should be looking forward to football season, it's one with the expectations of Red Sox fans that sees its team well behind the Yankees and Rays in the AL East. Spoiled fans, perhaps? (I don't mean this as a criticism. This hasn't been an especially compelling baseball season in terms of national stories.
Upon reflection, though, the distribution of teams having good season might at least partially explain why college football isn't on the front of our brains in the summer like normal. (Obviously, Simmons wasn’t talking about college football when he said that football has suck up on him this year. As a product of his environment, college football is about the last thing on his radar.) There are two major regions for intense college football interest: the South and the Midwest. The flagship baseball team for the South - the Braves - is in first place. The Texas Rangers are in first place and the Rays are awfully close. In the Midwest, the Twins, Tigers (until recently), White Sox, Cards, and Reds have all had good summers. There was a heavy prevalence of Midwestern teams in the rankings of local ratings that I linked last week. In short, this has not been a baseball season dominated by the coasts, so fan bases that would normally give up on baseball and start obsessing about the depth chart on the offensive line have had their interest held by their local baseball collectives. The fact that the baseball playoffs have been a random number generator for years adds to the interest.

Another factor in the comparative lack of college football dominating my thoughts as it normally would at this stage (and, if I’m representative of other fans, the thoughts of others) is that this season doesn’t have an obvious dominant team(s) to drive attention. At this time last year, we had Tebow and Florida as the kings of the hill and McCoy’s Texas and Bradford’s Oklahoma in challenging positions. With quarterbacks filling a sometimes excessive role as driving attention, 2009 lent itself to a lot of preseason hype, but 2010 is not the same.

The “no alpha male teams” explanation does not apply to the NFL, which finished a banner season in 2009 with the lovable Saints beating Manning’s Colts in exciting fashion. Those teams are back again, as are a number of other very good teams with ready-made plot lines. There’s no reason for the NFL to sneak up on us this year, other than the fact that there has been less oxygen this summer for football stories because of LeBron, Tiger, and the vuvuzela.

I'm As Surprised As You Are

According to Football Outsiders' game charters, here are the NFL linebackers with the best tackle rates in 2010($):

Player Team BTkl Tkl BT Rate

Brandon Siler San Diego Chargers 1 52 1.9%

Keith Brooking Dallas Cowboys 2 75 2.6%

Stephen Nicholas Atlanta Falcons 2 65 3.0%

James Harrison Pittsburgh Steelers 2 60 3.2%

Mike Peterson Atlanta Falcons 3 82 3.2%

Karlos Dansby Arizona Cardinals 3 89 3.3%

Paul Posluszny Buffalo Bills 3 88 3.3%

Patrick Willis San Francisco 49ers 4 114 3.4%

Justin Durant Jacksonville Jaguars 3 81 3.5%

Nick Barnett Green Bay Packers 3 82 3.7%

Keith Brooking? There must be some sort of mistake. Or maybe the stat doesn't take into account making a tackle eight yards past the line of scrimmage? Can't FO come up with a stat for "foolish decision in zone coverage that allowed a tight end to get open on third and forever?" Questions galore.

Blast from the Past

Remember when Jeff Schultz claimed that recruiting is overrated because college teams miss on players even more than NFL teams do? I thought about that last night when the news broke that the Eagles had traded Donovan McNabb for a second round pick in 2010 and a third or a fourth in 2011. The Draft is a crapshoot and yet the Eagles just sent a cornerstone player to a division rival for two picks, neither of which are in the first round. Either Schultz is right or everyone in the NFL, save for the Raiders and Redskins, is right.