OK, OK

I did say I was going to shut up, but I will offer a study I have made, since we're looking for actual proof. I have delivered real games and stats to back up my thoughts on the revenge factor, now I will go into downright exhaustive detail, not knowing where it may lead (I could end up wrong, who knows). My most compelling argument will come later after I mention some brief examples.

First, I mentioned 2 games from this very season. Colts in a revenge game versus Patriots, who had won 2 games from them previously, including the AFC Championship (both close games and could have gone either way). Titans, just this past week, revenge game versus the Colts, who had won 2 games previously (one was a blowout, the other was a draining loss at home).

The Titans lost 5 games in a row to the Ravens, divisional matchups and playoffs, before finally, barely beating them last year in the playoffs. At least 3 of the 4 games after the first loss could be considered revenge games.

The Jaguars went 15-3 one season. All three losses, including the AFC Championship (where revenge would have been sweet for the Jags), were to the Titans.

Tampa Bay embarassed the Eagles in the 2002 NFC Championship, and still beat them on week 1 of the next season.

New England beat Pittsburgh in the 2001 AFC Championship, beat them on week 1 of the next season.

I would consider a revenge game any game in which a team got embarassed or were beat on a big stage, or lost on a controversial call or a last-minute play. The teams have to be evenly matched, and the revenge game takes place at the proper time. So, I'm not going to find stats for Denver and Tampa Bay because they rarely play each other. There are, of course, teams who got their revenge. I am fair, and will list the ones I can find.

Oakland lost to the Patriots in the infamous "tuck-rule" game of the 2001 playoffs, and then played them later in the 2002 season and beat them 27-20. I will add, however, by the time Oakland got around to playing the Pats, both teams were heading in opposite directions.

Buffalo lost to the Titans in the infamous "Music City Miracle" game of the 1999 playoffs, and then played them in the first game of the 2000 season and beat them (Boy, if Eddie George catches an easy pass, though, there's no revenge).

You can, if you want, include the games within the season where two teams play each other twice or more. You will find much more "revenge" in that, but they rarely can be considered revenge games under those circumstances. You usually find the "embarassment" reason for revenge here, like the 31-0 thumping that Buffalo gave New England last year, which New England returned in kind later in the season.

I actually bothered to look at all of the matches-rematches of the 2003 season, counted up the tally, and man am I a sick person for doing that.

There were 56 matchups in the NFL last season (not regarding factors of home-field, or whether the teams were equal, and certainly not factoring in what I believe to be a true revenge game--but if we want to say a revenge game is any game where one team has lost and wants to win the next time those two teams play) that would later result in a rematch (112 total games), 6 of them were regular season games that later resulted in a playoff matchup. Of those 56, 26 teams got their revenge, meaning 30 did not (in other words, teams seeking revenge had a record of 26-30). In the playoffs, only 2 teams got their revenge (Indy lost to Denver late in the season and then won in the playoffs, Carolina lost to Philly then won the NFC Championship) compared to 4 who did not (or a record of 2-4; the four teams seeking revenge and did not get it were Seattle vs. Green Bay, Tennessee vs. New England, Indianapolis vs. New England, and Green Bay vs. Philly). There were no teams who matched up more than twice.

I believe the whole thing is a wash, which is why it rarely registers on the radar as a good reason to think one team will beat another. That's the point. Not whether the idea of wanting revenge exists or not, but whether it, all things being equal, gives a team an advantage. I think the examples above show, in great detail, that it does not.