Things That Won't Impact The Super Bowl's Outcome

I’m hearing/reading some things about the upcoming Super Bowl that are not true. It’s too long between now and the game for analysts to resist trotting out the same old, tired analysis. The fact of the matter is… these are the two best teams in the league all season long, and it should be a close game.

Here, for your reading pleasure, is my list of things being talked about that will have no impact on the game:

1. The Citizens’ of New Orleans love for their team

You cannot tell me—with a straight face—that the will of the citizens of New Orleans for their team to win can have any actual impact on whether their team wins or not. Ditto for the Katrina disaster playing any part. It’s a great story… great city… plenty of things to like about the Saints. But suggesting there is some karmic payday coming their way because of the hardship they’ve faced is dumber than dumb. And if New Orleans is owed any karmic payday—as they probably are—the idea that it should come in the form of a professional sporting victory is laughable. Stupid in fact. Would a Super Bowl victory for the Saints have any positive effect on the city? Sure… probably… in the form of hope and pride and bonding. But in terms of providing housing for people? Jobs? Not so much. Sometimes we greatly exaggerate the power of sports… and this is one of those times.

2. The Colts running game

I think the Colts have won enough games without stellar rushing numbers to warrant the assumption that they don’t need to run to win, at least this year. Also, they just beat the best defense in the league against the run—who is also the team with the NFL’s best rushing attack… and they outrushed them and averaged nearly 5 yards a carry. Please stop suggesting the Colts rushing attack is an important factor… it’s not. Also, even if it does matter, the Saints are 21st in the league against the run. Against the pass, if you’re curious, they are 25th.

This game is Peyton Manning versus the Saints… for the most part. If he has a bad game, which is rare this season, there’s probably nothing the Colts can do to win. If he has a good game, which is frequent this year, it can overcome a lot of possible mistakes in other areas of the Colts performance.

3. The color of the Colts jerseys

The hot comment to make now—last night on ESPN radio, this morning in Sports Illustrated—is reminding everyone that the Colts are undefeated in the Super Bowl when they wore the white jerseys… but lost the only time they wore the blue jerseys (the famous “guarantee” game against the Jets). The Colts will be wearing blue for the upcoming Super Bowl.

I’m perfectly willing to continue believing that colors on shirts have no bearing on sporting event outcomes… but if you have some sort of argument or proof that leads you to believe otherwise, I’m all ears.

4. The location for the game being Miami (where the Colts won last time)

I don’t think these players care one bit where the game is played. And I’m not sure there’s any scientific evidence that a team can get a “good vibe” off a stadium just because they won there recently.

5. The Colts travel plans and jetlag

A lot is being made of the Pro Bowl requirements the NFL is holding the Colts and Saints to—they have to be there and make an appearance. But the Colts want to travel to Miami together as a team. So some of the Colts will be flying to Miami for the Pro Bowl, flying back to Indy to meet the team and turn right around and fly back to Miami for the Super Bowl preparations. That’s kind of stupid. But I’ve read some suggestions that there will be jet lag that might affect the Colts players in the big game. But that’s almost stupider than the Colts flying arrangements. Jet lag doesn’t last for seven days. I think their bodies will acclimate long before the Super Bowl.

6. Whether or not I wear my Colts jersey

I received an awesome Peyton Manning jersey for Christmas from some awesome in-laws. It’s the only football jersey I’ve ever owned. I have a few friends who seem to seriously believe that I can jinx my team by not being careful about the timing and occasions I choose for wearing that jersey. Those friends are idiots.

7. The fact that a few players involved in the game have relatives in Haiti

I could simply say that both teams have a Haitian on their roster, so the effect is cancelled out. But I’m not sure there’s much to the idea that “players whose minds are on family that might be in trouble will play out of their minds” theory anyway. But even if you do… it’s cancelled out… offsetting penalties. No effect.

I could probably think of more, but I don’t want this to be some gigantic thing. It just annoys me that so much talk is wasted on stuff that doesn’t matter… and so many useless stats are thrown out as some sort of evidence of something. My favorite stupid stats are the historical ones that cover multiple decades… like Team A hasn’t won a playoff game when the weather is below 30 degrees in over 85 years!! Idiots. I hate that crap.

Thanks for reading my rant.

The Colts Are Headed Towards Repeating A Losing History

Really, does anyone ever think anymore? Why is it conventional wisdom to rest your starters and play your scrubs if you've clinched everything you can possibly clinch in the regular season? Oh, because of injuries, right? Whatever, you don't have much of a chance anyway if you don't play your starters in the final week.

Super Bowl winners this decade, and what they did in the final week of the season:

The 2000 Ravens played their starters the whole game in a 34-20 win over the Jets. The Super Bowl runner-up Giants also played their starters. This year, it looks like all the teams played their starters for most or all of the final game.

2001 Patriots, same, in a 38-6 win over Panthers. The Pats eventual opponent, the Rams, would also play their starters in the final game. Most teams play their starters in this playoff year, except for the Eagles and Bucs in the final game, against each other. They would play each other the next week, and someone had to win, and it was the Eagles. In an anomaly, the Eagles then beat the Bears (who played their starters in the final week) in Chicago. The Rams took care of the Eagles the following week.

2002 Buccaneers, yep, in a 15-0 win in cold weather over Chicago. Their opponent, the Raiders, also played their starters. The 49ers didn't, and needed an 18-point rally and a miracle catch by Terrell Owens to win their next playoff game against the Giants, and then they got destroyed by the Bucs. All the other teams played starters.

The 2003 Patriots, who had clinched 1st round bye already, beats Buffalo 31-0 with Brady throwing 4 TDs. The Super Bowl runner-up Panthers also played their starters in the last game. Most teams here did play their starters, except the Broncos, who would get crushed by the Colts 41-10 in the playoffs.

2004 Patriots, in a very interesting case study for this argument. They had already clinched the 2 seed, went in and beat the 49ers in what was a bad game, 21-7. Meanwhile, the Steelers went 15-1, running their scrubs against the Bills in a 29-24 win. In their playoff game against the Jets, they won in OT 20-17 only because Jets kicker Doug Brien missed TWO field goals in the final TWO minutes of the game. They then got drubbed at home 41-27 by the Pats.

The Colts also trotted out their backups in the final game against Denver, lost that game, then destroyed the Broncos the next week in the playoffs. Then, lost to the Pats 20-3.

The 2005 Steelers had to win their last game. But check this out: The Bengals, Patriots, Jaguars, and yes, the Colts, played scrubs in the final game. The Jags and Pats played each other, so someone had to win there and it was the Pats, who would lose to the Broncos, who played all their starters in a meaningless game in the final game of the season. The Colts lost their game against the Steelers. The Bengals notably lost Carson Palmer in their game against Pittsburgh, so data is skewed there, but how do we know he didn't get creamed because his O-line was out of sync? Basically, both AFC Championship reps played their starters in the final game.

The Steelers' opponent, the Seahawks, are the closest to bucking the trend. But it looks like for the most part, they played their starters in the final game despite some replacements towards the end. The lone team that didn't play their starters was the Bears, and they lost to the Panthers.

2006 Colts. They finally win, and this time they played their starters in a final game where they needed to win to clinch the 3 seed. They beat Miami 27-22. It looks like all 6 of the AFC reps played their starters in the final game. The Bears amazingly made the Super Bowl with a QB controversy, but they played their starters. The Eagles rested, barely beat an 8-8 Giants team, lost to the Saints, who also rested their starters, and then the Saints lost to the Bears, 39-14.

2007 Giants. They memorably played their future Super Bowl opponent Patriots in the final game. They had nothing to play for except to beat an undefeated team, and nearly did, losing 38-35. In the AFC, the Jaguars rested their starters and won a close game against the Steelers the next week, then lost to the Pats. The Colts would eventually rest their starters against the Titans in the final week, then lose to the Chargers in their first playoff game. In fact, the Chargers were playing hurt in that game and still won.

2008 Steelers. Ben Roethlisberger got hurt in a meaningless game against the Browns, and predictably, there were questions about whether it was wise or not to play him. But they blasted the Browns 31-0 and Roethlisberger was OK. Meanwhile, the Titans and Colts played it safe in their final game against each other, and both got bounced in their first games. The 8-8 Chargers took care of the Colts, and the Ravens beat the Titans. Yes, both winners played their starters in the final game. The other AFC rep, the Dolphins, played their starters but lost to the Ravens.

The NFC contender Cardinals, of course, went 9-7 and barely looked like a playoff team, but they played their starters in the final game. All the NFC teams did, in fact, except the Giants, who got bounced by an equally questionable Eagles team in their first playoff game.

Every team who won the Super Bowl this decade played their starters in the final game, and didn't take them out in the second half or anything. Guys, this is a remarkable fact. It doesn't guarantee you a Super Bowl win, but it gives you a better chance than a team that rests their starters. Not one team this decade has won the Super Bowl after resting their starters in the final week. They might get a playoff win here and there, but they do not even go to the Super Bowl, as even the runners-up have played their starters in the final week.

Yet, vile stupidity reigns every year. Rest your starters for the playoffs. Don't get hurt. I heard some serious garbage tonight from sports radio that lauded the decision of Jim Caldwell to rest Peyton Manning today in the 29-15 loss to the Jets that ended their perfect season. He brought up the injury factor, neglecting the fact that the Colts O-line, plus Manning's quick thinking, usually avoids their star QB from getting hit. When this Curtis Painter guy came in and they gave up the sack (and fumble TD), it was the first time in like a billion plays they had allowed a sack.

By the way, if the Titans were still in the playoff hunt, I would have been pissed at the Colts forever for allowing the Jets to play against their B-team. I'm sure there are more than a few teams upset about the Colts' wrong decision today.

With the way the Chargers are playing, the Colts need to be sharp in the playoffs if they want to make it to the Super Bowl again. But, what can I say, conventional wisdom, which is incredibly false, will prevail again.

Belichick's Call

I'm going to put my opinion in the comments, but here's a great analysis by the cold numbers. Run your own numbers here.

The Belichick Gamble

As is expected, Bill Belichick is being widely criticized for his decision to go for it on 4th and 2 on his own 28 with a 34-28 lead and roughly 2 minutes left against the Colts Sunday night.

I actually didn't think this was that bad of a decision, had the Patriots played differently after the play came up short.

If you get it, you win. If you don't get it, then you basically allow the Colts to score a touchdown too quickly, get the ball back, and try a field goal to win it.

They had a chance for this to happen with about a minute left, when they decided to tackle Joseph Addai one yard short of the end zone just before the winning TD to Reggie Wayne. Had they allowed Addai to score there, then the Colts would not have run off more time before finally making the winning play.

We've always heard of the idea of allowing the opposition to score to get the ball back with time on the clock (I've never seen it), and this was the perfect time to do it. And I thought they were going to allow Addai to score on that play. It looked like half the defenders were thinking that, but the other half didn't get the message.

Whenever a decision such as Belichick's last night occurs, and it doesn't work, then the idea must be, "What is our best chance to win now?" rather than "We should have punted." Once it didn't work, Belichick should have said, "OK, make it look as good as you can, but let them score, unless Manning throws a gift-wrapped ball your way."

Then you put the ball in the hands of Brady, and I'm sure he could get the yards required to put them in position for a field goal.

I think people might be too hard on Belichick considering he just saw Manning carve up his defense in 2 minutes on the previous drive. A punt would have put the Colts around the 25-30 yard line depending on the kind of return, and with 2 minutes and a timeout he could have easily gotten them back to that same spot in no time.

So, the bad decision to me was not going for it on 4th down, but not allowing the TD earlier. Because you knew that was going to happen anyway, so give yourself a chance to win.