Interesting Statistic (Something to look at preseason)

[Shane P. Hallam]

"For 14th consecutive year, 5 or more teams in playoffs that were not year before (Cin Dal GB NE NO)."

I just wanted to get a bit of debate on this. Why does this happen? Does the NFL have that much parody? Why do we never take this into account with our preseason predictions?

[timewaster]

Out of those 5 Ciny is the only real shocker.

No?

[CC.SD]

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

"For 14th consecutive year, 5 or more teams in playoffs that were not year before (Cin Dal GB NE NO)."

I just wanted to get a bit of debate on this. Why does this happen? Does the NFL have that much parody? Why do we never take this into account with our preseason predictions?

I'm not so sure there is that much parity, but there is enough that it starts to matter when schedules are so different from one team to another. Playoff teams 4/6 of the time (duh...) are #1 seeds in their division, so when they get paired up against each other the next year, that's a much tougher sked than a team that came in 2nd or 3rd in any given division.

Throw in the fact that the teams losing divisions are more likely to be the ones making big moves in the offseason, and you start seeing why we have so much playoff turnover.

However this stuff is difficult to reconcile when you look at the Colts playoff streak. Patriots are always there since the Dynasty began with a couple of bizarre exceptions, and the same with the Steelers. Chargers will have gone 5 of the last 6 years too. Is a skewed amount of this turnover coming from the NFC?

[king2am]

Well had anyone told you during last years playoffs that New York, Carolina, Atlanta, Tennessee and Pittsburgh (pending this weeks games of course) would MISS the playoffs, I think you would be shocked.

And I think that's what he was getting at. The turnover of playoff teams in the NFL goes largely unnoticed.

[SchizophrenicBatman]

I think people are aware of it. It's been mentioned a lot. I purposely went out of my way to put non-playoff teams into my playoff predictions this year (some hit: Cin, Dal, GB some missed: Buf) but I don't think there's as much parity going on as this likes to suggest

For one, there's an established upper tier (Indy, NE, SD) and a bottom one (StL, Det, Cle). The difference is in scheduling (1st place schedule vs 3rd place) and variance in a 16 game season. The Panthers are going to miss the playoffs this year after making it last, but since dropping Delhomme they look as good as anyone in the NFC. Same for the Titans and Collins. Conversely, the Saints were a solid team last year that were a few breaks away from the playoffs...their offense isn't any different but now they're +5 wins thanks to Darren Sharper? Yea...

Meanwhile, the league that gets all the agita about the haves and have nots has had the same thing happen. Boston missed the playoffs a couple years ago. So did the Yankees. Colorado, LA and SD have all competed recently in the NL West (and now SD is bottom barrel), the central has had the Cubs, Cards and Brewers, etc. The barrier to improve when you're an alsoran like the Pirates is much higher than in the NFL when you can turn it around with a new coach and a few good player moves, but then again you might see some odd teams in the playoffs without a 162 game season. IIRC the Blue Jays led the AL East for a good 1/4+ of last year and the Marlins have started off hot in the NL East the last two years before fading.

Can you really tell me that's any different than the years the Jets and Browns made the playoffs thanks to weak schedules and some luck? The difference is there aren't enough games in the NFL for them to fall back to their true talent level. And don't get me wrong, I'm not for expansion - it's just a reality the league has to face

[bigbluedefense]

I think theres multiple reasons. Injuries, scheduling, personnel changes in the offseason, luck, you name it.

The difference between an average team and a good one is not very large. So theres room for a lot of fluctuation.

I expected a lot of teams from last year to do bad this year. Obviously, I didn't expect it from my Giants, but I can't say I'm entirely shocked either. I was pimping the Bengals all offseason, I thought the Titans and Panthers would fall off.

To be fair, I also thought the Giants would be good, and the Jaguars would win the AFC South, so I had my misses as well.

But it happens every year. The Bengals will probably have a bad season next year, etc. The cycle will continue on its trend.

[Iamcanadian]

The NFL has always been a QB/schedule league. If you don't have a franchise QB, an easy schedule will likely result in a playoff position but the following year, the schedule will crush teams without a franchise QB. There is no parity in the NFL, it has been created artificially by using schedules to manipulate which teams have a far better chance of competing for a playoff spot.
Franchise QB's, if not hindered by injuries, will normally compete for the playoffs every year no matter how tough their schedule is, that is why every GM tries to find one, first and foremost. A franchise QB can overcome a tough schedule while an average QB can only get to the playoffs in a year where his schedule is weak.
At the start of the year, you can look at a Division's schedule and examine which other Divisions they will be playing, each draws at least 1 Division from the NFC and the AFC. The Divisions who will be playing against the tougher Divisions will very likely not produce a wild card team while the Divisions drawing a weak schedule will likely produce a wild card team.
This is the main reason from 4-8 new teams appear in the playoffs every year as sometimes a franchise QB won't make it either mostly because of team injuries. This is how the NFL creates the image that the league has parity when in fact, for the most part, franchise QB's will end up every year competing in the SB. There will be the occasional upset in a few years but in general, the teams with a franchise QB are the only teams where parity is real.

[diabsoule]

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam

"For 14th consecutive year, 5 or more teams in playoffs that were not year before (Cin Dal GB NE NO)."

I just wanted to get a bit of debate on this. Why does this happen? Does the NFL have that much parody? Why do we never take this into account with our preseason predictions?

I don't know if it's a parody, per se, but it might be parity.

[BandwagonPunditry]

Good thread.

I'd say probably the biggest factor in maintaining parity (to whatever extent it exists) is probably the effect of the salary cap/trade system in place in the NFL.

Probably the best feature of the way that the NFL is governed is the salary cap. I am a massive fan of limiting team's spending power. In other sports (see: football/'soccer') dominant teams can maintain their position because of their massive earning compared to smaller clubs. With no cap they can offer higher and higher salaries to players to entice them to transfer An example would be the Kaka to Manchester City saga, during which the player was offered a salary in the region of $800,000 a week to transfer. Another case study might be the exodus of rugby players from the UK (capped league) to France (uncapped until recently) because of the much higher salaries they would receive there whilst playing a comparable standard of opposition. Whilst the NFL still has divas who scream and stomp their feet for not being the highest paid player at their position, the effect is much mitigated by having an overall cap for every club.

The financial clout of bigger clubs in uncapped leagues can also be exercised through transfer fees in league where trading systems don't exist. Whilst players are under contract in the same sort of manner (protected until the final year) they can be purchased for an arbitrary monetary value - and knowing this frequently 'holdout' for moves to other clubs. This of course favours more dominant clubs that wish to make transfers for the best players of smaller clubs. Of course this system can only work when there's something to offer as a make-weight in deals, draft picks are fine for the NFL as it is a stable league, with a static composition but perhaps harder for other sports where a draft system cannot exist.

These two factors combine to keep a long term turnover of teams at the top of the pile. This is not to suggest that the period of domination do not shift in other leagues, they do, but with far less frequency with the advent of modern sport, which is much more money-influenced than previous incarnations.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by njx9

anyone who does take a bit of a leap on a team is going to get washed over by the other 95%, who don't seem to think anything will change from the year before.

I'll start going out on a limb, from now on, and hope I land the right call. Then I'll look like a genius.

[CC.SD]

Originally Posted by njx9

because we're all massive homers and because no one is ever willing to go out on a limb. take pitt (sorry). there's no way you would've agreed with anyone who thought you'd be staring at 8-8 as defending super bowl champions.

especially with the groupthink here, anyone who does take a bit of a leap on a team is going to get washed over by the other 95%, who don't seem to think anything will change from the year before.

The Raiders will still be bad next year njx!

[BeerBaron]

This isn't really a new statistic to look at. I believe TMQ has been saying for years how there is normally about a 50% turnover when it comes to playoff teams, and depending on how the AFC wildcard falls, it could be up to 7 teams this year I believe, which would be over 50% turnover.

As for a good explanation......I'm not really sure. One thing making the difference this year I think are the playoff caliber teams who just missed last year getting in, like the Patriots, Cowboys and Saints. No one would have been surprised if you told them pre-season that they would each make it in, but they still count towards that turnover of new teams making it in from the previous year.

[vikes_28]

The NFL is competitive. That's the only explanation there should be.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Of course it isn't new, it's been going on for 14 years straight! That's what gets me. There hasn't been one year of consistency. And more than likely, we will have 6 new teams this year (Jets, Texans or Broncos).

As for the Steelers njx, I predicted them at 9-7 ;) I'm sure that is here somewhere.

I think it is just tough to predict who it will be. If we say there is not much parity (and sometimes the NFL is more of a parody :P,) it shouldn't be overly hard to pick out these new teams. But predicting the NFL playoff teams is SO difficult to do. There is always turnover, will be next year, we'll see who makes it.

[keylime_5]

the difference between the best team and the worst team isn't as great as it is in some sports, and the difference between the middle teams is even less. One or two plays could mean the difference between 7-9 or 9-7. With free agency and injuries and players having up and down seasons, it's too hard to have the same results every season. Salary cap and revenue sharing rocks.

[RaiderNation]

Does this mean the Raiders are going to make the playoffs next year?

[RealityCheck]

Originally Posted by timewaster

Out of those 5 Ciny is the only real shocker.

No?

No. Cincy is one of the best teams in the AFC. There are no shockers.

[BlindSite]

I think a big part of it is injuries, maturation of certain players and the unexpected decline of others, not to mention regime changes and the small signings we don't see in the headlines.

Every year it's expected WC teams who were on the cusp don't make it, or a team with high roster turn over or a team with a lot of injuries will drop out of the race and there's a 3 team turnover in the playoffs right there, add in a team with a new HC and a bunch of rookies who explode and you've got 5.

imo, There's only 2 or 3 teams who you can guarantee will be in the mix and only 2 or 3 you can guarantee won't be.

[kalbears13]

Salary Cap. Free Agency. Quickly Declining Careers. Injuries. A Short 16 Game Season.

Think if the MLB's or NBA's playoffs were determined by just 16 games. It would be just like the NFL is now.

[E-Man]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I think theres multiple reasons. Injuries, scheduling, personnel changes in the offseason, luck, you name it.

The difference between an average team and a good one is not very large. So theres room for a lot of fluctuation.

I expected a lot of teams from last year to do bad this year. Obviously, I didn't expect it from my Giants, but I can't say I'm entirely shocked either. I was pimping the Bengals all offseason, I thought the Titans and Panthers would fall off.

To be fair, I also thought the Giants would be good, and the Jaguars would win the AFC South, so I had my misses as well.

But it happens every year. The Bengals will probably have a bad season next year, etc. The cycle will continue on its trend.

I really agree on the injury part. Things happen that you have no control over, and some teams have been hit with it worse than others. You're also correct when you say that the difference between an average team and a good one is small. The talent level is very high in the NFL right now. There are only a handful of teams that are truly terrible, and even they have come up with some big upsets.

I think another thing is momentum. We talk about it a lot in regards to a single game, but I think it's big throughout the season as well. A team can get hot or cold, and before you know it they're looking at clinching a playoff spot or mathematically eliminated.

[diesel]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

No. Cincy is one of the best teams in the AFC. There are no shockers.

You really thought this at the beginning of the season? I doubt it.

[MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)]

I think it's mostly scheduling, and then a freak injury or two to account for the rest of the new teams. The top teams are pretty much always in, like San Diego, Indy, New England(unless they have the aforementioned injury). The top isn't as visible in the NFC though. Anyway, so for WC teams, those guys are usually 9-10 win teams, and very often someone gets screwed on tiebreakers. That's just how it is with a 16 game season, there's little time to pull away. So the scheduling can play a big part in that.

A team can go from playing an easy division, say the NFC West and the AFC West(who, at 1.5 good teams each, have the lowest amount by my count), to playing the tougher NFL divisions like the NFC East and AFC North(both with 3 good teams). That can already take us from 4 should-win games(Oakland, KC, STL, Seattle) and two toss-ups(Denver, SF), to only two should-win games(Was, Cle). Even if a team loses both of those toss ups in scenario 1, they should still win all 4 of their should-wins if they're competing for a WC spot. That puts them in a pretty good position. If they only have 2 should-wins, that forces them to pull their other two wins from a much tougher lineup of Dallas, Giants, Eagles, Bengals, Steelers, Ravens.

The other part of scheduling, which pits the top seeds in one division with the other top seeds, seconds with seconds, etc. doesn't play as much of a role, because often times the first two, even three seeds in the division can change every year dramatically(and not just by the couple of games on the schedule difference). If you take this season, Denver got stuck playing Indy because both were 2nd place, and Chargers got Tennessee, which is an easier opponent(no offense to my Tennessee homies), despite finishing atop the Colts last season.

[brat316]

This is what makes the NFL so great, one team can't dominate for long stretches.
Its also 5/12 so teams are always rising and falling.

[scottyboy]

teams like cincy go out and acquire a Rutgers player obviously.

but like BBD said: schedule, injuries, and some teams just go into funks and get out of rythym. Also, coaching changes/ coordinators changing, ala Spags leaving the Giants and Sheridan sucking. Just an example.

[Bengals78]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

teams like cincy go out and acquire a Rutgers player obviously.

.

I think it is obvious Brian Leonard is the key to our success but the true hero is another former Scarlet Knight.