Ranking the Super Bowl Teams

ESPN's Page 2 ranks all 80 Super Bowl teams. They are not ranked against each other - it's unfair to compare 250lb linemen of 30 years ago to the 310lb linemen of today and pronounce who'd beat who. Instead, they're ranked relative to the rest of the league in the year they played. So a 15-1 Super Bowl team will rank ahead of a 9-7 Super Bowl team (and, indeed, the lone 9-7 team is ranked last). Some losers rank ahead of some winners; consider the 1978 Cowboys vs. the 2005 Steelers - which was the better team relative to the competition?

The methodology, such as it is, is explained here. I hope that overall record is favored over record against .500 or better teams - the descriptions make it seem like record against .500 opponents is more impressive than overall record, whereas I say that it reflects better on a team if all of its losses are against winning teams.

I also think that the team's record previous to the Super Bowl year and after the Super Bowl year should count heavily.

It is hard to disagree with the final rankings. The 89 49ers over the 85 Bears? Well, yes - if you consider that the Bears were exposed in that Miami game more than the 49ers were in their two losses.

You have to give the two worst teams, the 79 Rams and 03 Panthers credit, however. They actually showed up for their Super Bowls against dynastic teams, unlike others that suffered blow-out losses. And at least they got there, unlike scores of more talented teams who didn't.

Three of the most dominant teams I've seen, the '84 49ers, the '85 Bears, and '86 Giants, followed each other and neither could go back-to-back. Oftentimes, greatness is a onetime thing. The '91 Redskins were also like that; I recall one Monday Night when qb Mark Rypien had an absolutely horrible game and still beat a very talented Eagles team 23-0.

The '83 Redskins had the best offense I've ever seen (of course, I was a kid and impressionable) - until they were held to 9 in the Super Bowl. The Packers' 48-47 victory over them that year may have been the greatest offensive game ever played. Mark Mosely's late field goal misses prevented that 14-2 Redskin team from being undefeated in the regular season.

Defense is harder to judge, but the '85 Bears were definitely the scariest.

How would this year's Super Bowl participants rank? Part of it depends on the result of the game, but my guess is that the winner will be in the lower echelon of winners - though far from the lowest - and the loser fair pretty resepctably. The Colts will be punished for their #3 seed and one of the worst rushing defenses, whereas the Bears will be docked for their average offense, there slip in defense, and inconsistent quarterback. Though they should get credit for securing the #1 seed early. And Rex Grossman is far more dangerous than most of the other heavily criticized quarterbacks who made the big game.

The notable thing about both the Colts and the Bears is that they piled up victories early, when they were strong and healthy. So when they faced adversity, they could still weather the storm and bounce back in the play-offs.

Interesting Choice

According to Cowherd, 31 year-old USC assistant coach Lane Kiffin was turned down as head coach of the University of Minnesota Gophers. But Kiffin's good enough, or Al Davis is desperate enough, for the Raiders to hire him as head coach. Nothing against Kiffin; his father Monte has been a great defensive assistant for decades at both the college and pro levels. But this looks like a bottom-of-the-barrell move. How often do college assistants get offered NFL head coaching jobs? How many 31 year-old assistants? How many second choices from the very same school?

It is clear that practically nobody wants to work for Al Davis. Young coaches must know already or are recommended by mentors to avoid him. With the Raiders, the coach is set up to fail - Raider coaches don't even have control over their own coaching staffs. And I'm sure that Kiffin is well aware of this. But another way to look at it is, it's the opportunity of a lifetime.

I hope Kiffin does well. If the Raiders merely improve next year, and again the year after, he'll gain respect around football. If he doesn't make the play-offs, Davis will probably fire him, but nobody will hold that against Kiffin. He'll get another opportunity.

Parcells and the Cowboys

The best Bill Parcells anecdote was from Phil Simms. Parcells was notoriously hard on players, but one time before a big game, Parcells took Simms aside and said, "Phil, if you don't throw two interceptions today, you're not trying hard enough." That really loosened Simms up, and he went on to have a great game. We can't let fear of mistakes control us. I don't think, however, the Parcells always gave that impression.

As far as the Cowboys vacancy goes with Parcells retiring, I think the biggest obstacle to getting a good coach is owner Jerry Jones. He is too heavily involved in the management of the team, and will acquire players the coach doesn't even want. In that sense, it might be one of the most frustrating jobs in the NFL. Not as bad as the Raiders and working for Al Davis, of course. And there are some other owners who are too hands-off like the Fords in Detroit, who are allowing a once-competitive Lions franchise to have one of the worst decades any pro sports franchise has ever had under GM Matt Millen.

If the president of a company came up through the ranks in the marketing division, he's in no position to micro-manage the engineers; compared to the experts, he has no idea what he's talking about. Similarly, an owner who hadn't been a player, coach, and/or scout himself really has no business making personnel decisions.

It's a shame, because head coach of the Dallas Cowboys should be the #1 job in football.

On the upside, the Cowboys can start fresh. For too long they've been plugging holes with players and coaches who made names for themselves elsewhere, such as Parcells, Testeverde, Bledsoe, and Owens. With young Tony Romo at quarterback, perhaps the Cowboys can develop a new face with players and coaches who make names for themselves as Cowboys.

Super Bowl Pick

The Bears were outstanding today on defense, but I believe the Colts are much better than the Saints. The Colts also proved that they could battle through adversity and against two of the league's top defenses. And besides, they're the AFC team.

If Rex Grossman plays well, I think it will be a great game, but I still pick the Colts.

By the way, that was one great AFC Championship Game. It's games like that that make people tune into the NFL.

College Assistant Job Better Than Raiders Head Coach

I've heard it said that there isn't man alive who would turn down a head job.

But 32 year-old Steve Sarkisian would rather work as an assistant coach under Pete Carroll at USC than be the head coach for the NFL's Oakland Raiders under general partner/manager Al Davis.

This must be the diplomatic lie of the year:

"I thank them for their interest in me," Sarkisian said in a statement released by the university. "While the job was never offered to me, at this time in my career, I've told them I want to stay at USC. I strongly believe that the Raiders' job is a great opportunity for whomever their next head coach is going to be."

Evidently not. It is apparent nobody wants to work with Al Davis anymore. His track record the past four years is disastrous. It's too bad he can't be fired.

Brady or Manning?

The two championship games this weekend will feature perhaps the three best quarterbacks in the league - Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Peyton Manning. Brees needs some more All-Pro or Super Bowl years to be mentioned in the same breath as the other two, however.

Colin Cowherd was asked today if, knowing what he knows now, if he had a generic NFL team would he draft Brady or Manning? Cowherd would go with Brady, although he and Mel Kiper agreed that if Manning wins just one Super Bowl, he'd vault ahead of Brady.

Callers argued for one or the other, usually by denigrating the other. I think each quarterback has been blessed/lucky, although their own ability also made their teammates lucky to have played with them.

Peyton Manning has had the following advantages:
a) Offensive continuity - The line-up changes little year by year, and offensive coordinator Tom Moore's been there throughout his career.
b) Exceptionally talented players around him, particularly Marvin Harrison but also Edgerrin James for several years, Reggie Wayne, etc.
c) good head coaches and organization that gets the team into the play-offs.

Chief disadvantage: Shaky defenses that get exposed, particularly vulnerable to run in the play-offs, preventing play-off success. Coaches perceived as doing a poor job in big games. Manning perceived as too predictable and pressing in the play-offs.

Tom Brady has had these advantages:
a) Best game-planning and game-day head coach in Bill Belichek
b) Good defenses that keeps the Patriots alive in tough games, and good special teams that win games.
c) Excellent team ownership and management

Chief disadvantage: a revolving-door offense that prevents stability and rhythm; perception of being a "system" guy who wouldn't succeed nearly as well under other coaches.

So who would you take? It's interesting, because if the question is who I'd take for a whole season it would be Manning, but for one game it would be Brady. I believe Manning is physically capable of making more big and small plays to win more games over the long haul, but Brady has been calmer and played better in big-game situations. When choosing between two basketball players, you'd be inclined to choose the bigger one, even if you'd rather give the ball to the smaller one for the last shot.

And in any case, first things first. You have to get to the play-offs, and then anything can happen. Therefore, I'd take the guy more likely to lead and average, generic team to the play-offs, and that would be Manning.

We might get a better idea five or eight years from now, if both Manning and Brady have to deal with new coaches, new teammates, new schemes, and new management. While Brady deserves a lot of credit, his having won three Super Bowls to Manning's none doesn't prove he's better, that he's the guy to draft. Dan Marino didn't win any Super Bowls, and most consider him a greater quarterback than Troy Aikman.

Cheering for the Overdogs

Call me crazy, but I'm not usually a fan of the "underdog," particularly in the NFL. (Sure, upsets when the underdog was misjudged are kinda cool, but not when the infereior team is merely lucky or the favorite just plays poorly.) I prefer teams building to greatness as opposed to "instant" greatness. I don't like to see a losing team from last year make it to the Super Bowl.

I don't like to see teams improve their win total by more than five games in a season. New Orleans may be a slight exception. Circumstances, not talent, led to their 3-13 season last year. New coach, acquiring a Pro Bowl quarterback, drafting the Heisman Trophy winner, and a determination to rebuild a city's morale have created a honeymoon for them, and they improved by seven games in the regular season. Still, I'm uncomfortable with going from 3-13 to the Super Bowl. It indicates that the NFL has too little depth. A couple injuries to starters can knock out a team; staying healthy or particularly strong performances from just one or two players can make a loser into a winner.

This isn't to say I want all good teams to stay good and bad teams to stay bad. I love comebacks and cinderella stories - but only to a point. I don't want to see "flash in the pan" Super Bowl teams but rather perennial play-off teams making it to a Super Bowl. I want to see teams go through at least one or two seasons of play-off heartbreak before winning the big game.

More than cheering for the underdog, I like to see greatness be great. I feel under-achievement is more tragic than over-achievement is exhilerating.

All of this to say, I want the Bears to make it to the Super Bowl, and the Patriots, with the Patriots winning. This affirms their greatness. And if not the Patriots, I want the Colts to get there and win it to affirm the greatness of Manning, Harrison, Dungy, etc. If the Bears get back next year, I'd probably want them to win. But I don't think they're good enough yet.

Lay Off Schottenheimer - And Predictions

The San Diego coaching staff had their team well-prepared and, up by 8 late, in a position to win the game. Different game decisions that may have been mistakes in hindsight were not fatal, mistakes by players on the field - dropped passes, turnovers, penalties - cost the Chargers. My only quibble was not trying to get one quick ten-yard sideline play with 8 seconds left to get his kicker a better chance.

Schottenheimer is 5-13 in the play-offs. Most of the time, but not always, he's lost to superior teams. In any case, the loss yesterday was not his fault, and therefore, he should not be fired.

I thought we saw four very good games this weekend featuring the eight best teams in the league. I was 2-2 in my predictions; perhaps I should have given the Saints more credit, but I thought Philly's character and coaching would carry them through - as it almost did Seattle in their narrow loss to Chicago.

Even though I was 2-2 with it, I'll try making predictions again using Aikman's ratings.

Indianapolis-New England:

Indy Off v. NE Def: 93.58-85.9 Edge: Indy (7.68 points)
Indy Def v. NE Off: 66.4-82.4 Edge: NE (16 points)
Home Edge: Colts
Play-off Coaching Edge: Pats
QB Edge: Pats
Pick: Pats - although Colts' defense will play much better than the ratings say.

Chicago-NewOrleans
Chi Off v. NO Def: 74.2-72.2 Edge: Bears
Chi Def v. NO Offf: 86.5-83.8 Edge: Bears
Home Edge: Bears
Play-off Coaching Edge: Saints
QB Edge: Saints
Pick: Saints - because Bears' ratings edges are slight, and inflated by early blow-outs and not reflective of current situation. Brees, McAllister the difference.

Last notes: quit whining, L.T. And please, Chevy Trucks, bring back "Like A Rock" if you have to, but Mellencamp's "This Is My Country" might be the lamest, boring, songwriting-by-numbers song ever written. Drop it.

Predictions by (Aikman's) Numbers

I weigh the play-off games based on the team's Aikman Efficiency Ratings and my own subjective assessments of the coaches and quarterbacks. Based on these, and the home field, I am making my predictions for the Divisional Play-offs. I include Home Edge because it has been significant in these games in the past. For coaching and quarterbacks, I put favored those with more experience and/or greater play-off success (though I give Manning the edge over McNair, because of Manning's perennial All-Pro status.)

Baltimore-Indianapolis

Bal Def v. Ind Offense: 93.6-93.58 (tie)
Bal Off v. Ind Defense: 73.9 -66.4 Edge: Bal
Home Edge: Bal
Play-off Coaching Edge: Bal
QB Edge: Ind
My Pick: Bal

San Diego - New England
SD Off v. NE Def: 93.57-85.9 Edge: SD 7.67
SD Def v. NE Off: 74.4 - 82.4 Edge: NE 8
Home Edge: SD
Play-off Coaching Edge: Patriots
QB Edge: Patriots
Pick: Patriots

New Orleans-Philadelphia
NO Off v Phil Def 83.8 -75.4 Edge: Saints (8.4)
NO Def v Phil Off 72.2 -83.3 Edge: Eagles (11.1)
Home Edge: NO
Play-off Coaching Edge: Phil
QB Edge: Phil (slight)
Pick: Eagles

Chicago-Seattle
Chi Off v Sea Def 74.2-72.3 Edge: Bears 1.9
Chi Def v Sea Off 86.5-74.5 Edge: Bears 12.0
Home Edge: Bears
Play-off Coaching Edge: Seattle
QB Edge: Seattle (significant)
Pick: Bears

Deep Down, We All Suspected This

According to America's finest news source, Bill Parcells has "always hated football."

Hall of Fame

Major League Baseball and Pro Football select Hall of Fame inductees very differently. Baseball has some 545 selectors, football has 40. The latter has the bad taste of publicizing 17 finalists for 4-7 spots in the Hall of Fame; a player must get 80% of the votes. These players will then be tortured for the following month before the inductees are announced on Super Bowl weekend.

Looking at the list, I'm fairly convinced that at least nine deserve to get in and will get in either this year or eventually:

1. Ray Guy - because he's acknowledged as best punter ever. If he doesn't get in, no punter ever will.
2. Michael Irvin
3. Bruce Matthews
4. Art Monk
5. Paul Tagliabue
6. Derrick Thomas
7. Thurman Thomas
8. Roger Wehrli
9. Gary Zimmerman

BCS Championship Observations

Two years ago, Urban Meyer went undefeated as coach of Utah, and they weren't even in the national championship debate, let alone the game. Now, his Florida team got to play for the national championship despite a loss, and absolutely throttled Ohio State.

Congratulations, Urban. That was a good career move. Some coaching moves I don't get, like when coaches of good college teams jump to the NFL, but this won I understood.

* * *

Why did Ohio State's marching band play the theme from Titanic in the halftime show?

* * *

I didn't make any predictions, but I wasn't surprised by the Florida victory - the score, maybe, but not the victory. Ohio State didn't seem to me to be jaw-dropping awesome like some college teams of the past, and if you're not jaw-dropping awesome, you're beatable.

Aside from Texas and Michigan, they're schedule wasn't much. They put up 17 on Illinois, demonstrating that it is possible to stop them, and allowed 39 to Michigan, indicating it is possible for a highly-ranked team to score on them. It seems that every year in both the NCAA and NFL a very strong defense will give up thirty or more points a couple of times.

And I usually expect southern schools to do well against northern schools in warm-weather bowl games. Southern schools - from California to Florida - seem to have faster and quicker athletes and don't have to adjust to the climate.

But in any case, Florida was better prepared for the game in every way. Who knows how much better Ohio State would have played if the game was held a month ago. Fifty days is a long time between football games. I suspect the late date of this BCS championship game will be re-examined, as will the early date of the Ohio State - Michigan game.

Aikman and the Top 8

The final Aikman's Efficiency Ratings were released this past week. I like the philosophy and methodology behind them (described in the link). They better measure the overall effectiveness of offenses and defenses.

But do they matter? Evidence from this year suggests yes. In the combined ratings (offense + defense) list, seven of the top nine teams won their division - and all the division winners are still in the play-offs, all the wildcards being eliminated. Jacksonville at 8-8 ranked fourth, suggesting Jacksonville does have the players (they were 12-4 last year), and Dallas edged out New Orleans to rank eighth. The Jets were the only ten-win team not in the Top Ten (#18) and injury-plagued Seattle at #20 was the only division champ not in the top ten. Of the other play-off teams, Kansaas City was #14 and the Giants #19.

It may sound surprising for play-off teams to be ranked that low, but we must remember that 20 teams finished 8-8 or better, and Seattle was only 9-7. Also, astonishing performances, like 6-10's Minnesota's run defense, could give them several more points than one would otherwise expect, and in any case only ten points separates the #20 team from the #9 team. It should also be noted that the four teams with the worst records had the four bottom slots.

So the Aikman Efficiency Rankings don't tell the whole story, but they tell a lot of the story.

Super Bowl Coaches and Their Quarterbacks

I thought it would be interesting to look at Super Bowl coaches and their starting quarterbacks. Beside each coach's name is the number of times they appeared in the game, and their quarterbacks. Beside each quarterback's name is their status (J,F/J, F explained below), the number of Super Bowls they appeared in with that coach, and (where applicable) the total number of Super Bowls they played. They jury's out, of course, on the status of some of the quarterbacks currently playing.


Bold indicates Hall of Famers
* indicates previous championships in pre-Super Bowl Era
**indicates still active as head coach or starting quarterback
J = Journeyman; quarterback had just a couple above-average years, if any; rarely seen as a strength of the team, often benched or a back-up. Or, NFL career very brief.
F/J = Generally seen as above-average when starting, maybe a sensational year or two, but also prone to benching and trades
F= Franchise quarterback - unquestioned starter for several years - though it should be noted that some are much better than others.

Vince Lombardi 2 Starr (F)(2)
Hank Stram2 Dawson (F)(2)
John Rauch 1 Lamonica (J/F)(1)
Weeb Ewbank 1* Namath (F)(1)
Don Shula 5 Morrall (F/J) Griese (F) (3) Woodley (J) (1) Marino (F) (1)
Bud Grant 4 Kapp (J) (1) Tarkenton (F)(3)
Don McCafferty 1 Unitas (F)(1*)
Tom Landry 5 Morton (J/F)(1 -2 total)) Staubach (F) (4)
George Allen 1 Kilmer (J/F)(1)
Chuck Noll 4 Bradshaw (F) (4)
John Madden 1 Stabler (F)(1)
Red Miller 1 Morton (J/F)(1 - 2 total)
Tom Flores 2 Plunkett (F/J)(2)
Dick Vermeil 2 Jaworski (F/J)(1) Warner (F/J)(1 -2 total)
Bill Walsh 3 Montana (F)(3 - 4 total)
Forrest Gregg 1 Anderson (F)(1)
Joe Gibbs 4 Theismann (F)(2) Williams(J) (1) Rypien(J) (1)
Mike Ditka 1 McMahon (F/J)(1)
Raymond Barry 1 Eason (J)(1)
Bill Parcells 3** Simms (F) (1) Hostetler(J) (1) Bledsoe (F) (1)
Dan Reeves 4 Elway (F)(3 - 5 total) Chandler (F/J)(1)
Sam Wyche 1 Esiason (F)(1)
George Seifert 2 Montana (F) (1 - 4 total) Young (F) (1)
Marv Levy 4 Kelly (F)(4)
Jimmy Johnson 2 Aikman (F)(2 - 3 Total)
Bobby Ross 1 Humphries (J)(1)
Barry Switzer 1 Aikman (F)(1 - 3 Total)
Bill Cowher 2 O’Donnell (J)(1), Rothleisberger (F) (1**)
Mike Holmgren 3** Favre (F)(2**) Hasselbeck (F)(1**)
Mike Shanahan 2** Elway (F)(2 - 5 total)
Jeff Fisher 1** McNair (F)(1**)
Brian Billick 1** Dilfer (J)
Jim Fassel 1 Collins (J)
Bill Bilichek 3** Brady (F)(3**)
Mike Martz 1 Warner (J/F) (1 - 2 total)
Bill Callahan 1 Gannon (J/F) 1
Jon Gruden 1** Johnson (J/F)(1)
John Fox 1** Delhomme (J/F)(1**)
Andy Reid 1** Donavan McNabb (F) (1**)

It was just interesting to see how the success of some Hall of Fame coaches and quarterbacks are closely tied together.

Of the Hall of Fame coaches, only George Allen didn't go to at least one Super Bowl with a clear "franchise" quarterback, because Billy Kilmer competed with the Sonny Jurgenson for the starting job. Indeed, all of them coached at least one Hall of Fame quarterback in the Super Bowl except Madden and Gibbs.

Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks are usually pretty good, but they don't have to be great. Yet it should be noted that every quarterback who's gone to the Super Bowl at least three times, win or lose, was not only a franchise quarterback but was (or clearly will be) a Hall of Famer.

I'm thinking that 3 conference titles is more or less of a guarantee for getting into the Hall of Fame - regardless of how many Super Bowls are won. After all, before the Super Bowl era the NFL had less than half of the teams they have now. And you can't name a three-time champion coach or quarterback from those days who isn't in the Hall of Fame. So you can expect Dan Reeves, 0-4 in Super Bowls, to get into the Hall of Fame before Tom Flores, who's 2-0. And it is highly probable among Hall of Fame coaches that they got to work with Hall of Fame quarterbacks for at least part of their career, and vice-versa.

Is He Worth It?

ESPN's Colin Cowherd is critical of Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, saying things like "Yes, he's won 76% of his games, but he should be winning 86%." Maybe he's right. If one's name is never mentioned as a possible candidate for an NFL job, never in the rumor mill for another, higher-paying college job, and never thought of as a coach fans of other schools would like to have, then one is probably not a great coach.

But even if Michigan fans want a better coach, can they risk getting someone worse? Under Carr, Michigan has five Big Ten Championships (including two co-championships), five BCS Bowl bids, six ten-win seasons, and their first national championship in fifty years.

The only way to get someone better is to get a "name" coach with a proven record. This means overpaying him, abandoning the sense of continuity of the program, and diminishing its classy reputation somewhat. Otherwise one is rolling the dice and may get someone worse than Carr. If the program starts getting 7-5, 6-6 records and falls to the middle of the Big Ten pack, I could see letting him go. But right now, Michigan can't afford it.

Here's something to think about. In 1995, the Michigan job fell into Carr's lap after Gary Moeller was fired in the spring. the same year Nick Saban took the job at Michigan St. The young Saban had NFL credentials; Carr was a Michigan lifer. In the five years they recruited against each other in the Big Ten, Saban went 34-28-1; 23-19-1 in the Big Ten. Carr went 49-13; 31-6 in the Big Ten.

Saban is considered a genius because he finally got things going at MSU in his fifth year, going 9-2, same as Carr. But then Saban quit MSU and the program quickly slid back into its proper place.

Yes, Saban faired better at LSU, inheriting Gerry DiNardo's highly-regarded recruits, bringing the program back to prominence and going 48-16 in five years with a national championship. But then he had a disappointing two-year run with the Miami Dolphins.

Is Saban really such a great genius, someone who can really turn around a program quickly? Alabama is betting $36 million (over eight years) that he can. One wonders if anybody is worth that in college football. It's like when A-Rod's originally signed for $25 million a year: yes, he's a great player (and yes, Saban's a good coach), but come on! What are they thinking?

But as Cowherd says, in four years, when NFL head coaching salaries are up to $8 million, Saban will be gone.

Why People Watch Sports

I didn't see the whole game, but the never-ending ending of the Boise State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl was among the most exciting minutes ever - in both the history of football and the history of telelvision.

People "watch" a lot of television, though perhaps it is more accurate to say they have the television on while doing something else - much like they have the radio on while driving. And the reason so many have a game on is that, when they hear things are getting interesting, they can pause, set down what they're doing, and pay close attention to the game. What transpires on the field of play is usually more dramatic and exciting than what any fictional series, movie, or "reality show" can ever hope to provide.

Congratulations to the Broncos for their 43-42 victory. My guess is that they've definitely sewn up #3 in the final rankings - and if Ohio State blows out Florida, probably a solid #2.

In November, we thought that Rutgers was the college football story of the year. Turned out to be Boise State.

***

I've been impressed with much of what I've seen in the Bowl Games, though admittedly it's not been a lot. Texas Tech's comeback win against Minnesota was very significant. It proved beyond all doubt to Gopher fans and Minnesota's Administration that, while Glen Mason could take the program to a certain level (i.e., out of the bottom of the Big Ten), he isn't the man to take the program to the "next level" - which I would call Wisconsin's level. Getting to Michigan and Ohio State's level on a consistent basis is impossible.

And I wonder if even Wisconsin's level is possible. The Badgers are in Madison, away from the professional sports in Green Bay and Milwaukee. The University of Minnesota, however, is stuck in the Twin Cities, overshadowed by major league teams in the four major sports. Before the Vikings came in 1961, the University's football team actually won Big Ten titles and even national championships from time to time. Since then, it's been less succesful than programs like Purdue, Iowa, and Michigan State. They haven't stumbled onto Big Ten titles like Illinois does once in a while, or had a good run like Northwestern did.

Still, the vacancy might be attractive to an up-and-comer, or someone like Larry Coker to prove himself.

One more New Years Day thought. Is Nebraska back? Its defense certainly is; it played well against highly-ranked competition all year. But the offense, while able to score points against most Big 12 teams, struggled against Top 15-caliber teams. And now their quarterback Zac Taylor, who made Bill Callahan's West Coast Offense "work" most of the time (albeit against mediocre competition), is graduating.

The team needs some victories over highly-ranked opponents if they want respect.

Minnesota will never be Michigan or Ohio State.

Kicking Themselves

If my count is correct, there were 126 NFL games between teams that finished .500 or better and teams that finished below.500. Not surprisingly, .500+ teams won 96 of those contests and lost 30.

Several of the 8-8 and 9-7 teams were disappointments. I was curious if playing poorly against losing teams had an effect on their season. Just one, two, or three more wins could have made the difference between missing the play-offs and winning a division:

Pittsburgh: 8-8 overall, 3-2 against losing teams.
Bengals: 8-8 overall, 3-2 against losers.
Jacksonville: 8-8, 1-4 against teams with losing records. That means they were a respectable 7-4 against the better teams. Two losses to Houston especially hurt them.
Panthers: 8-8, 4-3 against losers.
Seahawks: 9-7, 3-4 against losing teams. This cost them a first-round bye.
Giants: 8-8; 5-0 against losing teams. Sure, they shouldn't have played so poorly in the second half, but at least they didn't under-achieve against weak teams.
Bronocs: 9-7, 4-0 against losing teams. Their season of regret at least didn't include losses to the likes of Oakland.

The Bears and Jets had the most games against losing teams. The Bears were 8-1 in them, the Jets 7-2.

Green Bay, which went 8-8, went 7-1 against the losers (losing only to 7-9 Buffalo via turnovers), and generally controlled the line of scrimmage against them. The Pack went just 1-7 against .500 or better clubs, and most of those games weren't even close. 8-8 sounds about right for them.

The Ravens (6-0) and Chargers (5-0) were, along with the aformentioned Giants and Broncos, the only teams undefeated against sub-.500 teams. (The Patriots were 6-1 and the Colts were 4-1.)

The best evidence of a great team is beating the teams they should beat, and usually winning against the better teams. No wonder the Chargers are the favorites.