Tonight, the new NFL season kicks off with a contest between,
arguably, the two best teams from last year–the New England
Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts. A compelling contest it will
likely be–based on last season, that is. Yet, it seems as years go
by in the NFL, last season doesn’t hold as much precedent as it
once did.
Look at how some recent Super Bowl competitors fared in the year
following their appearance in the big dance. In 2001 the Ravens
defeated the Giants; in 2002 Patriots over the Rams; and in 2003,
the Buccaneers beat the Raiders. The only team of these six to even
make the playoffs the next season was the 2002 Ravens.
Some may say “it’s parity,” that’s just the way it pans
out–which is the beauty of the NFL and why it’s light-years ahead
of all other sports. Not true. The disparity is most clearly
visible in scheduling.
The NFL schedule is composed in a highly methodical manner. When
a team wins their division one season, they play what is called a
“first-place schedule” and are subject to facing up to seven teams
who had made the playoffs the year before. That makes nearly half
of one’s games.
It works similarly on the opposite end of the spectrum. The
Kansas City Chiefs finished last place in 2002, and thus, played a
“last place schedule” in 2003, and managed a 13-3 record. They were
a good team last season and obliged by beating up on a number of
other last place squads. They still are a good team; but how will
they fare in 2004 playing a swath of much stronger opponents than
they saw in 2003?
All defending league champions face the same difficulty–which
is why teams who finished first one season struggle to overcome
mediocrity the next. The Patriots were not bad in 2002 at 9-7, a
season removed from taking home their first ring; but they still
didn’t make the playoffs.
Compare this to Major League Baseball. The Cubs, for example,
won the National League Central last season. This year they play 22
games against teams who were in the playoffs last season. This is
actually fewer than the Cardinals, a non-playoff team in 2003, who
plays 36 games against playoff teams. This amounts only 22 percent
of their games, compared to the 44 percent a NFL team may be
subject to.
Would the Cards still be sitting as pretty had they played
nearly half of their games against the Cubs, the Braves, the
Yankees or the A’s? What are the odds of any team in any
professional sport having success playing a schedule with such
difficulty? It is, clearly, not a fair system. Giving the teams who
did poorly an easy path, and giving the teams who did well the most
difficult path is far from parity.
And, all of the above highly complicates preseason predictions
that were once so easily solved by forecasting, “The Buffalo Bills
will make the Super Bowl!” Nowadays, prognosticators tend to play
it safe. Unlike the NFL, most of the credible sources–Sports
Illustrated, ESPNs and the lot–grant deserved respect to the
successors of last season and select them to do well again. It’s
the safe, “smart” thing to do. After all, what conventional wisdom
said the 7-9 Panthers could charge their way to the Super Bowl a
mere 12 months later?
Taking my dour attitude is realistic, but no fun. And I, having
little guts, cannot stray but a little from the “smart” way of
doing things. So, here are my picks for 2004.
AFC East: Patriots; AFC South: Colts; AFC North: Ravens; AFC
West: Broncos; AFC Wild Cards: Jets and Chiefs
NFC East: Cowboys; NFC North: Vikings; NFC South: Saints; NFC
West: Seahawks; NFC Wild Cards: Eagles and Buccaneers
Super Bowl: Colts over Vikings
Of these predictions, the only guarantee is that one or more
will be an utter flop. Maybe even three of the teams I have
earmarked for success will not even finish with a .500 record. But,
as Bill Parcels said: “That’s why they play the games.” Their
schedules may be inequitable–but teams are obliged to do as the
Big Tuna says and play them.
