Looking back at the 2011 NFL season

Two weeks ago we had Steve Fezzik on my radio show. I asked him about the glut of field goals in last year's season. He said where wasn't just a glut of field goals, but touchdowns too. So, I finally got around to adding the 2011 data to my NFL spreadsheet. Here are the average number of points per game going back to 2000.

Season	Average
2000	41.09
2001	40.54
2002	43.72
2003	41.79
2004	43.15
2005	41.15
2006	41.51
2007	43.39
2008	43.98
2009	43.16
2010	44.28
2011	44.49

While there are some ups and downs, there is clearly increased scoring in the NFL from year to year, with an average increase of 1/3 of a point per year.

Next, the three most important words in betting the NFL are "bet on underdogs." Here is the probability of underdogs winnings against the spread since 2000. This does not count games where the score landed exactly on the spread.

Season	Prob Dog Beats Spread
2000	53.16%
2001	51.84%
2002	54.58%
2003	50.00%
2004	53.08%
2005	41.83%
2006	57.66%
2007	48.44%
2008	51.34%
2009	50.95%
2010	51.73%
2011	52.55%
Total	51.44%

I won't bother putting a graph, but the percentage pretty much has stayed around 51.44%, with expected ups and down through the years. You need to get to 52.38% to beat a 20-cent line. So, I'm not saying to go out and flat bet underdogs, but if you bet football anyway, bet on dogs.

Finally, for you money line bettors out there, I just updated my chart on probability of winning outright by point spread, found in my page on betting the NFL, but here is another copy.

I do not find this to be surprising at all. In sports of every description, the owners or ruling bodies equate increased scoring with
increased asses in the seats.
That is partially why hockey and soccer do not do well in the USA. I mean the score was 0-0 when the game started, why the hell should I pay money if the final score might be 0-0?
I am old enough to remember not only was a bunt automatic with a man on first and no outs, but a fouled bunt after 2 strikes was not an out.

MLB had no problem with Steroids as long as Home Run records were being broken.

I remember the 4 corner offense in college basketball, the occasional quick kick on 3rd down in football. People raised hell at the first BIG tennis racket , in a metal frame no less. I think it was called the " Prince "

Always wonder how Jerry Rice and the West Coast offense would have done against the Bump & Run Defense. Now you can not touch a receiver after he is 5 yards down field, block his vision, or call his mama names without a flag being thrown.

3 rail billiard tables are gone as are 5 by 9 pocket tables for the great part. On a 4 by 8 you could play safe , but almost never on a 3 1/2 by 7. Looking forward to playing snooker on a 6 by 12 in Vegas. Hooray for the BRITS.

Logging off now before I start feeling as old as I am. LOL

I bet dogs at the dog track years ago and lost. SIGH

Quote: buzzpaff

I do not find this to be surprising at all. In sports of every description, the owners or ruling bodies equate increased scoring with
increased asses in the seats.

I'm not sure I see conspiracy here. In the case of the NFL, I think it is because the league is coming down on aggressive defensive tactics. This may actually depress interest, as I suspect many fans secretly (or overtly) like a hard hitting game, and injuries on the field only add to the gladiator effect.

With regard to baseball, one could easily argue that steroids led to increased runs, but I don't think MLB itself ever turned a blind eye to it.

The Wiz is exactly right, Brady Rule, no head-leading, defenseless-receiver rule...

I never said it was a conspiracy. Just a fact of life. The defenseeless-reciever rule is to increase scoring. Was was holding in past years is now legal.

I have serious doubts about the man behind the curtain, if he think baseball owners and executives did not notice the players were using steroids. REALLY !!!!!

Quote: Wizard

I'm not sure I see conspiracy here. In the case of the NFL, I think it is because the league is coming down on aggressive defensive tactics. This may actually depress interest, as I suspect many fans secretly (or overtly) like a hard hitting game, and injuries on the field only add to the gladiator effect.

With regard to baseball, one could easily argue that steroids led to increased runs, but I don't think MLB itself ever turned a blind eye to it.

Fans like 45-42 scores, not 13 to 10. I am prejudiced because I have seen the rules changes since the Greatest Game ever played.

You know in early 50's you had to hold a player down for a few seconds for play to stop. And the stripes where a ball is placed out of bounds were much closer to the sidelines. But outlawing bump and run really pissed me off. Anytime defense gets ahead of offense, rules will be changed. In all sports.

I remember when you did or did not get to the world series. Not playoffs.

Playoffs exists to selll tickets.

While I am at it, NFL fans are chumps. Pay full price for exhibition games, then playoffs and finally YOUR* team is in the Super Bowl.
Off course it's not in either teams home town and you can not afford a ticket . CHUMP

* It's our team. HOORAY. Unless you will not be blackmailed into paying for a new stadium. Or Mr. Irsay does not think people are worshipping him properly. And rest in peace Art Modell.

STEROIDS AND BASEBALL

Over most of the course of Major League Baseball history, steroid testing was never a major issue. In 1991, Commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to all teams stating that steroid use was against the rules. However, after the BALCO steroid scandal, which involved allegations that top baseball players had used illegal performance-enhancing drugs, Major League Baseball finally decided to issue penalties to steroid users. The current policy, which was accepted by Major League Baseball players and owners, was issued at the start of the 2005 season.

The NFL began to test players for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs during the 1987 season.

Still stand by that blind eye statement ?


U.S. Senate Tells Selig, Fehr to Negotiate Testing
June 18, 2002

Quote: buzzpaff

I have serious doubts about the man behind the curtain, if he think baseball owners and executives did not notice the players were using steroids. REALLY !!!!!

I don't like to talk about subject that I don't know much about. However, all I said was that I doubt that MLB was turning a blind eye to it. With steroids, the athletes who use them are often one step ahead of those giving the test. It is one thing to know someone is guilty of something, and another to prove it.

Quote: buzzpaff

I am old enough to remember not only was a bunt automatic with a man on first and no outs, but a fouled bunt after 2 strikes was not an out.

Buzz, you're an amazing person and I hope to meet you in person some day. Seriously, the breadth of your life experiences are pretty awesome.

However, I doubt that you are pushing 110 years old. The foul bunt with 2 strikes has been an out since 1901 or 1903 depending on the league.