The State of Competitve Balance in the NFL

Pete Rozelle once envisioned a league that would have every team finish 8-8.

We know that kind of level playing ground is a pipe dream. But how is competitive balance done in the NFL? How close have we come to that parity?

There are numerical ways that we can go about measuring this. Rozelle was concerned with wins and losses, so why don’t we concern ourselves with the same?

The first thing we have to ask ourselves is: What is parity, and how do we achieve it?

Rozelle said that ultimate parity comes when everyone finishes 8-8—meaning no separation between teams in the standings.

Statistics give us a perfect, easy-to-find measurement to gauge the separation in teams’ standings. We simply use the standard deviation (STDEV) between the teams’ win totals.

Standard deviation measures the average distance between a set of numbers. For 2009, the standard deviation between NFL teams was 3.22 wins.

When it comes to this figure, lower is better. The lower the difference between the teams, the more competitive the league.

Another measurement we can use is the separation between the best and worst teams.

This is easy. Take the team with the most wins, and the team with the fewest, and see how many wins separate them.

This year, the Colts led the pack with 14 wins, and the Rams brought up the rear with only one. This makes a range of 13 wins. Again, the lower the better. The smaller gap between the best and worst teams, the more competitive the league.

Finally, we can use the median of the data set to measure how well the middle-of-the-road teams did. The median is the number in the center of the data set. If the median is eight, for example, there will be the same number of teams with more than eight wins as there are with fewer than eight. A higher median means the middle of the league did better.

Now, how can we take these three numbers and produce something that will tell us how competitive the league was?

I am not a mathematician, but I made a simple formula to produce an index of the league’s competitive balance—a number I called the “Quality Index.” My formula was MEDIAN/(STDEV+DIFFERENCE). The higher the result, the more competitive the season was.

For example, Pete Rozelle’s perfect season would produce an infinite Quality Index, since every team going 8-8 would produce a difference and standard deviation of zero, meaning we would be dividing by zero.

If every team went 9-7 or 7-9, we would have a Quality Index of 2.649. On the flip side, if every team went either 15-1 or 1-15, the Quality Index would be .379.

When the 2009 totals were plugged in, it returned a value of .493.

Now, on its own, this number means nothing. So, in order to give it meaning, we have to compare it to past seasons. I excluded the 1987 and 1982 strike-shortened seasons, since the teams did not play 16 games those years.

I ran every season since the expansion to a 16-game schedule through the formula and compared them next to each other.

The results were not pretty for 2009.

Overall, the season finished on the wrong side of average in every category. The average deviation of wins since 1978 is 3.04, compared to 2009’s 3.22 (remember: lower is better). The average Quality Index over this time is .557 (this time, higher is better), and 2009 clocked in at .493.

Overall, 2009 ranked as the sixth least competitive season since 1978.

Here is a brief look at the most competitive seasons using my method:

1988- QI .726
1979- QI .704
1993- QI .691
2002- QI .674
1995- QI .643

And here are the five worst:

1984- QI .488
1991- QI .485
1990- QI .462
2007- QI .437
2001- QI .431

There are a couple things to note from this study.

The first is that competitive balance has shown no trend from season to season. The 2001 season was the least competitive of the 16-game era, and the very next year was the fourth best. Looking at these numbers in a line graph will show that the numbers bounce around like the sea in a hurricane over the 30 seasons.

Second, this is only one method of doing things. We are not taking into account playoff races. For instance, 2009 featured a crazy AFC playoff race that had five teams fighting for two playoff spots in the last week of the season. I am simply trying to create a numerical value for how competitive the teams were.

Third, this formula can be transferred over to any sport. As long as all the seasons you compare had the same number of games, you can compare the level of parity from any league.

We learned that competitive balance is nowhere near what Pete Rozelle envisioned, but I doubt that is even possible.

We also showed that there is no season-to-season trend for competitive balance. Just because one season was not as strong doesn’t mean the next will also have a poor showing.

This is only one step to measuring the NFL’s level of parity. Many more methods can and should be tried in the future. Let me know what you think of the study and how it can be improved.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

Lions 2009 Season Review Part One: Offense

The Lions offense was inconsistent throughout the entire season. It was almost unpredictable. The only thing you could be sure of was that you couldn’t be sure of anything.

Let’s start with the quarterback position and work our way around. Matthew Stafford played like a rookie for the majority of the season, but he also proved that he is the guy for the foreseeable future.

He threw plenty of interceptions (20, to only 13 touchdowns), however, those 13 scores set a rookie record for Lions quarterbacks. He also threw or ran for a touchdown in each of his 10 starts.

The major concern with him for 2010 will be his health. He injured his non-throwing shoulder against Cleveland and proved that it was too much for him to handle—despite his heroics in that game, and the miracle that he could even play on Thanksgiving.

He also has that knee to worry about, which is likely the biggest concern. He had a successful surgery on that knee, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be a problem in the future. Those knee injuries have a tendency to pop back up throughout a career. One bad move and he could be done for.

Drew Stanton will likely continue his role as a backup, at least for 2010. He is not a starer anywhere in the NFL. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw the Lions use the seventh round draft choice on a potential third-string quarterback so they can spend their free agent money on more important things.

Moving on to the running backs: the Lions appear to be at a crossroads. Kevin Smith suffered ligament damage in his knee and is questionable for the start of the 2010 preseason.

He was having a good season before he went down. He was poised for 1,000 yards, and if the Lions had given him more carries early in the season he could have flirted with 1,200 or more. The trouble was, they were not giving him carries. In 13 starts he averaged 16.7 runs-per-game. This is not nearly enough to establish a good running attack.

Maurice Morris did well in backup duty. The Arizona game was our best rushing game of the year, and Morris averaged 7.4 yards in only 17 tries.

The fact that he ran slightly better in those three games than Smith did over a course of the season has to be cause for concern. We can’t write of Smith completely without taking into account the small sample size from Maurice Morris.

The receivers showed the same inconsistency as the rest of the team. Not even Calvin Johnson was a constant, since he was being doubled every game and he missed a couple games with a minor knee injury.

That said, he still had a decent year. He caught 67 passes for 984 yards and five scores. Considering he was being double covered almost every snap, that isn’t bad at all.

The team just was unable to get him any support. Bryant Johnson and Dennis Northcutt had a few flashes of talent, but overall they proved that they are not NFL quality starters. With someone else on the field who can be a threat Calvin will have more chances to get open and make plays with his enormous talent.

Brandon Pettigrew has been, and probably will continue to be, a source of debate for the Lions. He was taken with a high second round pick and many people thought that it was a waste. I contend that it was not.

He caught 30 passes for 546 yards and a pair of touchdowns before injuring his knee on Thanksgiving. He looked like a disappointment early, but got much better as the season moved forward. Time will tell, but I think Pettigrew can become a good tight end.

He won’t be elite like Tony Gonzalez or Todd Heap, but he can at least be the best Lions tight end since David Sloan.

The offensive line was another inconsistent part of the team. There were so many changes in the unit’s personnel that it was hard for them to mesh as a unit. There were so many injuries, shuffling of positions, and players benched that it almost became tough to remember who was out there.

The front five need lots of help, there is no denying that. We have had Jeff Backus in there for way too long, and we could use a new guy in his spot. Backus could probably still play guard, but not tackle—where he has to deal with the speed of outside pass rushers.

Dominic Raiola is doing fine, plus he is one of the team’s big leaders. Jon Jansen turned out to be a huge disappointment.

The offense as a whole showed flashes of brilliance a couple times this season. The Cleveland game is the main example, but even in the closing weeks against Arizona and Chicago, the offense produced at the end of the game.

The problem was that they never put together a full four quarters. They always seemed to take part of the game—usually the third quarter—but it happened at other times too. Next year they will have to play the whole game.

Hopefully experience for Stafford and some better receivers through free agency can make a difference. The team will also look to make the line better. I expect a lineman to be taken in the second round of the draft.

The Lions offensive season was marked by flashes of great things to come scattered about many bad points. The team has a lot to improve upon in 2010, but at least a couple of the pieces to success appear to be in place with Stafford and Johnson.

Some support for Cal, a more present running game, and an offensive line that can have the chance to gel together can lead the team out of offensive ineptness.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

Drew Stanton to Start Sunday For Lions

Tom Kowalski of MLive.com makes it official. Drew Stanton will start on Sunday for the Lions as they take on the San Francisco 49ers.

The move was only half expected after the near comeback on Sunday afternoon.

The team and the fans seemed to rally more around the former Spartan than they did around the aging Culpepper. Stanton is not a better quarterback than Culpepper is, but if the team wants to play there is no reason to sit him down.

This move makes plenty of sense for a number of reasons.

First, Culpepper is a lame duck who will be out of a job after Jan. 3. The Lions will not resign him and it is possible that no team in the NFL will sign him, especially not with the intent of making him a starter. He has lost the arm strength, he has sat too much to be sharp on the field, and his legs are not what they used to be.

Second, we need to see if Stanton can be a viable backup, at least for next season. The Lions would rather have a guy behind their savior that has at least had some experience in the NFL. Yes, it is only one game, but the team needs to know if Stanton can become the guy to fall back on in case anything happens to Stafford.

Drew Stanton does not improve the Lions’ odds of winning against San Francisco on Sunday, but he does provide a better outlook for the team’s future. Every team needs a backup quarterback and the Lions need to know if they have theirs or not.

As for how well Stanton will play on Sunday, I think he will throw three interceptions, complete less than 40 percent of his pass attempts, and the Lions will have to rely on the running game in order to stay in the game.

It won’t be pretty, but it would be the same, if not worse if Culpepper were starting.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

Lions-Cardinals: Detroit Comeback Falls Short in 31-24 Loss

The Lions showed a little bit of heart in this one. For once, the defense sparked the team, and the crowd, and gave them the momentum to make a game out of this one.

The Delmas interception came at a time when the Lions looked down and out. They had just given up a big interception and Arizona was knocking on the door ready to score another touchdown that would have been the knockout blow. Instead, Delmas showed that he has the capability to become a big time NFL play maker by taking back an interception 100 yards for six points.

Sadly, while the defense may have provided the initial spark, they also failed when they were needed most. When the game was tied and Arizona had the ball, the defense looked absent again. They couldn’t tackle Beanie Wells at any point in this game. On his 18-yard-touchdown run, the Lions had nine guys in the box. Nine guys near the line of scrimmage to stop the run. Wells carried several Lions into the end zone for the score. On what turned out to be the winning drive for Arizona, the team failed to tackle Wells as he took the ball to the 12-yard-line to set up the winner.

When Drew Stanton entered the game in the second half, the attitude of the team and fans changed. Nobody was playing for Culpepper and the crowd did not seem like they cared at all. I really was not into the game in the first half. Arizona wasn’t dominating. The Lions were not out of the game. The place just seemed to lack any energy, both on the field and in the seats surrounding it. Stanton first brought some energy to the team.

I bet Stanton gets the start next week in San Francisco if Matt Stafford is unable to go. Culpepper no longer gives the Lions the best chance to win. I don’t think that Stanton makes things much better, but the team looked more like they wanted to play for him than they did for Dante.

Maurice Morris had a strong effort in place of Kevin Smith. He rightfully gets the credit for his 126-yard day and the 64-yard touchdown. But how about the line on that long run? Morris had the room to run because of great blocking in the running lane. The line pulled well and punched out the Arizona defenders and allowed Morris to run virtually untouched for the score.

The special teams was a mess for both teams. I have never seen a game where each team loses a muffed punt on a fair catch. The Northcutt muff and the Breaston one were both bonehead plays that could have cost each team the game.

Speaking of the Breaston muff in the fourth quarter, the Lions did not take advantage of the opportunities they were handed. The muff was a gift and we were unable to punch it home for any points. I agree with going for it on the fourth down, when down by a touchdown, but we needed to convert. The other gift was the double unsportsmanlike conduct on Bryan Robinson. We were given the football with fantastic field position and the momentum on our side and we only got a field goal. Converting the fourth down and getting six instead of three points after the penalties win the game for us.

Overall, we showed heart when the team did not give up at halftime like they appeared to last week. We also showed that defense should be our main priority in the coming offseason. We let the Cardinals march down the field much to easily when it mattered the most, thus costing us the game.

Read more NFL news on BleacherReport.com

NFL Sport Channel Latest

• Just How Far Would You Go?
• Sorry Rex, But It Isn’t Happening
• Super Bowl Predictions: Five Stat-Free Reasons Why the Eagles Will Reach The Super Bowl
• Seahawks Attempt to Turn Corner With Heavy Pursuit of Pete Carroll
• Bill Cowher Unlikely to Coach in 2010