Double Feature – Breaking Down NHL’s New Conference Plan and Tiger Woods Returns To The Winner’s Circle

Some weeks, there just isn’t much to write about. I didn’t produce anything in the final week of November. I chalked this up to “taking a break for the holiday” but in reality, I didn’t have much to go with. I just kept waiting for something big to happen. The NBA decided to come back, but my reaction to that was a mix of indifference and callousness. Indifference because the lockout gave me time to realize that hockey and football are superior products, in my mind. Callousness because this “11^th hour” decision proved how pointless and stupid the lockout was in the first place. I mean, I guess the owners came out on top and got what they wanted. On the other hand, the players end up looking stupid because they should have known they would lose on the deal anyway, all of which suggests that this could have been resolved over the summer.

So as last week rolled along, I found that nothing was really sparking my interest. I had my own “11^th hour” when, in the course of a conversation, I realized it would be fun to talk about Brendan Shanahan and his penchant for handing down suspensions. It was a good topic and fun to research, but the last three days have provided a whirlwind of conversational topic. So much so, that I’ve decided to take the unprecedented move to post a double feature this week. So here we go, twice the bang for your buck.

Breaking Down the NHL’s New Conference Plan

I hardly had but a few moments to soak up the Boston Bruins latest victory before hearing about a “radical new plan” to reorganize the 30 teams in the NHL. The Board of Governors approved the plan last night; however, implementation is pending approval by the player’s union. If everyone’s on board, the new scheme could be in place as early as next season. Unlike the NBA, the NHL has always been willing to adopt changes to fix what isn’t working, and usually this turns out for the better. I’m not going to rest my case on past decisions working out, but history does suggest that overall, these types of changes benefit everyone involved.

The current system has an Eastern and Western conference, both with 15 teams. Within those conferences, there are three divisions with five teams each. It’s nice, easy, straightforward, and mathematically sound. Eight teams from each conference make the playoffs, with the three division winners taking the top three seeds in descending order of overall points. For the most part, the divisions and conferences made geographic sense as well. The exceptions were Columbus and Nashville, which are closer to the East coast, but in the Western Conference.

This past summer, the former Atlanta Thrashers became the new Winnipeg Jets. As a member of the Southeast Division in the Eastern Conference, this immediately presented a travel nightmare every team in that division (Winnipeg, Carolina, Washington, Florida, Tampa Bay). On the face, the way to resolve this was fairly simple. You could move Columbus or Nashville from the Central division in the West to the Southeast and have Winnipeg take their spot. In light of other concerns, this was not the simple solution.

And by other concerns, I mean mainly the concerns of the owners of the Detroit Red Wings, Columbus Blue Jackets, Minnesota Wild, and the Dallas Stars. As the teams (well, American teams) separated farthest from the rest of the league, they’ve always had concerns about the large amount of travel. It’s not just about the travel schedule, though. Well in the first place, how can it be? This schedule hasn’t prevented the Red Wings from making the playoffs every year since the current system was adopted before the 1993-1994 season (picking up four Stanley Cups along the way). While I’ll admit the Blue Jackets have always had a tough schedule because they’re in the Western Conference, I submit that having a good hockey team is still the number one contributor to success in the NHL, shockingly.

The new plan separates the 30 teams into four roughly geographically based groups. The more or less western teams would be split into two eight-team conferences, and the eastern teams into two seven-team conferences. Minnesota, Dallas, and Winnipeg would join the current members of the Central division in a more or less mid-West conference. Leaving the remaining members of the Northwest and Pacific divisions a “west coast” conference. That makes some sense. Logistically, it seems to benefit Minnesota and Dallas the most. Columbus and Detroit would play more games within their own time zone as well. In the east, however, the sense starts to fade.

Instead of holding to that model, the two Florida based teams would join the current members of the Northeast division in one conference, while Carolina and Washington would join the current Atlantic division teams in the other. Overall, this is how it would look:

Eh, basically West Coast	Mid-West
Edmonton	Detroit
Calgary	Minnesota
Vancouver	Chicago
Colorado	Columbus
Phoenix	St. Louis
Los Angeles	Winnipeg
Anaheim	Dallas
San Jose	Nashville
Northeast + Florida	Middle Colonies
Boston	New York Rangers
Toronto	Philadelphia
Buffalo	New Jersey
Ottawa	Pittsburgh
Montreal	New York Islanders
Florida	Washington
Tampa Bay	Carolina

With the western conferences, this more or less makes sense. Colorado and Phoenix aren’t exactly on the West coast, but because Nashville and Columbus are the eastern-most middle of the country teams, they have to be where they are. You can also see the correlation in terms of big media markets, so between that and the travel, it seems like a good plan. The other big facet of the alignment is due to economic concerns. Under the new schedule, every team has a home-and-home series with every other team in the league. The NHL has been seeing the benefits of this setup since they first instituted it, and the idea that fans will have the chance to see stars from every team in the league is a good one.

However, that also means the east coast teams will have an increased travel schedule. I suppose the trade off there is that they have an advantage being in a seven-team conference. Economically, the big winners in this realignment would be the teams in the “middle colonies” conference. The owners of the current Atlantic division teams successfully campaigned to keep those teams together because they wanted to keep those rivalries intact. Their intra-conference travel schedule is also the lightest. Geographically, it would have made more sense for the New York teams, or maybe one of them and the Devils to join with the current Northeast. But because the Atlantic rivalries are profitable to those franchises, they were on board with the concerns of the Pennsylvania teams.

And from the standpoint of the Florida teams, they come out on top anyway. Their main concern was to remove Winnipeg from the equation. The potential economic benefits of having teams like Boston, Montreal, and Toronto (big hockey markets) come to town three times a year far outweighed having an easier travel schedule with a team like Columbus in the conference. Beyond Columbus not being a good team, it is also a small market. Having the Northeast teams come down will draw viewership from the local retiree population, as well as fans traveling to see their team play. I mean, who from the northeast doesn’t like going to Florida in the middle of the winter?

One part of this plan I do like is the playoff scheme. In the first two rounds, the top four teams would play each other for their respective conference championships. It has not yet been determined how the four conference champions would be seeded for the third round. Guaranteed intra-conference matchups through the first two rounds will provide great entertainment and should boost ratings. Many of these rivalries are already cemented and under the proposed plan that would only increase.

If everyone’s on board, then I’m all for it. It seems weird, but I understand the logic and I know the NHL has been looking for ways to increase its economic strength. I agree that having home-and-home series, and being able to see every team is a crucial part of that. But the minute I hear people – fans, writers, players, owners, GMs, presidents, whatever – from Detroit, Dallas, Chicago, Minnesota, Winnipeg, and maybe even Columbus if they’re ever good, whine about how it’s sooooo much harder to make the playoffs in an eight team conference, I will kindly say I told you so. The plan works because it should benefit everyone economically, but it also only happened because those teams saw an opportunity to reduce their travel schedule and prevent the loss of money in the event they’re playing playoff games on the West Coast that start at 10:30 PM.

The cynical part of me wants to call this the “So Mid-Westerners Can Go To Bed On Time” plan, but I know there’s much more to it than that. As I pointed out before, teams with tough schedules can still win a lot of hockey games and still do well in the playoffs. As perplexing as it is to have the two Florida teams in a conference with five other teams that reside north of New York City, I know that overnight the toughest conference in the league would become the “middle colonies” one. I’m not overjoyed by every aspect of this plan, but if it becomes reality, I’ll be OK with it. It seems like it will foster growth and at time when the NBA continues to take steps backward, the NHL is perhaps making a necessary move to keep things going forward.

Tiger Woods Returns to the Winner’s Circle

On Sunday, Tiger Woods drained clutch birdie putts on the 17^th and 18^th holes to cement a victory at the Chevron World Challenge, an annual tournament hosted for the benefit of the Tiger Woods Foundation at the Nicklaus-designed Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks, California. It’s an off-season money grab, but because of the format, it’s become an eligible tournament for World Golf Ranking points. The format calls for the defending champion, the four major winners from that year, 11 officially ranked golfers, and four invitees of foundation.

Short of winning another major, the most anticipated moment in golf was seeing Tiger Woods win a tournament again, of any kind. It appears that the next most anticipated moment was quickly dismissing that win as meaningless. When you’re the best golfer in the world, the standards are set pretty high. Woods was coming off a pretty successful Australian swing. He finished third in the Australian Open before playing very well in the Presidents Cup, clinching the final point for the Americans. More importantly, his swing just looks better. The routine cast of NBC/Golf Channel announcers couldn’t stop talking about the sound his clubs are making at contact.

Perhaps most importantly for Tiger, the putting game has been getting increasingly better. Of course, it’s always easier to make more putts by getting yourself in better position. There have been hiccups along the way, for example, at times in Australia, it seemed like he would have the flat blade in one round, and lose it the next. I think it starts with the rest of his game, though. Now that he’s been healthy and able to practice every day with coach Sean Foley, the results are finally starting to show. Being more confident in his ability to make fairways and greens has let Tiger focus again on making putts. It’s impossible to have a good day on the green when your mind is thinking about how you keep pulling your drives or chunking your irons.

Sherwood is an excellent test of golf, as are most courses designed by Jack Nicklaus. For me, the signature of a Nicklaus hole is the green. If there are any easy greens at Sherwood, I couldn’t find them. They are typically small, usually undulating, often tiered, and always incredibly fast. But, the layout isn’t devoid of scoring opportunities. Precision is always key, but the four par 5s and a couple short par 4s provide some excellent chances. Add the fact that the tournament came on the heels of a prolific windstorm on the California coast and you’ve got a pretty good recipe for a tournament. Last year, Graeme McDowell and Tiger finished regulation at -15. This year, Tiger won at -10. The windy conditions on Saturday alone accounted for those five strokes, but conditions were pretty tough all around.

Even so, many people have been dismissing Tiger’s win on Sunday. It’s funny that all those people in the summer that were saying he just had to win something are turning around and saying this isn’t enough, he only beat 17 other golfers, it’s just a money grab that no one cares about, etc. First of all, I watched the last two rounds and I didn’t see anybody not caring. Whether it’s the Transitions Championship, the U.S. Open, or the CVS Caremark Charity Classic, I don’t think professionals do that. Furthermore, it’s a complete double standard to say McDowell’s win over Tiger in a playoff last year at the very same tournament was the “perfect end to a perfect season” and the ultimate moment of the world’s best golfers saying to Woods, “we’re not afraid of you anymore” and then turn around and say the next year that it doesn’t mean anything when Tiger wins.

Furthermore, ten of the golfers in the field combined to win 14 tournaments on the PGA Tour this year, and one on the European Tour. That list includes Keegan Bradley, who won the PGA Championship, and Bill Haas, who won the FedEx Cup. The remaining seven who didn’t are all ranked golfers. Four of those seven had excellent overall seasons on Tour. The remaining two (Zach Johnson, Jim Furyk) happen to be the other two major champions in the field besides Woods and Bradley. OK, so the other major winners weren’t there. Guess what? They all play on the European Tour.

Rory McIlroy was busy winning the Hong Kong Open, yeah…exactly…the Hong Kong Open. If McIlroy wants to seriously challenge Woods’ throne, he’s going to have to play in more events against him. Hmm, maybe that’s why he fired his agent Chubby Chandler and declared his 2012 schedule will feature several more PGA Tour stops? Same goes for Charl Schwartzel. And Darren Clarke, well, the man has suffered enough and is not in his mid-20s. Besides, he was probably too hung over anyway. So yes, he only beat 17 other golfers, but he beat 17 other really good golfers. And really, 17 isn’t that far off from 25, which is about the number of good golfers in a given Tour stop anyway. Beating 50 guys who are playing for a paycheck isn’t that remarkable.

Trying to belabor this point by saying Martin Kaymer and Lee Westwood weren’t there doesn’t hold water either. Guess where else they aren’t? On the PGA Tour with any regularity. Given the strength of the field at the tournament, I wouldn’t say that Dustin Johnson’s presence would have made a stark difference. He hasn’t had quite the year that, say, Luke Donald has had. Nor does he boast the career resume that Phil Mickelson has. So OK. Phil and Luke weren’t there and if they were, you could say Tiger beat a tougher field. That doesn’t mean the field he beat was weak, though.

The biggest positive of winning this past week was the way Tiger won, though. When asked after the round what being in contention means, Zach Johnson stated that to him that means having a chance to win the tournament with four holes left. I’m not sure Tiger’s ever been wired that way, but nonetheless, he played the tournament in that fashion. He posted 69-67 in his first two rounds to finish with the 54-hole lead. On a windblown Saturday during which bogeys were aplenty, Woods was able to battle and stave off disaster with a +1 round of 73, on a day where he clearly didn’t have his best stuff, especially on the green. For most of Sunday, things were going that way too. For the most part, he held a one stroke lead over Johnson but was never able to go on that stretch of three or four holes he used to have where all of a sudden he’s got a five stroke lead.

In fact, the opposite happened. Johnson hung around, played his game, and was unfazed by Woods. On the tricky par 5 sixteenth, both players elected to lay up to wedge distance. This played directly into Johnson’s favor and sure enough, he made birdie while Tiger failed to make par. None of those putts Tiger seemed to always make were falling, a fact of which the television viewer was reminded of by the broadcast team no less than 100 times on Sunday. But when it mattered most, they did. After Johnson’s putt burned the edge on 17, Woods curled his in, fist pump to boot. From nearly identical positions on the 18^th fairway, Tiger was able to get his second within 10 feet, while Johnson had a makeable, but farther putt. After missing and tapping in for par, Johnson stood next to his caddy and watched as Tiger confidently drained his birdie for the victory. Zach looked up at his caddy, nodded and said, “Yep.” It has been two years, but we’re still accustomed to seeing Tiger come through in the clutch moments. We still have a winter to get through, but my eyes – and I bet Tiger’s too – are on Augusta in April.

SHANABAN

The NHL’s new disciplinarian has no qualms handing out suspensions

Since the lost season in 2004-2005, the NHL has regained some momentum it had in the national sports consciousness. That year gave the league time to address some critical rule changes, which has resulted in a much more enjoyable and authentic brand of play. Add that with an influx of young talent, led by marketable stars such as Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin, and you have a winning recipe. However, this does not mean some of the age-old criticisms have gone away. In this era of ever-increasing knowledge about things like head injuries, the NHL has put forth a continual effort to regulate and hopefully curb behavior that can have disastrous consequences.

After 13 years as the head disciplinarian, Colin Campbell stepped down, in part because his son Gregory plays for the Boston Bruins, but more because the league really needed a fresh set of eyes. In a time of heightened scrutiny, Campbell found it difficult to maintain a sense of consistency when handing down suspensions and fines. Shanahan is that fresh set of eyes, and he also played in the post-lockout NHL (he retired as a player in 2009). Furthermore, Shanahan was no stranger to physical play, as he racked up 2,489 penalty minutes in 1,524 career games.

Like football, hockey is a physical sport where contact is not only allowed, but indeed a necessity to playing the game properly. Unlike football, you don’t skate around carrying the puck in your hands, but rather use a stick. Now, the stick is supposed to be an implement, but sometimes it is used as a weapon. And even more unlike football, fighting is also a critical part of the game. In these ways, many people view hockey as a violent sport. How it is any less violent than football, I’ve never been quite sure. Then again, I grew up playing and loving hockey. Likewise, it often seems the most vocal critics of hockey’s violence are those who are disconnected from the game, as in, they are and were never fans and/or never played the game.

Shanahan adminstering a Shanaban

In very similar ways, both the NFL and NHL have gone to increasing lengths to address head injuries. As we learn more about concussions, we’re able to see more ways that they can happen. Campbell’s inability to maintain consistency seemed to stem from his lack of feel for the speed of today’s game, however, Shanahan is someone who does have that feel. Part of the effort to have consistent rulings has been Shanahan’s openness and clear explanation of the play in question as it relates directly to the language of the rule. Instead of textual releases, Shanahan has put himself on video for each suspension he’s handed out thus far. These videos are directly accessible on NHL.com’s home page. Shanahan is also posting links to the videos on his Twitter page, which is likewise retweeted by the NHL’s Twitter feed.

These are exactly the type of steps the league should be taking not only to regulate illegal behavior on the ice, but also to address the game’s critics. But beyond these efforts, Brendan Shanahan has also been a swift and unforgiving executor of justice. He set the precedent early by handing out nine suspensions in the preseason alone, totaling 60 games (29 served in preseason, 31 served in the regular season). Of those preseason suspensions, six were for five more games. In 2010-2011, Colin Campbell handed out six such suspensions in the preseason, regular season, and playoffs combined. Add the 5 gamer Shanahan slapped on the Oilers Andy Sutton for elbowing on November 1^st and he’s topped Campbell’s mark from last year…and it’s only December 2^nd. You break the rules, you get a Shanaban. Simple as that.

And Shanaban’s are on a torrid pace. Last year, players served 112 regular season games at a rate of 16 games per month. Through two months of the season this year, Shanaban’s total 55 games, or a clip of 27.5 per month. That puts us on pace for suspensions of 192 regular season games. I’ve broken down some numbers over the past three years so we can marvel at Shanahan’s disciplinary prowess:

Year	Head/Late	Illegal Hit	Stick	Fight	Other	Total	Head%
09-10	30	45	6	10	0	86	35%
10-11	93	14	3	11	8	129	72%
11-12	40	33	2	9	0	84	48%

As you can see, suspensions this season have nearly matched the total from two years ago, in just two months. For clarification purposes, I went through all the suspensions from the past three seasons and attempted to identify all that were directly related to potential head injuries and separated the others into their respective categories. I believe the reason for the discrepancy between 2009-2010 and last season is due to the NHL’s effort to address the danger of head injuries. I also believe Campbell’s way of classifying these incidents led to complaints of inconsistency in his rulings, and the reason why 93 of 129 games served can be classified as relating to head injury. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the league is showing increasing efforts to address these plays. Broadly speaking, over the last three years 85% of games served to suspension have related to head injury and late/illegal hits.

Suspensions and fines for stick penalties are only for the worst cases, although Shanahan seems to be a little stricter in that area as well. He’s already handed out five fines totaling $10,000 for those infractions, in addition to a two game suspension to Minnesota’s Pierre-Marc Bouchard for a high-sticking incident. Fighting suspensions are pretty easy to classify and occur when players directly break a well-defined rule (such as leaving the bench to instigate a fight, as Anaheim’s Jean-Francois Jacques did in the preseason).

I applaud Shanahan for not having any qualms about handing out suspensions and increasing their severity based upon the circumstances of the play. I also applaud him for going on screen to give an explanation every time it happens. It’s already getting redundant, but it’s still the right move. It gives the media, fans, and players a direct explanation. Players should know what to expect if they make a dangerous hit or use their stick in a way other than what it’s intended to do. I hated him as a player (mostly because I hate the Red Wings) but as the head disciplinarian for the NHL, he’s doing a marvelous job. Handing out nearly 200 games in suspensions may alter the way the game is played somewhat, but it is a necessary step to protect players from disastrous, and potentially career-ending (Marc Savard) injuries. Hockey is a physical sport, but Shanahan and the NHL are showing that irrational and dangerous plays will not be tolerated.

Extra Tidbits

- I got message from my good friend Asher the other day that said “Bobby Valentine…Yikes.” This immediately prompted me to declare the over/under on games managed by Bobby Valentine for the Boston Red Sox is +/- 260 games. We both took the under. My prediction: He’ll take the 2012 team within striking distance of the wild card but ultimately fall short. This will probably be blamed on personnel (i.e. starting pitching) and injuries. But when the 2013 Red Sox are 50-50 through 100 games, he’ll get canned and go back to ESPN. Here’s to hoping I’m wrong.

- Through two months of the season, I’m doing better than I expected on my preseason NHL picks. In both conferences, I’m 3 for 5 (Boston, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Detroit, San Jose, Los Angeles). Two of the teams I’ve picked have fired their head coach already, though. But only one team I picked is worse than 11^th place right now. There’s a lot of hockey left and I could still end up looking dumb. Or really smart. Time will tell.

- Speaking of predictions, remember back when I said the 49ers would be 9-1 entering their Week 10 matchup with the Ravens? Yeah, that’s right. Oops, I also said the Lions would be 8-2 heading into their Week 10 game against Green Bay. But hey, 7-3 is only one game off.  I still like the Lions over the Bears in the NFC Wild Card now that Cutler is hurt and Caleb Hanie is, well, Caleb Hanie. But that greatly depends on Detroit beating the Saints this week, which is a stretch. I also claimed not to be surprised about the Bills because I expected them to be good, so…yeah, I’ve got to own up to that now. Sorry Timmy, sorry Lopez.

- So the NBA? Great! I’m going to miss reading 75 different versions of the same article on Grantland about the lockout. They did such a great job of exposing every flaw about the NBA that my interest in watching any games before the playoffs start is almost nil.

What If Luck Sucks?

History assures us that elite quarterback status is never a guarantee

If Andrew Luck weren’t such a smart guy, he probably would have declared for the 2011 NFL draft. A Pac-12 star and the highest rated college quarterback, Luck shocked the football world when he decided to forgo the draft and finish his degree at Stanford. Thanks to his decision, though, we have been blessed with one of the catchiest lines in football for quite some time: “Suck for Luck.” Yes, while the NFL’s good teams compete for the playoffs, and eventually the Super Bowl, the dregs of the league are busy trying to suck worse than everyone else for a shot at drafting Andrew Luck next spring.

This campaign has caught quite a lot of fervor, though; I personally think it has more to do with the catchiness of the phrase than anything else. The real reason, however, is that virtually every member of the greater football world (media, teams, etc.) believes Andrew Luck is a lock to be the next elite quarterback. These people have come up with no shortage of explanations as to why this is guaranteed to happen. They’ve got statistics and they’ve got video of the sophisticated offense he’s been running at Stanford. They’ve seen his arm, his play calling ability, and his will to win. I don’t question the validity of this stuff. I’m not even going so far as to say it won’t happen, or that I don’t believe it will happen. What I don’t understand is why. Why on earth would anyone believe that elite QB status could be guaranteed? If Andrew Luck turns out to be a flop, am I really the only person in America who gets to say I told you so?

Before we set out on showing how wide the gap between Division 1 college football and the NFL can be (and has been), let’s take a brief look at his basic numbers:

Comp.	Att.	Comp. %	TD/INT	TD per INT
646	973	66.39	70/19	3.89

Luck has a career record of 29-6 at Stanford as a starter. A product of Stratford High School in Houston, he became the starting QB for the Cardinal in his redshirt freshman year. His past two seasons, his completion percentage has been over 70% (2010 set a Pac-12 record). Additionally, Luck set six different Stanford records in 2010 and finished as the runner-up in the Heisman Trophy voting. He boasts a keen mind and strong arm, part of a 6 foot 4 inch, 235-pound frame. Those factors plus his college record make him an outstanding prospect for any NFL team. His concentration at Stanford is in architectural design and engineering. Can’t you already hear NFL broadcasters’ overuse of phrases like “Luck is the architect of this offense” and “Luck just engineered a perfect touchdown drive”? Because I can.

Certainties, guarantees, these things rarely exist in the world of sports. That’s what makes them so appealing. Because the NFL and NBA lack legitimate minor leagues to develop players, their drafts involve a higher level of risk than other leagues like the NHL and MLB. In hockey for the most part, only some first round picks are expected to be ready to compete in the pros the same year they are drafted. It’s even more of a rarity in baseball. The NBA’s D-league is basically a joke and the NFL has no sort of organized developmental league, so it is the case for both of these sports that NCAA Division 1 is basically the “minors.” The gap in overall talent between an NFL team and the best Div. 1 teams is still very large, so even highly touted college players can turn out to be complete busts. It’s a risky endeavor and there have been no greater examples of boom and bust than with the position of quarterback.

First, let’s start with Heisman Trophy winners. I know what you’re thinking, because Luck is supposed to be the next Peyton Manning, and so you’re saying, “Peyton never won the Heisman!” This is true, but since Manning was drafted, nine college quarterbacks have won the annual trophy awarded to the best college football player. If the Heisman is a measure of true talent, then there’s no better place to start. Here’s a list of those winners and some of their numbers: (note: completion %, TD/INT, TD per INT are career college numbers, and NFL record is as a starter)

Winner	Year	Comp. %	TD/INT	TD per INT	NFL rec.	Win %	Draft
Chris Weinke	2000	58.72	83/33	2.52	2-18	.100	106th, 2001
Eric Crouch	2001	51.48	29/25	1.16			95th, 2002*
Carson Palmer	2002	59.11	72/49	1.47	47-52	.475	1st, 2003
Jason White	2003	63.33	81/24	3.38
Matt Leinart	2004	64.82	99/23	4.31	7-10	.412	10th, 2006
Troy Smith	2006	62.69	54/13	4.15	4-4	.500	174th, 2007
Tim Tebow	2007	67.11	88/15	5.87	4-3	.571	25th, 2010
Sam Bradford	2008	67.64	88/16	5.50	8-15	.348	1st, 2010
Cam Newton	2010	65.41	30/7	4.29	2-7	.222	1st, 2011

Notable runners: Crouch – 648 carries, 3434 yards, 59 TD, 5.3 yards per carry

Smith – 293 carries, 1168 yards, 14 TD, 4.0 ypc

Tebow – 692 carries, 2947 yards, 57 TD, 4.3 ypc

Newton – 285 carries, 1586 yards, 24 TD, 5.6 ypc

*Not drafted at QB

As you can see, winning the Heisman Trophy as a college quarterback has little to no correlation to success at the NFL level. Eric Crouch led an option attack at Nebraska and was actually drafted as a wide receiver, but he never ended up playing in the NFL, much less playing quarterback in the NFL. Jason White was never drafted. To be fair to Tebow, Bradford, and Newton, their careers are very young, so we don’t know just what this graphic could like 5 or 10 years from now. Of course, Palmer is still playing as well. Smith did stints with Baltimore and San Francisco before moving to the UFL this year. Leinart has mostly been a backup, though he will be called on to start games for the Houston Texans with this week’s announcement that Matt Schaub is done for the season. Nonetheless, Heisman winners in the last decade or so win about 40% of the NFL games they start, and if you take away Palmer, that figure drops to 32%.

OK, so winning the Heisman doesn’t guarantee success at the next level, but what about other quarterbacks that didn’t win it, but were very highly touted coming out of college? Let’s add their names to the mix:

	Comp. %	TD/INT	TD per INT	NFL rec.	Win %	Draft
Tim Couch	66.96	76/37	2.05	22-37	.373	1st, 1999
Michael Vick	56.14	21/11	1.91	49-37-1	.563	1st, 2001
Philip Rivers	63.53	95/34	2.79	59-30	.663	4th, 2004
Alex Smith	66.27	47/8	5.89	26-31	.456	1st, 2005
JaMarcus Russell	61.86	52/21	2.48	7-18	.280	1st, 2007
Matthew Stafford	57.20	51/33	1.55	9-13	.409	1st, 2009

Notable runners: Vick – 212 carries, 1202 yards, 16 TD, 5.7 yards per carry

Tim Couch no longer plays in the NFL and his record probably speaks to why. Despite an excellent completion percentage in college, he was never able to be very effective in the pros, and perhaps his high number of interceptions should have worried the Cleveland Browns. He ended up with more interceptions (67) than touchdowns (64) in his brief career. Of course, that isn’t the only explanation. Michael Vick threw at a worse rate, with fewer TDs per INT, yet has had a pretty good NFL career. Of course, as I noted at the bottom Vick is also an exceptional runner. If you added rushing touchdowns, his overall TD per INT rate would go up by nearly one and a half. (If you do that for Tebow, it goes up to 9.67!)

On the other hand, Tim Tebow, Alex Smith, and Sam Bradford boast the best ratings in that category and people have been seriously questioning their prospects at being effective QBs in the NFL. Smith and the 49ers are winning now, but that isn’t stopping people from questioning his abilities. Tebow hasn’t had enough games to show what he can do on the professional level, but even before he was named starter after five games, people seriously doubted him. And they still do. The same goes for Cam Newton and Sam Bradford, and while their records aren’t necessarily a reflection of their talents, people still have a right to wonder. For Newton, the numbers you see above, besides the rushing stats, were basically put up in the year he was at Auburn.

In two distinct ways, Matthew Stafford’s college numbers are a whole lot worse than JaMarcus Russell’s. Yet both were first overall picks. Russell no longer plays in the NFL, but Stafford (for the first time in his career) is both starting and healthy. He has the Detroit Lions off to a 6-3 start. Much has been made about Andrew Luck’s college completion percentage (66.39%) as an indication of his ability to succeed at the next level. Consider the fact that Tim Couch and Alex Smith had nearly the same percentage, and in fact, Tim Tebow’s and Sam Bradford’s were better. Do you see any guarantees here? (FYI, answers, in order, are: no, not yet but approaching no, and two not yet too early’s)

Andrew Luck’s college statistics are pretty close to Sam Bradford’s, who put up his numbers in just three college seasons. The jury is still out on Bradford. He had a surprisingly good rookie year, but his slow start to 2011 has tampered expectations. No one believes Luck can waltz into the NFL and start putting up ridiculous numbers, and more importantly, winning a ton of games. If there’s a drastic difference between Luck and Bradford, you can’t find it in their numbers or body size.

Overall, the closest resemblance to Luck’s numbers from the list above is clearly Philip Rivers, who has had a good NFL career thus far. He doesn’t have a Super Bowl win or appearance, though he has played in an AFC Championship. I don’t think Rivers qualifies for elite status. In fact, it is rather difficult to define an elite quarterback. At best, it’s a blend of excellent passing statistics and playoff success, but by no means does being quarterback of Super Bowl winning team grant you elite status. I’m not sure I understand the logic there, but as someone with a heavy baseball background, I kind of get it. (The 2006 Cardinals won the World Series, but Jeff Weaver was by no means then, before, or after, an “ace” or “elite pitcher”. He was pretty damn good in the Fall of 2006, though.)

But for the sake of classification, I’ve lumped together those remaining quarterbacks drafted in the past dozen or so years who are either “elite” or Super Bowl champions, or both. Let’s take a look at their numbers:

	Comp. %	TD/INT	TD per INT	NFL rec.	Win %	Draft
Peyton Manning	62.85	90/33	2.73	141-67	.678	1st, 1998
Tom Brady	62.31	35/19	1.84	117-35	.769	199th, 2000
Drew Brees	61.19	88/45	1.96	86-61	.585	32nd, 2001
Eli Manning	60.81	84/36	2.33	66-46	.589	1st, 2004
Ben Roethlisberger	65.49	84/34	2.47	76-32	.704	11th, 2004
Aaron Rodgers	66.76	43/13	3.31	36-20	.643	24th, 2005

Of these six QBs, four were drafted in the first round and were expected to be effective at the NFL level. They turned out to be very good gambles for their franchises. Of course, the San Diego Chargers drafted Eli Manning, but having stated he would not play for them, he effectively was drafted by the New York Giants. By the time Eli was drafted, his older brother Peyton had already established himself as an elite quarterback and has put up numbers that rank him as one of the best QBs of all time. Interestingly, the Chargers also drafted Drew Brees back in 2001 on what they thought was a much bigger gamble. They (effectively) drafted Rivers in 2004 as Brees was heading into a contract year. Think that ticked him off? He settled in quite nicely in New Orleans, eventually leading them to a Super Bowl victory in 2009.

The thing that sticks out from this list, obviously, is Tom Brady’s draft position. Over the years, this point has been brought up again and again, but for a good reason. Brady might just be an aberration and nothing more, but it helps prove how fickle drafting a QB out of college can be. You can illustrate this point by using names like Tim Couch or JaMarcus Russell – high rating, drafted early, complete flops. But you hammer it home using a name like Tom Brady – low rating, drafted late, one of the best QBs of all time. He has a higher win percentage and more Super Bowl victories than any other name on that list. Counting Brady just as an aberration, only two (Peyton, Rodgers) of the other 20 quarterbacks I’ve mentioned truly deserve elite status.

There’s a good chance Luck won’t suck. He seems to have all the tools and if he’s been running an offense at Stanford with an NFL-level of sophistication, chances are that transition won’t be too difficult. Of course, he’s been taking that offense against college defenses and we know how much better professional defenders are. But Peyton struggled early in his career too, only to go on to accomplish what he has. By my numbers, again discounting Brady as an aberration, Luck has a 10% chance of becoming an elite quarterback on the Brady/Manning/Rodgers level. That’s a far cry from a guarantee. Like 90% far. But as my good friend Asher pointed out, if there’s any position in all of sports to make a gamble on, it’s quarterback in football. Let’s just try to remember that nothing in sports is a guarantee, especially when it comes to drafting amateurs, and especially when those amateurs are college quarterbacks.

Sources: ProFootballReference.com, SportsReference.com

All statistics through 11/17/2011