Home Field Go Bye-bye?

No, I don't have anything else to write about besides the Broncos, even though the season is over. But I had a thought while reading the paper today. One of the columnists claimed that the Broncos have given up much of their home-field advantage since moving to Invesco Field from old Mile High nine years ago. The theory is that the Broncos have priced out many of the die-hard fans in favor of the wine-and-cheese crowd. Plus the old place was much noisier thanks to the old-school construction.

So I thought, I'd like to test that theory! Has the home field advantage truly taken a hit over the past decade?

I'll be comparing two eras - The Invesco Era (2001-2009) and the Old Mile High Era (1977-2000).

The Broncos averaged 5.9 wins per season at home during the Old Mile High Era (and that's including the strike-shortened 1982 season), and have so far averaged just 5.3 home victories per season during the Invesco Era.

During the Old Mile High Era, the Broncos finished either 7-1 or 8-0 at home a total of nine times. That's rougly once every three seasons. Since the Invesco Era began, the Broncos have finished with at least 7 home victories only once - during the 2005 season, when they were 8-0.

The Broncos also had some nice stretches at home in the Old Mile High Era. They went 24-0 at home between 1996 and 1998. And between 1983 and 1989, they went 45-11 at home, an 80% winning percentage. The best stretch in the Invesco Era was a 31-9 record at home between 2001 and 2005.

I figured it would probably be more accurate to look at what percentage of the Broncos' victories came on their home field - so that I can be sure I'm measuring home-field advantage without having it skewed by the fact that the Broncos were more successful overall in the eighties and nineties. It's an imperfect measurement, but I'm not writing a scientific paper. I'm just curious.

The Broncos won 48 games at home during the Invesco Era. They won 82 games overall during that period. So that calculates to 59% of their victories coming on their home field.

I then looked at every other 9 year period during the Old Mile High Era. I calculated 1977 to 1985, 1978 to 1986, 1979 to 1987, and so on. Thank goodness for computerized spreadsheet packages.

The Broncos exceeded the 59% Invesco Era mark in every nine year period during the Old Mile High Era, except one, which was also 59% (1977 to 1985). The Broncos also exceeded 48 home victories in each nine year period during the Old Mile High Era.

The high mark was 67% between 1987 and 1995. During that time, the Broncos finished 8-8 in 1988 and 1992, but still went a combined 13-3 at home during those years. The Broncos are also a very average 32-32 over the past four years, and yet were just a combined 17-15 at home.

So I think this amateurish analysis supports the theory that the home field advantage has diminished with the new stadium.

There is one interesting stat from the Invesco Era - Jake Plummer was 22-5 at home as the starting quarterback. But he wasn't good enough for Mikey Shanahan. Oh well.

Super Long Time

So I'm totally into the NFL playoffs! I watched the second half of NY Jets/Cincinnati and the whole two minutes of overtime between Green Bay & Arizona last weekend. This weekend I listened to some of Arizona/New Orleans on the radio, and had Indy/Baltimore on the TV although I wasn't paying attention. And then I watched the last two minutes of San Diego/NY Jets. So maybe I'm not really into it this year.

What is interesting about the coming weekend of AFC and NFC Championship games is that the games involve three teams who haven't been seen in a Super Bowl anytime in the last three decades. At least one starved fan base (winner of New Orleans-Minnesota) and maybe two (if Jets win against Indy) will be rewarded.

The New Orleans Saints have never been to the Super Bowl in their 40+ years of existence. The Minnesota Vikings have not been since 1977. And the Jets have not appeared in the Super Bowl since 1969. I have updated my list of NFL teams and how long it has been since their last Super Bowl appearance and included it below.


NEVER BEEN
Houston Texans
Jacksonville Jaguars
Cleveland Browns
Detroit Lions - never made it, never will
New Orleans Saints

SURE HAS BEEN A LONG TIME
New York Jets (40 years - will go to 41 if they lose on Sunday)
Kansas City Chiefs (40 years) - ha ha
Minnesota Vikings (32 years - will go to 33 if they lose on Sunday)
Miami Dolphis (25 years)
Cincinnati Bengals (21 years)

STARTING TO GET IMPATIENT
Washington Redskins (18 years)- will Mikey Shanahan fix this?
Buffalo Bills (16 years)
San Diego Chargers (15 years)- choked away their chance this year
San Francisco 49ers (15 years)- Joe? Steve? Where are you?
Dallas Cowboys (14 years)- this is okay by me
Green Bay Packers (12 years)
Denver Broncos (11 years)- Yikes
Atlanta Falcons (11 years)
Tennessee Titans (10 years)

NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT
Baltimore Ravens (9 years)
St. Louis Rams (8 years)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (7 years)
Oakland Raiders (7 years)- and what a hard 7 years it's been
Carolina Panthers (6 years)
Philadelphia Eagles (5 years)
Seattle Seahawks (4 years)
Chicago Bears (3 years)- Jay Cutler sucks!
Indianapolis Colts (2 years, will go to 3 if they lose on Sunday)
New York Giants (2 years)
New England Patriots (2 years)- Blah
Pittsburgh Steelers (1 year)
Arizona Cardinals (1 year)

Mediocre

Well, the Broncos finished their year yesterday by getting blown away at home by one of the worst teams in the NFL, the KC Chiefs. They finished the year 8-8, which is precisely the record I expected before their unexpected 6-0 start.

8-8 is a very average record. It's 50 percent. It's neither a winning record nor a losing record.

Being so mediocre is one thing, but the Broncos have taken it to a whole new level. A few stats for your consumption: the Broncos were 4-4 at home, and 4-4 on the road. They were 6-6 against AFC teams, and 2-2 against NFC teams. They were 3-3 against teams in their division, the AFC West. They were 1-1 against San Diego, 1-1 against Oakland, and 1-1 against Kansas City. They were 2-2 against the AFC Central. Over the past four seasons of not making the playoffs, they are 32-32.

Now that's mediocre!

BTW - The last time the Broncos went four straight seasons without making the playoffs was 1976.

Bronco Thoughts

So if you're a regular follower of my blog (and I'm not sure that there is anyone meeting that description), you might remember a couple of posts I made before the season outlining the best and worst case scenarios for the 2009 Denver Broncos. I had them pegged to finish somewhere between 4-12 and 9-7, and my gut feeling was that they would probably end up 8-8 like last season.

So they rushed out to a 6-0 start, and I thought that I had way underestimated them. And then they lost four straight and I realized that no, I hadn't. And so after today's last-second loss in Philadelphia, they are 8-7, lining up pretty much perfectly with where I thought they would be.

After they started 3-0, I did a post which maintained that all they needed to do over the difficult ten-game stretch in the middle of the season was go 5-5. With an 8-5 record, with home games to come against Oakland and Kansas City, they would be virtually assured of 10 wins, which would probably be enough for a playoff spot.

And they did exactly what I said they needed to do - they went 5-5. Of course, last week they blew the other part of the plan, by losing at home to Oakland.

And by also losing today, the Broncos no longer control their own destiny. Even if they win next week against the Chiefs, they will need other teams to lose in some combination in order to get a spot in the playoffs.

No matter what ends up happening, the real heart warming story has been Jay Cutler's horrible season in Chicago. He has a real chance to get to 30 interceptions this year! And the Bears have been bad enough that the Broncos (who picked up the Bears' 1st round pick next year in the trade) will probably have a top-10 draft choice next year! Some people say that it's not good to cheer for Jay Cutler to fail. And I agree. But it sure does make me glad when I read that he had another terrible game.

Peyday

A year ago, when the Broncos were in the midst of losing something like seven running backs to season-ending injury, Bronco Fan fell in love with a young man named Peyton Hillis. The rookie from Arkansas was picked in the 7th round of the 2008 draft. He found his way into the starting lineup due to all the injuries and compiled 343 yards rushing on 68 carries in six starts, which was good enough to lead the team last year. Eventually, Hillis suffered his own season-ending injury.

Bronco Fan called into the local radio station repeatedly, insisting the reason the Broncos finished the season poorly was the fact that Hillis was sidelined, and therefore not able to carry the Broncos to victory. Bronco Fan seemed to think that Hillis was the second coming of Terrell Davis, and was surely hoping that Pat Bowlen would waive the requirement that a player actually be retired before joining the team's Ring of Fame.

I thought with the new season and the fact that the Broncos added Correll Buckhalter in free agency and Knowshon Moreno in the first round of the 2009 draft would put an end to the idea that Peyton Hillis was the key cog to the Broncos' future.

Hillis hasn't played much on offense this year: merely 12 carries for 54 yards. But whenever the Broncos struggle, you start hearing Bronco Fan bringing up his name in the newspapers and on the radio. Why isn't he playing? Surely Hillis will succeed where Buckhalter and Moreno fail. Josh McDaniels must hate him.

And who knows? Bronco fan might be right. But considering that Moreno and Buckhalter have combined for over 1,400 yards rushing this year, it's hard to imagine Hillis making that big of a difference.

The real reason Bronco Fan loves Hillis? I believe it is because he is the successor to John Lynch (and before him, Ed McCaffrey), as Denver's Favorite White Bronco.

Firelight Trailer - Taylor Swift SNL

When Did it Turn?

So Bob Griese got suspended from ESPN for a week for joking on-air that driver Juan Pablo Montoya was having a taco. (Or something like that - I don't care enough to actually find out and retell the whole story. If you're really interested, I guess you could Google "Bob Griese + taco" and read for yourself.)

Everyone is so sensitive these days! Actually, I doubt that anyone at ESPN really cares that much what was said, but it's all about the almighty dollar and they don't want to lose any over a stupid ethnic food joke.

You go, Bob Griese! During your week off, why don't you go eat some (insert appropriate ethnic food for the Griese surname)!

But now to the main point of the article. I was listening to the radio on the way home and they were talking about the old days when kids would get their butts paddled at school. And these were guys 35-40 years old, reminiscing like it was their fondest memory.

"Yeah, and then they made me sign the paddle afterwards!"

"Yeah, one teacher knocked me out by hitting me on the side of the head with a book!"

It sure didn't seem like they were very scarred. I remember those days - not that I ever got paddled, because I was a good kid. But I believe there was some paddling going on - and I know teachers would always threaten such punishment. I remember an elementary school teacher throwing erasers at kids with big mouths. And it was okay - no one really gave it a second thought.

So when did things change? I'm seriously not that old. I was in junior high 20 years ago. But if any of this butt-paddling and eraser-throwing happened today, here is what would likely happen:

1) Teacher arrested
2) Teacher fired
3) A series of front-page newspaper articles about the teacher's criminal heart
4) Teacher is executed by gunfire at sundown

I'm sort of joking. And I'm not saying that teachers should be going around opening up a can of butt-whoop on every kid that steps out of line. I'm just wondering. . . what happened?

And more importantly, when did it happen? When did it become not okay? I'd like a specific year, please.