While I'd like to believe that the Colts decision to give up on Sunday against the Jets was their way of admitting that they really did lose to the Pats when the refs blew the call on the "fourth and 2" play, but somehow I doubt it.
Jim Caldwell (Indianapolis Head Coach) decided to thumb his nose at history. The Colts are too good to make an attempt at the undefeated season. It's below them. All that matters is winning the Super Bowl.
I have a few opinions about this. (Is anyone surprised?)
First, that's moronic. Only one team has ever had a perfect 16 game regular season. The 2007 New England Patriots. Every year somebody wins the Super Bowl. Who won the 1995 Super Bowl? What about 1982? 1977? What team went undefeated through the regular season? That's what I thought.
Perhaps Coach Caldwell was attempting to alleviate the pressure of going undefeated. All succeeded in doing was put even more pressure on the team to win the Super Bowl. It would be understandable if they went 18-1. Other teams have done that. One team in particular suffered their only loss in the big game. Now, the Colts have purposefully lost "to keep their stars healthy so they can win it all." Guess what. Now they really need to win it all.
What else has Coach Caldwell done by benching his starters? He's created controversy where there was none. No one was debating if they should play everyone or not. The question was will they. If they played everyone, and won, no one would have faulted them. In fact, Coach Caldwell has now created a situation where they absolutely must lose to the Bills this week. If they leave their starters in, why did they pull them last week? If they pull their starters and their scrubs are able to defeat the Bills, then they should have left Peyton in last week so their perfect season would still be intact. For last week to make any sense, the must lose this week.
The Colts claim that the perfect season wasn't of importance to them. They wanted to hold the record for most consecutive regular season wins (Which they don't, due to their loss to the Patriots this year), and they wanted to hold the record for most wins in a decade. If these records were truly important, and not lip service after the fact, then they should have wanted to beat the Jets to add another tally to both records. They didn't, which leads me to believe the Colts brass were struggling to find any reason as to why they made their terrible decision.
Those (few) that defend the decision claim that the coach would be under even more fire if he'd left the starters in and someone (Peyton) got hurt late in the game. Why do people assume this is going to happen only at the end of a game that doesn't mean anything? Is Peyton immune to injury at all other times? If the logic is we don't want him hurt during a meaningless time in the game then any time the Colts are up by three touchdowns (which wasn't very often this year) he should be out of the game. Funny, I didn't see him out at any other time this year. I guess the teams logic is completely and utterly faulty. But that isn't very surprising.
What did Peyton think of the decision? I don't care what he said verbally after the game. I care about what he said non-verbally during the game. I've never seen anyone out of the game leave their helmet on with the chin strap fastened longer than Peyton Manning. He didn't toss on a Colt's ball cap or one of those knit hats that have the team color on the bottom and fade to black near the top. He didn't relax on the bench like one pleased that he was finally out of the game. He walked the sidelines like a kid in time out, like that star player in little league that has to sit an inning so that everyone can play. "Come on coach, put me in! Put me in coach! I wanna play!" I think even Mr. Manning agrees with me: Coach Caldwell made the wrong decision. Period.
On a final thought, some people are pointing to the utter collapse of the Colts once Peyton was benched as proof that he ought to be the MVP this year. This, too, is an ignorant belief. It would be one thing if Peyton were the only player taken out of the game and Painter failed while sharing the field with Wayne, Clark, and Adai. But no, they were also riding the pine. As were some of the Colts' starting offensive linemen. If this is the evidence that Peyton is MVP worthy, then so is every other starter that was removed in the third quarter. If anybody is the MVP of the Colts, it's Dallas Clark. No one has been more clutch for them this year!
Bottom line: Wrong decision to lay down and die for the Colts. This caused controversy, created a situation where they must enter the playoffs having lost their last two games, and adds even more pressure on the team to win the big game, which isn't going to happen.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Tip Jar
The Tip Jar is a funny thing.
This oddity of nature is most often located in places where one wouldn't normally consider tipping as being an option.
Allow me to explain what I mean: You never see a tip jar at the end of your restaurant table. Why's that? Everybody tips the waitstaff (unless they didn't deserve it. Even then, we still leave a little something). Taxi drivers in New York City don't have a tip jar in the passenger seat. Why not? "Keep the change." That's why not. Bell Hop's don't carry your suitcase to your room with a tip jar dangling from their belt. "Thank you, my good man." The pizza delivery person, your dry cleaner, bar tender, the shoe-shine boy, a Maitre D'. Tip jar? No where to be seen.
So what is the purpose of this silent "suggestion?" I suppose it started out as a way to propose that a tip might be appropriate for certain people who are often overlooked. At your local deli, where someone takes the time and effort to create a sandwich to your exact specifications. I can understand that.
What has it become? An obligation to prevent some college student from spitting in my coffee. Why does Dunkin Donuts have a tip jar? "You had to reach really high to get my chocolate cruller, here's a little something for you." "You put two whole scoops of sugar in my coffee. Don't mention it." How come my local pizzeria has a tip jar inside their store? "Thanks for letting me drive out to pick up my own pizza. Keep the change." What about the ice cream shoppe? "Thanks for putting the regulated amount of peanut butter cup crumbles on my cone. This is for you."
And yet, companies find even more outlandish places for the dreaded Tip Jar. Friends of mine recounted to me a tale of the most recent, most audacious offender. They spotted a Tip Jar at the drive up window of a Starbucks. The drive up window! Now they have another excuse to expectorate in my Latte.
What's next? Am I going to see a Tip Jar at my doctor's office? Will there be one as I leave church? Let's just get rid of them altogether. If I want to tip you, I'll tip you. If I don't, I won't.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
An NFL Prediction
I'm predicting it right now: Two teams will finish the season undefeated (according to the NFL) and neither of them will make it to the Super Bowl.
New Orleans has the easiest path to undefeated. Their toughest test is this week when Dallas comes to town. But it's Romo and it's December which means the 8-5 'Boys are gonna lose. Then the terrifying 1-12 Buccaneers limp into the Superdome for their beating. And finally, New Orleans travels to the 5-8 Panthers for the Saints' 16th win of the year.
The Colts don't have it quite as easy. First they travel to the 7-6 Jaguars. This is definitely their toughest challenge remaining as well because Jacksonville is built to beat the Colts. They rarely do it, but it's what they are designed to do. After Jacksonville, Indianapolis welcomes the 7-6 Jets to town. No contest. And then they travel to frosty Buffalo to beat T.O. and the Bills for the Colts' 16th victory.
I know what you're thinking: How can I foresee two teams going undefeated yet neither of them making it to the big dance? I'm glad you asked.
Neither Indy nor New Orleans has really impressed this year. The teams that the Colts have played average .500 so far this year and the Saints have played teams that average a paltry .333! Not only that but the Colts had a stretch where they had to mount a fourth quarter comeback five games in a row! Against San Fran (6-7), and twice against the 6-7 Houston Texans!
So, who's going to beat these "undefeated" teams? Well, the Patriots have already proven that they can handle the Colts. If their game were a backyard match up (you know, where first downs and pass interference calls are made accurately) the Patriots walk away with the victory. But, the way the Patriots are playing, they're lucky if they make it out of the wild card round. Even if they do win there, it's likely the Bengals lose which means for the Patriots to knock off the Colts they'd have to go through the Chargers and that's not going to happen. Speaking of the Chargers: They are on an unbelievable winning streak and they are peaking at the right time. The Chargers will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.
Will they face the undefeated Saints? Nope. 5 of the Saints 13 wins are against teams over .500 and 3 of those teams are sitting at 7-6. They've almost lost to the 1-12 Rams and the 4-9 Redskins. This is the first time this team is in the limelight. Once they hit the post season, they won't know what to do with themselves. So who will unseat them? To be honest, of the playoff teams (were the season over today) I think several have a good chance at defeating the Saints. The Cardinals secondary could put an end to the deep threat but their line is still good at stopping the run. The Eagles definitely match up well against New Orleans. But the team that the Saints definitely will not get past is the Vikings. The Purple People will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Now, the real question is: Let's say my prediction turns out completely incorrect. Let's suppose the Saints and the Colts both make it to the Super Bowl undefeated. One team will complete the feat of 19-0. Which team do you root for?
New Orleans has the easiest path to undefeated. Their toughest test is this week when Dallas comes to town. But it's Romo and it's December which means the 8-5 'Boys are gonna lose. Then the terrifying 1-12 Buccaneers limp into the Superdome for their beating. And finally, New Orleans travels to the 5-8 Panthers for the Saints' 16th win of the year.
The Colts don't have it quite as easy. First they travel to the 7-6 Jaguars. This is definitely their toughest challenge remaining as well because Jacksonville is built to beat the Colts. They rarely do it, but it's what they are designed to do. After Jacksonville, Indianapolis welcomes the 7-6 Jets to town. No contest. And then they travel to frosty Buffalo to beat T.O. and the Bills for the Colts' 16th victory.
I know what you're thinking: How can I foresee two teams going undefeated yet neither of them making it to the big dance? I'm glad you asked.
Neither Indy nor New Orleans has really impressed this year. The teams that the Colts have played average .500 so far this year and the Saints have played teams that average a paltry .333! Not only that but the Colts had a stretch where they had to mount a fourth quarter comeback five games in a row! Against San Fran (6-7), and twice against the 6-7 Houston Texans!
So, who's going to beat these "undefeated" teams? Well, the Patriots have already proven that they can handle the Colts. If their game were a backyard match up (you know, where first downs and pass interference calls are made accurately) the Patriots walk away with the victory. But, the way the Patriots are playing, they're lucky if they make it out of the wild card round. Even if they do win there, it's likely the Bengals lose which means for the Patriots to knock off the Colts they'd have to go through the Chargers and that's not going to happen. Speaking of the Chargers: They are on an unbelievable winning streak and they are peaking at the right time. The Chargers will represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.
Will they face the undefeated Saints? Nope. 5 of the Saints 13 wins are against teams over .500 and 3 of those teams are sitting at 7-6. They've almost lost to the 1-12 Rams and the 4-9 Redskins. This is the first time this team is in the limelight. Once they hit the post season, they won't know what to do with themselves. So who will unseat them? To be honest, of the playoff teams (were the season over today) I think several have a good chance at defeating the Saints. The Cardinals secondary could put an end to the deep threat but their line is still good at stopping the run. The Eagles definitely match up well against New Orleans. But the team that the Saints definitely will not get past is the Vikings. The Purple People will represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.
Now, the real question is: Let's say my prediction turns out completely incorrect. Let's suppose the Saints and the Colts both make it to the Super Bowl undefeated. One team will complete the feat of 19-0. Which team do you root for?
One Percent
A faithful reader of JMO requested that I read this article by Thomas Friedman and respond. With pleasure! I'm always happy to discuss the things that interest my readers! If you have something you'd like my opinion on, please don't hesitate to ask!
If you don't have time to read the article, here's a brief run-down. This columnist does something that politicians are masters at: he takes something that he doesn't agree with (Here, it's Vice President Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" that states "If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.") The columnist takes one aspect of this and twists it to fit something that the originator of the concept would likely not agree with. In this case, global warming. He argues that even if it's a 1% chance that humanity is causing Global Warming, we need to treat it as a certainty and respond appropriately.
Another excellent example of this is tactic can be seen in the concept of tolerance. Truly tolerant people must be tolerant of all people, including those that do not embrace the concept of tolerance.
Basically, the general practice is to announce your support for something when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. ("I tolerate all viewpoints, except those of the intolerant." "I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to the Climate, not terrorism") I believe my faithful friend, the reader who suggested that I peruse this article, expected the same duality from me in the reverse of the columnist ("I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to terrorism, not the climate").
Surprise!
I think both the writer and Cheney are wrong. I'm sorry, but 1% is not nearly enough for me to dedicate anything to a cause or concern. There is a greater than 1% chance that my car (304 thousand plus miles on it) will break down while I'm driving to work, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend gobs of cash or time on it! 1%, that's 1 out of 100. 1 out of 100 people over the age of 60 get Parkinson's. Should I treat that as a certainty and make sure I don't live that long? 1 in 100 children have autism. What would treating that as a certainty do to our reproductive practices? Clearly, the 'One Percent Doctrine' is ludicrous.
Look, there may be a 1% chance that Pakistanis are assisting Al Qaeda. To treat this as a certainty means war. To treat it as though it's even 30% likely is way more than it deserves! And the same goes for Global Warming! (By the way, if the "science" of man-caused-Global-Warming were so certain, why hide things? Why "massage" the facts? Why purposefully misconstrue information to suit your agenda? Things that are truthful are transparent, they aren't disguised. What would you think of a prosecutor who maneuvers data to get a conviction? Or a religion that doesn't welcome scrutiny but runs from it? Not much, I'm afraid.) I digress...
Mr. Cheney, if you want to consider a 1% threat as though it were a certainty, go right ahead. But DO NOT use my taxes or my neighbors in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to do it. And don't try to frighten me with your 1% equals a certainty doctrine.
Mr. Man-Made-Global-Warming politician, if you want to research alternative energy, that's great. If you want to cut down on your own "carbon footprint," fantastic. If you want to privately encourage car makers and large corporations to change the way they do business, good for you! But DO NOT use my taxes to do it. And DO NOT use your questionable evidence to try to frighten people to putting you in office with your apocalyptic, the end is near doctrine.
Now, Mr. Friedman closes his opinion piece by suggesting that even if we are wrong about Global Warming then it's a win-win: The climate is ok and we are more energy innovative and independent.
I think people misunderstand where I stand on this issue. Do I think that man is causing a potentially catastrophic irreversible increase to our planet's temperature? No, I don't. Am I against people creating new energy sources, driving cleaner cars, reducing/reusing/recycling? No, I'm not. Am I against politicians using scare tactics to gain votes? You bet. Am I against the government mandating certain "reforms" that will cause a drastic increase in the cost of living not only in regards to what I pay for energy but also what I pay for food, clothes, etc because of what the companies that produce and distribute those items pay for energy? Absolutely. Am I against "scientists" altering data and causing mass panic and hysteria so they can steal funding from worthy causes (Such as a cure for AIDS, Cancer, Autism, etc) so they can work on their pet project? You better believe it.
Wanna "do your part" for the planet? Please do. But keep the government out of it.
Your thoughts?
If you don't have time to read the article, here's a brief run-down. This columnist does something that politicians are masters at: he takes something that he doesn't agree with (Here, it's Vice President Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" that states "If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.") The columnist takes one aspect of this and twists it to fit something that the originator of the concept would likely not agree with. In this case, global warming. He argues that even if it's a 1% chance that humanity is causing Global Warming, we need to treat it as a certainty and respond appropriately.
Another excellent example of this is tactic can be seen in the concept of tolerance. Truly tolerant people must be tolerant of all people, including those that do not embrace the concept of tolerance.
Basically, the general practice is to announce your support for something when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. ("I tolerate all viewpoints, except those of the intolerant." "I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to the Climate, not terrorism") I believe my faithful friend, the reader who suggested that I peruse this article, expected the same duality from me in the reverse of the columnist ("I believe in the 'One Percent Doctrine' when it comes to terrorism, not the climate").
Surprise!
I think both the writer and Cheney are wrong. I'm sorry, but 1% is not nearly enough for me to dedicate anything to a cause or concern. There is a greater than 1% chance that my car (304 thousand plus miles on it) will break down while I'm driving to work, but that doesn't mean I'm going to spend gobs of cash or time on it! 1%, that's 1 out of 100. 1 out of 100 people over the age of 60 get Parkinson's. Should I treat that as a certainty and make sure I don't live that long? 1 in 100 children have autism. What would treating that as a certainty do to our reproductive practices? Clearly, the 'One Percent Doctrine' is ludicrous.
Look, there may be a 1% chance that Pakistanis are assisting Al Qaeda. To treat this as a certainty means war. To treat it as though it's even 30% likely is way more than it deserves! And the same goes for Global Warming! (By the way, if the "science" of man-caused-Global-Warming were so certain, why hide things? Why "massage" the facts? Why purposefully misconstrue information to suit your agenda? Things that are truthful are transparent, they aren't disguised. What would you think of a prosecutor who maneuvers data to get a conviction? Or a religion that doesn't welcome scrutiny but runs from it? Not much, I'm afraid.) I digress...
Mr. Cheney, if you want to consider a 1% threat as though it were a certainty, go right ahead. But DO NOT use my taxes or my neighbors in the armed forces and intelligence agencies to do it. And don't try to frighten me with your 1% equals a certainty doctrine.
Mr. Man-Made-Global-Warming politician, if you want to research alternative energy, that's great. If you want to cut down on your own "carbon footprint," fantastic. If you want to privately encourage car makers and large corporations to change the way they do business, good for you! But DO NOT use my taxes to do it. And DO NOT use your questionable evidence to try to frighten people to putting you in office with your apocalyptic, the end is near doctrine.
Now, Mr. Friedman closes his opinion piece by suggesting that even if we are wrong about Global Warming then it's a win-win: The climate is ok and we are more energy innovative and independent.
I think people misunderstand where I stand on this issue. Do I think that man is causing a potentially catastrophic irreversible increase to our planet's temperature? No, I don't. Am I against people creating new energy sources, driving cleaner cars, reducing/reusing/recycling? No, I'm not. Am I against politicians using scare tactics to gain votes? You bet. Am I against the government mandating certain "reforms" that will cause a drastic increase in the cost of living not only in regards to what I pay for energy but also what I pay for food, clothes, etc because of what the companies that produce and distribute those items pay for energy? Absolutely. Am I against "scientists" altering data and causing mass panic and hysteria so they can steal funding from worthy causes (Such as a cure for AIDS, Cancer, Autism, etc) so they can work on their pet project? You better believe it.
Wanna "do your part" for the planet? Please do. But keep the government out of it.
Your thoughts?
Friday, December 11, 2009
New Rankings
As requested by a reader, I have removed the "Marketability" ranking. I have also shifted a few stations around after further perusal and here are my new findings:
Ranking) (Previous Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Mascot Connection #)] (Any change in category ranking is signified in paranthesis)
32) (29) Saints: 23.75 (21) (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, MC: 26)
31) (30) Giants: 23.75 (21.8) (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, MC: 32)
30) (31) Ravens: 23.5 (24.2) (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, MC: 13)
29) (32) Browns: 22.5 (24.6) (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, MC: 29)
28) (28) Bears: 22.25 (21) (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, MC: 31)
27) (23) Chiefs: 20.25 (19.2) (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, MC: 25)
26) (18) Forty-Niners: 19.5 (17.8) (I: 28, H: 4, A: 18, MC: 28)
25) (26) Jets: 18.75 (19.8) (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, MC: 8)
24) (20) Chargers: 18.25 (18.6) (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, MC: 10)
23) (22) Jaguars: 18.25 (19.2) (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, MC: 15)
22) (27) Redskins: 18 (20.6) (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, MC: 7)
21) (19) Falcons: 18 (17.8) (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, MC: 17)
20) (16) Texans: 17.75 (15.6) (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, MC: 21)
19) (24) Dolphins: 17.75 (19.4) (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, MC: 1)
18) (9) Bengals: 17.5 (14.4) (I: 16, H: 28, A: 2 (3), MC: 24)
17) (25) Bills: 17.25 (19.6) (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, MC: 18)
16) (11) Packers: 17.25 (14.6) (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, MC: 27)
15) (21) Seahawks: 17 (18.6) (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, MC: 20)
14) (13) Panthers: 16.25 (14.8) (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, MC: 14)
13) (8) Titans: 16 (13.8) (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, MC: 22)
12) (14) Colts: 15.5 (15) (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, MC: 23)
11) (17) Lions: 14.5 (17.2) (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, MC: 4)
The New Top Ten:
10) (15) Buccaneers: 14 (15.4) (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, MC: 12)
9) (5) Cowboys: 13.75 (11.8) (I: 21, H: 3 (4), A: 1, MC: 30)
8) (12) Rams: 12.75 (14.6) (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, MC: 5)
7) (6) Broncos: 11.25 (12.6) (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, MC: 19)
6) (2) Eagles: 11.25 (10.2) (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, MC: 16)
5) (3) Vikings: 11.25 (10.6) (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, MC: 2)
4) (7) Cardinals: 11 (12.8) (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, MC: 10)
3) (4) Steelers: 10.75 (10.8) (I: 24, H: 2, A: 11, MC: 6)
2) (10) Raiders: 10.5 (14.4) (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, MC: 9)
#1 NFL logo:
1) (1) Patriots: 7.5 (6.4) (I: 17, H: 7, A: 3 (2), MC: 3)
So even though I dropped the Patriots a notch in a category and removed the "Marketability" category they still fall to the top spot.
I encourage any of you to create your own rankings. Or even your own categories. If you have new categories that you think I should include, I'm happy to do so! Keep those suggestions coming!
Ranking) (Previous Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Mascot Connection #)] (Any change in category ranking is signified in paranthesis)
32) (29) Saints: 23.75 (21) (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, MC: 26) 
31) (30) Giants: 23.75 (21.8) (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, MC: 32)
30) (31) Ravens: 23.5 (24.2) (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, MC: 13) 
29) (32) Browns: 22.5 (24.6) (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, MC: 29) 
28) (28) Bears: 22.25 (21) (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, MC: 31) 
27) (23) Chiefs: 20.25 (19.2) (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, MC: 25) 
26) (18) Forty-Niners: 19.5 (17.8) (I: 28, H: 4, A: 18, MC: 28) 
25) (26) Jets: 18.75 (19.8) (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, MC: 8) 
24) (20) Chargers: 18.25 (18.6) (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, MC: 10) 
23) (22) Jaguars: 18.25 (19.2) (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, MC: 15) 
22) (27) Redskins: 18 (20.6) (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, MC: 7) 
21) (19) Falcons: 18 (17.8) (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, MC: 17) 
20) (16) Texans: 17.75 (15.6) (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, MC: 21) 
19) (24) Dolphins: 17.75 (19.4) (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, MC: 1)
18) (9) Bengals: 17.5 (14.4) (I: 16, H: 28, A: 2 (3), MC: 24) 
17) (25) Bills: 17.25 (19.6) (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, MC: 18) 
16) (11) Packers: 17.25 (14.6) (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, MC: 27) 
15) (21) Seahawks: 17 (18.6) (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, MC: 20) 
14) (13) Panthers: 16.25 (14.8) (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, MC: 14) 
13) (8) Titans: 16 (13.8) (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, MC: 22) 
12) (14) Colts: 15.5 (15) (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, MC: 23) 
11) (17) Lions: 14.5 (17.2) (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, MC: 4) 
10) (15) Buccaneers: 14 (15.4) (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, MC: 12) 
9) (5) Cowboys: 13.75 (11.8) (I: 21, H: 3 (4), A: 1, MC: 30)
8) (12) Rams: 12.75 (14.6) (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, MC: 5) 
7) (6) Broncos: 11.25 (12.6) (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, MC: 19) 
6) (2) Eagles: 11.25 (10.2) (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, MC: 16) 
5) (3) Vikings: 11.25 (10.6) (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, MC: 2) 
4) (7) Cardinals: 11 (12.8) (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, MC: 10) 
3) (4) Steelers: 10.75 (10.8) (I: 24, H: 2, A: 11, MC: 6) 
2) (10) Raiders: 10.5 (14.4) (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, MC: 9) 
1) (1) Patriots: 7.5 (6.4) (I: 17, H: 7, A: 3 (2), MC: 3)So even though I dropped the Patriots a notch in a category and removed the "Marketability" category they still fall to the top spot.
I encourage any of you to create your own rankings. Or even your own categories. If you have new categories that you think I should include, I'm happy to do so! Keep those suggestions coming!
Monday, December 07, 2009
NFL Logo Rankings
Faithful readers of JMO will no doubt remember my season of Power Rankings. I've decided to rank all 32 of the NFL teams' logos instead.
Rather than simply look at them and say "I like that one, I don't like that one." I decided to be systematic about this process. I devised five categories and ranked all 32 logos for each category. I then calculated the average to see where each logo fell out. Here are the categories:
Intimidation: Does the logo itself strike fear into it's opponent. This is simply the image, not the actual skill of the team. For example the Steelers are a great team and I would not want to face them, but their logo is not intimidating. On the contrary, the Buccaneers are not exceptionally good, but their skull and cross bones flying on a sword is pretty intimidating. Top intimidator: Panthers.
Historical Significance: This is where the historical weight of the team is rated. While the Cowboys' star isn't very intimidating, historically, Dallas has been a very good team and they would do well in this category. Something considered here was a change in logo. Had the Buccaneers been good under their previous logo, they would have suffered in this category as they have since radically changed their image. However, a team like the Patriots moves up because their winning ways have occurred under the new logo. Logo with the most history behind it: Packers.
General Aesthetics: Is the logo nice to look at? Is it well balanced? How artistic is the image itself? I took nothing else into account, I just asked: Is it pretty? Best looking logo: Cowboys.
Marketability: This rated the likelihood that people would buy something with this image on it. I was not attempting to calculate the total fan base of each team. Some of the characteristics I considered: "Is it fashionable?" "What would it look like reduced in size?" "Is it trendy?" "Are the colors 'In'?" Most marketable logo: Bengals.
Mascot Connection: To determine this, I imagined a non-football fan with the following quiz: One side of has all of the logos, the other all of the mascot names. Which ones would they know right away, which ones might they confuse for other teams, and which ones would be outright guesses. Best mascot connection: Dolphins.
In the case of a tie, I looked at the highest ranking each team had. For example: the Saints and the Bears both had 21. The highest placement for the Saints was a 10 in Marketability. The Bears ranked 5th in Historical Significance and therefore ranked higher overall.
Here are how the logos ranked: [ Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Marketability #, Mascot Connection #)]
32) Browns: 24.6 (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, M: 32, MC: 29)
31) Ravens: 24.2 (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, M: 27, MC: 13)
30) Giants: 21.8 (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, M: 14, MC: 32)
29) Saints: 21 (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, M: 10, MC: 26)
28) Bears: 21 (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, M: 16, MC: 31)
27) Redskins: 20.6 (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, M: 31, MC: 7)
26) Jets: 19.8 (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, M: 24, MC: 8)
25) Bills: 19.6 (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, M: 29, MC: 18)
24) Dolphins: 19.4 (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, M: 26, MC: 1)
23) Chiefs: 19.2 (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, M: 15, MC: 25)
22) Jaguars: 19.2 (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, M: 23, MC: 15)
21) Seahawks: 18.6 (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, M: 25, MC: 20)
20) Chargers: 18.6 (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, M: 20, MC: 10)
19) Falcons: 17.8 (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, M: 17, MC: 17)
18) Forty-Niners: 17.8 (I: 28, H: 3, A: 18, M: 12, MC: 28)
17) Lions: 17.2 (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, M: 28, MC: 4)
16) Texans: 15.6 (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, M: 7, MC: 21)
15) Buccaneers: 15.4 (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, M: 21, MC: 12)
14) Colts: 15 (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, M: 13, MC: 23)
13) Panthers: 14.8 (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, M: 9, MC: 14)
12) Rams: 14.6 (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, M: 22, MC: 5)
11) Packers: 14.6 (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, M: 4, MC: 27)
Top Ten:
10) Raiders: 14.4 (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, M: 30, MC: 9)
9) Bengals: 14.4 (I: 16, H: 28, A: 3, M: 1, MC: 24)
8) Titans: 13.8 (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, M: 5, MC: 22)
7) Cardinals: 12.8 (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, M: 20, MC: 10)
6) Broncos: 12.6 (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, M: 18, MC: 19)
5) Cowboys: 11.8 (I: 21, H: 4, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 30)
4) Steelers: 10.8 (I: 24, H: 2, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 6)
3) Vikings: 10.6 (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, M: 8, MC: 2)
2) Eagles: 10.2 (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, M: 6, MC: 16)
#1 NFL logo:
1) Patriots: 6.4 (I: 17, H: 7, A: 2, M: 3, MC: 3)
Now, I know this looks like a major case of "homerism" but I worked very hard to be impartial. The Bengals' "B" ranked higher than the Patriots for Intimidation because of it's slicing stripes. I was surprised at how high the Arizona Cardinals made it overall. I'd be more than happy to list each category. I can do it with the logo images in future posts, or I can do it without images in the comments of this post. Please let me know which you'd prefer if you want me to list the five categories separately.
No doubt you have some emotional reaction to this list! Sound off! Let me know what I got right or what I got terribly wrong! This is my opinion. What's yours?
Rather than simply look at them and say "I like that one, I don't like that one." I decided to be systematic about this process. I devised five categories and ranked all 32 logos for each category. I then calculated the average to see where each logo fell out. Here are the categories:
Intimidation: Does the logo itself strike fear into it's opponent. This is simply the image, not the actual skill of the team. For example the Steelers are a great team and I would not want to face them, but their logo is not intimidating. On the contrary, the Buccaneers are not exceptionally good, but their skull and cross bones flying on a sword is pretty intimidating. Top intimidator: Panthers.
Historical Significance: This is where the historical weight of the team is rated. While the Cowboys' star isn't very intimidating, historically, Dallas has been a very good team and they would do well in this category. Something considered here was a change in logo. Had the Buccaneers been good under their previous logo, they would have suffered in this category as they have since radically changed their image. However, a team like the Patriots moves up because their winning ways have occurred under the new logo. Logo with the most history behind it: Packers.
General Aesthetics: Is the logo nice to look at? Is it well balanced? How artistic is the image itself? I took nothing else into account, I just asked: Is it pretty? Best looking logo: Cowboys.
Marketability: This rated the likelihood that people would buy something with this image on it. I was not attempting to calculate the total fan base of each team. Some of the characteristics I considered: "Is it fashionable?" "What would it look like reduced in size?" "Is it trendy?" "Are the colors 'In'?" Most marketable logo: Bengals.
Mascot Connection: To determine this, I imagined a non-football fan with the following quiz: One side of has all of the logos, the other all of the mascot names. Which ones would they know right away, which ones might they confuse for other teams, and which ones would be outright guesses. Best mascot connection: Dolphins.
In the case of a tie, I looked at the highest ranking each team had. For example: the Saints and the Bears both had 21. The highest placement for the Saints was a 10 in Marketability. The Bears ranked 5th in Historical Significance and therefore ranked higher overall.
Here are how the logos ranked: [ Ranking) Team name: Avg Score (Intimidation #, Historical Significance #, Aesthetics #, Marketability #, Mascot Connection #)]
32) Browns: 24.6 (I: 20, H: 16, A: 26, M: 32, MC: 29) 31) Ravens: 24.2 (I: 18, H: 31, A: 32, M: 27, MC: 13) 30) Giants: 21.8 (I: 30, H: 24, A: 9, M: 14, MC: 32)29) Saints: 21 (I: 31, H: 23, A: 15, M: 10, MC: 26) 28) Bears: 21 (I: 26, H: 5, A: 27, M: 16, MC: 31) 27) Redskins: 20.6 (I: 22, H: 12, A: 31, M: 31, MC: 7) 26) Jets: 19.8 (I: 29, H: 13, A: 25, M: 24, MC: 8) 25) Bills: 19.6 (I: 12, H: 10, A: 29, M: 29, MC: 18) 24) Dolphins: 19.4 (I: 32, H: 15, A: 23, M: 26, MC: 1)23) Chiefs: 19.2 (I: 25, H: 14, A: 17, M: 15, MC: 25) 22) Jaguars: 19.2 (I: 4, H: 30, A: 24, M: 23, MC: 15) 21) Seahawks: 18.6 (I: 14, H: 21, A: 13, M: 25, MC: 20) 20) Chargers: 18.6 (I: 19, H: 22, A: 22, M: 20, MC: 10) 19) Falcons: 17.8 (I: 9, H: 18, A: 28, M: 17, MC: 17) 18) Forty-Niners: 17.8 (I: 28, H: 3, A: 18, M: 12, MC: 28) 17) Lions: 17.2 (I: 15, H: 9, A: 30, M: 28, MC: 4) 16) Texans: 15.6 (I: 11, H: 32, A: 7, M: 7, MC: 21) 15) Buccaneers: 15.4 (I: 5, H: 27, A: 12, M: 21, MC: 12) 14) Colts: 15 (I: 23, H: 8, A: 8, M: 13, MC: 23) 13) Panthers: 14.8 (I: 1, H: 29, A: 21, M: 9, MC: 14) 12) Rams: 14.6 (I: 8, H: 19, A: 19, M: 22, MC: 5) 11) Packers: 14.6 (I: 27, H: 1, A: 14, M: 4, MC: 27) 10) Raiders: 14.4 (I: 7, H: 6, A: 20, M: 30, MC: 9) 9) Bengals: 14.4 (I: 16, H: 28, A: 3, M: 1, MC: 24) 8) Titans: 13.8 (I: 6, H: 26, A: 10, M: 5, MC: 22) 7) Cardinals: 12.8 (I: 10, H: 20, A: 4, M: 20, MC: 10) 6) Broncos: 12.6 (I: 3, H: 17, A: 6, M: 18, MC: 19) 5) Cowboys: 11.8 (I: 21, H: 4, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 30)4) Steelers: 10.8 (I: 24, H: 2, A: 1, M: 2, MC: 6) 3) Vikings: 10.6 (I: 13, H: 25, A: 5, M: 8, MC: 2) 2) Eagles: 10.2 (I: 2, H: 11, A: 16, M: 6, MC: 16) 1) Patriots: 6.4 (I: 17, H: 7, A: 2, M: 3, MC: 3) Now, I know this looks like a major case of "homerism" but I worked very hard to be impartial. The Bengals' "B" ranked higher than the Patriots for Intimidation because of it's slicing stripes. I was surprised at how high the Arizona Cardinals made it overall. I'd be more than happy to list each category. I can do it with the logo images in future posts, or I can do it without images in the comments of this post. Please let me know which you'd prefer if you want me to list the five categories separately.
No doubt you have some emotional reaction to this list! Sound off! Let me know what I got right or what I got terribly wrong! This is my opinion. What's yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)