Because of Naj's post I hopped over to Bovada (Bodog) and while that line wasn't posted yet I saw next year's NFL Super Bowl futures were up. My initial instinct was that you can probably find value if you disqualify all of the teams who have no realistic chance to win. This became something of a more interesting exercise.

Current odds (for reference)

	
Green Bay Packers        6/1	
New England Patriots     7/1	
New Orleans Saints      17/2	
Houston Texans          10/1	
Baltimore Ravens        14/1	
New York Giants         14/1	
Philadelphia Eagles     14/1	
Pittsburgh Steelers     14/1
San Francisco 49ers     14/1	
Dallas Cowboys          18/1	
San Diego Chargers      18/1
Detroit Lions           20/1
New York Jets           22/1	
Atlanta Falcons         25/1	
Chicago Bears           25/1	
Arizona Cardinals       30/1	
Miami Dolphins          30/1	
Carolina Panthers       35/1	
Cincinnati Bengals      40/1	
Indianapolis Colts      40/1	
Oakland Raiders         40/1	
Tennessee Titans        45/1	
Denver Broncos          50/1	
Kansas City Chiefs      50/1	
Washington Redskins     50/1	
Seattle Seahawks        60/1	
Buffalo Bills           65/1	
St. Louis Rams          75/1	
Minnesota Vikings       80/1	
Tampa Bay Buccaneers    80/1	
Cleveland Browns       100/1	
Jacksonville Jaguars   100/1

One thing that makes this list interesting is that it is sorted both by performance, perception, and popularity. This suggests that the latter two sorts are exploitable edges. For example, Denver at 50:1? This is a team that won their division, and then won a playoff game. Sure I understand that Tebow is freakish but that's kind of the point. No one wants to bet on him (or maybe the people who do are morally opposed to gambling?) so Denver gets a crappy number. John Fox clearly has turned that team around and he has a history of maximizing his resources. Denver isn't going to be much of a passing team anyway so this mitigates whatever limitations Tebow has. Not saying that Denver is an amazing wager at 50:1, just saying that it appears that perception weighs in here.

Anyhow, when I first started thinking about this I expected that it would be easy to disqualify all of the teams at the bottom half and therefore generate value at the top half. After reviewing the recent history of Super Bowl winners I've decided this is exactly wrong, which makes this whole exercise more compelling to me. My inclination was to believe that there is sort of an ascension to Super Bowl status over the course of a couple of seasons. This - of course - isn't true. Or maybe it is, but not in an obvious way. Going back to the '90s and before this was probably accurate, but Pete Rozelle's vision of parity finally fruited around the turn of the millenium. I believe that this has generated a good bit of value in these futures as the public still bets heavily on the tried/true favorites.

Consider, in the last 13 seasons St. Louis, Baltimore, New England, New York, and New Orleans each won the Super Bowl a year after missing the playoffs. I understand this is a cherry-picked range. You have to go all the way back to 1982 (Redskins) to find the previous time this happened. To me though, this supports the idea that the paradigm has changed. 5 times in 13 years versus 1 time in the prior 20 tells me that things are probably different.

So what made these teams closet champions? Maybe useful to look at each individually.

St. Louis The 1998 Rams went 4-11 with a pythogorean expectation of 5.8 wins. This was Vermeil's 2nd season with the team. They had Isaac Bruce and Orlando Pace entering their primes. Their quarterbacks were Tony Banks who was horrible and Steve Bono who was also pretty bad. Their running backs were also terrible with none earning 100 rushing attempts. Bruce only played 5 games due to injury. In the offseason they traded for Marshall Faulk and signed Trent Green. Of course history was made when Green got hurt and their unknown 3rd stringer got an opportunity. I'm not sure how significant that really was since Green was an outstanding quarterback both in Martz's system in subsequent years and later with the Chiefs.

Baltimore 1999 was Billick's first season in Baltimore. They went 8-8 with a pythagorean expectation of 9.2 wins. They had Lewis, Ogden and Boulware peaking, rookie Chris McAlister and 34 year old Woodson converted to FS. This defense was really loaded: Sharper, Starks, Siragusa, McCrary. Also the ugly re-emergence of Tony Banks and an anemic receiving corps. Priest Holmes was dynamic but it is unclear what the team intended with him considering they drafted Lewis the following winter.

New England 2000 was Belichick's first season in New England. They went 5-11 with a pythagorean expectation of 6.4 wins. Their passing game was good - not great - with Bledsoe and Glenn. Their running game fairly atrocious. No ball carrier with more than 10 attempts averaged more than 3.5/carry. Kevin Faulk was their leading RB. The 2000 defense was solid (17th) with most of the core players who would make up their championship defenses. Vinatieri somehow only attempted 13 field goals all season. It is difficult to find young emerging players on this team. It was a veteran club, their 2000 draft was extremely weak (with the exception of a certain 6th rounder) and the best draft pick from the prior two seasons was Damien Woody.

New York The 2006 Giants went 8-8 in Coughlin's 3rd season. Their pythagorean expectation was 7.8. The previous season they had gone 11-5, also slightly outperforming their pythagorean expectation. The '06 team had Barber who was brilliant but who also retired after the year. The offense finished 11th and the defense 24th, a year after finishing 14th. This was a "finished" team with no real holes. The only real difference between '06 and '07 was Jacobs taking Barber's role with Ward and Droughns taking Jacobs'. Going into '07 the team was coming off two outstanding drafts with Jacobs, Tuck, Cofield, Webster, and Kiwanuka. They drafted Aaron Ross in '07 who maybe made an outsized contribution as a rookie, but probably not enough to alter the trajectory of the team.

New Orleans 2008 was Payton's 3rd season as Head Coach. The team went 8-8 with a pythagorean expectation of 9.3 wins. They had the #1 scoring offense with the #26 scoring defense. Payton's first two seasons saw the team also perform at ('06) and slightly below ('07) expectation. Brees was Payton's QB all three years. The '08 team had problems at kicker which didn't really resolve over the winter. Evans and Harper were entering their prime and the team had an outstanding draft in '08 adding Ellis, Porter and Nicks who were each instant starters. The most significant change the team made from '08 to '09 was jettisoning Gary Gibbs and hiring Gregg Williams. Signing Darren Sharper also was ultimately brilliant but no one could have predicted the season he would have in '09.

~

Okay, so where does this leave us? There aren't any obvious linear trends but I wouldn't have expected any. We can think about some categories though.

System Installation These are the teams with new coaches or coordinators who were able to take talented rosters and install their systems. This includes the Rams (Martz), Baltimore (Marvin Lewis, presumably), New England (Belichick) and Saints (Williams).

Rebound Teams that were probably good enough already, just coming off poor seasons. The Patriots, Giants, Saints.

Sudden Improvement Self explanatory. Rams, Ravens.

There are probably some others.

As an aside, Bill Polian operated under the idea that it is easier to sustain a great offense and that every once in a while the defense will improve to the degree that your team can win a championship. If you consider the general garbage the Colts trot out on defense yearly, it is remarkable how well they've done. I believe this has to be taken into account too; FO has also demonstrated that offenses are more sustainable from year to year than defenses.

~

So all that said, who are this year's contenders?

I think we are generally looking for a team with a core group of young players who have recently underperformed their expectation. As with most Super Bowl teams, QB is a key spot so we can safely disqualify teams who are weak there. Recent additions of prominent coordinators or coaches would be a plus.

Since there are 12 playoff teams in any given season, I am only going to look at odds better than 11:1.

Teams who underperformed their expectation significantly:

Philadelphia         8 (9.4)
Miami                6 (8.4)
Carolina             6 (7.6)
Indianapolis         2 (4.3)
Seattle              7 (8.1)
Minnesota            3 (5.8)
Cleveland            4 (5.3)

Most of this list is unsurprising. Most teams under 5 wins tend to underperform their expectation, just bad luck compounded by bad play. We can also eliminate Miami and Seattle for their quarterback issues which leaves us with Philadelphia and Carolina.

System installation teams. Teams in their second season with a HC or first season with a (presumed) significant change at coordinator. Going to eliminate any teams who do not appear to have the quarterback to succeed. Pittsburgh (Haley), Tennessee, Denver, Dallas, Carolina.

Rebound teams. New York Jets, San Diego, Philadelphia, Dallas, Chicago.

Sudden Improvement Candidates. Somewhat subjective, looking for improving teams with strong core of young players. Again, any teams lacking a reasonable quarterback or any team with first year HC is disqualified. Extra points for apparent improvement over the course of '11. Cincinnati, Denver, Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta, Carolina.

It is early to identify player movement that may wildcard the process, but presumably the current odds also reflect our ignorance there. If anything big signings would confound the process, altering odds outsized to the relative impact of the player.

I am eliminating Tennessee from consideration too. Their quarterbacks are too confusing. No way they win with Locker, almost no way they win with Hasselbeck.

So from a simple counting perspective:

Carolina              iii
Dallas                iii
Philadelphia           ii
Denver                 ii
Pittsburgh
New York Jets
San Diego
Chicago
Cincinnati
Detroit
Atlanta

Now applying the Polian filter, build a great offense and hope the defense comes along allows us to eliminate a few. Detroit, Carolina, San Diego, Atlanta and Philadelphia each finished top ten in scoring (in that order). While it isn't a hard rule, most champions are really effective on at least one side of the ball.

Looking at the odds just on these teams:

Detroit            20/1
Carolina           35/1
San Diego          18/1
Atlanta            25/1
Philadelphia       14/1

Detroit, Carolina and Atlanta jump out. I suspect that San Diego offers poor odds mainly because of the likelihood that they win the division. I suspect that Philadelphia is roughly fairly priced although there may be a little value there. To me the huge value is in Carolina, particularly with the play of Newton. Getting out of that division will be tough, but they don't call them longshots for nothing.


Thots?