Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

The latest issue of The Coffin Corner is now available for download in the Members Only section of the PFRA website. It will be a few weeks before it is mailed from the printer.

In the issue are:
PFRA-ternizing. The executive director gives his state of the PFRA address, listing the accomplishments of the organization for last year and looking ahead to the future, including the announcement of the site for the biennial meeting in 2018.

Hall of Very Good Class of 2016. by Matthew Keddie, Andy Piascik, Matt Reaser and John Turney, with illustrations by John Richards. Mini-biographies of last year’s class are included for Gary Collins, Gale Gillingham, Jim Katcavage, Joe Klecko, Harvey Martin, Don Perkins, Duane Putnam, Isiah Robertson and Louis Wright.

2016 PFRA Awards. The winners are officially announced with Mark L. Ford receiving the Ralph Hay Award for lifetime achievement, James C. Sulecki as the recipient of the Nelson Ross Award for his book The Cleveland Rams: The NFL Champs Who Left Too Soon, 1936–1945 and Kenn Tomasch winning the Bob Carroll Memorial Writing Award for his article “Then and Now: The Demographics of the NFL in 1941 and Today.”

Super Spreads: A Brief History of Point Spreads in the Super Bowl by Mark L. Ford. A quick introduction to the types of wagering in pro football and a recounting of the betting lines for each of the first fifty championships during the Super Bowl era, including a table of point spreads and final results from Super Bowl I to Super Bowl 50.

1,441–1: Measuring Football Futility by Doug Bigelow. The sad tale of one of the most hapless teams in NFL history—the Chicago Cardinals of the early to mid-forties, who went through most of World War II, or 1,441 calendar days, with only a single victory.

Sentimental Journey: In Search of Walter Koppisch by Jeffrey J. Miller. A nostalgic trip back to western New York with a niece and other relatives of former Buffalo Bison Walter Koppisch to the neighborhood and school of the early NFL player, including a visit with Sam “Smoke” Dana, the oldest living player at the time.

Super Bowl pointspreads can be found at any one of six hundred websites, particularly this time of year. Why are they being presented in this journal as some sort of product of research?

jeckle_and_heckle wrote:Super Bowl pointspreads can be found at any one of six hundred websites, particularly this time of year. Why are they being presented in this journal as some sort of product of research?

It's not about current point spreads, nor about this Sunday's game, nor about promoting or discouraging gambling. It's about what the final predictions were during the first 50 Super Bowls, and what the actual result turned out to be. Basically, in the first 50, the oddsmakers were wrong half the time. The favored team won 24 times, the underdog won 24 times, and the result was a tie the other two times. I'm sorry if any reader is offended that gambling is mentioned in the context of the history of professional football, but it's been an aspect of the game for as long as pro football has existed.

Mark L. Ford wrote:

jeckle_and_heckle wrote:Super Bowl pointspreads can be found at any one of six hundred websites, particularly this time of year. Why are they being presented in this journal as some sort of product of research?

It's not about current point spreads, nor about this Sunday's game, nor about promoting or discouraging gambling. It's about what the final predictions were during the first 50 Super Bowls, and what the actual result turned out to be. Basically, in the first 50, the oddsmakers were wrong half the time. The favored team won 24 times, the underdog won 24 times, and the result was a tie the other two times. I'm sorry if any reader is offended that gambling is mentioned in the context of the history of professional football, but it's been an aspect of the game for as long as pro football has existed.

Who's offended? Not me. I asked the question because you can find the pointspreads for every Super Bowl via a ten-second google search, and it appeared to me like they were presented in this journal as some type of hard-to-find information, which it isn't.

Anyway, oddsmakers aren't "wrong." Pointspreads are not predictions, a common misunderstanding. They are just a device to split the betting action. In that regard, they reflect the viewpoint of the betting public. In fact, the 50/50 results you mentioned prove the linemakers' prowess.

Readers can judge for themselves, I suppose. Coffin Corner tries to have an eclectic mix of different topics, so not everyone finds every article interesting, and that's okay. Please post some links to a few of those websites you're talking about. My preference is for contemporary newspapers, so I didn't really look at the ones you're referring to, but I would be interested in seeing how their tables compare. As a PFRA member, of course, you're welcome to share some of your research and writing with everyone. I don't know whether I've read anything you've published-- and I don't recognize your nom de plume-- but I'd enjoy seeing some of your findings, seriously.

There's an old expression: never tell the truth to someone who doesn't deserve it.

If you're going to falsely insinuate pointspreads are predictions and then slough it off with "readers can judge for themselves" when challenged on it, there's no point in continuing.

Have a good day, sir.

Point spreads are, by and large, consensus predictions, as in the case of the Super Bowl they take into consideration millions, tens of millions, of people who are willing to bet money predicting the final point differential of the game. The goal of the odds maker is to get half the money to bet one way, and the other half to bet the other way, because no matter who loses, the losing bettor has to pay a ten percent surcharge (also known as vig or juice) on top of their wager. In this way, the guy taking the bets always wins because he gets ten percent of all the money bet on the game provided he can keep the money equal on both sides. I know this it basic betting 101, but it makes a point that people as a whole put their money where their mouth is by betting on the game, and the point spread (especially the final point spread, and studying how the point spread changes between the opening and final closing spreads) is a strong indicator how people collectively feel about how the game will turn out.

Point spreads are not oddsmakers' win/loss/tie predictions, anything suggesting otherwise is patently untrue.

Not sure why it's a "common misunderstanding" or confusing, seems like it would be common knowledge for any football/sports fan. Probably something I knew by age 7 and I was and have never been overly interested in point spreads.

jeckle_and_heckle wrote:There's an old expression: never tell the truth to someone who doesn't deserve it.

If you're going to falsely insinuate pointspreads are predictions and then slough it off with "readers can judge for themselves" when challenged on it, there's no point in continuing.

Have a good day, sir.

Wow! I'm just a bystander here, but that seems like an extreme over-reaction. I didn't read Mark's reply as meaning that "readers can judge for themselves" as referring to the question of whether pointspreads are predictions or not ... personally, I took it to mean that readers can judge whether the article is worthy of appearing in Coffin Corner.

In any case, you seem to think there was a debate going on, but I think the debate is entirely in your mind and it wouldn't have continued, anyway.

rhickok1109 wrote:

jeckle_and_heckle wrote:There's an old expression: never tell the truth to someone who doesn't deserve it.

If you're going to falsely insinuate pointspreads are predictions and then slough it off with "readers can judge for themselves" when challenged on it, there's no point in continuing.

Have a good day, sir.

Wow! I'm just a bystander here, but that seems like an extreme over-reaction. I didn't read Mark's reply as meaning that "readers can judge for themselves" as referring to the question of whether pointspreads are predictions or not ... personally, I took it to mean that readers can judge whether the article is worthy of appearing in Coffin Corner.

In any case, you seem to think there was a debate going on, but I think the debate is entirely in your mind and it wouldn't have continued, anyway.

I believe you interpreted Mark's comment correctly.