Football News and Information

Without question, the past 15 NFL seasons have not been overly kind to winning teams (i.e., squads with a .500 or better straight-up record) when it comes to covering the Vegas line and successful 'play-on' situations that favour these teams have been few and far between.

Situation #36 not only bucks this trend, but, actually succeeds on a scale that has not often been seen with any situation since 1994, regardless of the record of the team involved.

The premise here is fairly simple and it involves looking at teams that normally achieve a first down via a passing play by less than the league average.

I don't necessarily care much, in this case, about the effectiveness of this team's passing game. I am only concerned with the percentage of all first-downs that came through a pass-completion, otherwise known as PFD%F (Passing First Down % For).

The league average for PFD% in most seasons, since 1994, has been 57-58% and interestingly enough, teams with a PFD%F of less than 57.5% happen to be 1372-1250 (52.3) ATS during this same time period which is just below the break-even point when making wagers at 10/11 odds'not bad considering we are looking at a trend spanning 2500 games that is based on only 1 condition.

Now, teams can obviously achieve a first-down in a number of other ways in addition to a pass completion: namely, via a rushing play. Or, through a penalty called against their opponent that provides enough yardage to move the chains.

It's the latter scenario'which I like to quantify as IFD%F (Infraction First Down % For)'that is of interest with regards to this particular situation.

When a second condition is included that specifies that the team with the below-average PFD%F also has an IFD%F of less than 8%'which will usually place them in the bottom 3rd of the league for this stat'the record of this situation jumps to an impressive 583-454 (56.2%) ATS, good enough for a profit of $8,360.00 when wagering $110 to win back $100.00 on each game.

So why has this particular combination of first-down related statistics been so effective versus the spread?

Getting back to PFD% for a moment: being below average in this category is actually a good thing for a number of reasons. It's a sign that this team's offense has probably had the luxury of playing with the lead on a regular basis and has not been forced into throwing a large number of passes later in the game in an attempt to catch-up. And, that they are also likely to have an efficient rushing attack that consistently sets up a high number of '2nd-and-short' and '3rd-and-short' situations where the ball can be handed off to one or more of their competent running backs for the easy 1st down. Proof of this last point can be found by looking at the list of teams this situation has most often played on in the past 15 years: Kansas City (pre 2007) along with Jacksonville and Tampa Bay make up the top 3'all teams that have succeeded in the past by pounding the ball up the middle for 6-7 yard gains on 1st down.

This is all well and good as far as PFD% goes, but, what about the stipulation covering IFD%?

I have actually studied the nature and effects of NFL penalties in great detail over the past decade and while there have been a handful of teams in the league that have done a better job than others at 'forcing' their opponents into taking penalties (pass interference calls on long passes and offensive off-sides being the most likely cases), more often-than-not, this is something that is not easily controlled.

As a result, teams who rely on their opponents to consistently 'gift-wrap' first-downs through ill-timed penalties'keeping drives alive in the process'are not the best-bet versus the spread over the long-haul and limiting qualifying teams in this case to those that have an IFD%F of less than 8%, helps to ensure that we are dealing with a team that has a low PFD%F due more to the reasons mentioned above than an over-abundance of penalty calls that have happened to fall in their favour.

In addition to the limitation on Infraction First Down % For, if we also take things further and limit IFD% Against (IFD%A) for BOTH teams to less than 8%, this situation improves dramatically to 161-72 (69.1%) ATS since 1994 which is pretty impressive considering we are basically looking at only 2 variables (PFD% and IFD%) that are also directly related.

Here are all the details, including a final secondary stipulation involving IFD% one more time.

(Notes: ASMR stands for Average Spread Margin Rating. A positive rating indicates a trend that is stronger than average versus the line, negative'weaker than average. TDIS% is the percentage of teams in the league that have been involved in this situation at one time or another. WT% is the percentage of teams that are .500 or better and SPR is the average spread for teams in this situation. For more details, please consult Page 18 of my 2009 NFL Game Reports Guide.)

Situational Trend #36 Summary

Primary Conditions (Building Blocks)
1) Passing First Down % For (PFD%F) < 57.5%.
2) Infraction First Down % For & Against (IFD%F, IFD%A) < 8%.
3) Exclude Opponents with an Infraction First Down % Against < 8%.

Secondary Conditions (Tighteners)
1) Team does not have an IFD%A Advantage (IFD%A AD) > 2.

Situation Stats
ASMR: -0.1
Home%: 50
Dog%: 43
TDIS%: 94
WT%: 77
SPR: -0.9
Top Teams: KC(21); JAC(16); TB(14); IND(10); WAS(10)

Situation Record
Overall (Since '94): 121-41 ATS
2008 Season: 12-7 ATS
2007 Season: 17-3 ATS
2006 Season: 12-4 ATS
2005 Season: 10-2 ATS
2004 Season: 3-2 ATS

Last 5 Results. Pick in Brackets.
2008 WK18'PHI 26 MIN 14 (MIN +3) L
2008 WK18'BAL 27 MIA 9 (BAL -3.5) W
2008 WK17'BAL 27 JAC 7 (BAL -12) W
2008 WK16'CHI 20 GB 17 (CHI -3.5) L
2008 WK16'ATL 24 MIN 17 (ATL +3) W