New Head Coaches in the NFL Preseason

For several years, the conventional wisdom in the NFL preseason has been to look hard at teams that have new coaches. The thinking, which does make some sense, goes something like this:

Teams have new coaches for a reason. The previous coach was fired, took another job, or retired. The new coach, even though he's likely to enjoy a "honeymoon" period, wants to set a tone for the new season. Yes, he usually wants to be open-minded and give all of his players a fair opportunity to win a job, but he also wants to see his players execute his offensive and defensive systems with some degree of proficiency. He wants to see commitment, progress, and competitiveness, especially if he has taken over a team that is rebuilding or has been underachieving. And, as the preseason progresses, new coaches tend to get more upset with poor exhibition performances, even though they know the games are little more than hyped-up practices in which many key veterans see limited duty and owners rake in some extra millions while TV networks whet the appetite of the fans for the regular season. Thus, because new head coaches are likely to care a little more about the preseason than coaches returning to their previous teams, they are likely to enjoy more pointspread success in the exhibition campaign. That's the thinking, at least.

If only life were that simple in the field of sports handicapping.

It's true that the teams with new coaches did well against the spread in 2003. Marvin Lewis of Cincinnati, Bill Parcells of Dallas, Steve Mariucci of Detroit, Jack Del Rio of Jacksonville, and Dennis Erickson of San Francisco combined for a preseason mark of 11-9 straight up, 13-7 vs. the spread, 9-1 at home (8-2 vs. the spread), 5-2 when favored, 6-5 as underdogs, and 5-1 vs. the spread after a straight-up loss.

But looking back a couple of years shows that those 2003 numbers were a bit misleading. Here's a look at the figures in the same categories for the teams with new head coaches the previous two seasons (2001 and 2002). Minnesota's Mike Tice is included in the 2002 figures, even though he took over the team for the final game of 2001 before being given the job full time. Houston's Dom Capers is excluded because his Houston Texan team was in its first year.

The new head coaches for 2001 and 2002 had a combined preseason mark of 25-28 straight up, 23-28-2 vs. the spread, 14-12 at home (10-15-1 vs. the spread), only 7-16-1 when favored, 15-12-1 as underdogs, and 9-9 vs. the spread after a straight-up loss. Those figures are considerably different than the 2003 numbers cited two paragraphs prior to this one. And, the figures illustrate that in handicapping, it's best not to draw overall conclusions from such a small sample.

Thankfully, there are a few long-running trends in the NFL preseason that have seemed to hold up for a number of years.

First, we have the teams that have a game under their belts. Every year, there are a few exhibition games that take place prior to the first full week of exhibition play. There's at least the Hall of Fame game in Canton, Ohio. In recent seasons, teams with a game under their belts have had a pointspread edge in their next game when facing a team playing its first exhibition. In 2003, such teams were 3-1 vs. the spread, and they're 11-5-1 the last three seasons. Over the last 10 years, such game-under-the-belt teams are only 28-26-1, however.

An angle that has become one of my personal favorites over the years involves teams that are winless in the preseason in their first two games. Despite their understandable bravado in a physical sport such as football, coaches still tend to be a worrisome breed. They get antsy if their teams start 0-2 in the preseason, even though they know the games don't count. Teams that lost their first two exhibitions last year were 3-2 vs. the spread in their ensuing game (when not facing similar winless opponents). Over the last seven preseasons, such 0-2 teams are 30-21 vs. the spread; over the last 19 years, they're a solid 59 percent. Obviously, this is a trend worth noting.

In their preseason meeting last year, the Giants finally covered against the Jets, snapping an 11-game Jets cover streak! Still, the Jets won the game 15-14 against their intracity preseason rival. But, the Jets failed to cover the 2.5-point spread. The Jets-Giants meeting is usually scheduled in the third full week of the preseason, the week when teams typically give their starters their most extensive game action. And, being in the "Big Apple" media capital, you can assume the contest is not a "meaningless exhibition" in the minds of the fans and many of the players. It will be interesting to see if the Giants can cover twice in a row after an 11-year negative pointspread skein.

Chuck Sippl is the senior editor of The Gold Sheet, the first word in sports handicapping for 48 years. The amazingly compact Gold Sheet features analysis of every football and basketball game, exclusive insider reports, widely followed Power Ratings, and a Special Ticker of key injuries and team chemistry. To begin your handicapping for this season, look for the 2004 Gold Sheet Football Preview at your local newsstand. If you'd like to reserve a copy, call The Gold Sheet at (800) 798-GOLD (4653) and be sure to mention you read about it in Card Player. You can look up The Gold Sheet on the web at www.goldsheet.com.