The Fallacy of Pro Bowl Voting

As reported in the PG on Friday ( www.post-gazette.com/stee...1213p6.asp ), "The players voted for their choices for the Pro Bowl after practice. The AFC and NFC teams will be announced next week."

That's right. AFTER practice, they voted for the Pro Bowl.

The myopic fan -- and sportswriter -- typically tosses out this bit of hogwash "wisdom" regarding the Blow Bowl: "His PEERS voted for him (insert player name here, such as Jason GilDong), so who knows better than opposing players?"

And here we see the pure fallacy and absurdity of such an asinine theory. Here's the Stillers, as a prime example -- a team scratching and clawing to make the playoffs. A team coming off a horrendous loss against an expansion club.� A team in danger of missing the playoffs altogether. QUESTION: In the midst of all this, do you honestly think the coaching staff ended practice early, just so the players could spend more time mulling over their Pro Bowl voting ballots?

Imagine, if you will, Plex Burress filling out his ballot. This is a man who missed an entire day of practice earlier this week due to "personal reasons". So here's Plaxico -- the renown king of the Pittsburgh & Va. Beach party scene -- who has just finished practice on a Thursday, and the only thing keeping him from his posse of buddies and girlfriends is the completion of a Pro Bowl ballot. Exactly how long do you think Burress spent on his ballot? 4 minutes? 5? Maybe 7? Certainly not a nanosecond longer. Consider, if you will, Ray Lewis filling out his ballot. Perhaps with a pen in one hand and a knife in the other, Lewis probably spent all of 6 minutes filling in his ballot. ��Or consider the Carolina Panthers, whose team has been riddled with drug & substance abuse problems, as well as a fight during a film-session that left a player with a broken nose.� How much time do you honestly think that band of hooligans spent compiling their pro bowl ballot?�

The fans and sportswriters who cling to the fallacious belief of "His peers must of thought he was good because they voted him into the Pro Bowl", are therefore clinging to the ridiculous notion that football players spend 3, 5, even 6 hours poring over their ballot and contemplating each vote in painstaking analysis, like a law school graduate taking the bar exam.� And that football players keep meticulous, copious written notebooks of every player they've observed over the season. �"His peers must think highly of him to be voted to the pro bowl" is on par in terms of sheer stupidity and heinous deceit is as bad as the used car salesman claiming, "We're here to give you the best deal possible" and the IRS auditor saying, "I'm here to help."� �

Here's another fact that makes the "peers think highly of him" a complete joke: a team will face 13, and only 13, unique teams during the season. Yet there are 32 teams in the league. So, there are 60% of the teams that a player will never face over the course of a season. What's more, those numbers assume the entire season's slate has been played, when clearly it has not. The Stillers have 2 unique opponents remaining, Carolina and Tampa. This means that, as of the day they voted, the Stiller players faced only 11 unique teams, or 34% of the NFL. The other 66% are unknown in terms of in-person competition and observation. For unknown reasons, these fans and sportswriters who clamor to the "peer theory" have the NFL mixed up with the NHL and NBA -- where everyone plays everyone -- or in MLB, where everyone in the NL plays everyone else in the NL, and ditto for the AL. None of the Steeler offensive linemen have faced, say, LB Donnie Edwards all season, and wouldn't recognize him if he ran into the locker room and handed out $50 bills. None of the Stiller secondary has a clue about facing & covering Peerless Price and Eric Moulds of Buffalo. And no WR on the Stiller roster would recognize Philly's Dawkins or Vincent without the aid of a written biography accompanied by numerous photographs. Yet, according to some fans and sportswriters, we are led to believe that the players are omnipotent when it comes to observing and evaluating other peers on other teams.

Sure enough, some will claim that the Stiller players made such keen, astute observation in film study of some teams that weren't on the schedule but were opponents of a team the Stillers had to play. In some instances, this has a small bit of validity. But let's take, for example, the Dolphins. The only remote chance of a Stiller player watching film of the 2002 Dolphins was when the Stillers prepared to play the Colts the week of Oct. 21. The Dolphins had faced the Colts earlier in the year -- much earlier, in fact, as in week 2. FIVE weeks later, the Stillers faced the Colts. I can't imagine that the Stillers spent more than 5 minutes of film study on that Colt-Dolphin game, when there were 3 more recent games for the Stillers to review.

The fact of the matter is this: the vast majority of NFL players spend a puny amount of time filling out their Pro Bowl ballot. Their "empirical research" consists of ESPN highlights they may have caught on TV, along with a quick glance at the USA Today stat section. Greg Wesley of KC, for example, is tied for the NFL lead in INTs -- "great, I'll write him in as a DB on my ballot," thinks the average player.� Never mind, of course, that the Chef defense has been sliced and diced and roasted and toasted nearly every week. "The guy had 6 INTs; I'll put him on the PB ballot."� And so it goes.�

Not that fan voting is any better. Between voting for old-time favorites who are clearly past their prime; popular home-town players; and a lack of watching much of the entire NFL, fans aren't overly astute in their voting. And coaches -- they're no better. It's well known that some coaches work 18-20 hour days. Some coaches have a sofa or bed in their office, and never go home. Many -- to include Billy Cowher -- are clinging for their very jobs. How much time will a coach, during the final 3-week stretch in December -- with the playoffs on the line -- devote to filling out a Pro Bowl ballot that has absolutely no bearing on his team's ability to win a football game?? 5 minutes? Maybe 7.

No one said it better than Skins defensive coach Marvin Lewis, who lectured LB Lavar Arrington (see espn.go.com/magazine/vol5...ngton.html ) with the following:

�� Imagine LaVar's surprise when Marvin told him he'd been doing everything wrong.

�� "He killed them last year, killed his own team," Marvin says. "Against Chicago, critical third down, he doesn't cover the back. Back catches the ball for a first down. A guy I could cover. And they lose."

�� Then how did Arrington make the Pro Bowl?

�� "It's like I told him: You'll be on SportsCenter for your big hits, and you might go to the Pro Bowl, but we'll win six games," Marvin says. "Or you can do it right, and we can win 12 games."