As stated in our introduction, we are generally statistically-oriented handicappers. However, this is not possible in week one since there are no current stats to go by (and using last season's numbers has traditionally been a "go-against" strategy). We do have several tools in our arsenal for week one though, which in general fall under the classification of "Contrarian" indicators. These fall into three different classes; Turnover Difference plays, Cumulative Spread Margin plays, and a special Angle.

1) Turnovers

To refresh everyone's memory, the "T/O Difference" angle involves looking at the net turnovers on the year for each team in a matchup and playing the team with the WORSE net turnovers provided their record was at least 1/2 turnover per game poorer than their opponent. For instance if Team A is -1.5 turnovers a game and Team B is +0.5 turnovers then the strategy would call for playing Team A since they have the worse record and in this case it's 2.0 turnovers per game different -- far more than the 0.5 cutoff.

This strategy has had an impressive 57% win record in games from 1983-2000 (weeks 5-12 the heart of the season), but now we are trying to apply this method to the week one games and this is of course a little different since we will be forced to use the last season "net turnover" numbers for the teams rather than live in-season data. The question is has there historically been any positive results against the spread playing as usual the WORSE net turnover team provided there is at least a half a turnover per game difference between the two teams?

So the simple answer is that YES there does seem to be some predictive value here, and indeed the overall mark of 73-58 for 55.7% is not that far from the in season mark of 56.6%. What is startling however in the above is that Home Underdogs and Away Favorites have been amazing plays with this approach, finishing 39-15 or 72% over the 17 year span (roughly three plays a year), while home favorites and away underdogs have been below water at 34-43 (44%). Generally with results like that you become a little skeptical, but perhaps there may be some reason why games featuring an away favorite (and thus a home underdog) are special...

The next thing to do is to break out the turnovers by using only fumbles and then only interceptions. Rather than produce the whole table, we will summarize the results as follows:

So from this we would take it that fumbles have been the key. The 27-6 record is of course phenomenal, and becomes less likely to be due to just random chance. At this point though you have probably had enough theory and are ready to review the 2001 season matchups:

ANALYSIS: The table shows the "Net Fumble" and "Total Net Turnover" differences between the two teams, using (away minus home) -- so the positive numbers indicate the away team had better turnover fortune last season, and therefore the "Turnover Difference Theory" would recommend the home team, and then the negative numbers indicate the home team fared better so consequently you would like the away side. The T/O pick is posted if either the Net T/O or the Net Fumbles cross the 1/2 turnover per game line.

Now as our research deomonstrated, the only historical areas that were good were the home dogs and away favorites. This season we see several of these cases, including Cincinnati, Kansas City and Dallas in the home underdog category, while Indianapolis, St. Louis and Seattle get the nod as away favorites.

2) Cumulative Spread Margin

What we refer to as Cumulative Spread Margin may be known to you also as "Contrarian Bridgejumping". Cumulative Spread Margin stats -- which as the CSM name suggests involves totaling up how a team has performed in terms of net points against the lines on their games. For instance a team that won by eight while favored by three would accrue +5 points of CSM for the effort. On the other hand a team that lost by eight while favored by three would get a -11 CSM for that game.

Similar to the Turnover Difference Theory (another contrarian indicator), the CSM angle suggests playing the team with the BAD Cumulative Spread Margin in match-ups with a significant difference, which is defined as 6+ CSM points per game.

Example: if team A is averaging a -2 pt CSM and team B is +5 CSM per game so far, then team A would be the play based on being 7 CSM pts worse per game.

Now the research on the CSM plays revealed that while they were reasonably good overall during the 1983-2000 span, they had not done well in the past four years, and as such we do not recommend backing them in 2001. However, it is possible (and indeed seems logical) that the angle might work fairly well for the first week of a season, given that the lousy teams from last year will probably be under-rated, while the good teams from last season may generally be over-rated.

So we would be a little impressed at seeing the 6+ plays (the only ones that count) have compiled a nifty 30-14 record from 1984-2000 (roughly 2 1/2 plays a year). Unlike the Turnover week one research which showed the T/O plays were only positive historically with away favorites and home underdogs, the CSM plays seem to be less concerned with the status of the team...

Now, the CSM plays had been poor in-season the last four years, so we ran the week one version again only looking at the years from 1997-2000 and here we found that the big difference plays were 6-5 which is clearly a far cry from the 24-9 that preceeded it, but not without some claim to still be working. Let's take a look then at the 2001 season matchups:

ANALYSIS: What's a little troubling about the above is that there are six plays on a system that was previously averaging about 2.5 per year! It could be argued that the gulf between the good and bad NFL teams is widening, but even so it's a red flag when something like this happens, as it suggests there may be a "changing of the times" as far as the trend goes.

The optimist would say it's a bumper crop of opportunity and would probably give a little extra credit to Chicago and St. Louis since they come in with an 8+ difference, which has been slightly stronger historically than the 6 to 7.9 range.

The pessimist would say there was a reason why this theory formerly had the word "bridgejumping" in its description!

3) Special Week One Angle

There is a great angle we've discovered for playing the week one games that goes as follows: STEP ONE -- look at the "Net Points per game" for each team in a matchup, and when you find a difference of at least two points between the teams, the WORSE team becomes a potential play. STEP TWO -- take the "last year net points" and contruct a spread with them giving 3 extra points to the home team (for example Atlanta was -10 net points per game last season, San Francisco was -2, and so the line becomes SF by 11). If the Better net points team appears to be the value based on this constructed line vs the actual spread, then the WORSE net points team is a play!

We did a little more investigation of the "net points week one" angle and found the following possible improvements to the approach: require at least a 2 point "pervceived false value" when comparing the actual line to the line constructed by using last season's net points. In addition, once the false value gets too high (8+ points) the results also declined.

This angle has gone 36-16 (69%) over the last ten years!

With the revised requirements then, the strong plays based on this angle appear to be Atlanta, Cincinnati, Kansas City and Cleveland.

4) FINAL PICKS FOR WEEK ONE