Why do football teams publish their players' chances of being available for play?

September 22, 2007 8:09 AM

Why do football teams release pregame lists of their players as "probable", "questionable", and so forth?

It seems like, unless they lie about the players' conditions, this is just unnecessarily giving information to their upcoming opponent, which they could then use to become better prepared for the game.

Is it just for press relations?

Do any teams not do it? Do any teams do it with terms other than the (seemingly) standard "probable", "questionable", and "doubtful" (and "in" and "out", or whatever)?

Is it a rule, that they have to release this information?

If so, is there any real means of enforcement? If so, how? It seems like enforcement could only really be based on probabilities - e.g. "the average player listed as questionable plays in 31% of the games; for questionable players on Coach Blowhard's team, that number is 83%. Coach Blowhard is cheating." But that path seems fraught with difficulties.

Are any teams/coaches known for patterns of abuse (i.e. not being forthright) about this?

posted by Flunkie to sports, hobbies, & recreation (11 comments total)

To be a little more clear about where I'm coming from, my best guess is that it's merely for press relations, but it seems a bit too formalized for that to be the case.
posted by Flunkie at 8:12 AM on September 22, 2007

I've been playing fantasy football this season and have so far determined that much of these injury reports are hogwash - straight disinformation. They do have to release the information, but coaches game the system - notoriously, Bill Belichick, who has listed his star quarterback, Tom Brady (shoulder) as "probable" for dozens of consecutive games, including the Super Bowls he won. There is nothing wrong with Tom Brady's shoulder; Belichick says he does this to point up the absurdity of the injury report.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:13 AM on September 22, 2007

In light of recent events, Belichick might not be the greatest example. The other part of the injury reports that is absurd is that they're also used by Vegas to help set lines, although the NFL is absolutely against wagering on their contests.
posted by Nabubrush at 8:27 AM on September 22, 2007

Here's an International Herald Tribune article on the practice. It includes some historical context and is pretty interesting.
posted by bdk3clash at 8:33 AM on September 22, 2007

The other part of the injury reports that is absurd is that they're also used by Vegas to help set lines, although the NFL is absolutely against wagering on their contests.

Well, they are officially against it, but let's face it, without gambling (legal and otherwise), interest in the League would be greatly diminished. My understanding of the injury report is that it exists for the bookmakers.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:22 AM on September 22, 2007

Sorry, didn't make my sarcasm clear enough. The NFL would not be nearly as popular if not for gambling, and they certainly know that and encourage it, though not openly.
posted by Nabubrush at 9:42 AM on September 22, 2007

They changed the rules this year just for that type of fuzziness. Before it was simply "Out", "Questionable", or "Probable". Now they have to release how much they practiced and the location of the injury, such as "Limited in Practice (Foot)".

Coaches can still deceive a bit with this information, but they would need to hold players out of practice for it to affect how the other team prepares, which weakens their own preparation.

A lot of coaches are forthcoming about injuries (Tony Dungy) and a lot release as little as possible (Bill Belichick), so it's good to know what type of coach you're dealing with when you take that information under consideration.
posted by lubujackson at 10:43 AM on September 22, 2007

They want to release the info for the gamblers so that the gamblers aren't tempted to buy info from the players, who know who in the clubhouse is hurting. Or, trade relief of gambling debts to the players for same.

It's just more attempts to try to keep as much on the up-and-up as possible. Coaches of course try to circumvent it, as they'd rather not give the info to the opponents.
posted by stevis23 at 1:15 PM on September 22, 2007

I lean more toward stevis23 than Rock Steady. The transparency limits the temptation for corruption among anybody connected to the team, thereby keeping any gambling at arm's length or more. I'm sure in the old days the average towel boy could make a good side living with this kind of information.
posted by dhartung at 1:33 PM on September 22, 2007

n light of recent events, Belichick might not be the greatest example.

He's the perfect example. You can find decades of interviews with him where he talks about this topic.
posted by ikkyu2 at 4:35 PM on September 22, 2007

I meant that I think Belichick 'games the system' moreso than other coaches, so his behavior might not be representative of most teams.
posted by Nabubrush at 8:19 PM on September 22, 2007