Right after the last game at the RCA Dome I began thinking about how things might be different at Lucas Oil Stadium in 2008 and beyond.  My unscientific analysis of the Dome was that it helped the Colts to some degree (probably not easily quantified) owing to the noise and the surface.  I supposed, too, that like most kickers Adam Vinatieri was helped by kicking indoors.  The Colts have had a great home record, but that's because they're a great team.  How, if at all, will the Luke detract from or enhance the Colts' home field advantage?

The home field advantage is not a huge advantage.  Vegas typically values it at about 3 points, which is substantially less than 10% of the average number of points scored in an NFL game.  Since those 3 points are an average, some teams might have an even bigger advantage, and I assumed one of them would be the Colts.

The ways in which the new stadium might impact the Colts include:

Playing Surface.  One of the RCA Dome's most notable attributes was its fast surface.  The Colts have built their team on both sides of the ball on speed, probably in part reacting to their environment.  Whatever the surface in the Luke is, even if it is similar to rubberized surface of the RCA Dome, it is not likely to be as fast.  The chief reason is not the surface--even if it is exactly the same--but the weather.  Some of the games at Lucas Oil Stadium will be with the roof open (I suspect at least half, if not more) and any precipitation or wind dropping the temperature may make the turf slower.  I would be interested to know if the Colts will have a consistent policy about when the roof is open and when it's closed.  When you get a new toy, you want to play with it, so I imagine the Colts will keep the roof open as often as they can reasonably justify doing so.

The Colts have undoubtedly considered the need for speed, so I imagine they have insisted the turf be as close to as fast as it was in the Dome as possible.  And, looking at the '07 statistics, only 11 of the Colts' 28 sacks were in the RCA Dome (2 others were in the Georgia Dome) so performance on grass was nearly identical to performance on turf.  But, it wouldn't surprise me if the number of sacks remains relatively constant at home or even declines.  The RCA Dome was probably the ideal environment for this team, and I wonder if the Luke will be as good.

As an aside, the Colts' sacks totaled 14 through the New England game, 2 in the San Diego game (but I don't immediately know if Freeney was hurt before these sacks, or after them) and 12 in the last 7 games.  The high was 4 against the Ravens in Week 14.  The Colts recorded no sacks against Carolina, Oakland and Houston (Week 16).  Any increased sacks at home or on the road are probably going to be a function of improved health for Freeney, Mathis, McFarland and Brock, not Lucas Oil's surface.

Noise.  Just like the playing surface, the RCA probably represented the best environment the Colts could have asked for, extremely loud and intimate.  Many sportswriters considered it the loudest place in the league.  Colts' opponents frequently jumped because the snap count couldn't be heard.  One false start often seemed to cause the crowd to be even louder, and louder longer.  In a larger space like the Luke--and especially when the roof is open--I doubt the noise will be as deafening.

Because this seemed to be an advantage, I bet this hasn't escaped the Colts, either.  Seattle apparently constructed its stadium to maximize crowd noise.  Perhaps the Colts have done likewise.  I will be surprised if Lucas Oil Stadium is as loud.  Perhaps if we start seeing few opponent false starts next year, we'll know the answer.  Decreased home sacks might also be telling, since the Dome's crowd noise might have given the Colts' rush a half-count or so head start.  In light of the fact that many of us agree the Colts need an improved pass rush to dominate, it certainly won't do to have sacks decline.

The Effect On Kicking.  In 2007, Adam Vinatieri kicked off 91 times, with 9 touchbacks.  His rate of touchbacks was 9.9%, 10th in the AFC.  His average kickoff distance was 65 yards (4th in the AFC), so he kicked it on average to the goal line.  Owing to coverage troubles, the Colts allowed an average return of 25 yards, 15th in the AFC.  Miami allowed 25.8 yards per kickoff return (unfortunately, the Dolphins' average kick distance was a paltry 57.9 yards).

Of Vinatieri's 9 touchbacks, 7 were at the Dome.  This confirmed my anecdotal observation that usually he kicked the ball farther inside than out.  The reason is likely the weather, both in how moisture and wind affect the flight of the ball and in how well Adam could plant his foot to drive the ball.  Again, if the Luke is open part of the year, I would expect his home kicks to be more like they were on the road, i.e., slightly shorter.

For comparison, in '06 Adam's average kickoff for 73 kickoffs was 65.3 yards (4th in the AFC) with 10 touchbacks (13.7%, 9th in the AFC), and the Colts' average return allowed was 26 yards.  Without the home/road splits, my assumption is that based on the similarity of the two years' data, Adam was probably kicking a little longer at home, with a few more touchbacks.  The similarity of the numbers also suggests whatever injury he endured in '07 didn't affect kickoffs as much as field goals.  

Adam was 23-29 kicking field goals in 2007; he was 26-29 in '06, with no misses at home.  In '07 he was 11-14 at home, 12-15 on the road.  He was 11-14 on grass and 12-15 on turf (he was 1-1 in Atlanta).  Having Lucas Oil Stadium open might drive his accuracy percentage down slightly, as virtually all kickers tend to have higher (sometimes only marginally) FG rates indoors.

My initial thought was that these three factors might mean a significant diminishment of the Colts' home field advantage.  As I tried to summarize, however, I realize a better way to characterize any change is that it is likely to be modest.  Lucas Oil Stadium might be a touch slower, a few decibels less loud and maybe windier and wetter (at times).  How this will all play out is one of the storylines to look forward to in '08.  Now, if the first game would just get here...

What follows is an excerpt from the middle of Eli Manning's press conference after the Super Bowl.  Eli has just led the Giants to a 21-17 win over the Patriots.  We join him after the media has asked the usual inane questions ("What are you feeling?", "Is this the highlight of your career?", "Aren't the Patriots the greatest team ever, even though you beat them?") that pass for post-game examination in the 21st century.  We pick it up as Eli counters with a cliché of his own.

Eli:  "...It was a big win for us."

Q.  "Eli, Dick Hardman, North South Orange Post Herald Tribune.  Were you nervous in the fourth quarter, when you guys were up the four points and Brady started moving them down the field?"

Eli:  "Um, well, uh, yes, because, remember, they had scored, ah, the most points in the regular season and they had the second-best quarterback in the league driving them.  But I knew our defense was great and those guys rose to the occasion and Osi sacked Brady off to ice it."

[A commotion erupts in the rear of the interview room.  Tony Kornheiser, deigning to stand with the great unwashed mass of daily newspaper reporters from places like Des Moines and Bangor, has collapsed on the floor and is sobbing, moaning incoherently about the greatest season by the greatest quarterback on the greatest team ever]

Q.  "Eli, Richard Johnson, KDIK, Fargo.  Let me make sure I got this right.  Did you say "second-best quarterback"?"

Eli [impatiently]:  "Yeah."

Q.  "Wait.  Tom Brady is the MVP.  The Patriots are undefeated, uh, well, except for this.  They're the greatest team of all time.  ESPN tells us so.  And you're saying he's not the best?"

Eli [glares condescendingly]:  "My brother is the best quarterback in the National Football League.  Anyone who knows football knows that.  Next question."

Q.  "Eli, Peter Sackman, Eastern Shore South Jersey Chronicle Times Enquirer.  Aren't you aware that Brady threw 50 touchdown passes this year?  How can you not say that's the greatest year ever?'

Eli:  "Listen, it's not even the best season in the past 4 years.  Peyton's 2004 season was better statistically."

Q.  "Eli, Ricardo Fumar, San Pedro Sun Journal Gazette.  So, you're telling us, Peyton has one ring, Brady has three, but Peyton's better.  How do you expect us to believe that?"

Eli:  "I don't expect you in the media to believe it, because you root so hard for the Patriots and Brady--it's your storyline to sell your product.  But, as we proved today, it's a team game.  You win with 53 guys.  Tom Brady has rings because the Patriots won them, not him individually.  What those rings mean is that in those years, the Patriots had the best team.  Yes, he contributed--a lot--but in the end it's a team game.

And, see if you can quote me accurately, Peyton is the best quarterback...."

[Eli's press conference immediately vanishes from ESPN News.  ESPN executives said later they cut away from his remarks because they were "unimportant"]

I'm sure Eli Manning wants to win the Super Bowl primarily for his teammates and for himself.  But I can't help feel there might be a little extra motivation to take down his big brother's bitter archrivals.

Trolls, before you spew your vitriol:  Brady is a great, great quarterback.  You can argue for him or for Manning, according to your view, and have ammunition to back it up.  And, for this Colts fan, Brady is the most interesting and exciting opposing player to watch, standing so nonchalantly in the pocket while the line holds the defenders, Moss pushes off to get open (that is, when he gives more than 50% effort, which he didn't against SD) and Welker creeps across the middle like an old woman nursing a hip fracture.  Okay, okay, maybe that's unfair.  But this is a Colts site; don't expect us to prostrate ourselves before your team like ESPN and PFT.  See, you've gotten used to everyone telling you how great the Pats are, and it provokes you when we won't play that game.  At Stampede Blue, never, never, never.

Go Giants!  Go Eli!

I begin by reminding myself (and reminding you I am aware) this is a Colts site, not a Patriots site.  Please indulge me with this diary about the Colts' archrival.  The Patriots' success only makes me hope more strongly that the Colts eviscerate them.  

Remember the Seattle Mariners team that won 116 games a few years ago?  Off the top of my head, I couldn't even remember the year they won all those games.  That's because they spit the bit in the playoffs, failing to even reach--let alone win--the World Series.

Winning a record number of games in the regular season isn't meaningless.  The Patriots could only play who the league scheduled them to play, and they beat everyone.  That "everyone" includes all the AFC playoff teams except Jacksonville (if Cleveland makes the playoffs) plus NFC playoff teams Dallas, New York and Washington (if Washington makes it).  However much we detest them (remember, THEY CHEAT), they deserve credit for what they've done, particularly since no team had done it in a 16-game season before.  

Crowning the Patriots the best team ever (this means you, Cris Collinsworth) is wildly premature, as surely the Mariners would tell them.  For the Pats to win the Super Bowl, they have to likely beat--if San Diego is the 3 seed by beating Oakland on Sunday--Jacksonville (assuming the Jags beat Pittsburgh), the Colts (assuming they beat SD) and probably Dallas.  Running that gauntlet (in consecutive games) would be more impressive than going unbeaten in a schedule where six of the games were against the Jets, Dolphins and Bills.  So, for the Patriots really only the preliminaries are done.  New England has to win in the post-season to earn the right to be discussed among the '85 Bears, the Niners of the 90s and the '06 Colts.

When a team goes unbeaten in the regular, it seems odd to say it won't go all the way, but that's how it looks right now.  The Giants--perhaps the 9th or 10th best team in the league, destined to lose to Tampa Bay next week--should have beaten New England.  Yes, the Pats seem endlessly resilient.  But, they face the part of their schedule where resiliency may simply not be enough.  The Jags are the bigger, (much) better version of the Giants.  David Garrard is superior to Eli.  I doubt the Pats can hold MJD and Fred Taylor to 18 yards in the first half.  Being down 12 in the third quarter to Jacksonville is a prescription to have Taylor run them over and end their season.

Even if they get past Jacksonville (or, to be fair, Pittsburgh) an even tougher test awaits.  If it's San Diego, they'll be getting the hottest team in the league coming off a road win in Indy with revenge (for last year and the embarassment of Week 2) on its mind.  Much more likely is a rematch with the Colts.  Yes, it will be in New England, and this site has endlessly discussed how that favors the Colts.  The Giants only sacked Brady once, with moderate pressure otherwise.  The Colts can do at least that, and the Colts' secondary is immeasurably better than the Giants'.  More significantly, Peyton isn't Eli (thank God) and will not waste time with the clock ticking down, throw a pick into obvious over-and-under double coverage and create a three-and-out with a chance to put NE away with a snap fumble and a far too short completion on third down.

No one should be surprised if New England wins the Super Bowl.  The point is, however, that no one should be surprised if they don't, either.  For me, I will be wearing my M's cap and rooting for history to repeat itself.  And hoping the Colts are the vehicle for that repeat.