You never suffer a win

The easiest way to analyze Seattle’s victory over the Colts on Sunday would be to fixate on the flaws.

Start with the score: 18-16. Sounds ugly, doesn’t it? It was.

The Seahawks gained 80 yards on offense in the first half and didn’t get the ball within 20 yards of the Colts goal line until the fourth quarter.

Seattle’s defense was thoroughly solid, however, holding Indianapolis to a single touchdown and keeping the Seahawks in control of their own playoff destiny. Then again, the Colts were being quarterbacked by 44-year-old Philip Rivers, who is literally a grandfather and had not taken an NFL snap in 5 years.

Throw in the fact that Indianapolis had lost three straight entering the game, and it’s possible to make yourself feel like this was a victory the Seahawks suffered as opposed to a game they won.

This is precisely the wrong approach, however, and at the risk of minimizing the very real flaws we saw, the one thing I learned in 25 years covering professional sports is that we tend to overestimate how much carryover there is from one game to the next.

Psychologists have a term for this: recency bias. We – as humans – have a demonstrated tendency to place more emphasis upon recent events, information and experiences than we do long-term trends and history.

For instance, the Seahawks still lead the league in point differential. You’re not going to hear much about that this morning, though. Everyone will be too busy worrying about Seattle’s inability to find the end zone against the Colts. In fact, you’re probably going to hear some saying that red-zone offense is a huge problem even though the Seahawks have been thoroughly average in that aspect all season.

I could go on, but instead I’m going to tell you what I do think matters most about Sunday’s game: Winning it. The reason for that is as straight-forward as Seattle’s playoff possibilities:

On Sunday, the Seahawks faced an Indianapolis team that has a very strong run game, a stout defense and a quarterback that couldn’t really throw the ball downfield.

The Colts game plan was clear. Run the ball. A lot. When they did throw, it was quick. Lots of screens and quick crossers. Indianapolis wanted a low-scoring rock fight. They got it because the Seahawks went three-and-out on three of their five possessions in the first half.

This was — in some ways — a continuation of recent stumbles. Outside of the second half of last week’s victory in Atlanta, the Seahawks offense has not played particularly well in the previous four games.

What I saw from Seattle’s offense on Sunday, though, was a team that suffred a bit of bad luck. Receiver Jaxson Smith-Njigba dropped a ball that hit him in stride, which almost never happens. There were pre-snap penalties. There were a couple of fairly evident pass-interference penalties that were not called, and the Seahawks never did get the ball in the end zone.

Yet the Seahawks still won. They won because their defense completely shut down the Colts in the second half. Seattle has allowed one touchdown in the previous three games combined. The Seahawks won because their coach managed the clock expertly at the end of the second half.

More than anything: They won. The victory was significantly better than the alternative, and the reason is because it keeps Seattle in position where it will win its division if it is able to win its final three games.

Winning games when you don’t play your best is exactly the sort of thing that turns good seasons into great ones.

And while I’m not going to tell you that Seattle is firing on all cylinders heading into Thursday’s rematch against the Rams, that doesn’t mean the Seahawks are destined to receive a cosmic thumping, either.

We dramatically overestimate the carryover from one game to the next in the NFL. That’s not our fault, though. It’s in our nature.

I was summoned by Mitch Levy for a spot start, and I couldn’t seem to wrap my head around the fact I needed to say “Sunday” when referring to the Seahawks game as opposed to “today.”

The Huskies won the Bucked Up LA Bowl on Saturday with a fairly thorough trampling of the Boise State Broncos, 38-10.

This was somewhat surprising to me because I didn’t think the Huskies played particularly well on offense. It did cause me to wonder whether the gap between the top four college football conferences and the rest of the division is getting wider.

Boise State was seeded No. 3 in last year’s college football playoff, but after the Broncos were beaten 31-14 by Penn State, everbody pretty much agreed that no team from outside the top four conferences would be seeded that high again.

This year, George Mason and Tulane are both in the playoff field. I’m very curious to see how competitive they are in their first-round matchups.

The biggest question about the Huskies continues to be their coach. I don’t have any inside information on whether Jedd Fisch will be offered the Michigan job. In fact, I’m very suspicious of any who claims to know what Michigan is planning to do. I’m not sure people know who at the school is going to making the call.

However, I do believe that Fisch would jump at the chance if offered, and after writing about that last Friday, I received a comment that I wanted to share:

It reminded me of something that Craig Calcaterra wrote in a lovely little book called “Rethinking Fandom.” Craig has written extensively about Major League Baseball. He also used to be a huge Ohio State Buckeyes fan. His book is essentially about how he has changed the way he operates as a fan in direct response to the the way leagues and teams operate in contemporary America.

He’s not going to provide blind loyalty to franchises that operate like ruthless, capitalist enterprises. He’ll cheer for players, not for teams. He’ll view franchises and leagues with the same skepticism he levels at soulless corporations.

I thought the book was very interesting though I must say I’ve incorporated almost none of his recommendations when it comes to the sports and teams I follow. The one thing that was most memorable, however, was that Craig explained how he had started watching one match a week from England’s Premier League. Just one match. That’s all he would consume. He didn’t read about the offseason news. He didn’t follow the build-up through the week. He didn’t even follow one specific team. He just watched one Premier League match each week and he found he enjoyed that quite a bit.

That is exactly the opposite approach that teams and leagues encourage. They want more consumption of everything. It’s why the offseason is billed as an event unto itself with free-agent signing periods and draft evaluations. There is a 24/7 television network that is dedicated to a sport that has NO GAMES for half the calendar year.

I have long abstained from the coverage of college recruiting. Some of this comes from my own experience covering recruiting as a reporter at The Seattle Times. I think the coverage of recruiting has an overall negative impact on the teenagers whose decisions are being covered.

I don’t think this has diminished my enthusiasm for the games, and as I read Tim’s comment, I wondered myself if I could apply the same approach to the coaches.

I absolutely hate how the college coaching carousel works, and maybe I’d enjoy being a Husky fan more if I just ignored it, but even as I say that, I’m not sure it’s possible for me to do so.