As I stated in the above post, with all of the info at Phil's fingertips, it's really surprising his record (esp. on late phone selections) has gotten so shaky in recent years (his "Private" NFL picks last season notwithstanding). One possibility is the formula he uses to grade his picks is no longer applicable.
He states that he uses fundamental handicapping (i.e. relative talent level, matchups, etc.) as 50% of his handicapping, with 25% going to the situational (let-down/look-ahead games, revenge, etc.) and 25% going to angles and trends. Well, it's my belief that the relative talent levels in recent years have "closed the gap", so to speak, due to improved training methods/nutrition, etc. so that the gap between, say the best running back in the country and the 100th best back isn't as large as it was, say 15-20 years ago. And it's certainly true that the gap between the Oklahomas and the Baylors of the world is much narrower than it was 20 years ago. If that's true, then maybe fundamental handicapping isn't quite as important in the overall picture as it was in the past. I wonder if Phil changed his formula to maybe giving equal weight to all three methods of handicapping (33% to fundamental/matchups, 33% to situational, and 33% to angles and trends), if he couldn't improve his record. Well, that's just my theory/opinion anyway. I know I've started placing more emphasis on the situational/psychological aspect in the last few years and have certainly improved my own win percentage--maybe Phil should give it a try.
