ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Just to continue with the breakdowns, again using the given numbers, although SB win% doesn't add up to 100%...
12 non-bye
4 - bye
8.3% reach SB with non-bye
33% reach SB with bye
75% win SB with non-bye
37.5% win SB with bye
8.3% times 75% = .06225, or 6%
33% times 37.5% = .12375, or 12%
So, during the years referenced, given the numbers supplied and the percentages given (and assuming I didn't make an error), you are twice as likely to win the Super Bowl if you have a bye than if you don't.
Yes, I saw that, but didn't spell it out because I thought it was tautologous; to wit (and to simplify the underlying calculation and logic), if you have a four times better chance of getting to the SB with a Bye (as I acknowledged, repeated twice and bolded) and a two times better chance of winning if you get there without a Bye (something that I believe was "new information)", you, therefore, by reducing the four and the two, end up with a two times better chance of winning the SB if you have a Bye. I guess it needed to be explicated, though. Thanks for doing so.
All in all, as I said in every one of my posts on this thread, I'd rather have a Bye, but it's not the end of the world if we don't.
__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.
Last edited by PatsFanSince74; 11-10-2012 at 02:07 PM..
Yes, I saw that, but didn't spell it out because I thought it was tautologous; to wit (and to simplify the underlying calculation and logic), if you have a four times better chance of getting to the SB with a Bye (as I acknowledged, repeated twice and bolded) and a two times better chance of winning if you get there without a Bye (something that I believe was "new information)", you, therefore, by reducing the four and the two, end up with a two times better chance of winning the SB if you have a Bye. I guess it needed to be explicated, though. Thanks for doing so.
All in all, as I said in every one of my posts on this thread, I'd rather have a Bye, but it's not the end of the world if we don't.
I hear you. I was just breaking it down to the actual numbers. In the end, if you're looking at the breakdowns that we've done, and you're not looking any further, you're really deciding which point of view you're more comfortable with:
"It's twice as likely!"
or
"It's only a 6% difference in success rate."
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
try as I might I cannot help but be tautologous and state that , despite this expert data breakdown, the Jets STILL suck and remain the outlyingest of outliers ever.
try as I might I cannot help but be tautologous and state that , despite this expert data breakdown, the Jets STILL suck and remain the outlyingest of outliers ever.
And may they get their pathetic clocks thoroughly cleaned in Seattle today!
__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.
I hear you. I was just breaking it down to the actual numbers. In the end, if you're looking at the breakdowns that we've done, and you're not looking any further, you're really deciding which point of view you're more comfortable with:
"It's twice as likely!"
or
"It's only a 6% difference in success rate."
Absolutely! If ever there was a case where the numbers can lead you to a half-empty vs. half-full (All right, all right, I know when I'm beaten, "25% empty vs. half-full" ) conclusion this is it.
__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.
An update after the week ten games, with as small amount of math as possible:
- Texans will soon be 8-1, Pats 6-3
-- Pats need to win one more game than the Texans do, plus beat Houston in Foxboro in week 14 (Dec 10); Pats would then finish ahead on the head-to-head tie-breaker
--- OR
- Ravens are 7-2, Pats 6-3
-- Baltimore has the head-to-head tie-breaker, so Pats need to win not one, but two more games than the Ravens do to finish ahead of them
--- ALSO
- Broncos are 6-3, Pats 6-3
-- Pats win the tie-breaker since they beat Denver in week 5, so the Pats just need to win at least as often as the Broncos do to remain ahead of them
--- DON'T FORGET
- Steelers are 5-3
-- Like Freddy Kreuger and Michael Myers, they come back from the dead
- Colts are also 6-3
-- But I don't see them winning the AFCS, which leaves them as a lower seed than the Pats
An update after the week ten games, with as small amount of math as possible:
- Texans will soon be 8-1, Pats 6-3
-- Pats need to win one more game than the Texans do, plus beat Houston in Foxboro in week 14 (Dec 10); Pats would then finish ahead on the head-to-head tie-breaker
--- OR
- Ravens are 7-2, Pats 6-3
-- Baltimore has the head-to-head tie-breaker, so Pats need to win not one, but two more games than the Ravens do to finish ahead of them
--- ALSO
- Broncos are 6-3, Pats 6-3
-- Pats win the tie-breaker since they beat Denver in week 5, so the Pats just need to win at least as often as the Broncos do to remain ahead of them
--- DON'T FORGET
- Steelers are 5-3
-- Like Freddy Kreuger and Michael Myers, they come back from the dead
- Colts are also 6-3
-- But I don't see them winning the AFCS, which leaves them as a lower seed than the Pats
Thanks for the information, but I just want to beat Indy next week and then worry about two straight Division Games on the road.
18Likes
Re: AFC playoff bye for PATs?
) conclusion this is it.
Linear Mode
