Originally Posted by TyronePoole
I think you missed the point of my post. The "trend" is meaningless, but if getting a #1 seed gives you a 50% chance of getting to the Superbowl then obviously it's advantageous if you want to win it. If you are in the SB that means you've played at least two straight weeks and then a weekend off, I find it hard to take it on faith that without any statistically significant evidence somehow not having played a game a month before is a disadvantage.
Also - 2 out of 7 SB winning teams have had a bye and won. That's about 29% of the time in the last 7 years a bye team has won. Considering teams with a bye (4 a year) are only 33% of all playoff teams (12 a year) then even if we were to ignore variance getting a bye would be at worst a 4% disadvantage. If only 1 more bye team had won, say Gronk doesn't get injured last year or Samuel makes that INT, then that would be 3 out of 7 or 43%, a full 10% advantage in winning the SB if you get a bye. So really Your assumption only hinges on 1 of those 7 games going differently than it did.
Edit - if you extend the sample to ten years, 5 of 10 have been won by teams with byes. Taking a 7 game sample where the the average drops from 50% to 29% is frivolous, you'll find that flipping a coin and getting heads 5 out of 7 times is far from a notable event.
So I think you're in agreement that if winning the Super Bowl is deemed to be the barometer of success, then statistically, looking at the last 10 years, the bye is 50/50 - in your words no advantage or disadvantage
If we look at the last 7 years then there have been more Super Bowl winners without the bye than with the bye
And if we are looking at the #1 seed and their success winning the Super Bowl, statistically you can't show any advantage at all. In fact the #6 seed has more success than the #1 seed. It seems we're all in agreement about this as those are the facts.
Yes, I understand you can't win the Super Bowl without GETTING to the Super Bowl but everyone here agrees getting to the Super Bowl is not the goal.
My point is simply that we focus on what is important and what is less important.
Having a healthy team that is performing at peak levels IS important. (and playing at peak performance can be assisted by playing, rather than not playing.)
Having a bye - especially if a team is not fully healthy or playing at peak levels - is less important.
I get the sense that some fans would be willing to sacrifice the health of key players if it meant gaining a bye or #1 seed. They should be mindful that recent history shows the fallacy of the value of a bye or top seed at the expense of good health.