Suggs acuses Goodell of Superbowl Blackout.

[PatriotSeven]

LOL! This guy and Eternal Champion would spend endless hours together discussing NFL conspiracy theories, except they'd be trying to prove the conspiracies against each other to support their own teams.

This is straight out of the EC handbook, and from PatriotSeven above:



"I can't tell you why this sounds stupid, all I know is that something is going on here." Classic.

Oh yeah. You figured it all out brother. I did tell you why, you're just too thick and ignorant to understand.

Apparently it's too impossible for you to comprehend rich people love money and power. Too unthinkable! It's a real conspiracy theory.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Thread gone to hell

Thread Ignore ON!

 

[SB39]

And you think that bothers me? I think a lot of Superbowl victories could have been rigged and am fairly certain some were. And many other games throughout a season. You sound pretty juvenile to point the finger and say "you aligned yourself with Terrell Suggs" as if we were in some kind of high school group popularity contest.

In this thread you have, on multiple occasions, stated that we "now have players speaking out" to support your thesis. Once you fall back on "players speaking out" to support your point, it 100% opens the door to me pointing out the moron player you are using as your source.

You can think it's a fair sporting event and go on living. I don't. I think it's an entertainment event and I'll go on living as well.

I'm fine with that.

The only thing more idiotic than your belief it's all rigged is the fact that you follow it anyway.

Like I said before: You are taking sides with Terrell Suggs and arguing the Patriots' SB36 victory may have been rigged. I'm sure that will make you poster of the year on this forum.

 

[PatriotSeven]

In this thread you have, on multiple occasions, stated that we "now have players speaking out" to support your thesis. Once you fall back on "players speaking out" to support your point, it 100% opens the door to me pointing out the moron player you are using as your source.
The only thing more idiotic than your belief it's all rigged is the fact that you follow it anyway.

Like I said before: You are taking sides with Terrell Suggs and arguing the Patriots' SB36 victory may have been rigged. I'm sure that will make you poster of the year on this forum.

First of all I never said the entire league was rigged. Second. I'm taking sides with myself, based on my own observations but if we're going to talk about taking sides, fine.

You are taking sides with the belief that it is incomprehensible to even consider that a league born out of gambling, mobsters, bookies and fraud -and these are documented facts - whose sole purpose is to sell games FOR profit, who has an Anti-Trust exemption and can legally sell their franchises as one big entertainment package, share profits from all games among all owners, who have every reason in the world to make sure those match-ups are the most popular games possible and have the highest possible rating and drive the highest possible profits.

And you are willing to go to any length, to continue believing that everything and anything that pops up, from stats, to stories, to what you see with your own eyes is anything other than pure coincidences and random events and "honest mistakes" that defy odds "on any given sunday".

And yeah, I just happen to believe the same thing a guy who came from a rough life, who's a hot head, isn't in on the big money, and sometimes might get pissed off and hot headed enough to say something he shouldn't have that might just be true.

And when it comes to even something like that, you can keep trusting your "men of integrity" in suits and I'll believe the hot head from the hood who has really nothing to gain from saying something like this is probably telling the truth.

 

[SB39]

First of all I never said the entire league was rigged. Second. I'm taking sides with myself, based on my own observations but if we're going to talk about taking sides, fine.

Then please tell me, for the sake of clarity, what exactly is your thesis here? What exactly is it that you are arguing? Because if you say Goodell is in on the rigging, then that constitutes the league rigging games.

Terrell Suggs and Kurt Warner appreciate your support. :singing:

 

[PatriotSeven]

First of all I never said the entire league was rigged. Second. I'm taking sides with myself, based on my own observations but if we're going to talk about taking sides, fine.

Then please tell me, for the sake of clarity, what exactly is your thesis here? What exactly is it that you are arguing? Because if you say Goodell is in on the rigging, then that constitutes the league rigging games.

Terrell Suggs and Kurt Warner appreciate your support. :singing:

Yes the league riggs some games, Superbowls included. That part is obvious. My point is, it's so evident, that it comes out even if you were to track it statistically.

That doesn't mean it's a WWE freaking coreographed show. But if they need a game to be close to keep excitement going, if they need to push the big market teams to make sure they get the match-ups everyone loves, if there's a major political agenda, they'll do it.

 

[jmt57]

They DON'T want to see the Cleveland Browns vs the Jaguars in a Superbowl. They don't. We don't. That's why this amazing parity never carries over to the unpopular or small market teams(and by this I mean "modern age market" which doesn't mean geographical area). They want the big teams in the big games and the NFL makes sure that happens. Everyone is happy.

Let's look at those markets that the NFL and their business partners covet.

1. Giants - currently competing with the Jaguars for the worst team in the league.

2. Jets - have not been to a Super Bowl in 45 years.

3. Chicago - (1) championship in last 50 years.

4. Philadelphia - 53 years since last championship.

5. Dallas - 18 years since last SB; one playoff win since then.

6a. San Francisco - Just went through 8-year stretch without a winning season; 19 years since last SB victory (when free agency and cap started).

6b. Oakland - headed towards their 11th consecutive year without a winning record; 30 years since last SB victory.

7. Boston (Patriots) - have done very well

8. Atlanta - has never won a SB; only one appearance in SB.

9. Washington - 22 years since last SB.

10. Houston - Texans (2002-) have never been to SB and have 2 playoff victories in franchise history; Oilers never won it all since taking AFL title in 1960 and 1961.

11. Detroit - has there been a more inept franchise than the Lions over the course of most NFL fans' lifetimes? Last championship was in 1957; one playoff appearance in 14 years; one playoff victory in 56 years.

12. Phoenix - I have to take that back about Detroit; this franchise is even more inept. 3 playoff appearance in the 26 years since they moved to Arizona, with one SB appearance, zero championships, and only 3 winning seasons in that time.

13. Tampa-St Pete - Let's make that three franchises in a row with a history of suckitude; the Bucs have the worst all-time W-L percentage of all 32 NFL teams and one SB in their 36 years of existence.

14. Seattle - Zero championships and only one SB appearance in their 36 years.

15. Minneapolis-St Paul - Just four playoff appearances in the last 13 years, and zero championships.




That takes care of the 16 NFL teams playing in the largest metro/television markets; now let us compare to the 16 smaller market teams.

16. Miami - NFL's 3rd best all-time winning percentage; 2 championships, 5 SB appearances; 22 playoff appearances since 1970.

17. Cleveland - Okay, they certainly have a long history of not being good.

18. Denver - Have won 17 of their last 20 games and are currently the darling of those very same networks. Nine playoff appearnces and two championships in last 17 years; 19 playoff appearances and six conference championships since 1977.

[Markets #19, #20 and #22 do not have NFL teams]

21. St. Louis - haven't been good recently but the networks certainly embraced The Greatest Show On Turf from 1999-204, during which time they made 5 playoff appearances, played in 2 SB, and won one SB.

23. Pittsburgh - Arguably the best post-merger franchise. 24 playoff appearances in 40 years; 6 SB championships; only five losing seasons since 1972.

24. Charlotte - Not a great franchise, but Panthers did make it to the SB and were in the playoffs four times over span of 12 years.

25. Indianapolis - Made playoffs in 14 of the last 17 years. Went to SB twice, winning once. 154-74 record since 1999. Defeated a large market team in the SB.

26. Baltimore - Ravens won the SB last year (over a much larger market team) for their 2nd SB in 13 years. Have gone to playoffs five straight years and 6 of last 7.

28. San Diego - 2012 was first time in nine years the Chargers (7-9) had a losing season; during that time they won 92 games.

29. Nashville - Titans came an out-stretched arm away from winning the SB a few years ago; they have had only five losing seasons since moving to Tennessee 17 years ago.

31. Kansas City - Chiefs are off to a 4-0 start and have gone to playoffs 16 times, with one SB victory; they had one stretch of nine consecutive winning seasons which included six with 10+ wins.

34. Cincinnati - Bengals have been to playoffs in three of last four years, and went to SB twice.

47. Jacksonville - Historically bad right now, but they were good in the beginning. Over a four-year stretch they were 45-19, making the playoffs each year.

51. Buffalo - Haven't done anything right lately, but they did win four straight conference championship games; were probably the best team in the AFC from the late 80s through the 90s.

53. New Orleans - From 2009-11 the Saints won 41 games, plus a SB.

70. Green Bay - Best franchise in the history of the NFL. The packers have gone to the playoffs four straight years, with a SB championship during that time. In the last 12 years the pack has nine 10+ win seasons, and in the last 20 years Green Bay has gone to the playoffs 15 times, winning 3 conference championships and 2 Super Bowls.



I am truly not seeing any statistical evidence to back up the assertion that "parity never carries over to small market teams".





Top 100 Television Markets - Station Index

 

[BradyFTW!]

This point has been made, and addressed at least 3 times. I didn't. Salary cap era makes no damn difference on the playoff format and the probabilities CURRENTLY expected out of it. The comparison is today's format vs today's results. And old format vs old results. Not today's results vs old results.

It makes a whole lot of difference as to the talent gap between the #1 seed and the #6 seed. Which would pretty obviously have a dramatic effect on seed vs. SB win probability. All that your comparison shows is that the salary cap increased parity, which was its stated goal. It doesn't say anything even close to what you think it says.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes the league riggs some games, Superbowls included. That part is obvious. My point is, it's so evident, that it comes out even if you were to track it statistically.

It's not obvious. The only thing that's obvious here is that you're a conspiracy theorist who is so invested in your pet theory that you're willing to claim Terrell Suggs as a credible source.

As for your claim that you've proven this statistically, you simply haven't. I didn't even major in statistics--I merely minored in it--but from the limited experience that I have, I can tell you that the analysis that you've done and the reasoning behind it would earn you a failing grade in any 101-level stats course.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Let's look at those markets that the NFL and their business partners covet.

1. Giants - currently competing with the Jaguars for the worst team in the league.

2. Jets - have not been to a Super Bowl in 45 years.

3. Chicago - (1) championship in last 50 years.

4. Philadelphia - 53 years since last championship.

5. Dallas - 18 years since last SB; one playoff win since then.

6a. San Francisco - Just went through 8-year stretch without a winning season; 19 years since last SB victory (when free agency and cap started).

6b. Oakland - headed towards their 11th consecutive year without a winning record; 30 years since last SB victory.

7. Boston (Patriots) - have done very well

8. Atlanta - has never won a SB; only one appearance in SB.

9. Washington - 22 years since last SB.

10. Houston - Texans (2002-) have never been to SB and have 2 playoff victories in franchise history; Oilers never won it all since taking AFL title in 1960 and 1961.

11. Detroit - has there been a more inept franchise than the Lions over the course of most NFL fans' lifetimes? Last championship was in 1957; one playoff appearance in 14 years; one playoff victory in 56 years.

12. Phoenix - I have to take that back about Detroit; this franchise is even more inept. 3 playoff appearance in the 26 years since they moved to Arizona, with one SB appearance, zero championships, and only 3 winning seasons in that time.

13. Tampa-St Pete - Let's make that three franchises in a row with a history of suckitude; the Bucs have the worst all-time W-L percentage of all 32 NFL teams and one SB in their 36 years of existence.

14. Seattle - Zero championships and only one SB appearance in their 36 years.

15. Minneapolis-St Paul - Just four playoff appearances in the last 13 years, and zero championships.




That takes care of the 16 NFL teams playing in the largest metro/television markets; now let us compare to the 16 smaller market teams.

16. Miami - NFL's 3rd best all-time winning percentage; 2 championships, 5 SB appearances; 22 playoff appearances since 1970.

17. Cleveland - Okay, they certainly have a long history of not being good.

18. Denver - Have won 17 of their last 20 games and are currently the darling of those very same networks. Nine playoff appearnces and two championships in last 17 years; 19 playoff appearances and six conference championships since 1977.

[Markets #19, #20 and #22 do not have NFL teams]

21. St. Louis - haven't been good recently but the networks certainly embraced The Greatest Show On Turf from 1999-204, during which time they made 5 playoff appearances, played in 2 SB, and won one SB.

23. Pittsburgh - Arguably the best post-merger franchise. 24 playoff appearances in 40 years; 6 SB championships; only five losing seasons since 1972.

24. Charlotte - Not a great franchise, but Panthers did make it to the SB and were in the playoffs four times over span of 12 years.

25. Indianapolis - Made playoffs in 14 of the last 17 years. Went to SB twice, winning once. 154-74 record since 1999. Defeated a large market team in the SB.

26. Baltimore - Ravens won the SB last year (over a much larger market team) for their 2nd SB in 13 years. Have gone to playoffs five straight years and 6 of last 7.

28. San Diego - 2012 was first time in nine years the Chargers (7-9) had a losing season; during that time they won 92 games.

29. Nashville - Titans came an out-stretched arm away from winning the SB a few years ago; they have had only five losing seasons since moving to Tennessee 17 years ago.

31. Kansas City - Chiefs are off to a 4-0 start and have gone to playoffs 16 times, with one SB victory; they had one stretch of nine consecutive winning seasons which included six with 10+ wins.

34. Cincinnati - Bengals have been to playoffs in three of last four years, and went to SB twice.

47. Jacksonville - Historically bad right now, but they were good in the beginning. Over a four-year stretch they were 45-19, making the playoffs each year.

51. Buffalo - Haven't done anything right lately, but they did win four straight conference championship games; were probably the best team in the AFC from the late 80s through the 90s.

53. New Orleans - From 2009-11 the Saints won 41 games, plus a SB.

70. Green Bay - Best franchise in the history of the NFL. The packers have gone to the playoffs four straight years, with a SB championship during that time. In the last 12 years the pack has nine 10+ win seasons, and in the last 20 years Green Bay has gone to the playoffs 15 times, winning 3 conference championships and 2 Super Bowls.



I am truly not seeing any statistical evidence to back up the assertion that "parity never carries over to small market teams".





Top 100 Television Markets - Station Index

I think you're going to need to do a better analysis than this. It's not simply about winning the Superbowl, but teams that appear in Championships games, that appear in Superbowls. Put them all together. Look at match-ups.

"Big market teams" doesn't necessarily mean NY city teams or a geographical area. It means the most popular teams in the NFL nationwide at any current point in time. It's about TV ratings, and about nationwide popularity. It's about what produces the biggest ratings, and the biggest profits, and the most sales.


So look at those. Get your hands on TV ratings and do a real analysis. I don't have the time to do something like that at the moment, but that's what I would do if I wanted to see a correlation.

I've just seen enough to be convinced based on what I've done, based on what has happened over the years, and based on what continues to happen every single season.

I don't need anymore than that and I don't care to convince anyone otherwise.

 

[PatriotSeven]

It's not obvious. The only thing that's obvious here is that you're a deluded conspiracy theorist.

By chance, do you happen to believe that lizard people from space also rule humanity?

As for your claim that you've proven this statistically, you simply haven't. I didn't even major in statistics--I merely minored in it--but from the limited experience that I have, I can tell you that the analysis that you've done and the reasoning behind it would earn you a failing grade in any 101-level stats course.

I think you really need to look up the definition of a "conspiracy theory".

Sports game being fixed for profit isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a commonly accepted known fact, and the NFL isn't an exception. It happens more often than anyone likes to admit. And a lot more often than it appears based on the ones who get caught doing it. That's just a small percentage. Just the ones who get caught.

 

[jmt57]

I think you're going to need to do a better analysis than this. It's not simply about winning the Superbowl, but teams that appear in Championships games, that appear in Superbowls. Put them all together. Look at match-ups.

"Big market teams" doesn't necessarily mean NY city teams or a geographical area. It means the most popular teams in the NFL nationwide at any current point in time. It's about TV ratings, and about nationwide popularity. It's about what produces the biggest ratings, and the biggest profits, and the most sales.


So look at those. Get your hands on TV ratings and do a real analysis. I don't have the time to do something like that at the moment, but that's what I would do if I wanted to see a correlation.

I've just seen enough to be convinced based on what I've done, based on what has happened over the years, and based on what continues to happen every single season.

I don't need anymore than that and I don't care to convince anyone otherwise.

If you're going to change the parameters from television market size to popularity, it's quite simple: winning teams are popular, and losing teams are not. If the fix was in then large market teams would consistently be winning teams, and as a result become more popular.

If you want to include teams that appear in the Super Bowl and not just those that win it, again you will see the list filled with smaller market teams; 7 of the last 10 teams to appear in the SB are smaller market teams.

 

[PatriotSeven]

If you're going to change the parameters from television market size to popularity, it's quite simple: winning teams are popular, and losing teams are not. If the fix was in then large market teams would consistently be winning teams, and as a result become more popular.

If you want to include teams that appear in the Super Bowl and not just those that win it, again you will see the list filled with smaller market teams; 7 of the last 10 teams to appear in the SB are smaller market teams.

Of course you have to look at it as that when you consider the majority of NFL profit comes from TV deals.

Did you honestly take a look at rating numbers, and sales revenue, before drawing up your statistics? How are you determining "small market" teams?

 

[jmt57]

How are you determining "small market" teams?

From the previous post:

Top 100 Television Markets - Station Index


32 NFL teams; the top 16 I placed in the 'large market' group, and the bottom 16 I placed in the 'small market' category.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think you're going to need to do a better analysis than this. It's not simply about winning the Superbowl, but teams that appear in Championships games, that appear in Superbowls. Put them all together. Look at match-ups.

In one post, he's done exponentially more analysis than you have in this entire thread. That said, fine, I'll bite:

Of the 32 teams, the average TV ranking is 19 according to JMT's source

2012:

NFCCG: San Fran (6) vs. Atlanta (8)
AFCCG: New England (7) vs. Baltimore (26)

CCG average: 11.75
Super Bowl average: 16

Verdict: moderately above the league average​

2011

NFCCG: San Fran (6) vs. New York (1)
AFCCG: New England (7) vs. Baltimore (26)

CCG average: 10
Super Bowl average: 4

Verdict: significantly above the league average​

2010

NFCCG: Green Bay (70) vs. Chicago (3)
AFCCG: Pittsburgh (23) vs. New York (1)

CCG average: 24.25
Super Bowl average: 46.5

Verdict: so far below the league average that it basically blows this entire asinine premise out of the water​

2009

NFCCG: New Orleans (53) vs. Minnesota (15)
AFCCG: Indianapolis (25) vs. New York (1)

CCG average: 23.5
Super Bowl average: 39

Verdict: far below league average​

2008

NFCCG: Arizona (12) vs. Philadelphia (4)
AFCCG: Pittsburgh (23) vs. Baltimore (26)

CCG average: 16.25
Super Bowl average: 17.5

Verdict: slightly above league average
​

But wait...

"Big market teams" doesn't necessarily mean NY city teams or a geographical area. It means the most popular teams in the NFL nationwide at any current point in time. It's about TV ratings, and about nationwide popularity. It's about what produces the biggest ratings, and the biggest profits, and the most sales.

For starters, you have the order wrong. Teams don't become good because they're popular. They become popular because they're good.

But that's just qualitative explanation; let's stick to the numbers. ESPN and the NFL have both reported on what the most popular NFL teams are.

So look at those. Get your hands on TV ratings and do a real analysis. I don't have the time to do something like that at the moment, but that's what I would do if I wanted to see a correlation.

So you're literally saying "I'm too lazy to do any actual research to back up my conclusion, but if I was willing to I'm sure that I'd find it". Do I even need to spell out how stupid that is?

Even aside from the utter failure that that statement is in its own right, it also betrays a complete lack of understanding of the difference between correlation and causation. Again, teams don't become good because they're popular. They become popular because they're good. That's why the Patriots are suddenly the most popular team in the NFL according to Mediapost, while they wouldn't have been in the top 20 if you'd asked back in 1990. It's also why there's been a clearly observed phenomenon which shows that playoff success causes popularity (in social media), and not vice versa.

But fine, since you're so convinced that there was a conspiracy theory at work in the playoffs last year, let's look at the teams that took place in the last two rounds of the playoffs, and see if there was anything out of whack about their popularity relative to the rest of the league.

NFCCG: 49ers (8) vs. Falcons (26)
AFCCG: Patriots (5) vs. Ravens (23)

CCG average: 15.5
Super Bowl average: 15.5​

Well I'll be damned, that's almost exactly the league average. So what's your point again?

I don't need anymore than that and I don't care to convince anyone otherwise.

Then stop posting about it. If that's all you have to bring to the table, then I promise your contribution won't be missed.

 

[PatriotSeven]

In one post, he's done exponentially more analysis than you have in this entire thread. That said, fine, I'll bite:

So you're literally saying "I'm too lazy to do any actual research to back up my conclusion, but if I was willing to I'm sure that I'd find it". Do I even need to spell out how stupid that is?

Look dude, I don't know what you actually consider research but that isn't it. That's ******* laughable. A total joke and I consider that trash. I didn't just pull a few numbers out of my ass to suit my argument. Which is what that is.

And no I'm not "too lazy" to do something you want me to do. I did my own research, which took a lot of time and effort compared to the few lines you managed to pull out of your ass. I'm satisfied with what I have.

But what you have there, isn't even remotely close to something one could take seriously. Let me know when you have something like this for me to analyze:

If you want the excells, I'll email them to you.

What you did isn't "research". You can't draw any sort of scientifical or objective conclusion from what what the hell you just posted. That's what I consider lazy.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Of course you have to look at it as that when you consider the majority of NFL profit comes from TV deals.

Did you honestly take a look at rating numbers, and sales revenue, before drawing up your statistics? How are you determining "small market" teams?

Look here. All 32 teams, sorted by revenue. Since we've established that winning creates popularity (and not vice versa) in my last post, we expect to see a pretty strong correlation between success and team revenue. No doubt, you're misunderstand that like you've misunderstood every piece of data that you've tried to use, but let's go ahead and investigate it anyway.

1. Cowboys: have won a total of one playoff game since the mid-90s
2. Patriots: Popular and successful
3. Redskins: have an even more dismal track record than the Cowboys
4. Giants: Popular and successful
5. Jets: Haven't played in a Super Bowl since the '60s
6. Texans: have never played in an AFCCG, let alone a Super Bowl
7. Eagles: Have never won a Super Bowl. Reaching a Super Bowl in 2004 was basically this organization's high-water mark
8. Bears: Have won one Super Bowl, almost 30 years ago. Last played in one in 2006, where they were destroyed
9. Baltimore: popular and successful
10. Broncos: Haven't played in a Super Bowl since 1998
11. Packers: Have played in one Super Bowl in the past 15 years
12. Saints: have played in one Super Bowl in my lifetime
13: Colts: Have played in 2 Super Bowls in their history
14: Panthers: Have played in one Super Bowl in their history
15. Titans: Have played in one Super Bowl in their history
16. Seahawks: Have played in one Super Bowl in my lifetime
17: Dolphins: Haven't played in a Super Bowl in my lifetime
18: Bucs: Have played in and won one Super Bowl in my lifetime
19: Steelers: One of the most popular and successful teams in the NFL over the past decade
20: Browns: The most consistently futile team in the NFL over the past 15 years
21: Jaguars: Have never played in a Super Bowl
22: Bills: Haven't made the playoffs in 15+ years. Have never won a SB.
23: 49ers: Played in a Super Bowl just last year. Have won several in my lifetime.
24: Cardinals: Played in one Super Bowl in my lifetime
25: Falcons: Played in one Super Bowl in my lifetime
26. Bengals: Zero super bowls in my lifetime
27: Chargers: Zero super bowls in my lifetime
28: Lions: Zero super bowls in my lifetime
29: Chiefs: Zero super bowls in my lifetime
30: Rams: Have played in 2 Super Bowls in my lifetime, won one
31: Vikings: Zero super bowls in my lifetime
32: Raiders: Have played in two Super Bowls in my lifetime.


Now, let's look at all of the teams that have played in a Super Bowl in the past ten years:

49ers: 23
Ravens: 9
Giants: 4
Patriots: 1
Packers: 11
Steelers: 19
Saints: 12
Colts: 13
Cardinals: 24
Bears: 8
Seahawks: 16
Eagles: 7
Panthers: 14
Bucs: 18
Raiders: 32
Rams: 30


Guess what that averages out to? 15.06. In other word, within one spot of the middle. By revenue, all of the teams that have been to a Super Bowl since 2000 average out to the 15th rank out of 32 teams. Again, your argument is completely groundless.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Look dude, I don't know what you actually consider research but that isn't it. That's ******* laughable. A total joke and I consider that trash. I didn't just pull a few numbers out of my ass to suit my argument. Which is what that is.

And no I'm not "too lazy" to do something you want me to do. I did my own research, which took a lot of time and effort compared to the few lines you managed to pull out of your ass. I'm satisfied with what I have.

But what you have there, isn't even remotely close to something one could take seriously. Let me know when you have something like this for me to analyze:

If you want the excells, I'll email them to you.

What you did isn't "research". You can't draw any sort of scientifical or objective conclusion from what what the hell you just posted. That's what I consider lazy.

Is there any data at all in those Excel sheets relating to team popularity? I don't see any, and if not, then they have literally nothing to do with the claim that you're making.

It's really a shame that you wasted your time with all of that, if what you got from it is that is that popularity causes Super Bowl appearances. It took me 20 minutes to disprove that, and it doesn't speak very highly for your intelligence if you're using Excel to prove causation when you don't even have one of the data sets in question.

I can make a 75 page excel sheet full of numbers that have nothing to do with what I'm claiming, too. If I use this as evidence that space monkeys cause global warming, then I'll still be wrong. Especially if all of the data that I've collected has zero references to space monkeys.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Is there any data at all in those Excel sheets relating to team popularity? I don't see any, and if not, then they have literally nothing to do with the claim that you're making.

It's really a shame that you wasted your time with all of that, if what you got from it is that is that popularity causes Super Bowl appearances. It took me 20 minutes to disprove that, and it doesn't speak very highly for your intelligence if you're using Excel to prove causation when you don't even have one of the data sets in question.

Dude that isn't the research that I did. That is a research for a playoff format probabilities for seeds and actual results.

You want to do a research based on team popularity to see if there's a correlation, be my guest.

Those numbers I have are enough to freaking tell me the results for the tournament format probabilities and reality are too out of whack for it to be just simple oddities.

And you didn't disprove ****. The results of the seeding in the past 10 years are in no way shape or form predictable by the structure of the tournament. The deviation is absurdly large. Disprove that if you want to disprove something.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Dude that isn't the research that I did. That is a research for a playoff format probabilities for seeds and actual results.

Which has already been explained. You're noting the difference in win probabilities by seed between pre-salary cap era teams and salary cap era teams. If your conclusion is anything other than "the salary cap increased parity among playoff teams", then you would be failed out of a 101-level statistical modeling course for reaching that conclusion.

You want to do a research based on team popularity to see if there's a correlation, be my guest.

That's odd, because you pretty adamantly claimed that that correlation existed in posts 95 and 110. Nothing like a good backtrack to tacitly admit that you're wrong.

Those numbers I have are enough to freaking tell me the results for the tournament format probabilities and reality are too out of whack for it to be just simple oddities.

So based on an extraordinarily small sample size, while failing to account for obvious outside factors that would create the change that you're observing, you're ready to call shenanigans? Again, I don't want to be a jerk here, but you're literally plowing through just about every fallacy in the Statistics 101 textbook. You're genuinely clueless as to the subject matter that you're dealing with.

And you didn't disprove ****. The results of the seeding in the past 10 years are in no way shape or form predictable by the structure of the tournament. The deviation is absurdly large. Disprove that if you want to disprove something.

There's nothing to disprove. The facts are the facts. Small sample size aside, the data suggests that the league has achieved parity between playoff teams in recent years, as compared to past years. Nobody has denied this at any point in this thread. Where you seem to think that this proves your case, you're simply wrong, because it's easily explainable without resorting to all of the insane bull**** that you're espousing. It's just the salary cap having its intended effect. Nothing more and nothing less.