Suggs acuses Goodell of Superbowl Blackout.

[shmessy]

OK, which one of you is Nate Silver?

 

[PatriotSeven]

1. the assumption that a home team has a 57% chance of winning may not actually be true in the playoffs.
2. The sample size is so small that it easily accounts for the discrepency, even if the assumptions are correct.

You're moving the goalposts yet again, but you're still wrong, because now you're claiming that deviation from an expected value within a minuscule sample size is evidence that the league is fixed.

It's pretty clear that you're not nearly as informed on this subject matter as you seem to think you are.

Where are you getting that's an assumption? Aren't you the one assuming it's not? Not that it makes that big of a difference because even if you completely remove homefield advantage it doesn't change things much. For example, the probability of seed 3 would only increases from 11% to 12.5%. You're still left with a humongous gap between the top seeds and lower seeds. Your argument is pretty moot on this one.

I'm not moving goal posts and the sample size isn't so small. If you compare other similar small time periods over the history of the NFL, it stays pretty much in line with expected deviations.

But forget the sample size and even look at it from the chances such a pattern would show up at ANY point in time even over an infinite timeline. If you also apply it to other possibilities, it matches up prior to this time period. For example the chances of a 1 and 2 winning in a row, or a 1,2 and a 3. The latter which would be about once every 30 years, and it has in fact happened once in about 30 years between 87-89.

But this?

This is pretty unlikely.


You don't even need complex probability math to see something's a little fishy.

And if you were to look at the numbers well:

IF the seed were exactly equal and
IF they had equal probability, and
IF there was no bye week and
IF there was no home field advantage....

...then any random ordered string of 6 different seeds winning the Superbowl in a row in a 6 year time span, at any point in time, would only show up at a rate of 6!/6^6 or 1.5%!

But this isn't the case, and those ifs are not true.

We know for a fact each seed has different probabilities of appearing in a Superbowl and winning, home field advantages plays a role, and team strength is still not quite identical, so without trying to make my brain explode here and figure out such complex math, you can already pretty easily estimate that based on the previous number the chances are more in the 0.000...% range! Those are lottery odds! And it's irrelevant of the sample size. Just the fact it showed up is pretty incredible and the way it deviated so suddenly from the past, just makes it all the more suspicious.

And on top of that, the fact the underdog seed has won at such an incredible 80% of the time over the past decade. Once again, highly deviating from the norm of any seed being closer to 50-50 in the big game, and actually has historically favored the top seed a little at a rate of 50-65%. And how about the fact that right in the middle of this unusual pattern, in the middle of this incredible run of underdog seeds, you also have a #1 vs #1 match up, which is also pretty rare? And the fact that before this pattern showed up you also had yet another #6 seed win the Superbowl. You'd figure they would at least appear a few more times in the losing column as well but no, they seem to be taking it all. How lucky can the NFL be? All of this in such a short time span?

Having said all that, of course it's not direct evidence that the league is fixed. It is however, evidence that the results are suspect, extremely rare, and highly unusual, based on the current tournament format. The chances of this happening in the first place are so small, let alone so suddenly, that it certainly supports that accusation.

And it's not just this incredible jackpot of parity the NFL managed to achieve in Superbowl winners but the other things going on. Watch the games themselves. The blatantly missed calls. The suspicious activity such as with the ref who shouldn't have been there this past year.

Everything for the past decade has been upside down. And it's not enough to question unusual circumstance, but I would argue the consistency of the "mysterious anomalies" are very much questionable. Very lucky breaks, very lucky streaks for the underdog seeds, very lucky parity, once in a million chance, and very record breaking profits for them that just seem to happen with a lot of regularity.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The fact that "six different seeds" advanced in consecutive years makes absolutely nobody care about football any more or less.

The notion that Gooddell is manipulating to make sure that a five seed wins once in six years is stupid. It's beyond stupid. It wouldn't change a thing if it were a four, or a six, or a three.

The difference between the following being the last 6 seeds to advance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the following 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6 is entirely irrelevant. It makes zero difference in the world. None. Zip. Nada.

And once you acknowledge that, the supposed likelihood of "all" six advancing becomes irrelevant.

You do keep moving the goalposts. That's what conspiracy theorists do, and they don't know it, because it's part of the delusion, so I understand I'm speaking to myself here and not you, but I'm saying it anyway.

 

[Koma]

Against better judgement, a couple more thoughts.

...

One last thing: it has been mentioned about the Steeler fan/Texas investments broker (who was guilty of fraud) attempted to use statistical analysis to prove that it was impossible for the Patriots to be as successful as they were; the author of Advanced NFL Stats attempted to do the same thing back in 2007.

I guess that all improbable feats must have been rigged, from UCLA's basketball team winning 88 consecutive games to Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak to Jerry Rice's 274 consecutive games with a catch to Johnny Vander Meer pitching two consecutive no-hitters.

One of the things that cracks me up about the Steelers fan's theory is that he offers the altitude in Denver as a reason for that team's above average success at home. On the surface, this sounds good, but it doesn't explain why, if the altitude is constant, they only won 2 home games in 2010 or were a poor to mediocre team for their first 15 years of existence.

Maybe Denver is a very good home team when they have a very good team on the field. And maybe that applies to every team.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The fact that "six different seeds" advanced in consecutive years makes absolutely nobody care about football any more or less.

The notion that Gooddell is manipulating to make sure that a five seed wins once in six years is stupid. It's beyond stupid. It wouldn't change a thing if it were a four, or a six, or a three.

The difference between the following being the last 6 seeds to advance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the following 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6 is entirely irrelevant. It makes zero difference in the world. None. Zip. Nada.

And once you acknowledge that, the supposed likelihood of "all" six advancing becomes irrelevant.

You do keep moving the goalposts. That's what conspiracy theorists do, and they don't know it, because it's part of the delusion, so I understand I'm speaking to myself here and not you, but I'm saying it anyway.

Who says he's manipulating based on him wanting this outcome of seeding? Yeah that's stupid and no one is saying such things. No, this could very well be an unintended consequence of manipulation. In other words, manipulation, led to something incredibly rare in terms of probabilities actually taking place.

The fact of the matter is the chances of 6 seeds advancing in 6 years are freaking lottery odds! That's enough of a reason to take a look into it. The fact that it happened is incredibly freaking rare, and once you look into into, so are all the other unusual deviations that have accompanied this in the same time span.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

So, nothing is being manipulated to make it so that one of each of the six seeds advances, but we're supposed to conclude that something is fishy based on the fact that one of each of the six seeds advanced?

Hoo boy.

 

[Onedaful]

I think we are all not considering the most obvious answer, atleast to me anyways.

 

[jmt57]

The usage of data prior to the advent of the salary cap and free agency is disingenuous, as it creates the appearance of the recent years being that much more of a statistical anomaly.

The cap/free agency completely changed the way rosters are formed. Other than the introduction of the forward pass it is arguably the biggest change in the history of the league.

If people wanted to accurately draw a line in the history of the NFL they would use that date, rather than the merger.

 

[PatriotSeven]

So, nothing is being manipulated to make it so that one of each of the six seeds advances, but we're supposed to conclude that something is fishy based on the fact that one of each of the six seeds advanced?

Hoo boy.

No. You missed it.

 

[PatriotSeven]

The usage of data prior to the advent of the salary cap and free agency is disingenuous, as it creates the appearance of the recent years being that much more of a statistical anomaly.

The cap/free agency completely changed the way rosters are formed. Other than the introduction of the forward pass it is arguably the biggest change in the history of the league.

If people wanted to accurately draw a line in the history of the NFL they would use that date, rather than the merger.

What does salary cap have to do with tournament playoff format probabilities? I have repeated this numerous times already. Why is it that you and a couple of others actually believe this?

It has nothing to do with it. Nothing. You're trying to make a correlation that simply doesn't make any sense. Once again, if you're argument is that teams are more evenly balanced, then at worse, they would be behaving very close to ideal probabilities. But those drastic probabilities are still there, even if teams saw perfect equality. It doesn't invalidate anything. It really doesn't.


But as an aside and only as an aside, since it really is completely irrelevant to what I am discussing, that is a total myth too. The only thing the salary cap was supposed to do is to prevent the same teams from loading up on talent year after year. It didn't prevent dynasties though, obviously, and it certainly doesn't have an effect on seeding probabilities if you're simply looking at it from the fact teams get a bye week and a homefield advantage.

There have been studies on that. It didn't turn out that way.

I suggest you read up on this myth because its wrong.

It's as random today as it was in the 80s. Yet another thing that makes the NFL's parity questionable.

 

[jmt57]

Sorry that you have lost so much money on Super Bowls in recent years.

It happens sometimes to even the best handicappers.

If conspiracies make you feel better and having picked the wrong horse and therefore helps you sleep at night, good for you.

I don't think you are looking at this objectively.

You have an opinion then searching for somebody that concluded the same thing (e.g., a 2003 salary cap study) rather than researching the subject and then forming an opinion. If you really think the salary cap and free agency have no bearing on the chance of an NFL team pulling off a run like the Packers did from 1961-67, nothing I or anyone else is ever going to say is ever going to change your mind.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Sorry that you have lost so much money on Super Bowls in recent years.

It happens sometimes to even the best handicappers.

If conspiracies make you feel better and having picked the wrong horse and therefore helps you sleep at night, good for you.

See I don't like that.

I have NEVER bet on a football game. Or any sports game. And never plan on it.
You guys asked where I got my numbers. I showed them to you. You can chalk it up to whatever you wish.

And the very idea that sports fixing and conspiracy theories are even in the same sentence is why I think football fans the must gullible and naive fan base on the planet. It's NOT THAT shocking guys.

Some of you are much too engaged and involved and passionate and I get that to ever question the system. Which is why I did this research more than a year ago and didn't care to bring it out. Because I knew very well how most would react with ad hominem attacks and the likes. I did it for me, for my own curiosity, for my own knowledge.

But there's just way too much **** that goes on year after year, in the NFL that you have to be the ultimate naive to constantly turn a blind eye to it.

Like something like this:

"Missed or blown call by the replacement refs?"

No. That is a ref who is purposely refusing to make the call. Purposely altering the game. A lobotimzed Stevie Wonder would have made that call.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Where are you getting that's an assumption? Aren't you the one assuming it's not? Not that it makes that big of a difference because even if you completely remove homefield advantage it doesn't change things much. For example, the probability of seed 3 would only increases from 11% to 12.5%. You're still left with a humongous gap between the top seeds and lower seeds. Your argument is pretty moot on this one.

Your own source said that, since the current playoff format was adopted in 2002, different seeds have advanced at roughly the expected rate. What can't you understand about that? Your own source says that you're wrong.

I'm not moving goal posts and the sample size isn't so small. If you compare other similar small time periods over the history of the NFL, it stays pretty much in line with expected deviations.

If you think a sample size of less than 20 isn't small, then there's no debate left to have. You're clueless and aren't worth anyone's time.

But forget the sample size

No. You can't 'forget about sample size' when you're dealing with a sample of 10 data points. There's no point.

and even look at it from the chances such a pattern would show up at ANY point in time even over an infinite timeline. If you also apply it to other possibilities, it matches up prior to this time period. For example the chances of a 1 and 2 winning in a row, or a 1,2 and a 3. The latter which would be about once every 30 years, and it has in fact happened once in about 30 years between 87-89.

But this?

This is pretty unlikely.


You don't even need complex probability math to see something's a little fishy.

And if you were to look at the numbers well:

IF the seed were exactly equal and
IF they had equal probability, and
IF there was no bye week and
IF there was no home field advantage....

...then any random ordered string of 6 different seeds winning the Superbowl in a row in a 6 year time span, at any point in time, would only show up at a rate of 6!/6^6 or 1.5%!

But this isn't the case, and those ifs are not true.

We know for a fact each seed has different probabilities of appearing in a Superbowl and winning, home field advantages plays a role, and team strength is still not quite identical, so without trying to make my brain explode here and figure out such complex math, you can already pretty easily estimate that based on the previous number the chances are more in the 0.000...% range! Those are lottery odds! And it's irrelevant of the sample size. Just the fact it showed up is pretty incredible and the way it deviated so suddenly from the past, just makes it all the more suspicious.

And on top of that, the fact the underdog seed has won at such an incredible 80% of the time over the past decade. Once again, highly deviating from the norm of any seed being closer to 50-50 in the big game, and actually has historically favored the top seed a little at a rate of 50-65%. And how about the fact that right in the middle of this unusual pattern, in the middle of this incredible run of underdog seeds, you also have a #1 vs #1 match up, which is also pretty rare? And the fact that before this pattern showed up you also had yet another #6 seed win the Superbowl. You'd figure they would at least appear a few more times in the losing column as well but no, they seem to be taking it all. How lucky can the NFL be? All of this in such a short time span?

Having said all that, of course it's not direct evidence that the league is fixed. It is however, evidence that the results are suspect, extremely rare, and highly unusual, based on the current tournament format. The chances of this happening in the first place are so small, let alone so suddenly, that it certainly supports that accusation.

And it's not just this incredible jackpot of parity the NFL managed to achieve in Superbowl winners but the other things going on. Watch the games themselves. The blatantly missed calls. The suspicious activity such as with the ref who shouldn't have been there this past year.

Everything for the past decade has been upside down. And it's not enough to question unusual circumstance, but I would argue the consistency of the "mysterious anomalies" are very much questionable. Very lucky breaks, very lucky streaks for the underdog seeds, very lucky parity, once in a million chance, and very record breaking profits for them that just seem to happen with a lot of regularity.

At this point you're literally just screaming nonsense. You're the internet version of the homeless guy in the street wearing a tin foil hat and yelling about lizard people.

There is literally no possible outcome that would be so anomalous across 10 data points that it would prove the system is being gamed. You can't expect a sample size of 10 to reflect any expected formula. Small sample size = huge expected variance. End of story. On a statistical level, there is no further debate to be had. You can't make a statistical argument that an entire system is gamed based on a sample size of 10. Period.

It's as ridiculous as looking at Ted Williams' .400 season, finding a slump where he went 1 for 10, and claiming this as irrefutable proof that he was throwing those games. It's asinine, it's ridiculous, and nobody with half a brain will even entertain it.

And now, yet again, you've shifted your explanation for the most crucial question of all: What end result could the NFL possibly be trying to create, and why?. First, you said that it was because they wanted the biggest markets to be playing deep in the playoffs. Then you said it was the most popular teams. Now you're claiming that the NFL is fixing games to make sure that they have different number seed advancing each year? Seriously? There's literally no benefit to anyone for this to happen, and I'd love to hear you claim otherwise.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What does salary cap have to do with tournament playoff format probabilities? I have repeated this numerous times already. Why is it that you and a couple of others actually believe this?

It has nothing to do with it. Nothing. You're trying to make a correlation that simply doesn't make any sense. Once again, if you're argument is that teams are more evenly balanced, then at worse, they would be behaving very close to ideal probabilities. But those drastic probabilities are still there, even if teams saw perfect equality. It doesn't invalidate anything. It really doesn't.


But as an aside and only as an aside, since it really is completely irrelevant to what I am discussing, that is a total myth too. The only thing the salary cap was supposed to do is to prevent the same teams from loading up on talent year after year. It didn't prevent dynasties though, obviously, and it certainly doesn't have an effect on seeding probabilities if you're simply looking at it from the fact teams get a bye week and a homefield advantage.

There have been studies on that. It didn't turn out that way.

I suggest you read up on this myth because its wrong.

It's as random today as it was in the 80s. Yet another thing that makes the NFL's parity questionable.

Somehow you managed to miss this simple fact that disproves your entire argument the last time around. Again, this is from your own Advanced NFL Stats source:

Here is how the probabilities work out for each seed. Also listed are the actual proportions of Super Bowl appearances since 2002 when the current format began. Keep in mind that the 'actual' numbers reflect the effect of both seeding and team strength, and that there are only 18 observations since '02, so they will be statistically noisy. Also note that the chances will not sum to 100% due to rounding. (Thanks go to my research intern for compiling the actual numbers.)​

Each seed is advancing to the Super Bowl at roughly the rate that your source has projected since the currently playoff format was adopted in 2002. Prior to 2002, there were only 6 divisions, so we're dealing with two entirely different data sets that don't bear a whole lot of relation to each other.

Your own source says that the data mirrors the expected values. What else do you want?

 

[PatriotSeven]

Your own source said that, since the current playoff format was adopted in 2002, different seeds have advanced at roughly the expected rate. What can't you understand about that? Your own source says that you're wrong. [/b]

First of all that is not "my source" for my research and Brian doesn't actually say what you say. That's a source I linked so you can see someone else calculating seed probabilities. What he looked at, was a very small timeline. He did it for 2002-2010 and only looked at appearances. I did it for the entire NFL history, for appearances and winning, for the wild card rounds, divisional rounds, championship games, winning percentage correlation and looked at it a million different ways. I even went back and assigned seeds, before there were seeds, just to have an even larger sample.

Brian didn't dig into it. I guarantee you if Brian goes back and looks at it now, the way I did it, he's going to be pretty surprised as I was. In fact he might not even have written such an article, and instead be talking about what the hell is going on with the seeds. Or maybe he did, and didn't want to bring up Superbowl winners and left it at appearances only precisely because this is what happens.

The funny thing is if you don't like what I have, and your argument is small data sets, you surely shouldn't be basing an argument on that small little piece of the pie because it's not even remotely close to the data set that I have.

Make up your mind.

If you think a sample size of less than 20 isn't small, then there's no debate left to have. You're clueless and aren't worth anyone's time.


No. You can't 'forget about sample size' when you're dealing with a sample of 10 data points. There's no point.


At this point you're literally just screaming nonsense. You're the internet version of the homeless guy in the street wearing a tin foil hat and yelling about lizard people.

Again make up your mind.

And you know what I think? It's pretty evident your ability to even comprehend the point being brought forward is too much for you, when you're still talking sample size and I'm talking improbable outcome even over an "infinite" timeline and the only thing you have been able to resume to is just childish and juvenile attacks.

I get it. This is hard for you. It's hard for most people. I can't teach it to you, just so you can argue it back at me.

There is literally no possible outcome that would be so anomalous across 10 data points that it would prove the system is being gamed. You can't expect a sample size of 10 to reflect any expected formula. Small sample size = huge expected variance. End of story. On a statistical level, there is no further debate to be had. You can't make a statistical argument that an entire system is gamed based on a sample size of 10. Period.

Yeah actually there are some, and that is one of them man. And the number in question is not 10, which wouldn't be as bad, but 6. In fact 10 #1 seeds winning 10 straight in a row is a more likely event than that ever happening. And I just don't think you have grasped this yet.

And now, yet again, you've shifted your explanation for the most crucial question of all: What end result could the NFL possibly be trying to create, and why?. First, you said that it was because they wanted the biggest markets to be playing deep in the playoffs. Then you said it was the most popular teams. Now you're claiming that the NFL is fixing games to make sure that they have different number seed advancing each year? Seriously? There's literally no benefit to anyone for this to happen, and I'd love to hear you claim otherwise.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since I have answered it multiple times. The end result is ratings, sales, and money. And whichever matchups give them that. Why the **** is that so hard for you to understand or believe? There is no mysterious secret. You clearly don't understand the importance of money or seriously underestimate it. And I wouldn't be surprised with the NFL's well known ties to the gambling world, if that also doesn't play a role. But in the end, however they make it, it's just about money. Their primary goal, as any business, is to sell a package, a product, for the highest possible profit. And if it means sometimes altering things, yeah, I think it takes place.

 

[DeutschlandPats]

See I don't like that.

I have NEVER bet on a football game. Or any sports game. And never plan on it.
You guys asked where I got my numbers. I showed them to you. You can chalk it up to whatever you wish.

And the very idea that sports fixing and conspiracy theories are even in the same sentence is why I think football fans the must gullible and naive fan base on the planet. It's NOT THAT shocking guys.

Some of you are much too engaged and involved and passionate and I get that to ever question the system. Which is why I did this research more than a year ago and didn't care to bring it out. Because I knew very well how most would react with ad hominem attacks and the likes. I did it for me, for my own curiosity, for my own knowledge.

But there's just way too much **** that goes on year after year, in the NFL that you have to be the ultimate naive to constantly turn a blind eye to it.

Like something like this:

"Missed or blown call by the replacement refs?"

No. That is a ref who is purposely refusing to make the call. Purposely altering the game. A lobotimzed Stevie Wonder would have made that call.

Dude that is extremely bias. Edelman leads with arm in defenders face and keeps trying to fight. You are homer buddy.

Fail marry, that was stupid call!!! Screwed Packers from home field advantage.

 

[Onedaful]

Dude that is extremely bias. Edelman leads with arm in defenders face and keeps trying to fight. You are homer buddy.

Fail marry, that was stupid call!!! Screwed Packers from home field advantage.

Are we watching the same gif? Looks like Edelman went for an aggressive block and kind of stumbled. Then the Ravens defender begins to ***** slap him continually without Edelman doing anything besides taking it.

 

[SB39]

Ok so you clearly don't understand or believe in probabilities and think it's voodoo magic. I would also assume you believe 2+2= 4 is something I made up out of thin air? It sounds equally as stupid as your statement.

Oh I read it, and you clearly don't have the first clue what you are talking about if you think any of the results we have seen are statistical impossibilities.

 

[SB39]

We know for a fact each seed has different probabilities of appearing in a Superbowl and winning, home field advantages plays a role, and team strength is still not quite identical, so without trying to make my brain explode here and figure out such complex math, you can already pretty easily estimate that based on the previous number the chances are more in the 0.000...% range! Those are lottery odds! And it's irrelevant of the sample size. Just the fact it showed up is pretty incredible and the way it deviated so suddenly from the past, just makes it all the more suspicious.

Yeah, it's statements like that that once again prove you have no clue what you are talking about. Sample size ALWAYS matters when you are trying to establish what you are saying.

You are in line with Terrell Suggs, and you believe the Patriots SB36 victory was rigged. Keep it up bro and you'll be the laughingstock of the forum.

 

[SB39]

if you think a sample size of less than 20 isn't small, then there's no debate left to have. You're clueless and aren't worth anyone's time.

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1.