AFC playoff bye for PATs?

[PATSYLICIOUS]

We're all just arguing the same point over and over again now.

I take your point and agree that a Bye is better for a myriad of, to be honest, pretty obvious reasons, including those that you cite.

But, we can't bank on it this year.

If we look back on the last ten seasons, the SB winner has had a Bye 50% of the time and had to win four games 50% of the time. So, while I will agree that "3 vs. 4" with a week to rest is an "advantage," the data suggest that it is not a "huge advantage," given that, as a predictor of the outcome, "3 vs 4" has been a 50-50 proposition in recent years.

If your argument is that there's something about the Patriots that means they can't take a four game route to hoisting the Lombardi, then I just plain disagree with you. Taking that view implies that we don't think the team is tough or resilient enough to deal with the adversity of four playoff games, at least one of which will usually be in an unfriendly venue. That's just not how I see these Patriots, until proven otherwise.

I feel like just because something happens a certain way doesn't necessarily mean we should draw too many conclusions from it, unless there is solid football logic behind things happening the way they did and a likeliness to history repeating itself. For example, the 2007 Giants beat the 2007 Patriots. Does that mean if I can choose a team to win me one game I wouldn't take the Patriots in a heartbeat? No, I'd take them with considerable ease again and again regardless of what actually happened because in my mind and using what I know (which yeah could be wrong) they give me a much better shot of winning. Same concept applies here IMO, just because the wild card teams happened to get hot and defy the odds doesn't mean that it's any less of an advantage to have the bye. That's just the way the cards unfolded those years. When you consider the clear competitive advantages to owning a bye, it really is a big help especially at that stage in the season.

 

[JMarr]

What I don't get is people here jumping off the bridge because we might have to win tough games on the road in the playoffs. It's how we got there in 01 and 04. For those who think Homefield is a magic path, I present in evidence the Ravens and Jets home games of the last decade.

That's exactly why I think HFA is pretty damn important. No way Brady Belichick and co. let an equal or inferior team beat them in Foxboro this year. None. [And I understand the whole underdog thing, but this team resembles the '01 '04 teams....almost none.]

I might have overstated the 'difficulty of winning on the road' angle, but I don't want any part of Denver or Houston in their houses come playoff time. And the thought, however remote, of a playoff game against the Colts in their sonic thunderdome makes me want to break stuff, in addition to giving me nightmares.:steamed: Thoughts of the 2006 AFCCG and other Indy fiascos might not ever go away I guess.

Bottom line, I'm pretty sure Belichick is keeping the possibility to HFA very much in mind in preparing for the second half of the season.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Bottom line, I'm pretty sure Belichick is keeping the possibility to HFA very much in mind in preparing for the second half of the season.

What was he thinking in preparing for the 1st half?

 

[Deus Irae]

What was he thinking in preparing for the 1st half?

"I can't believe they're even thinking about making a sequel to Casablanca."

 

[Yehoodi]

What was he thinking in preparing for the 1st half?

trying to get the team in position to be able to make a run at the HFA in the second half of the season . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

That's exactly why I think HFA is pretty damn important. No way Brady Belichick and co. let an equal or inferior team beat them in Foxboro this year. None. [And I understand the whole underdog thing, but this team resembles the '01 '04 teams....almost none.]

I might have overstated the 'difficulty of winning on the road' angle, but I don't want any part of Denver or Houston in their houses come playoff time. And the thought, however remote, of a playoff game against the Colts in their sonic thunderdome makes me want to break stuff, in addition to giving me nightmares.:steamed: Thoughts of the 2006 AFCCG and other Indy fiascos might not ever go away I guess.

Bottom line, I'm pretty sure Belichick is keeping the possibility to HFA very much in mind in preparing for the second half of the season.

Agreed . .. surely we won some away games, but in 2004 we were simply a better team and were going to win where ever we played. And the '01 we were on a mission, plus some rare scores on SP, if we get those we can win on the road this year . . . and sure we lost a few home games, but again, Balt was the better team and we weren't that good in 2009 and in 2010 the JESTs wanted to win at ALL costs even taking at least three dives . . .

So it can understand the reason for those game . .. however this, and I agree with you, I do not want to take the pony road on the show and end up like 2005 or 2006, not to mention the fact that the refs might want to get frisky with the flags if we are playing in hou/Den/balt. the NFL might want a new face in the SB from the AFC and if they want to get frisky with the flags I want see them try to pull it off in front of our crowd. . .

Can we win on the road sure, but I don't want any extra things in the way that road games can bring, frisky refs or the extended travel of back to back roads games, in the past this has hurt us. . .

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I feel like just because something happens a certain way doesn't necessarily mean we should draw too many conclusions from it, unless there is solid football logic behind things happening the way they did and a likeliness to history repeating itself. For example, the 2007 Giants beat the 2007 Patriots. Does that mean if I can choose a team to win me one game I wouldn't take the Patriots in a heartbeat? No, I'd take them with considerable ease again and again regardless of what actually happened because in my mind and using what I know (which yeah could be wrong) they give me a much better shot of winning. Same concept applies here IMO, just because the wild card teams happened to get hot and defy the odds doesn't mean that it's any less of an advantage to have the bye. That's just the way the cards unfolded those years. When you consider the clear competitive advantages to owning a bye, it really is a big help especially at that stage in the season.

Once again, I agree, as I said earlier, that it's better to have a bye than not to have a bye. So, I'm not arguing about that.

I am, however, not sure what you mean when you say "...just because something happens a certain way doesn't necessarily mean we should draw too many conclusions from it, unless there is solid football logic behind things happening the way they did and a likeliness [sic] to history repeating itself."

You take one case, the 2007 Pats v. Giants, and extrapolate from it, while I am looking at ten instances and saying that the weight of the evidence suggests something different. Sure, I'd rather, on paper, have gone into the 2008 SB with the Pats rather than the Giants. But if the point here is to look ahead to a, by definition, unknowable future, I'm only suggesting that that doesn't really matter.

All we have is how things have transpired in the past as we evaluate the future. And, the past, defined as the last ten years, says that a bye, for the last decade, has meant a 50-50 chance of winning the SB. That's not an opinion; that's simply a fact. As a result, I'm just not sure that the "competitive advantage" is that "clear" when a bye gives you a 50-50 chance.

The psychological advantages are clear. I'm just saying that the evidence suggests that when the game is played, that doesn't matter as much.

 

[aluminum seats]

Once again, I agree, as I said earlier, that it's better to have a bye than not to have a bye. So, I'm not arguing about that.

I am, however, not sure what you mean when you say "...just because something happens a certain way doesn't necessarily mean we should draw too many conclusions from it, unless there is solid football logic behind things happening the way they did and a likeliness [sic] to history repeating itself."

You take one case, the 2007 Pats v. Giants, and extrapolate from it, while I am looking at ten instances and saying that the weight of the evidence suggests something different. Sure, I'd rather, on paper, have gone into the 2008 SB with the Pats rather than the Giants. But if the point here is to look ahead to a, by definition, unknowable future, I'm only suggesting that that doesn't really matter.

All we have is how things have transpired in the past as we evaluate the future. And, the past, defined as the last ten years, says that a bye, for the last decade, has meant a 50-50 chance of winning the SB. That's not an opinion; that's simply a fact. As a result, I'm just not sure that the "competitive advantage" is that "clear" when a bye gives you a 50-50 chance of winning the SB.

The psychological advantages are clear. I'm just saying that the evidence suggests that when the game is played, that doesn't matter as much.

I think Patsylicious' point was 10 games is a small sample size to conclude that having to win one fewer game doesn't matter. Statistically, if the sample were thousands of games, I'm guessing it wouldn't be 50-50.

On another note, I hate the use of [sic]. Always seems obnoxious to me.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

That's exactly why I think HFA is pretty damn important. No way Brady Belichick and co. let an equal or inferior team beat them in Foxboro this year. None. [And I understand the whole underdog thing, but this team resembles the '01 '04 teams....almost none.]

I might have overstated the 'difficulty of winning on the road' angle, but I don't want any part of Denver or Houston in their houses come playoff time. And the thought, however remote, of a playoff game against the Colts in their sonic thunderdome makes me want to break stuff, in addition to giving me nightmares.:steamed: Thoughts of the 2006 AFCCG and other Indy fiascos might not ever go away I guess.

Bottom line, I'm pretty sure Belichick is keeping the possibility to HFA very much in mind in preparing for the second half of the season.

On your first paragraph. Sure. I hope so too. But, I also thought there was "no way" the Cardinals would beat them in Foxboro "this year." So, yeah. I guess so.

I'm usually not "argumentative" out here and typically let a debate go after a few pages, but I'll stick to my guns on this one.

I just have confidence that the Pats will be good enough and tough enough if they have to do so to beat a good team on the road in a difficult venue in the postseason.

Sticking with the last ten SB's, this is the road some of the winners have traveled: Tampa Bay 2002 beat Philly in the old Vet, a pretty tough place to play; our Pats beat Pittsburgh in Heinz Field in sub zero wind chill, 2004; next year the Steelers' road to the Lombardi went through Cincinnati (OK, not that big a deal), Indy and Denver at the old Mile High, but the latter two are on your list; in 06, Indy had to beat the Ravens in Baltimore; in 07, the Giants had to win at Tampa Bay, Dallas and Lambeau; in 10, the Pack won in Philly, Atlanta and Chicago; and, of course, the Giants did it again last year, winning in Lambeau and SFO.

I think our guys will be able to hold their own if they have to wherever they have to.

As I have said many times in this thread, I'd rather have a Bye and ideally HFA, but I'm just not jumping off a cliff if it doesn't happen.

As for what the hoodmaster is "keeping in mind," you're guess is as good as mine, but, based on everything we've seen of him, I'd imagine that his primary focus is on beating his next opponent and winning the Division, in that order. I just doubt he wastes a lot of time in early November fretting over whether he's going to have to win on the road in January.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think Patsylicious' point was 10 games is a small sample size to conclude that having to win one fewer game doesn't matter. Statistically, if the sample were thousands of games, I'm guessing it wouldn't be 50-50.

On another note, I hate the use of [sic]. Always seems obnoxious to me.

If. If. If. If we could normalize the weather, we wouldn't have winter. If we ran this week's election 1,000 times we might have a different outcome. If the storm pattern that gave rise to Hurricane Sandy went through a thousand iterations, maybe the storm wouldn't have been as devastating to my area as it was.

I think ten years is a reasonable data series given that the SB has only been contested in this Playoff configuration since 1990 and ten years, therefore, represents nearly half of the universe of available observations.

Sorry that you thought my use of "sic" to point out an inaccuracy was "obnoxious." I don't. But, to each his/her own.

 

[Deus Irae]

...All we have is how things have transpired in the past as we evaluate the future. And, the past, defined as the last ten years, says that a bye, for the last decade, has meant a 50-50 chance of winning the SB. That's not an opinion; that's simply a fact. As a result, I'm just not sure that the "competitive advantage" is that "clear" when a bye gives you a 50-50 chance.

The psychological advantages are clear. I'm just saying that the evidence suggests that when the game is played, that doesn't matter as much.

Well, there are 12 spots available for the playoffs. Eight of those spots don't get a bye, which means that the teams without a bye outnumber those with a bye by a ratio of 2-1.

So, whether you attribute it to competitive advantage, talent, God's will, random luck or something else, using your sample percentage (50%), there's a higher success rate for teams who get the bye.

 

[lamafist]

All we have is how things have transpired in the past as we evaluate the future. And, the past, defined as the last ten years, says that a bye, for the last decade, has meant a 50-50 chance of winning the SB. That's not an opinion; that's simply a fact. As a result, I'm just not sure that the "competitive advantage" is that "clear" when a bye gives you a 50-50 chance.

The psychological advantages are clear. I'm just saying that the evidence suggests that when the game is played, that doesn't matter as much.

But you don't seem to be taking into account that there are 8 teams teams that don't get byes vs. 4 teams that do. So since it's been 50-50 the last ten years, that actually means that teams with a bye are twice as likely to win the superbowl as teams without byes. Doubling your odds is definitely worth a whole heck of a lot.

Here's another way of looking at it:

I choose to consider all super bowl participants, as this doubles the sample size, and given the pre-SB bye and the lack of HFA for either team in the SB, the relevance of a bye at that point is minimal.

Since 2000, 16 of the 48 teams that have gotten byes have made it to the superbowl. So teams that get a bye have had a 1/3 chance of making it to the SB. Meanwhile, in that time, 8 out of 96 teams that haven't had a bye have made it to the SB. That's 1/12 of the time.

So since 2000, teams with a bye have been four times as likely to make it to the SB. That's a pretty serious advantage.

 

[VJCPatriot]

How does it look for the PATs with a 5-3 record?
( looking at division leaders only -
but there are other 4 win teams that could surprise)

Note: remaining games that have a significant chance of causing a loss in parentheses

Texans 6-1 ( Bears,PATs)
Ravens 5-2 ( Broncos, Giants, steelers x 1 )
Patriots 5-3 ( 49's, Texans, Fins x 1)
Broncos 4-3 ( Ravens, Chargers)

It looks like PATs almost have to win last 8 games to have a shot at
a bye.
Even then if Ravens only lose 1 game they get the bye over PATs
because tie breaker goes to Ravens since they beat the PATs.

Of course if Texans lose 2 games that would make it interesting.

Thoughts?

Ravens have the tiebreaker against us. So I think the Pats would have to finish at least 12-4 to have a shot at the bye. If they go 11-5 and the Ravens 11-5, Ravens get the nod.

Honestly Pats have had the bye several years now, and it still hasn't resulted in a ring. So I'm not as worried about getting the bye as much as being healthy for the playoff run. Injuries to key personnel is what really kills us.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Ravens have the tiebreaker against us. So I think the Pats would have to finish at least 12-4 to have a shot at the bye. If they go 11-5 and the Ravens 11-5, Ravens get the nod.

Honestly Pats have had the bye several years now, and it still hasn't resulted in a ring. So I'm not as worried about getting the bye as much as being healthy for the playoff run. Injuries to key personnel is what really kills us.

I don't see the Ravens being able to keep up in the 2nd half with injuries on their D. Denver on the other had could take the #2 easily if we slip. I don't think we win out..i still say 2 more losses..worst case 3 but i really hope not

 

[aluminum seats]

But you don't seem to be taking into account that there are 8 teams teams that don't get byes vs. 4 teams that do. So since it's been 50-50 the last ten years, that actually means that teams with a bye are twice as likely to win the superbowl as teams without byes. Doubling your odds is definitely worth a whole heck of a lot.

Here's another way of looking at it:

I choose to consider all super bowl participants, as this doubles the sample size, and given the pre-SB bye and the lack of HFA for either team in the SB, the relevance of a bye at that point is minimal.

Since 2000, 16 of the 48 teams that have gotten byes have made it to the superbowl. So teams that get a bye have had a 1/3 chance of making it to the SB. Meanwhile, in that time, 8 out of 96 teams that haven't had a bye have made it to the SB. That's 1/12 of the time.

So since 2000, teams with a bye have been four times as likely to make it to the SB. That's a pretty serious advantage.

I was going to take a shot at you because your first point repeats Deus' point exactly. But the "here's another way of looking at it" brings some excellent new info in, so kudos. (I'm sure you're relieved. )

 

[Wolfpack]

All we have is how things have transpired in the past as we evaluate the future. And, the past, defined as the last ten years, says that a bye, for the last decade, has meant a 50-50 chance of winning the SB. That's not an opinion; that's simply a fact. As a result, I'm just not sure that the "competitive advantage" is that "clear" when a bye gives you a 50-50 chance.

The psychological advantages are clear. I'm just saying that the evidence suggests that when the game is played, that doesn't matter as much.

I'm not going to double check your stats so I'll trust you there, but your math and your logic is faulty.

Every year, in the NFL, there are 12 teams which make the playoffs, 4 of whom get a bye and 8 of whom don't. Therefore, in the past 10 years, there have been 40 teams who have gotten the bye and 80 teams who made the playoffs but didn't get the bye.

5 of the 40 teams who got the bye won a Super Bowl which means there is a 12.5% chance of winning the Super Bowl if you get the bye. 5 of the 80 teams who didn't get the bye won the Super Bowl, so there is a 6.25% chance of winning the Super Bowl if you didn't get the bye.

12.5% is twice as likely as 6.25% and yeah, I gotta say I find that to be a significant difference.

 

[Wolfpack]

But you don't seem to be taking into account that there are 8 teams teams that don't get byes vs. 4 teams that do. So since it's been 50-50 the last ten years, that actually means that teams with a bye are twice as likely to win the superbowl as teams without byes. Doubling your odds is definitely worth a whole heck of a lot.

Crap I just wrote virtually the same thing before I saw your post here. I didn't see yours before I wrote mine, so please don't think I was plagiarizing. :bricks:

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

In addition to the points made above, it's also been forgotten that each year there's only 4 playoff teams with byes, but 8 playoff teams without. So the 50% number is a bit skewed.

 

[aluminum seats]

In addition to the points made above, it's also been forgotten that each year there's only 4 playoff teams with byes, but 8 playoff teams without. So the 50% number is a bit skewed.

You know, that point can't be made often enough....

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Well, there are 12 spots available for the playoffs. Eight of those spots don't get a bye, which means that the teams without a bye outnumber those with a bye by a ratio of 2-1.

So, whether you attribute it to competitive advantage, talent, God's will, random luck or something else, using your sample percentage (50%), there's a higher success rate for teams who get the bye.

Fair point, driven home by the poster (lamafist) who reports that the data show that over the last 12 seasons 16 of 48 teams with Byes have made the SB vs. eight of 96 without a bye. That's a 33.3% chance of getting to the big game with a Bye vs. 8.3% without a Bye.

If you expand the universe of SB winners back to 2000, it is, however, still 50--50 with vs. without the Bye. So, using lamafist's data, six of the sixteen that got to the SB with a Bye (37.5%) won the game and six of the eight without a Bye (75%) won the game.

So, the combined analysis shows that you have a better chance of actually getting to the SB with a Bye by a margin of four to one! I stand well and clearly corrected on that!

However, the analysis also shows that if you get there without a Bye, you have a better chance of winning the game, once you are there, by a margin of two to one (75% to 37.5%).

That makes me want to stick to my going-in view, stated several times in the thread: I'd rather that we have a Bye, but it's not the end of the world if we don't.

Good stuff all around. I wish there were more threads like this where we argue and discuss data, get corrected on the data by other posters and all end up learning something we didn't know before!

Thanks to everyone who added to the discussion and kept it civil and fact-driven!