Ravens lose!!

[Michigan Dave]

Irrelevant, since Baltimore has 4 losses, and can't finish in a 3-way tie at 13-3.

This.

But yeah, it would be different because in the NE/DEN/HOU scenario you can use the H2H tiebreaker because one team (NE) was 2-0 against the others. In a hypothetical NE/HOU/BAL tiebreaker, it would be 1-1 across the board so we would go to a next layer. But as mayo said, that's moot with the Raven loss.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Irrelevant, since Baltimore has 4 losses, and can't finish in a 3-way tie at 13-3.

My post was referring to a 3 way tie between NE-HOU-DEN at 13-3

 

[mayoclinic]

My post was referring to a 3 way tie between NE-HOU-DEN at 13-3

I know you were. But PlainOldEd referred to 2 different scenarios, one the same as yours and one involving Baltimore instead of Denver:

In a 3 way tie with whom? If it is Pats/Den/Hou, the Pats are #1 because they beat both of the others (in this scenario you are assuming a win tomorrow)

If it is Pats/Hou/Bal, it would come down to second level tiebreakers, head to head doesn't come in to play.

And then cmaspatsfan cited that post and yours and asked which was correct:

Does anyone know which of these is correct? Or is it different if its Pats/Texans/Denver than if its Pats/Hou/Bal because of who played who?

My point was first that you and PlainOldEd did not disagree about the NE-Houston-Denver 3-way scenario, agreeing that the Pats would come out on top; and second that a 3-way NE-Houston-Baltimore tie at 13-3 is no longer possible based on records.

 

[Reckedtrek]

This.

But yeah, it would be different because in the NE/DEN/HOU scenario you can use the H2H tiebreaker because one team (NE) was 2-0 against the others. In a hypothetical NE/HOU/BAL tiebreaker, it would be 1-1 across the board so we would go to a next layer. But as mayo said, that's moot with the Raven loss.

Unless all 3 teams go 12-4. In Houston's case especially, that's unlikely, but it's possible. With the schedule Baltimore has, I think they end 11-5. I predicted the Pats at 12-4 at the beginning of the season, and I think it's likely, although I'm hoping and cheering for 13-3. With a Denver loss to Baltimore they end up 12-4, with things looking like this going into the playoffs:

1 seed: Houston 14-2
2 seed: Patriots 12-4 (or 13-3)
3 seed: Denver 12-4 (3rd seed due to head to head loss w/NEP)
4 Seed: Baltimore 11-5

5 seed: Indy
6 seed: Pittsburgh or Cincinnati

Balt over Indy
Denver over Pitt/Cinci

Houston over Balt
Pats over Denver

AFC title game: NEP @ Houston

 

[JoeSixPat]

That's a very small sample size that's susceptible to a lot of variance.

Since 2005 a 1 seed has has made it to the superbowl every year except 2, 2008 and 2010 where a 2 seed made it.

So You're basically relying on the results of a 5 game sample where really only 2-3 going differently would completely undermine your point.

The bye is definitely advantageous IMO.

You could argue that a team in the Superbowl who did not get a bye may theoretically tend to be stronger than its counterpart because they had to pass a more difficult test to get there. But that's not the same as saying the bye is not advantageous.

Correct.

But if you use the measure of "winning the Super Bowl" to assess whether a #1 seed helps "win a Super Bowl" then the past 7 years would show that in 5 out of the last 7 years it did not.

If getting is to the Super Bowl is the goal, then by all means, the numbers look different.

I'd say most Patriots fans aren't looking to just get to the Super Bowl though.

Trust me - if the Patriots have one fewer game, that's fine by men- but recent trends suggest that not playing can have some downside. This is why even when teams have clinched a bye 1-2 weeks before the end of the season and literally have nothing to play for, their coaches still want them to play hard.

 

[Brady=Dilf]

Maybe this was discussed earlier in the thread but that #1 seed is looking somewhat realistic. Pats win out. I can see Hou dropping a game to the Colts.

 

[TyronePoole]

Correct.

But if you use the measure of "winning the Super Bowl" to assess whether a #1 seed helps "win a Super Bowl" then the past 7 years would show that in 5 out of the last 7 years it did not.

If getting is to the Super Bowl is the goal, then by all means, the numbers look different.

I'd say most Patriots fans aren't looking to just get to the Super Bowl though.

Trust me - if the Patriots have one fewer game, that's fine by men- but recent trends suggest that not playing can have some downside. This is why even when teams have clinched a bye 1-2 weeks before the end of the season and literally have nothing to play for, their coaches still want them to play hard.

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.

 

[fnordcircle]

Funny how much things can change in 8 days.

We should now all become Ravens fans when they play Denver next week. We can still hope for the Giants to hang another L on the Ravens - about time the ******* Giants do something that helps us for once but if the Ravens can drop the Broncos by a game that helps us out the most.

 

[Ring 6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

The Texans would be #2 in a 3 way tie at 13-3 right?

In a 3 way tie with whom? If it is Pats/Den/Hou, the Pats are #1 because they beat both of the others (in this scenario you are assuming a win tomorrow)

If it is Pats/Hou/Bal, it would come down to second level tiebreakers, head to head doesn't come in to play.

Baltimore can't be in that equation because I said a3 way tie at 13-3 and bmore has 4 losses



Posted from Patsfans.com App for Android

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I know you were. But PlainOldEd referred to 2 different scenarios, one the same as yours and one involving Baltimore instead of Denver:



And then cmaspatsfan cited that post and yours and asked which was correct:



My point was first that you and PlainOldEd did not disagree about the NE-Houston-Denver 3-way scenario, agreeing that the Pats would come out on top; and second that a 3-way NE-Houston-Baltimore tie at 13-3 is no longer possible based on records.

I was wondering if it was a 3 team tie if they use head to head if possible or if they automatically went to conference record, I guess if they all played each other they go with head to head, if they all didnt play each other an equal amount of times then it would be conference record.

 

[Banjo]

RG3 has a heart the size of Texas! He kept trying to play even on a bum knee. I hope the Redskins make it to the playoffs.

Patriots/Redskins would make for a cool Super Bowl!

also: F U Ravens! ahahahahaha!!

 

[Water Boy]

For the Patriots, Houston is going to be a stiff test, but the 49ers are very beatable at Gillette, especially if Kaepernick is playing.

I disagree. I think San Fran will be a tougher match up than the Texans.

 

[Haterproof]

Funny how much things can change in 8 days.

We should now all become Ravens fans when they play Denver next week. We can still hope for the Giants to hang another L on the Ravens - about time the ******* Giants do something that helps us for once but if the Ravens can drop the Broncos by a game that helps us out the most.

The Ravens must beat the Broncos next week. That's going to be one interesting game next week. Ray & Suggs might be back next sunday as well. I know Peyton has those guys number. But the Ravens are pretty good @ home & should be ready. The sky is the limit if NE wins tonight! I don't want Denver getting HFA. NE & HOU both have head to head wins over them. I don't mind playing them in Denver. But I'll be more happy with them coming to NE in January.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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.