Whiner-gate

[PatsFanInVa]

The teams that blame someone other themselves for their loss are only asking for more losses.

I think BB knows this very well. That's why he always focuses on the ways our performance has fallen short, even when we win.

If you lose because "the other team cheated," "the refs were against us," "we had some bad luck," there's nothing for you to fix.

It's hard to deal with reality if you refuse to see it.

So all in all, it's good for us when others blame their loss on our cheating. It diminishes their ability to fix their own problems and it annoys our guys.

BINGO, we have BINGO!

That's exactly how I see it. As annoying as it is to see Reno Mahe saying "really, we won that Super Bowl," and calling for an ex-post-facto forfeit, and McNabb asking when he can get his ring, it's gratifying to know that it detracts from their focus on what is, to talk about what should have been.

To me, it's an emotional reaction, and one that's highly suspect anyway. Come on. You really think the team you couldn't hustle to beat was unbeatable because they cheated, Donovan? You really think we gave you "the flu" via camera? No more than the Colts gave the Pats the flu. But where do we hear about the Pats having the flu in the Colts game? ESPN. Message boards. Not from players or coaches.

They know better, even when "next year" is seven hard months away. Bill Belichick said the usual "they were the better team that day..." And that's how a winner accepts a loss: acknowledging that there is only one measure of who is the better team, i.e., whether the team won.

Internal locus of control. You will find it among those who win in any arena. External locus? You will find "flashes in the pan" with an external locus of control, people swept into a position or a victory by forces that are truly beyond their control... but unless they recognize their own responsibility for their own success, they will never remain in that position for long.

Okay except the really really rich ones. But even then, the monied families famously tend to dissipate as their young embrace hedonism.

PFnV

 

[Deus Irae]

The teams that blame someone other themselves for their loss are only asking for more losses.

I think BB knows this very well. That's why he always focuses on the ways our performance has fallen short, even when we win.

If you lose because "the other team cheated," "the refs were against us," "we had some bad luck," there's nothing for you to fix.

It's hard to deal with reality if you refuse to see it.

So all in all, it's good for us when others blame their loss on our cheating. It diminishes their ability to fix their own problems and it annoys our guys.

BINGO, we have BINGO!

That's exactly how I see it. As annoying as it is to see Reno Mahe saying "really, we won that Super Bowl," and calling for an ex-post-facto forfeit, and McNabb asking when he can get his ring, it's gratifying to know that it detracts from their focus on what is, to talk about what should have been.

To me, it's an emotional reaction, and one that's highly suspect anyway. Come on. You really think the team you couldn't hustle to beat was unbeatable because they cheated, Donovan? You really think we gave you "the flu" via camera? No more than the Colts gave the Pats the flu. But where do we hear about the Pats having the flu in the Colts game? ESPN. Message boards. Not from players or coaches.

They know better, even when "next year" is seven hard months away. Bill Belichick said the usual "they were the better team that day..." And that's how a winner accepts a loss: acknowledging that there is only one measure of who is the better team, i.e., whether the team won.

Internal locus of control. You will find it among those who win in any arena. External locus? You will find "flashes in the pan" with an external locus of control, people swept into a position or a victory by forces that are truly beyond their control... but unless they recognize their own responsibility for their own success, they will never remain in that position for long.

Okay except the really really rich ones. But even then, the monied families famously tend to dissipate as their young embrace hedonism.

PFnV

The problem with this line of argument is that it's not always true. Sometimes it IS bad luck or a bad call that beats a team. Also, BB has, in fact, made comments about the officiating. He's simply done it in his own style. I wish I could remember the words so that I could pull it up, but I can't. As I recall, though, he's made some veiled shots about the Broncos playoff game a couple years back.

 

[Bella*chick]

The problem with this line of argument is that it's not always true. Sometimes it IS bad luck or a bad call that beats a team. Also, BB has, in fact, made comments about the officiating. He's simply done it in his own style. I wish I could remember the words so that I could pull it up, but I can't. As I recall, though, he's made some veiled shots about the Broncos playoff game a couple years back.

Well, the point then would be to focus on your team's performance so that they are never again in a position where a bad call decides the game.

I think BB knows there's always room for the team to improve, because luck and good officiating aren't things you can control. Your performance, however, is.

 

[gomezcat]

It's the classic loser's lament. It happens in every sport.

1. Blame the refs if possible.

2. If you can't reall do that, look for something non sporting the other team did.

3. If that won't work, call the other team classless.

4. If that fails, call the other team's fans classless. Pick a bottle throwing incident or something -- anything to distract you from having lost.

5. If all that fails, or even if it doesn't, get into an extended discussion about who is "better," as though the NFL standings give a crap.

This is not unusual. This is not patriots specific. In fact, on the rare occasions our team does lose, this board falls into exactly the same loser's lament. Everyone is the same. Patriots and their fans are no different, other than winning more. Our current coach has the players slightly better conditioned to not speak out than other teams. But ultimately, it's only about Ws and Ls. All the rest is noise. Let them all bellyache and don't give it a thought. Getting worked up and posting about it just gives them what they want. It means we're winning. I can guarantee there will be a day when we're not winning. Absolutely guarantee it. Hopefully it won't be for an extended period of time, but given the cyclical nature of sports it might be. And we will bellyache and our players will say things the winners will make fun of.

That's sports.

You're absolutely right. EVERY sport has its fair share of whiners. Soccer is full of them, as are so many other games. I HAVE heard some coaches say, "yep, they were better than us" .

The examples I can think of are the Australian cricket team (the best in the world) and the All Blacks Rugby team (ditto). I can't recall a time when either team made excuses for losing, because they are notorious for taking responsibility. The other example?



The New England Patriots.

 

[gomezcat]

Well, the point then would be to focus on your team's performance so that they are never again in a position where a bad call decides the game.

I think BB knows there's always room for the team to improve, because luck and good officiating aren't things you can control. Your performance, however, is.

Absolutely. We lost that game because we made costly errors and turned the ball over when we shouldn't have done.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Well put, Bella*chick. I think this season, we've pretty much put ourselves in a position to remove those little areas of doubt.... amazing what you see from a team with this resolve and character, when you infuse elite talent at more than a couple of positions.

Can we keep that level? That's something we'll all enjoy arguing about in the off-season, with cap calculations and news nuggets about negotiations...

But right now I am just wallowing in this feeling that everything is clicking.

Of course it can all disappear in a hurry... but my gut says "not with a team that didn't have back-to-back losses in a 5 year span."

PFnV

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, the point then would be to focus on your team's performance so that they are never again in a position where a bad call decides the game.

I think BB knows there's always room for the team to improve, because luck and good officiating aren't things you can control. Your performance, however, is.

It's professional sports. Unless you've got an insanely stacked team, you're going to be involved in close games. Bad calls in close games determine winners. Ask the Seahawks about the Super Bowl. Ask Utah about the game Jordan pushed off and got away with it. There are examples all over the place, and in every sport.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Then you can be the "victim" of refs and off-field rules, or you can do everything possible to remove all doubt. The Patriots' on-field and preparatory behavior suggests this is a team that believes it can win every game, but must prepare with almost obsessive focus to do so. The Pats are pretty well known for this, and in fact the whole camera thing could be described as an extension of the "any edge available" philosophy.

In the end, to use a soft, warm and fuzzy phrase, you can only do everything you can do. That's what the Pats do - everything possible to win the game.

But it's when you do something less than that "everything," that you get in trouble.

Which mind-set is more conducive to doing everything possible to win -- the mindset that it's all fixed, or the mindset that winning is within our own power, regardless of the extraneous obstacles (like bad calls?)

I say the former. Bad calls/luck/etc. do even out. Ask the Patriots who were there for the tuck game. I doubt many on the team knew the tuck rule existed until it worked to our advantage.

PFnV

 

[gomezcat]

The whining thing in sports applies so well to life. I have colleagues who are late for meetings all the time, because "the traffic was bad", they had "something to finish off" and so on. That's funny. I have the same workload as them, but manage to get to work on time and am almost always early for meetings.

As bad as some of the reffing was in the Seahawks- Steelers game (and it was pretty dire in parts), the refs didn't allow Willie Parker all those yards, they didn't fail to defend a cross-body pass from Roethlisberger and they didn't drop all of those passes from Hasselbeck to Jerramy Stevens. As debatable as the Roethlisberger "over the line or not" decision was, I believe it was on third and goal. I would have backed that Steelers O line to over-power a pretty average Seahawks D line for a score.

The same applies to the Denver game. Some of the decisions were poor, but it wasn't the refs who fumbled punts and threw picks for Champ Bailey to return.

Equally, the logic applies to the Jets-Pats game. Take away that camera and we still stuff the Jets. They know it and we know it. It's all just about excuses and external loci as PFnVA says.

 

[Bella*chick]

It's professional sports. Unless you've got an insanely stacked team, you're going to be involved in close games. Bad calls in close games determine winners. Ask the Seahawks about the Super Bowl. Ask Utah about the game Jordan pushed off and got away with it. There are examples all over the place, and in every sport.

I think BB is well aware of the close games/bad calls factor. However, the point is that our team does not lose a game via bad call and have BB telling them, "Well, fellas, sucks to be us. Bad call, bad luck. We shouldn't change a thing! Same bat time, same bat channel next week!" That's not how we PREPARE FOR THE NEXT GAME.

That's the whole point of this thread. We don't whine about it, we try to improve our team so the bad luck stuff has less chance of being relevant next time.

 

[Deus Irae]

The whining thing in sports applies so well to life. I have colleagues who are late for meetings all the time, because "the traffic was bad", they had "something to finish off" and so on. That's funny. I have the same workload as them, but manage to get to work on time and am almost always early for meetings.

As bad as some of the reffing was in the Seahawks- Steelers game (and it was pretty dire in parts), the refs didn't allow Willie Parker all those yards, they didn't fail to defend a cross-body pass from Roethlisberger and they didn't drop all of those passes from Hasselbeck to Jerramy Stevens. As debatable as the Roethlisberger "over the line or not" decision was, I believe it was on third and goal. I would have backed that Steelers O line to over-power a pretty average Seahawks D line for a score.

The same applies to the Denver game. Some of the decisions were poor, but it wasn't the refs who fumbled punts and threw picks for Champ Bailey to return.

Equally, the logic applies to the Jets-Pats game. Take away that camera and we still stuff the Jets. They know it and we know it. It's all just about excuses and external loci as PFnVA says.

No, it's not. What you people seem to be overlooking is that there are two teams involved, not just one. And, often, the other team is very talented too.

Willie Parker got those yards because the Steelers are a great running team, not because the Seahawks didn't prepare for it. The Broncos game is a classic example of multiple bad calls completely changing the course of a game. The whole point is that, even if you do "all that you can do", external forces can still be your undoing.

Actually, the "traffic is bad" is a great example. The other day, I was heading home. The ride from where I was is normally about a half-hour. However, in this case, there had been a fatal collision at an intersection that you need to go through in order to get to my house. That fatal collision backed up traffic for an hour.

Now, kindly explain how I should be held responsible for being late in a situation like that under the 'lack of preparation/effort' theory.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

No, it's not. What you people seem to be overlooking is that there are two teams involved, not just one. And, often, the other team is very talented too. ....

Actually, the "traffic is bad" is a great example. The other day, I was heading home. The ride from where I was is normally about a half-hour. However, in this case, there had been a fatal collision at an intersection that you need to go through in order to get to my house. That fatal collision backed up traffic for an hour.

Now, kindly explain how I should be held responsible for being late in a situation like that under the 'lack of preparation/effort' theory.

First, how come the Pats could avoid back-to-back losses for 5 years, if "often, the other team is very talented too"?

I agree with you, by the way -- it is a war. No team in the NFL is as good or as bad as the press says. These are elite athletes. Yet somehow the Pats -- not physically the most talented team in the league, perhaps even now -- continue to defy the odds. I believe that locus of control is a central factor in the Pats' success.

Let's go to your traffic example. Say you and Smithers are up for the same promotion, and you and Smithers are presenting in the same meeting. Let's say Smithers had no such traffic to contend with, yet you did.

You show up a half hour late, everybody clears his throat, and you overcome the odds, do a fantastic presentation, and later mention the traffic. It is possible that you still get the promotion.

But let us say your presentation is a hair better than Smithers' presentation (who after all is a pretty impressive guy himself,) and that hey, you're not superman and you're a little flustered by the whole timing thing. You lose the promotion.

Does anybody give a flying elvis if you should have gotten it? What do you think you do to your own attitude by harping on the traffic, and talking about how unfair it is?

How about if you do that, knowing that you have to continue working on your projects, but just can't concentrate because of that one meeting? Then when the next promotion comes up... where are you?

Fair is something that comes to your town once a year in the summer. It's not a good thing, it's just true. One is more likely to succeed when one acts as if conditions were roughly equivalent for both teams, or if one believes that conditions even out over time.

Excuses may be true, but nobody talks negatively about "untrue excuses." It's "excuses." The problem isn't whether or not they're true, it's whether or not they're relevant. This is why I'm so pissed at guys saying they want to win games they lost because of the camera thing.

McNabb might be joking, but apparently Reno Mahe actually seriously suggested it.

Then again -- "unfairly," of course, from most teams' points of view -- all of this just makes the Patriots more likely to win it all this year.

Bad calls suck, but they even out. The rest of the game is in your own hands. Believe that, prepare believing that, and more often than not, you win. Build a franchise on that, and you become a dynasty.

PFnV

 

[gomezcat]

No, it's not. What you people seem to be overlooking is that there are two teams involved, not just one. And, often, the other team is very talented too.

Willie Parker got those yards because the Steelers are a great running team, not because the Seahawks didn't prepare for it. The Broncos game is a classic example of multiple bad calls completely changing the course of a game. The whole point is that, even if you do "all that you can do", external forces can still be your undoing.

Actually, the "traffic is bad" is a great example. The other day, I was heading home. The ride from where I was is normally about a half-hour. However, in this case, there had been a fatal collision at an intersection that you need to go through in order to get to my house. That fatal collision backed up traffic for an hour.

Now, kindly explain how I should be held responsible for being late in a situation like that under the 'lack of preparation/effort' theory.

I take the point that sometimes bad things happen because of events beyond our control.
My view is that some people always seem to have bad things happen to them and that in some cases those bad events are used as excuses (I'm NOT suggesting that you are one of those, BTW. ).
At work, it is the same people who are late, time after time. They are the ones who are constantly "caught in traffic" and who are always "busier" than everyone else.
I would argue that the Hawks would have lost to the Steelers in spite of the bad reffing and that the reffing acts as an excuse for the Hawks' loss. I'm not convinced that the Hawks would have won that game, although I desperately wanted them to do so.
I guess the reason why I care so much about this is that it is used so often against the teams I support (at least those that win). "The Pats only win because they cheat" etc.

 

[Deus Irae]

First, how come the Pats could avoid back-to-back losses for 5 years, if "often, the other team is very talented too"?

I agree with you, by the way -- it is a war. No team in the NFL is as good or as bad as the press says. These are elite athletes. Yet somehow the Pats -- not physically the most talented team in the league, perhaps even now -- continue to defy the odds. I believe that locus of control is a central factor in the Pats' success.

Let's go to your traffic example. Say you and Smithers are up for the same promotion, and you and Smithers are presenting in the same meeting. Let's say Smithers had no such traffic to contend with, yet you did.

You show up a half hour late, everybody clears his throat, and you overcome the odds, do a fantastic presentation, and later mention the traffic. It is possible that you still get the promotion.

But let us say your presentation is a hair better than Smithers' presentation (who after all is a pretty impressive guy himself,) and that hey, you're not superman and you're a little flustered by the whole timing thing. You lose the promotion.

Does anybody give a flying elvis if you should have gotten it? What do you think you do to your own attitude by harping on the traffic, and talking about how unfair it is?

How about if you do that, knowing that you have to continue working on your projects, but just can't concentrate because of that one meeting? Then when the next promotion comes up... where are you?

Fair is something that comes to your town once a year in the summer. It's not a good thing, it's just true. One is more likely to succeed when one acts as if conditions were roughly equivalent for both teams, or if one believes that conditions even out over time.

Excuses may be true, but nobody talks negatively about "untrue excuses." It's "excuses." The problem isn't whether or not they're true, it's whether or not they're relevant. This is why I'm so pissed at guys saying they want to win games they lost because of the camera thing.

McNabb might be joking, but apparently Reno Mahe actually seriously suggested it.

Then again -- "unfairly," of course, from most teams' points of view -- all of this just makes the Patriots more likely to win it all this year.

Bad calls suck, but they even out. The rest of the game is in your own hands. Believe that, prepare believing that, and more often than not, you win. Build a franchise on that, and you become a dynasty.

PFnV

The Patriots have won 3 championships in the decade. They've not won them all. Were they unprepared all those other times? Did they not use the same philosphy they used in the 3 successful seasons? What was different?

Well, we know that in the Broncos and Colts games, some of what was different was horrendous calls going against the Patriots. The simple truth is that, had those bad calls not been made against New England, the Patriots might well have already won 5 titles this decade. All the preparation and the "It's on us" in the world can't undo a bad call if the call is big enough or at a crucial enough juncture of a game.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

The Patriots have won 3 championships in the decade. They've not won them all. Were they unprepared all those other times? Did they not use the same philosphy they used in the 3 successful seasons? What was different?

Well, we know that in the Broncos and Colts games, some of what was different was horrendous calls going against the Patriots. The simple truth is that, had those bad calls not been made against New England, the Patriots might well have already won 5 titles this decade. All the preparation and the "It's on us" in the world can't undo a bad call if the call is big enough or at a crucial enough juncture of a game.

News flash: Winning 3 Super Bowls in any decade is beating the odds. It would of course further bolster the argument if the Pats had won every Super Bowl this decade, but I believe the point still stands.

By the way, all else being equal, the odds of winning two super bowls in a row are 1024:1. All else, quite clearly, is not equal, even in the salary cap/free agency era.

BUT - what did BB say about losing to the Colts last year?

Something about the refs?

Something about the heat in the dome?

Something about the flu?

No, Belichick said the Colts were the better team that day.

That's an extension of the same attitude that got the Pats to win three Lombardis. Not because it's "classy" or any other such bullcrap, but because it avoids the pitfall of self-pitying nonsense.

Keep that far from your locker room, and you immediately increase your chances of winning.

PFnV

 

[Deus Irae]

News flash: Winning 3 Super Bowls in any decade is beating the odds. It would of course further bolster the argument if the Pats had won every Super Bowl this decade, but I believe the point still stands.

By the way, all else being equal, the odds of winning two super bowls in a row are 1024:1. All else, quite clearly, is not equal, even in the salary cap/free agency era.

BUT - what did BB say about losing to the Colts last year?

Something about the refs?

Something about the heat in the dome?

Something about the flu?

No, Belichick said the Colts were the better team that day.

That's an extension of the same attitude that got the Pats to win three Lombardis. Not because it's "classy" or any other such bullcrap, but because it avoids the pitfall of self-pitying nonsense.

Keep that far from your locker room, and you immediately increase your chances of winning.

PFnV

Let me say this as politely as possible, because I mean it with no ill will. Your odds are way off, which is why there have been 8 teams that have done it in just the last 40 seasons of football.

Packers
Dolphins
Steelers (*2)
49ers
Cowboys
Broncos
Patriots

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Let me say this as politely as possible, because I mean it with no ill will. Your odds are way off, which is why there have been 8 teams that have done it in just the last 40 seasons of football.

Packers
Dolphins
Steelers (*2)
49ers
Cowboys
Broncos
Patriots

My odds are precisely correct.

All else being equal, the odds are 1 in 32 to win a super bowl. The odds are 1 in 32 x 32 to do it twice consecutively.

These odds pertain (all else being equal,) since the 32nd team joined the league (Texans? Ravens? I forget.) But they were close to it for those former teams.

Now then: In years prior to the FA/Salary Cap era, more of the skewing of those odds go to payroll, paying to play, etc. In other words, the Yankees Theory.

In the modern era, that influence is mooted by the fact that all payrolls are in effect levelled, although some teams do not spend to the cap, thereby adding an inequity which would otherwise no longer really pertain. Still, the modern era enjoys a more equal distribution of payroll.

Other intangibles include how well you draft, since rookie deals give high value for rookies who pan out; how well you coach, since coach salaries are not counted against the cap; and what your locker room is like.

All that is true, and cultures of winning and cultures of losing still exist.

I do not contend that the pure mathematical odds of 1024:1 were the actual odds the Pats went into the 2003 working against (given levels of talent, coaching, culture, etc.). But that is the baseline you start from.

PFnV

 

[Deus Irae]

My odds are precisely correct.

All else being equal, the odds are 1 in 32 to win a super bowl. The odds are 1 in 32 x 32 to do it twice consecutively.

These odds pertain (all else being equal,) since the 32nd team joined the league (Texans? Ravens? I forget.) But they were close to it for those former teams.

Now then: In years prior to the FA/Salary Cap era, more of the skewing of those odds go to payroll, paying to play, etc. In other words, the Yankees Theory.

In the modern era, that influence is mooted by the fact that all payrolls are in effect levelled, although some teams do not spend to the cap, thereby adding an inequity which would otherwise no longer really pertain. Still, the modern era enjoys a more equal distribution of payroll.

Other intangibles include how well you draft, since rookie deals give high value for rookies who pan out; how well you coach, since coach salaries are not counted against the cap; and what your locker room is like.

All that is true, and cultures of winning and cultures of losing still exist.

I do not contend that the pure mathematical odds of 1024:1 were the actual odds the Pats went into the 2003 working against (given levels of talent, coaching, culture, etc.). But that is the baseline you start from.

PFnV

No, those odds are NOT correct, because the "chips" are not static. For example, the odds of the Raiders winning the Super Bowl this season were not the same as the odds of the Patriots winning the Super Bowl this season. Pro Sports is not dice, it's not cards and it's not any combination thereof. In 40 NFL seasons, there have been 8 teams that have repeated. If you think your odds are so accurate, go try to get the Patriots as Super Bowl Champions with 31-1 odds.

The single digit favorites included - no surprises here - The New England Patriots, San Diego Chargers, Indianapolis Colts and - at some online sportsbooks - the New Orleans Saints. The Patriots in most cases are 3 to 1 favorites to win the 2008 Super Bowl while the Chargers are given 5 to 1 odds. In some cases, the Philadelphia Eagles are coming in with 10 to 1 odds as well.

http://www.gambling911.com/Odds-to-Win-the-2008-Super-Bowl-XLII-081807.html

I note that site not for perfection with their odds, but to note that not all the odds being used for gambling purposes are the same 1-in-32 that you are putting forth, and for good reason.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

No, those odds are NOT correct, because the "chips" are not static. For example, the odds of the Raiders winning the Super Bowl this season were not the same as the odds of the Patriots winning the Super Bowl this season. Pro Sports is not dice, it's not cards and it's not any combination thereof. In 40 NFL seasons, there have been 8 teams that have repeated. If you think your odds are so accurate, go try to get the Patriots as Super Bowl Champions with 31-1 odds.



http://www.gambling911.com/Odds-to-Win-the-2008-Super-Bowl-XLII-081807.html

I note that site not for perfection with their odds, but to note that not all the odds being used for gambling purposes are the same 1-in-32 that you are putting forth, and for good reason.

We're pretty clearly talking past one another. I am tempted to be an ass, and say something like "what part of all things being equal don't you understand?" But it's clear you are trying to emphasize how unequal all things are.

I brought out the mathmatical odds to emphasize just how big an accomplishment a single super bowl, never mind 2 straight, is.

I am not concerned about the sports books. I am concerned about the likelihood of each event in the case of equivalent resources.

Since resources have become closer to equal among the teams in the league, particularly in the area of personnel acquisition, my point is that this numerical oddity is more due to other factors, namely culture and coaching, than in previous eras.

It was also impressive to overcome those odds in previous years, don't get me wrong. But the odds are what they are, all else being equal: 1024-1 against winning two super bowls straight. 32-1 against winning any given super bowl.

They are not, as you believe, the odds that the oddsmakers place, after taking into account precisely the various delineators we have listed.

The oddsmakers' odds that put the Pats at 3-1 do so, in part, specifically because of the culture of winning New England employs. And a large part of that, to bring this discussion full circle, is a refusal to make excuses.

PFnV

 

[livinginthe past]

News flash: Winning 3 Super Bowls in any decade is beating the odds. It would of course further bolster the argument if the Pats had won every Super Bowl this decade, but I believe the point still stands.

By the way, all else being equal, the odds of winning two super bowls in a row are 1024:1. All else, quite clearly, is not equal, even in the salary cap/free agency era.

BUT - what did BB say about losing to the Colts last year?

Something about the refs?

Something about the heat in the dome?

Something about the flu?

No, Belichick said the Colts were the better team that day.

That's an extension of the same attitude that got the Pats to win three Lombardis. Not because it's "classy" or any other such bullcrap, but because it avoids the pitfall of self-pitying nonsense.

Keep that far from your locker room, and you immediately increase your chances of winning.

PFnV

Put me in the camp that wonders why you found the need to multiply 32x32 and present that as the odds of repeating a SB win.

Clearly we are talking about football, where there are many external factors at work - factors that reduce the value of the 32x32 calculation to near enough zero.

The odds of repeating have to be closer to the 1 in 5 than the number you gave - common sense tells us as much.