Fixit
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 7,665
- Reaction score
- 7,388
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Sounds like Suggs was interviewed on ESPN tonight and of course the interviewer asked about Brady (Lord knows what he had to do with this). Of course Thuggs took the bait.
Terrell, don't be a douche. Oops, too late.
Is Suggs in love with Tom? Even after knocking the Pats off in the AFCCG of last year, he's STILL going on about him. I despise the Giants, but I don't see Justin Tuck complaining about the Pats incessantly.
You're doing something called "calculating probability after the fact." It is easy to look at past events and find something improbable that happened.1.5%! And it just so happens immediately within the first decade of the new division format being introduced. Factor that in as well. And also factor everything else into it as well. Because ALL of those other things happened within the same time span, including another #1 vs #1 match up in the middle of all this craziness. How lovely.
I honestly don't know what your thesis is. There's no doubt whatsoever that the NFL is formatted in such a way to increase parity. Salary caps, the draft, strength of schedules all play into this.I have 4 spreadsheet documents but here's a recap of the most obvious difference, and a fact that Roger Goodell loves to talk about...the time when the NFL reached its amazing parity.
I really would like to respond to this 80% point you've stated twice now but I honestly cannot figure out what the heck you are trying to say. I honestly do not know what "the bad beats the top seeds repeatedly takes in big games, which as I said is roughly an 80% favorite to LOSE" means.Even more impressive is the bad beats the top seeds repeatedly takes in big games, which as I said is roughly an 80% favorite to LOSE.
This is an excellent point and that actually occurred to me but the problem is you're now introducing facts that cannot be computed using random number theory. For example, I would say the odds of a #5 seed beating a #4 seed are pretty good because, even though the #4 seed has HFA, I'd say the best WC team is probably more often than not better than the worst division winner.PS: That 1.5%, as if it wasn't enough to give you a red flag, is also only if you give each seed exact parity with each other. Meaning there is never any difference in the chance of winning a Superbowl between a top seed and a lower seed. And even if you assume that all seeds are equal in terms of team strength, the numbers still are not equal because the #1 and #2 seed have a bye week which gives them a serious advantage in terms of probabilities. Let alone homefield advantage. It's actually quite a bit lower than 1.5%. More in the 0.0...% range for this pattern to emerge. And for it to emerge so suddently in a time span of less than 15 years, drops that probability to as I said -nearly - impossible. At the very least, extremely unlikely. Yet the extremely unlikely happens so frequent in the NFL. As if with inexplicable regularity.
Regarding more lower seeds winning the Super Bowl in recent years, my guess is that could be attributed to the NFL instituting free agency and a hard salary cap in the mid-90s. There is less of a delta between the top team and others, even other playoff teams, now than there was in the 70s.
You forgot the Patriots winning in the wake of 9/11And then when you start looking at what took place in those games...perfect season stopped by ****ty team, Manning and the Colts, Pittsburgh against Seattle, Saints and Katrina, Harbowl blackout.....that's just a lot of craziness on top of something that's already nuts.
Biggest myth of all: Vegas cares who wins.And then there's the money. And the spread. And the gambling.
Bad refereeing is a reality of every single sport and simply can never be fully removed from the equation.And then there's the actual refereeing we can see with our own eyes.
Um, this is something I like to hear more of. What the heck FBI raids are you talking about?!?And prior documented history of FBI raids and corruption.
And now for the question you still haven't answered:People can believe what they want to believe, but for me, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and even the numbers point to it as a highly, highly probability that it's a duck....then it's a damn duck.
You're doing something called "calculating probability after the fact." It is easy to look at past events and find something improbable that happened.
True story: Right now I am going to roll a die 15 times and post the results in order here. I got:
6-4-1-2-4-3-4-3-5-1-6-5-4-2-1
Do you know what the odds were that I got that exact combination?!? The odds of getting that exact combination are literally 470 billion to 1 against. So the die must be rigged!
There's also a stretch that went 4-3-4-3. Rigged!
The 2 appeared 2 times and the 4 appeared 4 times. Are you kidding me?!?!?!? That's statistically impossible!
And, the most damning proof of all, look at the very end. It went 6-5-4-2-1. If that doesn't prove to you that my die is rigged, then I don't know what does.
I honestly don't know what your thesis is. There's no doubt whatsoever that the NFL is formatted in such a way to increase parity. Salary caps, the draft, strength of schedules all play into this.
I really would like to respond to this 80% point you've stated twice now but I honestly cannot figure out what the heck you are trying to say. I honestly do not know what "the bad beats the top seeds repeatedly takes in big games, which as I said is roughly an 80% favorite to LOSE" means.
This is an excellent point and that actually occurred to me but the problem is you're now introducing facts that cannot be computed using random number theory. For example, I would say the odds of a #5 seed beating a #4 seed are pretty good because, even though the #4 seed has HFA, I'd say the best WC team is probably more often than not better than the worst division winner.
You forgot the Patriots winning in the wake of 9/11
Biggest myth of all: Vegas cares who wins.
Bad refereeing is a reality of every single sport and simply can never be fully removed from the equation.
Um, this is something I like to hear more of. What the heck FBI raids are you talking about?!?
And now for the question you still haven't answered:
If you believe all your own nonsense, why do you follow the game??!?
OT, what what's not to like about this chick?
Why not? By the time you get to the Super Bowl, seeding gets thrown out the window. There's no home field advantage and each team is well rested. In such a small sample set, extreme results are perfectly normal.Uhm....the tournament format doesn't work like rolling a dice. Each tournament format has associated probabilities with the outcome and advancement of each seed, and each teams are in their positions they are due to actual strength.
The fact is, the top seeds should first of all appear and win a lot more Superbowls than the 3-6 seeds. Not just based on strength(which can be argued) but based on the bye week they earn.
It means the #1 seed, or the higher seed lost 80% of the time or more. Whereas previously it was a more expected, and accepted 55%. Even if you assume parity, they should shouldn't be losing 80% of the time!
Well now I'm confused. You say the games are fixed because of gambling, but then you say Vegas lost a lot of money on the Giants. What you're saying makes no sense.Vegas sure as **** cared when they lost all that money that they had to pay up when the Giants beat us, didn't they?
In other words: You got nothing.Look up the investigations that were taking up in the 60's.
But why do you LOVE something you're dead set convinced is fixed? I'd feel like the biggest idiot in the world If I spent so much time following something that was lying to my face about being a legitimate competition.I have already answered it 3 pages ago. In short, I love PRO football and pro sports in general. It's a fact of life and all we got at the moment. This is a part of the game just as much as anything else. It's entertaining.
Was the Patriots win in SB36 rigged? They were a #2 seed that beat a #1 seed in the AFCCG and then a #1 seed in the Super Bowl. They stayed alive after an extremely controversial - but correct - call in the divisional round. Or is it only rigged when teams you don't like win?
Absoultely. I mentioned that part earlier in the thread. We've all heard the Raiders and Steelers whiners about how the league fixed it because they didn't want a team named "Patriots" to lose. How else could a team go from 5-13 to with a rookie QB 14-3? The unconscious fumble recovery, the tuck rule, etcAnd after 9/11, at that!
That wouldn't mean they're not interested in ratings that blowouts don't produce.
That streak of luck that struck Atlanta against us certainly made the game more interesting to the end and kept a few more people watching TV.
Replay booth malfunction for exactly 1 coache's challenge! Then it works fine. Ooops.
Absoultely. I mentioned that part earlier in the thread. We've all heard the Raiders and Steelers whiners about how the league fixed it because they didn't want a team named "Patriots" to lose. How else could a team go from 5-13 to with a rookie QB 14-3? The unconscious fumble recovery, the tuck rule, etc
I know we do things differently here in New England...
But I don't blame Suggs at all. I hate Roger Goodell. As do most others. Suggs is just one of the few who have the cojones to speak up about it.
$10 million salary. For what?! The Lingerie Football League referees he found last year?
Laughing on the Broncos sideline with Elway before their playoff game last year... That's bull**** and Suggs has a right to be mad about that. Like Suggs said (and many here have mentioned with the Jests) Goodell has his "favorites".