Suggs acuses Goodell of Superbowl Blackout.

[PatriotSeven]

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.

There's no doubt that in the modern era, the difference between a #1 seed and a #4, 5, or 6 seed in miniscule compared to the way it used to be. That's the way the system is designed. Why you have a problem with this is beyond me.

The system is designed for parity, and the results show that which the system is designed to produce. The days of 55-10 and 52-17 Super Bowls are over.

It's idiotic to talk about #6 seeds never winning in the 60's 70's or 80's because there were no #6 seeds back then. What is it that you're expecting to see that just isn't there?

Why do you argue statistics and probabilities if you don't understand how they work? First of all I'm well aware when each seed was introduced and the numbers have been grouped accordingly for each time segment.

No the system isn't designed for perfect parity. That is nonsense. First of all, despite parity, seeds are not exactly of equal strength.

Second of all, it is designed, to produce more #1 and #2 seeds in a Superbowl, both as appearances and as winners compared to any other. This is a fact.

It requires only 3 wins for a #1 and #2 seed to win a Superbowl. Plus they have homefield advantage.

It requires 4 wins for seeds 3-6 to win a Superbowl.

You would EXPECT over any time period for #1 and #2 seeds to appear and win more Superbowls than any other. It is designed that way. And for the longest of time, all the way up to about the early 2000s, it worked exactly as designed with some minor fluctuations.

There were NO changes in the playoff system in 2005. None. But the results began changing drastically without any sort of explanation that would account for it. It deviated so far off what anyone would expect, and what this format is supposed to produce in terms of probability, that there is no way in hell, this is a natural occurrence.

If you wanted the type of results that they have been churning out, then some serious changes would have need to take place in the playoff format. They got the results, without any changes. It's been hand picked.

Somebody got tired of #1 and #2's popping up in the Superbowl just about every year and winning it which is something that happened very regularly in the history of the NFL. It was very predictable. It was what the system was designed to produce and was working just fine. It just wasn't very exciting.

Over 30 years the #1 seed was about a 55% winner of Superbowls, and #2 seed about a 45%. In general though, ANY seed was roughly 50-50 in a Superbowl. The problem is once again for about the past 10 years, the #1 seeds are losing 80% of the time. The lower seed is dominating the higher seed 80+% of the time.

Once again, a pretty significant deviation.

 

[Salva135]

Why do you argue statistics and probabilities if you don't understand how they work? First of all I'm well aware when each seed was introduced and the numbers have been grouped accordingly for each time segment.

No the system isn't designed for perfect parity. That is nonsense. First of all, despite parity, seeds are not exactly of equal strength.

Second of all, it is designed, to produce more #1 and #2 seeds in a Superbowl, both as appearances and as winners compared to any other. This is a fact.

It requires only 3 wins for a #1 and #2 seed to win a Superbowl. Plus they have homefield advantage.

It requires 4 wins for seeds 3-6 to win a Superbowl.

You would EXPECT over any time period for #1 and #2 seeds to appear and win more Superbowls than any other. It is designed that way. And for the longest of time, all the way up to about the early 2000s, it worked exactly as designed with some minor fluctuations.

There were NO changes in the playoff system in 2005. None. But the results began changing drastically without any sort of explanation that would account for it. It deviated so far off what anyone would expect, and what this format is supposed to produce in terms of probability, that there is no way in hell, this is a natural occurrence.

If you wanted the type of results that they have been churning out, then some serious changes would have need to take place in the playoff format. They got the results, without any changes. It's been hand picked.

Somebody got tired of #1 and #2's popping up in the Superbowl just about every year and winning it which is something that happened very regularly in the history of the NFL. It was very predictable. It was what the system was designed to produce and was working just fine. It just wasn't very exciting.

Can you explain to us all what that "somebody" did to the Patriots in their playoff losses, because they're responsible for multiple #1/2 failures over the course of your sample size. Also, a 19-0 season would have been hugely marketable for the NFL. That game should have been heavily rigged for the Pats. Explain why it wasn't?

 

[PatriotSeven]

Can you explain to us all what that "somebody" did to the Patriots in their playoff losses, because they're responsible for multiple #1/2 failures over the course of your sample size. Also, a 19-0 season would have been hugely marketable for the NFL. That game should have been heavily rigged for the Pats. Explain why it wasn't?

Why should have they? I can't tell you what the NFL's agenda is, all I can tell you is that it doesn't appear to always be left up to chance and the tournament format anymore.

All I can tell you is THIS is the actual probability of appearing in a Superbowl, based on the current playoff format and league-wide homefield advantage percentages of appearing in a Superbowl.



SB appearance probabilities:

Seed 1: 36.00%
Seed 2: 29.00%
Seed 3: 11.00%
Seed 4: 10.00%
Seed 5: 7.00%
Seed 6: 6.00%

And here's our actual winners previously and recently:

The numbers are public, they have been quadruple checked, all I did is plugged them in. Go look at them yourself.

Because to me, when I first found out all 6 seeds won a Superbowl in a timespan of 6 years, it was enough to get me to start looking into it, since if you look at that probabilities chart it would take a freaking act of God!

And when I looked them up and plugged them in, sure enough, something freaking is way off!

For the longest of time the results in the NLF were actually within expected probabilities. Even throughout the 90s. Even if you go back and look at the prior formats they have used(like when there were only 4 seeds total) or 5 seeds, or different division alignments. The numbers were in line with what the tournament format of that time was designed to produce.


For the past decade or so, not sure exactly when it started, the numbers are so freaking out of whack, that the only thing that really explains it is somebody's fudging and handpicking teams. Or some incredible "anomaly". Same ****. The kind of anomaly in statistics that if Vegas ever had to suffer it would likely be bankrupt.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

So what's the over/under on how many years it takes for this scholar to be broke after his career is over? 2?

 

[pencilneckgeek]

This is why Belichick doesn't want most of his players to say anything, in general most football players aren't very bright.

This is unfair. On the whole, football players are among the most cerebral of the major American sports. However, it is fair to point out that the Wonderlick test does not rate that highly among the combine metrics that are used to evaluate pass-rush specialists.

I do appreciate how Suggs stupidity and borderline personality is shining for all to see. It offends me when such a consummate ass-clown gets taken seriously.

On that note, I will leave this thread now, as the first couple of pages seemed to include a whole lot of gibberish that I simply cannot take seriously enough to read through.

 

[AQPE]

:yawn: :deadhorse:

A couple of tin foil hat posts on a thread can be good fun, but my statistical analysis of message board activities shows that, where n = number of posts containing allegations of egregious wrongdoing presented without a level of substantiation that is dispositive to more than 50% of a given population, then when n > 5, the following is the consequence to the thread:

I'd be happy to substantiate my analysis with the raw data, but I'm precluded from doing so by a confidentiality agreement. I'm sure you understand ...

 

[PatriotSeven]

:yawn: :deadhorse:

A couple of tin foil hat posts on a thread can be good fun, but my statistical analysis of message board activities shows that, where n = number of posts containing allegations of egregious wrongdoing presented without a level of substantiation that is dispositive to more than 50% of a given population, then when n > 5, the following is the consequence to the thread:

I'd be happy to substantiate my analysis with the raw data, but I'm precluded from doing so by a confidentiality agreement. I'm sure you understand ...

Or better said there's a good chance that every time it rains there's clouds above, but NFL fans prefer to believe there's an equal chance it's just the Boogeyman pissing on everyone.

It's just much easier to accept.

 

[SB39]

Why should have they? I can't tell you what the NFL's agenda is, all I can tell you is that it doesn't appear to always be left up to chance and the tournament format anymore.

All I can tell you is THIS is the actual probability of appearing in a Superbowl, based on the current playoff format and league-wide homefield advantage percentages of appearing in a Superbowl.



SB appearance probabilities:

Seed 1: 36.00%
Seed 2: 29.00%
Seed 3: 11.00%
Seed 4: 10.00%
Seed 5: 7.00%
Seed 6: 6.00%

And here's our actual winners previously and recently:

The numbers are public, they have been quadruple checked, all I did is plugged them in. Go look at them yourself.

Because to me, when I first found out all 6 seeds won a Superbowl in a timespan of 6 years, it was enough to get me to start looking into it, since if you look at that probabilities chart it would take a freaking act of God!

And when I looked them up and plugged them in, sure enough, something freaking is way off!

For the longest of time the results in the NLF were actually within expected probabilities. Even throughout the 90s. Even if you go back and look at the prior formats they have used(like when there were only 4 seeds total) or 5 seeds, or different division alignments. The numbers were in line with what the tournament format of that time was designed to produce.


For the past decade or so, not sure exactly when it started, the numbers are so freaking out of whack, that the only thing that really explains it is somebody's fudging and handpicking teams. Or some incredible "anomaly". Same ****. The kind of anomaly in statistics that if Vegas ever had to suffer it would likely be bankrupt.

You sound very ignorant for several reasons:

1) You have consistently compared the present system with the past decades. That is intellectually bankrupt. Everyone agrees the system is different now than it was in the 70's and 80's. It makes as little sense as comparing it to other sports.

2) A sample size of 7 years is way to small too make any sort of valid claims. If you understood statistical analysis you would realize this.

3) As I mentioned in a previous post, the sports world is chock full of cute statistical oddities, like the White Sox Red Sox thing. You never answered my question: Is baseball fixed too? Because the probability of that event is light years more improbable than anything you've shown.

4) You've provided absolutely no motive for any of your accusations. Why in the world would the league rig things to have each of the 6 seeds win it all in a 6 year timespan? What in the world would a possible motive be?

5) The risk/reward of what you're suggesting is outlandish. If what you allege is true, they are rising the existence of the entire league and for virtually no gain at all.

6) You have absolutely nothing to support your thesis behind a cute little statistical oddity.

 

[jmt57]

If games were rigged then it would stand to reason that the NFL and their business partners, the networks, would prefer to have teams in the largest markets win disproportionately more often compared to clubs in smaller markets in order to increase ratings and profits.

Let's take a look at teams that are in the largest population/television markets:


1. New York ... the Jets have not been to a SB since man (allegedly) landed on the moon, and the Giants are currently headed towards a top-5 draft pick.

2. no NFL team in Los Angeles

3. Chicago ... zero championships in 27 seasons

4. Philadelphia ... last championship was 1960

5. Dallas ... 18 years since last championship; one playoff victory since then

6. SF-Oakland
49ers ... just went through 8-year stretch without a winning season; 19 years since last championship
Raiders ... 11 years since last winning season; 30 years since they won a SB

 

[PatriotSeven]

You sound very ignorant for several reasons:

1) You have consistently compared the present system with the past decades. That is intellectually bankrupt. Everyone agrees the system is different now than it was in the 70's and 80's. It makes as little sense as comparing it to other sports.

2) A sample size of 7 years is way to small too make any sort of valid claims. If you understood statistical analysis you would realize this.

3) As I mentioned in a previous post, the sports world is chock full of cute statistical oddities, like the White Sox Red Sox thing. You never answered my question: Is baseball fixed too? Because the probability of that event is light years more improbable than anything you've shown.

4) You've provided absolutely no motive for any of your accusations. Why in the world would the league rig things to have each of the 6 seeds win it all in a 6 year timespan? What in the world would a possible motive be?

5) The risk/reward of what you're suggesting is outlandish. If what you allege is true, they are rising the existence of the entire league and for virtually no gain at all.

6) You have absolutely nothing to support your thesis behind a cute little statistical oddity.

1. You're calling me ignorant and you can't even comprehend what you read. I compared the probabilities of each system with their particular format of their time. And the current system simply doesn't line up with what it is expected to produce. Not even remotely close.


2. It wasn't just a sample size of 7 years. Once again it was a sample size of the entire history of the NFL post merger and comparing different time periods to see if there's any sort of anomalies of this magnitute. There weren't any. And there's no explanation for the recent turn of events.

3. Excuse me. I actually did real research and you're giving me 1 example? I don't know. I didn't look at baseball.

4. Parity. Gambling. Upsets. Money. There's a million valid reasons. Again all the way up until the early 2000s, it was a pretty predictable system based on what the probabilities said we should expect. And it stayed within expectable deviations during any time period. It would have been pretty easy for gamblers, fans and people to expect the winners, and most of the time it turned out just as expected.

5. Gullible and childish. There is NO risk(it's practically freaking legal!), and the financial reward has been through the rough for the NFL. The question is not why would they do it, but rather why wouldn't they? They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. And the fans will watch no matter what. It's a freaking business, everyone knows this, yet you have a hard time believing a business is just doing whatever it can to drive up profits. Why WOULDN'T a business do this?

6. It's not just an "oddity". It's many. And there's plenty of other outside examples of fudging going on. There have been players and suspensions related to game fixing. There's known previous ties between owners and suspicious activity, whether with gamblers, politicians or some of them even starting off as bookies. There have been blatantly obvious badly officiated games including Superbowls. There have been examples of cheating or wrong doing, including our own team and teams like the Saints. There have been owners under serious allegations of fraud in other areas. Even today, with Jimmy Haslam who is so greedy he's willing to put everything at risk out of screwing customers out of some vouchers. You have now players speaking out. You just choose to ignore it and believe everything is honest, untouched, and lovely so as to not ruin your fantasy and turn your world upside down.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You fools. Isn't it obvious that Suggs is really in on the Amazing Perfidious Grand Conspiracy? What better way to discredit the existence of the Amazing Perfidious Grand Conspiracy than by having someone like Suggs talk about it. Given his moronicity, who would ever believe he's telling the truth? Goodhell is way, way ahead of you silly skeptics.

 

[SB39]

5. Gullible and childish. There is NO risk(it's practically freaking legal!), and the financial reward has been through the rough for the NFL. The question is not why would they do it, but rather why wouldn't they? They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. And the fans will watch no matter what. It's a freaking business, everyone knows this, yet you have a hard time believing a business is just doing whatever it can to drive up profits. Why WOULDN'T a business do this?

Of all your silly, ignorant statements, this one takes the cake. First of all, rigging a professional sporting contest is a major crime. People would go to jail. And the NFL would cease to exist because it would lose the entire fan base. All those owners would lose billions and billions. People wouldn't stick around to watch a sport which was rigged.

You have now players speaking out. You just choose to ignore it and believe everything is honest, untouched, and lovely so as to not ruin your fantasy and turn your world upside down.

Congratulations. You've aligned yourself with Terrell Suggs, the most at laughed at, ridiculed player in the league.

I've asked you this several times already and you have refused to answer: Was the Patriots 2001-02 season rigged for them to win it all?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Why should have they? I can't tell you what the NFL's agenda is, all I can tell you is that it doesn't appear to always be left up to chance and the tournament format anymore.

All I can tell you is THIS is the actual probability of appearing in a Superbowl, based on the current playoff format and league-wide homefield advantage percentages of appearing in a Superbowl.



SB appearance probabilities:

Seed 1: 36.00%
Seed 2: 29.00%
Seed 3: 11.00%
Seed 4: 10.00%
Seed 5: 7.00%
Seed 6: 6.00%

And here's our actual winners previously and recently:

The numbers are public, they have been quadruple checked, all I did is plugged them in. Go look at them yourself.

Because to me, when I first found out all 6 seeds won a Superbowl in a timespan of 6 years, it was enough to get me to start looking into it, since if you look at that probabilities chart it would take a freaking act of God!

And when I looked them up and plugged them in, sure enough, something freaking is way off!

For the longest of time the results in the NLF were actually within expected probabilities. Even throughout the 90s. Even if you go back and look at the prior formats they have used(like when there were only 4 seeds total) or 5 seeds, or different division alignments. The numbers were in line with what the tournament format of that time was designed to produce.


For the past decade or so, not sure exactly when it started, the numbers are so freaking out of whack, that the only thing that really explains it is somebody's fudging and handpicking teams. Or some incredible "anomaly". Same ****. The kind of anomaly in statistics that if Vegas ever had to suffer it would likely be bankrupt.

Comparing pre-salary cap era dynasties to the modern NFL doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Koma]

You fools. Isn't it obvious that Suggs is really in on the Amazing Perfidious Grand Conspiracy? What better way to discredit the existence of the Amazing Perfidious Grand Conspiracy than by having someone like Suggs talk about it. Given his moronicity, who would ever believe he's telling the truth? Goodhell is way, way ahead of you silly skeptics.

That's brilliant. Have a crazy guy announce the truth and everyone will dismiss it because of the source.

Does this mean Suggs is also right about Brady's hair and attitude?

 

[PatriotSeven]

Of all your silly, ignorant statements, this one takes the cake. First of all, rigging a professional sporting contest is a major crime. People would go to jail. And the NFL would cease to exist because it would lose the entire fan base. All those owners would lose billions and billions. People wouldn't stick around to watch a sport which was rigged.
Congratulations. You've aligned yourself with Terrell Suggs, the most at laughed at, ridiculed player in the league.

I've asked you this several times already and you have refused to answer: Was the Patriots 2001-02 season rigged for them to win it all?

You really need to look more into the NFL. They actually have the legal cover to fix the outcomes of their games for "entertainment purposes". Look on the back of your ticket next time you buy one. It literally has the same freaking business structure as the WWE.

In other sports yes, and yet, even they do it anyway. And get busted all the time.

You are talking about owners who rose to power on the back of gambling, mobsters, casinos, booking, greasing politicians, and you actually believe these people wouldn't freaking stray off the path when they currently have the law on their side covering their asses and there is billions to be made? The Mara family, Rooney, Modell, all of these families...did you ever take the time to read about it? Why don't you look them up. Go read up on something like this. The only difference between then and now, is that they now have managed to get legal protection.

And of course people would. They're too damn rabbit and engaged to believe anything to the contrary. People don't want to believe. And they never typically even get as far as you do to even have these types of conversations. And you want to know why? Because the truth is people DON'T WANT a fair freaking game. They DON'T want to see the Cleveland Browns vs the Jaguars in a Superbowl. They don't. We don't. That's why this amazing parity never carries over to the unpopular or small market teams(and by this I mean "modern age market" which doesn't mean geographical area). They want the big teams in the big games and the NFL makes sure that happens. Everyone is happy.

As far as the Pats season? I have no idea. But it wouldn't shock me. Kraft is a very powerful man with very powerful connections, probably more powerful than the "old" regime and the NFL is the type of sport that can move an entire nation. And that is all I will say about that.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Comparing pre-salary cap era dynasties to the modern NFL doesn't make any sense at all.

This point has been made, and addressed at least 3 times. I didn't. Salary cap era makes no damn difference on the playoff format and the probabilities CURRENTLY expected out of it. The comparison is today's format vs today's results. And old format vs old results. Not today's results vs old results.

 

[SB39]

You really need to look more into the NFL. They actually have the legal cover to fix the outcomes of their games for "entertainment purposes". Look on the back of your ticket next time you buy one. It literally has the same freaking business structure as the WWE.

Now you're just making a fool of yourself.

Congratulations... you are well aligned with Terrell Suggs and you admit that the Patriots SB36 victory may have been rigged. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people in this forum who agree with you.

 

[Fixit]

Why do I keep thinking of the Eternal Champion guy over on JI?

 

[PatriotSeven]

Now you're just making a fool of yourself.

Congratulations... you are well aligned with Terrell Suggs and you admit that the Patriots SB36 victory may have been rigged. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people in this forum who agree with you.

And you think that bothers me? I think a lot of Superbowl victories could have been rigged and am fairly certain some were. And many other games throughout a season. You sound pretty juvenile to point the finger and say "you aligned yourself with Terrell Suggs" as if we were in some kind of high school group popularity contest.

You can think it's a fair sporting event and go on living. I don't. I think it's an entertainment event and I'll go on living as well.

I'm fine with that.

 

[Salva135]

Why do I keep thinking of the Eternal Champion guy over on JI?

LOL! This guy and Eternal Champion would spend endless hours together discussing NFL conspiracy theories, except they'd be trying to prove the conspiracies against each other to support their own teams.

This is straight out of the EC handbook, and from PatriotSeven above:

Why should have they? I can't tell you what the NFL's agenda is, all I can tell you is that it doesn't appear to always be left up to chance and the tournament format anymore.

"I can't tell you why this sounds stupid, all I know is that something is going on here." Classic.