FoxSports.com - Patriots Will Not Win the Super Bowl

[CISGS]

Making this thread for after Super Bowl 51.

I received my daily Patriots news in my Google Allo app (if you don't use that, download it) and saw this gem:

Why the New England Patriots won't win the Super Bowl

Don't give them clicks but I will excerpt here:

This NFL Sunday proved two things: 1) The New England Patriots are the best team in football; 2) The New England Patriots will not win the Super Bowl, and you can bet your cutoff hoodie and Microsoft Surface on it.

It's not a lineup thing, it's not a playbook thing, it's not a depth thing, it's not a coaching thing, it's not a scheme thing, it's not a bad-matchup thing, it's not an air pressure gauge thing and it's not a possibly not having Pete Carroll and Russell Wilson to hand them a ring thing. No, it's an undeniable pull of history thing.

His argument is that the best team does NOT win the Super Bowl.

Since the turn of the century, there have been 16 full NFL seasons, and the best team finished its season with a loss in 15 of those years. We determined the best team by regular-season record. In the event of a tie, we looked at which team was favored to win before the playoffs and/or which team was favored in the Super Bowl.

 

[FourierSeries]

Easily the worst argument I've seen yet.

 

[Sciz]

Chris Chase. All you need to know.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's nothing wrong with what was written, so why would you bother filing it?

 

[luuked]

Making this thread for after Super Bowl 51.

I received my daily Patriots news in my Google Allo app (if you don't use that, download it) and saw this gem.

His math and reasoning are so incredibly scientific I am shocked and surprised he didn't publish it in an international journal.

 

[Froob]

Well the field does have the better odds and often times the best team doesn't win. Not sure why he wrote it other than to piss people off though.

 

[patchick]

That article is a huge, lazy missed opportunity, because there's a real phenomenon he's talking about and he completely fails to analyze it.

Pick any ONE team, any year, and of course the chances are that they won't win. 12 teams make the playoffs, after all. But is the #1 team less likely than other teams to win it all? Has that changed from past generations? And why bother even writing the article if you're not even going to ask those questions???

 

[BobDigital]

Picking against a team to not win is a gutless decision. Pick a winner or don't pick.

Yes 1 team is less likely to win than the other 31 combined. Picking against a team and being proven right is often easy and doesn't make you smart even if you are correct and make you look particularly stupid if you are wrong.

 

[Addictive]

The helmet catch and the lap dance catch and subsequent Butler interception tell me that no one knows who will win the Superbowl until its played.

 

[h0c2000]

You can write this article for all 32 teams. You'd be right ~97% of the time. He's not going out on a ledge. If he had sack, he'd write who would win.

 

[BobDigital]

Right now the Pats are 3-1 in Vegas which i think is fantastic.

 

[mosslost]

Michael Gee write that?

 

[Deus Irae]

That article is a huge, lazy missed opportunity, because there's a real phenomenon he's talking about and he completely fails to analyze it.

Pick any ONE team, any year, and of course the chances are that they won't win. 12 teams make the playoffs, after all. But is the #1 team less likely than other teams to win it all? Has that changed from past generations? And why bother even writing the article if you're not even going to ask those questions???

It's a filler article that says nothing everyone doesn't already know. "I need a story. Any story will do." There's really not likely to be anything more to it than that.

 

[Sicilian]

That article is a huge, lazy missed opportunity, because there's a real phenomenon he's talking about and he completely fails to analyze it.

Pick any ONE team, any year, and of course the chances are that they won't win. 12 teams make the playoffs, after all. But is the #1 team less likely than other teams to win it all? Has that changed from past generations? And why bother even writing the article if you're not even going to ask those questions???

Precisely. Going only by the 12 teams that actually CAN win the super bowl each year once the playoff teams are decided, if you were going by a purely even odds situation the best team should win once every 12 years. The fact that it's happened once in 16 years is close enough to be considered a normal statistical variance in my opinion.

 

[JMC00]

Chris Chase. All you need to know.

98% of his articles are written to **** talk the Patriots.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

http://gifyu.com/images/sourcec3c9b.gif


98% of his articles are written to **** talk the Patriots.

More probable than not. . . .

 

[VJCPatriot]

Given this article, it's almost a guarantee we win Superbowl Title #5 now! LOL

 

[Koma]

Chris Chase. All you need to know.

A moron's moron.

 

[PYPER]

I didn't read the article so I'm not sure if he pointed this out but guess which franchise took home the title as favorites. That's right....Our New England Patriots (2003 & 2014). So we are the only franchise in the league to defy this phenomenon.

2014 was tricky....Pats and Seahawks had same record, both were #1 seeds, and the line was pick'em (according to pro-footballreference.com)

 

[sb1]

Chris Chase....lol