Do we really want a Bye?

[TheComeback]

The other point that no one's mentioned yet is that if the team's goal is to win the Super Bowl, then they're eventually going to have to play after a "bye" week anyway. Better to figure out how to get the team motivated now than a week before the biggest game of the year.

 

[tobias funke]

So, based on these data, there's a 20% chance of winning the Super Bowl from the Number One slot, but an 80% chance of winning it from another point on the food chain. There's also less than a 50% chance that you even get to the Super Bowl (43%).

This really doesn't mean anything.

It's almost as bad as the "Team X beat team Y, and Team Z beat Team X, so team Z will beat team Y" line of thinking.

There is a reason you won't find a 'data point' for a team in NFL history that purposely avoided the #1 seed.

 

[TheComeback]

based on these data, there's a 20% chance of winning the Super Bowl from the Number One slot, but an 80% chance of winning it from another point on the food chain. There's also less than a 50% chance that you even get to the Super Bowl (43%).

So what you're saying is that there's still a better chance to win the Super Bowl from the #1 slot than there is from any one of slots 2-6.

I'm guessing that the probability of winning the SB at slot #2 is similar to #1, since it also affords a week off, so the chance of winning it all from one slot in 3-6 is probably less than 20%.

PS. I'll definitely take a 43% chance at the Super Bowl before I've even played a postseason game...

 

[brdmaverick]

YES, we WANT the bye.

Picture going through the week leading up to the wild card round worrying about your next opponent. Let's imagine that we are obsessed with what the Cincinatti Bengals may or may not throw at us.

Why go through this worry when we could rest easy and watch other teams go through an intense struggle (gameday) JUST to get to the same place where the Patriots already are (assuming they get a bye).

Considering not wanting a bye is insane in my opinion.

 

[brdmaverick]

Is there a way to officially "dislike" this thread?

 

[jan08]

That's like saying that you always should punt on Fourth and One at midfield. It's what everyone believes, but statistical analysis after statistical analysis show that you are no worse off going for it (see, for starters, The Hidden Game of Football by Bob Carroll, et al.).

Facts are annoying things, but I had a few minutes this morning, went back 15 years and analyzed what happened to the Number One seed in the two conferences (total of 30 data points):

--Ten of the 30 were one and done, losing in the Division Round (as we painfully recall is possible)
--Seven of the 30 lost their Conference Championship Game
So, over half the Number One seeds don't even make it to the SB.
--Seven of the 30 lost in the Super Bowl
--Six of the 30 won the Super Bowl.

So, based on these data, there's a 20% chance of winning the Super Bowl from the Number One slot, but an 80% chance of winning it from another point on the food chain. There's also less than a 50% chance that you even get to the Super Bowl (43%).

All things being equal, sure, I'd like to be Number One, but all things are seldom equal and so I do think there are "exceptions" since there are multiple factors that allow teams to do better from another seed, whether it's how a team's playoff opponents line up or whether it enters the Playoffs on a roll and with something to prove, as the Giants (ouch) did in 07 and the Pack did last year.

I'd agree with you in the case of a team like New Orleans, which has never won an outdoor playoff game and which seldom wins outdoors after December 1st unless it's playing in 40 or 50 degree conditions in the South; does anyone seriously think that the Saints are going to go into Lambeau and win in January when the average low temperature is in the single digits?

The question was about the bye, which includes the 2nd seed. If only your morning had a few more minutes spare we could get accurate facts which are annoying things

 

[tobias funke]

FaCTS: ANNOYING THINGS

 

[Hardboiled]

Facts are annoying things, but I had a few minutes this morning, went back 15 years and analyzed what happened to the Number One seed in the two conferences (total of 30 data points):

--Ten of the 30 were one and done, losing in the Division Round (as we painfully recall is possible)
--Seven of the 30 lost their Conference Championship Game
So, over half the Number One seeds don't even make it to the SB.
--Seven of the 30 lost in the Super Bowl
--Six of the 30 won the Super Bowl.

So, based on these data, there's a 20% chance of winning the Super Bowl from the Number One slot, but an 80% chance of winning it from another point on the food chain. There's also less than a 50% chance that you even get to the Super Bowl (43%).

I don't think you're reading that right. Your 20% refers to the sample of #1 seeds (6 of 30), not all playoff teams. Your 80% refers to all number one seeds who didn't win the Superbowl (24), not to all other (non 1 seed) teams in the playoffs (150) or as you put it "point in the food chain."

I think you want to compare either 1) #1 seeds vs. each other seed 2) Byes vs. Non-Byes. Going further you would include home field in that analysis.

 

[Betterthanmost]

I try to avoid bi folks myself. Too unstable. Unless it happens to be a female acquaintance who's in a frisky mood and ... :singing:

 

[rdf63]

There are 2 benefits to a BYE:

1. It allows the injured players one additional week to heal and be better prepared for the first game.

2. Play at home.

We can look at all of the statistics but lets keep it simple.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

So what you're saying is that there's still a better chance to win the Super Bowl from the #1 slot than there is from any one of slots 2-6.

I'm guessing that the probability of winning the SB at slot #2 is similar to #1, since it also affords a week off, so the chance of winning it all from one slot in 3-6 is probably less than 20%.

PS. I'll definitely take a 43% chance at the Super Bowl before I've even played a postseason game...

yeah. i wasn't arguing about the Bye, just the number one seed. i didn't do the numbers, but i think you're right on that.

and, on your final point. agreed again. all i'm saying is that it's not the case for every team that the number one is going to be better. merry, merry.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This really doesn't mean anything.

It's almost as bad as the "Team X beat team Y, and Team Z beat Team X, so team Z will beat team Y" line of thinking.

There is a reason you won't find a 'data point' for a team in NFL history that purposely avoided the #1 seed.

disagree on your comparison because the logic of the two arguments is completely different.

second point is tautologous. all i said was that the first seed wasn't necessarily the best thing for every team.

i'll stand by my argument: the first seed guarantees squat and, even though, all things being equal, the first seed is better, all things are seldom equal and it is not self-evident that it is best in every case.

 

[fair catch fryar]

That's crazy. With a bye you're already in the 2nd round and are looking at a home game. With this D, I wouldn't want to make it any harder than it already has to be.

 

[D-Money]

Off course u want a BYE!!!It just brings u closer to getting to the big game.At this point, this team is looking to win a damn playoff game.It seems like a long time ago.You wanna make it easier on yourself.Any team would want a BYE.

 

[supafly]

That's like saying that you always should punt on Fourth and One at midfield. It's what everyone believes, but statistical analysis after statistical analysis show that you are no worse off going for it (see, for starters, The Hidden Game of Football by Bob Carroll, et al.).

Facts are annoying things, but I had a few minutes this morning, went back 15 years and analyzed what happened to the Number One seed in the two conferences (total of 30 data points):

--Ten of the 30 were one and done, losing in the Division Round (as we painfully recall is possible)
--Seven of the 30 lost their Conference Championship Game
So, over half the Number One seeds don't even make it to the SB.
--Seven of the 30 lost in the Super Bowl
--Six of the 30 won the Super Bowl.

So, based on these data, there's a 20% chance of winning the Super Bowl from the Number One slot, but an 80% chance of winning it from another point on the food chain. There's also less than a 50% chance that you even get to the Super Bowl (43%).

All things being equal, sure, I'd like to be Number One, but all things are seldom equal and so I do think there are "exceptions" since there are multiple factors that allow teams to do better from another seed, whether it's how a team's playoff opponents line up or whether it enters the Playoffs on a roll and with something to prove, as the Giants (ouch) did in 07 and the Pack did last year.

I'd agree with you in the case of a team like New Orleans, which has never won an outdoor playoff game and which seldom wins outdoors after December 1st unless it's playing in 40 or 50 degree conditions in the South; does anyone seriously think that the Saints are going to go into Lambeau and win in January when the average low temperature is in the single digits?

Very interesting numbers, PFS74. Nice job.

To show a different viewpoint however, I have dug these ones up:

Through the 2010 season (Super Bowl 44), there have been a total of 88 participants.

Out of those 88 participants, 59 of them were at least tied for the conference's lead in W-L records.

The problem is that there have not been many, as you say, in the past 15 years. Overall however, the trend definitely favors having the #1 seed.

Just something to note, nothing else. We will all agree that execution and preparation will define this yr's team.

FWIW--I was one who would've rather had the #2 seed, but if the NYJ would have won (6 vs 3) that would have messed everything up anyway, and that looks to be a strong potential.

 

[brdmaverick]

i'll stand by my argument: the first seed guarantees squat and, even though, all things being equal, the first seed is better, all things are seldom equal and it is not self-evident that it is best in every case.

The first seed guarantees that the team will NOT have to play an away game in their potential path to the Super Bowl. That sells it for me.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Anyone following this team, knowing how banged up they are, can't seriously think that a bye would not be helpful.

 

[brdmaverick]

That's like saying that you always should punt on Fourth and One at midfield. It's what everyone believes, but statistical analysis after statistical analysis show that you are no worse off going for it (see, for starters, The Hidden Game of Football by Bob Carroll, et al.).

Facts are annoying things, but I had a few minutes this morning, went back 15 years and analyzed what happened to the Number One seed in the two conferences (total of 30 data points):

--Ten of the 30 were one and done, losing in the Division Round (as we painfully recall is possible)
--Seven of the 30 lost their Conference Championship Game
So, over half the Number One seeds don't even make it to the SB.
--Seven of the 30 lost in the Super Bowl
--Six of the 30 won the Super Bowl.

So, based on these data, there's a 20% chance of winning the Super Bowl from the Number One slot, but an 80% chance of winning it from another point on the food chain . There's also less than a 50% chance that you even get to the Super Bowl (43%).

QUOTE]

This is skewed logic, this 80% would only mean something if the Pats had a choice of having the 1 seed or ALL FIVE other seeds (note, not just one of the remaining five, ALL other FIVE). That, of course, is impossible since one team only gets one spot. Therefore, this argument has no legs.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Anyone following this team, knowing how banged up they are, can't seriously think that a bye would not be helpful.

yup...this team is hurting..a week of rest is in order...and they will need it as i think (obviously not 100%) will be playing the jets. Jets always get lucky and back into things aka playoffs ect

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Anyone following this team, knowing how banged up they are, can't seriously think that a bye would not be helpful.

Yes but there's a community here that wakes up in the morning and once erect creates a thread with whatever stupid thought crosses their mind without thinking it through first. I thought that's why we had the Practice Squad.

Less playoff games means less probability of additional injuries, never mind time to heal the dozens previously wounded.