The fact that there were less teams making the playoffs in past decades does not diminish the trend of a #1 or #2 seed making the superbowl every year. The #1 and #2 seeds have always had to win 2 playoff games to make it to the superbowl. It has always been the same odds, even when there were just 4 teams from each conference making the playoffs.
0
The fact that there were less teams making the playoffs in past decades does not diminish the trend of a #1 or #2 seed making the superbowl every year. The #1 and #2 seeds have always had to win 2 playoff games to make it to the superbowl. It has always been the same odds, even when there were just 4 teams from each conference making the playoffs.
MJ, do you have any stats on divisional teams that meet up in the playoffs for the 3rd time of the season. Also, if team A covered both regular season games, what happens in that 3rd game?
Since the NFL merger in 1970, there have been 20 occasions where teams have played each other 3 times in the same season when one team was 2-0 against the other. In those 20 games, the team that was 2-0 against the other coming into the game had a record of 13-7 in the third and final game, the most recent team being the 2009 Cowboys who beat the Eagles 3 times last year.
0
Quote Originally Posted by PrimeTimeBoys:
MJ, do you have any stats on divisional teams that meet up in the playoffs for the 3rd time of the season. Also, if team A covered both regular season games, what happens in that 3rd game?
Since the NFL merger in 1970, there have been 20 occasions where teams have played each other 3 times in the same season when one team was 2-0 against the other. In those 20 games, the team that was 2-0 against the other coming into the game had a record of 13-7 in the third and final game, the most recent team being the 2009 Cowboys who beat the Eagles 3 times last year.
The fact that there were less teams making the playoffs in past decades does not diminish the trend of a #1 or #2 seed making the superbowl every year. The #1 and #2 seeds have always had to win 2 playoff games to make it to the superbowl. It has always been the same odds, even when there were just 4 teams from each conference making the playoffs.
Actually, statistically speaking; it does.
0
Quote Originally Posted by OmahaStylee:
The fact that there were less teams making the playoffs in past decades does not diminish the trend of a #1 or #2 seed making the superbowl every year. The #1 and #2 seeds have always had to win 2 playoff games to make it to the superbowl. It has always been the same odds, even when there were just 4 teams from each conference making the playoffs.
The fact that there were less teams making the playoffs in past decades does not diminish the trend of a #1 or #2 seed making the superbowl every year. The #1 and #2 seeds have always had to win 2 playoff games to make it to the superbowl. It has always been the same odds, even when there were just 4 teams from each conference making the playoffs.
The situation has presented itself 4 times in the last 6 yrs
0
Quote Originally Posted by OmahaStylee:
The fact that there were less teams making the playoffs in past decades does not diminish the trend of a #1 or #2 seed making the superbowl every year. The #1 and #2 seeds have always had to win 2 playoff games to make it to the superbowl. It has always been the same odds, even when there were just 4 teams from each conference making the playoffs.
The situation has presented itself 4 times in the last 6 yrs
Since the NFL merger in 1970, there have been 20 occasions where teams have played each other 3 times in the same season when one team was 2-0 against the other. In those 20 games, the team that was 2-0 against the other coming into the game had a record of 13-7 in the third and final game, the most recent team being the 2009 Cowboys who beat the Eagles 3 times last year.
Niner is that ATS
0
Quote Originally Posted by BigNiner:
Since the NFL merger in 1970, there have been 20 occasions where teams have played each other 3 times in the same season when one team was 2-0 against the other. In those 20 games, the team that was 2-0 against the other coming into the game had a record of 13-7 in the third and final game, the most recent team being the 2009 Cowboys who beat the Eagles 3 times last year.
These vegas boys aren't stupid.When was the last time in a championship game that the home team was the dog.(I don't know but i'd bet never)Bears already beat the Pack at home this year and gave them all they could handle in Green Bay.So now I can get the higher seed plus points at home against a team they always play tight.Seems to me they like the Pack.
0
These vegas boys aren't stupid.When was the last time in a championship game that the home team was the dog.(I don't know but i'd bet never)Bears already beat the Pack at home this year and gave them all they could handle in Green Bay.So now I can get the higher seed plus points at home against a team they always play tight.Seems to me they like the Pack.
I should add that in 2002, the league went to four divisions and two wildcards in each league.
They added 2 wildcards in 1990 or so...before that 5 teams made it and the 4 and 5 seed played for the right to move on to the following weekend. Before that I haven't a clue.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Skipster:
I should add that in 2002, the league went to four divisions and two wildcards in each league.
They added 2 wildcards in 1990 or so...before that 5 teams made it and the 4 and 5 seed played for the right to move on to the following weekend. Before that I haven't a clue.
These vegas boys aren't stupid.When was the last time in a championship game that the home team was the dog.(I don't know but i'd bet never)Bears already beat the Pack at home this year and gave them all they could handle in Green Bay.So now I can get the higher seed plus points at home against a team they always play tight.Seems to me they like the Pack.
Thats where the perception comes in the Packers blew out ATL the linemakers had no choice but to do that and also wasnt the line in the first gm GB -3 the same as it is now.They knew that they could amke it 3 and still get 65% action on GB so why make it a pk like it should be
0
Quote Originally Posted by Pooley2409:
These vegas boys aren't stupid.When was the last time in a championship game that the home team was the dog.(I don't know but i'd bet never)Bears already beat the Pack at home this year and gave them all they could handle in Green Bay.So now I can get the higher seed plus points at home against a team they always play tight.Seems to me they like the Pack.
Thats where the perception comes in the Packers blew out ATL the linemakers had no choice but to do that and also wasnt the line in the first gm GB -3 the same as it is now.They knew that they could amke it 3 and still get 65% action on GB so why make it a pk like it should be
Rogers performance against ATL looked like a 7 on 7 drill against the scout team. The conditions and defense in CHI we wont see that in this game. However I dont trust Cutler to take care of the football. PIT -3 large, perhaps a teaser PIT and ?
0
Rogers performance against ATL looked like a 7 on 7 drill against the scout team. The conditions and defense in CHI we wont see that in this game. However I dont trust Cutler to take care of the football. PIT -3 large, perhaps a teaser PIT and ?
Rogers performance against ATL looked like a 7 on 7 drill against the scout team. The conditions and defense in CHI we wont see that in this game. However I dont trust Cutler to take care of the football. PIT -3 large, perhaps a teaser PIT and ?
The one thing that concerns me is Cutler.He has definitly improved the more time he spends with Martz.I have a hunch hes gonna have a good gm and i am sure the Bears Def will make some adjustments especially after watching the ATL gm tape
0
Quote Originally Posted by FleshGordun:
Rogers performance against ATL looked like a 7 on 7 drill against the scout team. The conditions and defense in CHI we wont see that in this game. However I dont trust Cutler to take care of the football. PIT -3 large, perhaps a teaser PIT and ?
The one thing that concerns me is Cutler.He has definitly improved the more time he spends with Martz.I have a hunch hes gonna have a good gm and i am sure the Bears Def will make some adjustments especially after watching the ATL gm tape
1.In the last 40 years there has at least been a 1 or 2 seed in the superbowl.#2 Pitt and #2 Bears left
2.A team going for their 3rd win in a row on the road in the playoffs is 2-10.Jets and GB
3.A team in the playoffs that has scored 40+ pts is 2-17 ATS.GB
4.An out right underdog winner favored on the road next week is about 22% ATS.GB
Great post. 99% of posts in this forum that claim to be "trends" are nothing but garbage. These stats are true trends, they have been tested over a long period of time.
Thanks for digging this up!
0
Quote Originally Posted by MJ2345:
1.In the last 40 years there has at least been a 1 or 2 seed in the superbowl.#2 Pitt and #2 Bears left
2.A team going for their 3rd win in a row on the road in the playoffs is 2-10.Jets and GB
3.A team in the playoffs that has scored 40+ pts is 2-17 ATS.GB
4.An out right underdog winner favored on the road next week is about 22% ATS.GB
Great post. 99% of posts in this forum that claim to be "trends" are nothing but garbage. These stats are true trends, they have been tested over a long period of time.
1.In the last 40 years there has at least been a 1 or 2 seed in the superbowl.#2 Pitt and #2 Bears left
while some people will put a lot of stock into trends 2, 3 and 4... nobody should be putting any stock into trend #1, because it has absolutely no bearing on this week's games...
0
Quote Originally Posted by MJ2345:
1.In the last 40 years there has at least been a 1 or 2 seed in the superbowl.#2 Pitt and #2 Bears left
while some people will put a lot of stock into trends 2, 3 and 4... nobody should be putting any stock into trend #1, because it has absolutely no bearing on this week's games...
You've been here for 8 YEARS and this is the ONE POST you decide to make?????
Makes ya wonder what deep thoughts he'll be pondering the next 8. Maybe he speaks from mountain tops so high, unreachable by the internet, passed on to us mortals by his deciples
0
Originally Posted by BigNiner
You've been here for 8 YEARS and this is the ONE POST you decide to make?????
Makes ya wonder what deep thoughts he'll be pondering the next 8. Maybe he speaks from mountain tops so high, unreachable by the internet, passed on to us mortals by his deciples
Thats where the perception comes in the Packers blew out ATL the linemakers had no choice but to do that and also wasnt the line in the first gm GB -3 the same as it is now.They knew that they could amke it 3 and still get 65% action on GB so why make it a pk like it should be
I agree with your "line should be" comment for sure.I actually had figured it would be Bears -1
0
Quote Originally Posted by MJ2345:
Thats where the perception comes in the Packers blew out ATL the linemakers had no choice but to do that and also wasnt the line in the first gm GB -3 the same as it is now.They knew that they could amke it 3 and still get 65% action on GB so why make it a pk like it should be
I agree with your "line should be" comment for sure.I actually had figured it would be Bears -1
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.