How Good Are Wildcard Round Prospects? (Not Real Good)

[Polaris]

I think a number of you have hear the national talking heads talk about how having a week off isn't a real advantage and that there is a strong wildcard presence in the later rounds of the playoffs.

Rather than argue specific cases and teams, I decided to go back and look at the actual playoff records for the past ten years (2003-2012 seasons) and see if this was really true. It's not. In fact if you don't get a first round buy, your chances in the playoffs are actually pretty dismal. Teams like the 2010 Packers and NYGiants are the exceptions not the rule.

Seahawk fans saw this first hand when we probably had the best (certainly hottest) team at the end of the season but in the end weren't quite able to overcome the grind of two road games.

I will list the year. The first number will be the number of wildcard round winners (seeds 3-6) in the divisional round (max four). The second number will be the number of wildcard round winners that survive the championship round (max two).

2003: 2 1
2004: 0 0
2005: 2 1
2006: 2 1
2007: 2 1
2008: 3 1
2009: 1 0
2010: 2 1
2011: 1 1
2012: 1 1
2013: ? ?
-------------------------
Total: 16 8
Possible:40 20

Avg: 1.6 0.8

I think the numbers speak for themselves. Of the four teams that survive wildcard weekend, your chances are less than 50% that you'll make it any further, and less than 25% that you'll see the superbowl. That's less than a coinflip. Actually significantly less.

 

[onanygivensunday]

What happened in the past is no indicator of what will happen in the future.

The better indicator is the "elite-ness" of the Hawks defense.

On their way to winning the Superbowl, the 1985 Bears allowed opponents a total of only 10 points in three playoff games.

The Hawks are capable of a similar performance.

 

[tom sawyer]

I'd much rather have our defense than any other offense. Our defense is more responsible for more of our victories this year.

Our fate in the playoffs relies much moe heavily on our defense, we can break an offense, then it is much easier to win.

 

[Polaris]

What happened in the past is no indicator of what will happen in the future.

That actually isn't true. I wouldn't use this to predict the outcome of any particular game, no. There are other indicates (as you allude to) that are better for that. However, it DOES show that much of the love the media is giving to WC participants is just that: Hype. The past IS a solid indicator here.

 

[Axx]

What happened in the past is no indicator of what will happen in the future.

That actually isn't true. I wouldn't use this to predict the outcome of any particular game, no. There are other indicates (as you allude to) that are better for that. However, it DOES show that much of the love the media is giving to WC participants is just that: Hype. The past IS a solid indicator here.

The Bengals WILL beat the chargers based of the bengals past home performances

 

[Polaris]

What happened in the past is no indicator of what will happen in the future.

That actually isn't true. I wouldn't use this to predict the outcome of any particular game, no. There are other indicates (as you allude to) that are better for that. However, it DOES show that much of the love the media is giving to WC participants is just that: Hype. The past IS a solid indicator here.

The Bengals WILL beat the chargers based of the bengals past home performances

What part of "indicator" did you miss. Indicators aren't always infallible, but yes, I would have predicted the Bengals to win. IIRC most people did.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What happened in the past is no indicator of what will happen in the future.

Huh?

Why do you think the Vegas oddsmakers are so good at their job? Past performances are a great indicator of future results. That's what odds are all about, taking prior data and making educated guesses based on what that data shows.

 

[Largent80]

We were 1 pass defensed away from the C game last year.

This year we really needed that week off for rest, and also our offense isn't exactly lighting it up right now so the continuity factor is a lot less of an importance. This year, I think having that week off will make us stronger.

 

[Polaris]

We were 1 pass defensed away from the C game last year.

This year we really needed that week off for rest, and also our offense isn't exactly lighting it up right now so the continuity factor is a lot less of an importance. This year, I think having that week off will make us stronger.

What you say is true, but I think we needed it last year as well. For that matter, as I recall, even Pete Carroll said we needed it that year. When Seattle was on the road last year in the playoffs (esp at two 10am starts) Seattle started out flat as a pancake. I believe Pete said at the end of last year, what that experience showed him was that he needed at least "one or two" of these games at home.

Which this year's team has accomplished. Contrary to what the ESPN idiots have been saying the last few days, you are much better off getting a one week bye in the playoffs than not getting one. The data I showed in the OP bear this out.

 

[capncrunch]

There were some brutal games played this weekend. I know the Packers are out, but man if they had won I would cringe at their injury report going forward. I saw Aldon Smith limping around. I didn't see all of the Saints game but I am sure they are worse for wear after banging it out on that hard turf.