To all those questioning top seed/hfa

[Bux005]

Good article. Not sure if it's been posted.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-anal ... s-seahawks

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Thanks for that.

 

[hawkfan68]

Nice article. I don't agree with his argument about the top seed/HFA best record team not winning the superbowl. There are many examples of top seed teams winning it all. While playing each week and winning gives momentum. Having a bye also helps getting a team rested and healthy. What really winning the championship comes down to is balance. The most balanced teams usually win. That's the best thing that Seahawks have going for them.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Anyone who wants anything but the #1 seed is just being a superstitious weirdo with no concept of sample size. A few Cinderella teams happening recently says nothing about what is optimal this year or any other future year. A 100% chance of winning in round 1, which is effectively what a bye is, can't come close to being matched by your odds if you actually have to play a game. And then if you're in the wildcard round then you have to win at least one more road game, and more likely than not another road game.

Even if you live in a fantasy world where your odds of winning at home and on the road are the same (they're not), the additional game really cuts into your odds. Let's say we're a 2:1 favorite in every game without regard to opponent or location. As the #1 seed, we would make it to the SB about 44% of the time (.66 * .66). As a team playing in the wildcard round we would make it about 29% of the time (.66 * .66 * .66). That's already a massive drop, and that's optimistically pretending we would win as often in the playoffs on the road which we wouldn't. The realistic gap in chances is quite a bit bigger.

 

[AbsolutNET]

By the time a #1 seed gets to the super bowl, like we did a few years back, a loss would have nothing to do with whether or not they played 4 Sundays prior. So lets take the first week off and guarantee ourselves the 12th man for two more weeks. sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[Sac]

There has also been a rash of top seeded teams that had cupcake schedules in soft divisions fattening their records.

 

[hawks4thewin]

I"m no mathematician but.... if 6 of the last 11 superbowl winners have not been the #1. seed and 5 have.. lets break that down
5 of them were superbowl winners 55% of the time they win.

1st seed win 55% of the time.
2nd seed 13%
3rd seed 13%
4th seed 13%
5th seed 13%
6th seed 13%.

Now someone who wants to put more time in it can break down the actual numbers but as you can see the #1 seed wins 55% of the time, where the other seeds combined win 66%. but no one is accounting for the 5 seeds that share that 66 %.

So..... what does the hawk say , win win win winw iwnw iwn..

 

[sutz]

Nobody really wants to go on the road in the playoffs. That's just silly.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

There has also been a rash of top seeded teams that had cupcake schedules in soft divisions fattening their records.

Correct. Denver being one.....Atlanta being two....anyway it was already known last year nobody wanted to play the Seahawks and at home that would be ridiculous. Now it's 2013 and playing us at home is both hopeless and ridiculous and if Harvin is ready just stupid on top.

 

[chevelle03]

I"m no mathematician but.... if 6 of the last 11 superbowl winners have not been the #1. seed and 5 have.. lets break that down
5 of them were superbowl winners 55% of the time they win.

1st seed win 55% of the time.
2nd seed 13%
3rd seed 13%
4th seed 13%
5th seed 13%
6th seed 13%.

Now someone who wants to put more time in it can break down the actual numbers but as you can see the #1 seed wins 55% of the time, where the other seeds combined win 66%. but no one is accounting for the 5 seeds that share that 66 %.

So..... what does the hawk say , win win win winw iwnw iwn..

While it's obvious you are no mathematician (as none of your percentages are correct), I can say (as a mathematician myself) that your logic is correct.

Using this link http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/visuals/post/_/id/10921/graphic-which-nfl-playoff-seeds-succeed(which has the same ridiculous sentiment as many people on this board) you can see that 20 of the last 38 Super Bowl winners have been #1 seeds (I've included last year in these numbers). This means that about 53% of the time the champ is a one seed, and 47% of the time the champ is not a one seed. Which on it's own shows that having the top seed is best, but if you break it down seed by seed, then being the #1 seed is BY FAR the most advantageous of seeds (in the same way that betting on a 7 when rolling two dice is your best option, even though the chance of winning is only 1 out of 6).

Now I realize that in recent years the #1 seed has not fared nearly as well. In fact, since 2000 seeding seems to have no bearing at all, with the #2 seed winning the most at 4. But still, especially for the Hawks, I would put my money on the #1 seed.

 

[hawks4thewin]

Chevelle03 Thanks for confirming that i'm not math smart LOL. I was pretty close for winging it though.. I would say close enough for math newbs like myself

 

[VaporHawk]

I have seen us #1 and I have seen us 5,6

I like #1 better