Give up all the philly crying. Philly straight up got spanked IN philly ON MNF, and you philly fans still want to whine. You didnt here us whining when philly kicked are *** for like a string of 5 games until the last 2! And if we did it was whining about OUR team not philly. So give it up please. Go Tampa.
Last edited by jlarge_25 on Thu Sep 11, 2003 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Representing them down south boys from central Florida!
I don't know what game you saw, but I think y'all are delusional. Philly got spanked and looked demoralized by the game's end. I mean TB isn't gonna win with a lot of fireworks usually (unlike the superbowl route). They're gonna use a dominant D, that may force a turnover or two, and the offense will be decent. As far as I could see, last years gameplan still works. Philly, one of the best teams in the NFC got shot out at home and McNabb was totally unsuccessful in throwing the ball down the field. How many 20+ yard completions did he have? My point isn't that TB is great or that Philly sucks. I'm just saying that they've proven they can win a Superbowl and they don't look any worse than last year (And with the exception of the Bills, no team looks significantly better). So I think they're still favorites to win the next Superbowl.
"If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?"
it's not about whining. i'm from stl. i hate philly and i hate tampa. but like gretzky said, the game was closer than the score would indicate. im just sick of hearing all the tampa hype. they werent the best team going into the nfc championship last year. they werent the best team going into the super bowl. and they arent the best team now. i know it's kinda hard to see w/ all the hoopla and confetti, but the season will bear this out. it's a long season.
right, yoda makes a good point. one more from me. Tampa has had a punishing defense for YEARS. At least five. AND, in all of those years, their offense has been average. AND, in all of those years, they won one superbowl. do the stats on that one.
Tampa doesn't even have the best defense of all time. Statisticians with very little else to do figured that that distinction is a tie between the 2000 Ravens and the 1985 Bears. The ravens returned almost all of their core players, much as Tampa is so proud of doing. They still did not repeat, because many of their players got injured.
The point of this post; if I had to bet $5 on whether or not Tampa would win the superbowl, I would bet they would not. If I had $5 and had to pick a team to win the superbowl, I would pick Tampa. If I had to pick a team to beat Tampa, I would pick whatever team doesn't get any injuries.
As for all of this "it's difficult to repeat" nonsense, how about this: Let's say that with all the new parity, the average team has a 1/32 chance of winning the superbowl. Now for a list of teams to repeat the superbowl win:
1967-68 Green Bay
89-90 San Fran
93-94 (&96) Dallas
Now, since the odds of winning the superbowl are 1/32, the odds that a repeating team will LOSE the following superbowl are 31/32. Out of 37 superbowls, statistically speaking, one or two should have been repeats. That is assuming it's NOT any harder to repeat than it is to win the first one. If it is HARDER to repeat, then one at most should be a repeat. However, there have been 7 repeats (8 if you count Dallas's near trifecta). That shows that, to any acceptable degree of certainty, it is EASIER for a team to repeat than it is for another random team to win it.
If you're going to argue about the salary cap bringing about parity and making it harder to repeat, (a very valid point), then you still have to contend with the fact that in the less-than-a-decade since the cap came into being, Denver has repeated. Out of 7 or 8 (I can't remember when exactly the cap came about) superbowl winners, one of them was a repeat. This still suggests that the reigning superbowl champion has a better chance of winning the superbowl than any single other team.
Either that, or you're all saying that my 97-98 Broncos were just one of the best teams of all time, to be able to repeat in the Cap-era. If that's what you're saying, you'll get no arguement here.
i like your thinking, but your assumptions are off. each team does not have an equal chance at the super bowl every year. you would definitely have to weigh the odds for each year (look to vegas!). also, there havent been 32 teams every year for the past 37, so that would change your odds as well.
and as far as your broncos, i would have liked to see MIN make that super bowl. not saying that denver would have lost, but atl made that game a joke. and i could be wrong, but wasnt MIN 15-1 that year?
i like your thinking, but your assumptions are off. each team does not have an equal chance at the super bowl every year. you would definitely have to weigh the odds for each year (look to vegas!).
You will notice that I began my reasoning with "let's say that..." I realize that each team does not have an equal chance to win the superbowl. That is what I was proving. However, to prove that some teams have a better chance, I had to first prove that not all teams had an equal chance. In statistics, you cannot actually PROVE anything, you can merely disprove something to a certain degree of certainty. As you can see from my setup, there is very small chance that 7 (or 8) teams would have repeated if every team had an equal chance. This proves that superbowl champions have a greater than 1/32 chance of winning another superbowl. First you make assumptions, then you disprove them.
also, there havent been 32 teams every year for the past 37, so that would change your odds as well.
I know this, but rather than calculate the odds on a year by year basis, I only wanted to give a general guideline. Even if there had only been 16 teams over the past 37 years, 8 repeats (more than 20%) would still be very high, assuming all teams had an equal chance.
atl made that game a joke. and i could be wrong, but wasnt MIN 15-1 that year?
I also would have liked to see them make it, because then nobody could say "Oh, they didn't really EARN the superbowl, because they never played Minn. Yes, Minn was 15-1 to Denver's 14-2. However, the Falcons were 14-2 (or possibly 13-3) themselves. Not too shabby, eh? And they *DID* manage to beat the Vikes when it mattered. Either way, Denver and Minn were both 2 loss teams, Minn's second loss was just in the playoffs.
There is indeed great parity in the league. And noone is saying that TB's D is the best of all time (at least from what I've read on this thread). The way the NFL is set up there may not ever again be teams like the 9ers in the 80's or the Cowboys of the early 90's. My only point is that at this early point in the year TB are the favorites. Are they a lock? No--as much hype as you guys are complaining about, TB is between 5 and 6 to 1 in Vegas to win the Superbowl. I think that's just about right.
o&b, the reason you brought up the 1/32 chance is to prove that super bowl winners have an easier time of repeating than a random team. my point is that the conclusion is false and the assumptions are off. the reason i pointed out the weighting issue is b/c the previous year's champion comes into the following season as one of the upper teams. i mean, for whatever reason, they were good enough to win it all the year before.
this completely alters the 1/32 chance that the super bowl winner has of repeating. to the point where it may refute the "since there have been 7 repeats out of 37, super bowl winners have an easier time of repeating" statement. and when you consider how often people automatically annoint the previous champ as this year's winner (and how rarely that repeat occurs), you see why i'm so skeptical of TB's chances.
and the "32 teams in the last 37 years" comment was just to add to what i was saying.