Tweet
I dont think he is saying the chances are better, or that what he roots for necessarily.
Just that the odds are just about the same.
Just that the odds are just about the same.
-
-
First of all, some of the teams that had the #1 pick traded for the pick, so they weren't truly the worst team in the league and didn't "earn" the #1. Perfect example is the 1997 Rams, who traded with the Jets for the #1 and drafted Orlando Pace. This GREATLY skews the argument in JHights favor, because the Rams went apeshit from 98-02, making two SB's and winning one, while the Jets did shit.
So you can scratch one SB win off of JeremyHights ledger right there.Comment
-
LOL.
-SIXTEEN of the 1st Round pick teams are under .500 for the next 5 seasons. SIXTEEN!
-Only 8 SB losers go under .500 for the next five seasons.
And the #1 pick side is greatly skewed by the '89 Cowboys who won 2 SB's, and '91 Cowboys, who went 60-20 and won 3 SB's (doubling up, btw). Take away the Cowboys, and the Rams who traded for the #1 pick, and JeremyHights argument goes to shit. The SB loser side, who already have the edge in overall W/L and playoff appearances, now take sizable leads in both of those categories.
His entire argument hinges on ONE TEAM...the Cowboys, who had THREE consecutive #1 choices (if you count the 1990 pick forfeited by taking Steve Walsh #1 in the '89 Supplemental Draft).
This debate is a pile of shit. There is no statistical trend or solid evidence of anything...except that the SB losers do substantially better than the #1 pick teams across the board, and that the Cowboys bucked the trend (and needed THREE FUCKING PICKS to do it!)
GTFO with this nonsense, close the thread, and let's move on.Comment
-
JeremyHights argument should be:
"I'd rather be the 1990's Cowboys than the SB loser."Comment
-
W2B's argument: Teams that actually benefit my argument shouldn't be counted because they are random aberations and not indicative of the norm.
The problem is... they did happen and still have to be included. To make sure I didn't double up, I even didn't count the same playoff appearances and championships twice in the last set of data, WHILE STILL COUNTING WINS AND LOSSES TWICE despite that hurting my argument.
Again, the original argument I made was that I'd rather have the #1 overall pick than lose a Superbowl because I could make my franchise better with the #1 overall pick while losing a Superbowl only gets you the #31 pick and a pat on the back for losing. Regardless of how a team got the #1 pick, that doesn't change my argument. My stats show that getting the #1 pick actually gives you a better shot historically of winning a championship than losing a Superbowl in the modern era of football.
People want to argue it because it sounds stupid, but if you really think about it and focus on the key goal of winning a championship, not just having a good season, I think that a #1 pick helps more than the experience of losing a Superbowl. If you are happy with maybe making the playoffs 1 more time out of 5 years than another team or getting 1 more win a season on average, take the Superbowl loss side. If you want to get a better shot at the title, get the #1 pick.Comment
-
Your argument is out the window by simply eliminating one team. The Cowboys are really the only team that supports your claim. One team having massive success does not make a trend.
The SB losers have a better W/L, more playoff appearances, and just as many SB wins if you take out the Cowboys. Your argument completely hinges on one teams level of success.
Explain to me how that is any sort of long term statistical trend.Comment
-
First, it is 2 teams out of 20, regardless of the championships won total, there are 2 different teams. If you want to throw out the aberation, it would be the ONE Super Bowl runner up who actually came back to win it all within 5 years. They are one and only one, no other team did in over 100 total seasons of football tabulated.
I love that you say one team is an anomoly and shouldn't be counted, but you want to count the only Super Bowl runner up to win one, as that ONE team isn't an anomoly.Comment
-
Your stats absolutely do not show that. They show that one team won a couple super bowls after getting the number one pick. Its an aberration, not a trend. If it was a trend then the difference would be far more significant.
The trend is that super bowl losers have a better record than #1 pick getters. And teams with better records have a better shot at winning the super bowl. Done. Simple. Easy.Comment
-
Bold : stop arguing semantics. The Cowboy dynasty is the "one team" I am talking about. And you know that.
I'm not really saying you shouldnt "count" them, what i'm saying is it's lame to base your argument off of largely ONE TEAM going on a great run. If this was some shockingly inarguable statictical trend as you say, you would have more evidence than the Cowboys to fall back on. And you don't.Comment
-
Besides, you don't need statistics to make your statement look foolish.
Ask any old time Bills fan what they enjoyed more, losing all of those games in the 70's and racking up those exciting high draft picks, or going to four consecutive SB's in the 90's.
The idea, as a fan, that you would rather be a terrible team. than go to a SB, is beyond ridiculous and borderline retarded.Comment
-
Ugh would you stop missing my point. Ready its about to come again...here it is....
(I'll even simplify it some more.)
Super bowl losers record > #1 pick getters record
Higher record = higher chance at winning superbowl
therefore,
Super bowl losers chance at winning super bowl > #1 pick getters chance at winning super bowl
Yes more super bowls have been won within five years after having the #1 pick. But that does not create a trend at this point in time. Maybe in 100 years and there's 20 to 3 super bowls, it will be a trend, but as of now championships are not a valid way to judge this.
If you don't get it now, then I give up as you are just being stubborn, as I know you're not retarded.Comment
-
The Rams and Cowboys each had the #1 pick and used it to help win at least one championship each. In 80 combined seasons, four championships were won by teams who had at the #1 pick in the 5 years prior. In comparison, only one was won by teams who had lost the Super Bowl in the 5 years prior.
Yet you want to say, that despite having 4 times as many championships, an arguably close record total (7 wins vs 8 wins), a very close playoff appearance total (38% vs 41%), you want to say teams are anamolies and want to throw them out. Why not say throw out the Bills, who were obviously an anamoly of going to 4 straight Super Bowls? Why not say throw out New England, who is the only SB losing team to come back to win a Super Bowl within 5 years?
Oh thats right, you only want to try to throw out teams that support my side. Face the FACTS! Teams with the #1 pick have done more in the last 25 years than Super Bowl losers. But instead of trying to argue your points with hard evidence, you just try to throw out teams that support my side because you think they are the anamoly and not any of your teams who did equally once in a lifetime sort of accomplishments and drastically help your argument.Comment
-
Ask the Cowboys if the 2 years as bottom dwellers were worth it in order to start a string of championships. Ask the Rams if the 5 year span where they went from only getting 5 wins a season to Super Bowl champions were better than the 5 years following where they would make the playoffs, but would never win another title.
Again, this isn't about a 1 year thing. If a team is bad and never gets better because of it, they have serious problems. If on the other hand, you think of it as a process, that being bad that one year enables you to greatly improve your talent and make your team better to win later on, then you can see why getting the #1 pick is better than losing a Super Bowl. Not only that, but the stats support it by showing that you are far more likely to win a championship.Comment
Comment