Would have it been better to champion mediocrity? I don't give a shit if we won 16 games a season over the last 10 years. Unless one of those games was the SB who gives a crap. We also didn't dominate...we SQUEEK. I don't need to have appreciation for mediocrity. We just fired the reason we had a chance at those multiple SB's. Unfortunately the asshats behind the scenes ensured the talent dropped and got worse and wasted the window.
why do you watch then? why not pick a new team every year? the champion. did Seattle dominate yesterday? did they dominate in last years title game? how about NE's 3 SBs- were they domination? NYG's latest 2- did they dominate? we had chances, in this era a chance means everything. the days of dominant teams like SF of the 80s and Dallas of the 90s are long gone. even when the Pats dominated they won a million close games. the team did get worse in recent years and Bradway has to take some hits for that too but again he wasn't the GM and the team was far better w/him than w/o him. It was time to go, we needed to clean house but I do appreciate anyone who works hard and helps my team win.
If you're talking about random probability then yes, 1 in 5 is 20%. But that's a misapplication of odds under the circumstances. No wonder you don't like stats, you don't understand them beyond their most basic application. Yes in 2002, but was that during the Bradway years? You know the topic and point of the conversation. Nice attempt to change the perimeters of the discussion though, you truly talk like an agent...or a politician...same thing.
how so? they had 5 teams in the division, they had 1 in 5 chance of making playoffs. Please apply them to more advanced applications to show me. 2002 Bradway was our GM and we had a complete makeover that offseason due to cap issues left behind by Parcells. If you didn't know that you really shouldn't be involved in this discussion and at you certainly shouldn't be calling anyone out when you don't have a clue.
I maade an error on the Bradway years, I was thinking 2003 but in double checking it was 2001, my mistake there. Because the 1 in 5 assumes it's random with equal probabilities. In a two conference system with no wild cards you can have the 2nd best record in the league but miss the playoffs if the 1st best record in the conference is also in your division. It is therefore not a true 1 in 5 chance since it's not based on random probability or even the quality of being one of the top 2 performers over a season. Like I said, you only see the surface but don't understand the deeper applications.
No problem w/ making mistakes, we all do but don't compound it by bashing me. put the league aside, it's about the division. if you have the best record 1968 and earlier you make it. In 1969 you needed one of the top 2 and in 1969 Houston made it w/ a .500 record. This notion that is was harder back then b/c less WCs is false.
I think the point being made, at least to my perception, is that teams aren't all exactly the same and therefore, regardless of the math based on the number of teams, the Jets and say, the Pats, don't have equal chances to make the playoffs. With a much better QB, a much better coach, a better line, etc etc etc, the Pats have a significantly better chance at securing an available playoff spot than do the Jets, Bills, our Dolphins. Therefore, the 1 in 4 math is only the surface.
we don't have an equal shot w/ the Pats which is why it's more difficult in this era than previous. NE is basically a lock every year to win division so we are fighting for WC spots w/ tons of teams every year.
Houston made it in 1969 because of the way the wild card worked at the time, divisional. Put under today's context of the Wild card the 8-6 Chargers would have been in the playoffs instead of the 6-6-2 Oilers as the Chargers had the 4th best record in the NFL....so yes, there was a wildcard and yes 4 out of 10 teams made the playoffs, but did the 4 best teams make the playoffs? No, the Chargers were sitting at home with the better record. When you have multiple divisions within a conference and 2 wild cards it is not a simple preface of 20% or 30% or 40% chance to make the playoffs. Yes in 1969 40% of the AFL teams did make the playoffs but each team did not have a that same chance of being in the playoffs. Which goes back to the point, while 40% of the teams make the playoffs the odds are not the same for an individual team, be it 1 in 5 or 4 in ten. The only way that percentage actually plays out is if you eliminate divisions and take the 40% of teams that have the best win loss record that removes the mitigating factor of 'geography' from the equation. Unlike other more 'random' events the true odds are not 40% chance of reaching the playoffs because of mitigating and controlling factors. And yes more playoff spots does reduce the pool and changes the odds of reaching the playoffs, why? Geography. at best each team currently has a 25% chance of reaching the playoffs based off of division, 4 teams per division. the remaining 12 teams then are in contention for 2 playoff spots, which is a 17% chance of reaching the playoffs. So in reality at this point in time each team has, if you play the math a little loose, a 42% chance of reaching the playoffs in essence, now the actuality of that in probability terms is different and that is playing a little loose with the numbers. But football is not a sport of random probability, good teams win and bad teams lose. Good teams are much more likely to reach the playoffs than bad teams and some teams are consistently good over the years while others are not. So in the end it's not a matter of sheer probability, it's a matter of spots available. In any given year there are on average 4 or 5 really good teams, and then there is 1-2 average teams that slip in to the playoffs, most of the average teams get in via weak divisions, like the Panthers this season. And here we get to the crux of the argument. You've stated that it doesn't matter if a team wins double digits, a playoff is a playoff. But a team that wins only 9 or 10 games is much less likely to make the playoffs than a team with 11+ wins, in fact over the past 15 years only 5 teams, that weren't division winners, have reached the playoffs with 9 wins, and only a handful with 10. This year is a case in point, the Eagles won 10 games but they sat at home during the playoffs. Being an average team overall will get you to the playoffs occasionally, a lot if you're in constantly weak division. And I don't want to hear 'we play in the same division as the Patriots'. so what? The Jets play them 2 times a year, that doesn't excuse the record for the other 14 games in a season. Most years the Jets were 'average' they split the series with the Patriots...if you split with the superior team what's you excuse for the other 14 games? Nothing but an excuse.
Awww, I made an error in recollection and was thinking 2003 was his first year and not 2001. But since you've mentioned he 'led' the Jets to be the only team to win the division other than the Patriots since 2000...That's true, with a 9-7 record....a record that most years won't even get you a wild card birth..it's not like the jets knocked the Patriots out of playoff contention....they were an average team that won, what for that season, was a weak division.
They also won the division on a tiebreaker after Miami made a miraculous comeback to beat New England on the last day of the season, while the Jets went out and spanked Green Bay. Not like it was a decisive division win.
so again a 2 in 5 chance to make playoffs. There were 5 teams in AFL East and 2 made it. each team had a 40% chance to make it, just had to be one of top 2 in each division. 1968 2nd best team was .500, rest of division was 17-37-2, 31% 1969 2nd best team was .500, rest of division was 17-36-3, 32% 2002 2nd best team was 9-7, worst team was 8-8, rest of division was 26-22, 54% which was harder? again, the ONLY team to prevent a Brady led Pats team from winning the division. so we won the games we needed to win in order to win the division, right? you know we crushed NE at Foxboro on a Sunday a week earlier then crushed 12-3 GB. did you know NE wouldn't lose a game at home again until 3 seasons later?
Pretty sure they were only wildcard from 2001 on with the exception of 2003. But I"m not taking time to double check that right now.
Who cares when NE wouldn't lose another home game till? Irrelevant. 1968 was harder, only 1 team made it from each conference, if you didn't finish first you didn't get in. The rest of your argument just proves my point that it's not a 40% chance, or a 30% chance, that's over simplification, although we are talking more about probabilities than actual chance, but either way the statement stands. it's easier to reach the playoffs currently than it ever has been. Unlike all previous seasons each team has a 25% chance right off the bat, 4 teams per division each division sending a representative. After first place the rest of the division doesn't matter at all, if you don't win first place you're competing against the other 12 teams who didn't win their division. In the year the Jets took first no team in the AFC East won more than 9 games, a record that wasn't good enough to win any other division in the AFC. and no other team from the AFC East made the playoffs through the wildcard. Only way in to the playoffs was to win the division, a 25% chance just through the first bit. Each wildcard team had an additional 1 in 6 chance of reaching the playoffs, something a 9-7 record didn't assure, as demonstrated by Miami and NE missing the playoffs with the same 9-7 record as the Jets. In short the 1968 Jets has just a slightly better chance of reaching the playoffs as any of the teams who didn't win their conference in 2002 though the wildcard. And all this leads to the point I've been making all along, the extra conferences +2 wild cards makes it easier to reach the playoffs than it did prior to having 4 divisions, and it was harder still to reach the playoffs before there were 3 divisions, and harder still before there were wildcards. The point you keep missing is that the 4 conferences makes it EASIER to reach the playoffs through rather simple math. It's all a matter of probabilities which are skewed by the divisions. If you remove the divisions from the equation in todays game then yes, it is harder today than it was then...but the divisions exist so it's easier today and not harder.
1968 was NOT harder than 2009 or 2010. only needed to beat 4 other teams out to make it. 2nd place team was .500, just slightly different than having to beat out the Pats. In postseason the best 2 teams in the AFL record wise had to play a one game playoff to meet the Jets at Shea. as it turned out a team w/ a better record that BEAT the Jets that season travelled to Shea and the Jets beat them to get to SB. I would have loved our chances if we go Indy at home in 2009 or Pitt at home in 2010 needing one win to get to SB. we only have 4 div titles in our history, only 2 AFCE titles. how do you not know it was 2002 that we won the division?
If you omit the 4 teams that all make it on the 25% in the first round...... 12 teams 2 playoff births. 12 teams 4 playoff births. 16 teams 6 playoff births. add 4 teams but add 2 playoff births....it's simpler no matter how you cut it Junc. Throw in 4 divisions instead of 2 or 3 divisions and it gets even easier.
2009 and 2010 were much more difficult to get to a SB than 1968 for the Jets. It's not debatable. If the next best team in our division was .500 I'd agree w/ you /09/10 were easier. add in homefield and bye they didn't eanr and it's not close.
