If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   It's worked four of the past five years, including last year when the NFC's Baltimore Ravens beat the AFC's San Francisco 49ers   (usatoday.com) divider line 27
    More: Interesting, Baltimore Ravens, NFC, San Francisco 49ers, Seahawks, AFC, Super Bowl, San Francisco, Super Bowl XLVIII  
•       •       •

3739 clicks; posted to Sports » on 21 Jan 2014 at 11:55 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-21 09:48:03 AM
It's worked four of the past five years, including last year when the NFC's Baltimore Ravens beat the AFC's San Francisco 49ers, and the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index rose 29.6% for the year.


bawahahahahahah.  stupid editors.
 
2014-01-21 09:55:02 AM
And the Seahawks were originally in the AFC.
 
2014-01-21 10:07:35 AM

knbber2: And the Seahawks were originally in the AFC.


And my aunt was originally my uncle.
 
2014-01-21 10:39:05 AM
But the Ravens were originally the Browns, who were originally in the NFC, so this entire theory doesn't work.  Or maybe it does.  But so does flipping a coin.
 
2014-01-21 10:42:02 AM

superdolfan1: But the Ravens were originally the Browns, who were originally in the NFC NFL, then were moved to the AFC after the merger, so this entire theory doesn't work.  Or maybe it does.  But so does flipping a coin.


There, fixed it for me.
 
2014-01-21 11:19:46 AM

knbber2: And the Seahawks were originally in the AFC.


So were the Buccaneers, although people hardly remember that (was only their first season, along with Seattle actually starting in the NFC).
 
2014-01-21 11:27:15 AM

superdolfan1: superdolfan1: But the Ravens were originally the Browns, who were originally in the NFC NFL, then were moved to the AFC after the merger, so this entire theory doesn't work.  Or maybe it does.  But so does flipping a coin.

There, fixed it for me.


Yes and no -- The Ravens, officially, are an expansion team that came into existence in 1996, having assumed all personnel of the Browns which ceased operations at that time. The history of the Browns remained in Cleveland. According to all official records, the Browns fielded a team in the NFL from 1950-1995 and from 1999-present. The Ravens only existed from 1996-present and therefore only ever played in the AFC.
 
2014-01-21 11:31:40 AM
The Seahawks played their first season in 1976 as part of the NFC West. They moved to the AFC the next year,.
 
2014-01-21 11:42:46 AM

thermo: The Seahawks played their first season in 1976 as part of the NFC West. They moved to the AFC the next year,.


Along with the Bucs being in the AFC West... I guess the swap was a good one, although not sure why they didn't just move the Bucs to the AFC Central, instead of having them swap conferences... is there some back history on that?
 
2014-01-21 11:46:15 AM

dletter: thermo: The Seahawks played their first season in 1976 as part of the NFC West. They moved to the AFC the next year,.

Along with the Bucs being in the AFC West... I guess the swap was a good one, although not sure why they didn't just move the Bucs to the AFC Central, instead of having them swap conferences... is there some back history on that?


Wikipedia tells all...

"This realignment was dictated by the league as part of the 1976 expansion plan, so that both teams could play each other twice and every other NFL franchise once during their first two seasons. Instead of a traditional division schedule of playing each division opponent twice, the Buccaneers played every conference team once, plus the Seahawks. "

Strange reasoning, but, the league didn't have the very 'clean' scheduling setup like they have for the last decade back then.
 
2014-01-21 12:04:59 PM
Coming up next, the Super-Bowl Pickin' Chicken will cluck its way into our hearts by telling us who's going to win the big one in New York!  Stay tuned!
 
2014-01-21 12:14:35 PM
Sample deviates from the mean by 1 standard deviation over a small sample size. Predictive value questionable
 
2014-01-21 12:22:23 PM

Wadded Beef: Coming up next, the Super-Bowl Pickin' Chicken will cluck its way into our hearts by telling us who's going to win the big one in New York!  Stay tuned!


shechive.files.wordpress.com
Broncos.
 
2014-01-21 12:24:42 PM
What about the Philadelphia Eagles indicator? First team to win/lose at Philly wins the Superb Owl
 
2014-01-21 12:34:00 PM

superdolfan1: superdolfan1: But the Ravens were originally the Browns, who were originally in the NFC NFL, then were moved to the AFC after the merger, so this entire theory doesn't work.  Or maybe it does.  But so does flipping a coin.

There, fixed it for me.


Ah, but the Browns were not originally in the NFL.

The Browns, much like the 49ers, were originally in the All-America Football Conference.

Basically, whichever team won last year's game, you could make the case that this "predictive" trend held, regardless of the performance of the stock market.
 
2014-01-21 12:34:44 PM
"It is a totally irrelevant and irrational indicator, but it works," says Silverblatt.

Hopefully, this is the dumbest thing I read all day.
 
2014-01-21 12:36:51 PM
Sixty percent of the time it works every time.

HaywoodJablonski: What about the Philadelphia Eagles indicator? First team to win/lose at Philly wins the Superb Owl


Well, I guess we're done with that now. Stupid Chargers.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Wadded Beef: Coming up next, the Super-Bowl Pickin' Chicken will cluck its way into our hearts by telling us who's going to win the big one in New York!  Stay tuned!

[shechive.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]
Broncos.


You are a horrible person for posting that image.
 
2014-01-21 12:41:26 PM

pdieten: Sixty percent of the time it works every time.

HaywoodJablonski: What about the Philadelphia Eagles indicator? First team to win/lose at Philly wins the Superb Owl

Well, I guess we're done with that now. Stupid Chargers.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Wadded Beef: Coming up next, the Super-Bowl Pickin' Chicken will cluck its way into our hearts by telling us who's going to win the big one in New York!  Stay tuned!

[shechive.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]
Broncos.

You are a horrible person for posting that image.


If you flip a coin and it lands as heads 10 times in a row, the chance of it falling heads the 11th time is STILL 50/50.
 
2014-01-21 12:58:32 PM
This is like the Redskins rule, which was discovered before the 2004 presidential election.  Whenever the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the incumbent party retained the Presidency.  This was true from every election from 1937 (when the Redskins moved to DC), until 2000.

Then as soon as it was "discovered," the rule held true only twice in the three subsequent elections.

This is what you get for trying to correlate unrelated data points.  If you have enough data, you'll always find two things that seem to be related to each other.

And as another poster pointed out-- Based on the logic in the article, both Superb Owl teams are originally AFC franchises.  Is it time to liquidate everything?
 
2014-01-21 01:19:45 PM

Marcus Aurelius: knbber2: And the Seahawks were originally in the AFC.

And my aunt was originally my uncle.


But did she originally live in Bel Air?
 
2014-01-21 01:34:20 PM

Wadded Beef: Coming up next, the Super-Bowl Pickin' Chicken will cluck its way into our hearts by telling us who's going to win the big one in New York!  Stay tuned!


I took a perfect dump this morning. Historically speaking, the AFC team wins 80% of the time when I take a beautiful, double-tapered shiat on the Tuesday two weeks before the Super Bowl.
 
2014-01-21 02:55:22 PM

balki1867: Then as soon as it was "discovered," the rule held true only twice in the three subsequent elections.


Er, its only held true ONCE in the past three elections.  FTFM.
 
2014-01-21 03:18:04 PM
What does any of this have to do with Richard Sherman?
 
2014-01-21 03:21:04 PM

Donnchadha: superdolfan1: superdolfan1: But the Ravens were originally the Browns, who were originally in the NFC NFL, then were moved to the AFC after the merger, so this entire theory doesn't work.  Or maybe it does.  But so does flipping a coin.

There, fixed it for me.

Yes and no -- The Ravens, officially, are an expansion team that came into existence in 1996, having assumed all personnel of the Browns which ceased operations at that time. The history of the Browns remained in Cleveland. According to all official records, the Browns fielded a team in the NFL from 1950-1995 and from 1999-present. The Ravens only existed from 1996-present and therefore only ever played in the AFC.


You are technically correct - the best kind of correct.
 
2014-01-21 07:20:13 PM
The article appears to have been "corrected" to fix the headline problem, but now it says:

which the "Super Bowl indicator" considers an original NFL franchise as they were born after the NFC Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore back in 1996 to the AFC

Both incoherent and wrong. (Correct on the "original NFL franchise" part but there has never been such a thing as the "NFC Cleveland Browns"; they did not switch conferences when they moved in 1996.)
 
2014-01-21 09:21:49 PM

balki1867: This is like the Redskins rule, which was discovered before the 2004 presidential election.  Whenever the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the incumbent party retained the Presidency.  This was true from every election from 1937 (when the Redskins moved to DC), until 2000.

Then as soon as it was "discovered," the rule held true only twice in the three subsequent elections.

This is what you get for trying to correlate unrelated data points.  If you have enough data, you'll always find two things that seem to be related to each other.



imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-01-22 10:49:21 AM

Donnchadha: Yes and no -- The Ravens, officially, are an expansion team that came into existence in 1996, having assumed all personnel of the Browns which ceased operations at that time. The history of the Browns remained in Cleveland. According to all official records, the Browns fielded a team in the NFL from 1950-1995 and from 1999-present. The Ravens only existed from 1996-present and therefore only ever played in the AFC.


I have always maintained that this is stupid.  The Browns became the Ravens.  Call it however you want, but to say that the current Browns have a 60 plus year history is just lying to yourself.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report