How important is 1st Seed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
TW said:
Home field advantage throughout the playoffs has (seemingly) become increasingly important over the past five years. Do you expect that trend to continue, or will the playoffs become a bit less predictable as time moves on?
Click to expand...
All bets are off this year. 80,000 / 90,000 screaming fans make a difference. One other thing is how “dominant” that 1 seed is. And I know 13-3 / 12-4 might look dominant I just don’t see a dominant team in the NFC. This year matchups will matter more
 
TW said:
Older, but it does point some things out.


While the NFL is (rightfully) known for having parity, that has not extended recently to the postseason. The past 5 Super Bowls have all been won by a 1 seed, and nine of the ten teams to play in the Super Bowl over that timespan have been 1 seeds.
2013: 1. Seahawks def. 1. Broncos
2014: 1. Patriots def. 1. Seahawks
2015: 1. Broncos def. 1. Panthers
2016: 1. Patriots def. 2. Falcons
2017: 1. Eagles def. 1. Patriots
If a 1 seed were to win this year, it would tie 1981-1986 for the longest streak of 1 seeds winning Super Bowls.
The dominance of the favorites extends beyond just reaching the Super Bowl, however. Over this timespan, just five teams (2013 49ers, 2014 Colts, 2016 Packers & Steelers, 2017 Jags) who played on Wild Card Weekend managed to just reach the conference championship game. They lost by an average of 18 points per game. By comparison, in the five years prior to this streak (2012-2008), 8 teams reached conference championships (2008 Cardinals, Eagles, & Ravens, 2009 Jets, 2010 Jets & Packers, 2011 Giants, 2012 Ravens) and they only lost by 0.25 points per game.
Additionally, 1 seeds went one and done six times between 2008-2012 (2008 Titans & Giants, 2010 Patriots & Falcons, 2011 Packers, 2012 Broncos) and posted an overall playoff record of 8-9, with five of those wins being contributed by 2009 Saints and Colts. By comparison, between 2013-2017, 1 seeds have gone an astonishing 23-5, with four of those losses coming against fellow 1 seeds (the lone exception was the 2016 Cowboys, who lost to Green Bay in the divisional round).
Home field advantage throughout the playoffs has (seemingly) become increasingly important over the past five years. Do you expect that trend to continue, or will the playoffs become a bit less predictable as time moves on?
Click to expand...
And I can counter>>>

Once you get there, the difference is minimal.

No. 1 seeds since 1990 are 13-15 in the Super Bowl, a 46 percent winning percentage, which is really not that much higher than No. 2 seeds, who are 6-9, a .400 winning percentage.

Only three No. 1 seeds from the NFC have won the Super Bowl in the last 20 years — the Rams in 1999, the Saints in 2009 and the Seahawks in 2013. The last NFC No. 2 seed to win the Super Bowl was the 2002 Buccaneers, who beat the Eagles in the NFC Championship Game at the Vet to get there.


The No. 1 seed in the AFC has won five Super Bowls since 1990 but won just two from 1990 through 2013 before winning the last three. No. 2 seeds out of the AFC have won just three Super Bowls since 1990.

Here's a look at the Super Bowl won-lost records by seed since the playoff field expanded in 1990.

No. 1 seed: 13-15

No. 2 seed: 6-8

No. 3 seed: 1-1

No. 4 seed: 4-3

No. 5 seed: 1-0

No. 6 seed: 2-0

It’s been eight years since a No. 2 seed won the Super Bowl. That was the Steelers beating the No. 4 seed Cards in 2008. The last No. 2 seed to beat a No. 1 seed in a Super Bowl was the 2004 Patriots over the Eagles. The last NFC No. 2 to beat a No. 1 in a Super Bowl was Tampa, which beat the AFC’s top-seeded Raiders in 2002.

Matter of fact, since 1993, as many No. 4 seeds have won a Super Bowl as No. 2 seeds (four), despite having to play one more game to get there.

The home team is 8-0 over the last four years in the Championship Game round and 68-32 in the 50 years since the AFL-NFL merger. Upsets have been rare the last decade, with the higher seed winning 15 of 20 NFC Championship Games since 2006.

The only times the home teams lost both conference championship games since the merger were 1992 and 1996.

Teams seeded third and lower have reached the Super Bowl just 14 times but interestingly have a 9-5 record in those 14 Super Bowls.

In NFL history, teams playing at home are 87-51 in the wild-card round (.630), 149-61 in the conference semifinal round (.710) and 92-46 (.667) in the conference championship round.

Overall, that's 328-158, a .675 winning percentage.
Click to expand...

Good try...not buying what you guys are selling
 
The NFL instituted the seeding system in 1975. In that span (1975 - 2019 seasons) the #1 and #2 seeds got to the SB 71 times. The other seeds (3-6) only got there 17 times. Only 10 out of 44 SB winners in that span were seeded Nos. 3-6.

This year only the #1 seed gets the bye. The #2 seed does not. This really benefits the #1 seed. And if they had the fans, it would be ridiculous advantage.
 
oakleaf said:
The NFL instituted the seeding system in 1975. In that span (1975 - 2019 seasons) the #1 and #2 seeds got to the SB 71 times. The other seeds (3-6) only got there 17 times. Only 10 out of 44 SB winners in that span were seeded Nos. 3-6.

This year only the #1 seed gets the bye. The #2 seed does not. This really benefits the #1 seed. And if they had the fans, it would be ridiculous advantage.
Click to expand...
Sorry Oak, I am with the others it's just not big of deal and frankly as a team to if you a have the #1 seed mentality someone most likely will come to Lambeau and kick our ass. tc(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me try again... because I'm stubborn. Again, my argument is that #1 seed is important since it provides a big advantage to get to the SB.

Let's assume a very likely regular season finish: Seahawks finish the season beating Rams and 49ers; and Saints finish beating Panthers and Vikings. In that scenario, if Packers beat Chicago they are #1 seed. If they lose, they are #3 seed. (Yes, the Titans game is meaningless if Seahawks and Saints win out.)
  1. #3 Seed: Road to SB is three games; likeliest scenario: LA @ GB; GB @ Sea; GB @ NO
  2. #1 Seed: Road to SB is two games, all at GB; likeliest scenario: Bye, TB @ GB; NO @ GB
It's so significant, I think if we get #1 seed we'll get close to 3/2 odds (40% chance in SB); if #3 seed more like 6/1 (14%). We'll see...
 
oakleaf said:
Let me try again... because I'm stubborn. Again, my argument is that #1 seed is important since it provides a big advantage to get to the SB.

Let's assume a very likely regular season finish: Seahawks finish the season beating Rams and 49ers; and Saints finish beating Panthers and Vikings. In that scenario, if Packers beat Chicago they are #1 seed. If they lose, they are #3 seed. (Yes, the Titans game is meaningless if Seahawks and Saints win out.)
  1. #3 Seed: Road to SB is three games; likeliest scenario: LA @ GB; GB @ Sea; GB @ NO
  2. #1 Seed: Road to SB is two games, all at GB; likeliest scenario: Bye, TB @ GB; NO @ GB
It's so significant, I think if we get #1 seed we'll get close to 3/2 odds (40% chance in SB); if #3 seed more like 6/1 (14%). We'll see...
Click to expand...
I don’t want LA at all, in GB of LA or anywhere. I just don’t think there is a dominant team in the NFC and unless you have 90,000 people in Lambeau it’s a wash. I know beating a dead horse. And as to bye I can argue both sides sides of that.
 
Packinatl said:
I don’t want LA at all, in GB of LA or anywhere.
Click to expand...
then you should prefer the #1 seed because there is a less likely chance the packers will have to play them. and really, just simple mathematics tells you that you have a better chance of getting to the superbowl if you only have to win two playoff games to get there than if you have to win three playoff games to get there.
 
realitybytes said:
then you should prefer the #1 seed because there is a less likely chance the packers will have to play them. and really, just simple mathematics tells you that you have a better chance of getting to the superbowl if you only have to win two playoff games to get there than if you have to win three playoff games to get there.
Click to expand...
No I just think matchups are more important this year. I believe you will see more 1st weekend upsets than in the past especially in the NFC due to parity and lack of a true home field advantage
 
Packinatl said:
No I just think matchups are more important this year. I believe you will see more 1st weekend upsets than in the past especially in the NFC due to parity and lack of a true home field advantage
Click to expand...
so all the better if we completely avoid that first round.

oak presented two different scenarios. in one, the packers have to win three playoff games to get to the superbowl, and one of those three games is against the rams - the team you fear the most. in the second scenario, the packers only have to win only two games to get to the super bowl, and the rams are not a likely opponent.

honestly, i'm not as afraid of the rams as you are. they just lost to the previously winless jets with sam darnold as their qb. i will not be surprised if they lose in the first round of the playoffs.

i have seen you say multiple times that you believe there are no dominant teams - except maybe the chiefs, and the next 25 teams are pretty much equal. the good news is that we don't have to face the chiefs in the playoff games leading up to the superbowl. so that means we are playing against teams that are pretty much equal to ours during the playoffs. and if that is the case, then simple probability theory says that we have a much better chance of reaching the superbowl if we only have to win two games as opposed to three. and really, just logic should tell you that one less chance to lose players to injury is a big enough factor alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top