From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: The Dynasty Continues..........
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:17:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.161613.11777@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>You are truly insane!  I NEVER said it was easier to win a 
>championship in the 80s.  
You NEVER did? Remember <22060218021621@vms3.macc.wisc.edu>, the message
you sent me on 6/2/92 (paraphse)?

  [    : making playoffs    winning playoffs    winning championship
   60s       .40                 .60                   .24
   80s       .80             .80*.70*.60               .27    ]

   So, possibly, if these percentages are reasonable approximations,
   it was harder to win the championship in the 60s.  At the very least
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   it shows the correct way to calculate the odds as opposed to the way
   you've been doing it.

You fabricated some probablities of making/winning the playoffs, and
deduced that it's harder to win the championship in the 60s. As I pointed
out your numbers do NOT make sense, you get no answer but "you are not
rational that I won't argue with you ...."

Or are you saying that your numbers are not reasonable anymore?

Why don't they make sense?

1) if a team has .80*.70*.60 to win the playoffs, it means it's
the #1 seed in the conference with HFA all the way. What's a team's
probabability of getting the #1 seed in the conference? it can't be
80%. The average prob. is only 1/14, 7%.

2) if a team has 80% chance to make the playoffs, it means just
making the playoffs, probably as the #5/#6 seed, then it doesn't
have 80% chance to win the 1st game and 70% chance to win the
2nd game (both as underdog ON THE ROAD). 

So in order to boost your Packers' greatness of winning championships
in the 60s, you made up some distorted numbers to illustrate that 
it's easier to win championship in the 80s. And now you even deny what
you said.

>My point has *always* been that while it's 
>true that a team has to win more games to be the champion now, this is 
>only because so many teams get into the playoffs.  
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is only the cause of "win more games to be champion now". OK, 
you stated the cause, you didn't say anything about the effect.

If you still don't understand:

 many more teams in the playoffs => win more games to be champion 
   => harder

So your justification "so many teams get into the playoffs" does not
diminish the consequence that it's indeed harder.

>So it's only a matter of personal opinion whether it's harder to 
>win a championship now than in the 60s.
If the numbers say it's harder, then how is it a matter of personal
opinion?

>This argument was a direct result of attempts by people like you to 
>DIMINISH the accomplishments of the 60s Packers on the basis that it 
>was easier to win a championship 60s.  My point is that you can't 
>prove that.
At least I can prove that your reasoning is faulty. 

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro