From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:49:16 GMT

In article <26488@optima.cs.arizona.edu> curtis@optima.UUCP (Curtis E. Dyreson) writes:

>From article <1992Nov15.173511.15447@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, by sybesma@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Eric Sybesma):

>>>Consider, for a moment the strings "NNNNNNNN" and "NANANNAA".
>>>Choosing from a random collection of strings of length 8 over
>>>the alphabet {N,A}, what is the probability of choosing each
>>>of the above strings?  Exactly the same.  Yes, it is a mere 
>>>coincidence.

>> Sorry Curtis.  Go back and read your probablility book.  You
>> have assumed that N, A are chosen with identical probability.
>> Given the a posteriori distribution on "NNNNNNNN" one would
>> sensibly alter the estimate of P, the probability of the
>> NFC winning.  Your logic is primitive.

>To show the absurdity of this whole argument, I hereby 
>advance the "Human Mascot Theory."  Teams with Human-like Mascots
>(49ers/Redskins/Giants) have beaten teams with non Human-like
>Mascots (Bengals/Broncos/Bills) in seven of the last eight Super Bowls.
>You would urge me to conclude that there is a 7/8 of a chance (or something
>better than uniform) that a team with a Human-based Mascot will prevail 
>this year.  Even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that 
>having a human based mascot is any factor at all in winning!  It is 
>merely coincidence!  

You are hypothesizing that the recent SB success by the NFC is a fluke,
and that a team's conference has little bearing on its ability to 
contend.  This premise is flawed and leads you to a flawed conclusion.

As for the "NNNNNNNN" vs. "NNANAAAN" (or whatever):  this *might* be
valid if you could attribute any significance to the specific sequence
that you chose.  But of the 2**8 possible sequences, many look much
like the one you chose.  Two look like the first.  *That* makes some
of us look for a reason.

To put it another way, your "NNANAAAN" has no pattern.  The "NNNNNNNN"
does.  While we all can agree that the human/non-human theory is
frivolous, one can make a case for a conference domination.  After all,
it's existed in the past, albeit when the conferences were separate
leagues.

>The contention that "N" is more likely simply in lieu of the
>fact that it is an "N" is exactly what I am contending here.

But no one is contending that.  Merely being in the NFC doesn't make
a team better.  But for _whatever_ reason, most of the better teams
happen to exist in the NFC, and one of them rises above all others in
the course of a season.

>To avert a whole run of random/non-football postings about 
>how to use probabilities, I promise not to respond to any more 
>unreasonable postings on the subject and hereafter will allow the reader 
>to puzzle through the probabilities on their own.

This is an completely worthy thread.  Ducking out will only reinforce
that you're wrong, you know it, and you don't want to admit it.



-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro