History tells us that about 3 Division Champions will repeat
This would be relevant if you were making a choice between Repeat and Not Repeat in each division. But that's not what you're doing. You have to pick specific teams.
If I think the probabilities of winning the AFC West are as follows:
Denver 35%
San Diego 30%
Kansas City 25%
Oakland 10%
Then I believe that Denver will probably NOT repeat. But because the Oaksas Diego Raidargiefs aren't listed, Denver is my pick to win the AFC West this year.
Understand this: something wildly unexpected happens every single season. The only way, in my mind, to "completely lose [ones] credibility" would be to predict otherwise.
There is a big, big difference between, on the one hand, predicting that "something wildly unexpected will happen this season" and, on the other hand, picking a specific unexpected thing and predicting that
that will happen.
For example, every single year, some team wins 12 or more games and some other team wins 4 or fewer. Yet the people in Vegas have set every team's over/under between 5 and 11.5 wins. Why is that? It's because there is a difference between saying "some team will win 12+ games" and picking any particular team to win 12+. You can believe that some team will win more than 12 games, but still not think any particular team is better than a 50/50 shot to do it.
The same thing applies with picking the division champs. Picking 7 repeat division winners is not necessarily inconsistent with the belief that only 3 division winners will repeat.
I understand and agree with all of this, and if I were in a contest to maximize the correct number of my predictions, I'd be picking far fewer "upsets".
With that said, my goal wasn't to maximize my correct predictions through risk-adverse behaviors, my goal was to CORRECTLY PREDICT the division champions. If I had to lay money on it, I would bet a substantial chunk of money that MY predictions were more likely to come true than those of the Preseason Publications.
They're sitting there trying to get as few wrong as possible (which I think is, to some extent, intellectual cowardice), while I'm sitting here trying to get as many right as possible. Simply a difference of approach, but like I said, I think the odds are better that I just correctly predicted all 12 playoff teams than they are that the Mags just did.
AFC West- Denver
AFC North- Baltimore
AFC East- Buffalo
AFC South- Jacksonville
AFC Wildcard- Indianapolis
AFC Wildcard- Kansas City
NFC West- Seattle
NFC North- Chicago
NFC East- Dallas
NFC South- Carolina
NFC Wildcard- New York
NFC Wildcard- St. Louis
Do you really think the Bills and Ravens are more likely to win their division than the Dolphins, Patriots, Bengals or Steelers? History would say otherwise, as would the Vegas odds, along with most football fans. You can make quite a bit of money this year though.
I don't think history really suggests otherwise. Like I said, history suggests that there are going to be several really surprising results at the end of the season. I just tried to predict which surprising results would surprise me the least (if that makes any sense). Buffalo and Baltimore have both proven themselves capable of being a truly dominant defense (a la the 2005 Bears), and history has shown that with even mediocre play on the other side of the ball, a team can ride a dominant unit to a championship. Besides, I think both teams have improved offensively over last year (Losman is a year more experienced, and McNair is not Kyle Boller), so with a strong showing by the defense, I don't think it's that hard at all to believe that these teams could be division champions.
As for Miami, New England, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh... New England has been hemorrhaging talent for years and (in my opinion) wouldn't have even made the playoffs last year if they weren't in the AFC East, Pittsburgh has had a horrible offseason and has the potential for a SB hangover, Cincinnati has questions surrounding Palmer and a horrible run defense, and I really don't believe that Miami is anywhere near as good as everyone else seems to think. I wouldn't be surprised to see any of those 4 win their division... but I also wouldn't be surprised to see them NOT win their division.
That is to say, picking the Bills to win the AFC East is very unlikely. Justifying the selection that pick by stating "an unlikely division winner happens every year" is not a solid supporting argument. If you tell me that there will be at least one team with a losing record from 2005 to win a division, I'd probably agree. However I disagree with your choice of team.
I have to admit, I like Buffalo far more than most people- which might be a good sign, because a lot of teams that nobody likes become very good, like the '05 Bears and '04 Chargers. Now, I could pick a team that everyone likes more, but then it wouldn't be a team that no one likes.
Anyway, no, I actually have reasons for liking the Bills. Like I said, I think that the defense is capable of DOMINANCE on the levels of the 2005 Bears or maybe the 2000 Ravens, which is more than enough to make up for shortcomings on offense. I also like them to improve on offense, simply because QBs tend to take a *HUGE* step forward between their first and second years as a starter. Even mediocre QB play, combined with the 2004 Bills Defense, would make the Bills a very huge threat to win the (as I see it) very weak AFC East (which was, in my mind, the second weakest division in the league last year).
Also, I don't get the hate for the Bills QB situation. Losman had a 49.6% completion rate, 5.9 ypa, and a 1:1 TD:Int ratio. In Eli's first season, he had a 48.2% completion rate, 1:1.5 TD:INT ratio, and 5.3 ypa- all three marks worse than Losman's. McGahee has proven himself a very good RB more than capable of carrying the load, too. Lee Evans demonstrated his rookie season that he was a stud, and I think is going to become even better now that he's in his third season. I see a lot of things to like in Buffalo on offense, a lot of reasons to expect them to improve.
I also don't like New England or Miami. I think if you take NE out of the AFC East last year, they miss the playoffs entirely. I also think that too much attention gets paid to Miami's 6-game winning streak to end the season, and not enough to the 6 games themselves.
This is all well and good ... but all that really means is that everyone pretty much sucks at predicting outcomes of NFL seasons. Hardly anyone ever gets the division titleists correct, and hardly anyone gets the Super Bowl matchup/champion correct.The only way to get it all correct is to walk out on that thin branch and pick some crazy stuff. Sure, you'll probably still be wrong ... but picking safe across the board seems to guarantee being wrong. What happened last year never seems to repeat across the board ... so why pick safe if your goal is 100% accuracy? Or is 100% accuracy not the goal of predictions, as it is already assumed that predictions will be wrong to some degree?
SSOG: I don't have a comment about your "crazy" predictions. Why Chiefs over the Chargers for the wildcard?
Contrary to popular opinion, I think the Chiefs were a better team than the Chargers last year, and I think it's a slap in their faces that the Chargers get all the love as the "best team to ever miss the playoffs". The Chargers lost 3 of their last 4 games- including games at home against an overrated (in my opinion) Miami squad, a game to Kansas City itself, and a game in week 17 that was meaningless to the Broncos, but which Schottenheimer prepared the Chargers for like it was their superbowl or something (reminds me of Buffalo losing to Pittsburgh at the end of '04). I think they're both good, but I like KC's stability over SD's changing of the guard at QB, and I like the fact that KC has a full season of Larry Johnson 24/7.
My point is: if you think Baltimore and Buffalo are the most likely teams to win their respective divisions' date=' then pick Baltimore and Buffalo. But if you don't, then you absolutely positively will NOT improve your chances of getting 100% your picks right by filling them in just because you need a couple of 3s in there somewhere.[/quote']I think Baltimore and Buffalo are the most likely teams to win their respective divisions- or, at the least, I think that they have an equal shot at it as several other teams (Cincy, Pitt, and New England).
This would seem more indicative of a TREND than History.
