Is Being a #1 Seed That Big Of An Advantage? (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

In the past 10 years, only 2 #1 seeds went on to win the SB . . . and only 1 in the past 9 years. Number 1 seeds have gone a paltry 2-7 in the SB in that time, with last season being the only time in that 10 year span in which at least one top seed did not reach the SB.

2008 Steelers (2) defeated Cardinals (4), Score: 27-23

2007 Giants (5) defeated Patriots (1), Score: 17-14

2006 Colts (3) defeated Bears (1), Score: 29-17

2005 Steelers (6) defeated Seahawks (1), Score: 21-10

2004 Patriots (2) defeated Eagles (1), Score: 24-21

2003 Patriots (1) defeated Panthers (3), Score: 32-29

2002 Buccaneers (2) defeated Raiders (1), Score: 48-21

2001 Patriots (2) defeated Rams (1), Score: 20-17

2000 Ravens (4) defeated Giants (1), Score: 34-7

1999 Rams (1) defeated Titans (3), Score: 23-16

Is getting the top seed in a conference worth its weight in gold as it's been made out to be? Is not getting a top seed so undesirable?

In the last 10 years, 4 teams won the title without the benefit of having a first round bye. Three others made it to the big game and lost while having to play an extra game.

Clearly the numbers still show that top seeds have done far better getting to the SB over the past decade, and you have to be in it to win it:

Seed #1 9 of 20

Seed #2 4 of 20

Seed #3 3 of 20

Seed #4 2 of 20

Seed #5 1 of 20

Seed #6 1 of 20

But looking at the teams that actually won the SB:

Seed #1 2

Seed #2 4

Seed #3 1

Seed #4 1

Seed #5 1

Seed #6 1

Obviously teams will continue to battle every year to lock up home field advantage throughout the playoffs . . . but is that really the great advantage it was once thought to be?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Not trying to detract from the main topic here, but I do find it interesting that four of those seven number 1 seeds that lost in the Super Bowl were underdogs to the lower seeds, two of which were wild card teams (Baltimore in '00 and Pittsburgh in '05).

 

[Chase Stuart]

Considering that there are 12 playoff teams each year and 2 #1 seeds each year, being the #1 seed sounds better than not being the #1 seed if the #1 seeds are winning SBs 20% of the time.

 

[fantasysharkctb]

No.

 

[David Yudkin]

Considering that there are 12 playoff teams each year and 2 #1 seeds each year, being the #1 seed sounds better than not being the #1 seed if the #1 seeds are winning SBs 20% of the time.

If every seed had an even chance to win the SB, the expected win rate would be 16.7% for each seed. Winning only 20% is not that much better than the basic mathematical expected outcome (and in fact the closest result to the expected return).

 

[awesomeness]

The advantage (home field) that the #1 seed gets lasts only until they get to the superbowl. At that point, neither team has an external advantage given to them.

By the numbers you presented, #1 seeds have a 45% chance of making it to the superbowl, the next best seed has a 20% chance of making it to the superbowl. So the numbers, as well as common logic, both suggest that having the #1 seed is a significant advantage.

 

[David Yudkin]

Looking at the prior 10 year block:

1998 Broncos (1) defeated Falcons (2), Score: 34-19

1997 Broncos (4) defeated Packers (2), Score: 31-24

1996 Packers (1) defeated Patriots (2), Score: 35-21

1995 Cowboys (1) defeated Steelers (2), Score: 27-17

1994 49ers (1) defeated Chargers (2), Score: 49-26

1993 Cowboys (1) defeated Bills (1), Score: 30-13

1992 Cowboys (2) defeated Bills (3), Score: 52-17

1991 Redskins (1) defeated Bills (1), Score: 37-24

1990 Giants (2) defeated Bills (1), Score: 20-19

1989 49ers (1) defeated Broncos (1), Score: 55-10

A #1 seed won 7 times. Perhaps more noteworthy was that only 2 of the 20 teams made it to the SB without earning a week one playoff bye. Compare that to the most recent 10 year period when 7 teams played an extra week and still made it. 11 of 20 top seeds made it, but clearly there was a huge advantage being a 1 or 2 seed.

 

[kaa]

Is getting the top seed in a conference worth its weight in gold as it's been made out to be? Is not getting a top seed so undesirable?

I always thought HFA mattered more 2-3 decades ago, when revenues were not as high as now. I know Art Modell wanted the parking and concession revenue by the Browns playing at home in the playoffs back in the 1980s. Nowadays, I'm not sure the revenue aspect is as big of a concern. As far as it being an on-field advantage, I'm not sure that was ever a real consideration.

 

[MaddHatter]

Yes, their is an advantage because of homefield.

No, the other teams are not at a true disadvantage. It is more of a way to create order.

 

[SSOG]

What is the home-team winning percentage in the playoffs over the last 10 years? Because that should tell us just how much of an advantage home-field advantage has been recently.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Yes its a big advantage but you still have to play the game.

 

[David Yudkin]

What is the home-team winning percentage in the playoffs over the last 10 years? Because that should tell us just how much of an advantage home-field advantage has been recently.

Here are the numbers from the past 10 years, but there seems to have been a significant shift over the last few years compared to the earlier ones.Year, Playoff Round, Total Record2008, 2-2, 1-3, 2-0, 5-52007, 2-2, 2-2. 1-1, 5-52006, 4-0, 2-2, 2-0, 8-22005, 1-3, 2-2, 1-1, 4-62004, 1-3, 4-0, 1-1, 6-42003, 3-1, 2-2, 1-1. 6-42002, 3-1, 4-0, 1-1, 8-22001, 3-1, 3-1, 1-1, 7-32000, 4-0, 3-1, 1-1, 8-21999, 3-1, 3-1, 1-1, 7-310 years: 26-14, 26-14, 12-8, 64-36Last 5 years: 10-10, 11-9, 7-3, 28-22First 5 years: 16-4, 15-5, 5-5, 36-141989-1998: 27-13, 33-7, 13-7The second round used to be a slam dunk home victory, but that's where things have changed the most.

 

[Topes]

In the past 10 years,

Why the small sample size? The field has been 12 teams since 1990. Twenty years of data are available. Free agency?

 

[David Yudkin]

In the past 10 years,

Why the small sample size? The field has been 12 teams since 1990. Twenty years of data are available. Free agency?

I listed 10 more years for a total of 20 years later in the thread.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

The NFL isn't as top heavy as it used to be. It's more about getting hot in January than having the dominant talent/schemes. I think the real takeaway is that the #1 seeds aren't THAT much better than the field anymore.

 

[Unlucky]

The NFL isn't as top heavy as it used to be. It's more about getting hot in January than having the dominant talent/schemes. I think the real takeaway is that the #1 seeds aren't THAT much better than the field anymore.

If you're wondering how important the bye is, you should lump the #1 and #2 seeds together. They are winning 60% of the Superbowls in the last 10 years, and 75% of the Superbowls over the last 20 years, but are only 33% of the teams in the field. So I'd say getting the 1st round bye IS important, although it's been declining slightly in importance due to league parity.

 

[CaptainHook]

9 out of 20 made the super bowl... enough said

 

[CaptainHook]

The NFL isn't as top heavy as it used to be. It's more about getting hot in January than having the dominant talent/schemes. I think the real takeaway is that the #1 seeds aren't THAT much better than the field anymore.

If you're wondering how important the bye is, you should lump the #1 and #2 seeds together. They are winning 60% of the Superbowls in the last 10 years, and 75% of the Superbowls over the last 20 years, but are only 33% of the teams in the field. So I'd say getting the 1st round bye IS important, although it's been declining slightly in importance due to league parity.

it can be illustrated easily by considering perfect parity that parity makes attaining a first round bye much more important because it means one less 50/50 flip.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Any updates here? The biggest part about being the 1-seed is getting to the Super Bowl.

And being the No. 1 seed is a huge deal to teams that have a much better home field advantage; so not all no. 1 seeds are created equal.

 

[Breesisdaman]

If the Bronco's were and NFC team they would have been a #6 seed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If the Bronco's were and NFC team they would have been a #6 seed.

Looking back at it, the Saints with the 9ers have an excellent argument for having been the 2nd best team in the league, and frankly I could have seen them and Carolina as well as maybe Arizona and even Green Bay as being better than nearly all AFC teams too.

The NFC has the quarterbacks and the defenses now, wow.

But being the No. 1 seed and getting that home field advantage will be a huge part of Seattle, NO, SF, and NE getting back to the SB.

I don't think all teams have the same kind of home field advantage though. Curious to see how SF's new stadium works out though.

 

[habsfan]

If you are a team with a significant difference in your home/road record, then yes.

 

[Assani Fisher]

In the past 10 years, only 2 #1 seeds went on to win the SB . . . and only 1 in the past 9 years. Number 1 seeds have gone a paltry 2-7 in the SB in that time, with last season being the only time in that 10 year span in which at least one top seed did not reach the SB.

2008 Steelers (2) defeated Cardinals (4), Score: 27-23

2007 Giants (5) defeated Patriots (1), Score: 17-14

2006 Colts (3) defeated Bears (1), Score: 29-17

2005 Steelers (6) defeated Seahawks (1), Score: 21-10

2004 Patriots (2) defeated Eagles (1), Score: 24-21

2003 Patriots (1) defeated Panthers (3), Score: 32-29

2002 Buccaneers (2) defeated Raiders (1), Score: 48-21

2001 Patriots (2) defeated Rams (1), Score: 20-17

2000 Ravens (4) defeated Giants (1), Score: 34-7

1999 Rams (1) defeated Titans (3), Score: 23-16

Is getting the top seed in a conference worth its weight in gold as it's been made out to be? Is not getting a top seed so undesirable?

In the last 10 years, 4 teams won the title without the benefit of having a first round bye. Three others made it to the big game and lost while having to play an extra game.

Clearly the numbers still show that top seeds have done far better getting to the SB over the past decade, and you have to be in it to win it:

Seed #1 9 of 20

Seed #2 4 of 20

Seed #3 3 of 20

Seed #4 2 of 20

Seed #5 1 of 20

Seed #6 1 of 20

But looking at the teams that actually won the SB:

Seed #1 2

Seed #2 4

Seed #3 1

Seed #4 1

Seed #5 1

Seed #6 1

Obviously teams will continue to battle every year to lock up home field advantage throughout the playoffs . . . but is that really the great advantage it was once thought to be?

The sample size of seasons needed in order for this to be meaningful statistical analysis is several orders of magnitude greater than we will ever have. A much better way to gauge the value of any seed is to quantify the value of each advantage a higher seed provides. I'd be surprised if others haven't already done this by using the efficiency of the NFL betting market as a guide.

 

[ghostguy123]

The advantage (home field) that the #1 seed gets lasts only until they get to the superbowl. At that point, neither team has an external advantage given to them.

By the numbers you presented, #1 seeds have a 45% chance of making it to the superbowl, the next best seed has a 20% chance of making it to the superbowl. So the numbers, as well as common logic, both suggest that having the #1 seed is a significant advantage.

RIght. The actual super bowl itself should not be factored into this at all. GETTING to the super bowl is what matter for the discussion of being a #1 seed.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you are a team with a significant difference in your home/road record, then yes.

Or if the team you are playing also has a significant difference.

 

[Assani Fisher]

If you are a team with a significant difference in your home/road record, then yes.

Or if the team you are playing also has a significant difference.

Again, this(both posts I quoted) is vastly overrating a small sample size. All teams are helped by home/road roughly evenly with slight differences for extreme conditions(i.e. Seattle has slightly better HFA due to loud crowd, many cold weather teams have bigger HFAs in the snow, etc.). That a team might happen to show an aversion to the normal home/road disparity over the course of a 16 game sample size is something that can be chalked up to nothing more than variance, and the math behind the standard deviations of such cases existing(at the rate at which they do exist) points towards variance being the sole factor in all but extreme cases.

 

[habsfan]

If you are a team with a significant difference in your home/road record, then yes.

Or if the team you are playing also has a significant difference.

Again, this(both posts I quoted) is vastly overrating a small sample size. All teams are helped by home/road roughly evenly with slight differences for extreme conditions(i.e. Seattle has slightly better HFA due to loud crowd, many cold weather teams have bigger HFAs in the snow, etc.). That a team might happen to show an aversion to the normal home/road disparity over the course of a 16 game sample size is something that can be chalked up to nothing more than variance, and the math behind the standard deviations of such cases existing(at the rate at which they do exist) points towards variance being the sole factor in all but extreme cases.

Except it's not. Here's home/road splits since 2002:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8480043/franchise-home-road-splits-2002

 

[DropKick]

Without looking at any short term or even data over the long run, common sense would say that the chances of getting to the SB with a bye is significantly easier than not having a bye.

You only have to win two games instead of three. You have little to no travel. You have a chance to get healthy - and one less game to lose players to injury. And you have home field advantage.

There are always going to be variables - such as teams with a rash of late season injuries that just aren't playing at the same level as their record indicates.

The only negative to a week off is "momentum". That and other intangibles such as playing too cautiously or playing with nothing to lose can have an impact on a game that can be emotion based.