Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SouthernJet

I'm 61, When will Jets win next SuperBowl?

I'm 61, When will Jets win next SuperBowl?  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. I'm 61, When will Jets win next SuperBowl?

    • While I can still know whats happening and enjoy it?
      14
    • While JGB's is changing my Diaper whilst I live on his Living Room couch
      4
    • I am on the wrong side of dirt?
      14


Recommended Posts

When will it happen? 

I saw SB III with my Dad when I was 16. Little did i realize I would have a wife, 3 kids, 5 grandkids and 42 years with IBM next month before I have seen another :(

 

Vote your choice...............

Edited by SouthernJet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's think about it mathematically. There are 32 teams. 100/32 * 100% = 3.125% chance to win in a given year. So then there is a 96.875% chance of not winning the Superbowl in any year. You can multiply the 96.875% by itself for each year to determine the chances we will not win it that many times in a row.

 

Odds of going this long without winning

  • 1 year:   96.875%
  • 3 years: 90.9%
  • 5 years: 85.3%
  • 7 years: 80.0%
  • 10 years (probably when you'll be in diapers): 72.8%
  • 16 years (which correlates to the avg USA male life expectancy of 77 years): 60.2%

If you live to the expected age of 77 years, you've got about a 40% shot of seeing them win. It doesn't go above 50% until you'll be 83. So you better eat right and exercise!

Edited by jgb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will it happen? 

I saw SB III with my Dad when I was 16. Little did i realize I would have a wife, 3 kids, 5 grandkids and 42 years with IBM next month before I have seen another :(

 

Vote your choice...............

This year buddy. You felt a "tremor in the force" remember? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's think about it mathematically. There are 32 teams. 100/32 * 100% = 3.125% chance to win in a given year. So then there is a 96.875% chance of not winning the Superbowl in any year. You can multiply the 96.875% by itself for each year to determine the chances we will not win it that many times in a row.

 

Odds of going this long without winning

  • 1 year:   96.875%
  • 3 years: 90.9%
  • 5 years: 85.3%
  • 7 years: 80.0%
  • 10 years (probably when you'll be in diapers): 72.8%
  • 16 years (which correlates to the avg USA male life expectancy of 77 years): 60.2%
If you live to the expected age of 77 years, you've got about a 40% shot of seeing them win. It doesn't go above 50% until you'll be 83. So you better eat right and exercise!

I'm pretty sure statistics don't work that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure statistics don't work that way

 

well stats can't account for the jets miserable luck, horrid mismanagement, and joe willy's deal with the devil. it can only tell you the chance of something happen with a lot of assumptions made: that all teams have an equal chance each year, which we obviously know isn't true. basically, this analysis is what would happen if you rolled a 32-sided die, what are chances of a certain number of rolls going by without your number coming up.

 

the reality is SJ would probably have to live to Methusala age to see a jets' title, but trying to give the old man some hope :)

Edited by jgb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's think about it mathematically. There are 32 teams. 100/32 * 100% = 3.125% chance to win in a given year. So then there is a 96.875% chance of not winning the Superbowl in any year. You can multiply the 96.875% by itself for each year to determine the chances we will not win it that many times in a row.

 

Odds of going this long without winning

  • 1 year:   96.875%
  • 3 years: 90.9%
  • 5 years: 85.3%
  • 7 years: 80.0%
  • 10 years (probably when you'll be in diapers): 72.8%
  • 16 years (which correlates to the avg USA male life expectancy of 77 years): 60.2%

If you live to the expected age of 77 years, you've got about a 40% shot of seeing them win. It doesn't go above 50% until you'll be 83. So you better eat right and exercise!

 

Mathematically, this isn't really right for a couple of reasons:

 

1.  There haven't always been 32 teams.

 

2.  In any given year there are teams like the 2012 or 2013 Jets that have no realistic chance before the season even began.  In other words, while both the 2013 Jets and 2013 Seahawks are each 1 of 32 NFL teams, they do not each have 1 in 32 chances of winning the superbowl.  The Seahawks' chances were greater than 1/32 and the Jets' chances were less.  Every year the Jets have a realistic shot, their odds are better than 1/32 since there weren't 31 other teams with realistic chances in each one of those seasons.

 

This coming year, for example, the Raiders will not be competing for a superbowl.  Within a couple of weeks into September (if it takes that long) you can mentally cross out a number of teams.  If you cross out 8 of them, and one of them isn't the Jets, then we're 1 of 24 teams with an actual shot rather than 1 of 32 teams.

 

Of course this goes out the window when we're one of those teams (like the past 2 Jets' teams that were gutted by injuries, paying the piper on previous salary cap excesses, and betting on some high-priced players that proved unworthy of this team commitment).  If you don't have the players, you don't have a 1/32 chance like pulling a winning ball out of a container of 32 numbers.

Summary:  your dad is f*cked.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathematically, this isn't really right for a couple of reasons:

 

1.  There haven't always been 32 teams.

 

2.  In any given year there are teams like the 2012 or 2013 Jets that have no realistic chance before the season even began.  In other words, while both the 2013 Jets and 2013 Seahawks are each 1 of 32 NFL teams, they do not each have 1 in 32 chances of winning the superbowl.  The Seahawks' chances were greater than 1/32 and the Jets' chances were less.  Every year the Jets have a realistic shot, their odds are better than 1/32 since there weren't 31 other teams with realistic chances in each one of those seasons.

 

This coming year, for example, the Raiders will not be competing for a superbowl.  Within a couple of weeks into September (if it takes that long) you can mentally cross out a number of teams.  If you cross out 8 of them, and one of them isn't the Jets, then we're 1 of 24 teams with an actual shot rather than 1 of 32 teams.

 

Of course this goes out the window when we're one of those teams (like the past 2 Jets' teams that were gutted by injuries, paying the piper on previous salary cap excesses, and betting on some high-priced players that proved unworthy of this team commitment).  If you don't have the players, you don't have a 1/32 chance like pulling a winning ball out of a container of 32 numbers.

Summary:  your dad is f*cked.  

 

the math is correct but it will not be accurate over short timeframes, however over long periods of time (perhaps 100+ years), it is a reasonably safe assumption that injuries, bad coaching, etc would even out and affect all teams relatively the same.

 

this started as a joke, it is amusing that people actually want to have a discussion about statistics here. first time i haven't been appauled by my fellow JN posters :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the math is correct but it will not be accurate over short timeframes, however over long periods of time (perhaps 100+ years), it is a reasonably safe assumption that injuries, bad coaching, etc would even out and affect all teams relatively the same.

 

this started as a joke, it is amusing that people actually want to have a discussion about statistics here. first time i haven't been appauled by my fellow JN posters :)

 

Im in, I am a statistician.

 

As long as Rex is the coach, the probability of the Jets winning, given Rex HC = about 1/128 = 0.78125% chance of winning the SB.

 

I give the fan base about 5 more years of Rexcuses, before they turn on him and demand a non average coach.

 

Problem is, Woodrow will likely still be the owner, so the probability does not go up. I would stick with the probability in a given year for the Jets of 1/128 forever for purposes of these statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im in, I am a statistician.

 

As long as Rex is the coach, the probability of the Jets winning, given Rex HC = about 1/128 = 0.78125% chance of winning the SB.

 

I give the fan base about 5 more years of Rexcuses, before they turn on him and demand a non average coach.

 

Problem is, Woodrow will likely still be the owner, so the probability does not go up. I would stick with the probability in a given year for the Jets of 1/128 forever for purposes of these statistics.

 

hard to argue. jets aren't winning with rex. so if you want to see a jets title, you need to root for rex to get the boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hard to argue. jets aren't winning with rex. so if you want to see a jets title, you need to root for rex to get the boot.

 

Problem is I have no faith that Herman or Woodrow will pick someone who can win it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the math is correct but it will not be accurate over short timeframes, however over long periods of time (perhaps 100+ years), it is a reasonably safe assumption that injuries, bad coaching, etc would even out and affect all teams relatively the same.

 

this started as a joke, it is amusing that people actually want to have a discussion about statistics here. first time i haven't been appauled by my fellow JN posters :)

 

No, over long periods it would still be less than 1/32 any season. Every year there are multiple teams that had no realistic shot.  Who those teams are may change from one year to the next, but it is a constant.  A mid-90s Bengals team did not have a 1/28 chance even though they were 1 of 28 teams.

 

And I didn't mean to paul you.  I don't even know who paul is, really, but I promise that wasn't my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, over long periods it would still be less than 1/32 any season. Every year there are multiple teams that had no realistic shot.  Who those teams are may change from one year to the next, but it is a constant.  A mid-90s Bengals team did not have a 1/28 chance even though they were 1 of 28 teams.

 

And I didn't mean to paul you.  I don't even know who paul is, really, but I promise that wasn't my intention.

 

my point is over many years it doesn't matter if any individual year is 1/32 or not, some years will be more, some less, but the larger the sample size, the greater the likelihood that the average chance per year is around 1/32 and the more unlikely that an individual team lies outside of that by more than a standard deviation, but my ti-86 hasn't had batteries in it for 15 years so i don't know what that is exactly.

Edited by jgb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would we be able to tell the difference?

Not me, LOL.,.Him having to change me.. although I assume he'd have his Maid do it..

 

Note to self: Have JGBs hire a 21 yr old Maid in French Maid outfit

Edited by SouthernJet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point is over many years it doesn't matter if any individual year is 1/32 or not, some years will be more, some less, but the larger the sample size, the greater the likelihood that the average chance per year is around 1/32 and the more unlikely that an individual team lies outside of that by more than a standard deviation, but my ti-86 hasn't had batteries in it for 15 years so i don't know what that is exactly.

 

There weren't 32 teams when your ti-86 had batteries.  

 

Even still, I don't believe theoretical chances equates to actual chances.  Theoretically, any team any year could go 16-0.  In reality, though, we know that it's an absurd statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There weren't 32 teams when your ti-86 had batteries.  

 

Even still, I don't believe theoretical chances equates to actual chances.  Theoretically, any team any year could go 16-0.  In reality, though, we know that it's an absurd statement.

 

 

This is why we put probabilities on things and look at distributions, and study things like tails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There weren't 32 teams when your ti-86 had batteries.  

 

Even still, I don't believe theoretical chances equates to actual chances.  Theoretically, any team any year could go 16-0.  In reality, though, we know that it's an absurd statement.

 

this is forward-looking my friend when there are 32 teams if more are added, you change the %.  you don't need a math degree to figure out the chance of the 1995 jets winning the SB is 0%, because like they didn't and stuff. how would you calculate the odds of the jets winning the SB within the next 20 years except using this method? betting on one year, yes this method sucks. but over the long term coaches/owners/players/etc will be different you have to rely on statistics.

 

all this aside, a better analysis is probably based on the chances of making the playoffs. a team can get hot ala the ravens 2 years ago and blow the odds out of the water for a short span of games. math can be beaten in the short term, if you've been to vegas you know this. but math always wins in the long term, if you've been to vegas you know this also.

Edited by jgb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is forward-looking my friend when there are 32 teams if more are added, you change the %. who cares about what the chances of the 1995 jets winning the SB were? we already know what happened.

 

You made an original calculation based on their being 32 teams in each of the seasons played since the lone SB win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why we put probabilities on things and look at distributions, and study things like tails.

 

No doubt.  But saying each team each year has a 1/32 chance of winning a superbowl is ludicrous even if it seems to be the case on paper.  Like I said earlier, you don't win a SB because your ping pong ball was the 1 out of 32 selected.  In practical terms it's closer to an NBA lottery pick.  Some teams have better chances than others, among those actually in the running.  The rest have no chance at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



×