MIKE PUCKETT SENDS THIS FROM GEORGE ORWELL:

It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon–so long as there is no answer to it–gives claws to the weak.

So where does Twitter fit in?

AND he was right all along on Egypt, at least acording to the drive by media.  And his SB prediction was on the money as well.  He CORRECTLY picked that either Pittsburgh or Green Bay would win by one or more points.

The man is TRULY a genius.

edit to correct evaluation based on data entry error

THAT didn't take long.  The current eight owners have played 201 post season games (remember we have some defunct teams.) That's an average of 12+ per owner which isn't NEARLY enough to overcome the luck factor. As currently constituted we'd need 113 games for the skill factor to kick in. That'll take another 31 seasons for the owner who's been there the most.

Interestingly (to me anyway) the SD of the post season WP s about the same as regular season (.06+) but instead of a dominant team (+2SDs)  with everybody else within 1 SD there is one team at -2SD, one at -1SD and the rest within 1SD.  

Basically this confirms the thoughts of many writers and players. It takes skill to MAKE the playoffs consistently … but luck can win it all. Going back over five seasons the SB winner of The League has had a RB score above his average EVERY week but one! But of course it takes SOME skill to have that hot RB on your roster AND in your lineup IMHO.

EDIT: Don caught a data entry error which changes some of the math ...I've left the erroneous data in and added the correct data.

Assume a game of PURE luck. Tossing a coin. While in 10 flips you might get 7 heads and 3 tails, as the number of tosses increases the outcome should get closer to the expected 50/50 split.

Assume a game of PURE skill. The best team will ALWAYS win. 100%. Regardless of the number of attempts.

Now assume a football game. WJHS vs Packers. IF football was PURELY a game of luck the high schoolers would win half the time. How about Packers vs Panthers? If football was PURELY a game of skill the Packers would win every time. Nobody thinks that would happen.

Conclusion: football is a mix of luck and skill, pretty close to 50/50.

According to the law of large numbers, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed. It has occasionally been called the piling on theory.

Assume that the match up between any two professional players is 49.9% luck and 50.1% skill. A VERY small difference. But there are 11 such match ups every play. That small difference is now a bit larger. And there are about 60 plays in any given NFL game. So that small difference is magnified even more. And there are sixteen games during the season again increasing the effect of that small skill impact. And the more you observe, the more that skill difference is in evidence. Let's put the Packers against WJHS again. On any given play the HS defender might be able to outplay his professional counterpart. A slip on the turf, a bad instinct … it could happen. But the odds of it happening often enough, in every match up, out of every play, to effect the outcome of the game, is improbable. Why? Because beside the Law of Large Numbers there's also a lttle real world thang called The Regression to the Mean. It's why flipping a coin approaches a 50/50 outcome the more times you flip the coin. If player A is 20% better than player B he should win six out of every 10 match ups. If player B wins the first four match ups one would expect Player A to eventually take charge and dominate, in order to revert to the mean. IMHO hot and cold streaks in sports are really nothing more than a regression to the mean.

Which bring us to fantasy football. IF the game were pure luck we'd all have .500 records, with peaks and valleys along the way, before regressing to the mean as large numbers take hold. We don't.  So let's start small. The scoring of any given player any given week is a pretty close mix of luck and skill. I'll gladly place a hand picked line up against a random one, week in and week out all season long. I'll win more than I lose. Maybe not by much, but I'll win. And matching a well selected line up vs a poorly selected one will give me even more wins. Not EVERY game, but more than half. Think bad beats in poker. If I start a hand of Texas Hold 'em with AsAc and my opponent starts with 2h7d I have an 87.24% chance of winning. Not 100%. But I'd MUCH rather play with AsAc (Tom Brady or Peyton Manning) than 2h7d (Mark Sanchez or Ryan Fitzpatrick.) Actually Sanchez only outscored Manning three times over 16 games so he's more like deuce-seven suited! Not all matchups in EITHER game is that extreme. Play AK suited vs a pait of deuces. It's less than .17% difference. Think Matt Cassel vs Schaub. But as we get more and more match ups the better team is somewhat more likely to win. And over the course of a given season the better team is more likely to win more games. And over the span of a career the better team will win more games. IF this was a game of luck, then we'd all be around 50/50 and the longer we played the more likely we'd approach this. But that isn't happening.

We've played 26 seasons. The average current owner has played just over 13 seasons. That's over 165 games. Using the Tangotiger regression (Variance(skill) = variance(observed) – variance(luck) ) and the current winning % of our current owners I can safely say that our league outcome is due about 61% to skill and about 39% to luck. (the data error correction took out the extraneous decimal points) That's CAREER numbers, not any given player, game or season. The point where skill can finally be said to overcome luck in our league? As currently constituted it's 133 129 games, which means Ewing and Bechtol are still in the “testing” stage although that should end in 2011 for Eric. Everybody else is sinking or swimming based predominantly on skill. And the longer you've been playing the bigger factor skill (or lack of same) plays.

Next post: Playoffs.

And if you're interested in the math you can go here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34523191/Untangling-Skill-and-Luck-Michael-Mauboussin

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/08/luck-and-nfl-outcomes.html

edit note:  the error I had made was giving bonuse consideration for participation in the SB.  Average WP is 50%.  SD is .0623.  Two owners have >1SD, two owners have >-1SD.  cf correction on the subsequet post, and thanks for the correction Don.  Numbers still say the same thing only better.

1.  Packers to win, Steelers to cover?  One outta two ain't bad and as you'll see later, the Steelers SHOULDA covered but not for the you might think.

2.  Maybe next year they'll let, I don't know, a SINGER (!?) do it?

3.  I normally have no problem with the Buck - Aikman team but they were in preseason form last night. 

4.  Ads seemed down a bit.  Loved the Darth Vader ad.  Doritos were just creepy.  I still don't like Detroit OR emenemenemenem. Chevy hit some home runs (Tommy and Ms. Evelyn).  I actually LIKE the groupon product but found the ads offensive.

Next post - why the Packers shoulda GONE for it on 4th an goal iside 3 minutes

You want to dig up Charles Martel and ask him why him why he was fighting the Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732? You want to ask the Venetian fleet at Lepanto why they were fighting a Muslim fleet in 1571? You want to ask ... the Germanic and Austrian knights why they were fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683? You want to ask people what happened at Constantinople and why today it is called Istanbul because they lost that fight in 1453?

Lt. Col. Allen West, R-Fla

There have been some GREAT SB's and some not so great, but this post will look at the uni matchup.  See, there have also been some pretty ones, and some ugly ones.

for instance: this year matches two teams in yellow pants for only the second time.  The first?  Super Bowl XIV AND it's the second time that both teams will be using stencil style endzone.  The first?  Super Bowl IX

Ugliest games?  Super Bowl XI — Purple and silver. Yuck. The game would have been much better with black Raider jerseys and white Viking unis, but alas it did not fall on the right year

Super Bowl XV — A lot of things went wrong here for me. Silver predominates, and I just don’t think of the Eagles as a team who belongs in silver pants. The Philly sleeve stripes are a mess and the pant stripes aren’t much better

Super Bowl XXXI — Did this game feature perhaps the best jersey in the NFL? Yes. Did it also feature a team that didn’t look like they belong in the NFL? Yes. Those garish Pats jerseys looked like the MLB turn ahead the clock promotion vomited onto an NFL shoulder pad. The overwhelming ugliness of the Patriots (what is with that number font?) drags this one really low. The bottom was only avoided by the beauty of Green Bay.

Three best?  Well, I'm kinda partial to Super Bowl XLIV but realistically lets go

Super Bowl I — This is a very nice beginning to America’s favorite game. The packers look great in their classic jerseys, complete with full sleeve stripes. I also think that the red of the Chiefs plays nicely off the green of the Pack. If you don’t like this match-up, you are as drunk as Max McGee was the night before the game.

Super Bowl X — I dislike BOTH of these teams but theyARE classics. The only Super Bowl match-up to happen three times was beautiful the first go round. Some of the photos make the Cowboys pants look more blue, but generally they still don’t look like they do now days. Generally, this was a game between two classic teams in their classic jerseys.  See also Super Bowl XIII and Super Bowl XXX.  

And finally I'll go with Super Bowl VII — This match-up is a perfect example of some classic 1970’s looks. Those yellow pants on the Skins look great. Also, big bonus for the beautiful LA Coliseum in the background. Perfect season ending in a perfect location.

HUGE tip to Phil over at Uniwatch.com

Back in '09 I did a post on where I've watched the SB.  I;ve watched all but one but could only recall some. 

43.  Brommers.  Insipid chatter about the fact that Rooney is nicknamed "The Chief".  Nobody appreciated my pointing out half a dozen other people nuicknamed "The Chief".  Steelers over the Cardinals in another great game.

44.   Back to G&Ts in Hilliard.  SAINTS WIN!!!!!!  GLORIOUS

Which brings us to 45.  Think I'm gonna drive home and watch with dad. Haven't watched one with him on over 30 years. 

Throw rocks, burn [stuff], scream in protest, and beat the press up in a foreign country and the US media calls you, "A people's movement unhappy with the government." Wear patriotic costumes, show silly signs, carry an American flag, and drink tea at your protest party, and the US media calls you racist.