Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Official Game Day Thread: Super Bowl XLV - Packers vs. Steelers - 2/6: WIN 31 - 25
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LombardiChick" data-source="post: 334829" data-attributes="member: 3669"><p>Hat tip to our Packer brethren on ESPN: </p><p><strong><a href="http://www.news.pitt.edu/news/Super-Bowl-Packers-unlucky" target="_blank">Pitt Researchers Find 2010 Packers One of the Unluckiest Pro Football Teams in the Past 30 Years</a></strong></p><p></p><p><strong><em>Analysis of NFL regular-season records since 1978 reveals that the 2010 Green Bay Packers lost their games by the narrowest margins in history, which, by the statistical theory that close games are decided by luck more than skill, makes them the second-most hapless team after the 1999 Oakland Raiders </em></strong></p><p> <em> </em></p><p><em>Feb 2, 2011</em></p><p><em><strong>PITTSBURGH—</strong>As contenders in Super Bowl XLV, the Green Bay Packers are clearly skilled—but are they lucky enough to triumph on Feb. 6? </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Maybe not. </em></p><p></p><p> <em>University of Pittsburgh engineers crunched the regular-season records of every National Football League team since 1978—when the 16-game schedule began—and found that chance has smiled on the 2010 Packers less often than on any other team except the 1999 Oakland Raiders. All six regular-season losses by the sixth-seeded Packers were by fewer than four points, a consistently narrow margin that may denote the handiwork of misfortune more than a shortage of talent, the researchers say. </em></p><p></p><p> <em><strong><a href="http://www.ie.pitt.edu/%7Eschaefer/" target="_blank">Andrew Schaefer</a></strong>, an associate professor of industrial engineering in Pitt’s Swanson School of Engineering, and Pitt industrial engineering sophomore <strong>Dylan Davis</strong> based their analysis on existing statistical research that suggests that the outcome of a close game—defined as a loss by fewer than 10 points—is most often decided by luck, that unknown or unpredictable factor that tips the game toward one team or the other. </em></p><p></p><p> <em>“By this one particular definition of ‘luck’, the 2010 Packers appear to be the number six seed team through bad luck alone—no other team has lost so many games by such a very narrow margin,” Schaefer said. “Whether one blames bad luck or not, they definitely appear to be one of the strongest 10-6 teams in NFL history.” </em></p><p><em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LombardiChick, post: 334829, member: 3669"] Hat tip to our Packer brethren on ESPN: [B][URL="http://www.news.pitt.edu/news/Super-Bowl-Packers-unlucky"]Pitt Researchers Find 2010 Packers One of the Unluckiest Pro Football Teams in the Past 30 Years[/URL][/B] [B][I]Analysis of NFL regular-season records since 1978 reveals that the 2010 Green Bay Packers lost their games by the narrowest margins in history, which, by the statistical theory that close games are decided by luck more than skill, makes them the second-most hapless team after the 1999 Oakland Raiders [/I][/B] [I] Feb 2, 2011[/I] [I][B]PITTSBURGH—[/B]As contenders in Super Bowl XLV, the Green Bay Packers are clearly skilled—but are they lucky enough to triumph on Feb. 6? [/I] [I] Maybe not. [/I] [I]University of Pittsburgh engineers crunched the regular-season records of every National Football League team since 1978—when the 16-game schedule began—and found that chance has smiled on the 2010 Packers less often than on any other team except the 1999 Oakland Raiders. All six regular-season losses by the sixth-seeded Packers were by fewer than four points, a consistently narrow margin that may denote the handiwork of misfortune more than a shortage of talent, the researchers say. [/I] [I][B][URL="http://www.ie.pitt.edu/%7Eschaefer/"]Andrew Schaefer[/URL][/B], an associate professor of industrial engineering in Pitt’s Swanson School of Engineering, and Pitt industrial engineering sophomore [B]Dylan Davis[/B] based their analysis on existing statistical research that suggests that the outcome of a close game—defined as a loss by fewer than 10 points—is most often decided by luck, that unknown or unpredictable factor that tips the game toward one team or the other. [/I] [I]“By this one particular definition of ‘luck’, the 2010 Packers appear to be the number six seed team through bad luck alone—no other team has lost so many games by such a very narrow margin,” Schaefer said. “Whether one blames bad luck or not, they definitely appear to be one of the strongest 10-6 teams in NFL history.” [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Schultz
DABIGZ
rmontro
Curly Calhoun
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
9 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
37 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
38 minutes ago
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:46 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 9:23 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Official Game Day Thread: Super Bowl XLV - Packers vs. Steelers - 2/6: WIN 31 - 25
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
