10 Year Run

[7teen]

The last Omaha TN got me thinking about which 10 year run would you prefer....

[Lane]

That's a tough question. Lots of ways to look at it.

[bcslouck]

I'd be frustrated with the 9 losing seasons, but more frustrated with getting there 3 times and not doing the job.

[RonCo]

Since getting to the Landis but not winning is about the same as getting to the post season and not making the Landis, to me the last two are saying would you prefer to go to the post season 10 straight times or 7 of 10. So that's a no-brainer. I wouldn't find it acceptable to suck 9 out of 10 seasons. So the answer is obvious for me.

[bcslouck]

Since getting to the Landis but not winning is about the same as getting to the post season and not making the Landis, to me the last two are saying would you prefer to go to the post season 10 straight times or 7 of 10. So that's a no-brainer. I wouldn't find it acceptable to suck 9 out of 10 seasons. So the answer is obvious for me.

I don't want to suck for 9 seasons either. It would mean a lot of things went wrong more than likely. But flags fly forever.

[jiminyhopkins]

I'd take 10 playoffs in a row. There's a ton of revenue in playoff games. My WC appearance in 2035 was worth like 3 or 4 million dollars.

[agrudez]

Winning a Landis takes a ton of luck (even if you don't subscribe to the playoff randomizer theory, there are 8 teams after the wildcard round... I think it'd be tough to argue that even a heavy favorite would have better than 20% odds of winning it all [which would be +7.5% odds from a true flat spread]). Regular season success is a much better gauge of your actual performance as a GM, so making the playoffs 10 years straight is as impressive a feat as I can think of.

[7teen]

It doesn’t say losing seasons. Just no post seasons. You can have 9 straight .500 years and still miss the post season.

[RonCo]

Winning a Landis takes a ton of luck (even if you don't subscribe to the playoff randomizer theory, there are 8 teams after the wildcard round... I think it'd be tough to argue that even a heavy favorite would have better than 20% odds of winning it all [which would be +7.5% odds from a true flat spread]). Regular season success is a much better gauge of your actual performance as a GM, so making the playoffs 10 years straight is as impressive a feat as I can think of.

Yes. This.

And, just to revisit: In the modern age of the BBA (1995-2036), we have had 240 division winners and 144 wild card entries into the playoffs. Of Landis Winners, we've seen 34 come from the pool if division winners, and 8 come from the wild card positions.

So, if you win a division, you'll win the Landis 14.2% of the time (34/240). If you win a wild card, you'll win 5.6% of the time (8/144).

[Ted]

It doesn’t say losing seasons. Just no post seasons. You can have 9 straight .500 years and still miss the post season.

I don't know that that would be better. Especially if you were say first team out of the playoffs like five of those years. ugh. Talk about frustrating.

I thought about the last two, but went with ten straight for Ron's reasons. No one care about the Landis runner up. I think Ricky Bobby said that, or something like it.

[Ted]

Winning a Landis takes a ton of luck (even if you don't subscribe to the playoff randomizer theory, there are 8 teams after the wildcard round... I think it'd be tough to argue that even a heavy favorite would have better than 20% odds of winning it all [which would be +7.5% odds from a true flat spread]). Regular season success is a much better gauge of your actual performance as a GM, so making the playoffs 10 years straight is as impressive a feat as I can think of.

Yes. This.

And, just to revisit: In the modern age of the BBA (1995-2036), we have had 240 division winners and 144 wild card entries into the playoffs. Of Landis Winners, we've seen 34 come from the pool if division winners, and 8 come from the wild card positions.

So, if you win a division, you'll win the Landis 14.2% of the time (34/240). If you win a wild card, you'll win 5.6% of the time (8/144).

How much of this is due to all wild card winner playing more rounds. Like is being a wild card that much worse than being a division winner without a bye.

[RonCo]

I'm sure there's an effect. I don't have that cut handy real quicklike.

[Ted]

I'm sure there's an effect. I don't have that cut handy real quicklike.

Sorry, mean to come across more as pointing out the possibility, not asking you to present the data all magic-like.

[7teen]

It doesn’t say losing seasons. Just no post seasons. You can have 9 straight .500 years and still miss the post season.

I don't know that that would be better. Especially if you were say first team out of the playoffs like five of those years. ugh. Talk about frustrating.

I thought about the last two, but went with ten straight for Ron's reasons. No one care about the Landis runner up. I think Ricky Bobby said that, or something like it.

I agree completely.

As someone who has gone through a run of both, I’ll take the Landis. I made 7 straight post seasons before winning the first one. I made trades that season to try and get over the hump.

I had lost one or two prior to that.

And I’ve been on runs where I’ve been decent. Not losing but not good enough to make playoffs.

I’ll take the Landis every time.

[Spiccoli]

Seems like Ron has had an mix of Options #2 & #3 for the last 10 years...

[Joshua Biddle]

Since getting to the Landis but not winning is about the same as getting to the post season and not making the Landis, to me the last two are saying would you prefer to go to the post season 10 straight times or 7 of 10. So that's a no-brainer. I wouldn't find it acceptable to suck 9 out of 10 seasons. So the answer is obvious for me.

I don't want to suck for 9 seasons either. It would mean a lot of things went wrong more than likely. But flags fly forever.

Yup. All about the hardware.

[aaronweiner]

Give me the championship every time.

Though right now it appears I don't have to choose.