Right you are. I missed that. But that year and this year are the only times it’s been that way since the start of the century, if not earlier.
Another aspect of the playoffs I’ve complained about in the past, and which continues this year, is the start times of the games. The first Saturday game is in Houston, the later one in NE. The first Sunday game is in NO; the later one in Philly. What’s wrong with that? For starters, it makes more sense to start the east coast game first, since that’s in an earlier time zone. That means you have more flexibility of when a game starts. For example, if the east coast game starts at 1 PM, the usual time during the regular season, the second game, in the central time zone, can start any time beginning 3:30 PM, providing the usual three and a half hours gap so that the first game will probably be over.
But the more important reason is the weather. In January, it’s likely to be very cold on the east coast, and it will be colder later in the day than earlier. So why start the game in NE in the evening, around 8:30? It’s Saturday, so it’s not a prime time issue. The game in Philly starts around 4:30 local time, a little better, but it still means it will get dark and colder not long after it begins. Why not give the players a break, and start the game at 1 PM, when it will be warmest?
It's the same situation with the divisional games. Saturday, the games will be played in relatively warm SF on the west coast, and in cold Baltimore on the east coast. Yet the SF game begins about 1:30 PM local time, while the Ravens game begins around 8:30 PM. Why??? I really don't get it. It's like the NFL goes out of its way to make east coast games as cold as possible. On Sunday, you have games in two cold weather cities, but Green Bay, which has hosted some of the coldest playoff games in history, is usually colder, and starts unnecessarily late, around 5:30 PM, because the game in KC begins around 2 PM.
NFL teams playing this weekend have a tough road to Miami for the Super Bowl.
sports.yahoo.com
So one of the top 2 seeds in each conference reaches the SB about 80% of the time. Another way to look at it is that your chances of reaching the SB if you have a bye are about eight times that if you don't. That's because a) you have to play an extra game; even if you're heavily favoured in that game, your odds of losing it are significant; 2) you have to play at least two games on the road, which works out to about six points vs. playing at home; and c) if you don't get a bye, it's usually because you weren't as good during the regular season as the teams that do. The sample size is small, but supports my point that SE didn't have that much to gain by winning its last game and becoming a third seed. Notice, though, that only c) is relevant if a lower seed actually makes the SB, which may explain why 10/17 of these seeds ended up winning the SB. Not significantly > 50-50, but that it's even around 50-50 indicates that once one of these lower seeds gets to the SB, it's not that inferior to the other team.