Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Government United States Politics

Redskins Football Games Predict Election Winner 91

Posted by timothy from the path-to-power dept.
jangobongo writes "The folks that investigate urban legends at Snopes.com have looked into the rumor going around on the internet that says, "The outcome of Washington Redskins football games has correctly predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1936." Their findings? It's true! The predictive game for this year will happen on October 31 vs. Green Bay. Which team are you gonna root for?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Redskins Football Games Predict Election Winner More

Redskins Football Games Predict Election Winner

Comments Filter:

  • Redskins!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by sithkhan ( 536425 )
    Redskins! or, the Lower Potomac Basin Indigenous peoples, if you will ....
    • I don't care if effects the election or not, I'll root for the Skins, because each week my favorite two teams are the Minnesota Vikings and Whoever Is Playing The Packers.
      • I'm a Vikings fan myself, but I have a slightly different tact on the Packers. I want them to win every week except those weeks which they are playing the Vikings. This way it makes the Vikings look all the better when they beat them. ::grin

        ~Lake
  • There is no way they could be predicting the outcome of elections...unless they were being paid off by both parties. ;-) Even then, it's still not guaranteed.

  • Quirks of history (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BandwidthHog ( 257320 ) <inactive.slashdo ... icallyenough.com> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @07:54PM (#10488836) Homepage Journal
    Those little reflections in the matrix also have something to say about a President elected in a year that ends in 0, yet I never hear *anyone* mention that these days.
    • That's because Reagan dodged that bullet... literally and figuratively.

      Besides, these days, I suspect everyone is a little sensitive about the idea. A little superstition like this seems really immature in this context (as if it ever didn't).

    • "Those little reflections in the matrix also have something to say about a President elected in a year that ends in 0"

      Because you're hanging out with the wrong crowd to find people that have heard of the Curse of Tecumseh.

      Besides, it's more discriminatory than that, or else Bad Things would have happened to Jefferson (1800) and Monroe (1820). It began with W. H. Harrison, hence the "Curse of Tecumseh" name. And even then, while they may have been elected to a prior term in a year divisible by 20, occas

    • If Bush is re-elected, then dies in office, it would fit the pattern.

      What we've seen is that it isn't just the curse of Tecumseh, this view of things also involves astrology. Every 20 years, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn takes place. Every 20 years since 1840, it has taken place in either Taurus, Capricorn, or Virgo (known in western astrology as "earth" signs). The one exception to this was in 1980-81, when the conjunction took place in Libra (an "air" sign). This would explain how Reagan surviv

  • Complexity (Score:5, Informative)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Sunday October 10, 2004 @08:00PM (#10488869) Journal
    15 correct predictions: 1/2^15=1 in 32768
    Some ways to interpret:
    incumbent vs challenger
    republican vs democrat
    the inverse of each
    =4, making it 1 in 8192
    X big teams (I have no idea how many, not a sports fan). Lets say 64.
    So 1 in 128 of a big sports team randomly predicting 15 elections in a row correctly, or somewhat greater considering the average odds of winning (team or president) is not exactly 50-50.

    And there are easily a couple hundred other possible predictors that people could identify with.
    So lets say the odds were 0.99 in 1 of finding something like this.
    • Wrong. I invoke the Gamblers' Fallacy.

      Either they (some sports team) win or lose. 50/50 chance.

      Bush wins out of Bush or Kerry. 50/50 chance for either.

      • Re:Complexity (Score:5, Informative)

        by ewithrow ( 409712 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @08:13PM (#10488943) Homepage
        It's true that the chance of either team winning this game is 50/50 assuming that they are of equal skill level, however I think the parent was differentiating the odds of this happening so many times in a row. Certainly if you started flipping a penny it would be highly unusual to see heads come up 17 times in a row, and there is a certain probability to how often this occurs if the penny is flipped continually.

        • Re:Complexity (Score:3, Informative)

          by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 )
          As someone in stats I think the most interesting thing is the actual effect the game has on voter opnion.

          Which is very real in a race where people don't follow the actual issues. Conservatism vs Progress Pessimism vs Optomism.

        • Re:Complexity (Score:3, Informative)

          by Paradise Pete ( 33184 )
          It's true that the chance of either team winning this game is 50/50 assuming that they are of equal skill level

          Even that's not true. Among equal teams, the home team will win over 60% of the time.

        • Actually it's not one penny that is flipping, you have 'several pennies' as there are several teams, many sports (Why not basketball, squash or golf?). In that environment, one of thousands of pennies flipping 1 a bit too long wouldn't be that unexpectable.

        • Actually, the chances of a coin turning up heads 17 times in a row is identical to the chance of it turning up heads once. This is because past performance doesn't influence future performance in any way. So while it may seem at first glance to be unlikely that a coin would turn up heads any number of times in a row, it's not.

          The football thing is a little weird, since the odds of a team winning a football game have many variables that affect it, and the odds of a candidate winning an election also have

      • I invoke the Gamblers' Fallacy.

        Where? Did I attempt to predict the future somewhere?

        Either they (some sports team) win or lose. 50/50 chance.

        Bush wins out of Bush or Kerry. 50/50 chance for either.

        Are all things created equal?
      • My intent was to show that they are likely completely unrelated. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
        • Ahh, I thought you were linking the winning of the team compared to the estimated winning this time.

          If you were talking about the chances of that comnnection being held 12 opr so times, then youre right... but those 12 or so do not hold this current game to that same percantage of win. It's still 50% chance.

    • Re:Complexity (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ewithrow ( 409712 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @08:07PM (#10488915) Homepage
      If I read the article correctly, I counted 17 correct predictions, so that adds another couple powers of two to the odds.

      Also I think its significant that this is a Washington DC team, and there certainly aren't that many pro sports teams in DC

      Still, I think its just a big coincidence. Interestingly, both teams are at the bottom of their division with only 1 win since the start of the season, so it should be interesting to see if the rumor holds true.

    • Re:Complexity (Score:4, Funny)

      by grammar nazi ( 197303 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @09:04PM (#10489151) Journal
      Shut up with your logic.


      I want REDSKINS to lose for two reasons:
      1. I support Kerry - Edwards
      2. I have Ahmed Green (GB) on my fantasy football team.

      • Re:Complexity (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm still planning on rooting for the Lions to win the Skins-Packers game. Yeah, yeah, most of you will tell me that the Lions aren't actually playing in the Skins-Packers game, but I just can't, in good conscience, root for either of the two teams that get to play in this game.

        So I'm planning on pledging my allegiance to the Lions anyway. Isn't it about time that we allowed a third team to have at least one player in this game?

        • Re:Complexity (Score:4, Funny)

          by grammar nazi ( 197303 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @05:06AM (#10491240) Journal
          B = Bush wins

          R = Redskins win

          L = Lions win

          Then,

          P(B|R) = P(B|L,R) * P(L|R) / P(L|B,R)

          It's a true statement! The election depends upon the Lions game outcome!! But wait...


          M = your mamma

          P(B|R) = P(B|M,R) * P(M|R) / P(M|B,R)

          Wow! Ugh oh... Whether Bush is reelected also depends upon your mamma! Dammit Bayes Rule!! I thought I was the only one depending your mamma for a piece of...

      • Re:Complexity (Score:2, Informative)

        by rherbert ( 565206 )
        It's AHMAN Green. Sheesh, get to know your players a little better than the A. Green on the summary page.

  • In Communist Russia... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MasterDirk ( 659057 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @08:01PM (#10488877)

    ...the incumbent party decides what the outcome of the games are...

    OK, not funny, I know, mod me down...

  • It's unbeatable! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @08:21PM (#10488981) Homepage Journal
    It's true, I swear. Every election year the Redskins win, someone also wins the presidency.

    And I'll lay money that the same happens this year.
  • Simply put, this is just comparing any two annual events (or in this case, every 4 or 8 years) and observing some common pattern. Given the amount of annual events that exist in the world, how hard can it be to find a coincidence between two events.

  • packers, hey packers! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr.Coffee ( 168480 ) <rhysfeezled@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @08:53PM (#10489111) Homepage
    man, i'm glad they're playing green bay. for a while there i was worried bush was gonna get re-elected.

  • Third party? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    what would have to happen for nader to win?
  • Look at 2002 election

    regards

    dbcad7

    • Sorry .. meant 2000 election

      shoulda Preveiwed, but who'd a thunk I could mess up such a short post

      dbcad7

      • Shoulda also read the article. Or maybe you did, and are trolling with 'Bush didn't win'. Yeah, I know, you know, we all know he didn't win. But since he's not getting BJ's in the oval office, there's no impeachment for later incompetence.
        • I know. It's nuts...

          Get a BJ...get impeached.

          Fuck up the country and take part of the world with you...4 more years?

          I'll never understand.

  • I think I understand.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Klowner ( 145731 ) on Sunday October 10, 2004 @10:38PM (#10489725) Homepage
    So if they win, then a presidential election will result in a win by one of the delegates? That's absolutely fantastic, and very very scientifically confusing at the same time.

  • If this were true. . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by Daikiki ( 227620 ) <daikikiNO@SPAMwanadoo.nl> on Sunday October 10, 2004 @11:09PM (#10489882) Homepage Journal
    If this were ture then the Redskins would have won the game by scoring a touchdown with four minutes of play left in the fourth quarter of their october 30th, 2000 game against the Titans while the referee wasn't watching. ESPN would have reported that the Redskins had won two minutes after the end of the game, but Fox Sports would clain that the game was too close to call until midnight, when they'd claim that the Titans had been victorious.

    Two days after the game, Jeff Fisher, the Titan's coach, would have mailed a red flag to NFL headquarters, thereby challenging the play. The NFL commisionner would have informed him that the referee on the field that day had final discretion. The referee would have been Jeff Fisher's brother, Jeb Fisher. Jeb would have claimed that the tocuhdown never happened.

    Steve Spurrier would then appeal the decision with Paul Tagliabue who, after long deliberation, would have ruled that the final decision lies with the scorekeeper. The scorekeeper would have been found to be keeping tally of the score using marbles. He would eventually admit that he wasn't quite sure how many marbles had been on his table and how many of them had been in which team's box. He would however claim that he was almost entirely certain that there had been more marbles in the Titan's box than in the Redskin's. Eventually everybody would have been confused to the point of desperation and the Titans would have been handed the victory by the gist of having won three of the four quarters.
  • The Packers have been playing like sh!t with a quaterback on his last leg who is under the crosshairs of anyone who can get past the offensive line...

    Mike Sherman's playbook was posted online somewhere in PDF format - because no team has been surprised at anything they've been doing.

    I'm a nerd, but I support my team - I just wish they didn't suck ass this year... :(
    • Take heart: the Redskins also suck ass this year.
    • Farve is still the man. He is still doing his thing. An old Farve is still better than a young Kyle Boller or Mark Burnell at any age. You'll see the Packers make a comeback. Farve's got 3 more years in him at least.
    • As a Packers fan born and raised who has been transplanted to the DC area, I can tell you that both teams have played like shit so far this year.

      Packers D is pretty laughable, but the Redskins have something like 2 defensive starters brought over from last year. Arrington is injured, Coles can't catch shit and Portis on the some kind of "learn the new offense by fumbling" plan.

      It should be an interesting game, in the same way that the Arizona - San Francisco game this week was interesting.

      I still have t
  • When you have random events, streaks are expected to occur. Even so (and despite my living deep in Bears territory), go Greenbay!
  • ...where can I get one of those foam cheese hats?
  • Incidentally, for anyone rooting for Washington, this is the same football team that managed to lose to the Cleveland Browns not too long ago. So the Packers have a pretty decent chance.

    • Re:Redskin's chances (Score:5, Funny)

      by jlanthripp ( 244362 ) on Monday October 11, 2004 @08:26AM (#10491933) Journal
      Yes, but the Packers managed to lose to both the Panthers and the Bears...Washington and Green Bay are both bottom-of-the-barrel teams this year.

      Kind of like the major-party presidential candidates.

  • I'm rooting for Nader but he has a bye that week. Chat It Up With Nader [slashdot.org]

  • Makes you wonder which political party paid off Joe Gibbs to come back to the Redskins in an election year?

    A real coincidence is that even with Gibbs, they still can't win ...

  • They both stink.

    Perhaps that's the most telling thing of all.

  • That should really shake things up.
  • John Kerry has already messed with fate when he was in Green Bay and referred to Lambeau Field as 'Lambert Field'. [washingtonpost.com] His disgraceful sacrilege has already cost the Packers two home losses. Kerry's heresy will cost him dearly when the Packers win in Washington and then Bush wins Wisconsin and wins the election in a landslide.

    Go Bush, Go Packers, Go Football Fans For Truth. [footballfansfortruth.us]
    • I'm from northern Minnesota, and when Bush was up here, he referred to the northern part of the state as the "Iron Ridge" (its actually called the Iron Range). That might seem minor, but not to the people who live and work up there... I don't think Kerry's mistake is all that bad. I mean, if you're comparing mistakes, don't get me started on Bush's history ("Strategery, Nucleear"). Kerry didn't cost the "Pack" two home losses, their crappy play did (and a lack of a defense). I think you might have miss

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close