Which was more unlikely? 16-0 or 0-16?

[Da Bomb]

Which of these two seasons was more unlikely? Even at the middle of last season, we'd have all been saying neither of these could ever happen. What I want to know is which of these is more unlikely.

Or I guess another way of thinking of it... now that both have happened, which do you think would be the next to happen again?

 

[Orgazmo]

I would think 16-0 would be much more difficult. You would have teams gunning for you with their best effort each week. It's also hard to keep key players healthy enough to achieve 16-0.

 

[Sgt John]

I think it would be more difficult to go 0-16. All you have to do is win once.

Two teams have had unbeaten regular seasons since 1972. Only one has gone winless in the modern era. Nuff said.

 

[efactor]

I think it would be more difficult to go 0-16. All you have to do is win once.

Two teams have had unbeaten regular seasons since 1972. Only one has gone winless in the modern era. Nuff said.

Well, actually Tampa Bay went 0-14 in 1976 under John McKay, so it's 2-2, unless you don't consider 1976 as the modern era..........

 

[Orgazmo]

How about the era of free agency and parity. Then you have one of each.

 

[Sgt John]

Well, actually Tampa Bay went 0-14 in 1976 under John McKay, so it's 2-2, unless you don't consider 1976 as the modern era..........

I should have clarified. That was an expansion team. I never considered them because of that. It could be considered either way.

 

[Mike]

I am going to say it is less likely to go 0-16, though in expansion years, the probability is greater.

Either way, it takes a lot of luck to achieve one of these records. Good luck for one, bad luck for the other.