I made a mistake on 1016 Pats of last year as the method does not tell us if Pats will win, just that IF they do win they should cover, so we can not count that as a win.
The method is best used to tells us when to fade the fav, it is basically a regression method.
Let's look at all the fav covered the spread since 1998 when Broncos covered ..................................and see if or how many times the method told us to fade the fav.
2016 , already posted the method did not fade the fav.
2014 we did lose as method did tell us to fade the fav but it was a very small line .
2010 Packers expected win margin of 12.27 pts X 4 = 49.06, Packers were a wild card team so needed 4 games to win SB.
won by 5, 27, 7 = 39 pts
Pack had 10.06 pts left at a -3 to -4 line, and they won SU and then did get the cover winning by 6, pretty close to expected win margin
2006 Colts EWM (expected win margin) 11.78 PTS X 4 = 47.13 pts.
won by 15, 9, 4 = 28 pts , 19.13 pts left at a -7 line, they won SU and covered
2005 Steelers EWM 9.45 pts X 4 = 37.81
won by 14, 3, 17 = 34 pts, they had 3.81 pts left with a -3 line or -4 line, they won SU by 11 pts
Expected win was right on the line
2000 Ravens EWM 16.36 X 4 = 65.44
won by 18, 14, 13 = 45 pts, they had 20.44 pts left and won by 27 as a -3 fav
98 Broncos EWM 18.08 X 3 = 54.23
won by 35, 13 = 48, they had 6.23 pts left as a -7 fav, again right on the line
Incredible as it sounds in each case Expected Win Margin said do not fav the fav when the fav won and covered the line, except 2014 Pats who had the smallest line and a SU win basically meant a cover.
Let's look at past great teams won dominated SB games.................
89 49ers EWM 25.78 X 3 = 77.34 pt
won by 28, 27 = 55 pts , they won big but still had 22.34 pts left and easily covered the -12 line winning 55-10 by 45 pts
85 Bears EWM 26.59 PTS X 3 = 79.78
won by 21, 24 = 45, they had 34.78 pts left and won easily as a -9 to -10 fav 46 -10 by 36 pts once again damn-near right on the EWM.
91 Skins EWM 22.63 X 3 = 67.88 pts
won by 17, 31 = 48, they had 19.88 pts left as a -7 fav and won handily 37-24 by 13 pts, they had a 37-10 lead in 4th quarter when Bills got 2 quick TD's , the game easily could have landed on a 20 pt win instead of 13.
These are a few of the teams I developed this method back in 90's with as I wanted to explain the big blowout playoff performance so I researched out all the stats and found the stats that have highest correlation to win margin of SB Champs
Then I took the stats and divided them by the final win margin of each SB Champ and came up with how much I needed to multiple the stats by to get EWM.
The teams of today such as Pats do not come close to those powerhouse teams back then in this very key area hence why Pats do not win big in playoffs as these great powerhouse teams did back then.
What the Pats do well is just different from those teams back then did, not saying it makes Pats not as good, just that it is different, which explains the lack of big blowout playoff wins those teams could generate while the Pats can not.
Belichick figured something out, how to use the field better to his advantage , especially when the team moves into Pats territory and the field shortens, he just figured something out that other coaches can not catch on to.
the 2001 Pats surprise SB win, this team had one of worst ave per play on defense of any team in league when not crossing midfield, but once the opp crossed midfield into Pasts territory they had one of best ave per plays in the league
All of a sudden when they did not have to defend the entire huge field they became better , he figured something out to do this.
2003 Pats had a great ratio of holding opps to FG attempts instead of giving up a TD, the ratio of FG's att to TD's given up , was incredible, again playing with a shorten field he creates big advantages and holds teams to FG's.
But that style does not lend itself to big blowout wins VS the better teams in the league like you'd expect to see in playoffs.