Bigger than Leicester?

[alfred russel]

Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

As mentioned, short tournaments like the Olympics can always mean something strange can happen.  Look at March Madness as well.

I would have said the Royals winning the World Series, but looking back they were 50-1 odds at the start of the season in 2014 (which they then lost in game 7), which came down to 30-1 last year when they did win.

Thinking about it though, 5000-1 is fairly stupid odds to give.  There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

MLB is tough to consider because results are so random. Small market teams are routinely rather competitive. There is also a soft salary cap and revenue sharing. The NFL should not be considered because teams have dramatic amounts of turnover season to season, there is a level setting draft, extensive revenue sharing, and a salary cap.

I think in a US setting, with the way professional leagues are set up, the only comparables really exist in college athletics. I don't think football can provide one because the system excludes giving really small schools any hope (perhaps if Vanderbilt won the championship this year that might be a comparable), and basketball can't either because it funnels the championship into a short tournament where small schools have guaranteed access.

[celedhring]

Forest getting promoted in the late 70s and winning the league and back-to-back European Cups.

[Barrister]

Fun story on Leicester.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/leicester-citys-stunning-rise-in-two-charts/

Points out that not only did the team come from the bottom of the EPL last year to win it this year, but that they were in soccer's third tier league just seven years ago.  And says the only other team to have risen so dramatically was Ipswich Town in the late 50s to win it all in 1962.

[DGuller]

Thinking about it though, 5000-1 is fairly stupid odds to give.  There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

Agreed.  Even people who put odds on things for a living are pretty bad at putting odds on unlikely events.  Whether it's 500-1 or 5000-1, it looks pretty long to us, but there is a 10-fold difference.

[The Minsky Moment]

Lord Burghley, much of the time.

[Josquius]

I think odds like 5000 to 1 are less of a realistic analysis of odds and more a combination of that plus encouraging people to bet money on almost certain to lose low odds events

Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?

[DGuller]

I think odds like 5000 to 1 are less of a realistic analysis of odds and more a combination of that plus encouraging people to bet money on almost certain to lose low odds eve td

Mis-pricing the bet to encourage people to take it would be a very idiotic strategy for a bookie to follow. 

[Valmy]

Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?

Well if we beat Russia NOW in the winter olympics that would be no big deal. But back then we were playing college kids, amateurs, since pros were not allowed back then. The USSR was cheating and pretending like their professional hockey players were employees in some factory someplace that they never even visited. So it was a bunch of kids, not even the top US talent, beating some of the best professionals in the world. Completely absurd. Needless to say we never came close to beating them any other time we played

[frunk]

Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?

At the time only amateur players were allowed to play, which means none of the pro US players competed in the Olympics.  In the USSR the "amateur" players all played together regularly and were fully funded by the state to compete in international competitions.

[Barrister]

I think odds like 5000 to 1 are less of a realistic analysis of odds and more a combination of that plus encouraging people to bet money on almost certain to lose low odds eve td

Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?

Not in 1980.

Back then the Olympics did not allow professional athletes.  So all the best American players were disqualified because they played in the NHL.

The USSR got around this by giving its best hockey players fake day jobs, usually with the Red Army, so technically they were still amateurs.

So in 1980 you had the creme of the crop from Russia playing a bunch of college students from the US.

[jimmy olsen]

Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

That's one game, doesn't compare to a whole season's worth of games.

[The Larch]

Denmark winning 1992's Euro Cup is a pretty big upset, same as Greece in 2004.

[Josephus]

There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

Not an even shot, no.

[Josephus]

Yeah, if you're gonna include the US hockey win, then Denmark and Greece's wins in the Euros count, but as has been said countless times, winning a short tourney is not like winning a 9-month league.

This is one of those rare and unlikely occurences and will likely not happen again for 20-30 years. It will be business as usual next year.

[FunkMonk]

Wonder what the odds are for Leicester winning the Champions League next year