Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
5 years ago people insisted that this crop of teams (Seahawks, Eagles, etc) could keep their success going and fight for a Super Bowl once they paid their QB and none of them could. 5 years from now when none of these current teams can, we are going to be sitting here having this exact conversation where you, or someone who shares your position, will be saying that the next crop of teams who are dominant (perhaps whoever Caleb Williams goes to as an example) with a rookie will be able to sustain it and the last group with Tua and Allen and Hurts were not reflective of what will happen now.
The fallacy you cite is actually one of the most improperly used fallacies in the world. It has one strict application and that is when a decision is made without context it does not lend itself to proving or disproving what the next decision will be. Its most common correct application is in gambling as people often win making the provably wrong decision but they lose in the end because in the long run you can prove what is likely to happen. That is the important part. If I gave you 10 random instances where a 10-0 team played an 0-10 team and gave you even odds, and a straight up game, would you really bet on the 0-10 team ever? The 0-10 team will probably win 1 of those 10 or maybe even 2 but you will lose in the long run betting on the 0-10.
Or to give a more concrete example, if I gave you 35-1 odds that the Texans would win the Super Bowl would you take that bet, and bet on the Texans to win it all? If past performance truly does not indicate future results, you should take that bet, but, and we both know this it would be a terrible bet to take.
The correct use of that fallacy is to accept that the trends over time will tend to continue regardless of individual outliers. Its the reason teams pay great players because they performed well and based on past players of similar age and playtime that is likely to continue. To truly follow through on that fallacy you should never pay anyone and trade all your picks to maximize 6th and 7th round picks because if past performance does not matter you can just draft 70 random players each year and have a contender because you took more shots. Yes this is an insane notion but that is the fundamental problem with that taking that "fallacy" literally. In business there are always people who think they can succeed where others failed and they usually fail but sometimes they do succeed but that does not make the latter correct more often than not (and when they do it is not by following the exact same formula).
Yeah except none of the examples you're citing are comparable to NFL teams constructing rosters. No two teams have assembled their roster in the same way. They're not doing the same thing over and over again. They're doing very, very, very different things over and over again. No two teams are alike in terms of how they construct their roster, how they allocate their salary cap, how they deal with injuries, coaching, etc. The differences outweigh the similarities by a gigantic margin.
The teams you referenced, like Seattle and Philly, didn't sustain success because once the QB stopped playing well, its a wrap. They had QBs producing at mid-tier levels, which resulted in the teams having mid-tier results. That's kind of the baseline of the argument. Is your QB playing well? If he is, you're in a great spot, regardless of how expensive he is. If he's not, you're probably fucked, regardless of how expensive he is.
Your betting analogy is total shit also. It's pretty clear you don't bet very often or understand markets.
Would I take the Texans at 35-1 to win the SB? No. Why would 35-1 be a good price for them? That implies that nearly every team has an equal opportunity to win. Why would that be true? How did you arrive at 35-1?
If you said it was 200-1, which is what the current market odds are, would I bet the Texans? Sure, why not? The nature of betting is based on risk/reward. So how much am I required to wager? If its $5, sure, I'll put $5 on the Texans at 200-1. What's the worst case scenario? I lose $5?
History says you shouldn't bet on the Jets to win the SB. Anybody really going to mock taking them at 14-1 to win it today? Good luck with that.
Same thing with your little 10-0 vs 0-10 analysis. Why would I accept an even $ wager, when the true odds would be between 5-10x? Just because historical actions can sometimes predict future events, doesn't mean there's an even probability of it happening, because there isn't.
I'm not really sure if you understand how statistical modeling works.
