I think that's about right.  Brian Burke's system has it at 0.41, and SSI will go along with that.

.

=== Reasons the Seahawks Could Lose ===

Ahhhhhh ... :laughs:

Picking just a couple things out of the bag, Atlanta was 13-3 last year with a +126 points differential.  More points differential than any team other than Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers or the Steelers.  

Meanwhile, the 2010 Seahawks made the playoffs with a -97 points differential -- and they're far behind that -PtDif this year.

Every weapon bristling on the Atlanta offensive tank rates out at .50 caliber or more, and their points are behind their yards.  We could say that Atlanta is capable of running Safeco* like roaches by a 42-7 score, but that would just be stating the obvious.

The Falcons are the better team, although...

.

=== The Better Team Doesn't Always Win ===

TOO MUCH FRONTRUNNING:  One blog, one forum, one national site after another we see exactly the same thing:  "It could be tougher than you think in CLink, but I still feeeeeeeeeel that the Falcons will prevail 20-13."

Dr. D doesn't have to spell out to you, why that is feebleminded.  If the game's going to be close, why is it a certain Atlanta win?  How do you grok a tough game, but grok an inevitable win for either team?

Football games aren't won by a huge ectoplasmic feeeeeeeeeeling for the upperdog.  They're won by a couple of turnovers either way.  Guess how much of an NFL team's final record is determined by skill, and how much by luck?

58% skill, and a full 42% by blind stinkin' luck.

Games are won, a lot of the time, by turnovers.  And the ball isn't round.  Bringing us to ...

.

SEAHAWK TAKEAWAYS.  Carroll's team is designed to win games by turnover differential.  I personally think that is a pusillanimous way to play a game, any game, and a pusillanimous way to live your life.  The Pete Carroll Pusillanimouses.

But the Seahawks will win some games this year because of turnover differential, and you could see it happen particularly in this game.

Atlanta's offense is scary but also mistake-prone:  they've allowed 13 sacks already and it's taking a toll on their QB's confidence.  Usually a 20% deep passer, he's dialed it back in to 13% this year.  That's on-field decisionmaking that is showing signs of implosion.

Not saying it's going to happen.  But it could happen that the Seahawks' D gets a couple of early sacks against a rattled OL, they pick off a pass, and then that defense gets to sit on a 17-7 lead.

....

HOME CROWD.  You give the Seahawks a chance against almost anybody, on their own field.  We wuz there for the Saints playoff game ... even after you were behind to Brees, there was a psychic vibe like the crowd can force the victory through sheer will alone.

Vegas set the line at -4 points, and 80-90% of the dumb money went Atlanta's way, but they are wrong.  Vegas hasn't moved the line much; they'll take the casual fan's money.  The casual fan is thinking 2010 Falcons and the casual fan, in New York, isn't quite hip to what happens in CLink.

No single NFL stat correlates with winning like being at home does -- about 0.75 last I checked.  And CLink isn't just any home stadium.

....

60-40 Atlanta is about where I'd put it too, but if the Seahawks did hit their 41%, and managed to win 3 of that 7-game run, we'd be talking about a fight for the playoffs.

.

=== Punch Line, Dept. ===

Don't tell me that I read this table wrong, and that per Brian Burke, the Seahawks have the 59% chance of winning.  :- )

Makes you wonder if Burke takes his system up against the bookies.  Each week, his system would give him some super best bets.

.

Or not,

Dr D