I understand the laws of chance, but that's hardly relevant here is it? This isn't a roulette table where the only variables are the spinning of a wheel. We're talking about human beings with varying strength, skill, intelligence and workrate levels, teams with varying levels of cohesion and organization not to mention variables such as morale, coaching nous, and the simple bounce of the ball (luck). Barring the last factor, ALL of these factors (among others) are against the below mentioned teams in most games, and they have to overcome these obstacles every week for the probabilities you mention to come into play.
The Roosters for example, would need to win 8 of their next 9 to even make the 8 and there's a chance (that word again) that might not even be enough. From there the odds of them beating the best teams in the competition for another 4 weeks get even longer.
Surely it's at points like these, with the variables stacked to such astronomical levels that you can get up, and make statements like....
The Roosters will not win the NRL in 2009. It will not happen for the same reason Megan Fox won't be waiting in my bed when I get home, and that I wouldn't be able to run the 100m in under 10s to get there. The mathematical chance of such a thing happening is so remote, the odds so astronomical that it is barely worth mentioning barring an amusing discussion on the nature of probability.