From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:52:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.170607.67383@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>Actually, you are wrong again... Remember, they did lose to Buffalo this
>year.  
Lie again. Buffalo didn't beat SF in the playoffs, i.e. do-or-die scenario.

>So, we do have evidence of Buffalo BEATING SF.  
We also have evidence SF beating Buffalo, in 1989. That must be evidence too,
since you are so fond of false evidence.

>If SF were a better team, we could have seen them in a do-or-die scenario, 
>but they just weren't good enough..  
There weren't good enough to beat Dallas. That has no implication about 
Buffalo > SF in a do-or-die scenario.

>As it is, we DO have evidence that Buffalo can beat SF, 
When was that game played? On which day of January?

>So, SF beat even weaker competition (what was Washington, 9-7???), and they
>did it at home.  And, Buffalo beat this supposed "stronger" team on the road,
Well, supposed stronger (than Buffalo) != stronger in the absolute sense. 
Alabama beat the "supposed stronger" Miami Hurricanes, SF lost to the 
underdog Dallas. 

It's as if Alabama says: we beat the tougher Miami Hurricanes, the 49ers 
lose to the underdog Cowboys, then we must be better than the 49ers. We 
face tougher competition ....

>Again, didn't say whether I did or didn't, just that it is just using your 
>own argueing techniques against you...
Doesn't look like it. Your use of obscenities are only obscenities, with
no more arguments. My "solid evidence only solid in your ass" was followed 
by all the instances which don't use head-to-head (in odds, polls, 
league's policy)

>>That's only "close" IN YOUR OPINION, how many people support it? 
>Well, the league supports it in allowing the playoff format.  
Really? like the league supports it by qualifying the Skins for the playoffs
while eliminating the Packers, even though they are only 1 game apart.

So allowing the playoff format is no evidence that 15-3 and 14-5 are 
close, since 9-7 and 8-8 aren't.

>And, many other people on the net seem to support it as well.  If no one 
>else, Gary Strand does.  
Talk is cheap, quote Gary's article that 15-3 and 14-5 are close. 

>That in itself is 2 against 1.   Majority rules...
Wow, majority rules? then there is no doubt that the SF is better than
Buffalo. Check with Tim Vannaman, Dan Welch, and Ron Steve. What's the
score again? How about the journalists?

I wish you wouldn't say something as bold as "majority rules"

>Correct.  So what's your point.  I believe Notre Dame was a 7 point favorite
>over Texas A&M, who was undefeated at that point.  And San Francisco was the
>favorite against Dallas, and we know what happened there.  Or are you saying
>that SF is still the better team???
SF is not the better team against Dallas. SF is still the better team against
Buffalo.

>2)  Based on a regular season consisting of different schedules, conditions, 
>and other factors, and including the current playoff results, the records of
>the two teams are SF 15-3, Buffalo 14-5, which is very SIMILAR, though in 
>SF's favor.
Nobody ever defines a 3-game difference as similar.

>3)  Buffalo is in the SuperBowl, San Fran is not...
In the SB is not the goal of the season, i.e. in the SB doesn't mean
better than SF.

>So, in at least 1/16 of the regular season, we KNOW without a doubt that 
>Buffalo was better than SF.  
That's all.

>That isn't opinion, but recorded fact.  We also
>know that during the rest of the season, including the playoffs, that SF has
>so far compiled a record that is 1.5 games better than what Buffalo has 
>compiled.  However, they compiled this record against different competition,
>with different locations, etc...  
Then so did Buffalo's journey to the SB. Still don't admit your hypocripsy?

>Determinations based on this fall more into
>the realm of OPINION...
Oh, so you want to use 1/16 of a regular season to judge 2 teams over
the course of the entire season? What else is it but opinion?

>>>Does the NFL have a ruling on "relatively equal".
>>Yes, in NFL, relatively equal means tiebreaker will be applied.
>
>Nope.. wrong.  In the NFL, EXACTLY equal means tiebreaker will be applied.
1) there is no such thing as "relatively equal" in the league's jargon.
It's meaningless in the league.

2) if there is, NFL doesn't consider 3 more losses as relatively equal.

3) in other words, all your implications of "relatively equal" are trash, 
e.g. apply head-to-head

>>>or the college polls??  
>>record A and record B, where B is 1.5 games behind A, will be ranked
>>intermingledly, i.e. A ahead of B and B ahead of A about the same #
>>of times.
>
>So, you are verifying my point.  That the team with the better record
>does not always get ranked higher.  
But the team with 2-3 fewer losses always does.

>And, you even claim that in a situation
>of being 1.5 games behind, that the teams would typically split about 50-50
>in the ranking.  So, based on records alone, it seems those people might
>be inclined to split 50-50 the question of who was better.  
Boy, desperate again? I said that "relatively equal" in records A and B 
means they would split the ranking 50-50, e.g. the # times 11-0 ranked ahead
of 10-2 is roughly the same as 10-2 ahead of 11-0. That's not the case
in the history of polls, i.e. 1.5 games are not considered relatively
equal in the polls.

>Wrong...  Texas A&M finished the season with 1 more victory than either of
>those two teams. 
But college polls usually count the # of losses, not the # of victories.

>They were a half game up on them... I guess according to
>EdLorian logic, this shall be deemed a lie...
As far as ranking are concerned, it isn't.

>Never said it always, or "almost always" occurs that way, just that it refutes
>you claim that the "...Vegas and the betting public don't, the college polls
>don't."  
So it just refutes your claims on the importance of head-to-head. So you
get exceptions, so do I. How many times were the odds/rankings based on records?
How many times were the rankings based on head-to-head despite of records?
Why don't you do a count?

>And who says they are applying the tiebreakers rules.  
Then your head-to-head doesn't apply.

>Get a clue Ed.
>The league also does not state that the team with the best regular season
>record is the league's best team either.  So, that blows your argument away
>as well.  Want to use the "league", then you better be sure they support your
>claim, which they don't...  Yes, having the best record gives you many
>advantages, but it does not get you the league's best team recognition.
It sure does, as far as the regular season is concerned. So what else 
defines best team? best looking uniform?

>Have you ever been involved in the betting process Ed??? Obviously not.
>As a frequent player of the betting games, I can assure you that head-to-head
>results play a large part in the process of odds making.  
Yes, but when they determine the odds for the entire field, there is no
head-to-head. When we say SF got better odds over Buffalo, we are talking
about the entire field (12 teams). Too bad the playoffs aren't only about
SF and Buffalo, or you may have your point.

>And, so does overall
>record.  But then, so do things like Home Field advantage, competition, etc..
>Based on their record, the competition, the home field advantage, etc.. that
>SF enjoyed, and the fact that Buffalo was banged up (another factor used 
>considerably), and had to play the top AFC teams on the road, it didn't have 
>odds as favorably as SF.  
Yes, then they don't get better odds, and all the advantages, as a 
punishment of not being the better regular season team. 

So why did SF get all these advantages? for being the better regular season
team.

>However, Vegas does not declare the league's best
>team, but rather put odds on which team will win in given circumstances.  
>But, all of these factors, and others, go into odds making.  There were many
>people who thought that SF was the leagues best team, and it could easily be
>argued that they were.  
Oh, really? despite losing in week 2? then how doesn't it better than 
Buffalo overall? They only lost to Dallas in Jan. only implies "< Dallas".
They didn't lose to Buffalo in the playoffs.

>But, as they have now lost, they lose that honor.
So? I am not arguing that SF is the best team in the league, only a
better team than Buffalo.

>And like you pointed out, except for 1972, no NFL team can proclaim itself
>undeniably the best.  Only the 72' Dolphins beat everyone they faced.
That's stupid. A team doesn't have to be undeniably the best to be the
best. Even the 85 Bears/84 49ers lost a game, but that doesn't hurt their 
claims as the best.

And you want to argue my claim that SF is undeniably better than Buffalo?
there is no such claim.

>No, I only see you in my rear.  
But I haven't seen those people yet. Do they exist? or do you just fabricate
support?

>But, as I have stated on many occasions, head-to-head matchups are part of
>the equation.  
Oh, now it's only "part of the equation"? what happen to the

  ">Just which one (1 game or 16 games) is more widely accepted (to sort 
   >teams)?
   Well, to the people I have seen, the head-to-head game"

  "The head-to-head is the ultimate challenge"

>Their record did not significantly improve?  Beating the at the time #1 team
>in a head to head matchup, on the road, obviously had quite a lot of respect
>to go with it.  
But they still don't rank ahead of the team they beat. Whatever happen to the
ultimate challenge?

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com