From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:51:20 GMT

In article <BxzK8E.1wp@acsu.buffalo.edu> v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Damned for all time...) writes:
>>In my opinion, these are the NFC playoff losers better than the AFC champs
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>(i.e. that can beat the AFC champs at a neutral site):
>> 
>>84: --
>>85: Giants 
>>86: Redskins, 49ers
>>87: Vikings, Saints, 49ers
>>88: Vikings
>>89: Rams, Giants
>>90: 49ers
>>91: --
>
>This is pure conjecture on your part.
And the complement of that is pure conjecture on your part.

See, when there is no fact to support them one way or the other, we are only
talking about OPINIONS. You don't like my opinions? Tough!

>>But that's telling us nothing. A 27-point blowout on the road is different
>>from a 45-point rout at a neutral site.
>Really?  And how, praytell?  Again, this is only your opinion.
Because 27 < 45. That's simple arithmetic. And a neutral site != a home site.

I guess 27 < 45 is not my opinion. Maybe it's yours.

>>In 1989, the Rams lost to the 49ers by 27 on the road, the Broncos lost 
>>at a neutral site by 45, the Giants lost to the Rams in OT. Both the Giants 
>>(12-4) and the Rams (11-5) had no worst record than the Broncos (11-5). All 
>>these told me that they could have beaten the Broncos at New Orleans too. 
>>Could the Browns or the Bills have beaten the 49ers?
>I guess we'll never know, will we?
That's what opinions are for. For things can't be proved or disproved by
facts, just like how do you know Alabama is better than Texas A&M? They
didn't play each other, yet Alabama is #2 and A&M is only #4.

I guess you are not stupid enough to argue that "Redskins > Broncos in 1987" 
is only an opinion, are you?

>Again, comparing two teams in such a way is suspect at best.
So? if we have to form an opinion of "which team is better in 89, the Rams
or the Broncos?" What else do we base on? They didn't meet in the playoffs.

Or are you saying that we ABSOLUTELY cannot form an opinion on the Rams vs
the Broncos in 1989?

>In 1987, the Redkins were supposed to be the 3rd best team in the conference
>(#3 seed, tied for 3rd best record behind the Saints and the 49ers). Can you
>imagine the Redskins beating the 49ers or the Saints on the road? 
>
>Well, apparently, the Redskins could, because they did it.  
Wow, that's reaching. Please tell me the score of Redskins at the SuperDome
and Redskins at Candlestick in the 1987 playoffs.

Don't use lies to argue.

>What you are
>saying is that the Broncos had no shot because the Niners and Saints were
>"better" teams, yet the very NFC playoffs that year prove you wrong, since
>the Saints and Niners were knocked off by supposedly "inferior" teams.  
But the upsets ACTUALLY HAPPENED. When you evaluate "who's better in a 
hypothetical matchup", you just consider the expected, period. If the 
unexpected is taken into account, then we'll NEVER be able to say who's 
better if they don't play, i.e. the Buffalo Bills are no better than UCLA.

>Thus
>to say the Broncos couldn't have beaten the Saints or Niners is completely
>fallible reasoning.
Yes, just like UCLA has no shot against the Bills is completely
fallible reasoning. Since UCLA could have beaten the Bills, we can
form an opinion that the Bills are no better than UCLA.

I am glad that you see the light. 

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com