From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:11:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan20.232017.3381@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.171529.39632@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>Never said it wasn't.  It is a fact of life that the NFC's best team has
>>dominated the AFC's best team in the game that counted.  However, how can
>>we consider this "domination" Ed.  In your other posts, you basically stated
>>that head-to-head matchups don't matter, but overall records do.  
>Nope, don't distort what I say. I said head-to-head matchups IN THE REGULAR
>SEASON don't matter, because it's only counted as 1 of 16.
>
>The playoffs is a different story. If we have Buffalo beating SF in the 
>do-or-die, all-chips-on-the-table setting, then you have no argument from me.

Well, I would love to have this seen, but unfortunately, SF just wasn't good
enough to be included in the game between the league's top two teams...
Too bad, so sad, they lost...

>>One of the available factors.  They were good enough to get there, SF was not.
>But you use "different competition" against SF's regular season performance,
>but the same thing for Buffalo's SB berth. What a hypocrite!

This is true.  It is one of the factors.  Buffalo also had to face 3 teams
instead of 2 by SF.   Buffalo also had to face the AFC's #1, #2, and #6
seeds, while SF only had to face the #2 and #6.  Buffalo's average seed 
strength was much greater than SF's.  Argueing relative strength of those
teams is another argument.  Also, Buffalo had to face the #1 and #2 seeds on
the road, whereas SF had both of it's games at home.  So yes, different 
competition is a factor, Buffalo had to face tougher competition, and they
made it through.  SF faced weaker competition and lost...
>
>>But that isn't the sole criteria.  In football, why are so many people crying
>>for a playoff.  Because of things like the FSU issue.  
>There are people crying for a playoff for the champion. There aren't people
>crying for a playoff for who's #2, #3, #4 ..... And how do we determine
>the #2 team in the playoff? by a regular season head-to-head matchup?
>Then Detroit must be the 2nd best team in the league last season.

The team that loses to the Champ is consider #2.  Look at the NCAA tournament.
>
>>Oh no, based on the EdLorian logic scheme, whenever one goes into using
>>vulgarities, they are obviously losing.  
>Oh, is that an admission that you have been losing all your arguments
>in the past? BTW, I don't consider "ass" vulgarities. Maybe you are so
>innocent that you consider "ass" is while "f***" isn't.

Not an admission, just using your own logic against you.  Didn't say "I" 
believed it, just that "based on the EdLorian logic scheme", you were
losing.  And, as "ass" is considered a vulgarity, especially in the context
used, it qualifies.  And yes, I consider "ass" and "fuck" about the same
on the vulgarity scale.  
>
>>(Sounds like what you used to call the "strawman" argument...)
>>Not really.  As in all thing, exceptions do occur.  Phoenix beat SF, another
>>exception.  
>Well, so how do you know that the Bills beating the 49ers wasn't an exception?

Because we can see that both teams performed about equally so far.
15-3 vs 14-5 is a very close matchup.  
>
>>However, since the two teams did not face the same
>>teams in the same circumstances, looking solely at their apparant records
>>does not solve anything.  Neither does looking solely at their head-to-head
>>matchups.  We can determine consistency and overall strength by their records.
>>We can determine team/team comparisons by head-to-head.  
>Yes, so the Raiders must be better than the Bills, right? 

On that particular day, yep....

>>So,when comparing
>>two teams with relatively equal records (Bills - 14-5, SF 15-3), the thing 
>>you look at next is head-to-head records.  
>That's only your definition of "relatively equal records". In football's
>small # of games, I don't consider 14-5 and 15-3 as relatively equal
>records. Well, the league doesn't, Vegas and the betting public don't, 
>the college polls don't.

Oh yeah???   And what proof do you have that they are not considered 
"relatively equal"  Does the NFL have a ruling on "relatively equal".
Does Vegas or the college polls??  Hell, in both Vegas and the polls, 
the record is not a very good indicator of team strength.  Otherwise, why
wouldn't the team with the NCAA football's 2nd best record, Texas A&M, be
ranked #2 behind Alabama, the team with the best record???   Guess your
theory doesn't hold, no does it.   Hey, I also noticed that Notre Dame, a
team with a worse overall record than Texas A&M, but who beat them head-to-
head, is ranked higher..  Oh my god, support for my position...
>
>>If Buffalo wins, they will be
>>15-5, while the 49ers would have been 15-3.  Two fewer losses, but were they
>>the better team??? Well, they lost AT HOME to the Bills, they weren't even
>>good enough to go to the SuperBowl 'cuz they lost AT HOME to the Cowboys, and
>>the Bills would have beaten the Cowboys (again, if it happens).  Of course, 
>>Ed will still say that they weren't as good because they didn't have a better
>>record.
>Well, then you based your argument on an assumption: the Bills beat the 
>Cowboys.  On 1/20/93, your premise is not true.

Doesn't matter, the premise is still the same.  The records are very 
similar.  14-5 vs. 15-3 is still relatively close.  
>
>>>You say one head-to-head regular season game. I say the entire season.
>>>Just which one is more widely accepted?
>>Well, to the people I have seen, the head-to-head game...
>Well, then you haven't seen enough people. Maybe the people in
>your set only consists of yourself. The league, the betting people, the
>people who believe in polls, and the voters must not be people then.

Again, you seem to be talking out your rear.   Betting people (as one of them),
the people who believe in polls (again, as one), and the voters do NOT 
uniformly believe that the best record is the better team.  Virginia is not
#1, despite having the best record.  Texas A&M was not c.football's #2 team,
despite having the 2nd best record.  San Francisco is NOT going to the
SuperBowl, despite having the best regular season record.
-- 
David T. Meeks            || "New shadows tugging at the corner of his eye
VMark Software, Inc.      ||  Jostling for attention as the sunlight flares
uvmark!davem@merk.com     ||  Through a curtains tear, shuffling its beams
davem%uvmark@merk.com     ||  As if in nervous anticipation of another day"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro