HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
Subject: Re: The FAT LADY IS SINGING in BUFFALO!
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:47:55 GMT

In article <103577@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.191522.2505@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
>>current score:  Oilers  35  Bills  3
>>
>>Moon and company are in total control of this game.
>>Does anyone want a play by play?
>
>I think this article is a self-contained strong argument for the
>cessation of "up-to-the-minute" reports.  Usenet's distribution
>mechanisms will ensure that the article cited does not reach most
>of its intended audience until well after the game is over, by
>which point those who are interested will have long since discovered
>the outcome via other media.
>
>---Rsk

Come on Rsk, what happened today was NFL HISTORY! Who would have thought
a different outcome except the FAITHFUL Bills fan?  Even they 
were probably dejected and cussing up a storm up to that point.
You don't have to like the updates, and you're entitled to your
opinion. There are a few folks out there working or overseas who 
do appreciate the updates. I mean, what can be more exciting to
see such a post and then have it "turned around" before the game
is OVER! :-) It was exciting to watch and exciting to "type" as
it happened!

-- 
 ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller
From: ereiss@ocf.berkeley.edu (Edward Reiss)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: NY Times NFL Computer Rankings
Date: 31 Dec 1992 14:19:44 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: maelstrom.berkeley.edu

In article <31DEC92.11454994@vax.clarku.edu> htilney@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>How are these ratings figured? The NFC rankings look somewhat agreeable,
>but not the AFC. The Chargers have alot of momentum, but who have they
>beaten to rate 2nd place overall?? Houston ahead of Pittsburgh, Buffalo
>and Miami? The Chiefs ahead of the Bills? Come on!
>
>I'll assume this is someone's opinion and not some computer ranking.
>
>-		
>Bart "Webb" Tilney	
>Email: htilney@vax.clarku.edu

The Times computer ranking has been around for at least eleven years,
as I first became aware of it in 1981. I believe that it is published
every Wednesday (or Thursday) in the sports pages (usually section B).
As these were the rankings at of the end of regular season play, I
thought people would be interested in them.  Following is the descriptive
blurb at the bottom of the rankings that I was too tired to include in
my original middle-of-the-night posting:

(reproduced without permission from 12/30/92 NY Times)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The New York Times computer football ranking is based on an analysis of 
 each team's scores with emphasis on three factors: who won, by what margin
 and against what quality of opposition.  The quality of an opponent is
 determined by examining its record against other teams.

 The Times computer model collapses runaway scores and takes note of a
 home field advantage.  Recent games count more than earlier games. The
 top team is assigned a rating of 1.000; the ratings of all other teams
 are percentages reflecting their strength relative to the top team.
 This week, for example, there is a very large difference between San
 Francisco (ranked No. 1) and San Diego (No. 2) but very little difference
 between Dallas (No. 3) and New Orleans (No. 4).

 *The cumulative records and margin of victory of each team's opponents
 do not include games against ranked teams"

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 Note that the last paragraph refers to columns that I did not include
 in my original post.  If anybody is really interested, I'll post the
 entire table sometime in the next couple of days.

 Ed
From: caeser@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert Michael Trotter)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Vikes KILL the Pack
Date: 28 Dec 1992 15:56:36 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <1992Dec28.153029.25827@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.210558.13853@uc.msc.edu>, bob@uh.msc.edu (Robert Hanson) writes...
>It is my opinion that Packer fans have behaved much classier than 
>Vikings fans during this playoff chase.
>
	In some cases yes, but in some cases no. Generalization is bad
	all around. Some VIkings fans are total jerks, some Packers
	fans are total jerks. I think for the most part, both teams
	fans are good sports, and good football fans.

>In fact, Eric S. even compared me to Hitler for generalizing about 
>Vikings fans when I said "Maybe Vikings fans are just naturally 
>insecure."  So I apologized for the generalization but that wasn't 
>good enough.
>
	Thanks. We do appreciate it. I think most Vikings fans got upset
	at the LARGE thread about how the Vikings couldnt win against these
	kind of teams, cant beat any good teams, etc etc. Well the fact is
	Minnesota finished 11-5, and alot of teams wish they were 11-5. 
	Regardless of how it was accomplished, I am proud of my Vikings
	team. I will also say I was a bit nervous sitting there in the
	Dome as the Packers grabbed a 7-0 lead. Hats off to the Packers
	at a great run. Hopefully they will be able to play well next year
	and push the Bears and Lions even deeper down.

>The way I got it figured, the score is at least 7-0 in Packer fan's 
>favor as far as showing class goes.
>
	Again, please tdont generalize us all. I am a PROUD Vikings
	fan and I am also congradulate the Packers on a fine season.

	Mark
	GO VIKINGS!
-- 
Minnesota Vikings	11-5	NFC Central Division Champions 1992-93!

Gannon back in the pocket, DRAW to Allen, Allen bursts up the middle,TOUCHDOWN!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: jmartens@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey D Martens)
Subject: Re: CENTRAL DIVISION RIVALS 1970-92 
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:51:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.150758.14201@bmw.mayo.edu> bergerson@mayo.edu writes:

>Chew on these numbers for a while:

>                         1970-1992
>Team                     record               win pct.     division titles
>------------------      --------------        --------     ----------------
>Minnesota Vikings       200 - 141 - 2          .587         ELEVEN
>Chicago Bears           179 - 163 - 1          .523         EIGHT
>Green Bay Packers       141 - 194 - 8          .421         one
							     ^^^
							     TWO


Nope:  the Packers won the NFC Central in both '72 and '82.  This
still isn't exactly impressive, though.

-- 
-- Jeff (temporarily based at jmartens@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
From: satish@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: For New York Giants Fans
Date: 22 Dec 92 03:45:34 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec22.002632.25620@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Kevin Lu) writes:
>Ray Handley and Rod Rust **must** GO!!
>
>End of Discussion.
>
>But who can we get to replace them?
>
>
>--
>  +----------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
>  |  Kevin Lu                              | Monash University             |
>  |  Email: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au  | Clayton, Victoria             |
>  |                                        | Australia                     |


Tom Coughlin, head coach of the Boston College football team.  He was with the
GIANTS organization but left to take up head coaching job at B.C.  He has
done tremendous things with that offense especially with Chucky Dukes and their
QB (whose name escapes me).  All right so they got blown out by Notre Dame but
Coughlin has made the most out of his personnel.

GIANTS management has their sights on him.

Ironically, the name of the B.C. football team is... the Eagles :-)

satish nair
giants (6-10 in '92)
From: jdhl@troi.cc.rochester.edu (papa_sm00sh)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Playoff teams vs Playoff teams
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:57:18 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec21.082438.19871@icf.hrb.
>	San Diego	10-5	0-2


>Dallas and San Diego have good records against mostly the poorer teams
>in the league.


regarding the sudden flux of people (including terry bradshaw) who
believe the Chargers are amazing...

yes, they have a very good defense... but look who they are playing
against! as a general rule of thumb... a win against a good oponent
counts more than a win against a weak opponent... a loss to a weak
opponent counts more (negatively) than a loss against a strong
opponent... since san diego has not won any(?) games against 'strong'
opponents... all of their wins count 'little'... compare with buffalo
which has wins against strong opponents *and* losses against weak
opponents... 3 wins against good opponents (SF, Miami, NO) vs. 2
losses to weak opponents (Indy, NYJ)...

summarizing... 'good'=strong wins - weak losses
               'poor'=weak wins - strong losses
               
buffalo: good: 3-3= 0 
(11-4)   poor: 8-1= 8

s.diego: good: 0-3=-3
(10-5)   poor: 8-4= 4


buffalo is up by 3 good and 4 poor... that puts buffalo
ahead... the trick is to measure good and poor quantitatively... so
any ranking scheme that does not have buffalo ahead of san diego i say
is out of order...

but that's just my opinion...

jason
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: asgari@ssc00.net.com (Asgari Roger)
Subject: RUSHING RECORDS
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:23:31 GMT




		I would appreciate it if someone would kindly list the 
	top rushing career leaders in the NFL(todate)...
			
		THANKYOU   
				RA




		GO COWBOYS!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: AFC playoff picture
From: scott@mccall.com (Scott D. Davis)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:54:44 CST
Reply-To: scott@mccall.com (Scott D. Davis)
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Nntp-Posting-User: scott


In article <1h5ep9INN7qn@fido.asd.sgi.com>, sjohnson@faulen.asd.sgi.com (Scott Johnson) writes:
>caps means team with playoff possibilities.  asterik below means division
>winner.  first two get bye.   next four are listed in order of record and
>tie breaker.  i forget if the last four are seeded with the last division
>winner as the highest seed of the four, or if they are seeded according to
>record.  i assumed the latter.  anyway, here they are, with the 32
>possible outcomes of the above five games.  winners of those games are
>listed above the resulting seeding.
>
#3 divisional winner always gets the #3 wildcard team.
#1 wildcard team get homefield versus #2 wildcard.

#1 divisional gets all games at home vs lower record team
--
Scott D. Davis <scott@mccall.com>       The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!widener!depot!mccall!scott)	615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041  Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
From: tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: 49ers Defensive Coordinator?
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:59:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo

Who is the 49ers defensive coordinator?  Who was the defensive
coordinator last year?  Do they even have one?

I know it's not former defensive backfield coach Ray Rhodes, who
went to Green Bay with Mike Holmgren.  Is it George MacPherson?

Jeff Fisher came to the 49ers this year from the LA Rams, but I
believe he is only the defensive backfield coach.  Oddly enough,
the 49ers defensive backfield really improved when Fisher started
wearing a headset, and George Seifert stopped wearing one.  Given
the low regard LA Rams fans have for Fisher, perhaps this was a
deliberate move to keep him out of trouble?  Or, given the equally
low regard Denver Broncos fans had for Mike Shanahan, who has been
badly missed in the "Reeves" offense, and who is a vast improvement
over Holmgren as a play caller, perhaps Seifert gave Fisher a job
as acting defensive coordinator?

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: rfedkiw@olympic.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Subject: Buffalo SuperBowl
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 08:59:31 GMT

Let's see Buffalo beat: San Fran, N.O., Pitt, Miami(split)...all Superbowl
contenders.
The only other serious contender is Dallas. But if they beat San Fran
and N.O., I would assume that they 'could' beat Dallas.

They lost to the Raiders. And split with Miami, Jets, Indy.
None of these teams will be played again, except possibly Miami.

Bills History:
1988 season: Division
1989 season: Division
1990 season: Division, AFC Champion
1991 season: Division, AFC Champion
and
1992 season: Division, AFC Champion, Superbowl
1993 season: Division, AFC Champion, Superbowl
1994 season: Division, AFC Champion, Superbowl, Undefeated 19-0
1995 season: Division, AFC Champion, Superbowl, Undefeated 19-0

How's that for the prediction.

And Pitt will go:
1992 season: 10-6 
1993 season:  7-9
1994 season:  4-12
1995 season:  1-15
1996 season:  0-16
1997 season:  0-16
1998 season:  0-16
1999 season:  0-16
2000 season:  0-16, fold at end of year, will move to Japan   



--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@joshua.math.ucla.edu)

The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us are going to the stars.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: krishna@seas.smu.edu (Sanjay Krishna)
Subject: Playoff games - NFC
Organization: SMU - School of Engineering & Applied Science - Dallas
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:12:45 GMT

I thought I had the playoff scenario right. Please correct me if I am 
wrong. A few weeks back 
------------------------------------------------------------------

From: gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami)

The rule is quite simple, really: The six playoff teams are seeded,
from 1-6.  The three division winners get the 1-3 seeds, and the
wildcard teams get the 4-6.  Note that even if a wildcard team has a
better record than one or two division champions, it still cannot be
seeded higher than 4.

In the first round, seed #6 plays at seed #3, and #5 plays at #4.

Now here's the tricky part: In the second round, the LOWEST REMAINING
SEED is at #1 and the SECOND LOWEST is at #2.  In other words:

If #3 beats #6, then it's
	#3 at #2, and #4/#5 at #1;

But if #6 upsets #3 it's
	#4/#5 at #2, and #6 at #1.

And of course in the championship game, the highest remaining seed is
at home.  Even in the very unlikely event that #6 upsets both #3 and #1,
they will still play the championship game on the road!

For example, last year in the NFC the seeding went:
	#1 Washington (14-2, East champ)
	#2 Detroit (12-4, Central champ)
	#3 New Orleans (11-5, West champ)
	#4 Chicago (11-5)
	#5 Dallas (11-5)
	#6 Atlanta (10-6).
(Chicago would have had a tie-breaker on the Saints, but as a wildcard
they had to be seeded below them).  So the first round was Cowboys at
Bears and Falcons at Saints, and both road teams won.  And according
to the "upset" scenario above, Atlanta went to Washington and Dallas
went to Detroit.  This time the home teams won, setting up Detroit at
Washington.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Gidi - that was like an "if then" else. If this is right, then 
this year 
          
         #1 SanFranciso 
         #2 Dallas
         #3 Minnesota
         #4 New Orleans/Philadelphia
         #5 Philadelphia/New Orleans
         #6 Washington/ Green Bay

For Dallas, their opponent in the second round is therefore determined
by the Minnesota game. If #3 Minnesota is upset by Washington/ Green Bay
then #6 Washington/ Green Bay goes to San Francisco and the winner of the
Philadelphia/ New Orleans game comes to Dallas. However, if #3 Minnesota
does win, then they come to Dallas and the Philadelphia/ New Orleans winner
goes to San Francisco. 

For Cowboy fans, the latter scenario is desirable. I think Dallas would 
like to meet Minnesota rather than Philadelphia/ New Orleans. 

Sanjay 






Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: George Seifert -- coaching record
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 00:10:23 GMT

eb> Eric C. Bennett

  The skinny on Seifert's coaching record, counting this year:

  Regular season : 51-12-0 (0.809)
  Postseason     :  4- 1-0 (0.800)
  Overall        : 55-13-0 (0.808)

eb> By the way, what playoff game did he lose?

  1990 NFC Championship game, 15-13, to eventual SB winners NY Giants, at San
  Francisco.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: total yards from scrimmage
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Big G Burger"
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:54:26 GMT

<103069@netnews.upenn.edu> satish@a.chem.upenn.edu (Satish Nair) writes:
><1992Dec23.155334.11724@PacBell.COM> jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
>>Ehhhhhh! W-R-O-N-G! Satish's question was mis-interpreted by you.
>>Satish sent me an e-mail, and if he is around, perhaps he can
>>explain it to you. :-)  
>
>Yikes, I didn't mean to cause such a controversy.  Anyways, what I meant
>by my original question was that I wanted some consensus on what people 
>on the net thought about rushing stats.  I remember a  few years ago, I
>thought rushing for 1000+ yards was a really big deal and that such a feat
>was almost always synonymous with a good record.  However, today most every
>team has a 1000+ yard rusher regardless of how well they are doing. So I
>was wondering if folks still thought 1000+ yards rushing was a great
>accomplishment.

1000 yeards in a 12 game season was the mark of a great back, 1000 yards
in a 14 game season was the mark of a good back.  Now, 1000 yards in a 16
game season is not that great a feat.  I would say that your average
starting RB in the league should get 1000 yards.  A Great Running Back(tm)
in the same circumstance would get ~1350 yards.  This, of course, depends
on the offensive schemes.

>In short, both of John and Gordon are right because they've provided the
>opinions I'd asked for (and they say diplomacy is dead :-)

Thank you.  I had a feeling you were asking about the importance of 1000
yards in determining other factors.  Not just how the yards were counted.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: Michael.P.Colburn@dartmouth.edu (Michael P. Colburn)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Broncos/Reeves: A Mistake ???
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:04:04 GMT
 <1992Dec28.233111.17857@europa.asd.contel.com>  
 <1992Dec29.063613.20338@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec29.063613.20338@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

> Reeves maintained an undersized defense for years after it was proven
> ineffective against NFC teams, and ran an unoriginal, uninspired
> offense. 

What do you base your statement concerning Denver's 'ineffective'
defense 'against NFC teams' on...hmmm...probably on the numbers: 39-20,
42-10, 55-10.  Okay, but this was against the best NFC teams for those
years.  Granted, while under Reeves, Denver hasn't fared as well
against NFC teams as he has against AFC teams, but this can be said of
most AFC teams in the last decade.  Fact is, Dan Reeves has compiled a
25-20-1 record against NFC opponents while at Denver, including post
season games.  

> Reeves is a competent but mediocre coach.

O.K., try to prove this statement...and please, not the "Elway made
Reeves what he is today" crap.  Sure, Elway has been one of the keys to
Dan's success with Denver, but I don't hear anyone saying stuff like
"Marino and Griese made Shula" or "Staubach made Landry" or "Montana
made Walsh".  This is a lame argument.  Have we all forgotten Dan's
rather successful stint as an offensive coach at Dallas in the
seventies?  The Cowboys went 47-15 with Dan as the offensive
coordinator from '77-'80 (oh yeah, "Staubach made Reeves before Elway
made Reeves...").  
And bottom line, Gerald...117-79-1, mediocre... NOT!!

I'm not a Bronco fan and Elway drives me crazy like every other
non-Bronco fan, but IMHO, Dan Reeves is a class act and a great coach. 
If Dan is only mediocre, why is he on the top of head coach list for
nearly every wanting team in both conferences?  Perhaps the only way to
prove to folks like Gerald that Reeves is more than your average coach
is to see how he does with another club...so stay tuned, folks.

BTW, how much longer do we have to wait to see Ray's head roll?  I'm
mean really...polls in Denver show that the fans and team wouldn't mind
if Reeves staid on and he's the first coach to get the axe. Could it be
the Giants are considering keeping Handley if they can't get one of
they're top choices to come aboard?  GACK!!!! I'm having a spastic fit
just at the thought of it!!
Please, Dan, Bill, Tom...somebody...HELP!!!!

Mike Colburn                         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dartmouth-Hitchcock                  "Pulu-see-ba-goomba" -- Gilligan 
Medical Center                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lebanon, New Hampshire  03756        :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Land of the Giants
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: wytten@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dale Wyttenbach)
Subject: Bear and Packer fans (was Vikings comments)
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:09:01 GMT

In <1992Dec22.003553.10290@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud) writes:
> I've compiled a list of tren reasons the Vikings make me laugh.

Funny you brought this up today: This morning I was pondering my 
recent lack of hatred for the Packers.  I really would like to see
them in the playoffs...it's a shame when hot teams don't make it
(like the 49er's last year).

I guess the reason I hate the Bears but not the Packers is probably
their respective fans.  You gotta love a team that technically
represents just 70,000 or so loyal residents of Green Bay.  Packer
backers are lovable in a retarded puppy sort of way: How can you hate
a long-suffering loyal Packer fan?  But Bears fans are another story.
In a word association game, "Chicago" would probably draw the word
"obnoxious" from me.

Not that Vikings fans are so great.  Minnesotans are generally a bunch
band-wagon jumping homers when it comes to sports.

Anyway, sorry if I offend with my gross generalizations.  They are
what I believe, and of course I mention only them to needle Bears and 
Packer fans a bit.

Dale Wyttenbach
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: billms@eecs.umich.edu (William Mangione-Smith)
Subject: Re: 49er QBs
Organization: University of Michigan
	<1992Dec29.220643.15488@linus.mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:16:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.220643.15488@linus.mitre.org> lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:

   In article <1992Dec29.151404.26611@asl.dl.nec.com>, nix@aslslc43.asl.dl.nec.com (David Nix) writes:
   >If you were in George Seifert's shoes next season, would you bench the
   >league MVP to give one of the all-time great QBs one more year of glory?
   >Montana has already said that he will NOT be a backup, so this is what 
   >George must do in order to keep Montana with San Francisco.

   He'll have to sit out a season, unless he gets put on Plan B.

There is no Plan B.

Bill
--
-------------------------------
	Bill Mangione-Smith
	billms@eecs.umich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro