From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:51:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.181156.61464@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>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...
But they didn't lose to Buffalo. They lost to Dallas. So you have NO
evidence that Buffalo beating SF at a do-or-die scenario.

>So yes, different 
>competition is a factor, Buffalo had to face tougher competition, and they
>made it through.  SF faced weaker competition and lost...
Well, Buffalo beat only the 11-5 teams. Buffalo didn't face a 13-3 team. 
You can beat the weaker teams on the road, but that doesn't mean they'll
beat the better team. 

>The team that loses to the Champ is consider #2.  Look at the NCAA tournament.
Well, if Dallas win the SB, SF is also the team that loses to the Champs.

>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.  
Oh, but you didn't believe it .... 

>And, as "ass" is considered a vulgarity, especially in the context
>used, it qualifies.  
Considered by whom?

>And yes, I consider "ass" and "fuck" about the same on the vulgarity scale.  
Oh, only you, then it doesn't matter. So only you consider that I am losing.
Is that one of those "you are losing, why don't you shut up" baits?

>Because we can see that both teams performed about equally so far.
>15-3 vs 14-5 is a very close matchup.  
That's only "close" IN YOUR OPINION, how many people support it? 

Dallas is 15-3 too, Buffalo is 14-5, yet Dallas is a 7-point favorite. 
i.e. half the betting public believe that the 15-3 team is 7 point
better than the 14-5 team.

>>Yes, so the Raiders must be better than the Bills, right? 
>On that particular day, yep....
Oh, so Buffalo was better than SF only on 9/13/92, that particular day,
which has no bearing to the entire 1992 season.

>Oh yeah???   And what proof do you have that they are not considered 
>"relatively equal"  
Oh, then what proof do you have that they are "relatively equal"? You 
brought up that they are "relatively equal". You get any supporting evidence?

>Does the NFL have a ruling on "relatively equal".
Yes, in NFL, relatively equal means tiebreaker will be applied.

>Does Vegas 
Same odds, like the Saints and the Chargers, both at 12-1 despite different
records. 

>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.

>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???   
Because Miami and Florida St. are tied with the same 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...
Because in college polls, "recent" losses hurt more, and Notre Dame isn't
1.5 games behind A&M. 

I also noticed that Stanford ranked lower than N.D., Miami ranked lower than
FSU, ....  better pray to God again .....

>Doesn't matter, the premise is still the same.  The records are very 
>similar.  14-5 vs. 15-3 is still relatively close.  
That's only your opinion. The NFL doesn't apply tiebreakers when the
record is close. They apply it when it's tied.

>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.  
These people do not believe in head-to-head results between the two
teams either. And they put more stock in records than head-to-head in
ranking a field of teams, otherwise the 49ers wouldn't have had better
odds than the Bills.

So "the people I have seen, the head-to-head game ..." must be people
you see from your rear.

>Virginia is not #1, despite having the best record.  
Virginia is not ahead of Duke, despite beating tham. 

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com