HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martens@laurel.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens)
Subject: Re: A VIKING WOOFER!!
Organization: Ohio State U. Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:04:13 GMT

In article <20222@plains.NoDak.edu> herreid@plains.NoDak.edu (Todd J. Herreid) writes:

>            MINNESOTA VIKINGS ARE A MAJOR THREAT!


>After the beating of the Green Bay Packers last Sunday the
>secret is out in the open.  THE VIKES ARE FOR REAL.  I am
>sure that the folks in Detroit are concerned about the game
>next Sunday.  Let me tell you---don't worry----the Vikes will
>probably whack the heck out of the Lions.  This year the
>Minnesota Vikings will be whacking most if not all the teams
>they meet.

I'm sure everyone is worried.  Any team good enough to beat Green Bay
in overtime is a sure Super Bowl contender.  Why play the rest of the
season?  Let's just declare the Vikes this year's Super Bowl champs.
-- 

-- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: htilney@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: RE: Mean Joe Greene (was: Steeler draft woes)
Organization: Clark University
Date: 5 SEP 92 16:06:25 GMT

I don't know if Greene's "resignation" from the staff was on good terms
or not, but I believe he's now the defensive line coach for the Dolphins.

Bart
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro,dc.redskins
From: wlittle@nmsu.edu (Wes)
Subject: Re: Isn't it time to change the name 'Redskins'?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<12SEP92.20160452@vax.clarku.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:19:28 GMT

Oh brother.....!!  It is a NAME for a football team how in the hell
can it be offensive....    ^^^^  I can't express just how stupid I
think this is....laugh...and funny too..

Go Cowboys!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Subject: Re: Updates??
Reply-To: ded@aplcen (nod sivad)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:54:13 GMT

>Nope!!! I do not agree with you. Remember, there are a lot of international 
>readers of this group (including me from Norway) around the world trying to 
>get updated scores. WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ABC, CBS, NBC AND ESPN!!!!!

Nope!!!   Sorry, but it isn't worth swamping 300,000 people with
drivel that only 50 people want to see.  Anyway, why aren't you
satisfied with the cogent after game analysis provided free of 
charge by the calm well-mannered members of this newsgroup? :-)

We're objecting to the useless quarter-by-quarter postings, not
the usual post-game chatter (which often includes discussions of
mid-game scores anyway).

					me
From: v124p7kk@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Darryl S Brooks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: The real truth about Buffalo's defense
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:54:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <18u9j1INNlro@agate.berkeley.edu>, rege@bongo.Berkeley.EDU (Ashutosh G. Rege) writes...
> 
>Okay, I've heard enough whining from Bills' fans about how their defense
>is really very good but has to stay on the field much longer. So I decided
>to do a few quick back-of-the-envelope computations to see what effect
>the time of possession had on the performance of the Bills' D. 
> 
>Here's what I did : I computed the average TOP for Bills opponents over
>the 91 season. This was 34 minutes and 11 seconds. The league average
>is 30 minutes. So I gave Buffalo a factor of 0.877 (30/34'11") for the
>averages. Now before you  go rushing off to complain to your mom, let
>me be the first to point out the flaws in this approach. The main flaw
>is that EVERY team needs to get a similar factor and then the rankings
>should be computed. This will no doubt affect the final rankings. 
>However I don't have the patience to do this computation, maybe
>someone else will take up this task. 
> 
>So given that factor here's what I got :
>			  Before 	  After
>			    	rank	   	rank
>Rushing yds/game	127.8	28	112.2	20
>Passing yds/game	213.4	21	187.1	 9
>Total yds/game		341.1	27	299.3	10
>1st downs/game		 21	28	 18.4	14
> 
>Stats unaffected by TOP
>			rank
>Avg gain/rush		15
>Avg gain/pass play	16
>QB sack pct.		21
> 
> 
>Again, this is computed without allowing for TOP adjustments to the
>other teams' stats. So this should probably help Buffalo's new stats
>since teams like Houston and Detroit might move ahead in some of the
>categories.
> 
>Clearly the TOP makes a significant difference to the rankings. However,
>the new rankings don't move up to the top 5 and barely make it to the top 
>10, essentially indicating a defense that is somewhat above average against
>the pass and fairly weak against the run. (The latter might have some
>bearing on the former since most teams like to establish the run first).
> 
>More importantly, the average gains and 1st downs put the Bills D right
>in the middle of the pack. The re-emergence of Bruce Smith should make
>a difference. But this D is not going to end up in the top 5 even
>after making an allowance for time of possession.
> 
>Ashu Rege
> 
>P.S. Of course I might have made all kinds of computational errors :-)

	Does it really matter if the Bills D is good or bad if they win??
Look at the 9ers game.  It's not the Bills D that wins most of their games,
but rather their O.

Darryl Brooks
U at Buffalo
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: stretz@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Stretz)
Subject: Re: Player Status: Brian Blades (SEAT)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:31:08 GMT

In article <18lil1INNdun@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ae935@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jon Waler) writes:
>
>I heard that he broke his shoulder on Sunday.  I am not sure
>if he has been officially placed on the IR though.........
>
>
>
>Jw

Blades broke his collarbone on a diving miss in the end zone.  It was his
first play in a game since last season due to his holdout.  He is now on IR
for 6-8 weeks.  It is speculated that he was injury prone due to his lack
of conditioning and practice from holding out. (who cares why, it happened)

They signed KC reject Robb Thomas to fill the vacancy at WR.  Now the
Seahawks are hurting at wide receiver with Daniels questionable - may be
put on IR with Treggs out of California activated.  Kane has a jammed ankle
and Clark has a bruised right shoulder and injured left big toe.

Rob
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Gary Beason)
Subject: Re: Smith is NOT Sanders
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:35:25 GMT


>> 
>>>|> 	I'm tired of those people who put any running back up against
>>>|> Barry.  Barry is the best and those fans of any other RB will have to
>>>|> wait until something bad happens to Barry.   As for outgaining Sanders
>>>|> again this year...it could be.  As far as I'm concerned, Smith could win
>>>|> the rushing title for the next five years, but he will never be as good
>>>|> as Barry.  Sorry dude.  I know how much you don't like what I'm saying,
>>>|> but the truth hurts sometimes, dammit.
>
>Hey guys -
>
>	What's the big deal?  How long do you want to play "My back is
>better than your back"?  There are arguments and stats to prove that any
>number of backs are the "best" back, but there is obviously no real way
>of determining who is best by simply looking at the numbers.  IMHO, I
>think that Barry is the most exciting and explosive back in the NFL
>today.  Emmitt Smith is right up there with him, as is Thurman, but I
>happen to think that Barry is the man right now.
>

>
>	My original response was purely written to get the original
>poster pissed off.  He said that he was sick of hearing how great Barry
>was and that Emmitt didn't get the respect he deserved.  Well, that
>seemed like an open invitation to push some more Barry in his face.
>

Tim,

Since I'm the original poster, I thought I'd let you know--you didn't
piss me off.  (Sorry, but I have far more important things to worry
about.)  If anything, your response was pathetic, whether an
intentional effect or not.

Your explanation of your response is strange, given that you say that
stats can support the possible arguments for several great backs.  Why
would you want to be dogmatic and then say be open minded?  

And why read that my post deserved some open invitation to supposed
abuse?

It's sort of like an argument I saw re: great qb's--Montana is great,
but of "all time"?  too tough to call.  Montana has the kind of
offensive planning and athletes that Unitas didn't.  


Gary Beason
bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: 50zhouh@cua.edu
Subject: MNF announcers
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:02:18 GMT

I hate those ABC MNF announcers!
From: tsv@dbrus.Unify.Com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Raiders Starting QB?
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:17:46 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <100240288@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> chapman@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Larry Chapman) writes:
>
>Jay "The Scud"  Schrader  started  for the  Broncos.  God knows, the Broncs
>couldn't have won without him!
>
>-- LSC

You ought to buy a "Schroeder Hater" T-shirt.  They sell them right outside  the
Coliseum!

Tim.

--
Tim Vannaman, Premium Technical Support Engineer   Phone: (916) 928-6433
Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California    Fax: (916) 928-6403
tsv@unify.Com  or  {{ucdavis,csun,lll-crg}!csusac,pyramid,sequent}!unify!tsv
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: mgleason@cse.unl.edu (Mike Gleason)
Subject: Re: The Pats
Organization: NCEMRSoft
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:10:25 GMT

rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:


>Ahhh, foolish me. Last week I posted that I thought the LA Lambs were the
>worst team in the NFL, after their big loss to Buffalo.

>Well, these same Lambs pitched a SHUTOUT yesterday (after yielding 40 to
>Buff), their first in many many games, against a hapless Patriots team.

>Pats fans should hope it was just the trauma of having their first game
>postponed that did it to the Pats.

L.A. may have won, but they still deserve the Lambs designation.  Too bad
for us Patriots (Patsies :-) fans.  I thought this game was one of their
better prospects this year.  If they keep this up, they won't attain my
goal of 6 wins this year (but then again, maybe we'll get Marshall Faulk in
next year's draft).  If Buffalo can thrash the Lambs by 37 who in turn can
whup the Patriots by 14, we could be looking at a couple of half-century
games against Buffalo.


--
______________________________________________________________________________
mike gleason                 mgleason@cse.unl.edu             NCEMRSoft, baby!
From: mas@aero.org (Marcus A.Shaw)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Updates??
Date: 14 Sep 1992 14:59:42 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <1992Sep14.044841.660@abode.ttank.com> eric@abode.ttank.com (Eric C. Bennett) writes:

>winning 34-28. They damn near gave up the game in the end. Is it true that the
>Giants had the ball at the end of the game but ran out of time? It is a good
>thing that Elliott made those fieldgoals this week.


No.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: eric@abode.ttank.com (Eric C. Bennett)
Subject: Updates??
Organization: Abode Computer Services
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:48:41 GMT

If the net was 'live wire' news I would find it nice to have 'updates' posted
about games. BUT IT ISN'T! It seems like a very big waste of bandwidth to post
8-10 (or more) updates about games in progress since by the time most people
get them they know the score and have even seen highlights.

Just my .02 cents worth.

Eric

P.S. The Cowboys should be ashamed of themselves for going ahead 34-0 and only
winning 34-28. They damn near gave up the game in the end. Is it true that the
Giants had the ball at the end of the game but ran out of time? It is a good
thing that Elliott made those fieldgoals this week.

-- 
     Eric C. Bennett	 uucp: ..!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!wvus!abode!eric
     San Gabriel, Ca Internet: eric@abode.ttank.com

>>> HELP ME!! HELP ME!!! I am a COWBOY fan stuck in Ram and Raider Country <<<
From: johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Vegas says Cowboys -2.5
Date: 9 Sep 92 06:55:54 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

After watching the Giants !perform against the 'niners, and
the Cowboys handle the 'skins, I couldn't help but notice
that Vegas has Dallas favored by 2 1/2 in this Sunday's 
Cowboys/Dallas contest. 

C'mon.... this is free money. How the hell can I quit
gambling with this kind of action available???


John Abt

* Jerry Rice will make The Catch II against Dallas in this
  years NFC title game *
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Instant Replay
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:29:53 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Sep9.210453.6889@cs.hut.fi> killer@robin.cs.hut.fi (Kalle Kivimaa) writes:
><hcsnxlb.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>Nothing personal, but who gives a fuck whether the officials are happy
>>without it or not.  We don't pay to see the officials.  Their blown calls
>>can effect a players livelihood and paycheck.  Of the games I saw this
>>weekend every one of them had a bad call in it that could have been
>>overturned with IR.
>
>I try not to take it personally :)  (OK, I referee in Finland, not in NFL..)
>
>How come the 'blown' calls affect the players paycheck?  If you are a
>good player, you will stay that way even if a touchdown you made is 
>called back because some holding took place.

Incentive clauses.  Ok, I'm a receiver whose contract reads: If I make
15 or more TDs in the regular season I get a 50k bonus.  Last game of
the year, last quarter and I've got 14 TDs.  Pass comes my way, back of
the endzone, I catch it and get both feet in bounds.  But wait!  The
offical rules that I only got one foot in bounds.  We win game but blown
call costs me $50,000!!

Or a blown call can cost a team the playoffs where extra money is lost.

>And have you ever considered the fact that officials are only human and
>make mistakes just like players and coaches?  If a team loses because
>of a 'blown' call, then the game was close enough for ANY luck factor
>to make them lose it.

Championship games should be close.  And instant replay at least gives us
a chance at correcting some obvious screwups, like that "interception".
It's pretty lame to say that since the offical screwed up a team deserved
to lose because they weren't good enough to win by a landslide.

>I personally am against IR, because without it, the officials WILL make
>better calls, as they have no 'safety net' :)

Yeah, right.  Tell it to Aikman who gets an INT for his record.


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: maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Afterthoughts on Raiders/Denver
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:48:23 GMT
Reply-To: maurit@nrtc.nrtc.northrop.com (Mark Aurit <maurit>)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA

As a Raiders fan, I was unhappy that they lost a game they should
have won. But in retrospect, I cant help but feel glad that Im
backing the losing Raiders than the winning Broncos.

As I said, the Raiders had the game in vitually every important
position (sure, Schroeders no Elway - but then very few are). All
they need to do is a little fine tuning and they certainly have
the firepower and defense to make a very respectable showing of
themselves. Hey, Bell and Dickerson in the same backfield!

Denver, on the other hand, was lucky - and while there is nothing
wrong with being lucky, you cant count on it, and defensively and
offensively they were really weak. 

Anyone else feel the same?

Mark
maurit@nrtc.northrop.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: cooperr@a.cs.okstate.edu (COOPER ROBERT BRYA)
Subject: Superbowl Info
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 01:48:19 GMT
Keywords: superbowl

 #   winner   loser  score       site     attend.          MVP
---- -------------- -------   --------------------  -----------------
XXVI  Wash vs Buff  37 - 24   Minneapolis  63,130   Rypien, Wash
XXV    NYG vs Buff  20 - 19   Tampa        73,813   Anderson, NYG
XXIV    SF vs Den   55 - 10   New Orleans  72,919   Montana, SF
XXIII   SF vs Cin   20 - 16   Miami        75,129   Rice, SF
XXII  Wash vs Den   42 - 10   San Diego    73,302   Williams, Wash
XXI    NYG vs Den   39 - 20   Pasadena    101,063   Simms, NYG
XX     Chi vs Pats  46 - 10   New Orleans  73,818   Dent, Chi
XIX     SF vs Miami 38 - 16   Stanford     84,059   Montana, SF
XVIII  Rai vs Wash  38 -  9   Tampa        72,920   Allen, Rai
XVII  Wash vs Miami 27 - 17   Pasadena    103,667   Riggins, Wash
XVI     SF vs Cin   26 - 21   Pontiac      81,270   Montana, SF
XV     Rai vs Phil  27 - 10   New Orleans  76,135   Plunkett, Rai
XIV   Pitt vs Rams  31 - 19   Pasadena    103,985   Bradshaw, Pitt
XIII  Pitt vs Dal   35 - 31   Miami        79,484   Bradshaw, Pitt
XII    Dal vs Den   27 - 10   New Orleans  75,583   White/Martin, Dal
XI     Rai vs Minn  32 - 14   Pasadena    103,438   Biletnikoff, Rai
X     Pitt vs Dal   21 - 17   Miami        80,187   Swann, Pitt
IX    Pitt vs Minn  16 -  6   New Orleans  80,997   Harris, Pitt
VIII Miami vs Minn  24 -  7   Houston      71,882   Csonka, Miami
VII  Miami vs Wash  14 -  7   Los Angeles  90,182   Scott, Miami
VI     Dal vs Miami 24 -  3   New Orleans  81,023   Staubach, Dal
V    Colts vs Dal   16 - 13   Miami        79,204   Howley, Dal
IV      KC vs Minn  23 -  7   New Orleans  80,562   Dawson, KC
III    NYJ vs Colts 16 -  7   Miami        75,389   Namath, NYJ
II    GBay vs Rai   33 - 14   Miami        75,546   Starr, GBay
I     GBay vs KC    35 - 10   Los Angeles  61,946   Starr, GBay

If you are collecting info like this, then wuarchive has a GREAT
directory for you.  This list is posted to /pub/nfl/lists and
the directory /pub/nfl and /pub/nfl-scores has some good stuff.

If you have other lists of your own, you might consider uploading
them to there:  
ftp wuarchive.wustl.edu 
anonymous
[e-mail address]
cd /pub/nfl
enjoy!

If you find any errors in this listing or wish to comment on the 
content, please notify me at:

cooperr@a.cs.okstate.edu

Thank you,

Bryan Cooper
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger)
Subject: Re: Packer/Viking thoughts (Packer fan viewpoint)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.183150.15856@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>In article <YefJOvC00Uh709hrsN@andrew.cmu.edu>, Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>
>
>>Offense:
>>  Rushing:  Seeing the pack have success on the ground is encouraging,
>>and shows clearly the end of the Infante era.  The question is, do they
>>have the talent to really run?  Hopefully, but probably not.
>
>Well, some success.  Geez, I wish I had some stats.  The Packer Report 
>should arrive tomorrow so I'll know more on Friday.  I'd like to know 
>how many rushing yards the Packers had.  They were really slicing the 
>Vikings apart on trap blocks - huge holes on almost every play.  It 
>was the drive blocking that stunk.  This is the one thing that 
>Mandarich really excells at.

   I think it was about 35 carries for about 120 yards. Anyway, the Packer
   running game should be improved, but still probably pretty weak. As for
   Mandarich, with the injuries, poor play and everything else, I wonder
   if he'll even crack the starting lineup.

>>Overall:  We need better than 6-10, but it won't happen.
>
>If they play that good every week they might make 6-10.  I'm assuming 
>the Vikings are a 7-9 or 8-8 team.
>
   I could see a 6-10 season if they get a couple breaks. If Sunday's game
   is any indication, I doubt if the Vikings are much more than an 8-8 or
   possibly 9-7 team.

   --salty


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Gary Beason)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Smith is NOT Sanders
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:01:14 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

Why is it that when people talk about the cut-back running of Smith,
they have to compare him to Sanders, who  did NOT invent the damn
style.  (Anyone remember Sayers or Marcus Allen?)

All in all, it's real tiresome to hear Sanders as some kind of
measuring stick.  I listened to the Bears/Lions game, and one of the
announcers said, "There's no one else in the league that can run like
that" as we watched Barry elude several tacklers and carry a couple
for more yards.  give me a break.  Hyperbole gets tiresome even  in
football announcing.

Give Emmitt his due--he's as good as Sanders and deserves his own
measuring stick.  I think Emmitt will outgain Sanders AGAIN this year.

Gary Beason
bubba@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: myles@leland.Stanford.EDU (Myles Sussman)
Subject: Re: Bucs coach
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 01:46:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.191654.20695@pdn.paradyne.com> lej@pdn.paradyne.com (Leo James) writes:
>Sam might be able to win here this season.  But, if he does,  it will not
>be  the first winning season for the Buccaneers.   The Buccaneers,  under
>John McKay,  went from expansion team (1976) to playoff team (1979) fast-
                                                                     ^^^^
>er than any other team in NFL history.  The Bucs, in 1979,  went 10 and 6
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   I am not sure that statement is true.  The Bengals were an
expansion team in (I think) 1968 and made the playoffs in 1970 (I
think), or perhaps 1971.  Somebody in Cincinnati help me out on this,
because I have only been a Bengals fan since 1976 and I can't remember
the Paul Brown era.  Admittedly the Bengals were an AFL expansion
team, so Tampa's claim may win on a technicality.

Myles Sussman
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: dominimj@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Michael J Dominick)
Subject: Re: players w/big stats: are they for real?
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:34:38 GMT


In article <92254.161654MSB101@psuvm.psu.edu> <MSB101@psuvm.psu.edu>  
writes:
> The following players posted big numbers for week one.  But the players  
in my
> FFL are skeptical about their future potential.  Can anyone in the know  
comment
> on whether these stats were flukes or are these players for real?
> 
> 1) Workman
> 2) Culver
> 3) Watters
> 4) Allen, T.
> 5) Graham
> 6) Nagle
> 
> Thank you for any info.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> MSB101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
> "You guys spend your entire lives watching and studying football"
> "So what's your point?"
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

	As a Niner fan, I know Ricky Watters is for real.  He might not  
gain 100 yards a game but I think he'll be a durable running back and  
receiver(so valueable to the SF offense) and he'll run well the entire  
year unless he gets injured...like all of last year.

						Go NINER'S
						   MJD

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro