From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:06:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan21.215104.29881@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>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.

Actually, you are wrong again... Remember, they did lose to Buffalo this
year.  So, we do have evidence of Buffalo BEATING SF.  If SF were a better
team, we could have seen them in a do-or-die scenario, but they just weren't
good enough..  As it is, we DO have evidence that Buffalo can beat SF, but
we have absolutely NO evidence that SF can beat Buffalo.

>
>>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. 

So, SF beat even weaker competition (what was Washington, 9-7???), and they
did it at home.  And, Buffalo beat this supposed "stronger" team on the road,
as well as the mighty Saints.  SF has not proven it can beat the stronger 
teams, even at home.  They barely got by the weakest of the playoff teams,
while playing at home.  

>>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 .... 

Again, didn't say whether I did or didn't, just that it is just using your 
own argueing techniques against you...

>>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?

And "who" considers the stuff that offends you as vulgar.  You...  so, let's
not get hypocritical Ed..  Be consistent.  
>
>>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? 

Well, the league supports it in allowing the playoff format.  And, many other
people on the net seem to support it as well.  If no one else, Gary Strand 
does.  That in itself is 2 against 1.   Majority rules...
>
>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.

Correct.  So what's your point.  I believe Notre Dame was a 7 point favorite
over Texas A&M, who was undefeated at that point.  And San Francisco was the
favorite against Dallas, and we know what happened there.  Or are you saying
that SF is still the better 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.

Yes, it does have bearing.  It is worth at least 1/16 of the season.  And,
as they didn't meet again, we know 3 basic things...

1)  On the one head-to-head matchup they did have, Buffalo was undoubtably the
better team. (Beat SF, in SF)

2)  Based on a regular season consisting of different schedules, conditions, 
and other factors, and including the current playoff results, the records of
the two teams are SF 15-3, Buffalo 14-5, which is very SIMILAR, though in 
SF's favor.

3)  Buffalo is in the SuperBowl, San Fran is not...

So, in at least 1/16 of the regular season, we KNOW without a doubt that 
Buffalo was better than SF.  That isn't opinion, but recorded fact.  We also
know that during the rest of the season, including the playoffs, that SF has
so far compiled a record that is 1.5 games better than what Buffalo has 
compiled.  However, they compiled this record against different competition,
with different locations, etc...  Determinations based on this fall more into
the realm of OPINION...

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

Nope.. wrong.  In the NFL, EXACTLY equal means tiebreaker will be applied.
>
>>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.

So, you are verifying my point.  That the team with the better record
does not always get ranked higher.  And, you even claim that in a situation
of being 1.5 games behind, that the teams would typically split about 50-50
in the ranking.  So, based on records alone, it seems those people might
be inclined to split 50-50 the question of who was better.  
>
>>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.

Wrong...  Texas A&M finished the season with 1 more victory than either of
those two teams.  They were a half game up on them... I guess according to
EdLorian logic, this shall be deemed a lie...

>
>>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 .....

Never said it always, or "almost always" occurs that way, just that it refutes
you claim that the "...Vegas and the betting public don't, the college polls
don't."  

>>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.

And who says they are applying the tiebreakers rules.  Get a clue Ed.
The league also does not state that the team with the best regular season
record is the league's best team either.  So, that blows your argument away
as well.  Want to use the "league", then you better be sure they support your
claim, which they don't...  Yes, having the best record gives you many
advantages, but it does not get you the league's best team recognition.
>
>>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.

Have you ever been involved in the betting process Ed??? Obviously not.
As a frequent player of the betting games, I can assure you that head-to-head
results play a large part in the process of odds making.  And, so does overall
record.  But then, so do things like Home Field advantage, competition, etc..
Based on their record, the competition, the home field advantage, etc.. that
SF enjoyed, and the fact that Buffalo was banged up (another factor used 
considerably), and had to play the top AFC teams on the road, it didn't have 
odds as favorably as SF.  However, Vegas does not declare the league's best
team, but rather put odds on which team will win in given circumstances.  
But, all of these factors, and others, go into odds making.  There were many
people who thought that SF was the leagues best team, and it could easily be
argued that they were.  But, as they have now lost, they lose that honor.
And like you pointed out, except for 1972, no NFL team can proclaim itself
undeniably the best.  Only the 72' Dolphins beat everyone they faced.

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

No, I only see you in my rear.  
>
>>Virginia is not #1, despite having the best record.  
>Virginia is not ahead of Duke, despite beating tham. 

But, as I have stated on many occasions, head-to-head matchups are part of
the equation.  If not, why did Virginia move up so many places after winning?
Their record did not significantly improve?  Beating the at the time #1 team
in a head to head matchup, on the road, obviously had quite a lot of respect
to go with it.  
-- 
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