From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:33:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan22.034240.4304@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.182311.60433@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>>Oh, in that case, so someone who spent months arguing with me can't be anything
>>>better than an idiot.
>>Hey, argueing with an idiot does not make one an idiot.  Pointing out and 
>>flaming your idiotic logic is an attempt to bring some sanity into your
>>poor, wretched existance...
>Yes, but your pointing out and flaming my logic didn't go anywhere. And usually 
>after a month, you got no more arguments and wimped out. So your argument 
>and logic must be more idiotic. Well, what makes of a person who spouts a 
>month of more idiotic arguments? 

When a person is a warped and pig-headed as yourself, no amount of sane logic
on the other side will prevail.  And, as myself and many others have seen,
after awhile you get tired of dealing with your being an idiot.  So we have
been foolish in trying to show you the error of your ways, or pointing out
the flaws in your logic, but we haven't been as idiotic as you have been.
If it were only I argueing with you Ed, it would be one thing.  But, the list
is too large for me to go on with.... Nate, Bis, Gary, Gary, myself, and 
countless others that you have mentioned yourself have all been accused of 
being idiots for argueing with you.  The common thread in this is that it 
always seems like someone or another is in a war with you.   Funny that I
never see the same happen with the others.  Oh sure, occasional flames occur,
but never the prolonged wars you seem to enjoy.  I think you have the 
market on those...


>>>of you?
>>Again, where's the proof... Arguments that are over does not mean that they
>>have been wimped out on.  
>But that's your style of arguing: try to outlast the opponent no matter how
>long it takes, just like myself. The only yardstick is who quits first. 
>I detailed all your quitting in our flame wars on 12/21/92. Check it out.

Wrong.   The only reason I have stopped in the past is that there are so many
times I can say the same thing.  I agree that you bore me after awhile, but
things are slow now, so I can deal with it.  But, as usual, you will 
eventually bore me and the argument will end.  However, you are really the
only one who lives by the motto of "he who flames last, wins the argument".
We applaud your ability to continue on, but laugh at your illogical behavior.

The world loves to watch the idiot perform...

>
>>Care to list your sources???  Mine include people like Gary Strand and a 
>>variety of others.  
>Yes, like who? Mine include Gary Myers, Gordon Forbes, the SF Chronicle,
>John Madden .....

Funny, I can't remember John Madden ever stating that the team with the
best record is the best football team...  Nor have I seen him state that 
head-to-head matchups are irrelevant.  In fact, he has many times stated the
opposite.  And, the SF Chronicle is hardly an unbiased source.  I am sure 
there are some Buffalo papers that would disagree with you.
>
>>The league?? Well, the team with the best record didn't
>>make it to the SuperBowl, guess that didn't count.  
>Yes, the team that beat Buffalo head-to-head didn't make it to the
>SB either. Guess head-to-head didn't count either.

So, what are you saying, that we throw both of them out???

>
>At least the league use record to determine div. champs, playoff berths, etc. 
>Does it use head-to-head over record to determine these things?

Yes, in the case of ties it definitely does.  Miami and Buffalo (and others
for that matter) ended the season at 11-5.  It then used other criteria to
determine those things you mention.  It does use them to determine Conference 
Champs and SuperBowl winners (best teams) as well.  So, you can have those 
minor things, in which head-to-head does play a significant part, but the 
ultimate victories are based solely on head-to-head matchups...

>
>>The Betting Public???
>>Well, on many occasions the team with the better record is not the team to
>>bet on.  
>Then the odds will be adjusted. The last I saw (before the wildcard games),
>SF was 3-2, Buffalo was 10-1. Seems like the betting public liked SF more.
>And the Vegas line reflected that.

But what's those odds look like now???  Looks like that betting public 
doesn't think much of SF anymore.  

>>Recently, money was on UNC over Virginia, despite Virginia being 
>>undefeated.  
>That's because it's not the final regular season record. Partial records
>are not that indicative of merits.
>
>>Also, I remember that Notre Dame
>>had the odds over Texas A&M, who had the bette record.   
>I also remembered that FSU had the odds over Nebraska, who had the worse
>record.

But, we are not trying to say that records don't count, just that  they aren't
always valid.  And, I think we have seen enough examples of them not working
to show them to not always be valid.
>
>>Polls, again,
>>Texas A&M had the 2nd best record... What was their final polled position???
>Yes, name a poll that a team 2-3 games behind getting ranked higher than
>the team 2-3 games ahead. Haven't seen it. A&M's record of 12-1 may be 
>"similar" to Miami/FSU's 11-1. Yet Buffalo's 11-5 isn't similar to SF's 14-2.

But Ed, 12-1 against 11-1 were the final results.  Using up-to-date 
results, we have Buffalo at 14-5, SF at 15-3.  This is not a situation where
we are talking 2-3 games behind... Right now, we are talking about 1.5
games behind.   Remember, you made the claim that the team with more wins
is "almost always ranked higher".
-- 
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"