From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Hmmm...
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:23:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1993Jan20.235812.4229@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.193207.53345@uvmark.uucp> davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
>>Ok... it is widely accepted on r.s.f.p and r.s.b.p that Ed Lor is an idiot,
>>and I'm not, ergo, Ed Lor is an idiot.  That does invalidate your argument,
>>after all, you are an idiot.
>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...

>And since you wimp out on all arguments against me, then what does that make 
>of you?

Again, where's the proof... Arguments that are over does not mean that they
have been wimped out on.  You have disappeared from r.s.b.p, and the arguments
could have gone on, but you just left and wimped out...

>
>>A minority based on who's opinion?   I have seen more people state their 
>>opinion that the head-to-head is very relevant than otherwise.
>I haven't seen that. You care to list those people? I see the league,
>the betting public, and the polls almost always use records as the criteria 
>to determine merits. 

Care to list your sources???  Mine include people like Gary Strand and a 
variety of others.  The league?? Well, the team with the best record didn't
make it to the SuperBowl, guess that didn't count.  The Betting Public???
Well, on many occasions the team with the better record is not the team to
bet on.  Recently, money was on UNC over Virginia, despite Virginia being 
undefeated.  And, I seem to remember Buffalo actually being favored over 
Miami, who was the higher rated opponent.  Also, I remember that Notre Dame
had the odds over Texas A&M, who had the bette record.   Polls, again,
Texas A&M had the 2nd best record... What was their final polled position???

>
>>Hmm... well... at this point, it seems that 13-3 is IN FACT better than 14-2,
>>which as far as the league is concerned is how it goes.  How did they 
>>determine who should go to the Superbowl???   Head-to-head matchup.  
>>So, your 14-2 team has been determined by the league to NOT be better, and
>>that is the difference.  And, there IS evidence to support this, mainly the
>>head-to-head matchup.
>Yes, so when is the head-to-head PLAYOFF matchup between the Bills and the
>49ers to be played? If not, you have no evidence to support your point.
>The regular season? People consider total records in the regular season, 
>not head-to-head matchups. At least the league does.
>
>>Not really.  We have many things we can look at when comparing the two teams.
>>Strength of schedule, record, head-to-head results, respective off./def. 
>>strengths, etc..  Some are based on opinion, others on fact.  One of them
>>is the undeniable FACT that Buffalo beat SF in SF.  
>Another undeniable FACT is that SF are three games better than Buffalo.
>
>>Things like schedules
>>and strengths are based on facts, but depend on the opinions of how to 
>>rate those facts.  Records can be biased because of other factors such
>>as injuries, let downs, etc... as well as advantages such as home field,
>>matchups, etc...  
>Regular season head-to-head can also be biased because they all know that
>one game does not define the season, especially an inter-conference game.
>
>>So, we all know that the ultimate regular season goal is
>>to make it to the playoffs.  The ultimate playoff goal is to make it to the
>>SuperBowl and the ultimate SuperBowl goal is to win it.  
>That's how you screw up logic in order to argue.
>
>The ultimate playoff goal is to WIN the SuperBowl, making it to the finals
>is also a means, just like making it to the semi-finals.
>
>Well, maybe to the AFC teams, making it to the SB is the ultimate playoff
>goal. It's apparently so for the Bills and the Broncos.
>
>>Next goal, make it to the SuperBowl..  Well, Buffalo made it, but alas, 
>>SF did not.  
>Maybe that's Buffalo's playoff goal. For the NFC teams, that's not the case.
>
>>Well, based on EdLorian Logic, SF would still be the 
>>#1 team in the league, as it had the best regular season record.  
>Well, that's your EdLorian Logic, not mine. And I am sure that you
>can quote me on "SF would still be the #1 team".
>
>My logic only states that Buffalo can't be ranked ahead of SF because
>of a week 2 win. This is how I would rank the teams:
>
>If Dallas win the SB: Dallas, SF, Buffalo, Miami
>If Buffalo wins the SB: Buffalo, Dallas, SF, Miami
>
>>However, they lost, so what does this tell us???  
>This only tells us that they are worse than Dallas. That's not yet
>evidence that they are worse than Buffalo.
>
>-- 
>                                          Edward Lor
>                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
>                                          


-- 
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"