From: v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Damned for all time...)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:31:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov22.093850.2663@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes...
>In article <By2yG0.8D2@acsu.buffalo.edu> v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Damned for all time...) writes:
>>The problem is that you try to form ABSOLUTE *opinions*, rather than 
>>"ABSOLUTELY...form an opinion."
>Of course, because we are forming any opinion on something with only
>a binary outcome -- either the Rams or the Broncos. The original claim
>of this thread was
> 
>  "the other NFC teams could beat the AFC champs"
> 
>When you get to the bottom line, any opinions formed is either true or false. 
>Mine is absolute: true, there aren't too many possibilities lying around.

No, yours is not absolute.  As such, I propose this:

You stated that you felt ***no*** AFC team (that wasn't in the SB) could have
beaten the NFC champ.

I guess you're wrong.  In 1985, the Dolphins beat the Bears on Monday Night
Football in Miami, didn't they?  That was the only Bears' loss that season.

So, please, try again.

>>>>What you are
>>>>saying is that the Broncos had no shot because the Niners and Saints were
>>>>"better" teams, yet the very NFC playoffs that year prove you wrong, since
>>>>the Saints and Niners were knocked off by supposedly "inferior" teams.  
>>>But the upsets ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 
>>No shit.  I just said that.

>Then what does it have to do with the Broncos? Did the Broncos ACTUALLY
>beat the 49ers in the 1987 playoffs?
>Yes? if you can tell me the score, I'll admit that the claim "the other
>NFC teams could beat the AFC champs" is false ....

What does the fact that the Broncos lost to one NFC team in one game have to do
with the idea that 8 other NFC teams could have beaten them, in your opinion?

>No? So your dreamed upset didn't happen. If people have to pick 49ers vs
>Broncos in Jan. 1988, smart money would be on the 49ers. Of course, maybe
>your money is dumb money ...

Your dreamed matchups didn't happen, either.  Mine (1985, Miami--vs--Bears) did.
My team was also victorious.  So I find most of what you say pure fallacy.

>>Wrong.  I, for one, consider ALL possibilities I can come up with.  You just
>>consider your own, and say that "this is to be."  
>You can consider ALL possibilities. When you get to the bottom line in a 
>hypothetical matchup, you still have to pick a winner. 

No.  There is no bottom line.  Since it's hypothetical, any outcome that is 
physically likely has enough of an element of truth in it to be considered
valid.

Or do you just accept YOUR hypothetical decisions, to be lorded over the rest of
us?

>People with brains usually pick the team which they THINK IS GOING TO WIN 
>(i.e. most of the time, the superior team). People with no brain usually try 
>to dodge the pick by "considering all possibilities", give vague answers like 
>"anything can happen", "since there exist upsets, it discredit picking the 
>superior team" ....

People with brains admit that there are other possibilities, instead of being
close-minded and saying, "These teams were all also better than the AFC champs.
Period."

And then there are people like you--in fact, you in particular.

>>In short, you are blind,
>>consider only your side of the argument, and present all controverting facts
>>(such as the Redskins beating the Niners in Candlestick) as a simple case of
>>facts getting in the way of your accurate analysis.
>I still haven't seen your side of the argument yet. Instead of arguing against
>the "49ers would beat the Broncos in the 87 playoffs", you are just using
>the "anything can happen" logic to wimp out.

The 49ers may have beaten the Broncos.  The options here are not limited to,
"The Broncos lose" and "the Niners win," although I'm sure JPGloria would
agree with you (nice company you're in there.)

As to my argument:

Now you've seen it.  THE DOLPHINS WOULD HAVE BEATEN THE BEARS IN 1985, 
ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN TWISTED LOGIC.  THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO OTHER OUTCOME.
YOU ARE WRONG IN SAYING THAT NO AFC TEAM COULD HAVE BEATEN THE BEARS, THUS
INVALIDATING YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

>>Could UCLA beat the Bills?  Sure.  They might even do it on the first try.
>>Not likely, but very possible.
>Oh, so if I ask you to pick a winner in UCLA vs the Bills, what are you going 
>to tell me?
>1) You are not into hypothetical matchups. You are just forced into this thread.
>2) Anything can happen, i.e. you have no ability to form an opinion.
>3) You pick the Bills. Or is that possible? since you advocate "anything can 
>happen" if you happen to root for the underdog in the hypothetical matchup.

I admit the Bills will be a prohibitive favorite to win.  Since the game isn't
being played, I HAVE NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN ANY SUCH OUTCOME.

I play games against` the line (the point spread.)  I look at the two teams, 
and try to figure out likely results (who will be able to run, is one factor
of the game likely to dominate, how do the teams play on various surfaces, how
do they play away from home, etc.)  I then see whether I think the spread is
an accurate reflection of my opinions of the teams.  Then I pick.  I easily
concede the game could go the other way, though--you do not (ie., all these
NFC teams would also have beaten the AFC champ.)

>>As you say,
>>"Stick to the facts."  I said the Redskins beat the Niners at the 'Stick.
>So what's the score of that game? 

Go back and find it.  1987.  Look it up, come back, and tell us.

> 
>-- 
>                                          Edward Lor
>                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
>                                          
"The only thing backlash ever created--through all history--was more backlash."
					---Chet Zeshonski
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro