From: loucks@csn.org (Lord Vader)
Subject: Re: Mr. Controversy
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:50:51 GMT

Rick,

Cool off and look at what I said.

>What you did have in front of you, at the time, was an article with a
>header which told you precisely who posted the article.  Try reading it.

I did read it.  It had you identified.  What I did not have were the
previous postings in front of me from whoever started this nonsense. 

>Do you realize that you've just stated that your attempts to compare the
>teams records are meaningless?  In other words, I agree.  That you should
>even attempt to compare the records is "absolutely ridiculous".  That's why
>some of us choose to compare respective teams' accomplishments (like
>whether or not they've ever reached the Super Bowl) instead.

Yes, I realize what I said.  Now remember the entire line of discussion here.
Some joker tried to state that certain teams were useless and shouldn't
have fans since they had never been to the superbowl.  He included Seattle
in that list.  I responded that since Seattle had only been in the league
for 16 years, by his logic any team that hadn't gone to the bowl since
1976 was equally useless (I don't believe this myself).  I named some
teams that fit in this catagory which included San Diego, Kansas City,
Houston, and Green Bay.  I made no comment on the teams' accomplishments
before this time, since there is really no way to compare. Then there was
someone who responded that I should not include Seattle and Green Bay in
the same sentence since they "were not in the same boat".  I concluded that
given their records since 1976 they in fact were in the same boat with the
edge going to Seattle OVER THAT TIME PERIOD.  Over the entire history of
football, Green Bay has more accomplishments, absolutely.  Since 1976
their records have been similar, with Seattle doing a bit better.  This
says nothing about the worth or accomlishments of the respective frachises.
I have only compared the respective records over this particular period
which is perfectly legitimate.  I can compare their records this year,
Seattle is 2-12, Packers are 7-7, packers must be better.  Let's see in
1984 Seattle was 12-4 Packers were 8-8, Hawks were better that year. I
can also compare 2 years in a row like this year and last year or 1976
and 1977 and I could conclude that during those years, one team or the
other had a better record and was probably a better team.  Or, I might
even be able to clump 16 years together and compare all of them at the
same time.  Boy isn't that a hard concept.  Now I wouldn't be able to
compare the accomplishments of the teams, since I would have excluded
many years of one team's history, but I don't have to compare accomplishments
since all I'm comparing here is Won-Loss records to determine if the
teams were in the same "boat".  

Why is what I say stupid because you can't understand this.

Let me end this with a final summary of what I'm trying to say.

1.) The Packers are a better team this year than Seattle.
2.) The Packers have many more lifetime accomplishments than Seattle.
3.) Over the period 1976-1991, Seattle and the Packers had similar
won-loss records, with Seattle having a slightly better record and
4 playoff appearences and the Packers with 1 playoff appearence.  I
thus conclude that over the Period of Seattle's existence 1976-1991,
the Packers and the Seahawks were in the same boat, in terms of the
caliber of the teams, as determined by won-loss record.

I thus conclude any further discussion of this topic.  I have made 3
statements here that are not controversial at all, and not the subject
of opinion but fact.  Whoever Mr. Controversy really is, he wins, having
created a controversy where none exists.

I apologize for calling you stupid when I confused you with the infamous
Mr. Controversy.  Neither of you are stupid.  I am for arguing about
this silly crap when all I was trying to do was state a simple couple 
of facts.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro