HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: It wasn't Pretty (49ers WON)
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:19:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Dec24.214835.9201@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

 
|And that's what I was referring to.  There is a lot of talk about who
|should be the league's MVP and Young's name pops up.

Yes, and by a lot of people that probably know a little bit more about football
than the readers of this group.

|I think he's a fine
|QB and valuable to his team, but...  If he gets hurt what happens?  Gee, I
|guess they'd have to use Bono (a qb that would a "starting QB anywhere
|else"), or <gasp> Montana (whom some believe to be the greatest QB ever).

Why should an individual player be penalized because the team he plays on
has some depth?  Wouldn't the fact that the player manages to play most of
the season without the need for the backup contribute to the value of the
player of the team.  It makes no difference how good the backup is.
  
|It doesn't even sound to me like Young is the best QB on his own team, how
|could he be the MVP of the league?
 
Perhaps you forgot what MVP stands for.  The "P" stands for player which means
that athelete probably should play if they are to become eligable for the
award.  

|>Frankly, I don't give a hoot who win's the MVP. I only care that Young wins
|>the SB and the SB MVP!
|
|Which he won't.

prove it.
 
-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: dggok@pbhyg.PacBell.COM (4E150M)
Subject: NFL Tentative Players Agreement Is Off
Reply-To: dggok@PacBell.COM (David G. Gok)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:27:42 GMT

According to the SF Chronicle (12/31/92), quoted w/o permission:

The tentative agreement between the NFL and its players fell 
apart last night, the lawyer for the players said.

...

The main stumbling block apparently was the owners' insistence that 
the players whose contracts expired be given just a 60-day window
in which they could negotiate with any team.  After that period,
unsigned players would return to their team and be paid 110 percent
of their last contract.

...

Doty [U.S. District Court Judge], who then declared nine unsigned
veterans to be free agents, told the owners and players that he would
impose a settlement that neither side might like if no agreement
was reached.

"I've been with these cases since 1987 and nothing is either 
expected or surprises me about what happens with them" Doty said.
"We'll just go ahead and do what we were planning to do, at
any rate."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: dggok@pbhyg.PacBell.COM (4E150M)
Subject: Re: NEW VIKING QB?!
Reply-To: dggok@PacBell.COM (David G. Gok)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:25:18 GMT
Keywords: Sean, 

In article <1992Dec28.220011.13002@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smaus@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Maus) writes:
>
>I have a feeling that Dennis Green and the Vikings organization will sit
>down after the season is over and start to have talks with none other than
>---- JOE MONTANA!!!  What better choice to have especially since Green
>used to be on the SF crew!!

Montana still has one year remaining in his contract.  He only goes if
the 49ers agree to let him go.  What do you want to bet that Carmen
Policy (49er President) will want something in return?  This might be 
the start of a good thread (groan).  What is Montana worth to other teams?

First question, which team(s) would need/want Montana, given that he
has publicly stated that he must be the STARTING QB?  (A linked question
is how good is Montana now?  Might find out a little (maybe very, very
little) bit tonight.)

Second question, what would that team(s) be willing to give up to get
Montana from the 49ers?  Remember, he is NOT a free agent.  He is under
contract for the 1993 season.  At around 2.5M dollars!

Third question, would Montana want to play for that team(s)?  SF
papers have indicated that Montana might be allowed by SF to
negotiate with any team he wants to, then the 49ers would step in
and negotiate a deal.

Of course, this all assumes that the 49ers will get rid of Montana.  If
you recall, the pre-season was rife with talk that the 49ers were going
to trade Steve Young to the Raiders.  

>
>M
>MONTANA WILL BECOME A VIKING IN 1993 ! ! ! ! !
>
>SCOTT
From: jdhl@troi.cc.rochester.edu (papa_sm00sh)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Rules question: When is the ball dead, if...
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:37:13 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York



this leads to one observation and a question...

observation... in the many remakes of the immaculate reception... they
said that if the ball had hit the running back it was intended for
that franco harris pick up of the ball (before it hit the ground? we
will never know) was illegal...

why?

my obs. is that it is to be ruled a dead ball if it hit the running
back... my question is why...

jason
From: carrato@acsu.buffalo.edu (Michael Carrato)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Bills a Bust? (WAR is HELL)
Date: 31 Dec 92 07:35:06 GMT
Organization: UB

jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:

>What I find strange is your repeated insistence that I have carried
>your illusioned animosity. It seems "some" Bills fans always seem
>to bring the fact the they beat the Niners. Hey, that is old, history.
>That win does not mean the Bills are the best team does it? You win
>some, you lose some. The key is to lose the fewest and win the most.
>That is something the Niners know how to do (14-2). Of course, you Bills
>seem to know about it, but were unable to prove this year.
>>
>>It was a measly second-week interconference game. So your beloved
>>Niners lost. Get over it.
>>
>You see, for all to "see". There you are bringing the Bills win over
>the Niners again. I've long forgotten it (14-2 baby), yet you guys seem

Then why do you enjoy seeing the Bills lose so much? You thrive 
on every Bills loss. Why is that John? 

Are you a closet Dolphin fan? I doubt it, since that would be blasphemous. 
So what other explanation is there?

Is there any place where this group is archived (other than Ed Lor's 
private collection)? I'd like to point out examples of John's ecstatic
(sometimes downright orgasmic) responses to Bills losses.

>-- 
> ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@pacbell.com	--------	
>"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know
>everything or nothing about it."   Olin Miller


Mike C.
From: vh00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vernon H Harmon)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Predictions - So how did you do?
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:17:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.QfEEOQu00WDKEFloUU
Organization: Senior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.rec.sport.football.pro: 29-Dec-92 Predictions - So
how did yo.. Robert M. Trotter@csd4.c (763)

> 	Did anyone else save their predictions made at the start of the
> 	season? How did you guys do? Here was my prediction made July 2

> 	I did pretty well, I went with my heart on the Vikings, half luck
> 	and half prayer, I knew Holmgrem would be good for the Packers,
> 	and I also got the drop in Detroit correctly, just didnt realize
> 	it would be such a big drop. So did other do? :)

> 	GOOD LUCK TO ALL IN THE PLAYOFFS....


well, I picked Houston and Philly for the SB, and though it's still a
possibility, it probably (hopefully) won't happen. I picked SD to win
their division and they did. I picked Houston to win their division and
they fell short because I underestimated the Steelers (shame on me!). I
picked (I think) Miami to win their division, and that was right. I
picked the Saints to win their division and the niners to not even make
the playoffs, but since they *did* make the playoffs (and how!), the
Saints didn't win the division. I picked Detroit to win the division
this year--ouch! And I think I picked the Eagles to win their division,
with the Skins and Dallas both in as wild cards--right teams, wrong
order.

The pick I'm most proud of is, of course, San Diego winning the
division. I expected them
to split with everybody in the division except Seattle, beat Pittsburgh
and lose to the Colts once and either Phoenix or Tampa, so I expected a
10-6 season, and got an 11-5 season. Wow, I'm one happy shit. :) My
prediction for SD for next year was that they would make the AFC
Championship, but they might make that *this* year!

Good Luck to you and yours in the Playoffs as well....

--Vernon (hoping that Minnesota wins this time so that New Orleans can
knock off the Niners)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Subject: Re: Pack/Skins/Eagles Tiebreakers ...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.131444.5636@walter.cray.com> dpp@cray.com writes:
>>>Where did I go wrong?  Or is it them?
I checked out the Sporting News Football Guide. To my suprise,
head-to-head is NOT the #1 tiebreaker in a 3-way tie. I bet none
of the newspaper even lists this tiebreaker:

  Basically, when there is a three way tie, when two of the teams are
  from the same division, the teams from the same division have to
  be sorted out first. The higher ranked team will be two-way
  tie-broken with the team from the other division.

In that scenario, Green Bay will never face Washington in a
a tie-breaking situation, because from the NFC East, Philly has to 
be tie-broken with Green Bay first.

>Here is what the St. Paul Pioneer Press has to say about the three-way
>tiebreaker between the Eagles, Packers, and Redskins:
>
>"Green Bay clinches with a victory Sunday and a Philadephia loss based on
>tiebreaker advantage over Philadelphia.  In a three-way tie, the Eagles'
>better division record would eliminate the Redskins, and the Packers'
>victory over the Eagles would give them a seeding edge."
>
>Don't ask me why division record enters the picture here.  I always
>thought for a three-way tie among teams in different divisions, it was
>head-to-head, then conference record, then common opponents.  Using
>division record for a three-way tie between non-divisional teams
>doesn't make sense to me.

Let's say all three teams finish 10-6, the tie-breaking procedure
would be:

    Philly vs Washington, Philly ranked ahead of Washington in NFC East
    Green Bay vs Philly, Green Bay clinches #5 seed
    Philly vs Washington, Philly clinches #6 seed

In other words, the three way comparison procedure doesn't apply
at all. I bet three way tie-breaking is only applicable when all
three teams are from different divisions.

Does this tie-breaking procedure make sense? In a sense, yes.
A team with a superior division tie-breaker cannot lose out in
an inferior conference tie-breaker. For example, teams A & B
are in the same division, team C in a different division.
Say, these are the record:

        overall    division    conference
   A     10-6        7-1          7-5
   B     10-6        4-4          8-4
   C     10-6    irrelevant       6-6

Without first the sorting out the ranking within the division, B
would have won the tie-breaker, just because the intrusion of C
force them to bypass a higher-priority tie-breaker (division record).

A more logical way is to make sure any conference rankings wouldn't
violate the division ranking.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: (no subject given)
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Wednesday, 23 Dec 1992 10:07:07 CET
From: RENE ZANDBERGEN <RZANDBER@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro

Subject: Some thoughts

1) What is Buddy doing these days? Wasn't he the defensive coordinator
   of the Bears under Ditka, when that defense won them the Superbowl?
   Makes you wonder, with all these rumours about Ditka...

2) What is Schottenheimer's record against Denver??? If Elway is healthy
   I give the Chiefs little chance. That would mean Denver would be in as
   a wildcard.

3) If the Eagles make it to the Superbowl, their opponent will have to
   be Denver, because Dallas, Washington and the Giants have all played
   Denver in the SB. Of course, since the Eagles lost their first SB
   to the only wildcard team that ever won it, history points to Denver
   winning it all this time, doesn't it?? :-)

4) Who is hosting this year's SB, the NFC or the AFC? I guess this
   determines who gets to wear white jerseys.

5) I hope KC or the Bills make it to the SB, because they are the teams
   that CAN beat ANY NFC team.

Just my thoughts,
                  Rene Zandbergen
From: hjjcl@usho77.hou281.chevron.com (J.J.Clyde)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Point Spreads (was Re: It wasn't Pretty (49ers WON))
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:22:02 GMT
Organization: .

(Alan McKay) writes:
>
>>>gr> Gary Rosen
>>>gs> Gary Strand
>>
>>>gs> If a team favored by ~3 TDs can just barely beat a turd 4-10 team, they 
>>>    don't deserve to be in the NFL.
>
>No, I would say that if someone makes a stupid statement like the preceeding,
>that they don't deserve bandwidth on the net. 

I think Strand's original statement above was a sarcastic reference to
the esteemed JP Gloria's remark earlier this year, "If the Bills can't
beat a sorry team like the Dolts, they don't deserve to be in the NFL."

Carry on....

--J.J.
(blair thomas makes walter payton look like walter kronkite)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Is there one HONEST Bills fan?
From: Nelson Broat <NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 3 Jan 1993 20:43:22 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


In article <1993Jan3.220421.7381@PacBell.COM>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN)
says:
>
>FACTS:  Beebe stepped out of bounds and it was not
>called and he ran in for a TD. Although this COULD HAVE
>been the game for the Oilers, IMHO, I believe Da Bills
>WOULD HAVE found a way to win this one.

Yeah, what the hell was that *** LINE JUDGE *** looking at anyways,
geez.

Nelson - Who was really looking forward to a drubbing of the Oilers by
         the Steelers so that they can finally get the respect they
         deserve from the Oilers, but who refuse to acknowledge their
         existance. So what do they up and do...they choke. Ruined
         another perfectly good weekend of football for yours truly. :-)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud)
Subject: congrtatulations vikes!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:19:52 GMT

I just wanted to say congratulations to all you Vikes fans.  You certainly 
deserve the division this year.  BTW If anybody cares about my prediction, they
will make it to the NFC championship and lose to the 9ers.

Once again congratulations and sorry we couldn't give you a better game.

Paul (a viking hater putting it on hold for a few minutes)
From: jberry@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (John Berry)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:32:25 GMT
Subject: Re: The use of "can't" (Re: Steve Young vs Randall Cunningham)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro

/ hpcupt3:rec.sport.football.pro / 49ers@eb5ts4.EBay.Sun.COM (Renie Maycon) / 10:46 pm  Dec  9, 1992 /
Steve Young is a better QB than Randall Cunningham.

Steve is more durable than Randall.

Randall looks more smoother when he scrambles.

Randall does not have a good supporting cast.
 
Steve and the 49ers have a Better defense and offense than randal does.

Randall will never win a SuperBowl.

Randall still can't win the big game when it counts.

Steve makes better passing decisions.

Steve is the highest rated QB 107.8  Randall 90.2

Steve and Joe will win the SuperBowl this year and next year and so one and so
on and so on.  get my point!!!!!!!!!!!



:
----------

I do not agree that Steve Young is a better quarterback than Randall
Cunningham!  Steve is an excellent quarterback.  He is mobile, has a
strong arm and those sorts of things, but Steve has a strong supporting
cast.

Just imagine what Randall Cunningham would be like if he was surrounded
by a Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Ricky Waters, etc.  I honestly
believe that team would be unstoppable.  But instead, he has a bunch of 
other players who have the potential to be good but aren't quite there yet.
Sometimes these players don't even show up for the game.  One other thing,
Randall has been doing his thing for years by himself.  Do you think Steve
can carry the load of carrying a team for years????  Hell NO!

Even in head to head competition, the quarterback challenge on NBC in the 
summer, Randall had a stronger arm than Steve, Randall was more accurate than
Steve, Randall was faster than Steve and overall Randall scored higher than
Steve.

One other thing I would like to point out.  Randall Cunningham is a very
durable quarterback.  He has been in the league since '85.  Back than, Buddy
Ryan used to put him in when it was 3rd and long.  Everyone in the house knew
he was going to pass.  Consequently, he got sacked alot, never got hurt!  In
fact the eagles gave up the most sacks in the league. This happened for 3 years
until he started in 1988.  From that point, he never got hurt until last year 
on a fluke play.  Now he is back and hasn't been injured since than.  Steve
Young on the other hand started for the first time last year and missed
some ball games.  So you answer the question, Who is more durable????

John Berry
jberry@cup.hp.com
From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Are the Falcons really that lame?
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:46:48 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.

In article <douthit.725068556@scofflaw> douthit@convex.com (Ronnie Douthit) writes:
>jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (JOHN) writes:
>
|>I'll be in row 3, 50 yard line! :-) I won't give you the section,
|>but I am easy to spot. Just look for the MANLY MAN in red! :-)
|
|Yeah, I suppose a MANLY MAN would be easy to spot at Candlestick :^)
|
|Sorry, just couldn't let that pass,

No, a MANLY MAN at Candlestick would be blue, not red.

-- 
+==========================================================================+
| John Fereira        | Auspex Systems | "Ask me about my vow of silence." |
| johnf@auspex.com    | Santa Clara CA |                                   |
+==========================================================================+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: steve@weber.com (Steve Keshen)
Subject: Re: VIKINGS WIN!!! 6-3
Organization: Weber Systems, Brookfield, WI USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:33:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.202237.12395@doug.cae.wisc.edu> chrisc@cae.wisc.edu (Chris Carey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.174147.351@bmw.mayo.edu> bergerson@mayo.edu writes:
>>
>>->You held a Neil O'Donnel'less Steelers to 3 points, big deal.  We (The Packers)
>>->held them to seven earlier this year, with Neil.  The Steelers aren't exactly a
>>->high powered offense, when you get to the playoffs you'll probably be facing
>>->the Redskins offense.  Tell you what, 6 points won't win the game.
>>->
>>->-Chris C.
>Vikings points have been defensive, tell you what, the Packers haven't been
>making a lot of offensive mistakes.  If anyone runs an interception back for a
>TD it will be Buckley.

But only if he doesn't fumble it first!

>
>-Chris C
>

--
Steve Keshen           steve@weber.weber.com  
Weber Systems          The Packers still suck and swallow.
Brookfield, WI  53005
From: daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Subject: Re: Playoffs: Philly at NewOrleans
Originator: daveb@lotus
In-reply-to: corleone@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Daniel Marsalone)
Reply-To: daveb@lotus (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:47:40 GMT

My fearless prediction is that this is going to be a yawning 9-6 or
6-3 game decided by Morten Andersen.  The winner will be the Princeton
basketball team of the playoffs.

-dB





-- 
Windows/NT - the VMS of the 90s

From: boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:08:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Vikings comments
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro

Chad, you are a real drone.  Someone thinks something is funny and you 
decide to lash out and call the person a moron.  Chad, get a life.

>1992:  11-5    clinched on the road, a tough AFC team

You forgot to mention that the Steelers are missing their starting QB in
this one and are forced to rely on someone who sucks as much as Gannon does.

Someone sell Chad a clue.

Don Boell
"Just win baby"

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: bob@uh.msc.edu (Robert Hanson)
Subject: Vikes KILL the Pack
Keywords: Vikes win, the Pack LOSES
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:05:58 GMT


The Vikings have just beat the Packers 27 - 7.  

The offense finally scored some passing touchdowns and Salisbury looked good.
The Packers, up against a REAL defense, were unable to score any points after
their first possesion.

So to all of you out in net land who have been ripping on the Vikings and
saying that the Packers are the better team in the NFC Central, KISS MY A..!

And, in the words of Dan Fouts, "That Cheese has gone rotten!"

Oh, and I must not forget to congratulate last year's Super Bowl champions who
have gracefully backed their way into the playoffs just like everyone said the
Vikings would.           

-Bob-
A proud VIKINGS fan.
From: Michael.P.Colburn@dartmouth.edu (Michael P. Colburn)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Playoff question regarding Niners-Saints
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:09:04 GMT
 <1992Dec22.182140.8355@sequent.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec22.182140.8355@sequent.com>
newson@sequent.com (Newson) writes:

> I may be mistaken, but I thought the only time Teams from the same division
> can meet in the playoffs is in the conference championship game. Has this 
> changed since the 3 wildcard/conference scheme was introduced?

You are indeed mistaken ;-)....in last year's 1st round, the Chiefs and
Raiders, both wildcards and in the AFC West, played each other.  In
another example from last year, wildcard Atlanta played division winner
New Orleans in the first round.  I don't think it has anything to do
with the 3 wildcard/ conference scheme...in '89, when there were still
only 2 wildcard spots, Houston and Pittsburgh, both wildcards and from
the same division, played each other in the first round. This also
happened in '88 when wildcard Cleveland and Houston met in the 1st
round.

Mike Colburn                         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dartmouth-Hitchcock                  "Pulu-see-ba-goomba" -- Gilligan 
Medical Center                       =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lebanon, New Hampshire  03756        :-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)