From: v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Damned for all time...)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: AFC TEAMS STINK
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:07:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov20.035120.15226@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com 
	(edward.lor) writes...

>>>But that's telling us nothing. A 27-point blowout on the road is different
>>>from a 45-point rout at a neutral site.
>>Really?  And how, praytell?  Again, this is only your opinion.
>Because 27 < 45. That's simple arithmetic. And a neutral site != a home site.
>I guess 27 < 45 is not my opinion. Maybe it's yours.

No.  It's simple mathematical fact (surprised you can handle it.)

So tell me, Mr. Lor, in your infinite wisdom, is the Bills' 1-point loss to the
Giants in SB XXV offset by their 3-point win on the road, thus making them the
better team?

I eagerly await your answer...

>>Again, comparing two teams in such a way is suspect at best.
>So? if we have to form an opinion of "which team is better in 89, the Rams
>or the Broncos?" What else do we base on? They didn't meet in the playoffs.

>Or are you saying that we ABSOLUTELY cannot form an opinion on the Rams vs
>the Broncos in 1989?

The problem is that you try to form ABSOLUTE *opinions*, rather than 
"ABSOLUTELY...form an opinion."

>>In 1987, the Redkins were supposed to be the 3rd best team in the conference
>>(#3 seed, tied for 3rd best record behind the Saints and the 49ers). Can you
>>imagine the Redskins beating the 49ers or the Saints on the road? 
>>
>>Well, apparently, the Redskins could, because they did it.  
>Wow, that's reaching. Please tell me the score of Redskins at the SuperDome
>and Redskins at Candlestick in the 1987 playoffs.
> 
>Don't use lies to argue.
> 
>>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.

>				   When you evaluate "who's better in a 
>hypothetical matchup", you just consider the expected, period. If the 
>unexpected is taken into account, then we'll NEVER be able to say who's 
>better if they don't play, i.e. the Buffalo Bills are no better than UCLA.

Wrong.  I, for one, consider ALL possibilities I can come up with.  You just
consider your own, and say that "this is to be."  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.

Could UCLA beat the Bills?  Sure.  They might even do it on the first try.

Not likely, but very possible.

>>Thus
>>to say the Broncos couldn't have beaten the Saints or Niners is completely
>>fallible reasoning.
>Yes, just like UCLA has no shot against the Bills is completely
>fallible reasoning. Since UCLA could have beaten the Bills, we can
>form an opinion that the Bills are no better than UCLA.

You are a shithead.  *You* brought up UCLA-vs-Bills, moron.  As you say,
"Stick to the facts."  I said the Redskins beat the Niners at the 'Stick.

Stick with it.

>I am glad that you see the light. 

I am glad I don't know you personally.

>-- 
>                                          Edward Lor
>                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
>                                          

					---Chet Zeshonski
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro