HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: WASHINGTON SUCKS SHIT!!!
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:07:16 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

wlittle@dante.nmsu.edu (Wes) writes:

> I just have to get this off of my chest:  The Washington Redskins are
> the shittiest sorriest piece of shit excuse for an NFL football team I
> have ever seen.

   Oh, clearly.  Their almost inevitable inclusion in the playoffs, that's just
because they've had so few injuries.  They gripe about everything that doesn't
go their way.  And that defense!  I'm surprised that team don't score hundreds
of points against them every week.  Wilbur Marshall is clearly a substandard
performer.  And having both cornerbacks break their arms actually *helped* the
pass defense.

> Even if it was a fumble Emitt was fucking down on a knee!!!  AT the
> very very most it was a Safety!!!  Which means Dallas still wins...

   OK, folks, time to dispell the great myth that a safety would have resulted
in a different winner.  If the Cowboys gave up the safety, then the score would
have been 17-15, Dallas.  Then the Cowboys would kick to the Redskins from the
twenty.  By that point in the game, Rypien was moving the ball well enough  to
put the Redskins at least inside Lohmiller's range.  Lohmiller's a great kicker
in the clutch.  The final score would have been 18-17, Washington.  Same
winner.


> I know I am a baby!!

   Well put.
 
> I admit it....but I just hate to see the best team lose on a fucked up
> Call.!!

   Is the best team the one that turns the ball over five times?  Is the best
team the one that both allows a TD-robbing interception to occur and the return
to get across the fifty yard-line?  Is the best team the one that calls for a
pass from the endzone when its quarterback was being pressured all day?
   
   I admit the Redskins did not seem exactly dominant, but they made all they
could out of abundant Cowboys mistakes.  It can be said that the Redskins
didn't deserve to win, but it can't be said that the Cowboys didn't deserve to
lose.

Max
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Subject: Bills D Looks Good *or*...
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:48:31 GMT


Today's Buffalo/NO game revealed quite a bit about both teams and their
respective prospects for the postseason.

For the Bills' part, they showed that their much-maligned defense is
dominating enough to turn the tide when it has to.  The fourth quarter
especially was an absolute *clinic* in keeping the opponent off the
field, so their defense will wear down.  And that's exactly what 
happened:  by the end of the game, the Aints' defense was limp as a
piece of overcooked spaghetti.

This isn't meant as a knock on the Aints.  Those of you who were
talking about how much Hebert has improved were right -- he's absolutely
at the top of his game.  Unfortunately, the same can't be said for his
WRs.  How many dropped passes does a QB have to suffer?  This could be
pivotal if the Aints make it past round 1 and face the Niners.  If the
passing game self-destructs, the running game will be that much easier
for the Niners to stuff.  And NO is going to need more than 3 FGs and a
gimme TD (set up by a turnover) to beat the Niners.

The real question is:  which Bills team is for real?  The one who out-
gunned the Niners but showed no defense whatsoever in September, or 
the one that squelched a up-and-coming Aints offense today but couldn't
do much at all offensively?  The defense and special teams should get
a lot of the credit for the 20 points that Buffalo scored.

Anyway, I'm back to thinking that the Aints and the Vikings are very
similar teams:  way tough defense, especially on the carpet, but
stuttering offenses that probably won't capitalize on the Niners'
weak secondary.  I hereby formally predict a Niners' victory in their
first round of the postseason.

Of course, if they play against Detroit like they did vs. the Bucs,
I take it all back and deny I ever said anything.

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: hariharn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Hariharan)
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this 
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:00:13 GMT

In article <XaR=Y4-@engin.umich.edu> sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan) writes:
>In article <Bz43LI.Cuv@andy.bgsu.edu> dlingle@orchestra.bgsu.edu (Donald Lingle) writes:
>>Sunday, Beware Of The Super Bowl Champs!
>>    I will agree that the Skins are having an up and down season thus far.  But 
>>if we beat the Cowboys this Sunday, you must agree that the Redskins will look 
>>pretty good for repeating as Super Bowl Champs.
>>    The skins have had a bunch of injuries, combined with the late pre-season 
>>start of Mark Rypien.  Some of our players are now returning, (Darrell Green,
>>Jim Lachey), and Rypien's coming out of his slump.
>>    I'm happy to see the Cowboys and Redskins games now mean something.  Before
>>last year, Cowboy fans would hide the week before a Redskin vs. Cowboys game. 
>>As for the 49ers, Vikings, Eagles, Packers, & Saints, I know you would love to 
>>go get a easy Super Bowl victory against an AFC team, but you'll have to wait 
>>for Joe Gibbs to retire or better yet, coach your team.
>>    Well, good luck to all NFL fans.  I am just "touring" the user group.  This
>>id actually belongs to a Pittsburgh Steeler's Fan.
>
>
>Well, I too hope the 'Skins thrash the Cowpokes. Personally, I don't care for/
>hate either. All I'm concerned about is the 49ers - more specifically Montana.
>I'm one of those weirdos who has never seen Montana in action - here's hoping
>the 49ers secure home field advantage before their last game so that I can have
>the pleasure of watching Joe for the first time.
>

Joe who ?

:-) 
-- 
**************************************************************************
Ramesh Hariharan , Chem Engg. Dept., Princeton Univ. 
Research topic : Stabilization of Colloids using diblock copolymers.
Research baap : Bill Russel (no ! not the Celtic legend)
From: kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Low SAQ play by SF 49ers + Giants!
Date: 20 Dec 92 04:29:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: what.. me.. organized?


* Give the 49ers a low Situational Awareness Quotient for the TB game.
  What in the world were Siefert, Shanahan and co. thinking by throwing
  the football on a 3rd and 10 with a 21-14 lead, and with 1:04 left on the
  clock *and* with Tampa Bay having spent all its timeouts?? Instead, they
  should have run up the middle, use up 45 secs off the clock and then put
  with 15 secs left pn the clock. If you are going to pass, try a higher 
  percentage play than the fly to Rice.

* Result: Sweat it out till the end, and have to break up a hail mary in 
  the end-zone. I thought that the 40whiners had learnt their lesson on 
  hail marys. 

* Somebody tell me why SF keeps insisting on running that wide [and I mean
  real wide] sweep-toss running plays. It seems to take forever to 
  develop.  Watters and Lee run much better 
  off-tackle or up the middle. I saw Roger Craig run that play to death
  in his final year with the 49ers [avergae gain for that play seemed to 
  be -2 yds/pop.]

* Thank you, Giants. The Chargers' fans all over thank you sincerely for 
  playing your hearts out. 

* Ray *MUST* stay.  #) #)


_______________________________________________________
| Prashanth                    |                      |
| U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
#######################################################
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Subject: Getting Scores
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:08:21 GMT

HO HO FRAGGIN' HO
Kevin Stamber
Purdue University

COWHER POWER!


Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: hariharn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Hariharan)
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this 
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:10:14 GMT

In article <XaR=Y4-@engin.umich.edu> sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan) writes:
>In article <Bz43LI.Cuv@andy.bgsu.edu> dlingle@orchestra.bgsu.edu (Donald Lingle) writes:
>>Sunday, Beware Of The Super Bowl Champs!
>>    I will agree that the Skins are having an up and down season thus far.  But 
>>if we beat the Cowboys this Sunday, you must agree that the Redskins will look 
>>pretty good for repeating as Super Bowl Champs.
>>    The skins have had a bunch of injuries, combined with the late pre-season 
>>start of Mark Rypien.  Some of our players are now returning, (Darrell Green,
>>Jim Lachey), and Rypien's coming out of his slump.
>>    I'm happy to see the Cowboys and Redskins games now mean something.  Before
>>last year, Cowboy fans would hide the week before a Redskin vs. Cowboys game. 
>>As for the 49ers, Vikings, Eagles, Packers, & Saints, I know you would love to 
>>go get a easy Super Bowl victory against an AFC team, but you'll have to wait 
>>for Joe Gibbs to retire or better yet, coach your team.
>>    Well, good luck to all NFL fans.  I am just "touring" the user group.  This
>>id actually belongs to a Pittsburgh Steeler's Fan.
>
>
>Well, I too hope the 'Skins thrash the Cowpokes. Personally, I don't care for/
>hate either. All I'm concerned about is the 49ers - more specifically Montana.
>I'm one of those weirdos who has never seen Montana in action - here's hoping
>the 49ers secure home field advantage before their last game so that I can have
>the pleasure of watching Joe for the first time.
>

Joe who ?

:-) 
-- 
**************************************************************************
Ramesh Hariharan , Chem Engg. Dept., Princeton Univ. 
Research topic : Stabilization of Colloids using diblock copolymers.
Research baap : Bill Russel (no ! not the Celtic legend)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: kettler@pierre.mit.edu (KETTLER, THOMAS R.)
Subject: Re: playoff games question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: MIT Lab for Nuclear Science
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:14:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.142342.18424@seq.uncwil.edu>, rsmith@seq.uncwil.edu (Ross Smith)          writes...
><SLANE@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
> 
>>    Maybe this has been dealt with recently , but I can't find it , so until
>>  we get a FAQ , here goes :-
>>  First round is clear , DC3 vs WC3 and WC2 vs WC1.
>>  Let's say , as an example , this leaves ....
>>  SF     14  2                   DC1
>>  DAL    13  3                   DC2
>>  MIN    11  5                   DC3
>>  NO     13  3                   WC1
>>  Does SF play MIN because it has the worst record , or does SF play NO
>>  because they are ranked lower ?
> 
>   worst ranked is always at best ranked in play-offs now... so NO
>would play at SF and MIN at DAL in your scenario...
> 
> 
No, no, a thousand times, no. The team which has home-field advantage 
throughout the playoffs always now plays the lowest-ranked wildcard. Hence, in 
this case, SF plays NO, not MIN. However, when only 10 teams made it to the 
playoffs you would be correct but only because NO and SF are in the same 
division and it used to be that the team with home-field would always play the 
wild-card winner but would play the lowest-ranked division winner if the 
wild-card winner was from the same division as the home-field team. 

(ex) 1988 AFC playoffs: (10 team playoffs)
	Cinci. which won home-field played Seattle, the lowest-ranked division 
	winner and Houston played Buffalo, the other division winner after 
	Houston won the wildcard game at Cleveland.
     1987 NFC playoffs: (10 team playoffs)
	San Fran which won-home field played and lost to Minnesota after Minn. 
	played at and beat New Orleans in the wildcard game. Washington, the 
	second-division winner then played Chicago, the lowest-ranked division 
	winner at JFK.
     1990 AFC playoffs: (12 team playoffs)
	This was the first year of the new playoff system and demonstrates what 
	is above. In the first week, Houston the last wildcard played at and 
	lost to Cinci. while Miami the second wildcard played at and beat 
	Kansas City, the other wildcard. Thus Miami played at Buffalo, the 
	home-field team while Cinci. played at and lost to the LA Raiders. Now 
	Cincinnati at 9-7 had a worse record than Miami which had a 10-6 record.

					Sincerely yours,

					Thomas R. Kettler "Bengals Fanatic"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: The Dynasty Continues..........
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 21:21:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1992Dec18.161613.11777@macc.wisc.edu> heim@vms.macc.wisc.edu (JOHN HEIM	) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.204948.25749@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes...
>
>>In article <1992Dec16.112625.19297@hellgate.utah.edu> twolf@cs.utah.edu (Tom Wolf) writes:
>>>Seems to me, you helped prove his point, Ed. He's saying that it can't be
>>>proven that the 49ers were the best of all time, 
>>That's NOT the point he was trying to prove. He point was
>> 
>>  "It's easier to win a championship in the 80s than in the 60s".
>> 
>>and went on to give numbers on how difficult it was to make the playoffs
>>(only one of out seven teams) back in the 60s.
>
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>You are truly insane!  I NEVER said it was easier to win a 
>championship in the 80s.  My point has *always* been that while it's 
>true that a team has to win more games to be the champion now, this is 
>only because so many teams get into the playoffs.  So it's only a
>matter of personal opinion whether it's harder to win a championship 
>now than in the 60s.
>
>This argument was a direct result of attempts by people like you to 
>DIMINISH the accomplishments of the 60s Packers on the basis that it 
>was easier to win a championship 60s.  My point is that you can't 
>prove that.
>
>JGH


Well, you see, Ed likes to "prove" arguments by stating the opposite..
That is, unless you can prove it to NOT be true, then it must be true...
He has been doing it for years on a variety of groups..  

-- 
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"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: sue@dracut.keps.com (Sue Klimowicz)
Subject: Re: Vikings + Gannon = Suck! 
Originator: sue@dracut
Organization: Kodak Electronic Printing Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:12:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.140538.4886@unislc.uucp> jag@unislc.uucp (John Ganske) writes:
> sue@dracut.keps.com (Sue Klimowicz) writes:
> 
> >Doesn't this make you wonder that maybe the problem is with the overall
> >Offense philosophy. Wilson gets out of there and he throws for 5 TDs.
> >I think the Vikings have been doing an excellent job of distroying the
> >careers of good QBs. 
> 
> Hogwash.  Have you heard that the Vikes have a new coaching staff this 
> year?  Wilson had big days when he played for the Vikings.  In fact, Wade
> had a huge day when the wildcard Vikes destroyed the omnipotent 9ers in 
> the playoffs a few years back (1987 I believe).  Wilson also had 3 300-yard-
> plus days against Tampa Bay (the team he just struck for 5 TDs against) when 
> was with Minnesota.  Get a grip on the facts please.  A lot of teams have
> difficulty getting a person with the right combination of talent, smarts, and
> character at quarterback.  Since Tommy Kramer, the Vikings seem to have not 
> found the right person.  Coaching may be a problem, but no connection can
> be made between Wade Wilson and the current coaches.
> 
> John Ganske
> Thinking Tommy Kramer in his prime looks pretty good right now
> 
I wasn't referring to the coaches but to the owners (administration). They
have much to do with how the team should be run. The only thing I blamed
the coaches for is bad play calling and pulling Gannon. 

I personally think Kramer and Wilson are excellent QBs and are proving it
right now. Gannon, Kramer and Wilson have all had big days while playing
for the Vikes. But there is something about the Vikes that keep them from
being another Kelley, Montana ect.  I know the way I wrote the previous
post it looks like I think the QBs are ruined for good. Sorry. I only
meant that as a Viking they are not used to their potential and then are
traded as being ineffective. 

I just noticed that everyone is blaming the QB and saying that getting another
one will solve the Vikes problem.  I don't believe this. I bet you Young
would look bad behind the Vikes Offense. Gannon is an excellent QB and if
he sticks with it he will probably be a bad asset to a NFL team. But I
think his career with the Vikes is over.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: mracette@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Michael Racette)
Subject: Re: Results and Impressions from Saturday's Games
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:02:52 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <00964FE0.2971F080@vms.csd.mu.edu> 5912ramasubr@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>if I were a Bronco fan I would say only one thing to
>Elway . It was sheer stupidity on his part to dive headlong
>and hurt his shoulder in a game which they were on the
>way to winning and this has resulted in 4 losses.


As a Bronco fan I have to point out that one of the reasons Elway is such a
threat (to himself as well as other teams I guess) is because he is willing
to sacrifice himself to win. He plays the game with that purpose in mind and
sometimes it costs him, but most of us wouldn't have it any other way. He 
really hasn't missed that much playing time over the years despite taking a
lot of blows due to his competitiveness (and some sorry blocking at times).
IMHO if theres any blame to be cast it should go to Reeves for not procuring
a good veteran backup QB. He's seen enough pro football to know that your
lucky to make it through the season with one QB. 

Mike R.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: How are Playoff schedules figured?
From: scott@mccall.com (Scott D. Davis)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:25:25 CST
Reply-To: scott@mccall.com (Scott D. Davis)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The McCall Pattern Co., Manhattan, KS, USA
Nntp-Posting-User: scott


1st round
dw - division winner
wc - wildcard

a)3rd dw vs 3rd wc
b)1st wc vs 2nd wc

2nd round
1st dw vs team with worst record
2nd dw vs other team

As for ties:
From: skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds)
posted the tie breaking system, Dec 2.  I see he has reposted it
again.

So right now(by the current records)[guessing]:
AFC
	Pitt____\_________\
KC______________/          \
Hou                        /
	Buff____\_________/
SD______________/
Mia

NFC
	SF_____\__________\
Minn___________/           \
Phil                       /
	Dal____\__________/
NO_____________/
Wash
--
Scott D. Davis <scott@mccall.com>       The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!widener!depot!mccall!scott)	615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in Kansas (913)776-4041  Manhattan, KS 66502, USA
From: hariharn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ramesh Hariharan)
Subject: Re: `Redskins Repeat !!!
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: To all non-Redskin fans, after the Redskins beat up on the Cowboys this 
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:40:07 GMT

In article <XaR=Y4-@engin.umich.edu> sudhama@engin.umich.edu (Sudhama Gopalan) writes:
>In article <Bz43LI.Cuv@andy.bgsu.edu> dlingle@orchestra.bgsu.edu (Donald Lingle) writes:
>>Sunday, Beware Of The Super Bowl Champs!
>>    I will agree that the Skins are having an up and down season thus far.  But 
>>if we beat the Cowboys this Sunday, you must agree that the Redskins will look 
>>pretty good for repeating as Super Bowl Champs.
>>    The skins have had a bunch of injuries, combined with the late pre-season 
>>start of Mark Rypien.  Some of our players are now returning, (Darrell Green,
>>Jim Lachey), and Rypien's coming out of his slump.
>>    I'm happy to see the Cowboys and Redskins games now mean something.  Before
>>last year, Cowboy fans would hide the week before a Redskin vs. Cowboys game. 
>>As for the 49ers, Vikings, Eagles, Packers, & Saints, I know you would love to 
>>go get a easy Super Bowl victory against an AFC team, but you'll have to wait 
>>for Joe Gibbs to retire or better yet, coach your team.
>>    Well, good luck to all NFL fans.  I am just "touring" the user group.  This
>>id actually belongs to a Pittsburgh Steeler's Fan.
>
>
>Well, I too hope the 'Skins thrash the Cowpokes. Personally, I don't care for/
>hate either. All I'm concerned about is the 49ers - more specifically Montana.
>I'm one of those weirdos who has never seen Montana in action - here's hoping
>the 49ers secure home field advantage before their last game so that I can have
>the pleasure of watching Joe for the first time.
>

Joe who ?

:-) 
-- 
**************************************************************************
Ramesh Hariharan , Chem Engg. Dept., Princeton Univ. 
Research topic : Stabilization of Colloids using diblock copolymers.
Research baap : Bill Russel (no ! not the Celtic legend)
From: nlatif@stipple.seas.upenn.edu (Wolverine)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
Subject: Re: Eagles Squeak Past Seattle in OT.
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:10:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Bz85Co.FGr@ns1.nodak.edu> sivaram@plains.NoDak.edu (The Purple Bleeder ) writes:
>Eagles beat the Sea-Hawks ....  20-17... in OT.
>Seattle scared the hell out of Eagles and their fans.:-)
>
>S.H

Yeah you betcha!!  But the good thing is we won.  YES!!!  Thank you Ruzek!!!

GO EAGLES!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro
From: chrisc@cae.wisc.edu (Chris Carey)
Subject: Re: Picks from HI
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin--Madison
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:15:15 CST

In article <1992Dec16.180638.69296@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> hm00@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (HOWARD JAY MILLER) writes:
>>I think your computer is in desperate need of repair.  Of course since it only
>>does what you tell it to I have to wonder if you have something against the
>>Packers.  They beat the Oilers, in the Oilers House of Shame, and they get
>>stuck barely above the Buccaneers!?  Come on, if your going to write a program
>>and post it's results, at least write a good one.  No offense, but 98-82 is
>>none too hot.
>>
>>PS what's the power column (and why are the Packers going down on it?)
>>
>>-Chris C.
>
>
>Before you bash this guy in front of the entire WORLD.  Remember he is picking
>at 54% of the games correctly.  If you would have wagered the same amount on
>every one of his picks for the entire season you would have made money.
>For all 100 unit bets, you would show a profit of 780 units.  Not bad.
>I consider any non loss good.
>
>Just my $.02.............Howard
>-- 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Howard J. Miller            :Home: (215) 866-8762: Work: (215) 758-4740
>hm00@ns1.cc.Lehigh.edu      :Graduate Assistant-Residential Services
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I just don't consider 54% all that hot.  I've done about 60-65% myself,
guess it's just a difference of opinion of what's a good percentage right...
Sorry if I bashed him a bit much, guess I'm sulking about his computer not
liking the Packers...

-Chris C.

Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro