BIGBLUE01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 the dog can't figure out why this would be a surprise...if you finish with the same record as a team that you beat, you should get in ahead of them... Makes sense. But so does having a better conference/division record. If you go 6-0 in the division, and you lose to a team once, and the team that beat you is 4-2 in their respective division, since you battle your div. rivals all year and play almost half your games against them, I think that should matter more than one game. I also am surprised that common games is higher than conference record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Makes sense. But so does having a better conference/division record. If you go 6-0 in the division, and you lose to a team once, and the team that beat you is 4-2 in their respective division, since you battle your div. rivals all year and play almost half your games against them, I think that should matter more than one game. I also am surprised that common games is higher than conference record. what if one team plays in a more competetive division? so, by your rationale, the dog would say that you have to conclude that the patriots were the best team in the NFL last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 what if one team plays in a more competetive division? so, by your rationale, the dog would say that you have to conclude that the patriots were the best team in the NFL last season. The weak division thing I also understand. But dont you battle your rivals to win the division, and your NFC counterparts to get into the playoffs at all? You do, so I think those would be considered first. If someone is in a weak division, they cant help that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The weak division thing I also understand. But dont you battle your rivals to win the division, and your NFC counterparts to get into the playoffs at all? You do, so I think those would be considered first. If someone is in a weak division, they cant help that. you do...and as part of your NFC counterparts, you are having a direct battle with the team you are competing against. if you beat them, shouldn't you get in ahead of them? again, the dog would have to conclude that your analysis here would also then support the notion that the patriots were the best team in the NFL a year ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 you do...and as part of your NFC counterparts, you are having a direct battle with the team you are competing against. if you beat them, shouldn't you get in ahead of them? again, the dog would have to conclude that your analysis here would also then support the notion that the patriots were the best team in the NFL a year ago... When it was all said and done, no. But how is that relevant to what we're discussing here? We're talking playoff seating. And going by who you battle to get in, one would think thats how they would determine seating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 When it was all said and done, no. But how is that relevant to what we're discussing here? We're talking playoff seating. And going by who you battle to get in, one would think thats how they would determine seating. it is relevant because based on what you are saying, the patriots would have a better record against every other NFL team last year, and you can't reduce the season to one game. the dog is just saying that head to head competition should take precedence over everything else...otherwise, the super bowl outcome is irrelevant whenever an underdog wins... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nesta Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 head to head is the best decider if available. Look at the BCS. They don't use it as the first tie-breaker and it's a clusterfuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 head to head is the best decider if available. Look at the BCS. They don't use it as the first tie-breaker and it's a clusterfuck. Poor Texas... (not that I really care, but it is f'd up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 it is relevant because based on what you are saying, the patriots would have a better record against every other NFL team last year, and you can't reduce the season to one game. the dog is just saying that head to head competition should take precedence over everything else...otherwise, the super bowl outcome is irrelevant whenever an underdog wins... Battling through the whole year determines the best 2 teams from each conference. Then, that single game decides the best team in the NFL. Apples to Oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nesta Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Poor Texas... (not that I really care, but it is f'd up). I'm an OU fan, so it worked in my favor this time. It's interesting to note that two years or so ago Mack Brown stated he was in favor of the current system of tie breakers. When OU got the championship nod, he stated he was against the system. Texas crybabies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I'm an OU fan, so it worked in my favor this time. It's interesting to note that two years or so ago Mack Brown stated he was in favor of the current system of tie breakers. When OU got the championship nod, he stated he was against the system. Texas crybabies. Go Arizona State!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I'm an OU fan, so it worked in my favor this time. It's interesting to note that two years or so ago Mack Brown stated he was in favor of the current system of tie breakers. When OU got the championship nod, he stated he was against the system. Texas crybabies. Of course he did... Pete Carrol did the same thing. I couldn't care less. I'm a Florida State fan and unless we find a way to get the high school grads to come to us rather than Florida and get more guys like Myron Rolle we won't see the BCS Championship for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 To not make the playoffs, the Giants would need to lose every game, and since would be 4 - 2 in the division, it would require a lot for this team not to make it....after this week the Giants will be in, then we can concentrate on that #1 seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksm7 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Battling through the whole year determines the best 2 teams from each conference. Then, that single game decides the best team in the NFL. Apples to Oranges. maybe not...if you are going to argue that one game should not decide who goes to the playoffs, how can you then argue that one game should decide who is the best team in the league? now, the dog happens to think that the fact that the superbowl is one game to decide it all in the end makes it better then other sports, but using your playoff rationale, the same should apply to the superbowl...the fact is, head to head is the best way to determine these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 maybe not...if you are going to argue that one game should not decide who goes to the playoffs, how can you then argue that one game should decide who is the best team in the league? now, the dog happens to think that the fact that the superbowl is one game to decide it all in the end makes it better then other sports, but using your playoff rationale, the same should apply to the superbowl...the fact is, head to head is the best way to determine these things. Dont make it harder than it is dog, The SB is the final two teams. One is going to be the best. The other, the 2nd best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now