More PROOF that the NFL is against the Patriots

[Joker]

Let me get this straight. You think ESPN tweaked the standings on purpose because they hate the Patriots so much -- and you think I'm a psychopath?

no...I think Gunnails was wrong in his assertion that the Jets were in 1st for a week...try reading the a + b conversation and then c your way out of it, Jetslifer/richpats/Ungeheuer

 

[Gunnails]

You are making an awfully HUGE assumption there Gunnails. Though I have to give credit to the Jets for pummelling the Rams, and putting together a whopping 2 games in a row, that doesn't mean that they are guaranteed a win over the Pats. Hell, you or one of your delusional cohorts was on here telling us how the Jets would whip the Pats the 1st time. And we know that didn't happen.
So, before you go pounding on your chest like the Jets are the next big thing, just remember that your team lost to the pathetic RAIDERS.

=======================================================

That was me.

 

[Delicate Genius]

===============================================


3 teams tied at 5-3 but not all three teams have played, how can you give H to H to the Pats when they have not played the Bills?

YOU CAN"T, YOU HAVE TO GO BEST DIV RECORD THAT EARLY IN SEASON.

Pats are now in first, congrats.

Forgot about the Bills.

Even still, with three teams tied, it's still the first one:

Three or More Clubs
(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated during any step, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-club format).

1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs).

Pats: 1-0 vs Jets; 0-0 vs Bills = 1.000%
Jets: 0-1 vs Pats; 1-0 vs Bills = .500
Bills: 0-0 vs Pats; 0-1 vs Jets = .000

It's not that hard.

I'm pretty sure that because they couldn't do head-to-head with the Pats/Bills, they did this:

Pats beat Jets
Jets beat Bills

Therefore:

1. Pats
2. Jets
3. Bills

 

[Gunnails]

Forgot about the Bills.

Even still, with three teams tied, it's still the first one:

Three or More Clubs
(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated during any step, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-club format).

1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs).

Pats: 1-0 vs Jets; 0-0 vs Bills = 1.000%
Jets: 0-1 vs Pats; 1-0 vs Bills = .500
Bills: 0-0 vs Pats; 0-1 vs Jets = .000

It's not that hard.

I'm pretty sure that because they couldn't do head-to-head with the Pats/Bills, they did this:

Pats beat Jets
Jets beat Bills

Therefore:

1. Pats
2. Jets
3. Bills

=================================================

:disagreement:

 

[Sicilian]

=================================================

:disagreement:

Oddly enough, this sums up half the posts on the internet. Well done!

 

[Delicate Genius]

=================================================

:disagreement:

...

What? Back when there was a three-way tie, the Bills/Pats hadn't played one another.

 

[alamo]

I'm pretty sure that because they couldn't do head-to-head with the Pats/Bills, they did this:

Pats beat Jets
Jets beat Bills

Therefore:

1. Pats
2. Jets
3. Bills

So what you are saying is, since this step wasn't specified in the rules they arbitrarily made it up? LOL.

There is nothing even remotely similar to that procedure anywhere in any of the tiebreaking rules.

No, the question of Jets vs. Pats in first place depends completely on whether you think "head to head between the teams" counts. Unlike wildcard tiebeaking rules, the rules for division tiebreakers don't say all teams need to have played the others. So you can argue it counts and Patriots win the tiebreaker.

But you can also argue that it does count, the only reason the rules don't say that is, at the end of the season all division teams will always have played each other, so there was no need to complicate the matter by saying it. So in that case head to head doesn't count and the Jets win the tiebreaker.

Bottom line is, it's a rule which is crystal clear at the end of the season but is open to interpretation until then. So there's no definitive answer at this point.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This is just business. The NFL doesn't "hate" its most successful franchise, on whose leadership it depends to keep any semblance of hope for a successful CBA alive. Believe me, they don't. In fact, they kiss Bob Kraft's butt any chance they get.

Favre is the marquee player, like it or not, with TB out of action. So, that's the logical way to set it up. Add to that the fact most fans like to see the big bad bully lose (and with appearances in five of the last seven AFCCG;s and four of the last seven SB's, that's exactly what we are), the positioning of the game is kind of a no brainer.

What's the problem? To me, it''s just going to make it all the more delicious when we win on Thursday. Who knows, maybe a couple of our guys will even put an hellacious hit on Favre...not that any of us would ever wish for such a thing...

 

[richpats]

no...I think Gunnails was wrong in his assertion that the Jets were in 1st for a week...try reading the a + b conversation and then c your way out of it, Jetslifer/richpats/Ungeheuer

Up to your old tricks again, eh Bozo? It's understandable - you know I'm a full-fledged Pats fan, but you gotta keep up your foolish rants for appearances sake. Doesn't change reality though Bozo. I am not even sure you're a Pats fan yourself, most of your posts revolve around your obsession with "rats" and name-dropping other members like me.

 

[Joker]

hey look!...it's rich the constantly negative "Pats" fan....can Jets lifer be far behind?

go ahead rich the "Pats" fan...thrill us with more of your nonstop negativity and football acumen...I'd hate anyone to think we're calling out the "calvary"....

 

[richpats]

hey look!...it's rich the constantly negative "Pats" fan....can Jets lifer be far behind?

go ahead rich the "Pats" fan...thrill us with more of your nonstop negativity and football acumen...I'd hate anyone to think we're calling out the "calvary"....

Wow you really don't read my posts do you?

Anyone here want to backup Bozo's "constantly negative" claim? Even after reading this:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...-cassel-next-year-time-page2.html#post1125175

 

[Gunnails]

So what you are saying is, since this step wasn't specified in the rules they arbitrarily made it up? LOL.

There is nothing even remotely similar to that procedure anywhere in any of the tiebreaking rules.

No, the question of Jets vs. Pats in first place depends completely on whether you think "head to head between the teams" counts. Unlike wildcard tiebeaking rules, the rules for division tiebreakers don't say all teams need to have played the others. So you can argue it counts and Patriots win the tiebreaker.

But you can also argue that it does count, the only reason the rules don't say that is, at the end of the season all division teams will always have played each other, so there was no need to complicate the matter by saying it. So in that case head to head doesn't count and the Jets win the tiebreaker

Bottom line is, it's a rule which is crystal clear at the end of the season but is open to interpretation until then. So there's no definitive answer at this point.

====================================================

You explained it very well, I am happy at least some one understood what I was trying to say.

Although I did take it one step further by ranking the Jets in 1st. In reality the rankings only count/matter at the end of the season. And that is why the NFL rules only address the end of the season rankings

 

[Gunnails]

Up to your old tricks again, eh Bozo? It's understandable - you know I'm a full-fledged Pats fan, but you gotta keep up your foolish rants for appearances sake. Doesn't change reality though Bozo. I am not even sure you're a Pats fan yourself, most of your posts revolve around your obsession with "rats" and name-dropping other members like me.

hey look!...it's rich the constantly negative "Pats" fan....can Jets lifer be far behind?

go ahead rich the "Pats" fan...thrill us with more of your nonstop negativity and football acumen...I'd hate anyone to think we're calling out the "calvary"....

=====================================================

YouTube - WAR - WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS

 

[richpats]

=====================================================

YouTube - WAR - WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS

Cuz Joker is a giant douche - nuff said.

 

[Joker]

where's your buddy, Jets lifer, rich...out fighting crucified ascetics with the "calvary"? ...heh...definitely sub 100 I.Q.

 

[richpats]

where's your buddy, Jets lifer, rich...out fighting crucified ascetics with the "calvary"? ...heh...definitely sub 100 I.Q.

that would make me 50 points above you, chief

 

[Delicate Genius]

So what you are saying is, since this step wasn't specified in the rules they arbitrarily made it up? LOL.

There is nothing even remotely similar to that procedure anywhere in any of the tiebreaking rules.

Uh... no? They didn't arbitrarily make it up; NFL.com has been doing it for years. Next time two or three teams are tied, take a look. They don't just randomly put tied teams in a certain position because the season isn't over and there are no 'in-season' guidelines. They use the end-of-season tiebreaking rules for positioning.

New England has been in 1st in the AFC East for two weeks now and 3rd in the Conference; the Jets have been in 2nd in the division and 6th in the AFC.

 

[Gunnails]

Uh... no? They didn't arbitrarily make it up; NFL.com has been doing it for years. Next time two or three teams are tied, take a look. They don't just randomly put tied teams in a certain position because the season isn't over and there are no 'in-season' guidelines. They use the end-of-season tiebreaking rules for positioning.

New England has been in 1st in the AFC East for two weeks now and 3rd in the Conference; the Jets have been in 2nd in the division and 6th in the AFC.[/QUOTE]

=====================================================

Wrong. I posted the link all last week that showed the Jets in front of the Pats per NFL.com, of course they have now changed it because the Pats have retaken the lead with there win over Buff..

 

[alamo]

Uh... no? They didn't arbitrarily make it up; NFL.com has been doing it for years. Next time two or three teams are tied, take a look. They don't just randomly put tied teams in a certain position because the season isn't over and there are no 'in-season' guidelines. They use the end-of-season tiebreaking rules for positioning.

My point, which you ignored, is that your explanation "I'm pretty sure that because they couldn't do head-to-head with the Pats/Bills, they did this" was COMPLETELY fabricated. If nfl.com had done it that was then they DID make it up, since such a tiebreaking procedure simply does not exist in the tiebreaking rules. At all.

I am sure they did use an in-season interpretation of postseason tiebreaking rules, in fact I said as much in my last post. But my point is that your interpretation was NOT supported by any facts at all, whereas I gave two alternate interpretaions that WERE supported (but different, because there is no definitive resource for such rules) and which led to different results.

 

[Patslifer]

where's your buddy, Jets lifer, rich...out fighting crucified ascetics with the "calvary"? ...heh...definitely sub 100 I.Q.

I am so far inside your head it's scary. Dance puppet dance!