More PROOF that the NFL is against the Patriots

[alamo]

From almost the first post this thread has deserved banishment.

 

[DaBruinz]

From almost the first post this thread has deserved banishment.

I think that most would prefer that people like yourself who don't bring anything to a thread are the ones who deserve banishment.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

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

You really just need to come to grips with reality. The FACT is that the Patriots have been AHEAD of the Jets in the standings since the end of Week 1. The Jets have NOT over-taken the Pats. NOT ONCE.

The tie-breaking rules are clear. HEAD TO HEAD is what matters. The Fact that the Jets lost to the Patriots AUTOMATICALLY put them behind the Patriots, regardless of what NFL.COM showed.

 

[Gunnails]

You really just need to come to grips with reality. The FACT is that the Patriots have been AHEAD of the Jets in the standings since the end of Week 1. The Jets have NOT over-taken the Pats. NOT ONCE.

The tie-breaking rules are clear. HEAD TO HEAD is what matters. The Fact that the Jets lost to the Patriots AUTOMATICALLY put them behind the Patriots, regardless of what NFL.COM showed.

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

Live in denial if you wish.

Facts are facts.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Live in denial if you wish.

Facts are facts.

You are the one living in denial. Not me. You just can't deal with reality.

 

[alamo]

I think that most would prefer that people like yourself who don't bring anything to a thread are the ones who deserve banishment.

Your definition of "don't bring anything to a thread" seems to be synonymous with "disagrees with you". Every post I've made here has been factual and on-topic (as the topic has shifted). Quite frankly, though, posting in this thread makes me feel unclean, like I need to take a shower or go to confession, so I'll make this one and try to make it the last one.

The tie-breaking rules are clear. HEAD TO HEAD is what matters. The Fact that the Jets lost to the Patriots AUTOMATICALLY put them behind the Patriots, regardless of what NFL.COM showed.

This is simply not true. There are situations when a team can be tied with another which it has beaten, and the winner misses the playoffs and the loser gets in. This is fact. It has to do with the way three team ties are resolved, under some circumstances head to head simply does not matter.

As I have posted before in this thread, i believe which team was in first last week is a matter of interpretation, since the rules do not completely cover in-season rankings. You can justifiably say the Patriots were ahead of the Jets, but you can also justifiably say the Jets were ahead of the Patriots. Thankfully it actually doesn't matter, since week 10 standings mean nothing once we get to week 11. Which is probably why noone has bothered to clear up the ambiguities in the tiebreaking rules.

 

[Gunnails]

You are the one living in denial. Not me. You just can't deal with reality.

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

Speaking of reality.
I caught a rat in a sticky trap last night, killing it was an ordeal, because it was hard to get at, the whole thing became quite intense as the rat fought hard for it's life.

Here is a pic of me, Jethrow, my spear, and the rat

The rat fell for the ol Cheetoh bait.

 

[DaBruinz]

Your definition of "don't bring anything to a thread" seems to be synonymous with "disagrees with you". Every post I've made here has been factual and on-topic (as the topic has shifted). Quite frankly, though, posting in this thread makes me feel unclean, like I need to take a shower or go to confession, so I'll make this one and try to make it the last one.

Nope. My definition is NOT sysnonymous with "disagrees with me." Maybe that is your definition. But your post did nothing for this thread. Period

This is simply not true. There are situations when a team can be tied with another which it has beaten, and the winner misses the playoffs and the loser gets in. This is fact. It has to do with the way three team ties are resolved, under some circumstances head to head simply does not matter.

Wrong. Head to head always matters unless the teams didn't play one another or the Head to head results in a tie. Then it moves on to the next tie breaker, which I believe is record against common opponents.

As I have posted before in this thread, i believe which team was in first last week is a matter of interpretation, since the rules do not completely cover in-season rankings. You can justifiably say the Patriots were ahead of the Jets, but you can also justifiably say the Jets were ahead of the Patriots. Thankfully it actually doesn't matter, since week 10 standings mean nothing once we get to week 11. Which is probably why noone has bothered to clear up the ambiguities in the tiebreaking rules.

No, you can't "justifiably" say that the Jets were ahead of the Pats because the tie breaker rules don't allow for it. Those rules were posted. Maybe you should have actually read them instead of spewing on.

There were no ambiguities if you actually look at the Tie Breaker rules. You can disagree with me all you want, but the rules are very clear and prove you to be wrong. And they prove gunnails to be wrong as well.

 

[alamo]

If you really want to get people mad, you should Photoshop a gray sweatshirt onto that rat

 

[Gunnails]

If you really want to get people mad, you should Photoshop a gray sweatshirt onto that rat

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

Nah, I'm not here to piss folks off.

I started a thread about my rat spearing experience at JI, kind of a play by play.

If anyone is interested I am posting a link, It's kind of a hoot.

Got Rat! - Jets Insider.com Forums

 

[JAYHAWKS34]

The new marketing campaign for this weeks game where they tought Brett Favre as the "HERO" and that he's going up against his "RIVALS".

Give me a friggin break. Nothing like the league throwing the Pats under the bus and equating them with being evil here.

If I am Kraft, I am on the phone with Goodell having it pulled because it bad publicity for the team or telling him that there will be an injunction awaiting the league by Monday afternoon.

Whatever…….. all the more reason to destroy them

 

[alamo]

Wrong. Head to head always matters unless the teams didn't play one another or the Head to head results in a tie.

LOL. You vehemently disagreed with my statement that head-to-head sometimes doesn't matter, then go on to say "unless the teams didn't play one another or the Head to head results in a tie." Well guess what, those two circumstances are exactly why said in the first place that it doesn't always matter!

Then it moves on to the next tie breaker, which I believe is record against common opponents.

And you tell *me* to read the tiebreaking rules? A clue: the next tiebreaker after head-to-head is never record against common opponents.

Last week there was a three way tie, but Buffalo and the Pats hadn't played each other yet, so on to the next tiebreaker, "2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division." Which the Jets would win with 2-1 record compared to 1-1 for the Patriots. Voila!

 

[DaBruinz]

LOL. You vehemently disagreed with my statement that head-to-head sometimes doesn't matter, then go on to say "unless the teams didn't play one another or the Head to head results in a tie." Well guess what, those two circumstances are exactly why said in the first place that it doesn't always matter!

You really should remember what you post:

This is simply not true. There are situations when a team can be tied with another which it has beaten, and the winner misses the playoffs and the loser gets in. This is fact. It has to do with the way three team ties are resolved, under some circumstances head to head simply does not matter.

Your quote does NOT equate to teams being TIED in head to head or the teams not having played. As I said, head to head always matters.

And you tell *me* to read the tiebreaking rules? A clue: the next tiebreaker after head-to-head is never record against common opponents.

Last week there was a three way tie, but Buffalo and the Pats hadn't played each other yet, so on to the next tiebreaker, "2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division." Which the Jets would win with 2-1 record compared to 1-1 for the Patriots. Voila!

Yes, I did tell you to read the tiebreaking rules. And, while I got the 2nd and 3rd mixed up, what you fail to understand is that head to head always matters.

NFL Tie-Breaking Procedures

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

So while the Pats and Bills hadn't played, it doesn't matter. The fact is that the Pats winning % was HIGHER than either of the Bills or the Jets in those games. You don't automatically skip to number two.

 

[alamo]

So while the Pats and Bills hadn't played, it doesn't matter. The fact is that the Pats winning % was HIGHER than either of the Bills or the Jets in those games. You don't automatically skip to number two.

That's not definitively clear. The reason it's not clear is the rule doesn't explicitly address head-to-head games when the teams in a three way tie haven't all played each other.

But how can you possibly apply a tiebreaker step labelled "head to head" to decide between teams which haven't all played each other? You can't, so you skip to number two.

By the way, suppose this happens at the end of the season:

Patriots, Jets and Dolphins tie for first. Patriots swept Jets, Jets swept Dolphins, Dolphins swept Patriots. Patriots and Dolphins each split with the Bills, but the Jets swept the Bills, and thus by the 2nd tiebreaker are division champions! Even though the Patriots and Jets finished with the same record and the Patriots swept the Jets.

 

[DaBruinz]

That's not definitively clear. The reason it's not clear is the rule doesn't explicitly address head-to-head games when the teams in a three way tie haven't all played each other.

But how can you possibly apply a tiebreaker step labelled "head to head" to decide between teams which haven't all played each other? You can't, so you skip to number two.

You really are insisteing on being obtuse here. Its head to head WIN %. The Pats had played the Jets and had WON. So they were at 1.000%. The Jets had played the Bills and the Pats. They were 1-1. That put them at .500%. The Bills were 0-1. That put them at 0.00%. Its CLEAR CUT.

By the way, suppose this happens at the end of the season:

Patriots, Jets and Dolphins tie for first. Patriots swept Jets, Jets swept Dolphins, Dolphins swept Patriots. Patriots and Dolphins each split with the Bills, but the Jets swept the Bills, and thus by the 2nd tiebreaker are division champions! Even though the Patriots and Jets finished with the same record and the Patriots swept the Jets.

Hooray for ALAMO. He found the absolute most IMPROBABLE scenario that could happen. YEAH FOR YOU. But, guess what. Head to head still mattered. Because it determined that they needed to go to the 2nd tie breaker.

Now, are you done being argumentative? Do you feel proud that you found the one scenario where the Patriots could sweep the Jets and still lose the division even if they had a tied record?

 

[alamo]

You really are insisteing on being obtuse here. Its head to head WIN %. The Pats had played the Jets and had WON. So they were at 1.000%. The Jets had played the Bills and the Pats. They were 1-1. That put them at .500%. The Bills were 0-1. That put them at 0.00%. Its CLEAR CUT.

I disagree. The difficulty is because at the end of the season, it IS clear cut because "head to head" within a division will always mean everyone has played each other. But that's simply not true in-season, and for guidance I look to the three-team wildcard tiebreaking rules, which explicitly state they don't apply unless one team has beaten both others.

Again, I keep coming back to: how can a team lose a tiebreaker labelled "head to head" to a team it hasn't played? You obviously think it can. I don't. But that's why I said many messages ago that you can build a justifiable case either way, because it hinges on a technicality the rules never considered.

 

[JSn]

So here's the thing: the season isn't over and won't end today. So it's irrelevant. And Dumb.

 

[Bostonian1962]

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

Speaking of reality.
I caught a rat in a sticky trap last night, killing it was an ordeal, because it was hard to get at, the whole thing became quite intense as the rat fought hard for it's life.

Here is a pic of me, Jethrow, my spear, and the rat

The rat fell for the ol Cheetoh bait.

Is THAT Mangini???? Just kidding.