11-5 vs. 8-8

[Sivy]

Blaaa, bad idea...

its actually a great idea.

 

[billdog3484]

Unfortunately, the potential 8-8 team smoked the potential 11-5 team early in the season. The Pats will have no gripes

so if the falcons beat the giants even though the giants had 3 more wins you think the giants would have no gripe if the falcons had home field....come on be serious

 

[upstater1]

so if the falcons beat the giants even though the giants had 3 more wins you think the giants would have no gripe if the falcons had home field....come on be serious

Finally, someone else that uses logic.

 

[Deus Irae]

I made my case and it's obvious. You're the one cherrypicking. The case is simple: winning 11 games against our schedule is better than winning 8 games against the Chargers schedule.

Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded.

32 teams in the league and only 16 games played means that there's no way to make a fair, balanced schedule. When you add the 2 games against each division foe to the mix, you get 10 games played against a field of 28 teams, meaning that there are 18 teams that you don't play against.

There's no way to create a 'fair' workaround for that, so 8-8 may be a more impressive record than 10-6 some seasons, depending upon how the schedule falls.

Where the hell is the cherrypicking in that? I'm sorry that your argument is complete garbage, but cherrypicking the Chargers/Patriots schedules doesn't make it any better.

 

[upstater1]

Where the hell is the cherrypicking in that? I'm sorry that your argument is complete garbage, but cherrypicking the Chargers/Patriots schedules doesn't make it any better.

How in the world is that cherrypicking?

These are the two teams that would be 8-8 and 11-5 in the AFC.

What other two teams would I have to go on?

Apparently, my argument that winning 11 games is much more deserving than winning 8 games is garbage, but yours--that winning 8 with a tougher schedule [even though the one we're really comparing isn't] is better than winning 11--is just the height of logic.

The Patriots winning 8 last year could have been accomplished by beating the Bills, Jets, Phins, Cleveland and Cincy. Hardly more impressive than this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

How in the world is that cherrypicking?

These are the two teams that would be 8-8 and 11-5 in the AFC.

What other two teams would I have to go on?

There have been teams all throughout NFL history. Your argument is ridiculous, because you cherry picked one example and, if you're going to be picky, it still doesn't fit into my initial comment because that comment referred to 8-8 vs. 10-6.

Since it's clear that you don't have any legitimate arguments against my initial point beyond the assertion that basically says "more wins automatically equals more impressive" , let's put it to you this way....

If THIS Patriots team had gone 16-0, would it have been more impressive, equally impressive, or less impressive than the team doing it last year, and how do you reach such a conclusion?

 

[godef]

That would be extremely crazy if the Pats get left out of the playoffs at 11-5 but the Chargers make it at 8-8. Better yet the wild card game could be 12-4 Indy at 8-8 SD.

If that happens the NFL may want to make some changes to address the issue.

I remember in 2004 BOTH the Vikings and Rams qualified for the playoffs at 8-8. Oddly enough both of those teams won their wild card games (Vikes over Pack, Rams over Seahawks). At least those teams didn't make the playoffs in place of a team with an actual 'playoff record'.

The NFL has decided long ago that they want to reward each division winner a play-off position, and that's the way it's going to be.

Consider that in 1967, the Baltimore Colts had an 11-1-2 record and did not make the play-offs. This was before the league realignment with the former AFL into the current conferences; for a few years, the NFL had 16 teams divided into 4 divisions, much like each conference has now. The difference being, only 4 teams made the playoffs, no wildcards, and these were the 4 division winners. The Colts were tied with the LA Rams with that 11-1-2 record and the nod went to the Rams who beat and tied the Colts in the regular season. Imagine how PO'd the Colts must have been when the Rams immediately proceeded to lose in the first round.

 

[Salva135]

I have no problem with this because divisions create rivalries and it's good to reward a team for winning its division, otherwise there'd be no reason for them to exist. This is kind of a flukey year, so I don't think it's the sign of a larger problem.

The REAL problem is that there are too many divisions in the NFL. Realigning the divisions several years ago really screwed things up - 4-team divisions is just plain silly... it makes the odds of 8-8 teams winning them and getting in that much higher.

 

[PatsFan2]

If it ain't broke don't fix...this won't be the first time this has happened.

 

[SpiderFox53]

I have no problem with this because divisions create rivalries and it's good to reward a team for winning its division, otherwise there'd be no reason for them to exist. This is kind of a flukey year, so I don't think it's the sign of a larger problem.

The REAL problem is that there are too many divisions in the NFL. Realigning the divisions several years ago really screwed things up - 4-team divisions is just plain silly... it makes the odds of 8-8 teams winning them and getting in that much higher.

Not only that, it makes it possible for a 7-9 team to win its division and get into the playoffs.

I just can't wait for that to happen.

 

[upstater1]

There have been teams all throughout NFL history. Your argument is ridiculous, because you cherry picked one example and, if you're going to be picky, it still doesn't fit into my initial comment because that comment referred to 8-8 vs. 10-6.

Since it's clear that you don't have any legitimate arguments against my initial point beyond the assertion that basically says "more wins automatically equals more impressive" , let's put it to you this way....

If THIS Patriots team had gone 16-0, would it have been more impressive, equally impressive, or less impressive than the team doing it last year, and how do you reach such a conclusion?

Less impressive.

and I already agreed with you that last year's schedule was extremely tough.

And this is also the first time in all your succeeding posts where you stated we're comparing 8-8 teams to 10-6 teams. 2 wins difference is indeed debateable. When you're 3 wins apart, it's whining to say you deserve it more if you're the 8-8 team.

You responded initially to my post which was in itself in response to someone claiming an 8-8 record was better than 11-5 because of other factors.

if the Patriots don't make it, this will be the first time ever that a 11-5 team will lose a spot to an 8-8 team since we went to 6 team playoffs.

And that's precsiely why I can only use the Patriots-vs.-Chargers as an example.

By the way, you can stand to be a little less arrogant in the future when you proclaim arguments ridiculous, absurd, and illegitimate.

Unless you live in a bizarro world, an argument that says an 11-5 record is better than 8-8 is NEVER ridiculous. It may be debateable and perhaps wrong, but never absurd and ridiculous. In fact, the reverse would likelier apply if we want to discuss 8-8 versus 11-5.

As Bill Parcells once said, "You are what your record says you are."

 

[upstater1]

If it ain't broke don't fix...this won't be the first time this has happened.

It is the first time this has happened. That's why we're talking about it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Less impressive.

and I already agreed with you that last year's schedule was extremely tough.

And this is also the first time in all your succeeding posts where you stated we're comparing 8-8 teams to 10-6 teams. 2 wins difference is indeed debateable. When you're 3 wins apart, it's whining to say you deserve it more if you're the 8-8 team.

1.) If you can grade levels of impressive, you can have a lower win total being more impressive than a higher win total. That kills your argument right there.

2.) What seems to have happened is that you confused different arguments and blended them together. I simply noted that an 8-8 team could be more impressive than a 10-6 team. You denied that, but have apparently now seen the light since you are now grading levels of 'impressive'.

You responded initially to my post which was in itself in response to someone claiming an 8-8 record was better than 11-5 because of other factors.

if the Patriots don't make it, this will be the first time ever that a 11-5 team will lose a spot to an 8-8 team since we went to 6 team playoffs.

And that's precsiely why I can only use the Patriots-vs.-Chargers as an example.

That's nonsense. A team making the playoffs or not has nothing to do with whether the teams' records were more or less impressive. I would think that a gander at this past weekend's opponent would have been enough to impress that reality into your mind, given that the Cardinals, and the Chargers, might just make the playoffs at 8-8. Furthermore, the Patriots would not be losing a spot to an 8-8 team. The Patriots would be losing a spot to 2 teams that went 12-4 or 11-5.

By the way, you can stand to be a little less arrogant in the future when you proclaim arguments ridiculous, absurd, and illegitimate.

Yes, coming from the person who posted "I'm the only sane one here.", "Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded" and "Finally, someone else that uses logic." in this very same thread, that admonition really has meaning.

Unless you live in a bizarro world, an argument that says an 11-5 record is better than 8-8 is NEVER ridiculous. It may be debateable and perhaps wrong, but never absurd and ridiculous. In fact, the reverse would likelier apply if we want to discuss 8-8 versus 11-5.

This is just plain nonsense. The validity of the argument is in question, not the respective records. The idea that such an argument could NEVER be ridiculous is, well, ridiculous.

As Bill Parcells once said, "You are what your record says you are."

Parcells was right only in a limited way, and he was only intending that his words be taken in a limited way. He was wrong if you actually apply facts to situations that don't revolve solely around wins and losses. His words made for a nice quote, and they work in a bottom line situation, but that's not all that people are talking about when they talk about how impressive a season is/was.

 

[upstater1]

Deus Irae: If you can grade levels of impressive, you can have a lower win total being more impressive than a higher win total. That kills your argument right there.


I really have no idea what you're talking about here. You asked me a question about whether a 16-0 record against this year's schedule would be less impressive than a 16-0 record against last year's schedule, and I replied that it would be less impressive because last year's schedule was tougher. How is 16-0 less than 16-0. Next, you bizarrely state that a lower win total being more impressive than a higher win total "kills my argument." You do realize, don't you, that all along I've been saying 11-5 is better than 8-8, no matter the schedule, don't you? This latest post of yours is, to borrow your words, absurd, ridiculous, and I'll add my own, downright schizophrenic.

2.) What seems to have happened is that you confused different arguments and blended them together. I simply noted that an 8-8 team could be more impressive than a 10-6 team. You denied that, but have apparently now seen the light since you are now grading levels of 'impressive'.


Never ever denied that. Now you're making things up. Show me where I denied that. I've been talking about the Patriots 11-5 record this year versus the 8-8 Chargers record this year. At one point I generalized and said that in the NFL, a 11-5 record is ALWAYS better than a 8-8 record because of the quality of the competition. Simple as that. You're misreading things, obviously.

That's nonsense. A team making the playoffs or not has nothing to do with whether the teams' records were more or less impressive.


No, what's non-sense is that you're responding to and characterizing things I never said. No one ever said here that people should make the playoffs based on some arbitrary distinction about what is more impressive or not. Never said that. I'm simply making the case that 11-5 is more impressive than 8-8, no matter how you cut it. Do the Patriots deserve to make the playoffs more than the Chargers? Of course. That doesn't mean that I said "a team making the playoffs has to do with whether the teams' records were more or less impressive." Again, an absurdity from you.

I would think that a gander at this past weekend's opponent would have been enough to impress that reality into your mind, given that the Cardinals, and the Chargers, might just make the playoffs at 8-8. Furthermore, the Patriots would not be losing a spot to an 8-8 team. The Patriots would be losing a spot to 2 teams that went 12-4 or 11-5.

You're making my point again. These 8-8 teams suck and don't deserve to get in. Thanks. They each have one of the 6 spots in their conferences, which the Patriots don't have. Thanks again.

Yes, coming from the person who posted "I'm the only sane one here.", "Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded" and "Finally, someone else that uses logic." in this very same thread, that admonition really has meaning.

It should because I was responding to your legendary arrogance on these boards. What, you think I'm the only one saying this?

This is just plain nonsense. The validity of the argument is in question, not the respective records. The idea that such an argument could NEVER be ridiculous is, well, ridiculous.

It could NEVER be ridiculous. Prove that wrong. How could it be ridiculous to argue 11-5 is a better record than 8-8? Give us a hypothetical (coming from you, it will no doubt be a ridiculous hypothetical).

 

[pao]

???

You admitted it after me so I guess that means you have less of a hard time, eh? Congratulations, you beat me to admitting your wrongness by admitting it after me.

Great going, Einstein.

You are such a crack up. Thanks.

 

[pao]

By the way, you can stand to be a little less arrogant in the future when you proclaim arguments ridiculous, absurd, and illegitimate.

LOL! Are you kidding me? Pot? Meet Kettle.

 

[Deus Irae]

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. You asked me a question about whether a 16-0 record against this year's schedule would be less impressive than a 16-0 record against last year's schedule, and I replied that it would be less impressive because last year's schedule was tougher. How is 16-0 less than 16-0. Next, you bizarrely state that a lower win total being more impressive than a higher win total "kills my argument." You do realize, don't you, that all along I've been saying 11-5 is better than 8-8, no matter the schedule, don't you? This latest post of yours is, to borrow your words, absurd, ridiculous, and I'll add my own, downright schizophrenic.

If you can look to identical records and claim one to be more impressive than the other, then you are looking at something other than just the raw numbers. Therefore, you can weigh a lesser record against a greater record and still find the lesser record more impressive. Despite your apparent difficulties in comprehending this, it's really not difficult.

Never ever denied that. Now you're making things up. Show me where I denied that. I've been talking about the Patriots 11-5 record this year versus the 8-8 Chargers record this year. At one point I generalized and said that in the NFL, a 11-5 record is ALWAYS better than a 8-8 record because of the quality of the competition. Simple as that. You're misreading things, obviously.

Really?

Winning 11 games is tougher than 8 games no matter who you play.

it's the NFL.

There's no misread there. You simply keep changing terms. The term I used was "impressive". An 8 win season can be more impressive than an 11 win season, depending upon the respective circumstances.

No, what's non-sense is that you're responding to and characterizing things I never said. No one ever said here that people should make the playoffs based on some arbitrary distinction about what is more impressive or not. Never said that. I'm simply making the case that 11-5 is more impressive than 8-8, no matter how you cut it. Do the Patriots deserve to make the playoffs more than the Chargers? Of course. That doesn't mean that I said "a team making the playoffs has to do with whether the teams' records were more or less impressive." Again, an absurdity from you.

Once again, you blend arguments and struggle with comprehension. Notice how you've now used "impressive" here...

You're making my point again. These 8-8 teams suck and don't deserve to get in. Thanks. They each have one of the 6 spots in their conferences, which the Patriots don't have. Thanks again.

But that's NOT the point at all, which is why your comments have been so silly. I put forth a simple, general, assertion that an 8-8 record might sometimes be more impressive than a 10-6 record. Your responses to that have been a jumble of nonsensical counters in which you point to the Chargers, this year's specific teams, and an erroneous tabulation and comparison of strength of schedule among other irrelevancies.

It should because I was responding to your legendary arrogance on these boards. What, you think I'm the only one saying this?

I'm sure you're not. I respect those who are worthy of respect, such as BOR, MoLewis, etc... Those who are trolls, or just silly? Not so much. People who make silly arguments shouldn't be shielded from the fruits of that argument, and one of the fruits of being silly is being informed that you're being silly. If that's not what you're looking for, I suggest you start a blog that doesn't allow comments. I just enjoyed the hypocrisy of you doing precisely what you later accused me of doing.

It could NEVER be ridiculous. Prove that wrong. How could it be ridiculous to argue 11-5 is a better record than 8-8? Give us a hypothetical (coming from you, it will no doubt be a ridiculous hypothetical).[/B]

Again, you keep changing the terms of the discussion. 11-5 is a better record than 8-8 in terms or raw numbers, but that doesn't mean it's more impressive.

 

[upstater1]

LOL! Are you kidding me? Pot? Meet Kettle.

Your argument that 8-8 is better than 11-5 means you have a monopoly on reasoning.

 

[pao]

Your argument that 8-8 is better than 11-5 means you have a monopoly on reasoning.

Er, I never said 8-8 is better than 11-5. I even said the Patriots are better than the Chargers right now, despite the fact the Chargers beat them and are on a 3-0 run. One thing I did say was the Chargers could be viewed as a 9-7 (if they beat Denver this Sunday, not a given) due to the worst call in the history of the NFL. Can't see any reasonable argument against that. Not complaining, if the Chargers lose to Denver this week they don't deserve to be Division Champs. But let's face it, the Chargers should be on track to be 9-7 and actually would have clinched the division Sunday if not for that call.

 

[upstater1]

Deus Irae: If you can look to identical records and claim one to be more impressive than the other, then you are looking at something other than just the raw numbers. Therefore, you can weigh a lesser record against a greater record and still find the lesser record more impressive. Despite your apparent difficulties in comprehending this, it's really not difficult.


Never said otherwise, did I? In fact, I wrote earlier that I do accept that some records could be better than others. I wrote that in my second post to you. But not when the record is 8 wins versus 11 wins. Not in the NFL where games are tough to win. We both agree that last year's schedule was the toughest for the Patriots in a long while, and yet, in the final analysis, they could have won 8 games by beating the hapless Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Bengals, and Browns. Not too impressive that! Your difficulties in communicating are truly astounding, no wonder comprehension of points I already agreed to on page 2 surprise you!

Really?

Are you being intentionally dense? Or are you just someone who likes to misdirect the discussion. This is what you wrote: "2.) I simply noted that an 8-8 team could be more impressive than a 10-6 team. You denied that." This is how I replied: "I never denied that." Then you used this comment of mine to show that I was somehow not telling the truth about never denying it: "Winning 11 games is tougher than 8 games no matter who you play. It's the NFL." I can see that you like to deliberately misrepresent things but anyone reading this can see the obvious difference in what you originally stated, and what I denied saying. I'm amazed that you think you can get by with your pathetic attempts to distort the essence of what's being discussed here.

There's no misread there. You simply keep changing terms. The term I used was "impressive". An 8 win season can be more impressive than an 11 win season, depending upon the respective circumstances.


Give me an example. You can't.

Once again, you blend arguments and struggle with comprehension.

It appears that you're the one who has extreme difficulty understanding the difference between saying that a team is more "deserving" of the playoffs and saying that teams should get into the playoffs based on some arbitrary standard of "impressiveness." You've argued yourself into a corner.

But that's NOT the point at all, which is why your comments have been so silly. I put forth a simple, general, assertion that an 8-8 record might sometimes be more impressive than a 10-6 record.

Again, give an example. You can't. My points are spot on. 11-5 in the NFL is more impressive than 8-8 regardless of the schedule. Show me how that is a ridiculous or silly proposition, as you characterize it. You can't even give an example to prove your point that my argument is silly. If you can't even do that, then you are a person completely without logic.


I'm sure you're not. I respect those who are worthy of respect, such as BOR, MoLewis, etc... Those who are trolls, or just silly? Not so much. People who make silly arguments shouldn't be shielded from the fruits of that argument, and one of the fruits of being silly is being informed that you're being silly. If that's not what you're looking for, I suggest you start a blog that doesn't allow comments. I just enjoyed the hypocrisy of you doing precisely what you later accused me of doing.

This little nugget pretty much sums up your presence on this board. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is silly. Even when someone says, 11-5 is better than 8-8 no matter the schedules, you'll say, that's arrogant, absurd, ridiculous. But when the onus is on you to give an example which would show how silly the other person's logic is, you've got nothing. You just rely on your monumental egotism which is really pathetic.

Again, you keep changing the terms of the discussion. 11-5 is a better record than 8-8, but that doesn't mean it's more impressive.


I never changed the terms. What are you talking about? I've always said it is more impressive. As any poor sucker who has been unfortunate enough to read this thread already knows.