You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

How does a team prove that it is the best in the league?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 65, 66, 67, 68  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
texans_uk


Joined: 26 Feb 2009
Posts: 33914
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shockey1979 wrote:
slocie wrote:
Easy, by winning the Super Bowl.

No one cares about stats, unless they're playing fantasy football.


Just out of curiousity why aren't posts like this being challenged by ipwn, Tom Shean and JPep? There's been at least 10-15 posters throughout this thread that have come in with just about the same statements and you guys haven't even responded to an of them.


The guy probably won't be around next week?

Plus I think the ongoing debate of pages upon pages has already covered these sort of basic concepts.
_________________
DallasInHeart wrote:
Buddy if you lived in Europe or ever gone to visit Europe you would know that over there Football is totally on a different level

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shockey1979


Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 25333
Location: RI/MA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

texans_uk wrote:
Shockey1979 wrote:
slocie wrote:
Easy, by winning the Super Bowl.

No one cares about stats, unless they're playing fantasy football.


Just out of curiousity why aren't posts like this being challenged by ipwn, Tom Shean and JPep? There's been at least 10-15 posters throughout this thread that have come in with just about the same statements and you guys haven't even responded to an of them.


The guy probably won't be around next week?

Plus I think the ongoing debate of pages upon pages has already covered these sort of basic concepts.


Well sure but it seems like the angle they were taking towards us was as if it was some radical stance that not many people would agree with. In the past whenever we have had polls attached to this topic it's typically been about 40% that believe the Super Bowl Champion is the best. So while it's not on a 50-50 level it's certainly not some radical stance either. Just seems weird to me that the only posts that have been refuted by them have been mine and the OP when at least 10-15 other posters have made the same statement. No biggie. Was just curious.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom Shean


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 4739
Location: Tha 703
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuperBowl=best wrote:
Tom Shean wrote:
SuperBowl=best wrote:
You can't hold their league result against CFC, because they were properly chasing the CL. And they ended up qualifying for the next CL anyway, so their 5th place ended up not mattering.

Over the years, the only teams I can remember to win the UCL and not finish in a qualifying spot are 2012 Chelsea and 2005 Liverpool.

All the other winners were able to successfully win the Champions' League and finish in a qualifying spot.

Why does Chelsea get a free pass?
Because the CL was the priority. So was the FA Cup, but that doesn't give them a pass. The CL does, however.

The CL is the championship of the entire continent of Europe, and is broadcast worldwide, getting Super Bowl-type ratings. It is hard as hell to qualify for, and must be prioritised. City weren't even good enough to get out of its Group Stage. Chelsea won the whole damn thing.

But if it was so important surely they would have made more of an effort to finish in a qualifying position?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuperBowl=best


Joined: 11 Feb 2013
Posts: 393
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
SuperBowl=best wrote:
LOL. So you come here in a thread that asks a completely different question, and you want to ask questions of your own that are off-topic. That is way too laughable. I guess you can do that cos you're a mod. I doubt I can go into the Draft thread and demand them to answer me questions about Lebron James.
Not even close to the same thing. We are discussing reproducibility of your claim. It's wholly relevant to the thread. It's not off topic banter geared to change the direction of the thread. I'm asking you to validate your claim through reproducibility. We're still discussing the fundamental principles of your topic.

Quote:
Ok, I'll humor you and let you continue to veer this off-topic with irrelevancies.

In answer to your irrelevant Olympic hypothetical: After I find out that losing that race doesn't mathematically eliminate me, I may subconciously give less effort at a point in the race where I'm losing, subconciously knowing there is still a slight chance of a 2nd chance.
So you're going to think that you might get a second chance when you've been told no one has ever been given a second chance?
1)I don't need "reproducibility" to validate my claim. The league's competition format validates it. The fact that the Lombardi is the reason for these teams' existence, and it is their ultimate goal, validates my claim.

2)If I find that mathematically, I might get a 2nd chance, I will know that I might get a 2nd chance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SuperBowl=best


Joined: 11 Feb 2013
Posts: 393
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom Shean wrote:
SuperBowl=best wrote:
Tom Shean wrote:
SuperBowl=best wrote:
You can't hold their league result against CFC, because they were properly chasing the CL. And they ended up qualifying for the next CL anyway, so their 5th place ended up not mattering.

Over the years, the only teams I can remember to win the UCL and not finish in a qualifying spot are 2012 Chelsea and 2005 Liverpool.

All the other winners were able to successfully win the Champions' League and finish in a qualifying spot.

Why does Chelsea get a free pass?
Because the CL was the priority. So was the FA Cup, but that doesn't give them a pass. The CL does, however.

The CL is the championship of the entire continent of Europe, and is broadcast worldwide, getting Super Bowl-type ratings. It is hard as hell to qualify for, and must be prioritised. City weren't even good enough to get out of its Group Stage. Chelsea won the whole damn thing.

But if it was so important surely they would have made more of an effort to finish in a qualifying position?
You prioritise the CL you're currently in over the next year's. Come on now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
iPwn


Global Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 55990
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SuperBowl=best wrote:
iPwn wrote:
SuperBowl=best wrote:
LOL. So you come here in a thread that asks a completely different question, and you want to ask questions of your own that are off-topic. That is way too laughable. I guess you can do that cos you're a mod. I doubt I can go into the Draft thread and demand them to answer me questions about Lebron James.
Not even close to the same thing. We are discussing reproducibility of your claim. It's wholly relevant to the thread. It's not off topic banter geared to change the direction of the thread. I'm asking you to validate your claim through reproducibility. We're still discussing the fundamental principles of your topic.

Quote:
Ok, I'll humor you and let you continue to veer this off-topic with irrelevancies.

In answer to your irrelevant Olympic hypothetical: After I find out that losing that race doesn't mathematically eliminate me, I may subconciously give less effort at a point in the race where I'm losing, subconciously knowing there is still a slight chance of a 2nd chance.
So you're going to think that you might get a second chance when you've been told no one has ever been given a second chance?
1)I don't need "reproducibility" to validate my claim. The league's competition format validates it. The fact that the Lombardi is the reason for these teams' existence, and it is their ultimate goal, validates my claim.

2)If I find that mathematically, I might get a 2nd chance, I will know that I might get a 2nd chance.

1. Actually you do, or your claim isn't valid. If you can't reproduce results, you need rethink your stance. Also, just because the sole purpose of humans is to continue the species, it doesn't make people who have 4+ kids they don't take care of a better human than Einstein. Just as with teams.

2. Okay, show me the mathematical probability that Bama had access to prior to their matchup that suggested they would be given another chance. Show me one piece of evidence that these players had any knowledge that they might be given another chance. Just one. Not hindsight information, but information they had at the time of playing. I'll wait.
_________________

Live like you're down 3-1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJG


Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 1024
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure why someone would argue that arguments using hypothetical situations are completely illogical. Even in math hypotheticals have applications, such as in probability theory and set theory where many things are conditional.

Suppose the Ravens and Broncos were to play in the first regular season game next season. We have to predict the winner, using no data other what we learned the previous season, and we have to assume that every player will return and play at a similar level compared to the previous season. Is it so wrong to say the Broncos would win because they have a more consistent offense and a far superior defense, and thus are better than the Ravens? Is what I said so much worse than saying if I flipped a coin 100 times, it will land on heads between 40-60 times?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 49882
Location: Hillsboro, OR
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJG wrote:
I'm not sure why someone would argue that arguments using hypothetical situations are completely illogical. Even in math hypotheticals have applications, such as in probability theory and set theory where many things are conditional.

Suppose the Ravens and Broncos were to play in the first regular season game next season. We have to predict the winner, using no data other what we learned the previous season, and we have to assume that every player will return and play at a similar level compared to the previous season. Is it so wrong to say the Broncos would win because they have a more consistent offense and a far superior defense, and thus are better than the Ravens? Is what I said so much worse than saying if I flipped a coin 100 times, it will land on heads between 40-60 times?


This is why sports are so great in this world, and I'm going to use the 1980 USA Hockey Team as my example.

Consider this quote:
"If we play 'em 10 times, they might win nine. But NOT this game."

If the Ravens and Broncos played 10 times, the Broncos might win 9, but when it mattered the most, and when it actually counted, the USA hockey team defeated the Soviets, just like the Ravens defeated the Broncos. They were better on that night, or they were better for 4 out of 7 games, or better for 2/3 games, or anything like that. What matters is who shows up when it matters most - and the Ravens did that, and they are world champions and the best team in the NFL.
_________________
#FireDeanPees...and Chris Hewitt....and Matt Weiss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shockey1979


Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 25333
Location: RI/MA
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJG wrote:
I'm not sure why someone would argue that arguments using hypothetical situations are completely illogical. Even in math hypotheticals have applications, such as in probability theory and set theory where many things are conditional.


Hypotheticals are ok as long as they reciprocate the real world scenario. Anyone can manufacture a hypothetical to make their agenda seem correct. But unless they can assign a hypothetical factor to the real world factors it's easily shot down. They can be powerful debating tools when used correctly and can have an impact on how people perceive an issue. But many times the hypothetical is easily turned around on the person presenting it as well.

AJG wrote:

Suppose the Ravens and Broncos were to play in the first regular season game next season. We have to predict the winner, using no data other what we learned the previous season, and we have to assume that every player will return and play at a similar level compared to the previous season. Is it so wrong to say the Broncos would win because they have a more consistent offense and a far superior defense, and thus are better than the Ravens? Is what I said so much worse than saying if I flipped a coin 100 times, it will land on heads between 40-60 times?


The Broncos may very well win. But winning that regular season match-up means nothing other then a tick in the win column. If at the end of the season the Ravens secure a seed and the Broncos fail to what did that head to head match-up actually prove? Nothing. Just like those 6 teams that beat the Ravens last year either failed to secure a seed or were eliminated in a win or go home game. The Ravens survived. Being Champion is what makes them the best. The Broncos can be argued of having a higher quality of talent, coaching, scheme or whatever. But in regards to the accumulative criteria of the entire season no one excelled what the Ravens accomplished.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShooterMcGavin


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 2141
Location: Pittsburgh
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The over-thinking is way too strong in this thread. You play to win the Super Bowl.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
YlionsY


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 14656
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShooterMcGavin wrote:
The over-thinking is way too strong in this thread. You play to win the Super Bowl.


Agreed.

I guess while the Ravens revel in their glory and hoist the trophy, another team/fanbase can whine that they were better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJG


Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 1024
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
AJG wrote:
I'm not sure why someone would argue that arguments using hypothetical situations are completely illogical. Even in math hypotheticals have applications, such as in probability theory and set theory where many things are conditional.

Suppose the Ravens and Broncos were to play in the first regular season game next season. We have to predict the winner, using no data other what we learned the previous season, and we have to assume that every player will return and play at a similar level compared to the previous season. Is it so wrong to say the Broncos would win because they have a more consistent offense and a far superior defense, and thus are better than the Ravens? Is what I said so much worse than saying if I flipped a coin 100 times, it will land on heads between 40-60 times?


This is why sports are so great in this world, and I'm going to use the 1980 USA Hockey Team as my example.

Consider this quote:
"If we play 'em 10 times, they might win nine. But NOT this game."

If the Ravens and Broncos played 10 times, the Broncos might win 9, but when it mattered the most, and when it actually counted, the USA hockey team defeated the Soviets, just like the Ravens defeated the Broncos. They were better on that night, or they were better for 4 out of 7 games, or better for 2/3 games, or anything like that. What matters is who shows up when it matters most - and the Ravens did that, and they are world champions and the best team in the NFL.


You're right, winning the championship is better than being considered the best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom Shean


Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 4739
Location: Tha 703
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

YlionsY wrote:
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
The over-thinking is way too strong in this thread. You play to win the Super Bowl.


Agreed.

I guess while the Ravens revel in their glory and hoist the trophy, another team/fanbase can whine that they were better.

That's not what the discussion is about people, please try to keep up.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJG


Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 1024
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shockey1979 wrote:
AJG wrote:
I'm not sure why someone would argue that arguments using hypothetical situations are completely illogical. Even in math hypotheticals have applications, such as in probability theory and set theory where many things are conditional.


Hypotheticals are ok as long as they reciprocate the real world scenario. Anyone can manufacture a hypothetical to make their agenda seem correct. But unless they can assign a hypothetical factor to the real world factors it's easily shot down. They can be powerful debating tools when used correctly and can have an impact on how people perceive an issue. But many times the hypothetical is easily turned around on the person presenting it as well.

AJG wrote:

Suppose the Ravens and Broncos were to play in the first regular season game next season. We have to predict the winner, using no data other what we learned the previous season, and we have to assume that every player will return and play at a similar level compared to the previous season. Is it so wrong to say the Broncos would win because they have a more consistent offense and a far superior defense, and thus are better than the Ravens? Is what I said so much worse than saying if I flipped a coin 100 times, it will land on heads between 40-60 times?


The Broncos may very well win. But winning that regular season match-up means nothing other then a tick in the win column. If at the end of the season the Ravens secure a seed and the Broncos fail to what did that head to head match-up actually prove? Nothing. Just like those 6 teams that beat the Ravens last year either failed to secure a seed or were eliminated in a win or go home game. The Ravens survived. Being Champion is what makes them the best. The Broncos can be argued of having a higher quality of talent, coaching, scheme or whatever. But in regards to the accumulative criteria of the entire season no one excelled what the Ravens accomplished.


Much of math is founded on things that don't exist in the real world. A perfect circle, imaginary numbers, the square root of two, and many other things don't exist in nature, but they still have applications. Similarly, just because something is only possible it doesn't mean it isn't useful. I said the Broncos have a more consistent offense and their defense is superior compared with the Ravens'. If I had to bet on either the Broncos or Ravens to win a game I would pick the Broncos, because I believe they're consistently good and I believe that gives them a higher chance to win games. If I think a team is more likely to win, I think that makes them better. Obviously the definition I'm using for better is different from yours.

And I honestly don't see the point in defining the best as the winner of the Super Bowl. That's basically saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the best" and "the winner of the Super Bowl is the winner of the Super Bowl" are equivalent statements. Obviously the winner of the Super Bowl is the winner of the Super Bowl, so what's the point in saying it? For the sake of having a discussion at all I'm choosing to argue something that's worth arguing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJG


Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 1024
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

YlionsY wrote:
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
The over-thinking is way too strong in this thread. You play to win the Super Bowl.


Agreed.

I guess while the Ravens revel in their glory and hoist the trophy, another team/fanbase can whine that they were better.


Does it look like I'm a Broncos fan?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL General All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 65, 66, 67, 68  Next
Page 66 of 68

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group