ieatcrayonz Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) A few years ago I mentioned that the Bills would be better off losing a game to the Cardinals to set themselves up better for the tie breaker. People on the board refused to understand my point even though it is relatively simple. I can't find the link but some of you may remember it. If you were around back then maybe you can answer this: If the Chiefs and Chargers both win their remaining division games, the Chargers win their other game and the Chiefs lose their other game, which team will go to the playoffs? Why? Edited December 23, 2010 by ieatcrayonz
plenzmd1 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 A few years ago I mentioned that the Bills would be better off losing a game to the Cardinals to set themselves up better for the tie breaker. People on the board refused to understand my point even though it is relatively simple. I can't find the link but some of you may remember it. If you were around back then maybe you can answer this: If the Chiefs and Chargers both win their remaining division games, the Chargers win their other game and the Chiefs lose their other game, which team will go to the playoffs? Why? I have no idea what you are talking about.. and assume ou are being a chucklehead..but matbe, just maybe , you meant this. In no way shape or form can winning a game hurt your playoff position(as far as I know). But, maybe that is wrong. Could it be that losing gets you out of a three way tie and into a two way tie, and then different tie breakers come out where you are better positioned against the one team thatn if you were agaisnt both? There is prolly a scenario where that plays out and losing may be better.
bizell Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 haha. I remember that thread. It was the Arizona game where Edwards got splatto'd by Adrian Wilson. You said that it was good for us that we lost that game for playoff seeding or something along those lines
Chimp Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 haha. I remember that thread. It was the Arizona game where Edwards got splatto'd by Adrian Wilson. You said that it was good for us that we lost that game for playoff seeding or something along those lines Wasn't that like the 6th game of the season? Does that mean going 0-8 in the first half of this season is good for the Bills playoff hopes? Just wondering.
Matt in KC Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 haha. I remember that thread. It was the Arizona game where Edwards got splatto'd by Adrian Wilson. You said that it was good for us that we lost that game for playoff seeding or something along those lines If I remember right, the argument was something like: if you're going to have certain number of losses, (say, ending 8-8) it's better to have them against a team that is not in your division/conference because you'll have better tiebreakers at the end of the year (because that means the wins are more likely against division/conference opponenets). Therefore it's better to lose to Arizona to help our playoff chances. ...And several people engaged this argument for a handful of posts back and forth trying to help Crayonz see why his logic was flawed.
johnnychemo Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 The only way I can see a loss helping your cause is that it may slightly increase your strength of schedule, but that is the 6th (out of 12) tiebreaker, so getting there is a long shot.
Captain Caveman Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 But what happens if the Chiefs win both of their games. And the Chargers team plane crashes into the side of a mountain. Did you ever think about that?
ieatcrayonz Posted December 23, 2010 Author Posted December 23, 2010 haha. I remember that thread. It was the Arizona game where Edwards got splatto'd by Adrian Wilson. You said that it was good for us that we lost that game for playoff seeding or something along those lines It was Arizona and a lot of people have laughy face int their replies them too. Guess who beat a lot of NFC teams this year? KC. My guess is that there are not too many laughy faces in KC when thinking about the fact that they won too many games against the NFC.
Captain Caveman Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 It was Arizona and a lot of people have laughy face int their replies them too. Guess who beat a lot of NFC teams this year? KC. My guess is that there are not too many laughy faces in KC when thinking about the fact that they won too many games against the NFC. If they had won more games against the NFC (and the same # against the AFC) they would be in the playoffs. Also, don't forget about the plane crash.
mjl4sam Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 A few years ago I mentioned that the Bills would be better off losing a game to the Cardinals to set themselves up better for the tie breaker. People on the board refused to understand my point even though it is relatively simple. I can't find the link but some of you may remember it. If you were around back then maybe you can answer this: If the Chiefs and Chargers both win their remaining division games, the Chargers win their other game and the Chiefs lose their other game, which team will go to the playoffs? Why? Is this a joke? Losing to an NFC team does nothing to help or hurt your tiebreaker (until you get down to SOS and what not) as it doesn't affect your conference or division record.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 23, 2010 Author Posted December 23, 2010 Is this a joke? Losing to an NFC team does nothing to help or hurt your tiebreaker (until you get down to SOS and what not) as it doesn't affect your conference or division record. If you win too many NFC games that means you have lost more AFC games which messes up your tiebreaker.
Fan in Chicago Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 If you win too many NFC games that means you have lost more AFC games which messes up your tiebreaker. I rather win an NFC game in the post-season. But thats just me.
prissythecat Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 A few years ago I mentioned that the Bills would be better off losing a game to the Cardinals to set themselves up better for the tie breaker. People on the board refused to understand my point even though it is relatively simple. I can't find the link but some of you may remember it. If you were around back then maybe you can answer this: If the Chiefs and Chargers both win their remaining division games, the Chargers win their other game and the Chiefs lose their other game, which team will go to the playoffs? Why? Can you explain to us again why it is good to lose?
mjl4sam Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) If you win too many NFC games that means you have lost more AFC games which messes up your tiebreaker. Assuming you are being serious, the flaw in that logic is that you are presuming teams can control which games they can win and lose. Obviously if a team was predestined to go 10 - 6, they would choose to go 0-4 in the NFC and 10-2 in the AFC and 6-0 in the division. But if a team really had that much control over which games they could win and lose, they would just choose to go 19-0. For an AFC team, it's better to have a better record versus the AFC than NFC, quite obviously. But the thought that a team would lose on purpose to an NFC team to better their playoff chances is ludicrous. Another flaw is that you are assuming that there is an inverse relationship between a team's NFC and AFC record, which is not true. Edited December 23, 2010 by mjl4sam
DC Grid Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 It was Arizona and a lot of people have laughy face int their replies them too. Guess who beat a lot of NFC teams this year? KC. My guess is that there are not too many laughy faces in KC when thinking about the fact that they won too many games against the NFC. So your screen name isn't a joke I guess. If you are trying to say you're better off beating teams in your own conference, you're right. If you're trying to say losing games to the other conference does anything but help you draft position and compromise your playoff chances, you clearly have eaten so many crayons that one has lodged deep in your brain.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Agree, that was the problem with his logic. It was assuming you were going to win some other AFC game instead and their final record would end up with the same number of wins. The logic essentially was based that the Bill's could choose which games it wanted to win or lose. Assuming you are being serious, the flaw in that logic is that you are presuming teams can control which games they can win and lose. Obviously if a team was predestined to go 10 - 6, they would choose to go 0-4 in the NFC and 10-2 in the AFC and 6-0 in the division. But if a team really had that much control over which games they could win and lose, they would just choose to go 19-0. For an AFC team, it's better to have a better record versus the AFC than NFC, quite obviously. But the thought that a team would lose on purpose to an NFC team to better their playoff chances is ludicrous. Another flaw is that you are assuming that there is an inverse relationship between a team's NFC and AFC record, which is not true.
RealityCheck Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 This thread is further proof that too many stupid people are breeding.
Tsaikotic Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 LOL..I have no idea why ppl keep feeding crayonz...he obviously sits and jerks off to these threads...he's been doing this for years.
bowery4 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 This thread is further proof that too many stupid people are breeding. "Stupid people shouldn't breed" Jenny Holzer
Recommended Posts