ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 If there are more losses on the NFC side, it is because they lost more games to the AFC. Thus, the AFC is a superior conference. Now we're up to 192 games but whatever. 12 years I guess. Forgetting that part, your comment in quotes is WAY off. Of NFC teams only Chicago lost more games to AFC teams than to NFC teams. Phi and NO lost equally to AFC & NFC. Every other team lost more games to NFC opposition. If you worked for Bear Stearns and reported that the market was down 120 points one day but it was mostly due to the 20 points, not the 100, you would be on the street pretty quick my friend.
KnightRider Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Now we're up to 192 games but whatever. 12 years I guess. Forgetting that part, your comment in quotes is WAY off. Of NFC teams only Chicago lost more games to AFC teams than to NFC teams. Phi and NO lost equally to AFC & NFC. Every other team lost more games to NFC opposition. If you worked for Bear Stearns and reported that the market was down 120 points one day but it was mostly due to the 20 points, not the 100, you would be on the street pretty quick my friend. :blink:
keepthefaith Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 I am getting to the point of anger at reading article after article taking as fact that the AFC is better than the NFC. I watch a lot of football and I see the NFC overall as slightly better than the AFC. It is close, but top to bottom the NFC is better. I have no problem if someone has a difference of opinion but I am perturbed at the reasoning in the articles of the football "experts". Over and over again they state that AFC teams have a better W-L record. What does that prove? Each team plays 12 games within their own conference and only 4 against the other conference. OF COURSE AFC teams would have better records. The get to play teams from the slightly weaker AFC 75% of the time. The NFC teams by contrast have 75% of their games against the tougher teams. What are these geniuses thinking? How can they go by W-L records? There are not level schedules. Maybe these football reporters should actually watch some games and form their own opinions. I think the real questions is: What's in those crayons yer eatin'?
Dibs Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Of NFC teams only Chicago lost more games to AFC teams than to NFC teams. Phi and NO lost equally to AFC & NFC. Every other team lost more games to NFC opposition. OK....I'll play mental math with you. Of AFC teams NONE lost more games to NFC teams than to AFC teams. NONE lost equally to AFC & NFC either. EVERY team lost more games to AFC opposition. Even using crayonz type logic the AFC is better. Don't mistake this crayonz.......it's your example but mirrored(AFC to NFC & vice verse).
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 OK....I'll play mental math with you. Of AFC teams NONE lost more games to NFC teams than to AFC teams. NONE lost equally to AFC & NFC either. EVERY team lost more games to AFC opposition. Even using crayonz type logic the AFC is better. Don't mistake this crayonz.......it's your example but mirrored(AFC to NFC & vice verse). Thanks for helping me make my point. Losses within BOTH conferences go further toward determining the overall record of the team. The NFC teams combined had more TOTAL losses. Losses to other NFC teams made up the bulk. Although AFC teams also lost more withhin the AFC they clearly did not do so at the same rate as NFC teams. All I am saying is that this is because the NFC teams were tougher. I don't think you can go strictly by W-L because of the weighted schedule and not comparing individual teams. That was the whole point before people got off on this tangent. You have to go by what you see. I see the NFC as better overall because of what I see when I watch. The results back me up too, but that is not the basis for my argument. If you disagree fine. I think probably the best we can do is to wait for the Pro Bowl as it is a cross section of the conferences. It won't tell the whole story but it will go a long way. Use this as an extreme example: I think the NHL is tougher than the AHL. I didn't check, but the combined records of the teams in the AHL might be better than the combined NHL records. I'm saying if that's true it is because of the easier competition in the AHL. Get it now?
YOOOOOO Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Use this as an extreme example: I think the NHL is tougher than the AHL. I didn't check, but the combined records of the teams in the AHL might be better than the combined NHL records. I'm saying if that's true it is because of the easier competition in the AHL. Get it now? Are you slow?? nevermind Answer this...Who are your top 5 teams in the NFL???
Quester74 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Its' best just to ignore this guy.. he tried telling everyone what a great addition T.O. would be to the Bills, too.. Heh.
Quester74 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Ok.. here goes. Each team, listed by conference, 1-16, based on record.. and using my own tie-breakers to determine rank within the conference (i.e.: which team *I* think is better) NFC vs. AFC 1. Chicago vs. San Deigo --- winner - SD (AFC) 2. New Orleans vs. Baltimore --- winner - Baltimore (AFC) 3. Philidelphia vs. Indianpolis --- winner - Indianapolis (AFC) 4. Seattle vs. New England --- winner - New England (AFC) 5. Dallas vs. New York Jets --- winner - Draw 6. New York Giants vs. Kansas City --- winner - Kansas City (AFC) 7. St. Louis vs. Denver --- winner - St. Louis (NFC) 8. Carolina vs. Cinncinati --- winner - Cinncinati (AFC) 9. Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh --- winner - Pittburgh (AFC) 10. Atlanta vs. Jacksonville --- winner - Jacksonville (AFC) 11. San Fransisco vs. Tennesee --- winner - Draw 12. Minnesota vs. Buffalo --- winner - Buffalo (AFC) 13. Washington vs. Miami --- winner - Miami (AFC) 14. Arizona vs. Houston --- winner - Arizona (NFC) 15. Tampa Bay vs. Cleveland --- winner - Tampa Bay (NFC) 16. Detroit vs. Oakland --- winner - Detroit (NFC) Final Total -- AFC 10, NFC 4, 2 Draws Now, when ya look at this, don't think of it as one game they would play against each other.. consider it as just a total analysis of each team, as to who is the better team. Granted there is nothing scientific or even completely factual about this.. it's just my opinion, and I would guess the opinion of most posters here. Tell me what ya think.
Nanker Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 AFC NFC The AFC is better because A comes before N. This proves it. Move on.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 Are you slow?? nevermind Answer this...Who are your top 5 teams in the NFL??? I'm talking about the conferences as a whole, not just 1 team or 2 teams or 5. Naming the top 5 teams would be a mute point.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 Its' best just to ignore this guy.. he tried telling everyone what a great addition T.O. would be to the Bills, too.. Heh. And yet there are 14 threads a week about getting a #2 receiver. TO would clearly be a good #2 and would not cost much of a draft pick. It probably doesn't matter because we won't give up a 4th and a 6th is not enough. I like Hargrove but we basically traded for him instead of TO.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 6, 2007 Author Posted January 6, 2007 Ok.. here goes. Each team, listed by conference, 1-16, based on record.. and using my own tie-breakers to determine rank within the conference (i.e.: which team *I* think is better) NFC vs. AFC 1. Chicago vs. San Deigo --- winner - SD (AFC) 2. New Orleans vs. Baltimore --- winner - Baltimore (AFC) 3. Philidelphia vs. Indianpolis --- winner - Indianapolis (AFC) 4. Seattle vs. New England --- winner - New England (AFC) 5. Dallas vs. New York Jets --- winner - Draw 6. New York Giants vs. Kansas City --- winner - Kansas City (AFC) 7. St. Louis vs. Denver --- winner - St. Louis (NFC) 8. Carolina vs. Cinncinati --- winner - Cinncinati (AFC) 9. Green Bay vs. Pittsburgh --- winner - Pittburgh (AFC) 10. Atlanta vs. Jacksonville --- winner - Jacksonville (AFC) 11. San Fransisco vs. Tennesee --- winner - Draw 12. Minnesota vs. Buffalo --- winner - Buffalo (AFC) 13. Washington vs. Miami --- winner - Miami (AFC) 14. Arizona vs. Houston --- winner - Arizona (NFC) 15. Tampa Bay vs. Cleveland --- winner - Tampa Bay (NFC) 16. Detroit vs. Oakland --- winner - Detroit (NFC) Final Total -- AFC 10, NFC 4, 2 Draws Now, when ya look at this, don't think of it as one game they would play against each other.. consider it as just a total analysis of each team, as to who is the better team. Granted there is nothing scientific or even completely factual about this.. it's just my opinion, and I would guess the opinion of most posters here. Tell me what ya think. Good work and you have a right to your opinion. I disagree and the evidence backs up my point of view. That doesn't mean it proves my point of view because as you correctly point out, it is mostly opinion. I simply find it hard to ignore the tough schedules the NFC faced.
Sketch Soland Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 What a beautifully trolled thread. He started out with a thesis that seemed plausible on the surface, uses some convoluted reasoning that hits certain notes long enough to give the appearance of propriety, then sits back and watches the minions flail away as they frantically argue the apparently obvious till they're blue in the face. Subtlety, it appears, is not a lost trolling art But then perhaps I give too much credit? I doubt it, however.
Captain Hindsight Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 the nfc is considered weak bc the giants finished the seaason 2-6 and made the playoffs. That pathetic
Dibs Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Although AFC teams also lost more withhin the AFC they clearly did not do so at the same rate as NFC teams. All I am saying is that this is because the NFC teams were tougher. :blink: Oh...I've got tears in my eyes. This is fantastic. Honestly, the only thing dampening my amusement it that you sound so convinced by your answers that there is a tiny part of me that thinks "perhaps he's not just good at spinning words & he actually believes this". Anybody out there know the answer to that one? Anyway.....back to the mental math. Using your same....ahem.....logic...... The AFC not only lost more within the AFC but at a HIGHER rate than the NFC teams lost within the NFC. Thus again using your backwards logic.....the AFC is better (You do realize that going back to the higher/lower rate argument is heading back into the realms of 'normal' math again.)
Dibs Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 What a beautifully trolled thread. He started out with a thesis that seemed plausible on the surface, uses some convoluted reasoning that hits certain notes long enough to give the appearance of propriety, then sits back and watches the minions flail away as they frantically argue the apparently obvious till they're blue in the face. Subtlety, it appears, is not a lost trolling art But then perhaps I give too much credit? I doubt it, however. It's a fun thread though.
BBach04 Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 I am getting to the point of anger at reading article after article taking as fact that the AFC is better than the NFC. I watch a lot of football and I see the NFC overall as slightly better than the AFC. It is close, but top to bottom the NFC is better. I have no problem if someone has a difference of opinion but I am perturbed at the reasoning in the articles of the football "experts". Over and over again they state that AFC teams have a better W-L record. What does that prove? Each team plays 12 games within their own conference and only 4 against the other conference. OF COURSE AFC teams would have better records. The get to play teams from the slightly weaker AFC 75% of the time. The NFC teams by contrast have 75% of their games against the tougher teams. What are these geniuses thinking? How can they go by W-L records? There are not level schedules. Maybe these football reporters should actually watch some games and form their own opinions. crayonz, i normally don't post i just get on to pick up and see if there is any information about the bills but you got me so worked up i had to make a post, and please reply to me personally if you would and answer my questions. 1) how do you justify this when the afc had the better record vs. the nfc? 2) how do you not consider the nfc teams beating up on washington, tampa, atlanta, THE LIONS, THE LIONS, THE GOD DA**ED LIONS!!!!, the vikings, and even the giants (yea i'll put the giants in this bc the way they lost to tennesee among other teams just makes them bad) any different than the good afc teams beating up on the bad afc teams? I can't think of two bad afc teams besides cleveland, oakland, and maybe texas. 3) this will take me forever but i'll do it, and it just goes to prove number 1 a little more Buffalo: .438 Miami: .375 New england: .750 NYJ: .625 Baltimore: .812 Cincy: .500 Pitt: .500 Cleveland: .250 Houton: .375 Indy: .750 Jax: .500 Tenn: .500 Denver: .562 KC: .562 Oak: .125 SD: .875 AVERAGE: .531 Philly: .625 Dallas: .562 NYG: .500 Wash: .312 Chic: .812 GB: .500 Minn. .375 Detroit: .188 NO: .625 Carolina: .500 ATL: .438 TB: .250 Seattle: .562 St. Louis: .500 San Fran: .438 Arizona: .312 AVERAGE: .468 Now how does the average winning percentage in the afc obliterate that of the nfc? Because heads up the afc dominated the nfc. Now i'll give credability to your argument that the afc dominant teams (sd, indy, balt, etc.) get a lot of wins against lower teams in that division and it improves their records. that is because the elite teams in the afc are good enough to make the decent teams look badly. it is fairly impossible to argue seeing as the afc has a higher winning percentage. And because I know you'll say "they're winning percentage is better becasue they play bad teams" i'll go into this as well since you coudln't understand the numbers that jibs shot your way. if there were no non conference games the average winning percentage for each conference would be .500 because every game played needs a winner and a loser. Lets make up a pretend league it has four teams. team A and team B in the afc and team C and team D in the nfc. They play a ten game schedule and in the AFC team A goes 10-0 and team B goes 0-10. In the NFC team C goes 5-5 as does team D. This makes the afc's winning percentage .500 (10-10) and the nfc's winning percentage .500 (10-10). Now let me explain to you how they can become different. The next season they decide to have some crossover games. 4 to be exact. In the AFC team A goes 13-1 and team B goes 3-11. This means that combined they went 6-2 vs. the NFC. In the NFC team C goes 6-8 as does team D. this makes the winning percentage for the AFC .571 (16-12). The winning percentage of the NFC is .428 (12-16) Now you could say that the afc is the lesser conference here because team A beat the bag out of team B but their winning percentage is better because even team B won against the other conference. Even though the NFC's records were more equal it does not mean that they are better, it means they are equally worse than the afc. I don't see how you could possibly read this and have it not make sense. And to many of you others who've also replied, thanks for putting things so clearly, although crayonz did not understand the numbers i certainly did.
BBach04 Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 you just can't even be serious with your post crayonz. The more stuff i look at the more retarded you seem. the nfc had one team with a winning record against the afc. let me repeat that, ONE TEAM. That team happens to be dallas and if you watch any football like you claim you'll know that in their last game of the season they lost to the worst team in the NFC. Good thing detroit was on their schedule or else it would have been better and then you would consider them bad right? In fact i'm watching dallas play right now and i've seen better play on thanksgiving day up at the old high school field. Now back to the point: Nfc teams with winning records against afc teams: one: dallas 3-1 Afc teams with winning records against nfc teams: nine: NE 4-0 NYJ 3-1 Miami 3-1 Balt 3-1 Tenn 3-1 Jax 3-1 SD 4-0 KC 4-0 Indy 3-1 Conclusion: The teams with great records in the afc have nfc teams on their schedule that they could beat the absolute poop out of or else their record woudln't be good. Its not bc they were beating up on bad afc teams they were beating up on nfc teams. its only 25% of the schedule but the afc dominated them so badly in that 25% that i can't see how you are even smart enough to have a job and make a living. Please defend yourself. Also if you see when i became a member i just joined to write these two posts and i am absolutely looking forward to your reply.
Dibs Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Also if you see when i became a member i just joined to write these two posts and i am absolutely looking forward to your reply. Welcome to the madhouse.
BBach04 Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Welcome to the madhouse. thank ya much, new season ticket holder as well (been wanting to for a while but finally got the time to do it now that i'm done playing myself) and i gotta go down to the watering hole bc this guy crayonz won't respond tonight.
Recommended Posts