ieatcrayonz Posted January 7, 2007 Author Posted January 7, 2007 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.) I didn't check your stats but will take you at your word. You say the AFC lost at a higher rate within the AFC and that makes them tougher? Meanwhile the NFC teams were stuck in tough battles and had a better rate of winning? This makes the AFC tougher?
ieatcrayonz Posted January 7, 2007 Author Posted January 7, 2007 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 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. 1. I don't really know. Maybe the schedules were such that the matchups, home/away or something else favored the AFC. In any event, it is likely that the focus of the NFCs teams as a whole were on the NFC/NFC battles. It was harder to come by wins within the NFC and those wins were more important in any tie breaker scenarios. We don't really know what goes on behind locker room doors and coaching strategy but it makes sense that a team might not run their full package against a weaker AFC opponent. This way they might still win but they would not expose their strategy on film for other NFC teams to review. 2. I have said over and over that this is not about individual teams but about the conferences as a whole. I'm sorry you went to all that work listing records and such but it is still focused on individual teams. Then you go to an example of a four team league. Why? This is a 32 team league. The other guys talked about six year spans and even one 12 year span which is all meaningless in the free agency era. I'll repeat this: I am an AFC fan too. I just seem to be more objective.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 7, 2007 Author 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. Again, this is not about individual teams. If it were I would point out that Dallas beat up on AFC teams all year and then quickly got dumped by an NFC team in the playoffs. That does not prove my point any more than everyone's elses dicussion of individual teams proves their's.
justnzane Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 Again, this is not about individual teams. If it were I would point out that Dallas beat up on AFC teams all year and then quickly got dumped by an NFC team in the playoffs. That does not prove my point any more than everyone's elses dicussion of individual teams proves their's. crayonz. nfc 7 teams under 500, afc 5. nfc 5 teams over .500, afc 7 teams. enough proof for me right there after my previous posts... this is about the stupidest crusade i have ever seen on any board... errr the second only to yours and HA's 50 page crusade about regression to the mean
Dan Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 crayonz. nfc 7 teams under 500, afc 5. nfc 5 teams over .500, afc 7 teams. enough proof for me right there after my previous posts... this is about the stupidest crusade i have ever seen on any board... errr the second only to yours and HA's 50 page crusade about regression to the mean The problem here is you and so many other posters are missing the central point to the arguement. What we have here is a clear example of the first Law of DeLucian Logic. The Law of Increased Losses clearly states that to lose is more beneficial to a teams success. See, if you lose you gain a better draft and your teams success is guaranteed. Of course, we all know that and its widely accepted as true. The principle here is a lesser known facet of the first Law. More losses also means you're a better team. In the scenario discussed here, more losses by the collective Conference teams translates to a better Conference. See most people would assume that Dallas is not a very good team because they lost. However, according to the Law of Increased Loses, Dallas is a far better team than the Colts (because the Colts won). It's kinda like Nonlinear Chaos Dynamics. Linear thought must be suspended. Remember, it's not how you win, its how you lose, that determines your success.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 lol, just read the first half of the first page. im hoping that by page 3 SOMEONE has been able to figure out all the problems with crayons argument. 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. mathmatically hilarious
Chilly Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 People just don't understand the meaning of the word troll anymore do they?
Dibs Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 People just don't understand the meaning of the word troll anymore do they? Actually I don't......not really. I'm (relatively) new to message boards(this one being my entirety of experience). Could somebody give me a decent definition of a troll? I can guess basically what one is but.....????? BTW (I still love this thread......& crayonz is the Master! )
mike22nc Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 The definition of troll is: "I know this guy is messing around trying to argue something he doesn't really believe just to get a rise out of people, yet I still want to stab the sh-- out of him." At least that's how I feel right now...
KnightRider Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 The definition of troll is: "I know this guy is messing around trying to argue something he doesn't really believe just to get a rise out of people, yet I still want to stab the sh-- out of him." At least that's how I feel right now... The first part, yes. This thread is absolutely hilarious, specifically looked for it today. A troll? probably, but a funny troll.
MDH Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 The NFC is under 500 because they play more NFC teams. This does not prove the conference is better but it goes a long way. This might be the dumbest f'in post I've ever read.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 8, 2007 Author Posted January 8, 2007 This might be the dumbest f'in post I've ever read. Go ahead and be an AFC homer and see if I care. I am an AFC "fan", but not a homer. There is a difference. You don't have to be so rude about it.
Gordio Posted January 8, 2007 Posted January 8, 2007 Let me get this straight: The NFC teams were under 500 overall. You attribute this to the 25% of games they played versus AFC teams??????? What about the 75% of games they played against NFC teams? To me that is the main reason they were under 500 as a whole. This pretty much means the NFC was tougher. What you're saying is like running your fingernails over a car and then keying it and then saying your fingernails caused the scratches. I'm calling the key the culprit. Your a moron if you dont understand the logic suggesting the afc is better then the nfc. AFC won 72% of their games against the NFC making them the better conference.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 8, 2007 Author Posted January 8, 2007 Your a moron if you dont understand this logic. I know I wrote that so it would be easily understood but I would never call someone a "moron". I'll take your review of my post as a compliment but please don't rip on the other posters with differing opinions or those who didn't understand. And pleae don't call other people morons. Especially if you don't know the difference between your and you're. Edit: I re-read your post and it seems you're calling me a moron. Same rules apply. Re-edit: It looks like you first agreed with me, then the others. Make up your mind.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 9, 2007 Author Posted January 9, 2007 This might be the dumbest f'in post I've ever read. Although I have offered up facts in this thread, I understand their purpose is to back up an opinion. Some of the AFC fans/homers on here have stated as fact that the AFC is better. Somtimes they did so quite rudely. I offer a bet to each of you and anyone else interested. Although there is no way to tell for sure, I am willing to call the AFC the better conference if they win the Pro Bowl. I will come into this thread and admit I was wrong if they do. I will only do this if some of the rude people from this thread reciprocate. Will you?
ganesh Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 Although I have offered up facts in this thread, I understand their purpose is to back up an opinion. Some of the AFC fans/homers on here have stated as fact that the AFC is better. Somtimes they did so quite rudely. I offer a bet to each of you and anyone else interested. Although there is no way to tell for sure, I am willing to call the AFC the better conference if they win the Pro Bowl. I will come into this thread and admit I was wrong if they do. I will only do this if some of the rude people from this thread reciprocate. Will you? In the last 10 pro-bowls, the AFC has won it 7 times and the NFC has won it 3 times.
Ozymandius Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 In the last 10 pro-bowls, the AFC has won it 7 times and the NFC has won it 3 times. Right, but crayonz isn't talking about other years. He's talking about this season.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 9, 2007 Author Posted January 9, 2007 Right, but crayonz isn't talking about other years. He's talking about this season. Thank you.
MavBavButav Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 i think crayons made the original post without thinking it all the way through (who hasn't been there?). Now he's scratching and clawing to save face. God bless him. It is, like others have stated, a very facinating thread indeed. It's like watching a frightened mouse try and climb out of a deep snake hole that he accidentally walked into. A part of me is really pulling for the guy. I hope he finds his way out. Part of me just wants him to fess up and come clean.
Boatdrinks Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I can buy number 3. I don't agree but understand your reasoning. The other 2 make no sense, especially number 2. Of course and 8-8 team might make the playoffs in the NFC because all year they had to play a tougher schedule with 12 games against NFC squads. It was much harder to win 10 games in the NFC. AFC teams got a softer schedule so they won more games. The whole (and completely correct IMHO) argument is based on the record in games between the conferences. Can't quote it directly but it is ridiculously in favor of the AFC teams. Get it? The AFC teams consistently beat the NFC teams, ergo the AFC is stronger. The other issue is the QB play. The NFC pro bowl QB's are a guy who came over from the AFC (Brees) and a guy who didn't even start the whole season (Romo). That's the best the NFC has to offer. In the AFC, a pretty good QB (though I hate to say it) in Brady didn't make the cut. Then throw in the fact that it seemed no one wanted the last playoff spot in the NFC and you get the logical conclusion that the NFC is generally weaker. Finally, the AFC has won 7 of the last 9 Superbowls.
Recommended Posts