damj Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Never said I was a member, I just said my score is above what they consider a level to join their club. The grapevine is long here and confusing to some. I never said you were a memeber either ... I was just saying that I'm glad that I'm not a member any more if you're eligible to join. The English language is confusing to some :lol Seriously, if you're IQ is Mensa+, check out some of these tests. They're hard, but fun to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 Unless of course the Bills go 4-2-0 in the division, and 8-2-0 for the rest of their schedule, and win the AFC East with a 12-4-0 record, right Skoob? Or on the other hand, the Bills may go 5-1-0 in the division, and then tank the rest of their games with a 2-8-0 slate, and finish with their 4th consecutive 7-9-0 season. In the 16 game NFL regular season, every game means as much as every other game, division opponent or not. And the goal for this franchise should be to just win enough overall games to at least get a damn road playoff game after 9 years of being out of the post season! You talk about those great Bills' teams in your post. In 1988, the Bills lost a road game to Cincinnati, a non-divisional opponent, and it ended up costing them a trip to the SB. The AFC Championship game was held in Cinti instead of Buffalo, and the Bills lost. 91% of the time the team with the best divisional record won the division, so that pretty much says that with everything being equal (similiar schedule) we should end up on top if we beat our division rivals. Up until the 2002 season, we had 5 divisional opponents versus the 4 now. So in the 1988-2001 seasons, this theory doesn't hold as much water as the 2002 and up until the present (even though when we had the best divisional record, we won the division). Since we all have a similiar schedule (minus a few games), our results against our non-divisional opponents should be at or near equal with the rest of the division. In ~9% of the time, the team not doing as well in the division beat a team that did the best. That just tells you how individually important those games are and the need to prioritize those games. Our utter failure against NE / NYJ & Miami last season was just completely unacceptable and cannot occur again if we want any chance of post-season play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinRome Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 It's agreed that since we went 0-6 in the division last year we need to improve, so the question is how does the team put in extra effort to do that? The OP suggested game planning far in advance of game time. My question is: is this feasible? Part of the mantra of sports is to focus on the next game to be played, rather than being distracted by games down the road. This is true for coaches as well as players. Could a team employ people to specialize on our division opponents? At least one person per the three division foes. They could be charged with gathering information for the coaches (watching film, stuying the opponents full-time throughout the season). During game week for a particular team, they'd present the weaknesses, strengths and creative strategies that the coaches have the choice of utilizing. Do teams already do this? How else do you put extra effort into winning division games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The thought of actually winning a divisional game and why is pretty perplexing to some here and obviously wasn't a clear focus for the Bills last year. I merely am pointing out that without the best record in your division, your going to lose the division 9 out of 10 times in a 4 team divisional format. So going a step further, those games are the key to post season play based on the current situation. Complaining about writing styles, verbiage & punctuations and not discussing the points made makes you individually look like a lost child when the adults speaking. Listen more and respond with something productive and you might actually be looked upon as midly understanding the whole concept past the surface. Are you for real?? You've been begged off this site by at least 100 posters since you first soiled us with your presence! You have the football knowedge, language grasp and grammar skills of a 13 year old. A naive one at that. Your un-necessary ramblings 'dumb-down' this great site everytime you post. Rightfully called out, you then proceed to file pitiful rebuttals of delusionary status and intellect that even a 14 year old knows is bullschitt. Need proof? Here's a recent sampling of your Skooby schit-trail: :We literally need to do everything we can to change that, henceforth why I posted this. I would focus all the guns at the teams that victories against directly increase our chances of post season play. If they go down, we go up is the real rule of thumb we need to live by. Football 101 :If we would of beat the NYJ / Miami both games last season & just split with NE, we would of won the AFC east. We didn't win even 1 of 6 games last season against a divisional opponent, so we never really had a chance to realistically make the playoffs. Insight? I think not. :Adjustments during the game help determine the outcome, along with the talent that we field. I know this concept is difficult to grasp but your going to have to think about the stats first & how history has shown a 91% chance of better divisional play equaling success. Goddamn! This stupid statement needs stats? :I think we have to do more to help assure our victories against our divisional opponents, obviously a majority of victories against them will lead to much greater chance of winning the division or making the playoffs. Divisional record is the first tie-breaker after common record. ... :When does a NFL team win the SB and move?? You can charge more for the tickets if you field a winning team, especially a SB champion team. Winning it all keeps the team in Buffalo, let's do it. Raiders twice and the B'more Colts. SB wins have nothing tangible to do with future relocation. :I am starting to think that all LT's have some type of brain damage, if they are converted it takes an extra year or so to show up but it's always there. Voice of experience here. :If he has dementia, he'll blend in perfectly where I am. ... :The key is our players / talent, enough of it gives us a good shot to win. :We have 5 preseason games to get them ready, then they count. Ralph is older than water and needs to protect his legacy. I have 0 faith in him making it past this season, seriously. This highest bidder stuff concerns me. If this team moves after Ralph's death, I will personally dig his azz up and rebury him in love canal for a lifetime of festering iindignity. If any of you think I am joking, you don't know me. Sick. Well at at point, it's the person who reburied him that gets the festering indignity credit. When the reburyer croaks, the festering is over for Ralph and starts for the reburyer. I set the rules, if I work the shovel. Has anyone ever gone to jail for reburying someone ??? I think Modell is doomed for this already. Heck, I'd even make a youtube just to prove it was done. I'm sure you still don't get it and likely never will. Congratulations Skuzzy. Even though this great board will continue to suffer terribly with your insidious blathering, you're the first poster I'm putting on ignore. I have to, for my own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 91% of the time the team with the best divisional record won the division, so that pretty much says that with everything being equal (similiar schedule) we should end up on top if we beat our division rivals. Up until the 2002 season, we had 5 divisional opponents versus the 4 now. So in the 1988-2001 seasons, this theory doesn't hold as much water as the 2002 and up until the present (even though when we had the best divisional record, we won the division). Since we all have a similiar schedule (minus a few games), our results against our non-divisional opponents should be at or near equal with the rest of the division. In ~9% of the time, the team not doing as well in the division beat a team that did the best. That just tells you how individually important those games are and the need to prioritize those games. Our utter failure against NE / NYJ & Miami last season was just completely unacceptable and cannot occur again if we want any chance of post-season play. You're misinterpreting a correlation, douche. If a team wins 5 of 6 divisional games, chances are that the team is simply good, and they are going to win the majority of their out of division games. Good divisional records are an effect of having a good team, NOT a cause. As for the other divisional opponents schedules, "taking care of them," we have 8 of 10 common opponents. So why would that schedule take care of miami and the jets, but not us? The amount of stupidity you manage to pack into your posts is phenomenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLynchTrain Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 another dumb thread by skooby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsInBurgh Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You're misinterpreting a correlation, douche. If a team wins 5 of 6 divisional games, chances are that the team is simply good, and they are going to win the majority of their out of division games. Good divisional records are an effect of having a good team, NOT a cause. As for the other divisional opponents schedules, "taking care of them," we have 8 of 10 common opponents. So why would that schedule take care of miami and the jets, but not us? The amount of stupidity you manage to pack into your posts is phenomenal. Agreed, but it got me thinking -- how do the numbers all add up comparing division games to non-division games? Here's out it shakes out: 2002: Overall record of all division winners: 87-40-1 Record for games outside the division: 48-31-1 Record for intra-divisional games: 39-9 2003: Overall record of all division winners: 94-34 Record for games outside the division: 57-23 Record for intra-divisional games: 37-11 2004: Overall record of all division winners: 96-32 Record for games outside the division: 58-22 Record for intra-divisional games: 38-10 2005: Overall record of all division winners: 94-34 Record for games outside the division: 53-27 Record for intra-divisional games: 41-7 2006: Overall record of all division winners: 93-35 Record for games outside the division: 59-21 Record for intra-divisional games: 34-14 2007: Overall record of all division winners: 95-33 Record for games outside the division: 56-24 Record for intra-divisional games: 39-9 2008: Overall record of all division winners: 87-41 Record for games outside the division: 50-30 Record for intra-divisional games: 37-11 Leaving out the tie (because it makes my math a lot easier), that equates to the following totals: Overall record of all division winners: 646-249, .722 winning % Record for games outside the division: 381-178, .682 winning % Record for intra-divisional games: 265-71, .789 winning % So, for at least the last seven years, the division winner's records have been better (%-wise) within the division than outside of the division, by a significant margin. It's still just a correlation, not causal, but here's my guess as to the reasons for this: 1) Better coaching -- good teams generally have good coaches. Good coaches generally prepare well, and will be better prepared than an average coach for a second meeting between two teams. Since you play all divisional foes two times in the regular season, and no other teams twice, my guess is that the division-winning teams have a good record in the second games against the divisional opponents (anyone want to take on tackling that research?). At the very least, the coaches' familiarity with divisional foes from previous years probably impacts this.; 2) Strength of schedule. Though worst to first has happened a little bit, it's not all that common. Thus, a division winner is likely to have been a good team the year before. Because good teams from the year before are slated to face the other good teams from the year before (in the two strength of schedule determined games on every team's schedule), it is likely that strength of schedule for these teams may impact the out of division records. Even though this only effects 2 games per team per year, that would be a total of 112 games in this exercise (2 SoS games per year X 8 division winners per year X 7 years of records). My guess is that the division winner's records in these games is lower than their overall record (again, anyone up for that research?). Admittedly, there's nothing really useful here -- just thought the numbers ended up coming out interesting. My guesses above are pure speculation, but I can't think of any other reasons for the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 It's redone but you obviously got the point. You cannot realistically win a division without defeating your divisional mates a huge majority of the time. The higher your winning % inside the division, the greater the likelyhood of you getting a much higher seeding. A very firm grasp of the obvious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 We literally need to do everything we can to change that, henceforth why I posted this. I would focus all the guns at the teams that victories against directly increase our chances of post season play. If they go down, we go up is the real rule of thumb we need to live by. Me winning isn't. You do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Me winning isn't. You do. Take it easy, will ya Ty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 We literally need to do everything we can to change that, henceforth why I posted this. I would focus all the guns at the teams that victories against directly increase our chances of post season play. If they go down, we go up is the real rule of thumb we need to live by. Do you drink or take drugs? If not, I recommend you start immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 after some lengthy research, i've uncovered a mathematical formula (let's call it The Obvious) that shows teams that outscore their opponents in a game win 100 percent of the time, and that counts for division and non-division opponents and also carries into the playoffs, including even the super bowl. conversely, teams that score fewer points than their opponents, lose 100 percent -- actually, it could be 1000, but i'm no mensa member -- of the time, also. coindicidentally, this statistic not only applies to football, but also to other sports, such as basketball, hockey and even baseball, for that matter. this mathematical fomula, however, does not apply to golf, as the scoring system is vastly different. the lower the score in golf, the better -- or so i've discovered. now, i don't know what the original poster meant by writing, "we really aren't competing outside our division, nor should we ..." but i've been informed that it's good to beat teams inside your division, because it allows you to gain an edge in the standings on said opponents. and i think The Obvious will bear that out. for example, if the bills open the season by beating new england, they'll be one up on the patriots. should they beat them in their second game next season, then not only will the bills have a two-win advantage on new england, but also the edge in the head-to-head tiebreaker. of course, there are exceptions, because The Obvious shows that should the bills lose their 14 other games (remember, i've factored into The Obvious that it's a 17-week schedule but one of the weeks is a bye week, meaning the team can't win, lose or tie, for that matter, during that week) and the patriots win three or more games, then the tie-breaker is rendered moot. and speaking of ties, teams that score as many points as their opponent by the end of the game, generally, as a rule, tie 100 percent of the time according to The Obvious ... though this does not always apply to hockey now that the shootout has been introduced ... shall i go on? jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Take it easy, will ya Ty! I like you, Betty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 if the bills open the season by beating new england, they'll be one up on the patriots. i'll have to check with crayonz on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I like you, Betty. It's Danny, Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Mr. Wawrow, I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 after some lengthy research, i've uncovered a mathematical formula (let's call it The Obvious) that shows teams that outscore their opponents in a game win 100 percent of the time, and that counts for division and non-division opponents and also carries into the playoffs, including even the super bowl. conversely, teams that score fewer points than their opponents, lose 100 percent -- actually, it could be 1000, but i'm no mensa member -- of the time, also. coindicidentally, this statistic not only applies to football, but also to other sports, such as basketball, hockey and even baseball, for that matter. this mathematical fomula, however, does not apply to golf, as the scoring system is vastly different. the lower the score in golf, the better -- or so i've discovered. You should have started a new thread about this and claim you got the info from inside sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Mr. Wawrow, I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. thanks. i am still seeking financial backers on this project, as it is still in beta testing. am attempting to configure a fully-working model with the hopes of calculating all sports, including curling -- The Obvious finds more points scored=wins. at that point, plan to branch out into "timed" sports, such as car-racing, downhill skiing etc. current results have uncovered that the fastest time generally wins, though haven't completed the testing, so give me a second. ... oh, and there it is. The Obvious has concluded that faster wins 100 percent of the time. will keep you updated on this, but i hope you keep this between you and me, 'cause i don't want something, such as The Obvious to get out in the general public as of yet. thanks. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 You should have started a new thread about this and claim you got the info from inside sources. Dean: i considered doing just that, but why cite "inside sources," when i have The Obvious firmly in my grasp. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Dean:i considered doing just that, but why cite "inside sources," when i have The Obvious firmly in my grasp. jw Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts