The Sports Thread

[Skepticism]

MMA > all other sports

 

[Ender Rises]

Nah.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

of course if they win the superbowl and go undefeated then they'll be remembered as the most dominant team in nfl history.

im worried about the colts though...that will be a tough game.

 

[Ender Rises]

Truth, but I'd be more afraid of the Cowboys or Packers than the Colts. That is, if the cowboys pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[King Richard]

Plenty of Super Bowl winners go forgotten after a year or two. It's a much bigger deal to go 16-0. That won't be forgotten. If the Pats don't win SBXLII, they'll still be remembered as a dominant team.

If the playoffs were all that mattered, then Trent Dilfer and Mark Rypien would be better QBs than Dan Marino. People put too much stock in the playoffs.

Um...what? Having an undefeated regular season is a bigger deal than winning the Super Bowl? I'd have to disagree on the grounds that if you were ask every player/coach/gm/owner which they would rather have, 100% of them would want the Super Bowl. Sure, if a team went 16-0 throughout the regular season, they're sure to be remembered. But unless they won the Super Bowl along with that, they'll be remembered as the biggest chokers in the history of the NFL. Or a team that really wasn't as good as the hype. And to be honest, I'd say that's pretty embarassing as well as something not worthy of being remembered.

i tend to agree with the above. we can all agree there have been teams in the past who won playoff games, even superbowls, who just were not the "best" team in the league or even one of the best. it happens that they just played better than the teams they met in the playoffs. chances are if a mediocre, over achieving team beats a dominant regular season team one time, they'd lose the next 9 out of 10. so, not a better team - just better on that day.

See, this is what I just don't understand. How can you sit there and say that "x team beat y team, but y team was better than x team during the regular season, so x team got lucky. Or x team just happened to play better than y team when it mattered." What the FUCK is that supposed to mean? The whole point of the damn playoffs is to prove to everyone you are better. Therefore, if you do win throughout the playoffs, and in the Super Bowl you are the best team in the league. There is nothing you can say or do that can revoke that fact. The 9 times out of 10 argument is so stupid it's not even funny. Who gives a fuck? That one time when it mattered, the better team obviously won. So that argument holds on ground.

Which is why every NFL player and coach takes everything one game at a time, and are very careful not to underestimate or overestimate opponents.

Yes. Which is why teams like the Patriots and Colts seem to be one of the two top teams in the league year in and out.

of course if they win the superbowl and go undefeated then they'll be remembered as the most dominant team in nfl history.

im worried about the colts though...that will be a tough game.

You should be worried about the Colts.

Truth, but I'd be more afraid of the Cowboys or Packers than the Colts. That is, if the cowboys pull their heads out of their asses.

Why?

 

[skeptik]

The whole point of the damn playoffs is to prove to everyone you are better. Therefore, if you do win throughout the playoffs, and in the Super Bowl you are the best team in the league. There is nothing you can say or do that can revoke that fact. The 9 times out of 10 argument is so stupid it's not even funny. Who gives a fuck? That one time when it mattered, the better team obviously won. So that argument holds on ground.

What? :zombie: You're joking, right? You are aware that this logic is utterly flawed, correct? It is your argument that is "so stupid it's not even funny." Winning the Super Bowl does not make you de facto the best team in the league by any means, it just means that you won at the right times, most likely with favorable circumstances if you really weren't that great of a team. To suggest that the winning of the Super Bowl has some sort of mythical power that creates a "best team" or that, because we live in a perfect universe, the best team will inevitably "win it all," is to exemplify a massive lapse in reasoning. Does one team playing better than another in one particular instance (REGARDLESS of circumstances such as when, say, the Patriots beat the Colts because the Colts had 532535 injuries but were in fact the better team and lost the game because of their unfortunate circumstances) make them, objectively, the better team? Absofuckinglutely not, and to say that is true is just goddamn stupid. Winning "when it counts" does not necessarily equate with superiority.

Oh yeah, and you'd better agree that the fucking regular season matters, unless you intend to diminish the Colts' recent accomplishment of becoming the first time to reach 12 wins or more in 5 consecutive seasons.

Your reasoning is flawed and, thus, your vitriol is unjustified.

 

[AchrisK]

Remember when San Diego was 1-3 after week 4 and I still predicted we would be 12-4 or 11-5 at worst? I began doubting when we were 4-4, and then again when we were 5-5. Well we have a real shot at the 11-5, and at being the #3 seed in the AFC. If it wasn't for the Colts, that would probably go to the Jags, but it is what it is. I am hoping for a "not what everyone thinks will happen" AFC playoffs. Heck, same for the NFC. I would like to see the Vikings take the NFC.

I love this game!

 

[AchrisK]

What? :zombie: You're joking, right? You are aware that this logic is utterly flawed, correct?

...

Your reasoning is flawed and, thus, your vitriol is unjustified.

Hey, get offa his case! It's just who he is!

:Smokin:

 

[King Richard]

What? :zombie: You're joking, right? You are aware that this logic is utterly flawed, correct? It is your argument that is "so stupid it's not even funny." Winning the Super Bowl does not make you de facto the best team in the league by any means, it just means that you won at the right times, most likely with favorable circumstances if you really weren't that great of a team.

Yes it does. Name one shitty team that has ever won the Super Bowl.

To suggest that the winning of the Super Bowl has some sort of mythical power that creates a "best team" or that, because we live in a perfect universe, the best team will inevitably "win it all," is to exemplify a massive lapse in reasoning.

I didn't say anything about mythical powers or about a perfect universe. The only logical description of the Super Bowl Champion is the best team that year. Has nothing to do with favorable circumstances (which don't exist), or "winning at the right times" which is just a stupid point because every team wants to win, but not everyone can. Someone has to lose, and the loser generally deserves to lose because of their own actions.

Does one team playing better than another in one particular instance (REGARDLESS of circumstances such as when, say, the Patriots beat the Colts because the Colts had 532535 injuries but were in fact the better team and lost the game because of their unfortunate circumstances) make them, objectively, the better team?

But that's not the fucking point. You can't look at "one particular instance." You have to look a the bigger picture. Nitpicking doesn't prove anything. You have to win multiple times throughout the regular season to make it to the playoffs. In the playoffs, you have to win every single game to make it to the Super Bowl. Obviously, if you can win all of your games when it truly DOES matter, then you are better than those teams you beat. And if you go on to win the Super Bowl by beating the best team representing the opposing conference, then you are the best team in the league. How could you not be labelled the best team in the league that year? That's what the goddamn Super Bowl championship proves.

Absofuckinglutely not, and to say that is true is just goddamn stupid. Winning "when it counts" does not necessarily equate with superiority.

Saying that is not stupid, and winning when it counts is all that matters. Therefore, making you superior. That's the whole fucking point in professional sports, the best team wins when it counts therefore proving they are the best team. It's really not that complicated.

Oh yeah, and you'd better agree that the fucking regular season matters, unless you intend to diminish the Colts' recent accomplishment of becoming the first time to reach 12 wins or more in 5 consecutive seasons.

I never said the regular season doesn't matter. But ultimately, being undefeated in the regular season means jack shit. Or hell, even being the best team in the regular season means jack shit when it comes to the playoffs. The Colts weren't the best team in the regular season last year, but they won all of their games in the playoffs when it came down to proving that they are the best. Same for the steelers the year before. They weren't the best team in the regular season, but proved they were indeed the best team that league by beating everyone they faced in the post-season.

Your reasoning is flawed and, thus, your vitriol is unjustified.

k

Remember when San Diego was 1-3 after week 4 and I still predicted we would be 12-4 or 11-5 at worst? I began doubting when we were 4-4, and then again when we were 5-5. Well we have a real shot at the 11-5, and at being the #3 seed in the AFC. If it wasn't for the Colts, that would probably go to the Jags, but it is what it is. I am hoping for a "not what everyone thinks will happen" AFC playoffs. Heck, same for the NFC. I would like to see the Vikings take the NFC.

I love this game!

Wild Card teams can't be seeded higher than 5th in the playoffs. The first 4 seeds are the division champions. So it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Matt]

The Vikings will get hammered by whoever plays them. FYI.

 

[skeptik]

Yes it does. Name one shitty team that has ever won the Super Bowl.

I didn't say a fucking thing about "shitty" teams. I just said that the Super Bowl champion is not necessarily the best team.

I didn't say anything about mythical powers or about a perfect universe.

I know that you didn't say that. However, unfortunately for you, your definition of the Super Bowl Champion necessitates that one of those two things are true.

The only logical description of the Super Bowl Champion is the best team that year. Has nothing to do with favorable circumstances (which don't exist), or "winning at the right times" which is just a stupid point because every team wants to win, but not everyone can. Someone has to lose, and the loser generally deserves to lose because of their own actions.

The only logical description of the Super Bowl Champion is the team that won the Super Bowl that year, actually. Nothing more is implied in winning the Super Bowl. Simply proclaiming that the Super Bowl Champion is the best team in the league that year does not make it true. The best individuals, groups, organizations, ideas, inventions, and pieces of art do not necessarily take their rightful places at the top of their respective fields. This should be patently obvious.

Favorable circumstances don't exist? Come on now, you're just being ridiculous. Did the Chargers not have a favorable circumstance playing a Colts team hindered by injuries? The point is that of course "every team wants to win, but not everyone can," but what you're completely ignoring is the "why." Why a certain team can't win a certain game is highly relevant. It could be injuries, tragedy within the organization, and a number of other factors that in themselves do not in any way take away the fact that they may be the best team while at the same time precluding them from winning a game. It is unfathomable that you can't see this.

Obviously, if you can win all of your games when it truly DOES matter, then you are better than those teams you beat.

Show me your logic behind this statement.

How could you not be labelled the best team in the league that year? That's what the goddamn Super Bowl championship proves.

The Super Bowl championship proves nothing other than one team has beaten another team in a given circumstance. There is no other significance behind the act of winning the Super Bowl inherently.

Saying that is not stupid, and winning when it counts is all that matters.

This is utter horseshit. There are so many other relevant factors other than winning the Super Bowl that to make this claim is just absurd.

Therefore, making you superior. That's the whole fucking point in professional sports, the best team wins when it counts therefore proving they are the best team. It's really not that complicated.

What makes you superior is being a better team, not winning games. In theory, the best team in the league could lose every single game. Equating winning with superiority is erroneous, as it is only one component element in the equation. Of course, that's not what ESPN will tell you. But it's simply not the case that "winning is the only thing that matters.," especially with regards to the question of "who is the best team."

I never said the regular season doesn't matter.

Regular season means nothing man. Who would want to have a perfect regular season, or even a 1 loss regular season, and not win the super bowl. I assume the Pats want to go for it all, and if they don't this "road to perfection" like I said earlier was all for naught. A big waste of time.

Sounds pretty damn close to saying it though.

But ultimately, being undefeated in the regular season means jack shit. Or hell, even being the best team in the regular season means jack shit when it comes to the playoffs. The Colts weren't the best team in the regular season last year, but they won all of their games in the playoffs when it came down to proving that they are the best. Same for the steelers the year before. They weren't the best team in the regular season, but proved they were indeed the best team that league by beating everyone they faced in the post-season.

You're equating the best team with the team with the best record, which is, again, a false pairing. It is a correlational association, not causational.

 

[cookiecutter]

"winning at the right times" which is just a stupid point

Obviously, if you can win all of your games when it truly DOES matter, then you are better than those teams you beat.

Those two statements appear contradictory to me

 

[skeptik]

no because "the right times" are obviously not the times "when it truly DOES matter"

am i rite or am i rite

 

[muzmaze]

PATS WILL GO 19-0!
Actually a very good chance of having 3-championship teams in 1-year...excluding the Bruins of course.About as good as it gets to be a Boston fan now!

 

[Mort Divine]

K, so enough debate about what makes a team the best

Of these receivers who should I start fantasy wise:

I can start 4

Marques Colston, Braylon Edwards, Anthony Gonzalez, Wes Welker, Roydell Williams, Brandon Marshal, Kevin Curtis, or Bernard Berrian

I'm leaning towards Colston, Edwards, Gonzalez, and Williams but for some reason not starting Welker kind of seems like it could be a bad idea, and as for Brandon Marshal not playing him the past two weeks has been a mistake as he's done pretty good - though not so good that it warranted changing him into my starting line up.

 

[King Richard]

I didn't say a fucking thing about "shitty" teams. I just said that the Super Bowl champion is not necessarily the best team.

So...who is then? The team with the best record in the regular season? Or is it the team with the best regular season record and won the most playoff games but didn't win them all and the super bowl because of certain "circumstances?" Or is it the best team in the super bowl with the best record even if they win or lose the super bowl. Certainly it couldn't be any of those teams. Why might you ask? Because they were bested by someone else!

Ok, since the playoffs aren't a good place to judge teams. How about the Super Bowl then. If a team is upset in the Super Bowl, are they still better than the team that upset them? Um, no prolly not. Even if you figure in these "circumstances" you are talking about, theres more than just injuries to look at. Every team has some sort of problem that have to deal with. So how do you factor in these circumstances on how we preceive how good teams are? Well, you really can't. Especially when it comes to playoff games. Teams have to take what they're dealt and roll with it. They aren't going to bitch and complain about being screwed because of injuries or whatever we as fans could use for excuses.

Generally when a team beats another team you accept the fact that they are better than the, that day. Doesn't necessarily mean they are infinitely better. However, when it matters, within the alloted 60 minutes of football they are both put on the same field to play the game of football, that team was victorious, and that's that.

I know that you didn't say that. However, unfortunately for you, your definition of the Super Bowl Champion necessitates that one of those two things are true.

How is that?

The only logical description of the Super Bowl Champion is the team that won the Super Bowl that year, actually. Nothing more is implied in winning the Super Bowl. Simply proclaiming that the Super Bowl Champion is the best team in the league that year does not make it true.

Please explain to me who then, is the best team in the league. Since the Super Bowl Champion is exempt from this honor.

The best individuals, groups, organizations, ideas, inventions, and pieces of art do not necessarily take their rightful places at the top of their respective fields. This should be patently obvious.

This is completely irrelevant to anything we are arguing. You cannot judge art, or rank it. You can, however, objectively compare and contrast football teams through varius means.

Favorable circumstances don't exist? Come on now, you're just being ridiculous. Did the Chargers not have a favorable circumstance playing a Colts team hindered by injuries?

Every team has injuries. There's a reason why team's have a 53 man rosters. Claiming that's the reason a team loses would make it an excuse, not a circumstance.

The point is that of course "every team wants to win, but not everyone can," but what you're completely ignoring is the "why." Why a certain team can't win a certain game is highly relevant. It could be injuries, tragedy within the organization, and a number of other factors that in themselves do not in any way take away the fact that they may be the best team while at the same time precluding them from winning a game. It is unfathomable that you can't see this.

Oh no, I completely understand what you are trying to say. But the problem with your argument is it's not possible to account for every little nuance that may or may not be hindering a team from playing it's best. Another problem with this argument is there are other parts to these "circumstances" we can't account for either. Depending on when they play (which makes big difference), a coach may be sitting a few players to make sure they heal instead of re-injuring themselves (aka marvin harrison) and just be getting them ready to play when "it matters." So, really it's just a big waste of time. It's alot easier and more logical to let them play and may the best man win.

Show me your logic behind this statement.

Um...colts beat the bears, therefore they are better than the bears that day. Did I really have to explain that?

The Super Bowl championship proves nothing other than one team has beaten another team in a given circumstance. There is no other significance behind the act of winning the Super Bowl inherently.

According to you. According to the rest of football fans, and sports fans around the globe, the champion that year is indeed the best team.

This is utter horseshit. There are so many other relevant factors other than winning the Super Bowl that to make this claim is just absurd.

Like what?

What makes you superior is being a better team, not winning games. In theory, the best team in the league could lose every single game. Equating winning with superiority is erroneous, as it is only one component element in the equation. Of course, that's not what ESPN will tell you. But it's simply not the case that "winning is the only thing that matters.," especially with regards to the question of "who is the best team."

Explain this a little further. Now that we all understand winning means nothing.

Sounds pretty damn close to saying it though.

Ok, I didn't literally mean the regular season means nothing. I meant in the context of of the Patriots going 16-0 then losing their first playoff game, it would all be meaningless.

You're equating the best team with the team with the best record, which is, again, a false pairing. It is a correlational association, not causational.

Um, no I'm not. Did you even read what I said? The best team = the team who wins the championship. Has nothing to do with who has the best record, or how they did it, when they did it, if they could do it tomorrow, or a year from now. At that moment in time, after all of the games are over, they proved by beating all of their competition to be the best team.

 

[King Richard]

Those two statements appear contradictory to me

I was going off of what Nec said. I kinda messed up the point but whatever. I didn't feel like editting it.

 

[muzmaze]

So...who is then? The team with the best record in the regular season? Or is it the team with the best regular season record and won the most playoff games but didn't win them all and the super bowl because of certain "circumstances?" Or is it the best team in the super bowl with the best record even if they win or lose the super bowl. Certainly it couldn't be any of those teams. Why might you ask? Because they were bested by someone else!

Ok, since the playoffs aren't a good place to judge teams. How about the Super Bowl then. If a team is upset in the Super Bowl, are they still better than the team that upset them? Um, no prolly not. Even if you figure in these "circumstances" you are talking about, theres more than just injuries to look at. Every team has some sort of problem that have to deal with. So how do you factor in these circumstances on how we preceive how good teams are? Well, you really can't. Especially when it comes to playoff games. Teams have to take what they're dealt and roll with it. They aren't going to bitch and complain about being screwed because of injuries or whatever we as fans could use for excuses.

Generally when a team beats another team you accept the fact that they are better than the, that day. Doesn't necessarily mean they are infinitely better. However, when it matters, within the alloted 60 minutes of football they are both put on the same field to play the game of football, that team was victorious, and that's that.



How is that?



Please explain to me who then, is the best team in the league. Since the Super Bowl Champion is exempt from this honor.



This is completely irrelevant to anything we are arguing. You cannot judge art, or rank it. You can, however, objectively compare and contrast football teams through varius means.



Every team has injuries. There's a reason why team's have a 53 man rosters. Claiming that's the reason a team loses would make it an excuse, not a circumstance.



Oh no, I completely understand what you are trying to say. But the problem with your argument is it's not possible to account for every little nuance that may or may not be hindering a team from playing it's best. Another problem with this argument is there are other parts to these "circumstances" we can't account for either. Depending on when they play (which makes big difference), a coach may be sitting a few players to make sure they heal instead of re-injuring themselves (aka marvin harrison) and just be getting them ready to play when "it matters." So, really it's just a big waste of time. It's alot easier and more logical to let them play and may the best man win.



Um...colts beat the bears, therefore they are better than the bears that day. Did I really have to explain that?



According to you. According to the rest of football fans, and sports fans around the globe, the champion that year is indeed the best team.



Like what?




Explain this a little further. Now that we all understand winning means nothing.



Ok, I didn't literally mean the regular season means nothing. I meant in the context of of the Patriots going 16-0 then losing their first playoff game, it would all be meaningless.



Um, no I'm not. Did you even read what I said? The best team = the team who wins the championship. Has nothing to do with who has the best record, or how they did it, when they did it, if they could do it tomorrow, or a year from now. At that moment in time, after all of the games are over, they proved by beating all of their competition to be the best team.

Its a simple equation!The team that can best overcome injury & is playing the best football in late December into the playoffs with a QB that thrives in the playoffs usually wins.Pats have wrote the book on this.I thought in the past few years the Colts had the goods to win it all yet Peyton Manning as good as he is did not thrive in the playoffs & actual performance slipped.
Now the best team? Look at the Pats 1st. Superbowl...dbl digit dogs to the Rams yet they pulled it off.So the best team that year was??? as a Pats fan (like many thought)i thought the Rams were the best team & would blow out the Pats .The Pats next 2-superbowls you could make the arguement they were the best team on Championship Sun.as well as during the season.
Undefeated this year would be great...but no Superbowl would be devastating after this years performance up to date.Guess now i exspect to win every year?

 

[AchrisK]

Wild Card teams can't be seeded higher than 5th in the playoffs. The first 4 seeds are the division champions. So it wouldn't have mattered.

I know that. What part of what I said are you arguing with?

 

[Matt]

Not to sound cliche but the old saying "anybody can beat anybody on any given day" applies here, as in all sports. The best team can very easily play poorly and lose in the superbowl.