of course youre right, Mathias. i dont see how it's that hard to understand. it's a very simple concept.
The Sports Thread
- Thread starter Hell Awaits Us All
- Start date
The Heartbreak Kid
Afterimage
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
I'm not wasting my time arguing with King Retard in this issue any more because he apparently thinks that the best teams always wins, even though the only "best team" that has always won was 35 years ago. I'm dumbfounded by how utterly irrational his argument is, which is essentially "it's too hard to do what you want to do so I'm just going to say "teh winnar = teh bestest" and wipe my hands clean of the matter." Also, an excuse, by definition, is not fucking pejorative you moron. It merely explains why a certain event did not come about as it was expected.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
The part where he was too stupid to realize that, if Jacksonville had a better record than the Colts, they would be the division leaders and therefore not the wildcard.
AchrisK
Weakling
Maybe I should have clarified. I just meant that Jacksonville will probably end up having the 3rd best record, but because they are in the same division as the Colts, they will not be 3rd seed because they can only enter as a wildcard.
King Richard
Hello there
Mathiäs;6796500 said:
Give me a description of the "best team."
The only way you can objectively decide who is better is the winner of that game. X team is better than y team that day. Doesn't matter tomorrow, two days from now, or 032503498 years from now. On that day, x team won, and they were better. No excuses, and no "circumstances" can change this fact.
Every team going into the playoffs knows that you either play your best, or you will lose. If you lose, then you obviously weren't the best. The winner has yet another chance to prolong their post-season and beat the rest of their competition onto their way to the super bowl. The super bowl being the game of all games proving that in the year whatever, x team was infact the best team in the league that year proving it by winning the Championship. All of the other teams can do nothing but sit back and think about what could have been. There were equal opportunities for every team to complete that task.
I like how you are yet again the first person to result to insults. You seem to have a problem with this when someone has a differing opinion on something. Listen, if you didn't want to "waste your time" with me, then don't waste my fucking time putting up retarded arguments trying to prove me wrong which you can't. Your problem is you don't give a shit or even attempt to understand what someone else may think. You just automatically discredit it and claim it's stupid.
Fact of the matter is, yes the better team THAT GAME does win. That's why they are called the winner. Better teams don't lose. That doesn't mean later on that the other team could beat them in return. Doesn't mean that they are infinitely better than that other team. However, like I've said 0582589859598495 times, that so-called "better team" (which can't be proven) going in to that game may not actually be a better team in the end if they lose.
The only excuse a football team can have as for the reason they lost a game is: They didn't play good enough to win. That's it. Saying the refs fucked us, or the weather wasn't the greatest, or our QB got knocked out of the game cannot justify a loss. Two teams are put on equal playing fields and the winner was the better team that day.
If you want to actually contribute to this argument instead of just showing everyone how much of an asshole you are, go right ahead. I don't mind discussing this, it's enjoyable sometimes. However for you, it seems like a chore, even though you voluntarily went out of your way to make your opinion known to us in turn to claim you don't want to waste your time instead of presenting a compelling argument. Doesn't make much sense to me, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
I misread what he said lick my balls.
AchrisK
Weakling
San Diego Chargers for the upset of the season!
We would be so hated if we went to the Superbowl, and especially if we won.
We would be so hated if we went to the Superbowl, and especially if we won.
AchrisK
Weakling
I think they have never literally won a Superbowl. They went in 1994 and lost bad to SF. I think before that they were AFC champs before the leagues joined, but that was it.
I just think people want to see the Patriots or Indy play the Cowboys or Green Bay. Those are the teams people expect. I think if SD makes it all the way and wins, people will consider it some kind of fluke and not give due credit.
I just think people want to see the Patriots or Indy play the Cowboys or Green Bay. Those are the teams people expect. I think if SD makes it all the way and wins, people will consider it some kind of fluke and not give due credit.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
King Richard, the reason that I gave up is that you proved to be too utterly dense to be able to interpret such an otherworldly concept as "the best does not always prevail." You have shown that you are too confident in your assertion to actually pay attention to what I'm saying, as evidenced by the questionable way in which your responses actually "respond" to what I'm saying. Also, please note how everyone else is also questioning your argument that the best always wins to see why you're stupid and why I gave up the argument. I don't have to prove to you that you're stupid as long as everyone else recognizes, because the stupid person is usually the last person to see it anyway.
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Chargers vs Packers would not be a bad game at all for the Super Bowl
and I'd much rather see them instead of the Patriots.
King Richard
Hello there
I'm not dense, you are just failing to provide an example of what exactly qualifies someone to be the better team. All you are doing is claiming everything I say is irrational and is flawed. Stop acting like a self-righteous snob and try explaining what the fuck you mean for a change. Don't turn this shit around on me saying I'm stupid because you don't want to argue with me. Here's an idea, keep your fucking mouth shut if you don't want me to reply you fucking bitch.
Also, just because a few people (not everyone like you exaggerated) are questioning my opinion doesn't mean I'm wrong. Certainly someone of your stature would be able to comprehend that.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Everyone who weighed in on the topic did.
Your argument is that, because you can't come up with a way to determine who the best team is, the best team is therefore the team who wins the Super Bowl. This is like saying that because you can't figure out how the world came to be, someone must have created it. Which is silly. You are a silly man.
Discerning who the "best" team is is certainly not an easy task, and I'm not sure if it can always be reasonably done. However, this year, for example, I think it's rather clear that the Patriots are the best team, regardless of whether or not they win the Super Bowl. Their winning or losing the Super Bowl is not a prerequisite for them being or not being the best team.
Your argument is that, because you can't come up with a way to determine who the best team is, the best team is therefore the team who wins the Super Bowl. This is like saying that because you can't figure out how the world came to be, someone must have created it. Which is silly. You are a silly man.
Discerning who the "best" team is is certainly not an easy task, and I'm not sure if it can always be reasonably done. However, this year, for example, I think it's rather clear that the Patriots are the best team, regardless of whether or not they win the Super Bowl. Their winning or losing the Super Bowl is not a prerequisite for them being or not being the best team.
MasterOLightning
Optimator
Clearly, in professional sports, there is parity; even the worst team in any league can beat the best. This is especially evident in baseball where the World Series winner lately has most definitely not been the best team in that year (excepting this year's Red Sox). The winner was certainly a good team by virtue of making the playoffs after a long season, but upsets happen. Sometimes the Devil Rays beat the Yankees.
In football, aside from maybe 1-4 teams each year, the difference between the top 20 teams usually comes down to homefield, and the better of two teams would win at most 6/10 times. Football relies on chance plays as much as other pro sports, so it is well within reason that a lesser team can win with some favorable calls and a some chance turnovers. Does that make them the better team? No. Does that make them the better team that day? No. They were the luckier team that day.
Many times the better team does win. The Colts were a more talented team than the Bears last year and they won. But it was within the realm of possibility that the Bears could have played better and won. Would this have made them the better team? No. The Colts still had more talent. Being better on a given day does not equal being better. Bad baseball and basketball teams often beat good ones. That doesn't make them better. Mediocre/good teams are more than capable of beating a better team. There's basically no pro sport where the best team (as evidenced through a sample of games) always wins.
In football, aside from maybe 1-4 teams each year, the difference between the top 20 teams usually comes down to homefield, and the better of two teams would win at most 6/10 times. Football relies on chance plays as much as other pro sports, so it is well within reason that a lesser team can win with some favorable calls and a some chance turnovers. Does that make them the better team? No. Does that make them the better team that day? No. They were the luckier team that day.
Many times the better team does win. The Colts were a more talented team than the Bears last year and they won. But it was within the realm of possibility that the Bears could have played better and won. Would this have made them the better team? No. The Colts still had more talent. Being better on a given day does not equal being better. Bad baseball and basketball teams often beat good ones. That doesn't make them better. Mediocre/good teams are more than capable of beating a better team. There's basically no pro sport where the best team (as evidenced through a sample of games) always wins.
Blind Guardian
Member
Blind Guardian
Member
What´s up with the Ducks this season huh? How can a team who won the Stanley Cup last season almost be under the playoff line? It´s strange. My team in Sweden also won the leauge last year and this season we fucking suck. It must be that the players are fed up or something.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
Well the Ducks did lose Niedermayer, Selanne, Penner and Brizgalov (not that he had a huge hand in the Cup win) and picked up Bertuzzi. So they aren't exactly the same team that won that championship. However, with Niedermayer set to return things could turn around for them soon.
On that NHL note, the Wings are 25-6-3 baby. They have reached 25 wins faster than the team who went on to get 62 wins in a single season. Granted, they have been playing rather shitty teams (Florida, Washington, LA) as of late but I am confident they keep the wins up. Here is hoping for another victory against the blues tonight!
On that NHL note, the Wings are 25-6-3 baby. They have reached 25 wins faster than the team who went on to get 62 wins in a single season. Granted, they have been playing rather shitty teams (Florida, Washington, LA) as of late but I am confident they keep the wins up. Here is hoping for another victory against the blues tonight!
Blind Guardian
Member
Ender Rises
Wass sappening?
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
They no longer broadcast NHL games because of low ratings or some such shit. I blame Bettman and the more goals philosophy of the 'new' NHL.
The Heartbreak Kid
Afterimage
Similar threads
