Are You Ready for Some Football

[Imran Siddiqui]

At least it doesn't have many Bears fans .

[Sava]

I could do without the meatball Bear fans... the Kyle Orton fan club, people who think Butkus is better than Urlacher, people who believe in "Bear weather", etc...

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Hello when did the cowboys beome BKs team. If anythign he is a band wagoner with now real insight to what the team is made up of.. He has made it clear the chargers were his team.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah the Chargers are still my team.

Dunno where I said I liked the Boys more then the Bolts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kyle Orton fan club

Though I assume you are talking about those who think Butkus is better NOW than Urlacher? Because if we are talking about when they were players, Butkus was someone who the Sporting News ranked as the 9th best player of all time and the AP ranked as 5th best of all time.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sava
I could do without the meatball Bear fans... the Kyle Orton fan club, people who think Butkus is better than Urlacher, people who believe in "Bear weather", etc...

The fact is, Butkus was better. No discussion required.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Sava
The scenario for the Packers getting into the Playoffs was pretty crazy. I was reading about it in the paper this morning. I can't even recall exactly what any number of things need to happen in addition to their winning on Sunday.

JR, does that strength of victory number take into account the Bears victory total (in the event they beat the Bears on Sunday)?

If not, I would think beating the Bears puts them in a better position as far as that number is concerned.

I'm no expert on this, but Strength of Victory is a comparison of the records of the teams you beat. Currently, the teams that lost to the Giants have 13 more wins than the teams that lost to the Packers. But if they both win, the difference will still favor the Giants (46+5=51) over the Packers (33+13=46).

Technically, the Pack is not mathematically out of it though, since we have to check wins for the 7 other teams they each beat.

What's interesting is that this is the first year that Strength of Victory is a higher-ranked tiebreaker than strength of schedule.

[-Jrabbit]

Here's the official verbiage:

TO BREAK A TIE FOR THE WILD-CARD TEAM?If it is necessary to break ties to determine the two Wild-Card clubs from each conference, the following steps will be taken.?1. If the tied clubs are from the same division, apply division tie breaker.?2. If the tied clubs are from different divisions, apply the following steps.
Two Clubs
1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.
6. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8. Best net points in conference games.
9. Best net points in all games.
10. Best net touchdowns in all games.
11. Coin toss.

Definition: Strength of victory is figured by calculating the combined winning percentage of the opponents a team has beaten.
Examples: If two teams end with identical records, combine the records of the opponents in each of the team's wins and calculate the total winning percentage. The team whose opponents have the higher winning percentage wins the tiebreaker.

NY Giants wins -- opponents have 46 wins
Philadelphia - 9
Washington - 5
Atlanta - 7
Dallas - 9
Tampa Bay - 4
Houston - 5
Carolina - 7

Green Bay wins -- opponents have 33 wins
Detroit - 2
Miami - 6
Arizona - 5
Minnesota - 6
San Francisco - 6
Detroit - 2
Minnesota - 6

Now, I don't know if Detroit and Minnesota count twice (GB swept both), or if their percentage just counts once. But I just got the full scenario on ESPAM:

To win strength of victory, Green Bay needs ALL of these to happen:

WINS by Arizona, Detroit, Miami, Minnesota, and San Francisco
LOSSES by Carolina, Houston, and Tampa Bay

[SlowwHand]

What's interesting is that this is the first year that Strength of Victory is a higher-ranked tiebreaker than strength of schedule.

And I'm totally against the concept.

[-Jrabbit]

Hey, Everybody! BIG NEWS!!!
Sloww is against change!

[snoopy369]

Edit: Wow, I'm not totally awake. Make that not awake at all. Also, ESPN's NFL wrapup tonight messed things up, as they indicated the giants NEEDED to win for the Packers to make it in. Unless the Packers would lose an earlier tiebreaker to the Rams?

[snoopy369]

Ah, indeed. The Rams win the H2H tiebreaker against the Packers, as they beat them in week 5. So they have to lose for the pack to make it in (to the Vikings, no less).

Now, if 3 teams tie for the WC, I think H2H goes out the window ...

H2H:

Rams: W GB, L CAR
Giants: W ATL, W CAR
Packers: L STL
Falcons: L NYG, T CAR
Panthers: W STL, L NYG, T ATL

Those only come into play with 2 teams tied for the last spot. If 3 teams tie for it, then:
A) If Panthers and Falcons both win, then one of them is automatically elminated first - the Falcons would be eliminated with a 3-3 DIV record vs the Panthers 5-1.
B) If the three teams are from three different divisions, then:
1. Since there are no H2H sweeps (one team beating both other teams) if one of the falcons and panthers don't make it, then the conference record prevails; which would mean that the Giants or the Packers would win the tiebreaker over any of the other teams (both would have 7-5 records vs. 6-6 for the other teams). IF both the Giants and the Packers win, then JRabbit's scenario is the controlling scenario, and the packers must have all eight games go their way.

So basically, the H2H match-ups probably matter more, but in the event of a bunch of lousy teams winning this week, it could get real interesting

The only team that could be said to essentially control their own destiny would be the Giants, who win all tiebreakers against the other teams in the group, and have no losses to the teams that are 7-8. However, even a Giant win could still allow GB to creep in with that strength of victory.

[Lord Avalon]

Did someone mention needing a Detroit win?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kyle Orton fan club

Though I assume you are talking about those who think Butkus is better NOW than Urlacher? Because if we are talking about when they were players, Butkus was someone who the Sporting News ranked as the 9th best player of all time and the AP ranked as 5th best of all time.

Butkus dominated in his era... I'm not doubting that.

But Brian Urlacher is a much better athlete than Butkus ever was. He's stronger and faster than Butkus could have ever hoped to be.

I'm not going to get into era comparisons... that's just retarded. But I hate it when meatball Bear fans say **** like, "oh Brian Urlacher can't hit like Butkus did". Yes he can. Go back to the end of the bar and shut up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, I understand now. Yeah, today's athletes are far better than the best of yesteryear. Even backups have more athletic ability that the stars of the 60s. It's just what happens with modernization.