John Fox's record against >.500 teams: Below Average

[natty]

Make it about Obama and he would have loved it. :seeya:

I like pointing out disingenuous 'facts' no matter the subject.

I guess you'll now assume that I'm a Fox homer because I don't agree with a weak argument.

[frash.exe]

Well it was 2 in the morning and I was going to bed, sorry I didn't write you a dissertation.

Record against >.500 teams can be taken different ways - you don't say which. >.500 at the time they play? Or >.500 over the season? I assume the former, which means it's entirely based on who the teams played before them. That might carry some weight if you only take data from the 2nd half of seasons but to count games played in week 2 means nothing. The data looks like it could mean something because Belichick, who we all know is an outstanding coach, is at the top and assume the 'heavy-hitters' you mention are there too. But it really doesn't mean much at all. Who cares what a team's record is during the season? All that matters is what it is in the end.

you see, it would mean something to you guys if Fox wasn't actually ranked in the bottom half. then it wouldn't be called "meaningless" and Cyberjag wouldn't be making trite attempts at sarcasm because the stats would help make his case. This is for teams that finished with a winning record in the reg. season. not teams we faced who were 2-1 or 5-3 at the time, or were on a "hot streak". It's as honest as it gets.