It is now mathematically impossibly for Cin to beat us in SoS!!

[theyhateme45]

Correct me if I am wrong. You have Buffalo vs. New England, for example. You say Cincinnati played both teams, and I think they did, once each. You have a Cincinnati +1. However, it should be a wash because one of the teams they played will improve their record and one will drop. With only a 4 game differential and 2 weeks to play, there are too many games that could influence the record to say it is locked up. I could show you 4 this week that would offset a 4 game differential. Maybe I don't understand.

The best and easiest way to look at SoS is the # of wins by the teams you played. Right now the teams we played has won 129 games, the teams they've played has won 133. So the way to look at is how many more games will teams we each play win.

Buffalo plays new England one of those teams have to win. Meaning their opponents win total now will be 134, and ours will still be 129 no matter who wins. That's why they are plus one.

[unicar15]

What are the chances Denver takes a QB after they just gave up a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks to get The Golden Calf of Bristol. The fans really might crucify that FO for doing that. They are OBSESSED with The Golden Calf of Bristol. I think they'd take Bowers and

A) Save some money by not drafting a QB.

Not look like idiots for giving up an entire draft for a QB that got 3 games worth of PT.

C) Appease a large portion of the fans that are in love with The Golden Calf of Bristol.

[Cyclonus]

What are the chances Denver takes a QB after they just gave up a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks to get The Golden Calf of Bristol. The fans really might crucify that FO for doing that. They are OBSESSED with The Golden Calf of Bristol. I think they'd take Bowers and

A) Save some money by not drafting a QB.

Not look like idiots for giving up an entire draft for a QB that got 3 games worth of PT.

C) Appease a large portion of the fans that are in love with The Golden Calf of Bristol.

If Denver had the #1 pick they would trade down. Luck WILL go first overall if he declares. Someone will trade into Denvers spot to get him.

[Carolina Husker]

Considering Atlanta is arguably the best team in the conference and is playing for home field advantage, I think it's time Mr. Luck start deciding if he wants to live in Charlotte or not.

[SCP]

Why doeseveryone assume that ATL resting starters is an automatic win for us? So we have to face Snelling instead of Turner? He gashed us for 100+ last year. Playing Atlanta's 2's is not a sure win for the 2010 panthers.

[theyhateme45]

What are the chances Denver takes a QB after they just gave up a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th round picks to get The Golden Calf of Bristol. The fans really might crucify that FO for doing that. They are OBSESSED with The Golden Calf of Bristol. I think they'd take Bowers and

A) Save some money by not drafting a QB.

Not look like idiots for giving up an entire draft for a QB that got 3 games worth of PT.

C) Appease a large portion of the fans that are in love with The Golden Calf of Bristol.

The funny thing is if you go over to the Broncos message board they are close to being split on the topic between Luck and going defense.

[Jangler]

Why doeseveryone assume that ATL resting starters is an automatic win for us? So we have to face Snelling instead of Turner? He gashed us for 100+ last year. Playing Atlanta's 2's is not a sure win for the 2010 panthers.

Since we are playing like 3rd stringers...

still say there is way to much thinking going on.

[theyhateme45]

Since we are playing like 3rd stringers...

still say there is way to much thinking going on.

Even if that's the case were still good enough to hang with or beat bad lately; Cardinals, Seahawks (for a half), Browns, Buccs until the 4th....

There's no reason to believe If we come to play we will lose to Atlanta's second string. We've proven were bad, but not that bad.

[Mr. Scot]

The best and easiest way to look at SoS is the # of wins by the teams you played. Right now the teams we played has won 129 games, the teams they've played has won 133. So the way to look at is how many more games will teams we each play win.

Buffalo plays new England one of those teams have to win. Meaning their opponents win total now will be 134, and ours will still be 129 no matter who wins. That's why they are plus one.

Not quite true because the NFL measures by percentage. That means you can't really exclude the losses.

Funny thing I discovered. When two teams we have both played then play each other, it's a wash, right?

Wrong :eek:

Believe it or not, it's actually a benefit :confused:

Remember, we're dealing in percentages, and the percentage we're measuring is games won vs games played. Thus, when two opponents play, the number of games won can only increase by one, but the number of games played goes up by two since it counts for each opponent.

(realized that when looking at the results of the Jets-Steelers matchup last week on the Bengals numbers)

The good news? From what I can see, your premise is still correct since the team with the fewest opponent wins is ultimately going to have the lower percentage because the sample size is the same (16 x 16 = 256). Worst possible scenario puts us at a final total of 146-110 (.570) and the Bengals at 147-109 (.574). So while the margin might ultimately be razor thin, based on the remaining games scheduled, no they cannot catch us

Unfortunately, we also can't catch Denver, so we really need to cheer for them this week :eek:

[theyhateme45]

Not quite true because the NFL measures by percentage. That means you can't really exclude the losses.

Funny thing I discovered. When two teams we have both played then play each other, it's a wash, right?

Wrong :eek:

Believe it or not, it's actually a benefit :confused:

Remember, we're dealing in percentages, and the percentage we're measuring is games won vs games played. Thus, when two opponents play, the number of games won can only increase by one, but the number of games played goes up by two since it counts for each opponent.

(realized that when looking at the results of the Jets-Steelers matchup last week on the Bengals numbers)

The good news? From what I can see, your premise is still correct. Worst possible scenario puts us at a final total of 146-110 (.570) and the Bengals at 147-109 (.574). So it could be close, but based on the remaining games, no they can't catch us

Unfortunately, we also can't catch Denver, so we really need to cheer for them this week :eek:

Why is this so hard to understand..... % and number of games won are the same thing!!!! If Carolina teams win 189 and Cincy 190 the percentage is going to be slightly in favor of Carolina.

If you are counting win's you do not have to count losses because you are accounting for the loss by not giving them a win....

I know my premise is correct... you did all that just to say what I said in the first post. That in cincy's best case scenario their opponents will finish with 1 more win than us.... IF THEIR OPPONENTS HAVE ONE MORE WIN OF COURSE THEIR PERCENTAGE IS GONNA BE BETTER.

That;s common sense. That's like I say the team who has 10 wins will make the playoffs over a team with 9.... Then you say no it goes by percentage. Will the team with 10 wins will have the better percentage!

[Mr. Scot]

Why is this so hard to understand..... % and number of games won are the same thing!!!! If Carolina teams win 189 and Cincy 190 the percentage is going to be slightly in favor of Carolina.

If you are counting win's you do not have to count losses because you are accounting for the loss by not giving them a win....

I know my premise is correct... you did all that just to say what I said in the first post. That in cincy's best case scenario their opponents will finish with 1 more win than us.... IF THEIR OPPONENTS HAVE ONE MORE WIN OF COURSE THEIR PERCENTAGE IS GONNA BE BETTER.

That;s common sense. That's like I say the team who has 10 wins will make the playoffs over a team with 9.... Then you say no it goes by percentage. Will the team with 10 wins will have the better percentage!

Look again.

The good news? From what I can see, your premise is still correct since the team with the fewest opponent wins is ultimately going to have the lower percentage because the sample size is the same (16 x 16 = 256). Worst possible scenario puts us at a final total of 146-110 (.570) and the Bengals at 147-109 (.574). So while the margin might ultimately be razor thin, based on the remaining games scheduled, no they cannot catch us,

Left out initially because I was cutting and pasting

As a side note, I've probably done more math in the past two weeks than I've done in all my years since high school. That is, except when I've been budgeting.

(admittedly, that's often not so much math as it is smoke and mirrors)

[theyhateme45]

Not quite true because the NFL measures by percentage. That means you can't really exclude the losses.

Funny thing I discovered. When two teams we have both played then play each other, it's a wash, right?

Wrong :eek:

Believe it or not, it's actually a benefit :confused:

My point is you try to say I'm wrong... only to say I;m correct??? This whole part was unnecessary because after all that and everything you said you get the same thing as be so apparently this is not wrong.

You can discount losses if you are counting by wins. Every team plays 16 games. To know which team is where you do not have to count losses or percentages you only need to count wins.

I can say a team wins 6 games and another team wins 7 and that is enough to determine who is where in the standings.... So you are wrong because you can exclude the losses if you are accounting for everything by wins. Percentages and everything else will follow.

I could do the same thing by losses if I want and get the same answer. A team with 6 losses is 1 below a team with 5 losses.... Their percentages will follow.

You have to understand there is more than the 1 way you know to get to the answer.

[theyhateme45]

Look again.

Left out initially because I was cutting and pasting

As a side note, I've probably done more math in the past two weeks than I've done in all my years since high school. That is, except when I've been budgeting.

(admittedly, that's often not so much math as it is smoke and mirrors)

Well I'm an public accountant so I deal with number and formulas on a daily basis.... I also tutored calculus and economics while I was in college.

[Mr. Scot]

My point is you try to say I'm wrong... only to say I;m correct??? This whole part was unnecessary because after all that and everything you said you get the same thing as be so apparently this is not wrong.

You can discount losses if you are counting by wins. Every team plays 16 games. To know which team is where you do not have to count losses or percentages you only need to count wins.

I can say a team wins 6 games and another team wins 7 and that is enough to determine who is where in the standings.... So you are wrong because you can exclude the losses if you are accounting for everything by wins. Percentages and everything else will follow.

I could do the same thing by losses if I want and get the same answer. A team with 6 losses is 1 below a team with 5 losses.... Their percentages will follow.

You have to understand there is more than the 1 way you know to get to the answer.

It's methodology. I prefer to look at the numbers the same way the league does. That way there's less chance of missing something.

Part of the reason I say that is because of the discovery that two opponents playing each other wasn't really a wash, like I had first thought. It makes the scheduling all that more important. Let's say that more of our opponents were scheduled against teams that we hadn't played. It would make those results matter more. Since they are scheduled against each other though, the SoS is guaranteed to go down. Hence, we can rest a little easier.

If you're thinking I was criticizing you, don't because I wasn't. It still works. I just choose a different methodology for my own reasons. So no offense meant...

(except to point out that I can spell impossible)

Well I'm an public accountant so I deal with number and formulas on a daily basis.... I also tutored calculus and economics while I was in college.

I'd hire you, but I don't need an accountant. If you know where I could find a miracle worker, though...

(there's no listings for that in the Yellow Pages)