LJ;934940 wrote:That's actually retarded. Why have divisions then? It's not like say the Ravens go undefeated in the AFC North but lose 2 AFC games and therefore can't win the Division.
BTW link?
LJ;934940 wrote:That's actually retarded. Why have divisions then? It's not like say the Ravens go undefeated in the AFC North but lose 2 AFC games and therefore can't win the Division.
BTW link?
A little late to the party...but I REALLY hope this was sarcasm. Guy was abused badly last week and hasn't look very good most of the seasonstroups;934808 wrote:Travis ****ing Howard.......dude is a baller
To be able to have a conference championship game. Conference championship games = more money.LJ;934940 wrote:That's actually retarded. Why have divisions then?
I do know that, that wasn;t the example I was trying to make. That was an atrocity though.lhslep134;934944 wrote:Uhm you do know that division champion is based on overall record right? The Raiders went 6-0 in the AFC West last year but the Chiefs won the division.
The divisions are used to divide the teams for scheduling purposes and for tiebreaking purposes among others.
How did you not know that?
$$karen lotz;934947 wrote:Why play games with the other division if they don't count for anything?
karen lotz;934958 wrote:What's retarded is thinking that conference games don't count in division standings.
Well, OSU won't beat Wiscy, so it won't matter.derek bomar;934925 wrote:what? if we beat wiscy and win out, we're in the game... no?
+1 wtf was LJ thinking?karen lotz;934958 wrote:What's retarded is thinking that conference games don't count in division standings.
I mean, this is the fact of the matter anywayWebFire;934966 wrote:Well, OSU won't beat Wiscy, so it won't matter.
Thinking logically that division games should make up the division standings and conference games should only be used in tiebreakers.lhslep134;934967 wrote:+1 wtf was LJ thinking?
LJ;934969 wrote:Thinking logically that division games should make up the division standings and conference games should only be used in tiebreakers.
It did in the case of the Eagles over the Giants last yearlhslep134;934972 wrote:That system doesn't exist in either the major NCAA conferences or NFL.
I honestly do not follow baseball, NBA, Hockey etc.karen lotz;934982 wrote:How are baseball standings figured? Or basketball? Or any other sport?
Dude you're wrong. No it didn't. It served as the tiebreaker because the overall records of the 2 teams were the same. You talk about logic, then give an example showing that division records decide the standings like 5 posts after I showed you that that logic is false because the Raiders went 6-0 in the division but didn't win because their overall record was worse.LJ;934978 wrote:It did in the case of the Eagles over the Giants last year
The Giants had a better overall Conference record and the same overall record. My example was that's like saying the Ravens go undefeated in the AFC N but lose 2 AFC games and can't win the AFC N.lhslep134;934997 wrote:Dude you're wrong. No it didn't. It served as the tiebreaker because the overall records of the 2 teams were the same. You talk about logic, then give an example showing that division records decide the standings like 5 posts after I showed you that that logic is false because the Raiders went 6-0 in the division but didn't win because their overall record was worse.
derek bomar;935143 wrote:well I stand corrected... I guess I thought it would make sense to only have division games determine who went to the title game. IMADUMMY
as his presence was felt early and often. He was particularly good considering we had absolutely zero ability to pass and was the focus of the "gameplan" if you can call it that.
