this whole thread started with you saying that head to head was the tiebreaker for draft rank. you've been proven wrong. I have no idea what other straw man arguments you are trying to create now, and frankly I don't care. point is that you are wrong in your original premise. I never said we'd pick ahead of buffalo, bc I don't know what our opp SOS is. I just said that head to head doesn't matter in the draft tiebreaker---and as at least 4 other folks have said on this thread, it doesn't.

just admit your mistake. it might even earn you a little respect around here.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> One more time for you PF2
>
> TIE-BREAKING PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION MEETING
>
> Clubs not participating in the playoffs shall
> select in the first through 20th positions in
> reverse standings order.


there's the rub Bob...I've figured it out. I'm going to offer you a way out of this. If you've seen the Volin tweets posted in this thread, you'll be better served to take the way aout I'm offering, even if you don't believe it.

It seems that you are conflating the terms "Standings" and "Rankings".

The standings are based solely on won/loss record. No tiebreakers. Just wins & losses. You can have ties in the "standings" which is why you need tie-breakers to establish the "rankings" for post season seeds and the draft.

"Rankings" (for Playoff or draft) are what you get AFTER you apply the tiebreakers to the "Standings". An application that wouldn't need to be done twice. Or "standings" and "rankings" would be the same thing...which they clearly are not.

Hope that helps.


And please...call me "The" or "Truth" or "THE Truth" or even "TT" or "T-squared"...heck call me "Ed" if you want Bob.

But lets knock off the PF2...Fan2...Phinsfan2 references. You killed him off a long time ago.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chyren EVERY person who has posted on this topic
> disagrees with you. what do you make of that?


I think that PF2 is hardly an objective source. If I were trying to save his mother's life in a death penalty case and he were on the jury,......then it would be "So long, Mom. I vote guilty." Hardly an objective source.

I haven't heard from DolfanMike after I posted a detailed explanation.

Also I notice that you are very silent as to the points I have responded to.

I will see what the guy from UK has to say.

he also disagrees with you.

Heh - I'm *really* no expert on draft order rules - heck most of the time the main game rules get changed and it confuses me for 2 or 3 seasons (our coverage over here isn't that great on the minutiae).

I think that the confusion here is to do with the NFL page saying "Clubs not participating in the playoffs shall select in the first through 20th positions in reverse standings order."

I think they have worded it badly by saying "standings", because if you click on the "Standings" link on the same webpage as those rules, you get the divisional standings showing with us (MIA) above BUF

Truth's explanation of "standings" vs "rankings" seems to cover it to me as a non-expert but lover of figuring out rules (lawyer and accountant).

Rich

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> But so were berk and The truth. They never
> mentioned a three or four way tie.

Sure I did Bob. In my VERY FIRST post. Said your point was moot becasue there were at LEAST 4 teams tied at 6-10 (not just us and BUF) and you can't use head-to-head across divisions because they don't play each other the same amount of times.


>
> They argued with me "straight up" that between
> Miami and Buff, Miami would pick first even though
> we beat them twice.


Bullshit.


I said you were wrong on the tiebreaker procedures. I never even MENTIONED buffalo or our breaking a tie with just them. NOT ONCE

Berk is right. You really are delusional.

People would have so much more respect for you if you just man'd up and admitted you were wrong instead of trying to justify your error by distorting or misrepresenting what others have written and YOU have misinterpreted.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this whole thread started with you saying that
> head to head was the tiebreaker for draft rank.
> you've been proven wrong.

Now, you're a liar. Read the title of the Post. It says "Bills tanking."

It was only about the Bills trying to pick in the draft ahead of us.

You broke in and challenged that assumption.

And the first rule is "reverse order standing!" and Standing is based first on head to head!



I have no idea what
> other straw man arguments you are trying to create
> now, and frankly I don't care. point is that you
> are wrong in your original premise. I never said
> we'd pick ahead of buffalo, bc I don't know what
> our opp SOS is. I just said that head to head
> doesn't matter in the draft tiebreaker---a


And you are wrong because where 2 teams (I'll limit it to two teams now) have the same record and one has beaten the other, the winner is lower on the draft order!!!!

I have not changed that position!

The only thing I backed up on is if there were three or more teams with the same record, that might not apply unless, probably, one has beaten all the others or one has lost to all the others. I don't know but I still stand by my statement that if it were only between the Bills and the Dolphins, we would pick first.

The title of this post shows that you are a liar!


nd as at
> least 4 other folks have said on this thread, it
> doesn't.
>
> just admit your mistake. it might even earn you a
> little respect around here.


RESPONSE: This is from someone who has shifted positions and lied so greatly on this board that anyone reading it sees it.

I haven't pointed it out before but You like to troll the board for what you see as mistakes by posters and to correct them.


Therefore, when you do so and you are wrong, it must be pretty embarrassing as you are now. It makes you lash out in anger when the person you try to correct shows that you were wrong.

And you still are wrong. As between the Bills and the Dolphins BY THEMSELVES if they had the SAME RECORD the Bills would pick first and THAT IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD TO SAY THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO THROW THE GAME AGAINST THE PATS!

PhinFans2, I will stop calling you that and start calling you the Truth when you yourself stop trying to take advantage of that name by using it in your tagline.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PhinFans2, I will stop calling you that and start
> calling you the Truth when you yourself stop
> trying to take advantage of that name by using it
> in your tagline.


Lol Bob....you really are priceless.


I just put that in my signature so there'd be no confusion over who I was and so you (specifically) couldn't accuse me of trying to hide behind another identity.

THE Truth is...I couldn't activate my old handle and Curt isn't around. I'll dump it soon enough. I've got a great quote lined up from a Movie Character that you remind me of...can't wait to use it...

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sure I did Bob. In my VERY FIRST post. Said
> your point was moot becasue there were at LEAST 4
> teams tied at 6-10 (not just us and BUF) and you
> can't use head-to-head across divisions because
> they don't play each other the same amount of
> times.

RESPONSE: Correction! You stepped in and say Berk was right and I was wrong as usual.

That gave me MORE THAN A RIGHT TO ASSUME YOU WERE ADOPTING HIS POSITION.


>
> Bullshit.
>
>
> I said you were wrong on the tiebreaker
> procedures. I never even MENTIONED buffalo or our
> breaking a tie with just them. NOT ONCE.


RESPONSE: "NOT ONCE" did you say, which you would have if you were aware of in what particular way my argument did NOT apply that, "But ChyrenB, that only applies if those are the only teams in consideration."

Now who's being the bullshitter. If you knew I was talking about us versus Buffalo and that is ALL that Berk talked about, why didn't you try to clear up the confusion as Richred did?

I'll tell you why. It's because until Richred posted the possibility of multi-team rules applying, you didn't even think of it.

You only thought that here was a chance for you to jump in and attack me.

But neither you (particularly since you are not a mod anymore) or Berk can change the title of this Post in which I was ONLY TALKING ABOUT THESE TWO TEAMS!

> Berk is right. You really are delusional.

RESPONSE: And you are a sad, sad, person.

>
> People would have so much more respect for you if
> you just man'd up and admitted you were wrong
> instead of trying to justify your error by
> distorting or misrepresenting what others have
> written and YOU have misinterpreted.

RESPONSE: LOL! Read the title of the post and see who is distorting by arguing that I was addressing the fact that ALL FOUR TEAMS WERE AT 6-10.

Now who's lying!

That's right, berk. Do you see two other teams in that statement besides us and Buffalo?

no I don't. I don't even know what you are trying to say. my only point and the only thing I've responded to in this entire thread is that the underlined statement above is incorrect.

do you now admit that the underlined statement above is incorrect?

finally?

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no I don't. I don't even know what you are trying
> to say. my only point and the only thing I've
> responded to in this entire thread is that the
> underlined statement above is incorrect.
>
> do you now admit that the underlined statement
> above is incorrect?
>
> finally?


Check and Mate...

Hell No! Before the game I did not consider or discuss the fact that Carolina would end up with an identical record thus creating a three way tie referred to in the Rules thereby making Miami the top pick of the three because a weaker schedule of the three.

Take Caroline out of that equation, which you damn well know you weren't considering either and my statement was true. We draft after them.

I don't think Buffalo knew when it threw that game that Carolina would screw up their chances as well.

Berk, I've lost a lot of respect for you.

Is winning an argument worth your integrity. I know PhinFans2 is a creep but I always respected you. No more.

Yeah, PhinFans2, you will be that until you change your tagline.

You kept calling me Bob in spite of my specific demands that you use my tagline so now you act like I'm doing something bad by using your tagname instead of your real name.

Man, you've got quite a nerve.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2012 02:41PM by ChyrenB.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hell No! Before the game I did not consider or
> discuss the fact that Carolina would end up with
> an identical record thus creating a three way tie
> referred to in the Rules thereby making Miami the
> top pick of the three because a weaker schedule of
> the three.
>
> Take Caroline out of that equation, which you damn
> well know you weren't considering either and my
> statement was true. We draft after them.
>
> I don't think Buffalo knew when it threw that game
> that Carolina would screw up their chances as
> well.
>
> Berk, I've lost a lot of respect for you.
>
> Is winning an argument worth your integrity.



Integrity? What does that have to do with it?

He's either right and you are wrong or vice versa.

AND YOU ARE WRONG.

Even if you take your original premise as a stand alone...lets say the Bills threw the game and ended up tied with us at 6-10 and we were the ONLY two teams at 6-10.

We would STILL pick ahead of them based upon NFL tiebreaker rules for draft order.

His being right about that, or more precisely, the fact that YOU ARE WRONG about that in no way whatsoever reflects poorly on Berk's integrity.

> I
> know PhinFans2 is a creep but I always respected
> you. No more.

I'm sure he'll lose sleep over that.



>
> Yeah, PhinFans2, you will be that until you change
> your tagline.

Well perhaps you could bother to spell it right....

Amazing.

>
> You kept calling me Bob in spite of my specific
> demands that you use my tagline so now you act
> like I'm doing something bad by using your tagname
> instead of your real name.


I honestly can't remember you even once asking me not to call you Bob.

Not in a post. Not in a PM.

But if you say you did, then so be it.

I won't call you that anymore.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Integrity? What does that have to do with it?
>
> He's either right and you are wrong or vice
> versa.
>
> AND YOU ARE WRONG.

RESPONSE: It's simple. My argument was that Buff was tanking to draft ahead of us.

How does that involve Carolina?

Your point only has validity because Carolina is still in the equation.

> Even if you take your original premise as a stand
> alone...lets say the Bills threw the game and
> ended up tied with us at 6-10 and we were the ONLY
> two teams at 6-10.
>
> We would STILL pick ahead of them based upon NFL
> tiebreaker rules for draft order.

RESPONSE: That's where I still insist you are wrong.

If Arizona played Kansas City during the regular season and one of them won the game, that winnner would pick later in the round.


>
> His being right about that, or more precisely, the
> fact that YOU ARE WRONG about that in no way
> whatsoever reflects poorly on Berk's integrity.

RESPONSE: He switched his argument and what he was saying many times throughout the thread. You can go back and read them post by post. Everyone else probably has.

But then everyone else has to no axe to grind like you.

> I honestly can't remember you even once asking me
> not to call you Bob.
>
> Not in a post. Not in a PM.
>
> But if you say you did, then so be it.

RESPONSE: Well, since you imply you could have what is the point in finding that post where I asked you not to do it?
>
> I won't call you that anymore.

RESPONSE: Just drop that tagline and I won't call you Phinsfan2 or PhinFans2 or PF2 again.

This is a riveting discussion. I'm sure glad I don't have to work tomorrow.

I'm through with this argument. Life's too short.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm through with this argument. Life's too short.


+1

Err....yeah, right. Show me where when there are only two teams involved "standings" don't refer to either a) standings in the division or 2) head to head competition. Failing that, goodbye, I stand by my assertion that but for Carolina, we would be drafting AFTER THE BILLS.

The Truth. That's a laugh.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I haven't heard from DolfanMike after I posted a
> detailed explanation.
>

Don't confuse silence with agreement. The internet has been around for a while now. You are not the first person to stake out an incorrect position on the internet and then fight it to the virtual death.

You've misunderstood the draft tiebreaker rules. I tried to help you by clarifying them, but you seem more concerned with proving that your misunderstanding is correct. I've really got nothing more to say.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok ChyrenB...spin this...
>
>
> My tweet to Ben Volin:
>
>
> @BenVolinPBP Settle a bet for us. Does head2head
> decide draft position if 2 teams tied but 1 won
> both games that year, or is it SOS first?
>
>
>
> His reply:
>
> Benjamin Volin @BenVolinPBP 2m
>
>
> @Lavin4Prez SOS first


Response: Now get that from the NFL and you win. Read what Richred said about Volin and his official status.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no one cares if you concede SOS is the first
> tiebreaker and not some other made up tiebreaker
> that exists only in your imagination. it is a fact
> that SOS is the first tiebreaker, and head to head
> is not a tiebreaker at all.
>
> just to bring this full circle--
>
>
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Remember, if we both tie at the same record, the
>
> > Bills pick before us based on head to head.

And that means if we tie for one spot. Not if three teams, two of which are the Bills and us tie for one spot.

DolfanMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I haven't heard from DolfanMike after I posted
> a
> > detailed explanation.
> >
>
> Don't confuse silence with agreement.


Response: Very true. And what I said to berk was that he shouldn't take your continued silence as continued agreement with him.

Now that you have announced your position, I see you support him.

I never said you agreed with me. There is nothing about "I haven't heard from Mike since" that says or even implies that you agree with me. At best it implies that you might not still agree with Berk.


Of course, if we do get definitive evidence from the NFL that "standings in reverse order" also takes into account head to head competition between two competing teams (language that appears before SOS), then I'll also give you credit for being wrong along with Berk and "Not so True."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2012 07:29PM by ChyrenB.