Greg F

Below is the winner of the last 25 Superbowl's by seed. Seed Teams % of SB Winners First 11 44% Second 6 24% Third 1 4% Fourth 4 16% Fifth 1 4% Sixth 2 8% Below is a breakdown by seed of the teams that played in the Superbowl over the last 25 years. Seed Teams % of SB Teams First 25 50% Second 13 26% Third 2 4% Fourth 7 14% Fifth 1 2% Sixth 2 4% Interesting bit of trivia. Although the 5th and 6th seeds represent only 6% of the teams that have appeared in the Super Bowl those seeds have won all 3 Super Bowls they were in. What I also found interesting is in the Wild Card Playoffs the 5th seeded teams have won 32% of the games while the 6th seeded teams have won 38% of the games. That means the 3rd and 4th seeded teams win 62% and 68% of the time respectively. So basically your looking at the 5th or 6th seed making it to the big show once every 8 years or so. You might be thinking that the 5th and 6th seeds are winning about a third of the wild card games and adding a 7th seed might not be so bad. With 7 teams the 7th seed would be playing the 2nd seed. Does anybody think a 7th seed will win a third of those games? I don't. I think more often than not those games will be a snoozer. How many fans are going to watch 5 full games in a weekend? I don't think there will be significantly more eyeballs watching the games on Wild Card weekend, they would just be spread over 5 games instead of 4. I think the NFL is diluting the playoffs if they add another wildcard team. With 7 teams I would guess the percentage of number one seed teams making it to the Super Bowl goes up as they would be the only teams with a bye. To get rid of the bye there has to be 8 teams. That means half the teams go to the playoffs. No thank you. The playoffs should be special. Reserved for the teams that proved they were the best in the regular season. Not for every team that was above average.

Perhaps they should consider making the Leadership Team more diverse.

The job description seems out of line with the educational requirements. I wouldn't assume that it is a great place to work, had a few jobs were it looked great from the outside looking in but turned out to be anything but. I agree on salary, posted job duties are not very demanding.

Please stop trying to pass off your opinion as fact. Crennel is 28 and 55 as a head coach. You can't bring yourself to admit that just maybe bad coaching had something to do with it. Still picking cherries. Why not the last 6 games of 2011? Maybe because it doesn't fit the disaster you want to portrait? For those 2 games he was 39 for 58, 517 yards, 5 TD, and no interceptions with a QB rating of 123.9. Still don't understand why this is a dubious argument do you? Nobody is contesting that. The point is you're cherry picking to support your beliefs. IOW, you start with a conclusion then go find the facts to support it while at the same time ignoring the facts that don't. I have to repeat myself. Since he left KC he has been 4-5 as a starter which doesn't sound nearly as bad as 9-17. In 2013 with Minnesota he came in relief of Ponder 3 times (who was floundering) and pulled out a win. I guess those don't count. It has never occurred to you that when he went from a really bad team to a bad team and his play improved that maybe just maybe there is more to it than numbers on a stat sheet. That maybe coaching does make a difference.

I said "the benching of Cassel was more a desperation move by a failing head coach than it was a calculated evaluation of the two QB's skill set". Stop with the strawman arguments. As you are trying to move the goal posts the following is what I was responding to: Perhaps I should make my point a bit differently. Matt Cassel may or may not be a good QB. Getting benched by a really bad head coach on a really bad team is not a very strong argument. It is cherry picking. Cassel didn't play the last 4 games of 2011, Kyle Orton did. Cassel had been put on injured reserve in November. Wow! Fans calling for the starting QB to be benched in favor of the backup. I am sure that has never happened before. You're cherry picking again. Since he left KC he has been 4-5 as a starter which doesn't sound nearly as bad as 9-17. In 2013 with Minnesota he came in relief of Ponder 3 times (who was floundering) and pulled out a win. I guess those don't count. Apparently I went a bit deeper at pro football reference than you did but keep picking those KC cherries.

This needs to be put in perspective. Brady Quinn didn't exactly light it up as he proceeded to win 1 game as the Chiefs went 2 and 14 for the season. The head coach that benched Cassel, Romeo Crennel, was fired at the end of the season and has not seen a head coaching job since. The benching of Cassel was more a desperation move by a failing head coach than it was a calculated evaluation of the two QB's skill set. While Cassel has managed to maintain full time employment Quinn has only managed some part time work and wasn't on a team last year.

Clear evidence that the Bills HR department has zombies working there. It is not even possible for a competent IT person to have "strong communication skills".

Last time I checked you couldn't insert a table. Can insert a image though.

So you stopped 40 yards short. QUITTER!

I don't see the Dolphins in a very good negotiating position to do that. They would probably have to offer even more guaranteed money to get him to go along.

Running a business based on spite does not make for a good business plan.

Good thing ... gave me time to get my votes in!

So if they match and keep Clay then the Bills can just go after Tannehill next year. <sinister laugh>

From the CBA:

It's called the Collective Bargaining Agreement. See "ARTICLE 10 FRANCHISE AND TRANSITION PLAYERS". Let us know if you find anything to support the assertion that a team cannot use the transition tag due to a formerly tagged payers contract. The article was not about who can or can't be tagged. It was an article of who WAS tagged. The article starts out with: It then goes on to list all the tagged players. I suggest you go back and read the article again. Clay is the last name above the "Not Tagged" section. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000475744/article/franchise-tag-tracker

I would appreciate a credible link to you claim. Unless I missed it you have not supported what you believe to be the transition tag rules. NFL link was tracking both. Or didn't you see the last name on the tagged list:

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone so there is no guarantee the above is anywhere close to accurate. It is usually a good idea to check the references in a Wikipedia article to see if article is supported by the reference, which in this case, there isn't even a reference giving it zero credibility. Wikipedia also says: It would be appreciated if you could provide a credible reference to the above claim.

I do not believe that to be correct. A team can tag one player a year using whatever tag they choose. Alex Mack was transition tagged last year by Cleveland. An offer from Jacksonville for a 5 year contract was tendered to Mack which he signed. Cleveland exercised their right of first refusal and kept Mack who is now on a 5 year contract. If what your saying is true then Cleveland would not be able to tag any players until 2019. Yet this year there were reports of the possibility of tagging Jordan Cameron. It was also noted on NFL.com's franchise-tag-tracker the players that were tagged as well as players that were thought to be in danger of being tagged. Jordan Cameron was one of the players listed. It seems pretty clear that a team's ability to use the tag is in no way tied to the length of previously tagged players contract.

I blame the first thread because, without it, the second thread would be the first thread.

There appears to be a qualifier there. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/miami-dolphins/mike-wallace/ Might be a bit difficult to find a team that will take on that contract.

In the world according to gatorman the eugenics movement never happened. Gatorman ignores history that proves him wrong and he calls me an idiot for pointing it out. How pathetic he is.

Getting gatorman to grasp how a consensus of scientist could be wrong about something is like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't understand basic algebra. If it was the early 1900's gatorman would be defending the eugenics movement. His arguments would be essentially the same. Gatorman doesn't seem to be able to grasp that scientist are just people. He for some reason believes that the only way a consensus of scientist could be wrong is if they were "bought off" or there was some grand conspiracy. He is completely ignorant of the history of science and the numerous examples of where the 'consensus' was wrong without being "bought off" or there being some grand conspiracy. The late Dr. Thomas Gold discusses the herd mentality from his 40 years as a scientist in his essay New Ideas in Science. Dr. Gold goes on to provide numerous examples of the herd mentality preventing science from moving forward. More importantly, Dr. Gold explains from experience the mechanics of how a consensus is formed and how it allows bad science to have the appearance of being fundamentally more sound then it really is. Gatorman's belief that the only way a consensus of scientist could be wrong is if they were "bought off" or somehow involved in some grand conspiracy is not supported by history.

The "PCE" referred to in the graph is "personal consumption expenditures". As can be seen from the BEA tables the quarter to quarter changes can be quite variable making the claim based on one month dubious at best. In addition, data for January is just a preliminary estimate. The 1961 claim during Kennedy's term is equally dubious for the same reasons. See: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DHLCRC1Q027SBEA

Hands down the Beatles. Second place, no matter who you want to pick, isn't even close.

I am sure it can be cured with a round of penicillin.