The Big Cat Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 No. Also, "tiebreakers", by definition, are used to break ties. So we definitely are tied. If the tiebreaker was applied, that would break the tie, but until that happens, it's a tie. Holy crap, you guys have managed to turn this into Schrodinger's cat!! "We are definitely tied" you say. You also say by "tiebreakers, by definition, are used to break ties." So if we are "definitely tied" and "tiebreakers break ties" and we have the head-to-head tiebreaker over the Pats*, THEN WE'RE NOT TIED!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETD66SS Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 There is too much football left to be worrying about such nonsense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 No. Also, "tiebreakers", by definition, are used to break ties. So we definitely are tied. If the tiebreaker was applied, that would break the tie, but until that happens, it's a tie. Correctamundo. If they weren't tied to begin with, we wouldn't need to be discussing the "tie-BREAKER" about the Bills beating the Pats. Obviously, "tied" refers to W-L record (and always does). p.s. what a ridiculous thread for October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SactoBillFan Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Getting to 6-2 is more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Knit pickers! Go back to knitting. We are first because it makes me feel good and thats all that counts. Feel Good?? Feels good doesn't it. Bragging rights for a week. Go Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillyrich Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 So all the media here in the Boston area are proclaiming that the Pats are now "tied atop the AFC East with Buffalo" - too bad they're not actually tied. We have the same record, but the Bills have a better AFC East record and, oh yeah, the BILLS BEAT THE PATS HEAD TO HEAD. Saying the Bills and Pats are tied is like saying I am tied with Bruce Smith for sacks this year.... This topic really relevant heading in to week 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHateMe Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Who cares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 There's no argument to be had. If the Boston MEDIA is saying the Patriots are tied for the lead in the AFCE they are flat out WRONG. So if they're not tied, why are you going to tiebreakers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 So if they're not tied, why are you going to tiebreakers? OMFG, they're not tied BECAUSE OF THE TIEBREAKER. Oh, look, two teams have the same record. Is there any way to determine whether one should CURRENTLY be seeded ahead of the other? In fact there is! Oh, for my arbitrary curiosity, if I had to say RIGHT NOW which one would be deserving of the higher seed, which team would it be? Well, let's apply the tiebreaker...and it is...Buffalo. Buffalo? No ****. Welp, thank you. No problem. Have a good one. You bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 This seems to really bother you. They should call it something else then. Tiebreaker implies the two teams are tied. I guess by your logic, following the first game of the season no 2 teams are ever tied? That seems weird, but I'll go along with it, as long as you can get the NFL to call tiebreakers something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 This seems to really bother you. Look, bro. If Bills fans can't enjoy being first in the AFC East AHEAD of the Pats*, in WEEK EIGHT, and have to apply logic and technicalities to "temper expectations," then for Pete's sake nothing, and I mean NOTHING could possibly ever satisfy their warped and twisted gloomlife. JUST SAVOR IT, ANYWAY AND FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN. Put the GD lid back on the Haterade. **** is spilling everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Look, bro. If Bills fans can't enjoy being first in the AFC East AHEAD of the Pats*, in WEEK EIGHT, and have to apply logic and technicalities to "temper expectations," then for Pete's sake nothing, and I mean NOTHING could possibly ever satisfy their warped and twisted gloomlife. JUST SAVOR IT, ANYWAY AND FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN. Put the GD lid back on the Haterade. **** is spilling everywhere. I'm ok with being tied for first place. I am enjoying it. I just think it's weird that you (and apparently others) think that tiebreakers should be applied before week 17. Also, I wouldn't even know where one could purchase "Haterade" did you call it? Does it make you angry? You sound angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 This topic really relevant heading in to week 8? Only if both teams claim the same player off of waivers. This seems to really bother you. They should call it something else then. Tiebreaker implies the two teams are tied. I guess by your logic, following the first game of the season no 2 teams are ever tied? That seems weird, but I'll go along with it, as long as you can get the NFL to call tiebreakers something else. So wait. If they are no longer tied once they apply the tie breakers, that means the tie breakers were never applied in the first place... which means they're still tied and need to use the tie breakers... So when does Kyle Reese come into play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 So wait. If they are no longer tied once they apply the tie breakers, that means the tie breakers were never applied in the first place... which means they're still tied and need to use the tie breakers... So when does Kyle Reese come into play? I think we beat the Terminators, but the Matrix might have ended in a tie. Did anyone see the third movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You herd it hear last Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 the only 'tie breaker' that makes sense right now is to put Buffalo first because it starts with a 'B'. Problem. Solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnyBacker Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 U would think that a paper who covers the pats and the NFL for a living would know about tie breakers, wat a joke. Maybe they should just stick to baseball out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'm ok with being tied for first place. I am enjoying it. I just think it's weird that you (and apparently others) think that tiebreakers should be applied before week 17. Also, I wouldn't even know where one could purchase "Haterade" did you call it? Does it make you angry? You sound angry. If I "sound" angry, then you should adjust the bot that reads my posts aloud for you. If the season ended today, we'd be first in the AFCE. If you had to say which team is no. 1 in the AFCE, it's Buffalo. Reality doesn't serve either of those scenarios, and I !@#$ing get that. Although as another poster deftly pointed out, it does have bearing on waiver decisions. But heaven for !@#$ing bid we enjoy a hypothetical situation in week 8 that allows us to wave our collective fingers high above the Buffalo skyline to definitively declare, from now until Sunday, WE'RE NUMBER ONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Reality doesn't serve either of those scenarios, and I !@#$ing get that. Ok, glad we cleared that up. So they're tied. Now, who would win in a fight, the Matrix or the Terminators? Edited October 31, 2011 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravytrain Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 at this point it doesn't matter. there's a lot of football left. let's just concentrate on the jets. oh, by the way... did i mention how much i hate the pats? go bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Blizzard Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Does it really matter at this point? True. The season isn't even half over yet (for Buffalo - I know some teams have already played 8 games) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts