Ha! It's Back! RealJohnBoy's A2K NFL "Pick-Um" Game!

I wonder what team has won the SB with the worst record.

I often wonder what would have happened without the brave Winston Churchill, the tragic RAF and the plucky armada that saved those fleeing Dunquirk troops. Surely they gave the world a respite until the US could join the war.

I ought to have mentioned the odds in the betting being commensurate with entering the SB with a "miserable record".

I believe only one "wild card" team has ever won the SB...perhaps Pittsburgh

According to Wikipedia, the teams with the worst records to play in the SB were the 1979 LA Rams and 2008 AZ Cardinals (9-7).
The teams with the worst records to win the SB were the 1988 SF 49'er and 2007 NY Giants (10-6).

What's the definition of a "wild card" team pan?

You can trust Yanks to come up with "wild card" rather than "squeaking in by the skin of the teeth". Or "making up the numbers". It's the difference between a ten gallon hat and a flat cap.

No, Spendius, it is all about making money. The Wild Card games are designed to insert an extra week of NFL games into the schedule. I couldn't even begin to explain how the system works. I suspect that Panzade can do a much better job.

I thought the Raiders did it once.

1980 Oakland Raiders (11-5); 1997 Denver Broncos (12-4), 2000 Baltimore Ravens (12-4); 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers (11-5); 2007 NY Giants (10-6).

everything you always wanted to know about wildcards (and apparently are not afraid to ask)...

sorry, sorry, sorry...

San Diego

Kansas City
Miami
Cleveland
Houston
Philadelphia
Tampa Bay
New Orleans
Arizona
Dallas
Jacksonville

Atlanta
Pittsburgh
Oakland

Sunday night:
New England

Monday night:
Chicago (14-7)

Sweet. We have a full house. Everyone is warm and dry. Eggnog for everyone. I actually had eggnog once. Not my cup of tea.
In the late games Sunday and into Monday, we all agree by a margin of 117-3. Jespah has Seattle and the Jets while Edgar picks Minn.
It is in the early games tomorrow where we diverge, but not by a whole lot.
We all agree in thinking NE will beat Green Bay and Oakland will win over Denver.
There is no game I am listing as a toss up.
Region agrees with the majority on every game while EhBeth, JPB, George, McGentrix and LiontamerX are off on only one. Jespah, Mysteryman and Spendius disagree on 5.
And then there is CoinToss/CoinToss who predicts differently from the majority on 11 games.
Everyone is warm and dry. We hope, Spendius and Lmur, that that applies to you in England and Ireland.

Thanks RP--that really is a fantastic explanation.

I prefer rjb's money drive.

I'm assuming that the wild card system is to give some point to games played outside the divisions. Is that right?

As there are 4 teams in a division each team plays 6 games within it. Right--I understand that. But in NFC West, say, the standings are--

Rams 6-7
Seahawks 6-7 (0n worse points record)
49ers 5-9
Cardinals 4-9.

Suppose, say, the 49ers winning 5 games are all within the division and all their losing games outside it. They are 5-0 (with one to play) within the division. It doesn't make sense to us that they are not top of that division assuming the next best is 4-1 or worse.

How are the opponents chosen for the games outside the division.

I'm trying to work out the general principle on which the NFL is based leaving out the psychological stuff about vicarious gladiatorial combat. Is it to make as many people look good as possible using as much equipment as can be afforded as Huxley explained in Brave New World.

With 32 teams of 53 players (1696) there is no way the athletic skills can be compared to the 2 positions available to England opening batsmen. Or the 4 bowling positions. And to compare them to the "one in all the world" of an Olympic gold medallist is not only unscientific but positively ridiculous. Bearing in mind the physical characteristics of most NFL players the national pool from which they are chosen is a long way short of the size of the national pool from which opening batsmen are chosen.

It really is very interesting as a ritual derived from a national psyche. In England we have a tradition of scoffing at people who try to look good and especially when they have rigged the rules to enhance their prospects and know how to act their parts. I see the whole American psyche laid bare here. Darwin would have been fascinated. Brute force, cunning, money and cheerleaders. What a heady mix.

I am regularly accused on A2K of wallowing and preening in my literary brilliance as if Americans also scoff at that sort of thing. Which suggests a schizophrenia. Not that I a brilliant mind you. Maybe it's just having one principle for one thing and another principle for another thing. Like being in favour of women of questionable virtue as long as they are somebody else's daughters, wives, sisters and mothers.

And it's odd that NFL players are never accused of feigning injury like our lot are. And I suppose NFL players not writhing and rolling about theatrically is an aspect of stoicism.

Is it possible to prepare a pitch to favour the home team as it is with cricket and, to a lesser extent, our football?

First, rjb needs to look up Martha Stewart's egg nog recipe and try it sometime. Since, as I recall, it includes a dozen eggs, a quart of milk, a pint of cream, and about half a gallon of booze (rum, brandy, and bourbon) it is utterly low-calorie and non-intoxicating. Funny I don't remember all about it. And for spendius, you may want to find the video of the infamous snow blower incident in New England around twenty years ago to discover what the Dolphins learned - there really can be a significant home FIELD advantage.

I would leave out the milk, eggs and cream.
It looks like the weather for today's games is pretty benign.
Play on.
(ps, Spendi: did England suffer some sort of defeat today in the Ashes? I read a BBC article but had no idea what it was talking about).

No wonder--it was very complicated actually. All the players are so good at what they do that pitch conditions are at a premium. There are rumours that the Aussies are preparing a new pitch for the next match which is as near to the WACA pitch as they can get it. That neutralises our world No 1 spin bowler. And the Aussies have two batsmen who can play on that sort of pitch. It's to do with the new ball as well. A ball starts losing its character after about 20 overs (6 balls an over each over from alternate ends so wind and slight slopes come into play.) A new ball can be taken after 80 overs. Our one batsman who can play on a fast bouncy pitch is down at No6 in the order so unless the bowlers, non batsmen who have to bat, can prop him up he gets deflated. If he's moved up to 3 or 4 he might be exposed to the new ball if 1 and 2 get knocked over and he has a weakness with the new ball. Which can be made to swing one way in the air, go the other way off the pitch and bounce 0.2 of a second in front of the batsman. And there were a lot of midges in the air at Perth. So don't go to Perth at this time of year unless you like midges.

I'm just passing half time away.

We have a new coverage sysyem here. NFL Red Zone. They are switching from match to match when there's red zone action. It takes some following I can tell you. It's like doing the Times crossword in a jerking boat with a slut trying to pull your pants down. I'm exhausted. I've just about found out who is who. There's info all over the screen. I had to sit on the rug.

Thanks for that thorough and thoroughly confusing explanation of a nuance of cricket.
You made that all up, didn't you?

Worry about the boat and puzzle, leave the slut alone, she'll help give you support.

We made real egg nog like that in the seventies, from a recipe that I think was the same as Martha's. I remember the egg nog well. What I don't remember is if that was the same day we made manicotti - not then an easy task..