We SHOULD win the NFC South

[Goondal]

In case I didn't embarrass myself sufficiently earlier in this thread, I'm going to venture one final stand. Yes, 8-7-1 would translate statistically (according to NFL rules) to a (>.500) winning percentage, but I still don't think that scenario (should it come to pass, God forbid) should count in our minds as giving us back to back winning seasons for the first time in franchise history. It translates to above .500 statistically only because the NFL counts a tie as half-of-a-win for purposes of calculating a win percentage. And that's reasonable, since the NFL must rank team records and tying is better than losing. But do you guys really want to say that we literally won half a game against the Bengals? That sounds silly to me. You can't literally win half of a football game. The only thing tyers can win are percentage points in the eyes of a league that must calculate a "win percentage" for purposes of ranking records.

 

In case you still disagree, imagine a team whose entire season ended in ties (record of 0-0-16). Surely it would be crazy to say that they literally won eight games. Nah, man; they didn't win any freaking games. To win, after all, you must outscore your opponent, which this hypothetical team never did. The fact that they would have a win percentage of .500 in the eyes of the league doesn't change that one iota.

 

So, I still say that to be a winning team (in the most relevant sense), a team needs to win more games than they do not win Thus a team that finishes  8-7-1 will have won just as many games as it did not win, and therefore, is not a winning team (in the most relevant sense.) Those who wish to appeal to statistics should notice that we could state my  interpretation of "winning vs. not winning" statistically as well. An 8-7-1 team will have won .500 of its games and not won .500 of its games in my sense (which, again, is the ordinary, literal sense of winning according to which winning=outscoring the other team.)

 

To conclude, there are two senses of "winning" at issue here. The first is the sense in which the Panthers can be said to have won half a game last week. I find that sense useful only for purposes of ranking records and think it silly to take it literally. The second is the sense in which the Panthers did not win any games last week. That strikes me as the most literal sense of "winning." Thus should, God forbid, the Panthers go 8-7-1 this year, I think it would be quite out of place for anyone to say that they (finally) had back-to-back winning seasons.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, I'm a dork.

 

Maybe we will tie again the final week of the season and go 7-7-1 to make it easy for you.  Of course then we would have won less than half our games so it gets you into a whole new scenario.

 

[Goondal]

I think we are going to need 9 wins.  New Orleans has been awful but that will not conitnue forever and they still have six games in that stupid dome of theirs (still have not lost there).  If they take seven at home and beat the Bucs and one other team on the road then that is 9-7.  We need to finish 6-3.  This is very doable as every game is winnable, but things really need to change.  With the way we are playing I cannot see how we win more than maybe one game against Brees and Ryan.  They are going to carve us up and I do not trust Shula and Rivera to have the game plan capable of keeping us in those games.  Something needs to change and change now.

[the_philosopher]

Maybe we will tie again the final week of the season and go 7-7-1 to make it easy for you.  Of course then we would have won less than half our games so it gets you into a whole new scenario.

 

 

I think you mean 7-7-2. And yeah, that's fun to think about too.

[the_philosopher]

By the way, I think the best way to use a hypothetical example to challenge my view would be to imagine a record of 7-0-9. Such a record would not meet my condition of "winning more than half of the games you play" but would probably strike many as worthy of the name "winning" record nonetheless.

 

I don't think it would feel like a winning season to me, though (or to the players who only won 7 games). But I gotta say that this example makes me hesitate.

[Goondal]

I think you mean 7-7-2. And yeah, that's fun to think about too.

 

haha, you are correct.  To think, I was just assisting a second grader with math.

[the_philosopher]

For someone whose name is the philosopher you really are not very intelligent.

 

This sounds like a personal insult to me.

 

Edit: I meant to say, "This here hurt my poor ol dumb feelings."

[BearCat]

Does anybody know for sure whether or not Hardy is on the November 17 docket?

 

If it hasn't been decided, when will the decision be made?

 

Thanks for the info.

[Nick_81]

Does anybody know for sure whether or not Hardy is on the November 17 docket?

 

If it hasn't been decided, when will the decision be made?

 

Thanks for the info.

Last I heard, his attorney was trying to get it started as scheduled.  You never know though.

[iamhubby1]

I still disagree with you. In my view, a 2-1-13 season would not deserve to be called a winning season even though the team would have won more games than it lost (which is all you require for a winning season).

 

Edit: Just to be clear, my view is that a truly winning season is one in which you win more than half of the games you play.

It does not matter how you go about it, as long as you win more than you lose, it is a winning season.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove, but...winning more than you lose is winning.

You still may miss the playoffs, but as long as you win more games than you lose, you have yourself a winning season. It may suck as a fan, and it may not get you anything other than a decent draft pick. But, you won more than you lost.

Other than that, I am done.