|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Feb 7, 2017 15:30:52 GMT -5
History with an asterix, since who knows what would have happened had the Falcons actually had a chance offensively.
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Bulldozers on Feb 7, 2017 16:37:24 GMT -5
History with an asterix, since who knows what would have happened had the Falcons actually had a chance offensively. The Falcons had no chance, they were screwed once the Patriots got their first touchdown. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Feb 7, 2017 16:47:06 GMT -5
They had no chance because the rules prohibited them from having a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Bulldozers on Feb 7, 2017 22:48:26 GMT -5
Either way the Falcons were gonna lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Feb 8, 2017 3:50:35 GMT -5
Either way the Falcons were gonna lose. That's not how sports work. If it were, Ronda Rousey would still be champion, Crosby would have 11 Stanley Cups, and the Toronto Maple Leafs would be dead last in the NHL. The point of a sport is you actually play the game, and let the outcome decide itself. Not just listen to a bunch of jack-offs babble about betting odds, and who is better on paper. As I said, the game is broken when one person/team has the chance to win it based on nothing more than a coin toss. Imagine if the Stanley Cup was awarded in a shootout, and if the first team shooting scored on thier first shot, they won the game, and subsequently the Stanley Cup. Sound dumb-tarded yet? |
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Bulldozers on Feb 8, 2017 9:00:18 GMT -5
Either way the Falcons were gonna lose. That's not how sports work. If it were, Ronda Rousey would still be champion, Crosby would have 11 Stanley Cups, and the Toronto Maple Leafs would be dead last in the NHL. The point of a sport is you actually play the game, and let the outcome decide itself. Not just listen to a bunch of jack-offs babble about betting odds, and who is better on paper. As I said, the game is broken when one person/team has the chance to win it based on nothing more than a coin toss. Imagine if the Stanley Cup was awarded in a shootout, and if the first team shooting scored on thier first shot, they won the game, and subsequently the Stanley Cup. Sound dumb-tarded yet? I didn't say I agreed with it, I said the Patriots would've won regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Feb 8, 2017 9:55:31 GMT -5
Says literally everyone after-the-fact. But that is very clearly not the point. The game itself is flawed to a point where we don't even know that to be true. It's speculation. And since pretty much any team can win if given 100% of the offensive opportunity compared to the other teams 0%, it's completely meaningless speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Texas Rattlesnakes on Feb 8, 2017 10:27:51 GMT -5
Says literally everyone after-the-fact. But that is very clearly not the point. The game itself is flawed to a point where we don't even know that to be true. It's speculation. And since pretty much any team can win if given 100% of the offensive opportunity compared to the other teams 0%, it's completely meaningless speculation. The Falcons had an offensive opportunity right before. It was the Patriots ball, and basically went into sudden death while it was their ball. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Feb 8, 2017 15:01:09 GMT -5
Says literally everyone after-the-fact. But that is very clearly not the point. The game itself is flawed to a point where we don't even know that to be true. It's speculation. And since pretty much any team can win if given 100% of the offensive opportunity compared to the other teams 0%, it's completely meaningless speculation. The Falcons had an offensive opportunity right before. It was the Patriots ball, and basically went into sudden death while it was their ball. Turn-based games cannot have "sudden death". There is no fair equal opportunity. You follow baseball, I do not know why you are arguing this. If the Cubs were at home, they went into extra innings, and their opponents scored a run, but the Cubs got 0 at-bats in extra innings, you would not argue that was fair based on "They had a chance in regulation." Overtime is completely different. |
|
|
|
Post by The Texas Rattlesnakes on Feb 8, 2017 15:07:21 GMT -5
The Falcons had an offensive opportunity right before. It was the Patriots ball, and basically went into sudden death while it was their ball. Turn-based games cannot have "sudden death". There is no fair equal opportunity. You follow baseball, I do not know why you are arguing this. If the Cubs were at home, they went into extra innings, and their opponents scored a run, but the Cubs got 0 at-bats in extra innings, you would not argue that was fair based on "They had a chance in regulation." Overtime is completely different. The referee stated that the game would now go into sudden death, baseball and football are completely different, so it's hard to compare them. |
|
|
|
Post by The Sandmen on Feb 8, 2017 15:49:01 GMT -5
It is not hard to compare baseball and football, in terms of their basic play format. They both rely on a turn-based, offence/defence rotaion. One team has an offensive opportunity, then the other team has an offensive opportunity. That is how both games are played. If you only give one team an offensive opportunity, the game is fundamentally flawed.
At this point, I am not even sure why people are arguing with me. No one is arguing that the game is BETTER by having sudden death, coin-toss-decided outcomes. Would people be just has happy with sudden death of the Falcons won the coin toss, scored, and the historic comeback never had a chance to happen because the Patriots lost a coin toss?
|
|
Have 9 points in celebration of this monumental achievement!
Jan 21, 2021 13:09:55 GMT -5
*
Have 9 points in celebration of this monumental achievement!
Jan 21, 2021 13:09:55 GMT -5
*
