WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News
Loading...


Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > The WrestleZone Forum Archives > Non-Wrestling Archives > Sports Debater's League
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-04-2011, 04:21 PM
Baller's Avatar
Baller Baller is offline
WZCW Veteran
WWE Diva's Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florida
Age: 23
Posts: 523
Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...Baller worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatehabsforever View Post
In the end, though, especially at this time of the year as they prepare to flex their muscles yet again after a decade of dominance, I decided to give the nod for the greatest streak in professional team sports to the New England Patriots. A win streak of 21 games, spanning 10/03/03 to 10/31/04, more than a full calendar year, this in my mind equates to the greatest winning streak of all time.

Professional football (North American style) is a physical and grueling affair. It requires physical toughness, speed, agility, elusiveness, etc., on both sides of the football . To pull off a streak of this magnitude, you need to be able to stay healthy, especially at the quarterback position, and if you are unable to stay healthy, you have to be resilient enough, deep enough, and mentally tough enough to overcome adversity. You need to be well coached, and of course it goes without saying that Bill Belichek more than fits the bill in this regard.

You need to be balanced enough and versatile enough to be able to excel in all sorts of weather conditions, especially in the sometimes less than friendly weather conditions of the northeastern USA. You must be able to withstand factors beyond your direct control, such as the human error of referees which can adversely affect the outcome of any game at any time. And or course, you need to possess the most daunting thing of all, that being lady luck. You can be a supremely gifted team comprising an all-star calibre roster with a coaching staff beyond reproach, but an unlucky bounce, a fluky tip, whatever, and in the blink of an eye, it all comes crashing down and while the end result may be a very impressive season, the winning streak itself is over. If you don't believe me, look at the same franchise a few years later, who were one miraculous quarterback escape and one circus catch away from a perfect season, yet another extremely impressive winning streak, the type of perfection not seen since in Miami in 1972.

What also makes this streak impressive to me is the fact that the New England Patriots have been the epitome of success for a decade now. The streak which I mention is bookended by tremendous displays of excellence over such an extended period of time.


No disrespect to the individual accomplishments of Julio Cesar Chavez or Rafael Nadal. All props to De La Salle in high school football, or the UCLA Bruins in college. Congratulations to all of the other worthy candidates to receive attention for their displays of excellence in terms of winning streaks. But from where I am sitting, let's give credit where credit is due. In the greatest professional league in North American sports, namely the NFL, no need to look beyond the New England Patriots of 2003/2004. And here's to hoping that while there is no such winning streak at stake this season, that they can string together three consecutive victories this January and capture the Vince Lombardi trophy one more time.
The New England Patriots 21 game streak is another incredibly impressive streak, however, the Patriots did something that the 1972 Dolphins could not, and that is to it from Game 1 of the season to the Super Bowl. The Patriots streak started after a 2-2 start and carried onto the next season. That takes amazing skills to go on and win 21 games in a row including the playoffs, however most people don't remember the Patriots for that, I remember the Pats for winning 3 in 4 Super Bowls, while I remember 1972 Dolphins for their undefeated season.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
The UConn women were in tight games for exactly 2 of their 90 games that they won. Hell they won 26 games by 30-39 points and 15 more by 40-49 and 13 by 50-59. That's 54 games won by AT LEAST 54 points. That's incredibly remarkable. Not to mention the little amount of time that they spent behind (which I pointed out was approx. 1 and 1/2 minutes a game). And they faced tough competition as well (30 ranked teams). And the target on the back grew bigger with them with each win they notched. You know its a big deal when the president calls you to congratulate you on breaking another great streak (UCLA Men's 88 straight).

(Proof of these stats: http://espn.go.com/ncw/topics/_/page...ies-win-streak)
As impressive as the Connecticut Huskies streak of 90 games is, this simple reason is why UConn's run is not as impressive as Ed Moses.

College Recruiting/Lack of Elite Teams

College sports especially women's basketball where there is only a dozen elite schools in the country, and there is are many great high school prospects around the country, and the majority of them will go to these 12 schools. It really limits the amount of competition and UConn dominates the recruiting process, to give them the best players. I know this is not to the fault to UConn but to me the fact that you can stack your rosters and it makes for less competition hence hurting the amazing streak by UConn.

For Moses' event everybody is on an equal playing field, you are by yourself and it requires your own skill to dominate the event. Granted UConn definitely had to perform their skill on the court, but they were able to stack the roster on their side.

The Streak Has Been Done Before

The UCLA Bruins streak of 88 games is a more impressive streak the the Huskies due to the fact that there was more parity in the men's division at that time compared to the women's division of now. There is maybe 4 or 5 teams that have a realistic shot at winning a championship with 6 or 7 other quality teams, however when the Bruins went on there run there was a good 15-20 teams that were extremely capable of winning a title.

Quote:
Actually, Iolanda Balas from Romania won 140 straight high jumping competitions (a field event) and it lasted for over a decade (Dec. 1956 - June 1967). So there you go, another person has dominated a field event for a longer period of time, and broke 14 records of her own.

(Proof: http://www.sports-reference.com/olym...a-balas-1.html)
Wow, I honestly have not heard of that streak but instead of saying track and field, I should've focused on track which is what Mr. Moses competed in, and to my knowledge nobody has ever created such a streak as Mr. Moses, even the fastest man on the planet Usain Bolt could ever put together such a streak. But good job Megatron on disproving me with a field streak.

There is nobody in track events that could accomplish such a streak as Mr. Moses however there have been multiple streaks on the basketball court, football field, boxing ring, etc. Yes a field streak has been done but there will be nobody who could do something as remarkable as what Edwin Moses did on the track and that is fact.
__________________



credit to Red Skull!
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:10 PM
The Crock's Avatar
The Crock The Crock is offline
WOO!
WCW TV Champion
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,644
The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...The Crock is a Television Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Disarray View Post
Probably because won 87 straight fights, not 88. If you're going to make the opening post, the least you could do is get your facts straight.
Yes, I am very well aware of that. I did it in 2 posts. I noticed it last night, but it was too late to edit. Regardless, you get the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
The UConn women were in tight games for exactly 2 of their 90 games that they won. Hell they won 26 games by 30-39 points and 15 more by 40-49 and 13 by 50-59. That's 54 games won by AT LEAST 54 points. That's incredibly remarkable. Not to mention the little amount of time that they spent behind (which I pointed out was approx. 1 and 1/2 minutes a game). And they faced tough competition as well (30 ranked teams). And the target on the back grew bigger with them with each win they notched. You know its a big deal when the president calls you to congratulate you on breaking another great streak (UCLA Men's 88 straight).

(Proof of these stats: http://espn.go.com/ncw/topics/_/page...ies-win-streak)

Also, the man who Chavez lost to, Frankie Randall, was a HUGE underdog (18 to 1 odds on him for the fight). That has to cheapen that streak that Chavez lost to a guy that isn't a hall of famer, went 58-18 (which isn't THAT great for a boxer, even with many of those losses coming at the tail end of his career). It wasn't that one of the best got Chavez for a day, but rather he lost to a heavy underdog. UConn, however, lost to a Top 10 Stanford team that hadn't lost at their own home in 52 games. A top team was finally able to figure them out, and this wasn't as out there (Baylor had UConn in the ropes earlier in the year but lost by a point) as an 18 to 1 underdog pulling off the upset. It looks worse when a underdog beats you compared to a team with similar talent.
Saying that they faced tough competition to me is a bit of a cop out. In Women's College Basketball there aren't many TRULY elite teams. Sure, there are 15 I'd say that are great programs, but past that you don't have much. UConn pretty much "monopolized" recruiting and picked up all the star players so to me it really isn't any surprise that they won their games so handily. Also... COME ON, the President calls every championship team/team that does well. He's a huge sports fan, it's not that special.

Just because Chavez didn't lose to a Hall of Famer doesn't make him worse. Look at a guy like Sammy Angott, a boxing HOF inductee. His career record was 99 wins, 28 losses, and 8 draws. Here's another guy, Joe Brown. 104 wins, 44 losses, and 13 draws, another HOFer right there. Trust me, Randall had 18 losses in his career, that's not that bad, and as a matter of fact he was a damn good boxer too.


Quote:
I'd go and argue that this record streak is the thing that has helped put Women's basketball on the map. Will it ever achieve record breaking ratings? No, people just aren't that into women's basketball. However, it did help people take notice and say 'hey, these girls won 90 straight games? that's incredible'. It helped people realize that women can play sports well too and that there truly are some talented college teams out there.
That is a big thing in college basketball, but not THE thing. Look at Candace Parker and how much attention she got Women's Basketball. People talked about her all the time, and that sure as hell got them attention. Then again, things like having women participate in NBA All-Star Weekend don't hurt either. Sure, it's an impressive streak and people certainly talked about it, but I don't think THAT was the thing that led people to thinking "Hmm, these girls really can play."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-04-2011, 11:33 PM
Megatron's Avatar
Megatron Megatron is offline
Justin Verlander > You
WWE Women's Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 887
Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Disarray View Post
You can't simply use rankings as a justification for stiff competition. Is beating a ranked women's team really that impressive? Once you get outside of the top 10 or so there really isn't much parity. You can't just go by an arbitrary rankins system and claim their competition was difficult.
Beating the teams the way they did sure as hell is impressive.

Quote:
Like a said before, the competition in the women's game just isn't the same. It isn't sexism, it's a fact. Outside of a handful of programs (UConn, Tennessee, Standford) there really aren't that many formidable opponents out there.
UConn has to go out and get the same players that these other colleges get. It's not like they're getting WNBA players. It's fair game for everyone, and you shouldn't ridicule UConn for getting the right players to fit their scheme for 90 straight games.
Quote:
Also, when they did struggle it was on the biggest stage of them all. Against Stanford in the national title game last year when the most people were watching, they shit the bed. That was one of the worst basketball games I've ever watched. On a stage when they had a chance to show how good they were they just proved why women's basketball is considered inferior.
They struggled, yet they still won the national title, which makes it more impressive. As bad as they played for that game, they still managed to win their 2nd straight national championship.

And if the UCLA men's streak happened now there could be plenty of instances when it's seen that they play like shit. However, their streak happened over 30 years ago, well before anyone on this forum could remember their dominance. Why should they get a free pass because they played in the 70's and no one here has seen their shitty play (and obviously they weren't great every game, seeing as 15 of their games were in single digits), yet UConn is ridiculed for having one bad game, after 77 straight dominating performances, which they won, against the #2 team in the nation who has some pretty good players as well. Sorry they couldn't blow out the #2 team in the nation to prove their worth. In fact, I'd say that close win helped them, because it showed that they could win, even with adversity and against equal competition.

Quote:
Back to some of yours later, but I'm surprised no one has picked the best option yet, which is UCLA Men's Basketball, who won 88 games in a row from 1971 to 1974. They won 3 national titles during the streak, had an average margin of victory of over 23 points per game, and are considered one of the greatest sports teams of all time.
I'd like to point out that the UConn women won by an average margin of victory of at least 30 points per game against their equals. 23 is obviously impressive, and these women showed that they could do even better.

Quote:
Obvisously this has been compared to the UConn streak a lot recently, but it really shouldn't be an argument. Men's basketball, even in the 70's, consisted of a much hihger level of competition than any form or women's basketball. UCLA's 15 single digit victories during the streak are a testament to this parity and how they were able to fight adversity. Isn't it more impressive to win multiple close games over quality opponents throughout a streak than it is to blowout a bunch of shitbums with two or three legitimately good teams mixed in?
I see, so when UCLA wins close games they deserve credit because it's against good competition, but when UConn wins close games they're shit on because they aren't as good as what people think and they were just beating up on bad teams (even though they were considered good by the people that follow the sport). Nice to see blatant contradictions with this gem.

And explain to me how these teams UCLA played against were so great when you weren't even alive when the streak was happening. The UConn women were thrashing teams that were considered to be some of the best by the people that watch them.

And blowing people out day in and day out is more impressive because it's most IMPRESSIVE streak. How can you look and see what UConn has done (77 straight wins by double digits) and say that it isn't impressive. I don't care WHO you play, sometimes you are going to have a bad day, no matter if you're Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson or any other great basketball player. Yet, these UConn women won their 77 straight games handily, had a close call against Stanford, then pulled off 12 more in the next season, without one of their best players ever (Tina Charles).

Quote:
The higher level of competition should more than make up for the fact that UConn won a measely 2 more games than UCLA. Just because it's a streak that happened recently it doesn't mean it's the best one ever. Let your young minds explore the past a bit.
It's not just that UConn had more, but HOW they did it - by absolutely murdering their opponents (save for Stanford once and Baylor this past year).

And just because the record streak was broken by women instead of men doesn't mean that they shouldn't get the respect they deserve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizter Baller View Post
.As impressive as the Connecticut Huskies streak of 90 games is, this simple reason is why UConn's run is not as impressive as Ed Moses.

College Recruiting/Lack of Elite Teams

College sports especially women's basketball where there is only a dozen elite schools in the country, and there is are many great high school prospects around the country, and the majority of them will go to these 12 schools. It really limits the amount of competition and UConn dominates the recruiting process, to give them the best players. I know this is not to the fault to UConn but to me the fact that you can stack your rosters and it makes for less competition hence hurting the amazing streak by UConn.
So you're going to go against UConn simply because they recruited better players then any school in the country? It's not like this is Kemba Walker and the rest of the UConn Men's Basketball team playing against these women teams. It's Maya Moore and UConn going against the same sex. Why not blame the other schools for not matching these women up in talent? Punishing them for getting the best players is ridiculous.

Quote:
For Moses' event everybody is on an equal playing field, you are by yourself and it requires your own skill to dominate the event. Granted UConn definitely had to perform their skill on the court, but they were able to stack the roster on their side.
And UConn had to work as a cohesive team night in, night out, to win their games. It's not like it was 'spread everyone out and let Maya Moore drive to the lane'. You COULDN'T just rely on yourself, otherwise you're gonna get dominated 10 times out of 10. Nobody can score all of the points, get all of the rebounds, and make all of the assists by themselves.

And there you are again trying to punish UConn for getting the best players to fit their system. There's more then 15 talented womens basketball players in the United States. Other schools can do the exact same thing UConn has done, and nobody is restricted from anyone. To say that they shouldn't get credit for finding the best players for Geno's system is stupid.

Quote:
The Streak Has Been Done Before

The UCLA Bruins streak of 88 games is a more impressive streak the the Huskies due to the fact that there was more parity in the men's division at that time compared to the women's division of now. There is maybe 4 or 5 teams that have a realistic shot at winning a championship with 6 or 7 other quality teams, however when the Bruins went on there run there was a good 15-20 teams that were extremely capable of winning a title.
The streak has been done, but UConn did them better by two games.

And can someone please name all of these great teams? Just because its a mens basketball team doesn't automatically make them stiffer competition. I want to hear of these 15-20 teams that are so called 'capable of winning a title'. Hell, now there might not be more then 10 or so real contenders to the national championship. All of the rest make cinderella runs that nobody would have expected (Butler, George Mason).

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Crock View Post
Saying that they faced tough competition to me is a bit of a cop out. In Women's College Basketball there aren't many TRULY elite teams. Sure, there are 15 I'd say that are great programs, but past that you don't have much. UConn pretty much "monopolized" recruiting and picked up all the star players so to me it really isn't any surprise that they won their games so handily. Also... COME ON, the President calls every championship team/team that does well. He's a huge sports fan, it's not that special.
This is the same argument that I've just responded to twice now. You're going to punish Geno for getting the best players to fit his system? Why not punish the teams that failed to get these recruits and couldn't figure out how to beat him? And it's not like UConn stole every single recruit out there. They can only field a dozen or so on a team, and there's definitely more then just 12 talented players in women's college basketball.

Quote:
Just because Chavez didn't lose to a Hall of Famer doesn't make him worse. Look at a guy like Sammy Angott, a boxing HOF inductee. His career record was 99 wins, 28 losses, and 8 draws. Here's another guy, Joe Brown. 104 wins, 44 losses, and 13 draws, another HOFer right there. Trust me, Randall had 18 losses in his career, that's not that bad, and as a matter of fact he was a damn good boxer too.
But you're going to say that losing to a heavy underdog is good thing? Chavez was expected to slaughter Randall, for good reason, but one of the best all time (in his prime) couldn't beat Randall? When UConn lost, they lost to a team of their equal skill, and showed that there were other teams that could play ball in Womens College basketball.

Quote:
That is a big thing in college basketball, but not THE thing. Look at Candace Parker and how much attention she got Women's Basketball. People talked about her all the time, and that sure as hell got them attention. Then again, things like having women participate in NBA All-Star Weekend don't hurt either. Sure, it's an impressive streak and people certainly talked about it, but I don't think THAT was the thing that led people to thinking "Hmm, these girls really can play."
These girls broke a record that people thought would be untouchable for the text of time. Not one person could've guessed that these girls would take this streak to 90 games. It really put them on the map. Their games were constantly put on ESPN and ESPN2 as they got closer because people were interested at how long this streak could last.

And Candace Parker may be the talk for a decade or so, yet (unless they get overtaken) this UConn women's streak will be held in the highest regard as the best of all time.
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-05-2011, 06:23 PM
gd's Avatar
gd gd is offline
Plump, Juicy User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 2,716
gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
Beating the teams the way they did sure as hell is impressive.
Not really. Playing a completely outmatched opponent and beating them by 30 is much easier and less impressive than playing a comparable opponent and beating them in a tight game.

Quote:
UConn has to go out and get the same players that these other colleges get. It's not like they're getting WNBA players. It's fair game for everyone, and you shouldn't ridicule UConn for getting the right players to fit their scheme for 90 straight games.
That isn't the argument. I'm not saying that UConn didn't do a great job of recruiting and getting superior players. But because they were so much better than everybody else their streak actually becomes less impressive. With the talent they had compared to everybody else, they should have won 90 games in a row.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron, proving my point
They struggled, yet they still won the national title, which makes it more impressive. As bad as they played for that game, they still managed to win their 2nd straight national championship.
So you're saying being in a tight game and fighting for a tough victory is more impressive than blowing out shitty opponents? Thanks for seeing my side.

Quote:
And if the UCLA men's streak happened now there could be plenty of instances when it's seen that they play like shit. However, their streak happened over 30 years ago, well before anyone on this forum could remember their dominance. Why should they get a free pass because they played in the 70's and no one here has seen their shitty play (and obviously they weren't great every game, seeing as 15 of their games were in single digits), yet UConn is ridiculed for having one bad game, after 77 straight dominating performances, which they won, against the #2 team in the nation who has some pretty good players as well. Sorry they couldn't blow out the #2 team in the nation to prove their worth. In fact, I'd say that close win helped them, because it showed that they could win, even with adversity and against equal competition.
Once again, you're making my point. Facing adversity and tight games only makes a streak more impressive, which is why UCLA has such an edge on UConn. They were involved in way more tight games against good teams, and came out victorious everytime.

The point I was trying to make about the national title game was who UConn had the worst game on the biggest stage with the most people watching, which certainly took away from their streak some. UCLA, which won 3 titles druing their streak to UConn's, had an average margin of victory of over 10 points a game in championship contests against great teams with players like Larry Finch, Larry Kenon, and Howard Porter.

Quote:
I'd like to point out that the UConn women won by an average margin of victory of at least 30 points per game against their equals. 23 is obviously impressive, and these women showed that they could do even better.
It's not simply about numbers, that's just a silly way to argue. The fact that UConn beats Howard by 80 points is much less impressive than UCLA beating Notre Dame by 10 points.

Quote:
I see, so when UCLA wins close games they deserve credit because it's against good competition, but when UConn wins close games they're shit on because they aren't as good as what people think and they were just beating up on bad teams (even though they were considered good by the people that follow the sport). Nice to see blatant contradictions with this gem.
I've said it before, UConn shit their pants in the one game where the most people were watching and played some of he worst basketball I've ever seen. It's not just that it was a close game, it was that it was a close game where they played absolutey horribly during the only time they were on a big stage all year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron, not making any sense
And explain to me how these teams UCLA played against were so great when you weren't even alive when the streak was happening. The UConn women were thrashing teams that were considered to be some of the best by the people that watch them.
What the fuck kind of argument is that? Because I wasn't alive the teams UCLA played weren't good? Once again, that's just a silly, juvenille way to argue. You can't just say my argument doesn't work because I wasn't alive and follow that up with some vague statement saying UConn was good without any real evidence. Here's a list of high quality, national powers UCLA played during the streak and how many times they beat them, not to mention the mid level teams that were talented as well, which is the big difference between the men's and women's game.

USC (6) Long Beach State (2), Notre Dame (4), Stanford (6), and San Francisco (2).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron, contradicting himself
And blowing people out day in and day out is more impressive because it's most IMPRESSIVE streak. How can you look and see what UConn has done (77 straight wins by double digits) and say that it isn't impressive. I don't care WHO you play, sometimes you are going to have a bad day, no matter if you're Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson or any other great basketball player. Yet, these UConn women won their 77 straight games handily, had a close call against Stanford, then pulled off 12 more in the next season, without one of their best players ever (Tina Charles).
You argued above than UConn's win against Stanford was more impressive because it was a close game, but now are arguing that blowing out a bunch of cupcakes is more impressive. I'm confused ot what you're trying to do here.

Quote:
It's not just that UConn had more, but HOW they did it - by absolutely murdering their opponents (save for Stanford once and Baylor this past year).
Pretty sure if they murdered anyone they'd be incarcirated by now.

Quote:
And just because the record streak was broken by women instead of men doesn't mean that they shouldn't get the respect they deserve.
Yes it absolutely does matter because the women's and men's games are completely different. Men's division 1 college basketball is and always has been much deeper than women's college basketball. The difference in competiton between UConn and UCLA is significant. Just because UConn's streak was a few games longer it most certainly doens't mean it was more impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hyourinmaru View Post
it's a prestarted family. My Girlfriend has a 3 year old

Last edited by gd : 01-05-2011 at 06:42 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-06-2011, 08:55 PM
Megatron's Avatar
Megatron Megatron is offline
Justin Verlander > You
WWE Women's Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 887
Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Disarray View Post
Not really. Playing a completely outmatched opponent and beating them by 30 is much easier and less impressive than playing a comparable opponent and beating them in a tight game.
UConn has beaten many top 15 teams badly throughout the streak, though. In 08-09 they beat #4 OU by 28, @ #2 UNC by 30, #10 Louisville by 28, Louisville again when they were #7 by 39, Stanford by 19, and Louisville yet again by 22.

In 09-10 they beat @ #10 Texas by 25, #2 Stanford by 22, #11 Florida State by 19, #7 UNC by 41, #7 Duke by 33, #12 OU by 16, #3 Notre Dame by 24, #8 West Virginia by 33, #11 Georgetown by 22, Notre Dame again when they were #8 by 24, another win over ND when they were #7 in the Big East tournament by 15, #8 WVU by 28, #11 FSU by 40, and #14 Baylor by 20.

There's a lot of quality teams there, and UConn stomped all over them rather easily. All of these teams are top 15 because they have talent. It's never easy to blow out teams, especially highly ranked teams, each time you go out.

Quote:
That isn't the argument. I'm not saying that UConn didn't do a great job of recruiting and getting superior players. But because they were so much better than everybody else their streak actually becomes less impressive. With the talent they had compared to everybody else, they should have won 90 games in a row.
There's plenty of talented teams that they've simply dominated from tip-off. And yes they had more talent, but, especially in basketball, sometimes the best teams won't win every single game, because there's going to be days when you're shooting cold and just aren't into it. So to say that anybody should win 90 games in a row is absurd, especially now that there's more talent coming into womens basketball annually.

Quote:
So you're saying being in a tight game and fighting for a tough victory is more impressive than blowing out shitty opponents? Thanks for seeing my side.
No, what I'm saying is they played very bad (for their standards) and still managed to win that game. If anyone else plays like the way UConn did in that game, they're probably gonna lose. It's impressive that they could play the way they did and still beat a team of equal footing.

Quote:
Once again, you're making my point. Facing adversity and tight games only makes a streak more impressive, which is why UCLA has such an edge on UConn. They were involved in way more tight games against good teams, and came out victorious everytime.

The point I was trying to make about the national title game was who UConn had the worst game on the biggest stage with the most people watching, which certainly took away from their streak some. UCLA, which won 3 titles druing their streak to UConn's, had an average margin of victory of over 10 points a game in championship contests against great teams with players like Larry Finch, Larry Kenon, and Howard Porter.
I should've clarified, it was impressive that UConn won because of the way they played, yet they still pulled it out.

And because one game where they played flat (even though they still won) it takes away from their streak? That's really not fair to UConn, especially after they wiped the floor with Louisville the year before anyways (in their first National Championship game). They were due for having a close game after going 77 in a row decided by double digits. To say that one bad game, regardless when it was, takes away their merit some is absurd.

Quote:
It's not simply about numbers, that's just a silly way to argue. The fact that UConn beats Howard by 80 points is much less impressive than UCLA beating Notre Dame by 10 points.
It's not just them beating Howard by 80. I gave you a great list of top 15 teams that they've dominated in the 2 year stretch. Beating top 15 teams like that IS more impressive.

Quote:
I've said it before, UConn shit their pants in the one game where the most people were watching and played some of he worst basketball I've ever seen. It's not just that it was a close game, it was that it was a close game where they played absolutey horribly during the only time they were on a big stage all year.
To expect them to win handily in the biggest game of the season is absurd. Stanford has talent, and deserves credit with keeping the game within a close margin. And they've had many big games before and won decisively (vs. ND in 09 which was the first Women's game on College Gameday, their multiple top 5 matchups). To punish them for ONE bad game is dumb. That's like saying UCLA should be punished for only beating Villanova by 6 in the NCAA Final in 71.

Don't give me the argument that the men's talent is deeper so it shouldn't be expected that they win by 20, while UConn should. Stanford is a hell of a team, and UConn should have no shame for only winning by 6.

Quote:
What the fuck kind of argument is that? Because I wasn't alive the teams UCLA played weren't good? Once again, that's just a silly, juvenille way to argue. You can't just say my argument doesn't work because I wasn't alive and follow that up with some vague statement saying UConn was good without any real evidence. Here's a list of high quality, national powers UCLA played during the streak and how many times they beat them, not to mention the mid level teams that were talented as well, which is the big difference between the men's and women's game.

USC (6) Long Beach State (2), Notre Dame (4), Stanford (6), and San Francisco (2).
That's 20 of 88, UConn has at least 22 against good teams (counting the ones I listed at the top and Baylor + OSU, both top 10 teams, from this year) and has 2 more. UConn has played their fair share of quality opponents, and to say they haven't is just wrong.

Quote:
You argued above than UConn's win against Stanford was more impressive because it was a close game, but now are arguing that blowing out a bunch of cupcakes is more impressive. I'm confused ot what you're trying to do here.
Again, I should've clarified by saying that it was impressive because they played like shit and still pulled it out. 77 straight blow outs (plus a few after) is more impressive then winning a bunch of close ones. It's tough to go out there, day in, day out, and win decisively.

Quote:
Yes it absolutely does matter because the women's and men's games are completely different. Men's division 1 college basketball is and always has been much deeper than women's college basketball. The difference in competiton between UConn and UCLA is significant. Just because UConn's streak was a few games longer it most certainly doens't mean it was more impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
UConn has played their fair share of top 15 teams (at least 22 by my count) along with a few more ranked. It's not like UConn was playing North Dakota State, Tennessee-Chattanooga, and Florida Internationals every game. They were taking it to very talented teams almost with ease. To devalue their streak because 'the talent isn't as deep' isn't right with the amount of great teams that they've played.

And it certainly should matter that they had a longer streak, because it's the same sport (college basketball) and they've both played great opponents. UCLA's was great, but UConn's was a little bit better because it lasted longer. Winning 90 games in any sport is amazing, and it should definitely be thought of as the best, because of the large margins of victory and high caliber teams they've beaten.
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-06-2011, 09:08 PM
LSN80's Avatar
LSN80 LSN80 is offline
Registered User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,680
LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...
Default

Winning is the essence of why most of us watch sports in the first place. We all have our home teams that we root for, and seeing them go on a streak makes watching even more entertaining. One of my favorite memories from being younger was watching the Penguins go on a 17 game winning streak, and the high drama that was attached to each and every shot, save, and goal. The streak really felt special. When they lost it officially in a tie of all things, I was disheartened. And while this streak was impressive, it doesnt top the list for me.

There are so many ways to go here, and so many moments to pick from. I just referenced the high drama of the Penguins winning streak, which still stands 17 years later in hockey. Other great ones of note include the Patriots 23 game winning streak in 2003-2004, as well as the recent UConn women's basketball team winning 90 straight. Regardless of how I feel about women's basketball, my hat's off to these women.

I say all of this not to ramble, but to make a point. Team victories, winning streaks, and achievements are important, but to me, its the individuals that accomplish winning streaks of some kind that are most impressive. In most major sports, its considered a team game. Generally speaking however, a team streak is generally ended by a screw up not by an entire team, but by an individual player. As much as we hear about wins being "team wins" and losses being "team losses", its generally not true with the best. Its usually because one player makes the difference. Even though its not a winning streak, its Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak that began the coining of the phrase "streak" to this day that we use. I think LJL, Crock, and Baller are on the right track by listing individuals rather then teams. I will do the same, but i first want to comment on a few of the other posts.

Quote:
Originally posted by HateHabsForever>
In the end, though, especially at this time of the year as they prepare to flex their muscles yet again after a decade of dominance, I decided to give the nod for the greatest streak in professional team sports to the New England Patriots. A win streak of 21 games, spanning 10/03/03 to 10/31/04, more than a full calendar year, this in my mind equates to the greatest winning streak of all time.
Not a bad choice, but not one I would put at Number 1. For one, their own league doesn't even recognize the streak as being 21 games, its considered to be 18. Furthermore, the Colts broke the "official" record last year when they won 23 regular season games in a row. Its hard to consider this the greatest streak ever when it doesn't even earn top dog within its own organization. My other minor quibble is with how this came about, and ended. They fell in the regular season to my Steelers, then came back in the AFC Championship Game and smoked the Steelers 41-27 in a game that wasn't even that close. There was no parity whatsoever, so it takes a little bit of shine off the streak for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Megatron
UConn had trailed all of 134 minutes during the entire winning streak, including only 13 minutes in the second half. That is a whopping 1:29.3 seconds PER GAME. Out of 40 minutes, they averaged of being down less then 2 minutes of that.
-And many people bash this streak because of their lack of competition, which is also false. In fact, 30 of their 90 wins (an even 33.33%) were against ranked opponents. That is a hell of a lot of ranked teams.
-There were only 2 games out of the 90 where they won by single digits. Yes, 2 of 90, a shockingly low 2% of their games. And, like I mentioned, they played 30 ranked teams during the streak. Only 2 of them (Baylor and Stanford) managed to keep it within 9 points. That's remarkable.
-To continue on this single digit stat, the women won all of their first 77 games by double digits. I don't care who you are, if you can win 77 straight games in a row by double digits, you're pretty damn good.
-There was not one team that lead even a complete half of basketball during the streak. Stanford came close in the 2010 National Championship game, leading for 19:05. The only other team that surpassed 15 minutes was Notre Dame (who had 16:53) on February 22, 2009 (which UConn ended up winning by 10).
These are incredible stats, but the exact reason why I would argue this isn't the most impressive streak in history. The lack of competitiveness in these games is alarming. Say what you will for the dominance, but it takes away from the competiteness of the sport. If the game isn't competitive, it loses alot of luster. Without competition, its hard to be considered the most impressive.

Let me give you an example to further make my point. Lets say youre the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, and Im #2. You go on to defeat me in straight sets 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. Not a whole lot of competition there, and I dont really look like a credible opponent for you to make your name off of, do I? This is the same problem I see with the UConn's Women Basketball team. They've trailed less then 2 minutes per game, on average. Of the 90 wins, only 2 have been in single digits. Geno Auerioma can spin it however he likes, but there's UConn and everyone else in Women's Basketball. There's a lack of real competition that detracts from the impressiveness of the streak. Dont get me wrong: Winning 90 games in a row is an impressive feat. But the way they've done it on a consistent basis? Not so much.

Quote:
Originally posted by LittleJerryLawler
Byron Nelson's 11 Consecutive PGA Tour Wins
When one is playing golf, he or she is playing against maybe around 100 other golfers in the span of 4 days. That in and of itself makes even winning one tournament hard let alone 11 in a row. The course is an obstacle as well as Mother Nature. One day, it will be all sunny and not a trouble in the world. The next day, gusts of wind can affect even a chip shot. One hole can make or break a golfer such as the 17th hole at TPC Sawgrass. You have to be on your game for 4 days as opposed to 60 minutes of football or 48 minutes of basketball.
Dude, I am almost with you here, I really am. Not only do golfers have to battle the course and the elements, but golf is the most psychologically taxing game there is. The idea of sustaining one's game throughout 4 days as compared to 60 minutes in football or 9 innings in baseball as you said is far more difficult. Not only did Nelson do this once, but he did it eleven times. He's received universal praise from other golf legends such as Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods for this achievement. But.....

We were at war at the time, and it certainly watered down the field. The tour was significantly weakened as a result. Some of the top challengers were there, but its quite often in golf that the top players dont win the tournaments, as its the second tier that tend to capture alot of championships as well. One has to wonder if that would be the case here. While he impressively won two Master's before this streak, he never approached this streak again. This would leave me to believe that the war and the resulting watered down field did indeed play a bigger part then you would think. Couple that with the fact that he won only one major during the year, and that also leads me to believe that this is not the most impressive streak of all time. Its close, darn close, but its not number one in my mind.


So, as much as it pains me as a die-hard Steeler fan to say it.....

Tom Brady's ongoing 28 game winning streak at home is the greatest streak of all time.

Unlike so many of the other streaks mentioned and with all due respect toward them, they lacked the competiveness that Brady sees on a weekly basis. Despite his streak, he's not considered by some to even be the best QB in the NFL. This streak began in 2006, and has lasted through the current day in 2011. That's over four years of not losing a single football game at home folks. That's excellence in every way, and for several reasons.

Parity: Unlike an Edwin Moses or the UConn women, Brady plays in a league chalk full of excellent QB's. Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Aaron Rodgers are listed in the same breath as Tom Brady as the best QB'd right now in the game. But unlike Brady, none of these QB's have come close to this streak. The man whose streak he broke when he hit 26? None other then perhaps the greatest QB of all time, Brett Favre. A great achievement indeed.

Value to team:
As I stated earlier, a player, especially a QB, can be the difference between whether or not a team wins or loses a game. When Tom Brady injured his knee against the Kansas City Chiefs in the first game of 2008, the Patriots lost 3 games at home this year. So in one year with a pretty good QB in Matt Cassell, they couldnt maintain the team streak. But three and a half years strong, Tom Brady's personal streak is still intact. Anyone need further proof of how this streak is all about him? The average margain of victory with Brady at home in full seasons since the streak began is 20(2007), 16(2009), and 15(2010). Those numbers are mind boggling when you really consider them. The average margain of victory when Brady missed the 2008 season at home? 4. The numbers there speak for themselves. He also has averaged .65 interceptions per home game during the streak, and 2.7 TD passes. Both are tops in the league in home games from any QB from 2007 and on.

Beating good teams: Look, this isn't the UConn women or the UCLA men. In 2010 alone, New England with Brady at home has defeated Green Bay, Baltimore, the Jets, and Indianapolis. The average margain of victory against these playoff teams was 13(15 overall), which is mind boggling in showing Brady really has been consistent when playing the good teams and the bad at home. Its not just 2010 either, as Brady's margain of victory against playoff teams at home in 2009 was 12(16 overall), and 16(20 overall) in 2007. So Brady's performance hasn't wavered regardless of the competition.

Bouncing back from injury: When Brady injured his knee in 2008, there were thoughts that his career could possibly be over, or that he wouldn't be the same player anymore(ask Carson Palmer about that one.). Instead, he responded by winning the Offensive Player of the Week 3 times that year, all games at home. He also was named the Comeback player of the Year. This year, he averaged 2.4 TD's at home this year, and only .3 interceptions while being named Offensive Player of the Month for December. 3 of those games were, you guessed it, at home.

The times, they are a changing: Its easy to argue that The Patriots went 16-0 in 2007, and those 8 home wins there didn't hurt the streak. But alot of changes have taken place since then. Brady is no longer throwing to the 2007 corps of Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Dante' Stallworth, and Jabar Gaffney. Their former feature back in Laurence Maroney is gone. All of those players, including Randy Moss and his 98 catches and 23 TD's. The only remaining receiver is Welker, whose catches have dropped drastically by 27 from that season compared to this one. Brady is now throwing to Brandon Tate, Danny Woodhead, Julian Edelman, Rob Gronkowski, and Aaron Hernandez. While all of them are talented, theyre young and raw, but Brady has made each of them look like seasoned veterans. His ability to do so has been a huge part of the reason Ben-Jarvis Green Ellis has had such a successful season rushing the football.

Final Thoughts:I really dislike Tom Brady, alot. He's broken my heart many a time as a die-hard Steelers fan. But there's no denying the incredible nature of having a home winning streak of over four years, after bouncing back from knee surgery. The statistics don't lie, and there's no luck involved. There's no possible way to attribute this to Bill Bellicheck, his teammates, or luck because they lost 3 home games during the season he missed, and failed to make the playoffs. Brady will enter the 2011/2012 season with a chance to expand on this winning streak, and theres no reason to think that he wont based upon the 31 point win he and the Patriots put up in their last game of the season, at home. For these reasons, I submit that Tom Brady's 28 game home winning streak is the greatest winning streak of all time.
__________________

Last edited by LSN80 : 01-06-2011 at 09:19 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-06-2011, 09:26 PM
Megatron's Avatar
Megatron Megatron is offline
Justin Verlander > You
WWE Women's Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 887
Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSN80 View Post
These are incredible stats, but the exact reason why I would argue this isn't the most impressive streak in history. The lack of competitiveness in these games is alarming. Say what you will for the dominance, but it takes away from the competiteness of the sport. If the game isn't competitive, it loses alot of luster. Without competition, its hard to be considered the most impressive.

Let me give you an example to further make my point. Lets say youre the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, and Im #2. You go on to defeat me in straight sets 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. Not a whole lot of competition there, and I dont really look like a credible opponent for you to make your name off of, do I? This is the same problem I see with the UConn's Women Basketball team. They've trailed less then 2 minutes per game, on average. Of the 90 wins, only 2 have been in single digits. Geno Auerioma can spin it however he likes, but there's UConn and everyone else in Women's Basketball. There's a lack of real competition that detracts from the impressiveness of the streak. Dont get me wrong: Winning 90 games in a row is an impressive feat. But the way they've done it on a consistent basis? Not so much.
Look at the stats I gave to GD. 22 wins over top 15 teams, with all but 2 being by double digits. That's quality competition.

And again, winning 77 straight games by 10 or more is better then winning many more close ones because it takes a lot out of you to go out each and every game and whip the tails off your opponent, especially when 1/3 are against ranked teams (they played 30 ranked teams total, the ones I didn't include in teh 22 were ranked in 15-25 spots) and sometimes your shot isn't gonna fall. Say all you want about the 'lack' of competition, but not only is the women's game becoming more deeper each year, but they played a great deal of good teams. Also, I'll continue to reiterate this, expecting a team to dominate each game, no matter who you play, the way they did, is absurd.

Quote:
Tom Brady's ongoing 28 game winning streak at home is the greatest streak of all time.

Unlike so many of the other streaks mentioned and with all due respect toward them, they lacked the competiveness that Brady sees on a weekly basis. Despite his streak, he's not considered by some to even be the best QB in the NFL. This streak began in 2006, and has lasted through the current day in 2011. That's over four years of not losing a single football game at home folks. That's excellence in every way, and for several reasons.

Parity: Unlike an Edwin Moses or the UConn women, Brady plays in a league chalk full of excellent QB's. Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Aaron Rodgers are listed in the same breath as Tom Brady as the best QB'd right now in the game. But unlike Brady, none of these QB's have come close to this streak. The man whose streak he broke when he hit 26? None other then perhaps the greatest QB of all time, Brett Favre. A great achievement indeed.

Value to team:
As I stated earlier, a player, especially a QB, can be the difference between whether or not a team wins or loses a game. When Tom Brady injured his knee against the Kansas City Chiefs in the first game of 2008, the Patriots lost 3 games at home this year. So in one year with a pretty good QB in Matt Cassell, they couldnt maintain the team streak. But three and a half years strong, and Tom Brady's streak is still intact. Anyone need further proof of how this streak is all about him? The average margain of victory with Brady at home in full seasons since the streak began is 20(2007), 16(2009), and 15(2010). Those numbers are mind boggling when you really consider them. The average margain of victory when Brady missed the 2008 season at home? 4. The numbers there speak for themselves. He also has averaged .65 interceptions per home game during the streak, and 2.7 TD passes. Both are tops in the league in home games from any QB from 2007 and on.

Beating good teams: Look, this isn't the UConn women or the UCLA men. In 2010 alone, New England with Brady at home has defeated Green Bay, Baltimore, the Jets, and Indianapolis. The average margain of victory against these playoff teams was 13(15 overall), which is mind boggling in showing Brady really has been consistent when playing the good teams and the bad at home. Its not just 2010 either, as Brady's margain of victory against playoff teams at home in 2009 was 12(16 overall), and 16(20 overall) in 2007. So Brady's performance hasn't wavered regardless of the competition.

Bouncing back from injury: When Brady injured his knee in 2008, there were thoughts that his career could possibly be over, or that he wouldn't be the same player anymore(ask Carson Palmer about that one.) Instead he responded by winning the Offensive Player of the Week 3 times that year, all games at home. He also was named the Comeback player of the Year. This year, he averaged 2.4 TD's at home this year, and only .3 interceptions while being named Offensive Player of the Month for December. 3 of those games were, you guessed it, at home.

The times, they are a changing: Its easy to argue that The Patriots went 16-0 in 2007, and those 8 home wins there didn't hurt the streak. But alot of changes have taken place since then. Brady is no longer throwing to the 2007 corps of Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Dante' Stallworth, and Jabar Gaffney. Their former feature back in Laurence Maroney is gone. All of those players, including Randy Moss and his 98 catches and 23 TD's. The only remaining receiver is Welker, whose catches have dropped drastically by 27 from that season compared to this one. Brady is now throwing to Brandon Tate, Danny Woodhead, Julian Edelman, Rob Gronkowski, and Aaron Hernandez. While all of them are talented, theyre young and raw, but Brady has made each of them look like seasoned veterans. His ability to do so has been a huge part of the reason Ben-Jarvis Green Ellis has had such a successful season rushing the football.

Final Thoughts:I really dislike Tom Brady, alot. He's broken my heart many a time as a die-hard Steelers fan. But there's no denying the incredible nature of having a home winning streak of over four years, after bouncing back from knee surgery. The statistics don't lie, and there's no luck involved. There's no possible way to attribute this to Bill Bellicheck, his teammates, or luck because they lost 3 home games during the season he missed, and failed to make the playoffs. Brady will enter the 2011/2012 season with a chance to expand on this winning streak, and theres no reason to think that he wont based upon the 31 point win he and the Patriots put up in their last game of the season, at home. For these reasons, I submit that Tom Brady's 28 game home winning streak is the greatest winning streak of all time.
This is an impressive streak, but you forgot one important thing:

The Patriots, with Brady at home, lost to the Ravens 33-14 this past season in the NFL Playoffs (2009-10).

Therefore, with that loss, whether the league recognizes it or not, cuts off the streak at 20, 6 short of Favre. You can argue 'oh but the league won't recognize it since it was in the playoffs' BUT you and I both know that that loss counts the same as any other, and Brady's streak really shouldn't be his since they lost when he was only at 20. I don't see how this can be the most impressive streak when it's not even the highest in its own category (most home wins in a row).
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-06-2011, 09:39 PM
LSN80's Avatar
LSN80 LSN80 is offline
Registered User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,680
LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
Look at the stats I gave to GD. 22 wins over top 15 teams, with all but 2 being by double digits. That's quality competition.

And again, winning 77 straight games by 10 or more is better then winning many more close ones because it takes a lot out of you to go out each and every game and whip the tails off your opponent, especially when 1/3 are against ranked teams (they played 30 ranked teams total, the ones I didn't include in teh 22 were ranked in 15-25 spots) and sometimes your shot isn't gonna fall. Say all you want about the 'lack' of competition, but not only is the women's game becoming more deeper each year, but they played a great deal of good teams. Also, I'll continue to reiterate this, expecting a team to dominate each game, no matter who you play, the way they did, is absurd.
I read the stats, carefully, before I made my comments. The gist of my argument hasn't changed. Did you read my tennis example? If you were #1 and I was #2 and you whipped my ass, then player #3 and so on over and over, questions would begin to arise about the parity in said sport. You would be considered to have far more talent then me, and the competitiveness of the game would drop. So would the luster of you beating me over and over. That's what's going on with the UConn women. They may be beating the "top ranked" teams, but its like the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals. The cream always rises to the crop, regardless of whether the shots are dropping or not. I played basketball in high school, and it was much easier winning the games we got up big early(as UConn has) because the opposite of your argument was true: We didnt have to expend as much energy.

Quote:
This is an impressive streak, but you forgot one important thing:

The Patriots, with Brady at home, lost to the Ravens 33-14 this past season in the NFL Playoffs (2009-10).

Therefore, with that loss, whether the league recognizes it or not, cuts off the streak at 20, 6 short of Favre. You can argue 'oh but the league won't recognize it since it was in the playoffs' BUT you and I both know that that loss counts the same as any other, and Brady's streak really shouldn't be his since they lost when he was only at 20. I don't see how this can be the most impressive streak when it's not even the highest in its own category (most home wins in a row).
I recognize that, and as someone who hates Brady and the Pats, that day made me happy. But....... it wasn't a regular season game. His streak, the one Im arguing and the NFL recognizes, is the consecutive regular season game victories at home. So what youre pointing out to me here is essentially irrelevant because of the fact that this is a regular season streak. You may not recognize it, but the NFL does.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-06-2011, 09:41 PM
gd's Avatar
gd gd is offline
Plump, Juicy User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 18
Posts: 2,716
gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...gd is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Look at the stats I gave to GD. 22 wins over top 15 teams, with all but 2 being by double digits. That's quality competition.
Please stop saying that. Just because a women's team is ranked in the top 15, why does that automatically mean that they are quality competition? Any team outside of the top 5 is a walk in the park for UConn, they may have had 5 tough games during their whole streak.

As for the Brady streak, sure it's good and all, but like Megatron said, the loss to the Ravens in the playoffs really taints in. Also, consecutive home wins in quite a specific and stat, much less impressive than overall consecutive wins. 28 straight games overall would be impressive. Winning 28 regular season games in a row in the comforts of your own home is considerably less impressive, for sure.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hyourinmaru View Post
it's a prestarted family. My Girlfriend has a 3 year old
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-06-2011, 09:56 PM
LSN80's Avatar
LSN80 LSN80 is offline
Registered User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,680
LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Disarray View Post
As for the Brady streak, sure it's good and all, but like Megatron said, the loss to the Ravens in the playoffs really taints in. Also, consecutive home wins in quite a specific and stat, much less impressive than overall consecutive wins. 28 straight games overall would be impressive. Winning 28 regular season games in a row in the comforts of your own home is considerably less impressive, for sure.
Part of my argument was that its personal accomplishments that truly make a streak worthwhile. To me, it doesn't matter where you win the games any more then it matters where you won the Super Bowl that year.

Again, the point of my argument is this. Its a record acknowledged by the NFL during the regular season, by the NFL. The Patriots were unable to sustain their own team home winning streak when Brady went down with a very good Matt Cassell at QB. In fact, they went 11-5 that season and lost 3 games at home. So the comfort of one's own home doesn't fly there. It wasn't until Brady returned to a lesser team that the home winning streak resumed, which in itself shows how impressive it is. I fail to see the relevance of the playoffs here when its the NFL record within the confines of the rule.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices