Now that's just silly Junc, you don't get rollover games. lol You usually have a pretty good argument even if I don't agree, but you're reaching here.
if he's 9-7 going into 2010 he has to go 0-2 to get to .500. After falling to 4-6 I believe in 2009 he wasn't under .500 again until 2014.
Since when do games above .500 get halved? Is it just to fit a dumb argument? I've never, ever seen it referred to this way so I have to think yes. Obviously if the team goes 8-8 then they are .500 but 9-7 in every sports realm is 2 games above .500. Look at baseball. 81-81 is .500. A team that goes 92-70 is ALWAYS said to be 22 games over .500, not 11. The term "__ games over .500" has always meant how many losses would it take to even out the record. Is it technically correct in terms of how may games are played over the course of a season, no but it's pretty much commonplace in sports to refer to it this way.
I've never in my life heard of it explained that way. It makes absolutely no sense. There are 16 games in a season. At 9-7 there are no games left to win or lose. If the outcome of 1 game is different, it changes both sides of the win / loss column. 9-7 becomes 8-8 with a loss instead of a win. It is a 1 game difference. In any case, it makes no difference to the argument that Rex Ryan barley hovered around .500 in the 6 years he was head coach. Year 1 - .563 winning % Year 2- .688 winning % Year 3 - .500 winning % Year 4 - .375 winning % Year 5 - .500 winning % Year 6 - .250 winning %
The argument wasn't about how many losing seasons he had coming into this year. Please read more carefully. It is about how he has hovered around .500 for his coaching career. Just look at the winning percentages he had each year.
so only one season under .500 coming into this year, thanks again for reinforcing the point. didn't get under .500 until year 6 at 1-6.
You need to follow along in the discussion. If you did that you wouldn't have this issue of posting the same info that is meaningless to this argument. No one was ever discussing how many seasons he had under .500. The argument that you are unsuccessfully trying to debate is that Rex Ryan has not hovered around .500 for his career. And the reason you can't debate it is because 5 out of his 6 years he was barely above, at, or below .500.
From PFT 11/25/14 According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Baltimore’s move to a 7-4 record makes the AFC North the first division in NFL history to have all of its teams at least three games over .500 at the same time. Ravens coach John Harbaugh referenced that collective success after Monday night’s win. MLB.COM The Dodgers haven't been that far above .500 since they were 25 games over at 93-68 on Oct. 2, 2004, when Steve I would wager 90% of sports articles written that mention a team by record state they are __ games over or under .500. You may not agree with how it's calculated but to say you've never seen it that way is a bit mind boggling.
You are correct. When talking about being Over or Under .500 -- it goes by how many future Losses or Wins would bring your record up or down to .500
I've seen articles written that way during the season. It makes sense that at 7-4 during the season that you are 3 games above .500 when there are still games left to play. A win will not take anything away from the loss column, and a loss will not take away anything from the win column. 3 losses is what it takes to get to .500 at 7-4 during the season. It doesn't make sense to me that 9-7 is referred to as two games above .500 when the season is over. In reality 1 game is the difference between 8-8 with a loss, or 10-6 with a win. When you are looking back to a season that is over, each side of the win / loss column would change with 1 win or loss. If you look at it the same way as you do during the season, 9-7 makes you 2 games above .500 and only 1 more win doubles your total to 4 games over .500. ? That makes no sense, and I have not seen articles that state it that way after a season is over. Like I said before, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't change that Rex hovered near .500 almost every year. I look at the overall picture of each season and don't stack up wins from 1 good season. Hypothetically, if a coach went: 16-0 7-9 6-10 7-9 6-10 7-9 Would you argue that the coach was an above .500 coach his whole career? During the season, that makes sense. Why would that apply once the season is over? There are 16 games in an NFL season. Once the season is over, you can not change 1 column without effecting the other. 8-8 is .500, and 9-7 is 1 game above .500. According to you guys, we finished 8 games below .500 this year? Ten, and Tam finished 12 games below .500. ? I'm not sure how that is even possible when .500 is 8 wins. 8 -2 = 6. I take that to mean Tam finished 6 games below .500, not 12. 8-4 = 4. I take that to mean that we finished 4 games below .500, not 8. Maybe it is written the way you guys say it is, but I haven't seen articles that refer to it that way when the season is over. And it doesn't make sense if they do.
Rex has a 2nd interview with the Bill tonight. It's a good bet he has become the Bill's top choice. IMO the Bills are the best team for Rex to succeed with. They are talented everywhere except QB. I hope he goes to Atlanta. I sure do not want to have to watch the Jets have to play against Rex's defense twice a year.
lol. Rex would be a train wreck in Buffalo IMO. they already have a very good defense and a shitty offense. so what does rex bring to the table?
A new energy and excitement and hopefully a better offensive staff,He would make that defense the best in the league .They have the running backs ,unless they plan on bringing in a veteran QB he won't amount to shit if Manuels the QB without a solid staff on offense something we have always lacked on the Jets
energy and excitement ... that and 5 bucks will get you a footlong at subway. what makes you think rex is going to suddenly have clarity in choosing and leading an offensive staff elsewhere when he could never do that here?
I think Rex would rather inherit a good D than develop one. I don't think there's room for him and Schwartz on the same staff because Rex wants to run the D. And then he'd have Sammy Watkins a Clemson guy. And a player he wanted to draft here. To me it's a good match. In that it would give Rex what he loves most: one of the best Ds in the NFL. As for Ws and Ls: they have talent even on offense. Give me a 4 games under .500.
