*** Complain about the officials thread *** (1 Viewer)

[The Jerk]

According to BGP, every Steelers win during his lifetime.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Not really an injustice (although this has been beaten dead in so many other threads already).

I hear you, but I set out the criteria right at the beginning. Any time a team:a) outgains another

b) wins the turnover battle

c) holds the ball for longer

d) passes the ball much better

e) rushes more consistently

they almost always win, and it takes exceptional circumstances to change that.

Hey man I agree that this team should almost always win but fact of the matter is Pittsburgh won the game because of 3 big plays. Thats it--3 big plays. As a steeler fan, I know all too well what it's like to be on the other end of this. Going back to the 1994 AFC championship game, the Steelers lost to the Chargers in a game where they dominated (a lot more than Seattle dominated Pitts) the Chargers in almost every category. However, they had no big plays and the Chargers had 2 (I believe). That was the difference. It's rare but it happens.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete). He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out. The played should not have been whistled dead. As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

 

[Portis 26]

Actually, I am curious if a SB team has gained more yards and won the TO battle and lost.

I believe this is the only example in history of that.

 

[fred_1_15301]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete).  He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out.  The played should not have been whistled dead.  As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

Are you really this impartial? LOL go back and watch this play. Yes it was clearly a fumble but why do you assume that the Steelers don't recover that ball? There were 2 Steeler players that easily had a shot at recovering that ball and both stopped when they heard the whistle. So no you can't assume "they would not only have kept that ball".

 

[Newman]

Actually, I am curious if a SB team has gained more yards and won the TO battle and lost.

I believe this is the only example in history of that.

You're right. After a little digging, looks like before last night, only 2 teams in history had won the TO battle but lost the game: Rams vs. Pitt in XIV, and Dal vs. Balt in V. However, in each of those games, the winning team gained more yards.

 

[pettifogger]

As an impartial neutral, the Steelers' victory stuck in my craw. It seems somehow against the spirit of football that the team that played better should have lost in such an injust fashion.

The Seahawks outgained the Steelers.

They won the turnover battle.

They held the ball for longer.

They passed the ball way better.

They even rushed the ball far more consistently (although Pittsburgh outgained Seattle, their total rushing yards were greatly inflated by FWP's TD scamper when a former practice squad S missed the tackle).

In a normal football game, they would have won 9 times out of 10.

As Gregg Easterbrook might say, the football gods must be greatly angered by this injustice.

My question is: has this ever happened in a Super Bowl before? Did the team that obviously played worse, won? I can't think of a single instance, off the top of my head. I do remember the 49ers-Bengals game when the Bengals were in a position to win it despite having been outgained all game long and scored a lucky return TD - but the Montana-Taylor TD brought the justice the 49ers deserved.

Maybe the famously dismal Colts-Cowboys game?

Time of possession? Well yes, but ... Pittsburg's 43 yard TD pass took :08

Pittsburg's 75 yard TD run took :12

The 76 yard int return took :14

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Actually, I am curious if a SB team has gained more yards and won the TO battle and lost.

I believe this is the only example in history of that.

You're right. After a little digging, looks like before last night, only 2 teams in history had won the TO battle but lost the game: Rams vs. Pitt in XIV, and Dal vs. Balt in V. However, in each of those games, the winning team gained more yards.

INTERESTING. Thanks.

 

[David Yudkin]

Anyone else see the 3rd and 28 play as offensive pass interference on Ward? From my perspective, Ward was a step in the end zone while the Seattle defender was out at the 3 yard line. Ward broke back for the ball, pushing the defender out of the way while the ball was still in the air and knocking his arm out of the way. If a defender did that there would be flags all over the place.

 

[CalBear]

This thread is the poster child for

Actually, I am curious if a SB team has gained more yards and won the TO battle and lost.

If you count return yardage as well as yardage from scrimmage..."Wide right".

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete).  He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out.   The played should not have been whistled dead.  As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

Are you really this impartial? LOL go back and watch this play. Yes it was clearly a fumble but why do you assume that the Steelers don't recover that ball? There were 2 Steeler players that easily had a shot at recovering that ball and both stopped when they heard the whistle. So no you can't assume "they would not only have kept that ball".

You're right, but I don't think they would have got there...and if they did, they would have had to slide towards the boundary line to POSSIBLY get it, making it even more difficult. I'd like to see it some more, really.And I'm Bronco fan, period. Actually, I'm quite happy two Colorado State linbackers won the Superbowl (one, from my high school). So, save it.

 

[20431]

Completely, incompletely, you're accusing of a fix, one way or another.

See the above (again) for reasons that won't happen.

The NBA used to do it all the time, and maybe they still do. Why can't the NFL do the same thing?

 

[The Jerk]

I'm sorry, but didn't any of you Seahawks fans see how brutal a game you played last night?  Tell me one thing Seattle did to earn the win last night.  The entire team just stunk.  Give me a break here - if anybody on the Seahawks had stepped up and made a play, maybe you guys could have won it.  But y'all just looked bad.

Exaplin to me how they looked any worse than Pitt?Seahawks beat the Steelers in TOs, yards, and time of possession. HOw can you say they looked that terrible, when they beat their opposition in those major categories.

You make it sound like Seattle outgained the Steelers by 150-200 yards, forced 4 more turnovers and had a 40:00 to 20:00 advantage in possession time.The reality is Seattle had 57 more yards than Pittsburgh. Do you know how many yards Seattle gained on their final possession? 57 yards.

Pittsburgh committed one more turnover than Seattle. If I recall correctly, the first interception was on a pass of approximately 40 yards with no return. In other words, basically like a punt. Minor impact here.

Seattle's time of possession edge was 6:02. Their advantage in the first quarter was 6:00. So after the first quarter it was even. More significantly, do you think maybe, just MAYBE, Seattle's time of possession advantage came about because the Steelers scored on a 75-yard run and a 43-yard pass? Just asking.

Seattle had slight advantages in three categories that are often indicators of success. But the key words there are slight and often.

 

[Irish]

I was taught that the object of football was to get touchdowns and score more than your opponent. Seattle had to settle for FG attempts, so in what world is it that Seattle was the better team?

 

[jurb26]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete). He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out. The played should not have been whistled dead. As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

This is simply priceless. It is wrong on so many levels, impartial huh...

 

[mchaps55]

The obvious one is Ben QB sneak for the TD.

This could of gone either way and with the refs orginally calling it a Touchdown, they could not overturn it. To me they did a good job on this

 

[fred_1_15301]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete).  He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out.   The played should not have been whistled dead.  As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

Are you really this impartial? LOL go back and watch this play. Yes it was clearly a fumble but why do you assume that the Steelers don't recover that ball? There were 2 Steeler players that easily had a shot at recovering that ball and both stopped when they heard the whistle. So no you can't assume "they would not only have kept that ball".

You're right, but I don't think they would have got there...and if they did, they would have had to slide towards the boundary line to POSSIBLY get it, making it even more difficult. I'd like to see it some more, really.And I'm Bronco fan, period. Actually, I'm quite happy two Colorado State linbackers won the Superbowl (one, from my high school). So, save it.

Sorry I meant no offense in my post. It just sounded very biased to make the assumption that the Steelers couldn't recover that ball.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete).  He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out.  The played should not have been whistled dead.  As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

This is simply priceless. It is wrong on so many levels, impartial huh...

Look, he caught the ball. You don't think so? The ball went out of bounds, no? I admitted I'm not sure if they get to it or not. It clearly rolled forward. Tell me what levels, I'm listening.

 

[bagger.]

Big Ben's arm was the only thing that broke the plane not the football on his TD.  The ball is behind his arm there is no way it could break the plane.  Not to mention it appears that as soon as contact is made he fumbles the ball backwards and the linesman initially signaled for 4th down.  When he comes up the line he signals touchdown after the loose ball rolls forward and then breaks the plane while Big Ben is clearly down.  Then the Levy lacks the guts to make the right call on replay.

I disagree. Watching it in slow motion there was a moment there where it looked like the ball could have crossed the plane, while Ben was still coming down. I don't know if it did for sure, but I didn't see the visual evidence required to overturn it.

The original call that he crossed the plane is where the problem was. The side judge was clearly uncertain, but signalled TD anyway. Once that ruling was made though, the call was probably too close to overturn given the high standard of review.

for a close play like that, the ref should call no TD, and then review to see if it was. this way if it is still uncertain you can uphold it and no TD.

there should not be TDs scored where nobody really knows if it was a real TD.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I was taught that the object of football was to get touchdowns and score more than your opponent. Seattle had to settle for FG attempts, so in what world is it that Seattle was the better team?

What you were taught was not the topic of this thread, but feel free to start one about those lessons, if you like.

 

[BGP]

I guess you could make a case for:

XXXVI Feb. 3, 2002 New England 20, St. Louis 17

Given that St Louis outgained the Patriots 427-267 yards and Brady only passed for 145 yards. But I remember the Patriots playing a great, determined game and much of those yards coming in garbage time in the 4th quarter. The result didn't seem to be an injustice.

Similarly, the Bengals outgained the 49ers 356-276 in:

San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21

But I don't think many people would have complaints over who won.

The Patriots took a ton of cheap shots at the Rams to win that game. Its the reason the NFL altered the rules about a year later with regards to receivers coming off the line. If the NFL didn't think it was cheap - they don't alter the rules. That said, its the Rams fault for not taking a ton of cheap shots right back. If the refs didn't want to stop it, that's fine, but if the Patriots want to bend the rules, then I'm going to bend the rules right back and ignore the roughing the passer rule and Brady is getting mauled. You don't let people punk you like that.

 

[The Jerk]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete).  He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out.  The played should not have been whistled dead.  As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

This is simply priceless. It is wrong on so many levels, impartial huh...

Not to mention, you don't get to keep the yardage advanced by a fumble that goes out of bounds.

 

[jurb26]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete). He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out. The played should not have been whistled dead. As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

This is simply priceless. It is wrong on so many levels, impartial huh...

Look, he caught the ball. You don't think so? The ball went out of bounds, no? I admitted I'm not sure if they get to it or not. It clearly rolled forward. Tell me what levels, I'm listening.

Maybe the level at which you think that Sea gets the ball at the spot of where it "would" have rolled out of bounds rather than the spot of the fumble. That is nor opinion or speculation. Fumbles return to the spot of the fumble in such instances.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

The pass to Stevens was caught and fumbled (not incomplete).  He turned and took at least one, possibly two, complete steps forward before the ball came out.   The played should not have been whistled dead.  As the ball rolled out of bounds, I believe Seattle would have kept possession.

CLEARLY a catch, and yes, they would have not only kept the ball, but would have gained another 10 - 15 yards off the roll.

This is simply priceless. It is wrong on so many levels, impartial huh...

Not to mention, you don't get to keep the yardage advanced by a fumble that goes out of bounds.

I thought that was for first-downs. I see.

 

[BigTuna]

It was pretty clear to me who the better team was on the field Sunday. And they didn't win.

They should have given the ref's the MVP. They had more impact on the game then any of the pitt players.

 

[Kai's Hero]

This whole season- I hate to say it- very inconsistent. The NFL needs to change their policies- these guys just have too much authority  impacting the games- I know that sounds strange- but anyone could see the ineptness that existed out there.

Hey, a thread on how the refs jobbed Seattle ! Cool !

Let's get real Mr. Chin ..... if those same 6 bad calls went against the Steelers would you be saying the same thing today?

 

[cobalt_27]

the best analogy i've heard yet is it was like a baseball game where one team has only 3 hits, but 2 of them are 3 run homers.

And the umpires call 2 of the other team's homers foul.

This is the better analogy.

Seattle scored 2 TDs (one called back by incompetent zebras).

Pittsburgh scored 2 TDs (one added by refs who think an elbow crossing plane = ball crossing plane to give them 3).

Regarding the added one, let's assume for a second that Bettis punches in the 4th down play if they make the correct call on 3rd down. Fine. Seattle most certainly would've punched it in from the 2 with Alexander given 4 chances had they known what a "holding" call is versus isn't.

The umpires called foul balls "home runs" for Pittsburgh. Home runs were called "foul balls" for Seattle.

But, officiating is what it is: Incompetent.

 

[Odogs]

If the playoff were truly rigged, we would have seen the brother with the highest scoring offense playing the brother whose team is in the media capital of the world.

Why do you think the Polamalu interception was overturned? I'm not saying the playoffs are completely rigged, I'm just saying that certain teams get a little help. It is just like when Kobe and Shaq both were in LA. The games weren't completely rigged, but the refs always made calls in favor of the Lakers because they were the most marketable team in the NBA.

Do they decide to do this on their own or does it come from higher up?

 

[BGP]

I don't think I've ever seen the better club lose before. The closest may be the first super bowl I watched: Super Bowl XXII, Redskins 42, Denver 10. Doug Williams nor Timmy Smith were special at all. The Broncos were a very strong team. The Redskins just went bonkers for 1 quarter and scored 35 points. I think the Redskins were the better club, but barely.

 

[nerangers]

*I* heard that from the beginning "the NFL" was set on getting the COLTS to the superbowl. Man they sure tried to screw the Steelers in Indy didn't they? I mean it was OBVIOUS that the refs were blatantly cheating to get Indy to the big game. And somehow Pittsburgh overcame that tremendous bias, that NFL edict that said "Indy shall win the superbowl this year". If you look hard, you can actually see the line judge in that goal line pile knocking the ball out of Bettis' hands. Seriously. I tivo'd it, it is there. Yet Indy did not win. And "the NFL" was sure not happy.

Hey don't blame the refs...they did do everything they could to keep the Colts in the game....there was no way they could cover for Vandy's kick though!!! This thread cracked me up...especially from a Bengal fan. I think with a healthy Big Ben all season, the Bengals do not end up being the #2 seed since they would not have won the division.

 

[jurb26]

So... mods down?

 

[Godsbrother]

HAsselback I feel played a great game. Other than the interception he made some great passes many of which were dropped by the receivers.

Hasselback played well but was let down by his receivers big time. Of course Roethlisberger had a couple dropped too (one in the endzone by Ward).Hasselbeck did make a couple mistakes but only 1 cost them: the interception which was a real bad throw. There was also a pass in the first half that was thrown right to Pittsburgh CB Ike Taylor but dropped. And Hass was fortunate that Farrior got a couple fingers on him right before he went down because otherwise that fumble call would not have been overturned.

 

[Bri]

They had the hardest road to the Super Bowl that any team has ever had (or ever WILL have, provided the league doesn't expand the playoffs again) and they won 4 games away from home, by an average of 11.3 ppg. 

I'm pretty sure 1 or 2 teams have made the Supe as wildcard teams. IIRC the Pats did. The Ravens in 2000 might have too.

Teams have made it as wildcards, but no one has ever beaten the 1, 2, and 3 seeds from their own conference (the better conference, I might add) and then the #1 seed from the opposing conference before. You can have no tougher path, in terms of the seeds.

seeds?85 Pats did IMO

http://www.profootballreference.com/years/1985.htm

8-8 Cleveland Browns...what seed would you give them? cmon, OK I guess not but (for this arg)it's not fair that some 8-8 team is 1,2 or 3 seed.

Ravens beat 12-4 Giants, 12-4 Raiders, 13-3 Titans, and 11-5 Broncos.

Record wise that was pretty close to the Steelers opponents

What are you talking about in the bolded part? I'm not sure I follow. Point is, playing the top 3 seeds in your own conference and the top seed in the other is the hardest road you can travel. Steelers beat 4 teams with an aggregate record of 51-13 for the regular season. I don't know of anyone who has beaten 4 playoff opponents with a better cumulative record, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I was simply talking about the seeding : beating two 1 seeds, a 2, and a 3 cannot be topped, omly tied.

85, when pats went to the Supe as a wildcard the Browns won their division with an 8-8 record.51 and 13 is not divisible by 16 so you're probably counting playoff Ws. Ravens got 48 just counting regular season Ws.

I'm not trying to nitpick, I would really like to know which team has had the hardest road to the Supe. I think it's interesting. It seems, record wise, we've got a tie between the Ravens and Steelers

 

[pettifogger]

On the pushoff: I am surprised this is even being argued. Even a "little" push in the shoulder of someone who is running is enough to throw them off balance and gain separation. The ref was right on top of the play and saw it in real time. I agreed with the call when it first happened, before any replays, and the replays clearly supported the call.

On the phantom holding: it seemed like a brutally bad call. But, we were watching slow motion replays from a side view (blocker's profile).

On the Big Ben TD: it looked like the front of the ball crossed the line, but remember we were watching from a parallax view, the camera was not directly lined up with the goal line.

 

[BeTheMatch]

The NFL Network is a total sham. After every single week of the season, on their nightly Total Acess show that aired on Mondays, they had a segment with the head of NFL officials discussing any issues or controversial calls from that weekend's games.

Tonight? Nothing (unless I somehow missed it). Not one word by one person during the 60-minute show on officials or any calls whatsoever.

I guess this is the sort of thing "real reporters" were worried about when the league began running its own network. Wow. That is brutal. They're just going to bury their head in the sand and hope it goes away.

I think it's very telling that they didn't even come out to try to defend any of the calls.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

On the pushoff: I am surprised this is even being argued. Even a "little" push in the shoulder of someone who is running is enough to throw them off balance and gain separation. The ref was right on top of the play and saw it in real time. I agreed with the call when it first happened, before any replays, and the replays clearly supported the call.

On the phantom holding: it seemed like a brutally bad call. But, we were watching slow motion replays from a side view (blocker's profile).

On the Big Ben TD: it looked like the front of the ball crossed the line, but remember we were watching from a parallax view, the camera was not directly lined up with the goal line.

Did you not see the defender make contact to Jackson FIRST? He did, and it was not within 5 yards.As for the hold. Come on petit, you sound like Johnny Cochran dude. I'm actually surprised at you (even though I think you really are a lawyer, yes? ).

Lastly, the Big Ben TD, for all accounts and purposes, was a TD, as I don't think it was reversable, and they probably score anyway. However, the ref was signaling that he was down at first, and then changed the call. To me, it was almost evidence of bias, in some ways -- the benefit of doubt they gave Pitt. If he was unsure, he should have called him down, and THEN LET THE REPLAY decide. And he should know that.

 

[Portis 26]

Why has my thread about whether there had been a previous example of Super Bowl history of a team winning all the significant statistical battles but still losing been merged into this one? It quite deliberately wasn't about the officiating and doesn't deserve to have been merged into this one! Poor moderating!

 

[fridayfrenzy]

The NFL Network is a total sham. After every single week of the season, on their nightly Total Acess show that aired on Mondays, they had a segment with the head of NFL officials discussing any issues or controversial calls from that weekend's games.

Tonight? Nothing (unless I somehow missed it). Not one word by one person during the 60-minute show on officials or any calls whatsoever.

I guess this is the sort of thing "real reporters" were worried about when the league began running its own network. Wow. That is brutal. They're just going to bury their head in the sand and hope it goes away.

I think it's very telling that they didn't even come out to try to defend any of the calls.

If I am not mistaken, that occurs on Wednesdays. Why would they do it on Monday night, when all games haven't even been played yet.

 

[Kleck]

The NFL Network is a total sham. After every single week of the season, on their nightly Total Acess show that aired on Mondays, they had a segment with the head of NFL officials discussing any issues or controversial calls from that weekend's games.

Tonight? Nothing (unless I somehow missed it). Not one word by one person during the 60-minute show on officials or any calls whatsoever.

I guess this is the sort of thing "real reporters" were worried about when the league began running its own network. Wow. That is brutal. They're just going to bury their head in the sand and hope it goes away.

I think it's very telling that they didn't even come out to try to defend any of the calls.

The weekly segment your referring to with Mike Pereira (head of NFL referees) wasn't on Mondays. I think it was Tuesdays or Wednesdays. If I had to put money on it I would guess Wednesday.

 

[BeTheMatch]

The NFL Network is a total sham. After every single week of the season, on their nightly Total Acess show that aired on Mondays, they had a segment with the head of NFL officials discussing any issues or controversial calls from that weekend's games.

Tonight? Nothing (unless I somehow missed it). Not one word by one person during the 60-minute show on officials or any calls whatsoever.

I guess this is the sort of thing "real reporters" were worried about when the league began running its own network. Wow. That is brutal. They're just going to bury their head in the sand and hope it goes away.

I think it's very telling that they didn't even come out to try to defend any of the calls.

The weekly segment your referring to with Mike Pereira (head of NFL referees) wasn't on Mondays. I think it was Tuesdays or Wednesdays. If I had to put money on it I would guess Wednesday.

OK, fine. So we'll see if they do anything. But still. Nothing at all tonight, not one comment??

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Why has my thread about whether there had been a previous example of Super Bowl history of a team winning all the significant statistical battles but still losing been merged into this one? It quite deliberately wasn't about the officiating and doesn't deserve to have been merged into this one! Poor moderating!

That is total BS. Seriously, your point was very different, and you provided research.

What a joke.

 

[Irish]

I was taught that the object of football was to get touchdowns and score more than your opponent. Seattle had to settle for FG attempts, so in what world is it that Seattle was the better team?

What you were taught was not the topic of this thread, but feel free to start one about those lessons, if you like.

Ever hear of merged threads?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Why has my thread about whether there had been a previous example of Super Bowl history of a team winning all the significant statistical battles but still losing been merged into this one? It quite deliberately wasn't about the officiating and doesn't deserve to have been merged into this one! Poor moderating!

Poor officiating, poor moderating. Tomato, tomahto.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

I was taught that the object of football was to get touchdowns and score more than your opponent.  Seattle had to settle for FG attempts, so in what world is it that Seattle was the better team?

What you were taught was not the topic of this thread, but feel free to start one about those lessons, if you like.

Ever hear of merged threads?

It is now.

 

[Newman]

Why has my thread about whether there had been a previous example of Super Bowl history of a team winning all the significant statistical battles but still losing been merged into this one? It quite deliberately wasn't about the officiating and doesn't deserve to have been merged into this one! Poor moderating!

I agree, damnit! Not one post about the officiating in that thread. I thought there was a decent discussion going. on the mods for merging.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Why has my thread about whether there had been a previous example of Super Bowl history of a team winning all the significant statistical battles but still losing been merged into this one? It quite deliberately wasn't about the officiating and doesn't deserve to have been merged into this one! Poor moderating! 

I agree, damnit! Not one post about the officiating in that thread. I thought there was a decent discussion going. on the mods for merging.

:badmodding:

 

[thejag]

They had the hardest road to the Super Bowl that any team has ever had (or ever WILL have, provided the league doesn't expand the playoffs again) and they won 4 games away from home, by an average of 11.3 ppg. 

I'm pretty sure 1 or 2 teams have made the Supe as wildcard teams. IIRC the Pats did. The Ravens in 2000 might have too.

Teams have made it as wildcards, but no one has ever beaten the 1, 2, and 3 seeds from their own conference (the better conference, I might add) and then the #1 seed from the opposing conference before. You can have no tougher path, in terms of the seeds.

seeds?85 Pats did IMO

http://www.profootballreference.com/years/1985.htm

8-8 Cleveland Browns...what seed would you give them? cmon, OK I guess not but (for this arg)it's not fair that some 8-8 team is 1,2 or 3 seed.

Ravens beat 12-4 Giants, 12-4 Raiders, 13-3 Titans, and 11-5 Broncos.

Record wise that was pretty close to the Steelers opponents

What are you talking about in the bolded part? I'm not sure I follow. Point is, playing the top 3 seeds in your own conference and the top seed in the other is the hardest road you can travel. Steelers beat 4 teams with an aggregate record of 51-13 for the regular season. I don't know of anyone who has beaten 4 playoff opponents with a better cumulative record, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I was simply talking about the seeding : beating two 1 seeds, a 2, and a 3 cannot be topped, omly tied.

85, when pats went to the Supe as a wildcard the Browns won their division with an 8-8 record.51 and 13 is not divisible by 16 so you're probably counting playoff Ws. Ravens got 48 just counting regular season Ws.

I'm not trying to nitpick, I would really like to know which team has had the hardest road to the Supe. I think it's interesting. It seems, record wise, we've got a tie between the Ravens and Steelers

Pats made the SB that season beating the 11-5 Jets, 12-4 Raiders and 12-4 Dolphins on the road. Then hit the buzzsaw...

 

[Wildcat]

Why has my thread about whether there had been a previous example of Super Bowl history of a team winning all the significant statistical battles but still losing been merged into this one? It quite deliberately wasn't about the officiating and doesn't deserve to have been merged into this one! Poor moderating! 

I agree, damnit! Not one post about the officiating in that thread. I thought there was a decent discussion going. on the mods for merging.

:badmodding:

Start a post about bad moderating and see if it gets merged into this one.

 

[Steelers4Life]

I'm sorry, but didn't any of you Seahawks fans see how brutal a game you played last night?  Tell me one thing Seattle did to earn the win last night.  The entire team just stunk.  Give me a break here - if anybody on the Seahawks had stepped up and made a play, maybe you guys could have won it.  But y'all just looked bad.

Exaplin to me how they looked any worse than Pitt?Seahawks beat the Steelers in TOs, yards, and time of possession. HOw can you say they looked that terrible, when they beat their opposition in those major categories.

You make it sound like Seattle outgained the Steelers by 150-200 yards, forced 4 more turnovers and had a 40:00 to 20:00 advantage in possession time.The reality is Seattle had 57 more yards than Pittsburgh. Do you know how many yards Seattle gained on their final possession? 57 yards.

Pittsburgh committed one more turnover than Seattle. If I recall correctly, the first interception was on a pass of approximately 40 yards with no return. In other words, basically like a punt. Minor impact here.

Seattle's time of possession edge was 6:02. Their advantage in the first quarter was 6:00. So after the first quarter it was even. More significantly, do you think maybe, just MAYBE, Seattle's time of possession advantage came about because the Steelers scored on a 75-yard run and a 43-yard pass? Just asking.

Seattle had slight advantages in three categories that are often indicators of success. But the key words there are slight and often.

I LOVE how people are twisting stats to make it seem like the Seahawks controlled the game when they didn't.

Nevermind that the Seahawks were 5-17 on 3rd downs and the Steelers were 8-15. And nevermind that the Steelers scored two of their TDs on long plays that took very little time.

I'll take a 15 second TD drive over a 75 yard, 5 minute drive that yields nothing anyday.

The officials clearly impacted the game. Whether the calls were bad or not is very, very debatable, and the game was won and lost by the teams, not the officials.

 

[ThisGuy]

How does Joey Porter feel about the refs now?