2008 NFL schedules

[WinOne4TheGipper]

People want to see high scoring offense and no defense. 

Huh? I want to see a skirt get his teeth knocked down his throat for having the balls to come across the middle zone of the second level.

Who gets all the hype on the sports shows, which have become nothing more than Entertainment Tonight featuring athletes, the grind it out old school knock the shit out of you NFL game or the high octane 900 yards of total offense Arena League type game.  We are a dying breed, nobody appreciates defense anymore.  No one talks about the Ravens Super Bowl run as a great team.  Why, because they had no offense.  That team would have beaten at least 3/4 of the other Super Bowl teams.  Especially this years.  All they had to score was 14.

That's because most of the sportscasters are pussies. They love the "finesse" of the game because they have never felt that feeling when you lower an "ambulance" on somebody.

yep....

and they also don't like to sit out in the SNOW ....

did you see that the Bears don't have the luxury of playing teH colts  at soldier field in december either.... ...

they gotta play Indy in the dome & I'm only guessing it will be a mild to stunning Indy blowout alright  ...

but, I'm willing to bet if the Bears got to play them at soldier field in late nov or december, there would be a different outcome...

but the only way the colts will be playing in the snow is if they are a wild card team & the NFL has NO CHOICE but to force them to play in the cold/snow at winter time ...

Umm, you do know that the Colts are one of the "poorest" teams in the NFL, don't you?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/13/nfl-team-valuations-biz-07nfl_cz_kb_mo_cs_0913nfl_land.html

It's so easy to "own" you on football related stuff, and yet you continue posting smugly.

[john c calhoun]

People want to see high scoring offense and no defense. 

Huh? I want to see a skirt get his teeth knocked down his throat for having the balls to come across the middle zone of the second level.

Who gets all the hype on the sports shows, which have become nothing more than Entertainment Tonight featuring athletes, the grind it out old school knock the shit out of you NFL game or the high octane 900 yards of total offense Arena League type game.  We are a dying breed, nobody appreciates defense anymore.  No one talks about the Ravens Super Bowl run as a great team.  Why, because they had no offense.  That team would have beaten at least 3/4 of the other Super Bowl teams.  Especially this years.  All they had to score was 14.

That's because most of the sportscasters are pussies. They love the "finesse" of the game because they have never felt that feeling when you lower an "ambulance" on somebody.

yep....

and they also don't like to sit out in the SNOW ....

did you see that the Bears don't have the luxury of playing teH colts  at soldier field in december either.... ...

they gotta play Indy in the dome & I'm only guessing it will be a mild to stunning Indy blowout alright  ...

but, I'm willing to bet if the Bears got to play them at soldier field in late nov or december, there would be a different outcome...

but the only way the colts will be playing in the snow is if they are a wild card team & the NFL has NO CHOICE but to force them to play in the cold/snow at winter time ...

Umm, you do know that the Colts are one of the "poorest" teams in the NFL, don't you?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/13/nfl-team-valuations-biz-07nfl_cz_kb_mo_cs_0913nfl_land.html

It's so easy to "own" you on football related stuff, and yet you continue posting smugly.

so who said the Colts USE THEIR OWN MONEY to buy off the NFL ??

did you happen to catch the superbowl bidding war that Jerry Jones, AZ Cards & the poor, poor colts have been over SUPERBOWL rights ??

have you noticed the BRAND NEW stadium the oooooil boys & Indiana taxpayers are building the poor, poor colts team ?? ....

using other peoples money while showing little of your own is the oldest trick in the book....

you own nothing but a bag of coal...

[john c calhoun]

It's amazing that the Patriots continue to win SUper Bowls or go undefeated in the regular season despite the fact that the league is soooo against them.  It must just be the genius of Bill Beeeelichik.

Yeah, how does that happen?

Debating football with JCC kind of makes you feel like this guy:

specially when JCC's team whoops the shiite out of dallas IN THEIR HOUSE 

so tell us why the Colts get to play the Pats at home AGAIN  ...if its not the NFLs BIAS ??

Okay, that was weird.  I had put up a post that basically refuted your contention that the Colts and Pats always play in Indy (I don't know what happened to it).  Actually, since the 2002 realignment (when the current scheduling formula went into force), the teams have played five times during the regular season, three in Foxboro, two in Indy.  And they haven't even played enough consecutive times in Indy to make it "seem like they never play in Foxboro".  Before last season, the Pats hosted three consecutive years.

ETA:  Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colts-Patriots_rivalry

hey wikipedia boy... your post prolly got deleted cause it was WRONG !!

I've watched EVERY SINGLE GAME you're talking about & you forget to mention the PLAYOFFS  .... the reg/.  season game has been the deciding factor in who gets homefield in their playoff matchup....

the ONLY reason there was consecutive homefield games for either team, was because the winner of the regular season game had clinched homefield in the PLAYOFFS....

thats one reason why their rivalry has been so fierce..... so yeah, their regular season games have alternated homefield advantages  EVERY year up until this year...

historically, whoever wins the regular season game, has moved on to homefield in the playoffs & ALWAYS advanced to the SB after beating the other ....

I have no idea what you're trying to say and I doubt that you do either.  From 1970-2001, they were division rivals.  That means that they each played one home game and one away game every year, and because they've each been so good, they've played each other each of the last five seasons.  You don't seem to be contesting my point that the Patriots have hosted more than the Colts since 2003, and I fail to see how the playoffs are relevant.  In these last several years, of the three times that they've met in the playoffs, the host team for the regular season game lost in the playoffs.

Your main point, however, has been that there is a bias in which team hosts there regular season game.  That's just not true.  The scheduling "formula" has been out there since 2002.  Since NE and IND are in the same conference but not in the same division, they are guaranteed to face each other at least once every three years.  Three years after that meeting, they switch stadiums.  However, in the interim, they may face each other again if they finish in the same spots in their respective divisions.  This is why they've faced each other every year since '03.  The only question, then, is how the NFL decides exactly who plays at home in those games.  My guess is that they switch off somehow, but Im not sure.

WHO CARES ABOUT 1970 -2001 ??

from 2001 on up is THE COLTS/PATS rivalry ....

and as I just told you, they used to alternate thier reg season game homefield advantage from 2001 up until THIS  YEAR...

and the WINNER of that regular season matchup ALWAYS went further in the playoffs & ALWAYS beat the other in the post season....and they ALWAYS had homefield advantage in the playoffs as a result of their reg season metting, because that 1 game made the difference as far as 'best record'..

you don't seem to realize that the colts/pats have had the best records these past 7 years & which ever team loses their reg. season matchup against each other, ALWAYS loses homefield advantage &  ALWAYS loses in the playoffs when/if they meet again...

basically, their reg. season matchup game has been THE deciding factor in the outcome of their entire season...

this year, the NFL is loading it for the Colts, AGAIN, because they have broken the mold & granted the colts another homefield against the PATS this season ....the colts had homefield last year , so this should've been the Pats turn at homefield...

are you still confused ?? ....

[Rebel Yell]

and yeah, football fans LOVE TO WATCH GAMES IN THE SNOW !!!!

We are a dying breed.  Snow, defense, 17-10 final score, these things are considered relics nowadays.  People want to see high scoring offense and no defense.  Like the Pats and Cowboys last year, that was considered a good game.  I don't consider high scoring games "good".  I consider them lack of defense, which ultimately will bite you in the ass in the playoffs.

well the highest rated superbowl in NFL history was at least one of the lowest scoring in decades .... (Pats vs Giants) ...so I think fans are looking for good football more than just gratuitous scoring (which it has become)

the NFL tries to tell us what we're gonna like, its not the other way around... the NFL has bent every rule they could to CREATE more scoring  up until this year, because the new defensive rules are gonna slow down teams like the Colts for sure....

but tEh colts have gotten ALOT privi  cause they give the NFL a bunch of money & make them a bunch of money ... & of course, their choice of peyton manning gave them instant celebrity power, which the NFL & investors have gone with...

peyton manning sells commericals & gear, so peyton manning gets the red carpet from the NFL ....& yet they've still only managed 1 superbowl all these years ....

Do you think the fans were watchiing because it was going to be a defensive battle?  Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Pats going in undefeated?  Maybe it was to watch the highest scoring team in the history of the league.  Maybe it was to watch the QB who who broke the single season touchdown record.  Or could it have been to watch the reciever who broke the single season touchdown record?  Maybe it was to watch the rematch of two teams who combined to score 73 points?  The average, casual fan likes to see high scores, big plays, and no defese.  That is the society we live in now.  Nobody gets hurt, physically or emotionally.  One day, they may even stop keeping score so everyone is a winner.

[john c calhoun]

and yeah, football fans LOVE TO WATCH GAMES IN THE SNOW !!!!

We are a dying breed.  Snow, defense, 17-10 final score, these things are considered relics nowadays.  People want to see high scoring offense and no defense.  Like the Pats and Cowboys last year, that was considered a good game.  I don't consider high scoring games "good".  I consider them lack of defense, which ultimately will bite you in the ass in the playoffs.

well the highest rated superbowl in NFL history was at least one of the lowest scoring in decades .... (Pats vs Giants) ...so I think fans are looking for good football more than just gratuitous scoring (which it has become)

the NFL tries to tell us what we're gonna like, its not the other way around... the NFL has bent every rule they could to CREATE more scoring  up until this year, because the new defensive rules are gonna slow down teams like the Colts for sure....

but tEh colts have gotten ALOT privi  cause they give the NFL a bunch of money & make them a bunch of money ... & of course, their choice of peyton manning gave them instant celebrity power, which the NFL & investors have gone with...

peyton manning sells commericals & gear, so peyton manning gets the red carpet from the NFL ....& yet they've still only managed 1 superbowl all these years ....

Do you think the fans were watchiing because it was going to be a defensive battle?  Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Pats going in undefeated?  Maybe it was to watch the highest scoring team in the history of the league.  Maybe it was to watch the QB who who broke the single season touchdown record.  Or could it have been to watch the reciever who broke the single season touchdown record?  Maybe it was to watch the rematch of two teams who combined to score 73 points?  The average, casual fan likes to see high scores, big plays, and no defese.  That is the society we live in now.  Nobody gets hurt, physically or emotionally.  One day, they may even stop keeping score so everyone is a winner.

superbowls are traditionally low scoring games.....so, the average fan is STOOPID & therefore should demand their money back if they were looking for a shootout in last years SB... I predicted one team would score more than 30 points, but not the other ...

I predicted the Pats 34, giants 17 , but it didn't happen (cept for the giants 17   ) ....

guarantee you if the pats could play them again, it would be  Pats 34-17 or worse.....

but the only way the Pats were gonna score 30plus points, was if brady was 100% & he had TIME TO THROW.....neither happened & therefore the luckiest team EVER won the superbowl....

frankly, other than the 4th quarter, that game SUCKED ...yet the 'fan polls' all show its now THE greatest superbowl ever

the new defensive rules this season are gonna tame offensive scoring, because all the teams that lost out last year all voted to pump up defenses to counter the offensive shenannigans....  ...

[Rebel Yell]

and yeah, football fans LOVE TO WATCH GAMES IN THE SNOW !!!!

We are a dying breed.  Snow, defense, 17-10 final score, these things are considered relics nowadays.  People want to see high scoring offense and no defense.  Like the Pats and Cowboys last year, that was considered a good game.  I don't consider high scoring games "good".  I consider them lack of defense, which ultimately will bite you in the ass in the playoffs.

well the highest rated superbowl in NFL history was at least one of the lowest scoring in decades .... (Pats vs Giants) ...so I think fans are looking for good football more than just gratuitous scoring (which it has become)

the NFL tries to tell us what we're gonna like, its not the other way around... the NFL has bent every rule they could to CREATE more scoring  up until this year, because the new defensive rules are gonna slow down teams like the Colts for sure....

but tEh colts have gotten ALOT privi  cause they give the NFL a bunch of money & make them a bunch of money ... & of course, their choice of peyton manning gave them instant celebrity power, which the NFL & investors have gone with...

peyton manning sells commericals & gear, so peyton manning gets the red carpet from the NFL ....& yet they've still only managed 1 superbowl all these years ....

Do you think the fans were watchiing because it was going to be a defensive battle?  Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Pats going in undefeated?  Maybe it was to watch the highest scoring team in the history of the league.  Maybe it was to watch the QB who who broke the single season touchdown record.  Or could it have been to watch the reciever who broke the single season touchdown record?  Maybe it was to watch the rematch of two teams who combined to score 73 points?  The average, casual fan likes to see high scores, big plays, and no defese.  That is the society we live in now.  Nobody gets hurt, physically or emotionally.  One day, they may even stop keeping score so everyone is a winner.

superbowls are traditionally low scoring games.....so, the average fan is STOOPID & therefore should demand their money back if they were looking for a shootout in last years SB... I predicted one team would score more than 30 points, but not the other ...

I predicted the Pats 34, giants 17 , but it didn't happen (cept for the giants 17   ) ....

guarantee you if the pats could play them again, it would be  Pats 34-17 or worse.....

but the only way the Pats were gonna score 30plus points, was if brady was 100% & he had TIME TO THROW.....neither happened & therefore the luckiest team EVER won the superbowl....

frankly, other than the 4th quarter, that game SUCKED ...yet the 'fan polls' all show its now THE greatest superbowl ever

the new defensive rules this season are gonna tame offensive scoring, because all the teams that lost out last year all voted to pump up defenses to counter the offensive shenannigans....  ...

From a historical standpoint, it was the greatest.  To the average idiot, it was like a movie script.  Underdog defeats the great team.  Miracle on turf.

To the educated fan, it was a horrible game, until the 4th quarter like you said.  To me the greatest game was the Giants - Bills.

[john c calhoun]

and yeah, football fans LOVE TO WATCH GAMES IN THE SNOW !!!!

We are a dying breed.  Snow, defense, 17-10 final score, these things are considered relics nowadays.  People want to see high scoring offense and no defense.  Like the Pats and Cowboys last year, that was considered a good game.  I don't consider high scoring games "good".  I consider them lack of defense, which ultimately will bite you in the ass in the playoffs.

well the highest rated superbowl in NFL history was at least one of the lowest scoring in decades .... (Pats vs Giants) ...so I think fans are looking for good football more than just gratuitous scoring (which it has become)

the NFL tries to tell us what we're gonna like, its not the other way around... the NFL has bent every rule they could to CREATE more scoring  up until this year, because the new defensive rules are gonna slow down teams like the Colts for sure....

but tEh colts have gotten ALOT privi  cause they give the NFL a bunch of money & make them a bunch of money ... & of course, their choice of peyton manning gave them instant celebrity power, which the NFL & investors have gone with...

peyton manning sells commericals & gear, so peyton manning gets the red carpet from the NFL ....& yet they've still only managed 1 superbowl all these years ....

Do you think the fans were watchiing because it was going to be a defensive battle?  Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Pats going in undefeated?  Maybe it was to watch the highest scoring team in the history of the league.  Maybe it was to watch the QB who who broke the single season touchdown record.  Or could it have been to watch the reciever who broke the single season touchdown record?  Maybe it was to watch the rematch of two teams who combined to score 73 points?  The average, casual fan likes to see high scores, big plays, and no defese.  That is the society we live in now.  Nobody gets hurt, physically or emotionally.  One day, they may even stop keeping score so everyone is a winner.

superbowls are traditionally low scoring games.....so, the average fan is STOOPID & therefore should demand their money back if they were looking for a shootout in last years SB... I predicted one team would score more than 30 points, but not the other ...

I predicted the Pats 34, giants 17 , but it didn't happen (cept for the giants 17   ) ....

guarantee you if the pats could play them again, it would be  Pats 34-17 or worse.....

but the only way the Pats were gonna score 30plus points, was if brady was 100% & he had TIME TO THROW.....neither happened & therefore the luckiest team EVER won the superbowl....

frankly, other than the 4th quarter, that game SUCKED ...yet the 'fan polls' all show its now THE greatest superbowl ever

the new defensive rules this season are gonna tame offensive scoring, because all the teams that lost out last year all voted to pump up defenses to counter the offensive shenannigans....  ...

From a historical standpoint, it was the greatest.  To the average idiot, it was like a movie script.  Underdog defeats the great team.  Miracle on turf.

To the educated fan, it was a horrible game, until the 4th quarter like you said.  To me the greatest game was the Giants - Bills.

yep, great points &  agree 100%...

same with the giants/ bills SB.....I always thought the redksins/raiders was a good one too as well as cowboys/bills in their first meeting... Steelers /cowboys in 1979 was GREAT...

titans /rams was damn good too, as well as Pats/Eagles.... ...

[Rebel Yell]

and yeah, football fans LOVE TO WATCH GAMES IN THE SNOW !!!!

We are a dying breed.  Snow, defense, 17-10 final score, these things are considered relics nowadays.  People want to see high scoring offense and no defense.  Like the Pats and Cowboys last year, that was considered a good game.  I don't consider high scoring games "good".  I consider them lack of defense, which ultimately will bite you in the ass in the playoffs.

well the highest rated superbowl in NFL history was at least one of the lowest scoring in decades .... (Pats vs Giants) ...so I think fans are looking for good football more than just gratuitous scoring (which it has become)

the NFL tries to tell us what we're gonna like, its not the other way around... the NFL has bent every rule they could to CREATE more scoring  up until this year, because the new defensive rules are gonna slow down teams like the Colts for sure....

but tEh colts have gotten ALOT privi  cause they give the NFL a bunch of money & make them a bunch of money ... & of course, their choice of peyton manning gave them instant celebrity power, which the NFL & investors have gone with...

peyton manning sells commericals & gear, so peyton manning gets the red carpet from the NFL ....& yet they've still only managed 1 superbowl all these years ....

Do you think the fans were watchiing because it was going to be a defensive battle?  Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Pats going in undefeated?  Maybe it was to watch the highest scoring team in the history of the league.  Maybe it was to watch the QB who who broke the single season touchdown record.  Or could it have been to watch the reciever who broke the single season touchdown record?  Maybe it was to watch the rematch of two teams who combined to score 73 points?  The average, casual fan likes to see high scores, big plays, and no defese.  That is the society we live in now.  Nobody gets hurt, physically or emotionally.  One day, they may even stop keeping score so everyone is a winner.

superbowls are traditionally low scoring games.....so, the average fan is STOOPID & therefore should demand their money back if they were looking for a shootout in last years SB... I predicted one team would score more than 30 points, but not the other ...

I predicted the Pats 34, giants 17 , but it didn't happen (cept for the giants 17   ) ....

guarantee you if the pats could play them again, it would be  Pats 34-17 or worse.....

but the only way the Pats were gonna score 30plus points, was if brady was 100% & he had TIME TO THROW.....neither happened & therefore the luckiest team EVER won the superbowl....

frankly, other than the 4th quarter, that game SUCKED ...yet the 'fan polls' all show its now THE greatest superbowl ever

the new defensive rules this season are gonna tame offensive scoring, because all the teams that lost out last year all voted to pump up defenses to counter the offensive shenannigans....  ...

From a historical standpoint, it was the greatest.  To the average idiot, it was like a movie script.  Underdog defeats the great team.  Miracle on turf.

To the educated fan, it was a horrible game, until the 4th quarter like you said.  To me the greatest game was the Giants - Bills.

yep, great points &  agree 100%...

same with the giants/ bills SB.....I always thought the redksins/raiders was a good one too as well as cowboys/bills in their first meeting... Steelers /cowboys in 1980 was GREAT...

titans /rams was damn good too, as well as Pats/Eagles.... ...

Pats/Eagles was a good one, just for the fact that was the first one that I actually rooted for the Patriots.  I hate McNabb, not for anything he's done but because of the way he's handled by ESPN.  Rush was dead on. 

I forgot about Titans/Rams.  That was a good one, too.

[john c calhoun]

and yeah, football fans LOVE TO WATCH GAMES IN THE SNOW !!!!

We are a dying breed.  Snow, defense, 17-10 final score, these things are considered relics nowadays.  People want to see high scoring offense and no defense.  Like the Pats and Cowboys last year, that was considered a good game.  I don't consider high scoring games "good".  I consider them lack of defense, which ultimately will bite you in the ass in the playoffs.

well the highest rated superbowl in NFL history was at least one of the lowest scoring in decades .... (Pats vs Giants) ...so I think fans are looking for good football more than just gratuitous scoring (which it has become)

the NFL tries to tell us what we're gonna like, its not the other way around... the NFL has bent every rule they could to CREATE more scoring  up until this year, because the new defensive rules are gonna slow down teams like the Colts for sure....

but tEh colts have gotten ALOT privi  cause they give the NFL a bunch of money & make them a bunch of money ... & of course, their choice of peyton manning gave them instant celebrity power, which the NFL & investors have gone with...

peyton manning sells commericals & gear, so peyton manning gets the red carpet from the NFL ....& yet they've still only managed 1 superbowl all these years ....

Do you think the fans were watchiing because it was going to be a defensive battle?  Or do you think it might have had something to do with the Pats going in undefeated?  Maybe it was to watch the highest scoring team in the history of the league.  Maybe it was to watch the QB who who broke the single season touchdown record.  Or could it have been to watch the reciever who broke the single season touchdown record?  Maybe it was to watch the rematch of two teams who combined to score 73 points?  The average, casual fan likes to see high scores, big plays, and no defese.  That is the society we live in now.  Nobody gets hurt, physically or emotionally.  One day, they may even stop keeping score so everyone is a winner.

superbowls are traditionally low scoring games.....so, the average fan is STOOPID & therefore should demand their money back if they were looking for a shootout in last years SB... I predicted one team would score more than 30 points, but not the other ...

I predicted the Pats 34, giants 17 , but it didn't happen (cept for the giants 17   ) ....

guarantee you if the pats could play them again, it would be  Pats 34-17 or worse.....

but the only way the Pats were gonna score 30plus points, was if brady was 100% & he had TIME TO THROW.....neither happened & therefore the luckiest team EVER won the superbowl....

frankly, other than the 4th quarter, that game SUCKED ...yet the 'fan polls' all show its now THE greatest superbowl ever

the new defensive rules this season are gonna tame offensive scoring, because all the teams that lost out last year all voted to pump up defenses to counter the offensive shenannigans....  ...

From a historical standpoint, it was the greatest.  To the average idiot, it was like a movie script.  Underdog defeats the great team.  Miracle on turf.

To the educated fan, it was a horrible game, until the 4th quarter like you said.  To me the greatest game was the Giants - Bills.

yep, great points &  agree 100%...

same with the giants/ bills SB.....I always thought the redksins/raiders was a good one too as well as cowboys/bills in their first meeting... Steelers /cowboys in 1980 was GREAT...

titans /rams was damn good too, as well as Pats/Eagles.... ...

Pats/Eagles was a good one, just for the fact that was the first one that I actually rooted for the Patriots.  I hate McNabb, not for anything he's done but because of the way he's handled by ESPN.  Rush was dead on. 

I forgot about Titans/Rams.  That was a good one, too.

funny how the two small market midwest teams get forgotten about by the big boys... ie: rams/titans:-) ....they always talk about the big market teams (pats are now a big market team, because of their international appeal/record, not because of  the boston area) ...

just look at the obvious bias the NFL has this year...

my  pathetic BARES team has 5 primetime appearances  .....one against the colts I understand, but the rest ?? ..spare me.... the  only reason they are getting primetime is because of the chicago area's market..

the NFL hasn't learned their lesson from last year....they had to bump teH Bares out of a primetime game last year, cause THEY SUCKED SO BAD.. ...against seattle I think it was ...

 

[WinOne4TheGipper]

People want to see high scoring offense and no defense. 

Huh? I want to see a skirt get his teeth knocked down his throat for having the balls to come across the middle zone of the second level.

Who gets all the hype on the sports shows, which have become nothing more than Entertainment Tonight featuring athletes, the grind it out old school knock the shit out of you NFL game or the high octane 900 yards of total offense Arena League type game.  We are a dying breed, nobody appreciates defense anymore.  No one talks about the Ravens Super Bowl run as a great team.  Why, because they had no offense.  That team would have beaten at least 3/4 of the other Super Bowl teams.  Especially this years.  All they had to score was 14.

That's because most of the sportscasters are pussies. They love the "finesse" of the game because they have never felt that feeling when you lower an "ambulance" on somebody.

yep....

and they also don't like to sit out in the SNOW ....

did you see that the Bears don't have the luxury of playing teH colts  at soldier field in december either.... ...

they gotta play Indy in the dome & I'm only guessing it will be a mild to stunning Indy blowout alright  ...

but, I'm willing to bet if the Bears got to play them at soldier field in late nov or december, there would be a different outcome...

but the only way the colts will be playing in the snow is if they are a wild card team & the NFL has NO CHOICE but to force them to play in the cold/snow at winter time ...

Umm, you do know that the Colts are one of the "poorest" teams in the NFL, don't you?

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/13/nfl-team-valuations-biz-07nfl_cz_kb_mo_cs_0913nfl_land.html

It's so easy to "own" you on football related stuff, and yet you continue posting smugly.

so who said the Colts USE THEIR OWN MONEY to buy off the NFL ??

did you happen to catch the superbowl bidding war that Jerry Jones, AZ Cards & the poor, poor colts have been over SUPERBOWL rights ??

have you noticed the BRAND NEW stadium the oooooil boys & Indiana taxpayers are building the poor, poor colts team ?? ....

using other peoples money while showing little of your own is the oldest trick in the book....

you own nothing but a bag of coal...

Notice that I put poorest in quotation marks.  They're not poor in any sense of the word, save that 20+ other teams bring in more money than they do.  The idea that the Colts are such a profitable franchise that the NFL would fix its season for them is ludicrous.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

It's amazing that the Patriots continue to win SUper Bowls or go undefeated in the regular season despite the fact that the league is soooo against them.  It must just be the genius of Bill Beeeelichik.

Yeah, how does that happen?

Debating football with JCC kind of makes you feel like this guy:

specially when JCC's team whoops the shiite out of dallas IN THEIR HOUSE 

so tell us why the Colts get to play the Pats at home AGAIN  ...if its not the NFLs BIAS ??

Okay, that was weird.  I had put up a post that basically refuted your contention that the Colts and Pats always play in Indy (I don't know what happened to it).  Actually, since the 2002 realignment (when the current scheduling formula went into force), the teams have played five times during the regular season, three in Foxboro, two in Indy.  And they haven't even played enough consecutive times in Indy to make it "seem like they never play in Foxboro".  Before last season, the Pats hosted three consecutive years.

ETA:  Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colts-Patriots_rivalry

hey wikipedia boy... your post prolly got deleted cause it was WRONG !!

I've watched EVERY SINGLE GAME you're talking about & you forget to mention the PLAYOFFS  .... the reg/.  season game has been the deciding factor in who gets homefield in their playoff matchup....

the ONLY reason there was consecutive homefield games for either team, was because the winner of the regular season game had clinched homefield in the PLAYOFFS....

thats one reason why their rivalry has been so fierce..... so yeah, their regular season games have alternated homefield advantages  EVERY year up until this year...

historically, whoever wins the regular season game, has moved on to homefield in the playoffs & ALWAYS advanced to the SB after beating the other ....

I have no idea what you're trying to say and I doubt that you do either.  From 1970-2001, they were division rivals.  That means that they each played one home game and one away game every year, and because they've each been so good, they've played each other each of the last five seasons.  You don't seem to be contesting my point that the Patriots have hosted more than the Colts since 2003, and I fail to see how the playoffs are relevant.  In these last several years, of the three times that they've met in the playoffs, the host team for the regular season game lost in the playoffs.

Your main point, however, has been that there is a bias in which team hosts there regular season game.  That's just not true.  The scheduling "formula" has been out there since 2002.  Since NE and IND are in the same conference but not in the same division, they are guaranteed to face each other at least once every three years.  Three years after that meeting, they switch stadiums.  However, in the interim, they may face each other again if they finish in the same spots in their respective divisions.  This is why they've faced each other every year since '03.  The only question, then, is how the NFL decides exactly who plays at home in those games.  My guess is that they switch off somehow, but Im not sure.

WHO CARES ABOUT 1970 -2001 ??

from 2001 on up is THE COLTS/PATS rivalry ....

and as I just told you, they used to alternate thier reg season game homefield advantage from 2001 up until THIS  YEAR...

and the WINNER of that regular season matchup ALWAYS went further in the playoffs & ALWAYS beat the other in the post season....and they ALWAYS had homefield advantage in the playoffs as a result of their reg season metting, because that 1 game made the difference as far as 'best record'..

you don't seem to realize that the colts/pats have had the best records these past 7 years & which ever team loses their reg. season matchup against each other, ALWAYS loses homefield advantage &  ALWAYS loses in the playoffs when/if they meet again...

basically, their reg. season matchup game has been THE deciding factor in the outcome of their entire season...

this year, the NFL is loading it for the Colts, AGAIN, because they have broken the mold & granted the colts another homefield against the PATS this season ....the colts had homefield last year , so this should've been the Pats turn at homefield...

are you still confused ?? ....

Are you still confused?  I provided proof that there has been no alternating of regular season homefield advantage from year to year.  The teams have played each other since 2003.  The Colts hosted the first meeting, then THE PATS HOSTED THREE STRAIGHT REGULAR SEASON MEETINGS, now the Colts are hosting back to back.  Got that?  Absolutely no alteration of homefield from season to season.  Get your facts straight if you want to talk football.

[john c calhoun]

It's amazing that the Patriots continue to win SUper Bowls or go undefeated in the regular season despite the fact that the league is soooo against them.  It must just be the genius of Bill Beeeelichik.

Yeah, how does that happen?

Debating football with JCC kind of makes you feel like this guy:

specially when JCC's team whoops the shiite out of dallas IN THEIR HOUSE 

so tell us why the Colts get to play the Pats at home AGAIN  ...if its not the NFLs BIAS ??

Okay, that was weird.  I had put up a post that basically refuted your contention that the Colts and Pats always play in Indy (I don't know what happened to it).  Actually, since the 2002 realignment (when the current scheduling formula went into force), the teams have played five times during the regular season, three in Foxboro, two in Indy.  And they haven't even played enough consecutive times in Indy to make it "seem like they never play in Foxboro".  Before last season, the Pats hosted three consecutive years.

ETA:  Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colts-Patriots_rivalry

hey wikipedia boy... your post prolly got deleted cause it was WRONG !!

I've watched EVERY SINGLE GAME you're talking about & you forget to mention the PLAYOFFS  .... the reg/.  season game has been the deciding factor in who gets homefield in their playoff matchup....

the ONLY reason there was consecutive homefield games for either team, was because the winner of the regular season game had clinched homefield in the PLAYOFFS....

thats one reason why their rivalry has been so fierce..... so yeah, their regular season games have alternated homefield advantages  EVERY year up until this year...

historically, whoever wins the regular season game, has moved on to homefield in the playoffs & ALWAYS advanced to the SB after beating the other ....

I have no idea what you're trying to say and I doubt that you do either.  From 1970-2001, they were division rivals.  That means that they each played one home game and one away game every year, and because they've each been so good, they've played each other each of the last five seasons.  You don't seem to be contesting my point that the Patriots have hosted more than the Colts since 2003, and I fail to see how the playoffs are relevant.  In these last several years, of the three times that they've met in the playoffs, the host team for the regular season game lost in the playoffs.

Your main point, however, has been that there is a bias in which team hosts there regular season game.  That's just not true.  The scheduling "formula" has been out there since 2002.  Since NE and IND are in the same conference but not in the same division, they are guaranteed to face each other at least once every three years.  Three years after that meeting, they switch stadiums.  However, in the interim, they may face each other again if they finish in the same spots in their respective divisions.  This is why they've faced each other every year since '03.  The only question, then, is how the NFL decides exactly who plays at home in those games.  My guess is that they switch off somehow, but Im not sure.

WHO CARES ABOUT 1970 -2001 ??

from 2001 on up is THE COLTS/PATS rivalry ....

and as I just told you, they used to alternate thier reg season game homefield advantage from 2001 up until THIS  YEAR...

and the WINNER of that regular season matchup ALWAYS went further in the playoffs & ALWAYS beat the other in the post season....and they ALWAYS had homefield advantage in the playoffs as a result of their reg season metting, because that 1 game made the difference as far as 'best record'..

you don't seem to realize that the colts/pats have had the best records these past 7 years & which ever team loses their reg. season matchup against each other, ALWAYS loses homefield advantage &  ALWAYS loses in the playoffs when/if they meet again...

basically, their reg. season matchup game has been THE deciding factor in the outcome of their entire season...

this year, the NFL is loading it for the Colts, AGAIN, because they have broken the mold & granted the colts another homefield against the PATS this season ....the colts had homefield last year , so this should've been the Pats turn at homefield...

are you still confused ?? ....

Are you still confused?  I provided proof that there has been no alternating of regular season homefield advantage from year to year.  The teams have played each other since 2003.  The Colts hosted the first meeting, then THE PATS HOSTED THREE STRAIGHT REGULAR SEASON MEETINGS, now the Colts are hosting back to back.  Got that?  Absolutely no alteration of homefield from season to season.  Get your facts straight if you want to talk football.

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

[WinOne4TheGipper]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

[john c calhoun]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a dickhead   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

[WinOne4TheGipper]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a dickhead   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

[john c calhoun]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

[WinOne4TheGipper]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

[john c calhoun]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

yeah.... the  football bloopers  HOF ....

I lost all respect for the BARES when they resigned that dufus.... (&/or picked him in the first place) .. ...

wrex will lead da Bares to another embarrassment this year when they play the colts in indy

[Rebel Yell]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

yeah.... the  football bloopers  HOF ....

I lost all respect for the BARES when they resigned that dufus.... (&/or picked him in the first place) .. ...

wrex will lead da Bares to another embarrassment this year when they play the colts in indy

What's wrong with Turnoversaurus Rex?

[john c calhoun]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

yeah.... the  football bloopers  HOF ....

I lost all respect for the BARES when they resigned that dufus.... (&/or picked him in the first place) .. ...

wrex will lead da Bares to another embarrassment this year when they play the colts in indy

What's wrong with Turnoversaurus Rex?

is his nickname Bendoversaurus ? ...if so, you know the answer 

[Rebel Yell]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

yeah.... the  football bloopers  HOF ....

I lost all respect for the BARES when they resigned that dufus.... (&/or picked him in the first place) .. ...

wrex will lead da Bares to another embarrassment this year when they play the colts in indy

What's wrong with Turnoversaurus Rex?

is his nickname Bendoversaurus ? ...if so, you know the answer 

What was it?  Three years ago he was the second coming.

[john c calhoun]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

yeah.... the  football bloopers  HOF ....

I lost all respect for the BARES when they resigned that dufus.... (&/or picked him in the first place) .. ...

wrex will lead da Bares to another embarrassment this year when they play the colts in indy

What's wrong with Turnoversaurus Rex?

is his nickname Bendoversaurus ? ...if so, you know the answer 

What was it?  Three years ago he was the second coming.

yep...

until he finally got 1/2 a season under his belt   ....

he started off strong the 06 season, but fizzled & popped in the stuperbowl....then the beginning of last season , when we were all guaranteed his jitters were healed, he was MISERABLE ...I mean GOD AWFUL ...

and its a slap in the face to every player on that superbowl team to bring back wrex after  his god awful performances these past 2 years.... and obviously they know it & MANY want out of there....

same w/ not only choosing that LOSER cedric benson over T Jones, but bringing his sorry ass back after his performance last year....

[Rebel Yell]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

yeah.... the  football bloopers  HOF ....

I lost all respect for the BARES when they resigned that dufus.... (&/or picked him in the first place) .. ...

wrex will lead da Bares to another embarrassment this year when they play the colts in indy

What's wrong with Turnoversaurus Rex?

is his nickname Bendoversaurus ? ...if so, you know the answer 

What was it?  Three years ago he was the second coming.

yep...

until he finally got 1/2 a season under his belt   ....

he started off strong the 06 season, but fizzled & popped in the stuperbowl....then the beginning of last season , when we were all guaranteed his jitters were healed, he was MISERABLE ...I mean GOD AWFUL ...

and its a slap in the face to every player on that superbowl team to bring back wrex after  his god awful performances these past 2 years.... and obviously they know it & MANY want out of there....

same w/ not only choosing that LOSER cedric benson over T Jones, but bringing his sorry ass back after his performance last year....

But, hey, Lovie's loyal.

[john c calhoun]

no the Pats did not get 3 straight since 2004...

wiki, as usual, has got it wrong...

last year the colts had it (07), the year before the Pats had it (06) & the year before that the Colts had it (05) ...

does that sound like 3 years in a row for the Pats after the 2004 season ??....

 

Do you have a source for this?

budweiser  ....

nah....I don't actually remember if the Pats/colts alternated 04-05-06 ....I was just being a ****head   

I'm just pissed the Pats have to play those homo's in Indy  2 years in a row...

Well, they could throw next season.  If they finished dead last in their division, then they probably wouldn't have to worry about it.

Yeah right, next thing you know, the Colts lose Manning in the preseason and have to use Jim Sorgi all year long..

jim sorgi vs matt cassell would be EPIC !! ...

sad thing is, both of  those guys could still be a step up on the Bears

What are you talking about?  Rex Grossman?  That guy is Hall of Fame material!

yeah.... the  football bloopers  HOF ....

I lost all respect for the BARES when they resigned that dufus.... (&/or picked him in the first place) .. ...

wrex will lead da Bares to another embarrassment this year when they play the colts in indy

What's wrong with Turnoversaurus Rex?

is his nickname Bendoversaurus ? ...if so, you know the answer 

What was it?  Three years ago he was the second coming.

yep...

until he finally got 1/2 a season under his belt   ....

he started off strong the 06 season, but fizzled & popped in the stuperbowl....then the beginning of last season , when we were all guaranteed his jitters were healed, he was MISERABLE ...I mean GOD AWFUL ...

and its a slap in the face to every player on that superbowl team to bring back wrex after  his god awful performances these past 2 years.... and obviously they know it & MANY want out of there....

same w/ not only choosing that LOSER cedric benson over T Jones, but bringing his sorry ass back after his performance last year....

But, hey, Lovie's loyal.

lovie is a friggen idiot  ...

he's got ALOT to learn in regards to being a HEAD COACH ...

the more I learn about his history as defensive cooridinator, the more I question is coaching skills PERIOD ... (ie: also brought in miserable players & kept them when DC for the RAMS)

[john c calhoun]

marion barber wants 40-60million like LT & LJ, arguably the best running backs in the league (who have also logged more yards in 2 seasons, than barber has in 4 )

consider that LT has rushed for 4787 yards since 2005, whereas barber has rushed for around 2500 yards (if that)  & LT has scored around 70 TD's & Barber around 25 , I'd have to LAUGH barbers agent out of the office if I were Jerry Jones....

jerry jones only wants to pay him 30 million or so....

hmmmmm ??

trouble in Big D ??