Who made that comment?

I think some of you guys are confusing a BB forum comment that CW linked with Peter King's actual quote.

Well, they're clearly ****ing morons with no grasp of the English language.

I'm guessing that Tom Brady was involved somehow. I bet he could get past a playoff loss in his way to the Super Bowl.

Nope

---------------

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...bag/index.html

• Low Seeds Rule. Since 2005, Super Bowl winners are 12-0 on the road in the playoffs. The last seven champs have played only seven home games in all, in addition to the 12 road games, which means the champ has come out of the pack of those teams that often end up scrambling to make the playoffs at the end.

I believe most people know what he's trying to say. But it's not worded well and makes him sound stupid. Yeah, it's kind of nit-picky but I had to read it two or three times before I really understood what he was getting at.

You really don't see how it's both unnecessary and redundant to say that Super Bowl winners are undefeated? If King were to just omit that stat, this would be a non-issue. Here...

"Since 2005, Super Bowl winners have played 12 road games vs. 7 home games; which means the champ..."

Does 12-0 NOT mean undefeated?

Exactly.

You are putting emphasis on the "0", King is intending to emphasize the "12".

"The last 7 Super Bowl winners are undefeated on the road". Stupid statement.

"The last 7 Super Bowl winners are 12-0 on the road." Could be worded better, but with the next two sentences in his article, it puts it all in perspective.

Then he should have omitted the 0

Key word here, "intending". I know what he's trying to say, but he's not saying it very well. By saying "12-0", it implies an undefeated record. Which, as pointed out, is redundant.

Edit: Hell, it doesn't imply, it states. He should have just omitted the record altogether and talked about the 12 road games and not the teams' records in those 12 road games. Because everyone knows what their record was.

No, not at all.

Super Bowl winners have been 12-0 ON THE ROAD since 2005.

Do you have a different way to describe a Super Bowl winner?

JFC, so "Everyone knows" that the past seven Super Bowl winning teams were a combined 12-0 on the road during the playoffs?

What?

I've said it three times already, but I'll repeat it again...

"Since 2005, Super Bowl winners have played 12 road games vs. 7 home games."

By default, Super Bowl winners are undefeated in the playoffs. However, since 2005, of the 19 games these winners have played, 12 of them have been on the road. That's the point of emphasis, not the record.

Let me ask you this, if you won the Super Bowl last year and played three road games, what was your record? Point being that the record on the road in the playoffs is redundant. It's not necessary to say that Super Bowl winners are 12-0 on the road. Just say, Super Bowl winners have played 12 road games.

One who does not lose in the post-season?

The original quoted link wasn't the full context of the story though...

Wow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill

What is the total number of road victories for the last seven Super Bowl winners?

And do you understand what this number implies?

I love it. You repeatedly say that you can't see the redundancy in King's statement(s); which I, and many, many, many others, seem to see. I did my best to explain it as simply as possible.

Bottom line, he could have worded it all much better; and considering he's a Senior Writer for SI, he should be expected to.

I completely and utterly disagree and have absolutely no issue with his wording, especially in the context of the paragraph.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...f7CqSv2dOQ0NFQ

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...gvthsSedFXfM7Q

I'm glad you're not a writer then. I think it's really confusing and sounds idiotic. Can you figure out what point he's trying to make? Sure. But Super Bowl teams are by definition undefeated in the playoffs, so there's no reason to say "12-0," which implies that a loss would be possible in the given scenario.

The problem is that people who are nitpicking King are ignoring the fact that he didn't write a stand alone single sentence.

Wow, talk about arguing over nothing.

Do I think he chose the best wording possible? No. Can I understand what he's saying? Yes.

In the age of email, Twitter, Facebook and other forms of instant new items and thought, grammar and punctuation have suffered irreparable damage to the point where even the best journalists stumble over themselves to make a point.

yes we are

That's what a 2-11 record will do to people.

I am pretty sure the last 46 Super Bowl winners have been undefeated both at home and on the road in the playoffs.

Peter King is a hack. His articles are crap.

"Cassel is an MVP candidate"

- Peter King, 2010

King has gravy running through his veins.

Send it to Peeholi too.

For crying out loud, there are still three more games? It doesn't seem like this season will EVER end.

Ouch.

anybody ever read anything from this ass clown that was correct?

HIs mmqb has always been shit, and I DO NOT give a **** about what coffee you like

Well, he is the guy who picked the Chiefs to go to the playoffs and Romeo Crennell to be Coach of the Year...

Proof that East Coast Bias is overrated.

:D

Dane picked the same thing, more or less. :D