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.