Im going to apologize now.

[Guest]

@Ninja Vike said:
Your "hard and fast rule" hasn't done much to help us at all. So maybe this is exactly what the Vikings have needed. I blame you for keeping us out of the Super Bowl for the last twenty years.

Well we weren't exactly lighting it up the 20 before that either.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Damnit, Jim! ( Think Star Trek tone)

Well thanks for outing yourself on this. I think that is the only way to potentially stop a jinx.

Skol Vikings - Go do your thing and just win!

[Guest]

Nah, you're good, bro.  Eagles will lose to the Rams, and the Vikings will win out.

Also, we need more clarity on "the Vikings will finish better than the Eagles."  Does that mean regular season record, or we get farther in the playoffs than they do?

[Guest]

@SmashmouthD said:
Nah, you're good, bro.  Eagles will lose to the Rams, and the Vikings will win out.

Also, we need more clarity on "the Vikings will finish better than the Eagles."  Does that mean regular season record, or we get farther in the playoffs than they do?

it means we get past them in the playoffs.

[Guest]

... way to go Jimmy!

[Guest]

#notaproudmoment   B) 

[Guest]

Jimmy no team that hosts the Superbowl has ever even made it even  to the conference championship game.  So it wasn't going to happen anyways.   You just threw away 200 for nothing.  I guess you can argue the definition of what better is.

[Guest]

@PapaScott said:
Jimmy no team that hosts the Superbowl has ever even made it even  to the conference championship game.  So it wasn't going to happen anyways.   You just threw away 200 for nothing.  I guess you can argue the definition of what better is.

Nothing has ever happened until it happens. 

Stats like this one are so stupid (and it keeps getting brought up) when you consider how many times  the super bowl has been played in non nfl stadiums or in stadiums that were homes to perennial shit teams like the aints and bucs of years gone by.   That's why the odds are long statistically.  Imagine if the game were held in the last 20 years in Boston as many times as it used to be held in the orange or rose bowls,  or the superdome.

As far as better,  should be easy to define unless neither team reaches the championship game and is knocked out in the same round.

[Guest]

@JimmyinSD said:

@PapaScott said:
Jimmy no team that hosts the Superbowl has ever even made it even  to the conference championship game.  So it wasn't going to happen anyways.   You just threw away 200 for nothing.  I guess you can argue the definition of what better is.

Nothing has ever happened until it happens. 

Stats like this one are so stupid (and it keeps getting brought up) when you consider how many times  the super bowl has been played in non nfl stadiums or in stadiums that were homes to perennial shit teams like the aints and bucs of years gone by.   That's why the odds are long statistically.  Imagine if the game were held in the last 20 years in Boston as many times as it used to be held in the orange or rose bowls,  or the superdome.

As far as better,  should be easy to define unless neither team reaches the championship game and is knocked out in the same round.

what the hell...  I'm giving you an out.

I've operated all year on "no team has ever won a superbowl in their home stadium"  so if it doesn't happen it will lessen the "pain" of losing.  That being said.  Yeah there have been sixteen opportunities for teams to play in their own stadium for the superbowl so that's like 30 percent of all the superbowls, however out of those 16 opportunites only seven teams have even made the playoffs and in those games have gone 3 for 7.  and no further than winning 1 game.  Call it stupid if you want, but it's a fact.   Everyone knows it's extremely difficult to get to and win a superbowl, some argue to even win a single game.  Again, I'm just "giving you an out" on your "stupid" bet.  Just having fun not trying to Piss you off.