No. Over/under can apply to anything quantifiable. Points in a game, wins in a season, electoral votes in an election, receptions in a football game, national anthem length, etc. In the context of the question you asked, the meaning was very clear.
If you walked up to a professional gambler and asked him what over/under meant, he would say the the total score of the game.
Nope. You looked like you had no idea what you were talking about. Now it is clear.
MotionMan
No. Over/under can apply to anything quantifiable. Points in a game, wins in a season, electoral votes in an election, receptions in a football game, national anthem length, etc. In the context of the question you asked, the meaning was very clear.
Of course it can apply to anything, including idiotic responses in a thread (we are way over). However, when talking about the NFL, it usually applies to the total score and is usually paired with the spreads.
The context of this conversation dealt with the spreads and my question regarding if any anyone had taken the spreads and figured out how those would extrapolate to the records of the teams.
Then someone mentions the over/under, still in the context of discussing the spreads.
The post quoted was about records, thus in the context of that, it was completely obvious to me (an impartial observer), what his post meant. Are over/unders usually with regards to points? Yes, but his post clearly was talking about win totals. Even if you wanted to argue that the context could refer to either points or wins, it is still obvious based on which one makes sense. The only way it isn't clear is to someone who doesn't understand that over/under is not exclusive to point totals, and there is certainly no reason for you to pick a fight if you misunderstood it.
On the par-lay card the O/U is the total points say, 37 1/2 bet over/under. Motion man wins.
It was not clear (unless you say it was clear he was talking about points) and I did not pick a fight (though I was called an idiot very early on in the conversation).
MotionMan
Eh, you were being pretty douche-tastic early on in the conversation, especially when I asked you to clarify your position, and you just said it'd be more amusing for me to explain myself first, so you could tell me how wrong I was. But hey, it's funny to hear you backtrack and stop talking down once you realized that it was just a misunderstanding.
The post quoted was about records, thus in the context of that, it was completely obvious to me (an impartial observer), what his post meant. Are over/unders usually with regards to points? Yes, but his post clearly was talking about win totals. Even if you wanted to argue that the context could refer to either points or wins, it is still obvious based on which one makes sense. The only way it isn't clear is to someone who doesn't understand that over/under is not exclusive to point totals, and there is certainly no reason for you to pick a fight if you misunderstood it.
don't know how this debate evoled, but over/under can refer to anything.
Of course it can. In the context of discussing NFL spreads, it most logically would refer to the total point over/under.
As someone else mentioned, "In my experience "over/under" alone means the total combined score in a game. When I've seen it used for other things, it's been explicitly called out. "Over/under on wins for the season," is an example of an explicitly called out other meaning."
MotionMan
Ed Reed continues to show that he's a whiney prima donna:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/...00-percent-committed-20120517,0,6180659.story
you apparently don't know what the definition of prima donna is.
Today the term has become a mainstream word outside opera to often describe a vain, undisciplined, egotistical, obnoxious or temperamental person who finds it difficult to work under direction or as part of a team, and although irritating, cannot be done without.
I wish the Bears could work out a deal to trade Forte to NE for Welker (and maybe a draft choice.
It would benefit ech team greatly. Forte would be an absolute monster in NE's offensive system, and Welker opposite Marshall would give Bear's opponents nightmares. The BEars really need another accomplished veteran WR.
I wish the Bears could work out a deal to trade Forte to NE for Welker (and maybe a draft choice.
It would benefit ech team greatly. Forte would be an absolute monster in NE's offensive system, and Welker opposite Marshall would give Bear's opponents nightmares. The BEars really need another accomplished veteran WR.