Who is going to be the Team of 2010's Decade?

[iowajerms]

A) Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2019 is 10 years.
B) Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2020 is 10 years too.

Which one is "The Decade" A or B ?

I have my Answer, which one do you pick?
I predict that 90+% will pick the same one.

A

 

[WizardHawk]

Why are people arguing page after page over what a decade really is? lol

List of 2009 all-decade Sports Illustrated awards and honors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One of many pages using a simple google search describing various all decade lists.

This is a list of Sports Illustrated magazine's all-decade awards and honors for 2000–2009

NFL?

National Football League 2000s All-Decade Team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The NFL 2000s All-Decade Team is composed of outstanding performers in the National Football League in the ten years spanning 2000–2009.

The question with NFL lists is do you count the season as the year, or the championship game. That is the ONLY question. No one starts with 2011.

There have been 4 seasons completed in the 2k10's with the Seattle Seahawks '13 season being the most recent. There is no list of any kind anywhere that starts with the championship date as the the teams date. Unless someone can prove that wrong what we have is just people over thinking things.

We have not played the 2014 season yet. We do not have a 2014 champion. It's really that simple.

 

[Wolvie]

A) Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2019 is 10 years.
B) Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2020 is 10 years too.

Which one is "The Decade" A or B ?

I have my Answer, which one do you pick?
I predict that 90+% will pick the same one.

This really doesn't mean much. The Earth wasn't actually flat when 90% of people thought it was

 

[MilkSpiller22]

That my Giant fan, is 100% incorrect.

1. 2009 -10 is not the beginning of the 2010's.
2. As we all know, there have been 4 championships in the 2010's. NOT 5 as you stated above.

So have you changed your position because at this juncture, you're on Long Island and are going in circles.

Try again, there has definitely been 5 SUPERBOWLS in the 2010s... Just look at the dates of the superbowls...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

there are 4 potential ways to look at this...

1. 2009-2010 season is first year because the playoffs and superbowl was in 2010 and 2010 is the first year of the decade

2. 2010-2011 season- 2010 is the first year of the decade, and the 2010-2011 season is the first season of the decade

3. 2010-2011 season- 2011 is the first year of the decade and 2011 was the year of the playoffs and superbowl.

4. 2011-2012 season- 2011 is the first year of the decade and 2011-2012 is the first season of the decade...

If you want to use the technical decade of our calendar(the Christian calendar) then decades and centuries start at the 1 year(2011 would be the first year of the decade) since there was no year 0

If you want to use common sense for the first year of the decade then you will say 2010 is the first year of the decade since it is more logical that every year of the decade would have the same number in the 10 spot(and century same number in the 100th spot)... 2010-2019.

Since this thread originally asked what the team of the 2010's are then the technical decade does not matter... and you have to use 2010-2019...

But then the question is how to define the first team of the 2010-2019 decade... I personally take the 2009-2010 season as the first season solely because in this argument we are only talking about superbowl rings... and the first superbowl was part of the 2009-2010 season...

 

[WizardHawk]

there are 4 potential ways to look at this...

1. 2009-2010 season is first year because the playoffs and superbowl was in 2010 and 2010 is the first year of the decade

2. 2010-2011 season- 2010 is the first year of the decade, and the 2010-2011 season is the first season of the decade

3. 2010-2011 season- 2011 is the first year of the decade and 2011 was the year of the playoffs and superbowl.

4. 2011-2012 season- 2011 is the first year of the decade and 2011-2012 is the first season of the decade...

If you want to use the technical decade of our calendar(the Christian calendar) then decades and centuries start at the 1 year(2011 would be the first year of the decade) since there was no year 0

If you want to use common sense for the first year of the decade then you will say 2010 is the first year of the decade since it is more logical that every year of the decade would have the same number in the 10 spot(and century same number in the 100th spot)... 2010-2019.

Since this thread originally asked what the team of the 2010's are then the technical decade does not matter... and you have to use 2010-2019...

But then the question is how to define the first team of the 2010-2019 decade... I personally take the 2009-2010 season as the first season solely because in this argument we are only talking about superbowl rings... and the first superbowl was part of the 2009-2010 season...

As far as I'm concerned I already proved that wrong. You do NOT ever talk about a team championship based on the date of the SB they won. It just isn't done anywhere at any time. The '85 bears were the '85 bears, not the '86 etc.

The SB rings themselves, which is the reward for a team that won that actual event, have the date of the season, not the bowl game the ring is meant to memorialize. How does this fact not put this to bed?

Clearly the NFL considers the Seahawks the 2013 champions. It's engraved on their rings ffs. It's done and over. /dropmic

 

[MilkSpiller22]

As far as I'm concerned I already proved that wrong. You do NOT ever talk about a team championship based on the date of the SB they won. It just isn't done anywhere at any time. The '85 bears were the '85 bears, not the '86 etc.

The SB rings themselves, which is the reward for a team that won that actual event, have the date of the season, not the bowl game the ring is meant to memorialize. How does this fact not put this to bed?

Clearly the NFL considers the Seahawks the 2013 champions. It's engraved on their rings ffs. It's done and over. /dropmic

I don't mind using your definition of decade for the thread, but you have not proven it enough for me to say I am wrong... But because it is such a non issue, I will concede for the argument for the thread... Like I did a while ago... was only giving my opinion...

Not sure what Nick the greek was getting so angry about...

 

[sonnyblack65]

I don't mind using your definition of decade for the thread, but you have not proven it enough for me to say I am wrong... But because it is such a non issue, I will concede for the argument for the thread... Like I did a while ago... was only giving my opinion...

Not sure what Nick the greek was getting so angry about...

Wow thickheaded kid. When your born your not officially one. You are 1 year old after a year. Dont start with the counting at 1 bS or no year 1 . There was 365 days before there was year 1 . Decades always go from like 1990-99 2000-2009 2010-2019 The SB winner is always for the season they played and not the year the SB ( feb) its played. Seattle just won the 2013 season

 

[BoBlake]

Because the common calendar starts with year 1, its first full decade is the years 1 to 10, the second decade from 11 to 20, and so on (all the way to 2011-2020).

So while the common "2000s" comprises the years 2000 to 2009, the "201st decade" spans 2001 to 2010.

 

[BoBlake]

A decade is simply ANY 10 year period. So the 90's can be 1990-1999 and it's completely accurate.



Now, when you start to say things like the 21st century, that is different. That started on 1/1/2001.
Same with the end of the 2nd millennium. That ended on 12/31/2000.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Wow thickheaded kid. When your born your not officially one. You are 1 year old after a year. Dont start with the counting at 1 bS or no year 1 . There was 365 days before there was year 1 . Decades always go from like 1990-99 2000-2009 2010-2019 The SB winner is always for the season they played and not the year the SB ( feb) its played. Seattle just won the 2013 season

Thickheaded??? for what?? giving my opinion??

What have I said is so thickheaded?? All I have stated are facts that can not be debated!!!

 

[WizardHawk]

I don't mind using your definition of decade for the thread, but you have not proven it enough for me to say I am wrong... But because it is such a non issue, I will concede for the argument for the thread... Like I did a while ago... was only giving my opinion...

Not sure what Nick the greek was getting so angry about...

It's not 'my' definition. Clearly the league itself categorizes the teams by the season they played, not the year in which the SB was actually played. I have presented links to pages supporting that and actually gave you the fact that the rings have the year of the season and not the bowl they represent.

If you want to claim that isn't the accepted view of a season then by all means show a link to something supporting your view. Otherwise if this is nothing more than your opinion and you really don't care that no one else agrees with it then by all means carry on. All I was doing was pointing out your view is not the common view of what year teams are associated with.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's not 'my' definition. Clearly the league itself categorizes the teams by the season they played, not the year in which the SB was actually played. I have presented links to pages supporting that and actually gave you the fact that the rings have the year of the season and not the bowl they represent.

If you want to claim that isn't the accepted view of a season then by all means show a link to something supporting your view. Otherwise if this is nothing more than your opinion and you really don't care that no one else agrees with it then by all means carry on. All I was doing was pointing out your view is not the common view of what year teams are associated with.

That's fine, again I have no problem with the definition you propose, whether it is the common definition or not... I just gave my opinion and said I consider it the other way... But again it is such a non issue, that it doesn't matter... if we want to say there are 6 more seasons of this decade so be it... there really is no difference... I am just defending myself because of people like nick the greek and sonnyblack for calling me out... I am very butthurt about it...

 

[Caliskinsfan]

That's fine, again I have no problem with the definition you propose, whether it is the common definition or not... I just gave my opinion and said I consider it the other way... But again it is such a non issue, that it doesn't matter... if we want to say there are 6 more seasons of this decade so be it... there really is no difference... I am just defending myself because of people like nick the greek and sonnyblack for calling me out... I am very butthurt about it...

Let it go. Ain't worth getting you're knickers in a twist about it. This is all hypothetical anyways. Nothing to be determined for min 5 years yet

 

[darken65]

Maybe the rest of us didn't spend as many years in kindergarten as you, but when you count. You start at 1, always...

But that is besides the fact that this discussion deals with the 2010's which would include 2010. But technically 2010 was last decade

Three years in kindergarten does make me a professional in the subject. I was so good at that grade they needed me back to help other less gifted kids. Up on the board were ten numbers...0-9 ,the basic number system we still use today. It was not 1-10. I agree with others just to let this go but this is what the off season brings.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

No need to sweat this guys. The Seahawks will repeat and make this argument mote.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Seahawks are young & loaded for a decade of dominance. Best roster in the NFL. The party is just getting started for them.

SF continues to fill their team with relics to plug holes. Their secondary is even worse than last years. NFC is going to attack that garbage like Dahl and rookie Reid who sucks at pass coverage all season long.

About as likely as the Huskies winning a national championship.

 

[WizardHawk]

Someone's still struggling with current reality aren't they?

20 years since they did anything. 20. Two zero.

Oh, that's right, they were 'close' in recent years. Losing to Joe freaking Flacco two years ago. I mean clearly the better Harbaugh dominated that game. Then last year Kraperlick threw a pick right at a guy fully covered by the best corner in the game today.

We get why you are frustrated. Let it all out. We are here for you RD. We really are.

 

[sonnyblack65]

A decade is simply ANY 10 year period. So the 90's can be 1990-1999 and it's completely accurate.



Now, when you start to say things like the 21st century, that is different. That started on 1/1/2001.
Same with the end of the 2nd millennium. That ended on 12/31/2000.

We all know a decade is a 10 year span but its always the the 70' 80's 90' etc. When they say music of the 70's they dont mean 71-80

 

[darken65]

We all know a decade is a 10 year span but its always the the 70' 80's 90' etc. When they say music of the 70's they dont mean 71-80

This. I'm not sure even why this is still a debate.I guess people who are wrong can't admit it.