Anybody agree with this media statement?

"With wins by both Winnipeg and B.C. last night, the Ticats can clinch a playoff spot by simpy winning their last 3 games of the season - they no longer need help to make it to the post season."

(Copied from The Spec's "Scratching Post" under the heading "Ticats get yet another shot at Redemption")

The way I see it, that statement is incorrect.
If HAM wins 3 they'd end up with 16 pts.
1 of those 3 wins would be over TOR,but TOR could still win over SSK and end up with 16 pts.
If those two things happened and HAM's win over TOR was not by 9 or more points , TOR would finish 2nd.
HAM would then finish 3rd and could be "crossed" out by EDM winning their 2 remaining games and ending up with 18 pts., while SSK, with just 1 more victory (today vs. MTL or Nov. 3 vs. B.C.)) would also have 18 pts. In that case, EDM would finish 3rd in the West and SSK would cross over to play TOR in the ESF. Those Western placings could change though, in the event that CAL also lost it's game vs. B.C. next week. Then there'd be a 3-way tie for 2nd in the West with CAL, EDM and SSK all having 18 pts. But still, one of them would cross over to play at TOR in the ESF.

Straighten me out if I'm wrong.
All that's known for sure, right now, is that the division finals well be in Montreal and Vancouver.

If the Cats win three i think we will be in good shape :wink: Toronto plays in Sask next week, Good Luck :roll: Edmonton plays in Montreal :lol:

Just Win !! and let the chips fall where they may :thup:


He's right that we don't need help. We win out AND beat Toronto by nine or more points, all things completely under the cats control, and not only do we have a playoff spot, we host the eastern semi.

He's also right in stating that wins for the cats have been hard to come by

The chance of Cats winning 3 in a row are slim and none!

I agree that he's right on the "don't need help," but wrong on the "by simply winning their last 3 games." A "simple" win over TOR isn't enough if it's not by 9 or more. More likely correct is Defense_Rules with "slim and none."