College Football -- Back in Action!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Ignore the names of the schools for a second.

Team A, of Conference X, is 12-0.
Team B, of Conference Y, is 11-1.
Team C, also of Conference Y, is 8-4. (For the sake of argument.)


Team A beats Team C, 31-28.
Team C beats Team B, 27-21.

Conference X teams have a 6-1 record against Conference Y overall.


Why should Team B be ahead of Team A?

Give me the strengths of schedules for those two teams and those two conferences. That may give you a reason why.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Jaguar
They are a lucky team, not a good one.

No one gets to 12-0 purely on luck.

They won by two points against Michigan (3-9).

To be fair, that was more due to Utah coasting. They were up big, and just sort of put it into cruise-control a little early.

[Lord Avalon]

Beavers are laying an egg so far, down 20-10.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Ignore the names of the schools for a second.

Team A, of Conference X, is 12-0.
Team B, of Conference Y, is 11-1.
Team C, also of Conference Y, is 8-4. (For the sake of argument.)


Team A beats Team C, 31-28.
Team C beats Team B, 27-21.

Conference X teams have a 6-1 record against Conference Y overall.


Why should Team B be ahead of Team A?

What happened in Team A and Team B's combined twenty-two other games that you haven't discussed at all? Is it possible that in those twenty-two other games, one of those teams proved itself clearly better?

[reismark]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Beavers are laying an egg so far, down 20-10.

Not all surprising that they're down given that they're missing their best offensive player, but their D needs to get in gear. It's still winnable for them and I dearly want them to pull it off.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma State's QB gift-wraps a TD for the Sooners.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What else does a team like Utah have to do?

Probably play in a better conference.

But that's just it, Imran.

The MWC is 6-1 against the Pac-10. They have OWNED the Pac-10. This year--just this year--they do play in the the better conference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No one gets to 12-0 purely on luck.

There are plenty of lucky undefeated teams. I consider 2002 Ohio State to be extremely lucky and if they played against Miami 10 times, Miami wins at least 7 of those games.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
But that's just it, Imran.

The MWC is 6-1 against the Pac-10. They have OWNED the Pac-10. This year--just this year--they do play in the the better conference.

Sorry, that's no real argument for the Mountain West being a better conference than the Pac 10.

Just about every computer ranking has the Pac 10 ahead of the MWC.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Is it possible that in those twenty-two other games, one of those teams proved itself clearly better?

What proof? Proof is head-to-head, out on the field. This year, the MWC proved it was better than the Pac-10.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No one gets to 12-0 purely on luck.

There are plenty of lucky undefeated teams. I consider 2002 Ohio State to be extremely lucky and if they played against Miami 10 times, Miami wins at least 7 of those games.

No doubt, luck is a factor as well. But to say they are lucky, and NOT good... that's just foolish.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
What proof? Proof is head-to-head, out on the field. This year, the MWC proved it was better than the Pac-10.

Proof is the entirety of the year. Not one game for both teams.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Just about every computer ranking has the Pac 10 ahead of the MWC.

Are these the same vaunted computer rankings that put Ohio State ahead of Penn State?

I know not all of them do, but some have exactly that result. Computer rankings are every bit as much bunk as the polls.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering you are the one who wants to say that New Mexico beating Arizona means that Utah is better than USC, I believe I know who I'd consider "bunk".

[Guynemer]

Imran, you have not been paying attention.

I said that I thought USC was better than Utah.

BUT, Utah was undefeated and beat the Beavers, and thus, earned the right to be in front of the Trojans.

If you disagree, fine. But I remind you this whole debate exists only because USC lost.



As always, I would advocate my particular brand of tournament. No polls, no rankings, only wins and losses. Christ, why is that so hard?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I said that I thought USC was better than Utah.

BUT, Utah was undefeated and beat the Beavers, and thus, earned the right to be in front of the Trojans.

I don't understand this argument and never have. You can't earn the right to be in front of a better team, IMO. My rankings are always whichever I believe are the best teams.

Which is why I've had Florida at #1 for weeks even though they aren't undefeated and have a "worse loss" than either Texas or Oklahoma (but not Texas Tech - yes OU was 4th and a beast of a team, but when you get blown out, you can't bring up the level of your competition).