College Football -- Better Than Ever

[Drake Tungsten]

Jesus tap dancing Christ. So even if BYU had gone undefeated, or if Houston goes undefeated, they should still be ranked below their respective 1-loss teams?

Where exactly did I say that an undefeated BYU shouldn't rank above a one-loss Oklahoma?

They have 10 common opponents with USC; their schedules are nearly identical. If they both win out, or win the same number of games, USC should still be ranked higher, because of expectations or capabilities?

Yes. They should also rank higher because their signature win came on the road in Columbus against a full-strength Ohio State team.

[Guynemer]

Jesus tap dancing Christ. So even if BYU had gone undefeated, or if Houston goes undefeated, they should still be ranked below their respective 1-loss teams?

Where exactly did I say that an undefeated BYU shouldn't rank above a one-loss Oklahoma?

Well, Oklahoma is suppsoed to be better, right? They only lost because of the QB. So why wouldn't they rank ahead of an undefeated BYU?

They have 10 common opponents with USC; their schedules are nearly identical. If they both win out, or win the same number of games, USC should still be ranked higher, because of expectations or capabilities?

Yes. They should also rank higher because their signature win came on the road in Columbus against a full-strength Ohio State team.

That is just plain nutty.

[Drake Tungsten]

So why wouldn't they rank ahead of an undefeated BYU?

Because subjective measures of quality are only part of the equation, as I've said several times now. If BYU had gone undefeated, there would've been no need for the subjective determination that Oklahoma is the better team to be the deciding factor between the two teams; BYU would have had a more deserving season and that would have won out.

That is just plain nutty.

It's quite rational.

[Guynemer]

Gah. We're just not gonna see eye-to-eye on this one. C'est la vie.

[MRT144]

So head to head doesn't matter? Listen Drake, if you really hate college football that much maybe you should stop watching it.

[MRT144]

So why wouldn't they rank ahead of an undefeated BYU?

Because subjective measures of quality are only part of the equation, as I've said several times now. If BYU had gone undefeated, there would've been no need for the subjective determination that Oklahoma is the better team to be the deciding factor between the two teams; BYU would have had a more deserving season and that would have won out.

That is just plain nutty.

It's quite rational.

It's rational if you purposely avoid the fact that one team lost to another. Using your logic, Ohio State should be National Champs over Florida because they beat the #2 team twice and played them thrice. Really?

[Drake Tungsten]

So head to head doesn't matter?

I've said the opposite several times already.

Listen Drake, if you really hate college football that much maybe you should stop watching it.

I'm one of the purest college football fans around here. Most of these guys are NFL fans who want an excuse to ignore their wives on Saturday as well...

It's rational if you purposely avoid the fact that one team lost to another.

It's completely rational if you understand that not all wins and losses are the same. Some can be justifiably used to infer the identity of the "truly better" team and some can't.

[MRT144]

So head to head doesn't matter?

I've said the opposite several times already.

Listen Drake, if you really hate college football that much maybe you should stop watching it.

I'm one of the purest college football fans around here. Most of these guys are NFL fans who want an excuse to ignore their wives on Saturday as well...

It's rational if you purposely avoid the fact that one team lost to another.

It's completely rational if you understand that not all wins and losses are the same. Some can be justifiably used to infer the identity of the "truly better" team and some can't.

So you'll use derivative losses over tangible head to head games to arrive at your delusions. Got it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Think of it this way. The Washington-USC game was the equivalent of a randomly-selected presidential approval poll in which the GOP came out with a 10-point party ID advantage over the Democrats. The results might make GOP supporters feel good, but no right-thinking person is going to use the results to infer the true state of the President's true approval.

[MRT144]

Think of it this way. The Washington-USC game was the equivalent of a randomly-selected presidential approval poll in which the GOP came out with a 10-point party ID advantage over the Democrats. The results might make GOP supporters feel good, but no right-thinking person is going to use the results to infer the true state of the President's true approval.

Except the game happened and by any objective metric that matters. I know you have to use analogy and hypothetical situations to justify your way of thinking but it's weak and it shows. And if the "body of work" matters more then why are you giving the benefit of the doubt to the team that lost?

Do you really want to take this to conference championships and explaining how a team that doesn't win their conference should be ranked ahead? Did you love last year's Big 12

[Drake Tungsten]

Except the game happened

So did the poll. The point is that a single sample, subject to random chance, can sometimes be skewed to such an extent that no thinking person would really think it represents a close enough approximation of the "true" result that no other means of analysis are needed.

I know you have to use analogy and hypothetical situations to justify your way of thinking but it's weak and it shows.

The analogy was to help you out, since you don't seem to be following my argument very well.

Do you really want to take this to conference championships and explaining how a team that doesn't win their conference should be ranked ahead?

I already did this back in 2001/2002. It might still be in the archives somewhere.

[MRT144]

Except the game happened

So did the poll. The point is that a single sample, subject to random chance, can sometimes be skewed to such an extent that no thinking person would really think it represents a close enough approximation of the "true" result that no other means of analysis are needed.

I know you have to use analogy and hypothetical situations to justify your way of thinking but it's weak and it shows.

The analogy was to help you out, since you don't seem to be following my argument very well.

Do you really want to take this to conference championships and explaining how a team that doesn't win their conference should be ranked ahead?

I already did this back in 2001/2002. It might still be in the archives somewhere.

It's hard to follow an argument that has no logical basis to it.

It's also hard for you to push the one sample subject to randomness thing as we gain more and more samples against the same criteria. Do you really think that college football should be played with D20s based on base attributes of the team? Cmon.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's hard to follow an argument that has no logical basis to it.

I do appreciate the irony of you proffering this insult directly before this mess...

It's also hard for you to push the one sample subject to randomness thing as we gain more and more samples against the same criteria.

I'm interested to find out why you believe we'll be getting more and more Washington-USC matchups this season...

[SlowwHand]

USC is already toasted. I love it.

[MRT144]

It's hard to follow an argument that has no logical basis to it.

I do appreciate the irony of you proffering this insult directly before this mess...

It's also hard for you to push the one sample subject to randomness thing as we gain more and more samples against the same criteria.

I'm interested to find out why you believe we'll be getting more and more Washington-USC matchups this season...

They have the same opponents for the rest of the season. Those tests are roughly the same for both teams and they are instances that build towards making the case of the better team. You've already said that a win over OSU is a better win than a win over USC for the purpose of comparing USC to another team.