College Football -- Better Than Ever

[SlowwHand]

Because USC sucks goat dick. They win because they're wimpy Pac 10 and play no one.

[Drake Tungsten]

They have the same opponents for the rest of the season.

That's not nearly the same thing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

in argument to my stance against scheduling weak names

Because you are a hypocrite that doesn't apply it to Texas, you loser.

[Imran Siddiqui]

FWIW, I agree with Drake, but I value head to head matchups less.

[MRT144]

They have the same opponents for the rest of the season.

That's not nearly the same thing.

But that's where the argument lies. Unless you're saying each game is so subjective that there can never be an objective measure when it comes to rankings, and wins and losses don't matter nearly as much as context of them...

So that it becomes a question of who you play regardless of winning or losing. Winning, in your mode of thinking doesn't matter as much directly as their opponents winning. You want to award strength by proxy of the opponents at the exclusion of head to head.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't even know where you're getting these ideas from, now.

[MRT144]

FWIW, I agree with Drake, but I value head to head matchups less.

So how good a team is can only be inferred by who they play, not if they win.

[MRT144]

I don't even know where you're getting these ideas from, now.

I'm trying to link your different thoughts together into a unified theory on college football rankings.

[Drake Tungsten]

You aren't doing a very good job. I've said several times that head-to-head matchups are important. It's only when they have a major flaw (like a starting QB not playing!) that I begin to doubt their value as an indication of relative team strengths.

[MRT144]

You aren't doing a very good job. I've said several times that head-to-head matchups are important. It's only when they have a major flaw (like a starting QB not playing!) that I begin to doubt their value as an indication of relative team strengths.

And both teams have the chance to prove themselves for the rest of the season against the same opponents who more or less should be the same against both UW and USC. BYU and Oklahoma don't have that opportunity.

[SlowwHand]

in argument to my stance against scheduling weak names

Because you are a hypocrite that doesn't apply it to Texas, you loser.

It includes everyone. If you say it again, you're just showing your ass. This is at least the 3rd time that I've told you, Imran, so STFU.

[MRT144]

It depends. On how each team performs against those opponents first of all. Close wins are less impressive than blow out wins (and vice versa for losses).

However, if you'd like me to make a hypothetical decision ignoring for quality of wins or losses (which is impossible in the real world) - Team 1, Team 4, Team 6

So Florida should run up the score?

[SlowwHand]

That's why it's done. They (all teams, Imran) have to run up the score to "justify" playing the game. If they lose small, THEN it hits them.

Which brings up another point, which is worse, beating the dog**** out of someone with your first team, or going eventually to 3rd team and whipping them?
I don't like mismatches. It's a form of bullying, BY ANYONE, Imran.

[snoopy369]

Injuries are absolutely no excuse whatsoever. They're part of the game. People get hurt, that's why you have depth [and USC can deal with an injury far, far better than UW, god knows].

I think H2H matchups have to matter, some. The games that are actually played must have some relevance; otherwise, why play them. I am certainly not at Guynemer's extreme, but I think that if UW and USC both win out the rest of the way, UW would be the higher ranked team, as they both had reasonably similar schedules and UW beat USC head to head. The OSU win certainly was big, but I think you'd need two similar wins [beyond the teams in common] to overcome the H2H matchup. I suppose that's how I'd personally value a H2H game - one high-level victory, plus the tiebreaker if schedules otherwise are identical at that point.

But I've never been one to take college rankings super-seriously at any point, and I'm bitterly opposed to playoffs and/or the BCS. I'd rather abandon the rankings entirely except for pride, get rid of all the money, and just go back to a few simple bowl games with trivial prizes. The collegiate system isn't meant for this, and the fact that it's turned into this ruins both the sport AND the collegiate experience.

[Drake Tungsten]

But I've never been one to take college rankings super-seriously at any point, and I'm bitterly opposed to playoffs and/or the BCS.

I still hate you, but...