College Football - Early Season Fun

[rah]

I'm aware that the best team doesn't always win. That's why they play the game.
How does that impact "best" vs "deserving"?

[Drake Tungsten]

How does that impact "best" vs "deserving"?

Because, unless you think wins and losses shouldn't matter in determining poll rankings, the fact that the best team doesn't always win creates differences between a ranking of teams based on quality (the "best" teams) and a ranking of teams based on results (the most "deserving" teams).

[rah]

But I do agree with that up to a point. But once a team losses twice (as an example) then I think that has to take priority and I have to decide that it may not be "better" any more despite arguments to the contrary.

[rah]

The true test of greatness is results, not potential.

I've seen a lot of potential crash and burn. I don't accept excuses.

And yes, that's MY personal opinion. So it's subject to debate.

[Drake Tungsten]

But once a team losses twice (as an example) then I think that has to take priority and I have to decide that it may not be "better" any more despite arguments to the contrary.

I agree that a two-loss team should take a hit in the rankings, but not for the same (muddled) reasons that you seem to. The two-loss team should drop because it's less deserving than the undefeated and one-loss teams, not because it's necessarily worse.

The true test of greatness is results, not potential.

So you think teams should be ranked based on how deserving they are, not on their quality. I agree.

[rah]

I still think you're a touch fuzzy there.
To me deserving and quality are really the same.
If you lose two game, you are neither deserving or quality. (not muddled at all in my opinion)

[Drake Tungsten]

To me deserving and quality are really the same.

You can't believe this and then turn around and say that you accept that the best team doesn't always win. If you accept that quality doesn't always win out, then you must accept that some teams have better resumes than a team of their quality should (on average) and some teams have worse resumes than a team of their quality should.

[rah]

There are too many factors involved and some of them are quite subjective. So I don't have a problem saying that the best team doesn't always win but the purest definition in the end of the best is who wins since who wins is not subjective. You split that definition to deserving. I can respect your opinion, but view things differently.

Then the only controversy comes when you have a few undefeated teams that never played each other. And in that case (common opponents or strength of schedule) are the least subjective components to decide but still open for debate.

[rah]

I guess it's that old "BEST ON PAPER"
They may be best on paper but if they lose the game, whether it be because of luck, home field, injury, whatever, that paper was worthless and a new history is written. History is written by the winners.

[Drake Tungsten]

They may be best on paper but if they lose the game, whether it be because of luck, home field, injury, whatever, that paper was worthless and a new history is written.

Fixed. And I agree.

[rah]

and I guess I have to agree to your correction there.

[David Floyd]

So, who is gonna be eating crow when UT kicks the **** out of Mizzou tomorrow?

[DanS]

Why would anybody be eating crow? Missouri's a weaker opponent than, say, the likes of Navy.

[David Floyd]

Wasn't Guynemer or someone predicting a UT defeat?

All the haters...I don't get it. We continue to find ways to win, yet since it isn't by enough points, people say we suck. ****, any NFL team could go 16-0, but never win a game by more than 3 points, and NOBODY would say they sucked. As for the parity in the NFL and any given Sunday arguments, I give you the Rams, Raiders, Chiefs, Titans, Lions, Bucs, Bills, Browns, Chargers, and Seahawks. Parity my ass.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rams, Raiders, Chiefs, Titans, Lions, Bucs, Bills, Browns, Chargers, and Seahawks

2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 division champs not good enough for ya?