College Football - Early Season Fun

[Drake Tungsten]

Your sample size is puny and too Nebraskan.

I've been to the official Husker bars in both NYC and DC.

[Ming]

You are the one being moronic. Take a look at all the "RANKINGS"... you know, the things expert use to tell the world how they rank the teams. Please show me the "experts" that have Nabraska over VT. Even YOU rank them higher.... while still claiming they are a better team.

All the experts after the game did say that Nebraska played better (any given Saturday). They also said that Nebraska choked and let VT stay in the game so they could WIN the game when the chips were down. A team that is dominating must put the other team away, and they didn't... the sign of a team that just doesn't have it yet. But on the other side, we had a a team that was being beat all day, but in the end, when it counted, came through with the big play needed to WIN the game. That's the sign of a champion. That's the sign of a better team. And the experts showed what they thought by ranking them FAR higher in the polls.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But on the other side, we had a a team that was being beat all day, but in the end, when it counted, came through with the big play needed to WIN the game. That's the sign of a champion. That's the sign of a better team.

Ole Miss was a better team last year than Florida

[Drake Tungsten]

Take a look at all the "RANKINGS"... you know, the things expert use to tell the world how they rank the teams.

1. The polls don't just show who the pollsters think are the better teams. They also show who they think is the more deserving.

2. The rankings are subjective and frequently ludicrous.

All the experts after the game did say that Nebraska played better (any given Saturday).

So know you're saying that the "real experts" did say Nebraska was the better team? Jesus Christ, make up your ****ing mind...

[Drake Tungsten]

But on the other side, we had a a team that was being beat all day, but in the end, when it counted, came through with the big play needed to WIN the game. That's the sign of a champion. That's the sign of a better team.

Ole Miss was a better team last year than Florida

[David Floyd]

I will readily admit that many of you know more about the BCS and football in general than I do. However, let's take this example:

UT wins out, goes undefeated.
The SEC Champion is a 1 loss team.

However, UT only beats Oklahoma by 1 point, and Oklahoma wins out. Furthermore, the SEC Champ had their one loss be a home loss, and the team that beat them also had one loss, but only a 1 point loss. Add in that both Boise St and Cincy run the table, and VT wins out as well, with none of those three teams even coming close to losing (10+ point margins of victory). Finally, USC and Ohio State both win out, with OSU's only loss being by 3 points against a 1 loss USC team, with the PAC-10 being considered (apparently) the strongest conference.

Conventional logic would say that UT plays the SEC Champion, which I still think is the most likely outcome (in fact, I think the entire scenario above is pretty likely, with the only caveat being that the SEC Champion could also end up undefeated, which makes this a clear cut decison).

But apparently, some people would disagree with UT playing the SEC Champion (Bama or Florida). Drake, what's your take on this? Also, it seems as if some people would disagree with BOTH UT and the SEC Champion (in my scenario) playing for the title. Yes?

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, what's your take on this?

Cincy has to play Texas in the title game if they're both undefeated. SEC champ is next in line if they lost to a really good team by one (Alabama loses to LSU by one and then beats Florida for the SEC title, maybe?), then Boise.

[Ming]

Ole Miss was a better team last year than Florida

Now you are just being a moron. You are looking at that in isolation... Kinda of like how DT is looking at a the one point loss to VT. You are ignoring all the other factors.

And now your retarted friend is saying the polls aren't really polls. That it's all about deserving. He's again showing what a joke he is.

There is a reason why they call them RANKINGS! And while I"m sure some of the voters are subjective, they do reflect the current opinion on which teams are better. And based on the crap some people post here, it seems the pollsters are more realistic and use more real statistics.

So know you're saying that the "real experts" did say Nebraska was the better team? Jesus Christ, make up your ****ing mind...

No... I didn't say that... you keep making crap up. I said that many of the experts agreed that they out played VT for much of the game, but that Nebraska choked and couldn't put the team away. And that makes them the lesser team. Because the true better team found a way to win.

And you seem to be the one that can't make up his mind. You CLAIM that Nebraska is the better team, but then don't have the balls to even rank them higher in your rankings. Make up your ****ing mind, or are you too afraid to show what you really think in your rankings? Rankings are just that, rankings.
Your "deserving" stuff is just crap. When the people talk about the polls, they say the TOP 10 or TOP 25 teams in the country... they don't say, the TOP 10 DESERVING TEAMS in the country.

As usual, you ignore reality and live in your little fantasy world. And if people disagree, you act like a little child and insult them. Be a man if that's even possible for you

[MRT144]

But on the other side, we had a a team that was being beat all day, but in the end, when it counted, came through with the big play needed to WIN the game. That's the sign of a champion. That's the sign of a better team.

Ole Miss was a better team last year than Florida

Win Loss record of each team please. See, you're being a moron on purpose by ignoring their respective records.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now you are just being a moron. You are looking at that in isolation... Kinda of like how DT is looking at a the one point loss to VT. You are ignoring all the other factors.

Sorry, I'm not the one who said:

But on the other side, we had a a team that was being beat all day, but in the end, when it counted, came through with the big play needed to WIN the game. That's the sign of a champion. That's the sign of a better team.

or this:

Because the true better team found a way to win.

If you feel the need the qualify the statement, go ahead. But you didn't there.

And based on the crap some people post here, it seems the pollsters are more realistic and use more real statistics.

Which is why their rankings match the computers all the time?

Of course all Drake is saying is that factors like home field advantage matter in deciding the quality of a team, not just wins and losses.

[Ming]

You are again being a moron... if you had bothered to read what I've posted, you would know that I had already pointed out in other posts all the other factors and was not just using that as my only point of difference. Are you so slow that things need to be repeated for you so that you will understand. And I have never denided the home field advantage. I'm just not stupid like some people seem to be to use it as the ONLY point to consider.
If you want to ignore the actual power rankings, strength of schedule, and other such factors and totally rely on the fact that VT only WON by one, feel free to do so... but it does make you look like a poor expert.

[Drake Tungsten]

Now Ming is trying to tell us that pollsters don't rank teams based on how deserving they are?

Of course all Drake is saying is that factors like home field advantage matter in deciding the quality of a team, not just wins and losses.

Yes. Thank you.

I never would have imagined that such an elementary argument would prove so controversial amongst the mouth-breathing contingent here.

[Ming]

You are the mouth breather... You still are dumb enough to think Nebraska is a better team than VT, even though they lost to them head to head, and can't even hope to compete against them in any other meaningful category. All the experts disagree with your moronic opinion, yet you actually still think you are right, just further proof how stupid you really are.

You may think that you can be a jerk, and bully people into thinking you are right, but that is also a moronic opinion on your part... just like your other incorrect opinions.

For the record, please point to anything... you know... all that DATA you claim to use... besides pointing to a loss and claiming it's a win. You are no better than the corn fed homers in Nebraska... and all the experts disagree with you.

So try to be a bully... it won't change any of the real facts.

[Guynemer]

Imran: that week, yes, Ole Miss was better than Florida; or, at least, they were more successful. But season-long, Florida was the more successful team.



Home field advantage should not trump head-to-head results, period. It doesn't matter where the game is played. If team A beats team B, and their records are otherwise the same, team A should finish ahead of team B, no matter whether they were playing at A, at B, or on the ****ing moon.

Let's put it this way. There is a very small chance, but a chance nevertheless, that both Boise State and Oregon will go through the rest of the season without losing another game. Statistically--looking at strength of schedule, total margin of victory, offensive and defensive statistics, etc.--Oregon may very well end up as having a "better season" than Boise State. Boise State's complete domination of Oregon, head-to-head on the same field, would amount to nothing. Explain that.

[SlowwHand]

That's what's known as a flaw in the system.