BCS Top 10

#176
#176
cotton said:
1. He was titling champions until the system changed to award only 1 NC to the winner of the NCG;

2. Rating the teams is the same as picking a champion if the highest rated team becomes champion.

All the rest is verbose garbage used to defend a formula which, in its mathematically perfect and unbiased justice, gives screwy results. I chose the '02 example because, with all of the data available after the season, Sagarin's system identified USC as the most deserving team of the #1 ranking and, as a consequence, a national title. That calculation is, in my estimation and that of pretty much every other person, computer, robot, and cyborg on the planet, clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

He wont admit he's wrong. This will continue on for days if you further indulge in this argument.
 
#177
#177
Bumi said:
I see you found a relief blanket of sorts. Two fans who don't know much about football. This tandem should be fun. :yes:

Anyhow, there's no need for lies. I believed Florida could beat Oregon. This was prior to Florida's losses.
Click to expand...

Yes, but people in touch with reality that didn't buy into media hype were aware of Florida's issues before those losses. I saw it in their first game of the season. I saw it against USF and Tennessee as well. Not everyone was completely blind and took Florida's big victory over Kentucky as a sign that all was right in Gainesville. The non-homers with any sense of reality realized that they were matching up against a putrid defense. I knew that Alabama was going to take Florida to the woodshed.

Brantley is simply not the type of quarterback that is going to be very effective in Addazzio's offense. Florida has been much more successful offensively with Burton playing quarterback (surprise, surprise, he scored 6 touchdowns for Florida against UK), and for some reason unbeknowst to be, he continues to mainly stick with Brantley. Scoring 7 against Mississippi State is something that just should not happen.

Florida is nothing more than mediocre, which is rather pitiful considering the immense talent present in their roster.
 
#178
#178
DuckinTN said:
Yes, but people in touch with reality that didn't buy into media hype were aware of Florida's issues before those losses. I saw it in their first game of the season. I saw it against USF and Tennessee as well. Not everyone was completely blind and took Florida's big victory over Kentucky as a sign that all was right in Gainesville. The non-homers with any sense of reality realized that they were matching up against a putrid defense. I knew that Alabama was going to take Florida to the woodshed.

Brantley is simply not the type of quarterback that is going to be very effective in Addazzio's offense. Florida has been much more successful offensively with Burton playing quarterback (surprise, surprise, he scored 6 touchdowns for Florida against UK), and for some reason unbeknowst to be, he continues to mainly stick with Brantley. Scoring 7 against Mississippi State is something that just should not happen.

Florida is nothing more than mediocre, which is rather pitiful considering the immense talent present in their roster.
Click to expand...

Florida sucks this year. We all know this. What exactly does it have to do with this thread?
 
#180
#180
DuckinTN said:
Just showing how your supposed "superior football knowledge" seems in retrospect.
Click to expand...

So misjudging a team prior to that said team getting to the girth of their schedule is a reflection of poor football knowledge? By that standrad, there's not a football fan out there who has adequate knowledge of the game.

For example, no one predicted Auburn would be this good and Cam Newton would be a leading Heisman candidate. By your logic, any person who's predictions failed to reflect what we're currently seeing out of that team possesses porous football knowledge.
 
Last edited:
#181
#181
Bumi said:
So misjudging a team prior to that said team getting to the girth of their schedule is a reflection of poor football knowledge? By that standrad, there's not a football fan out there who has adequate knowledge of the game.

I must ask you, who thought Florida was going to be this bad?(Keep in mind Florida isn't and hasn't been healthy since their game against Tennessee)
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The mediocrity of Florida's performances against Miami (OH) and USF demonstrated clear issues that you turned a blind eye to. I didn't think that Florida was going to be this pitiful, but anything more than a middle of the pack SEC team would've been a big surprise to me.
 
#182
#182
Bumi said:
Anyhow, there's no need for lies. I believed Florida could beat Oregon. This was prior to Florida's losses.
Click to expand...

You sound like John Kerry.

"I believed Florida could beat Oregon before I believed that they couldn't."

:lolabove:

You were wrong. Own it and learn.

Bumi said:
And Alabama losing to South Carolina has no relevance on a possible matchup between Oregon and Alabama. South Carolina has a few things Oregon does not. A good defense and a proven coach. Furthermore, the last time the Ducks were pitted against a team of a similar talent level to Alabama, they were dominated in the trenches and back handed by Ohio State.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that Alabama would beat any team, anywhere, case closed. The notion that Oregon would even have a chance to win was the same "not knowing anything about football" you're tossing out now.

I think that most will agree that if South Carolina can beat Alabama by 14 points, Oregon would at least have a chance.

cotton said:
1. He was titling champions until the system changed to award only 1 NC to the winner of the NCG;

2. Rating the teams is the same as picking a champion if the highest rated team becomes champion.
Click to expand...

If the title of NC is defined as the highest rated team in the nation, then he should have been titling champions at that time.

I can't say for certain what his position is. But, personally, I think that his points ratings should be used to rank and seed the games. The title holders would still be determined by that head-to-head result.

cotton said:
All the rest is verbose garbage used to defend a formula which, in its mathematically perfect and unbiased justice, gives screwy results. I chose the '02 example because, with all of the data available after the season, Sagarin's system identified USC as the most deserving team of the #1 ranking and, as a consequence, a national title. That calculation is, in my estimation and that of pretty much every other person, computer, robot, and cyborg on the planet, clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Rating USC #1 is not saying that people should call them the national champ.

In 2002, the NC was defined as the team that won the NC game. Not the team that ended the season with the highest rating.

Rating != A Title

Look at the NFL. They use a play-off and the Super Bowl winner is often not the consensus best team in the NFL. Winning something is not the same thing as having a high rating because teams that are good on average don't always win every game they play.

Bumi said:
My post was a statement, and based on your post and presumptions in this thread, I, and obviously a few others, see the validity in it. Your rankings suck, and the fact that you're attempting to rationalize them with a system of ratings that have a history of being completely and utterly off base, is a joke.
Click to expand...

Your statement did not contain any valid argument in response to mine. It was a logical fallacy.

Read. Learn. Make valid statements.

Bumi said:
He wont admit he's wrong. This will continue on for days if you further indulge in this argument.
Click to expand...

I will admit that I am wrong when I am. In fact, I did so in direct response to another debate we were both involved in (that Cam Newton deserves to be in the Heisman discussion). Unlike you, who, once shown to be wrong about the invulnerability of Alabama never owned up to it and simply stopped posting for a few days.

Weak sauce.
 
Last edited:
#184
#184
milohimself said:
Florida is a middle of the pack SEC team.
Click to expand...

2-2 in conference with their wins coming against one bad team and one terrible defense. Yeah, they're middle of the pack, but in a conference where the middle of the pack isn't very good at all.
 
#185
#185
wheaton4prez said:
In 2002, the NC was defined as the team that won the NC game. Not the team that ended the season with the highest rating.

Rating != A Title

Look at the NFL. They use a play-off and the Super Bowl winner is often not the consensus best team in the NFL. Winning something is not the same thing as having a high rating because teams that are good on average don't always win every game they play.
Click to expand...

The St. Louis Cardinals weren't the best team in baseball during the 2006 season, but that doesn't take away the fact that they were the champions of the MLB.
 
#186
#186
DuckinTN said:
Yes, it is. The mediocrity of Florida's performances against Miami (OH) and USF demonstrated clear issues that you turned a blind eye to. I didn't think that Florida was going to be this pitiful, but anything more than a middle of the pack SEC team would've been a big surprise to me.
Click to expand...

DuckinTN said:
2-2 in conference with their wins coming against one bad team and one terrible defense. Yeah, they're middle of the pack, but in a conference where the middle of the pack isn't very good at all.
Click to expand...

Florida is sitting in the exact middle of the conference standings. Just responding in exactly the way you phrased it...
 
#188
#188
DuckinTN said:
The St. Louis Cardinals weren't the best team in baseball during the 2006 season, but that doesn't take away the fact that they were the champions of the MLB.
Click to expand...

Good example.

I think that what some people are uncomfortable with is that a rating is not and can not be a perfect reflection of a giant play-off involving every team.

But, in trying to introduce play-off characteristics to a rating system, they just remove objectivity.
 
#189
#189
nickknx865 said:
There are Ohio State fans who still ***** and moan that the Buckeyes would have beaten Tennessee by a comfortable margin.

That just reminded me of that.
Click to expand...

I worked an entire season with one of those guys. Actually, to be more accurate, one of the guys who was actually on the field that year for OSU.
 
#190
#190
wheaton4prez said:
You sound like John Kerry.

"I believed Florida could beat Oregon before I believed that they couldn't."

:lolabove:

You were wrong. Own it and learn.
Click to expand...

I've already admitted Florida is a poor team. Oregon is better than any of us believed they would be. I don't quite understand what you're gloating about?


Your claim was that Alabama would beat any team, anywhere, case closed. The notion that Oregon would even have a chance to win was "not knowing anything about football" in the position you argued over several days and 20+ posts.

I think that most will agree that if South Carolina can beat Alabama by 14 points, Oregon would at least have a chance.
Click to expand...

And I stand by that statement. Alabama can beat anybody, anywhere. Including and especially Oregon. Losing a game doesn't automatically render you a second rate team. They played three ranked teams in a row, and in their final week of that stretch, they were pitted against South Carolina(who had an extra week to prepare), and they dropped a game. It happens.

ABC is the most blatant of logical fallacies. It doesn't apply.

Your statement did not contain any valid argument in response to mine. It was a logical fallacy.

Read. Learn. Make valid statements.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok.

Hey Wheaton, your rankings suck, and your rationalizations for those rankings are a joke.

I will admit that I am wrong when I am. In fact, I did so in direct response to another debate we were both involved in (that Cam Newton deserves to be in the Heisman discussion). Unlike you, who, once shown to be wrong about the invulnerability of Alabama never owned up to it and simply stopped posting for a few days.

Weak sauce.
Click to expand...

Alabama lost Wheaton. They'd still beat Oregon, probably in a similar fashion to how Ohio State did.
 
#191
#191
Bumi said:
And I stand by that statement. Alabama can beat anybody, anywhere. Including and especially Oregon. Losing a game doesn't automatically render you a second rate team. They played three ranked teams in a row, and in their final week of that stretch, they were pitted against South Carolina(who had an extra week to prepare), and they dropped a game. It happens.
Click to expand...

"Can" is a lot different than "would." Your claim was that Alabama WOULD beat any team, anywhere, not that they COULD beat any team, anywhere.
 
#193
#193
DuckinTN said:
Yes, it is. The mediocrity of Florida's performances against Miami (OH) and USF demonstrated clear issues that you turned a blind eye to. I didn't think that Florida was going to be this pitiful, but anything more than a middle of the pack SEC team would've been a big surprise to me.
Click to expand...

Oklahoma struggled early in a similar fashion to Florida. They're undefeated. Florida struggled early in 08. They won the national championship. Etc.

Pretending as if you can accurately forecast the outcome of a season based on a minute sample is ridiculous.
 
#195
#195
Bumi said:
Oklahoma struggled early in a similar fashion to Florida. They're undefeated. Florida struggled early in 08. They won the national championship. Etc.

Pretending as if you can accurately forecast the outcome of a season based on a minute sample is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Florida didn't stomp a team at Florida St.'s caliber, unlike Oklahoma. I never even said that Oklahoma was some juggernaut. They're a strong team, but I don't think they're one of the best 5 teams in the country.

You call beating teams 56-10, 26-3, and 30-9 struggling in the early going? Florida was a force in 2008 from the start of the season, sans a poor effort against Ole Miss. I personally witnessed them dominate Tennessee in every facet of the game in 2008.
 
#196
#196
DuckinTN said:
Florida didn't stomp a team at Florida St.'s caliber, unlike Oklahoma. I never even said that Oklahoma was some juggernaut. They're a strong team, but I don't think they're one of the best 5 teams in the country.

You call beating teams 56-10, 26-3, and 30-9 struggling in the early going? Florida was a force in 2008 from the start of the season, sans a poor effort against Ole Miss. I personally witnessed them dominate Tennessee in every facet of the game in 2008.
Click to expand...

We don't even know how good Florida State is. Their best win is over an average Miami team, and they just skidded by a terrible team in Boston College.

You don't think their a top 5 team but their resume is more solid than Oregon's?

You didn't watch Florida play early in 08. Typing "ESPN" into your browser and quickly glancing over schedules isn't going to do it for you. You watched the Gators "dominate" The Vols in every facet of the game? Which is exactly why the Vols out gained the Gators in total yards, and held Tebow under 100 yards passing? The Gators won due to defense and special teams(Brandon James...). Overall, they struggled.

The offense struggled with predictability until the second half of the Arkansas game. After that, the Gators rolled. Nobody had Florida in the National Title game at 3-1 with a loss to Ole Miss. Which is exactly my point about the inaccuracy of predictions based on small samples.
 
Last edited:
#198
#198
wheaton4prez said:
Rating USC #1 is not saying that people should call them the national champ.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Saying USC is #1 is calling them national champ, just as the AP, BCS, Berryman, Billingsley, Colley, DeVold, Eck, FACT, FB News, FW, Massey, NFF, NY Times, Seattle Times, Sporting News, USA/ESPN, and Wolfe called Ohio State national champs. The NCAA recognizes them as national champions.

wheaton4prez said:
In 2002, the NC was defined as the team that won the NC game. Not the team that ended the season with the highest rating.
Click to expand...

If you do not think the system is good enough to define the best team in the country after all of the games have been played, why do you believe it is good enough to define the teams that should be playing for the national championship?
 
#199
#199
DuckinTN said:
The St. Louis Cardinals weren't the best team in baseball during the 2006 season, but that doesn't take away the fact that they were the champions of the MLB.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point. Sagarin's ratings are flawed enough that after the WS is over, you have the equivalent of his system declaring Oakland as baseball's '06 champions.
 
#200
#200
cotton said:
You are mistaken. Saying USC is #1 is calling them national champ, just as the AP, BCS, Berryman, Billingsley, Colley, DeVold, Eck, FACT, FB News, FW, Massey, NFF, NY Times, Seattle Times, Sporting News, USA/ESPN, and Wolfe called Ohio State national champs. The NCAA recognizes them as national champions.

If you do not think the system is good enough to define the best team in the country after all of the games have been played, why do you believe it is good enough to define the teams that should be playing for the national championship?
Click to expand...

Because he's a homer, and those terrible Sagarin ratings support his opinions on the superiority of the Pac-10. :yes:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top