Recruiting Football Talk VIII

#68,655
#68,655
DD4ME said:
Us and UGA are very similar. We have the better defense and the higher ceiling, but they have the better win and better loss.

I think we win. We need to click against Miss St though. Important tune up game.
Click to expand...
Tempting to just let the rushing attack eat vs MSU since their run D is atrocious BUT I think we need to force the issue with the passing attack. The passing game has to be semi respectable vs UGA to win.
 
#68,658
#68,658
VolNRaleighNC said:
Tempting to just let the rushing attack eat vs MSU since their run D is atrocious BUT I think we need to force the issue with the passing attack. The passing game has to be semi respectable vs UGA to win.
Click to expand...
That’s not how our offense operates, Heupel attacks defenses based on how they line up he doesn’t play into their hand.
 
#68,659
#68,659
VolGee4 said:
Logic is defined by a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. Just because they state a criteria and apply that criteria does not mean it’s logical. “Science” is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world through systemic methodology based on evidence.

So, they throw out the hard evidence of head to head wins and records and throw in that we “feel” the team isn’t as good with the backup QB. So, that alone overcomes and outweighs the hard evidence when the hard evidence would clearly lean to UT being the higher ranked team. All committees have the subjective “out” to choose what they want to use to include teams. Additionally, in this age of opt-outs, they most certainly can’t project what the teams will look like in bowl games outside the playoff. That’s even more of a reason not to use subjective reasoning outside what was the top 4 at the time.

No point in discussing it anymore though. I’m sure others are tired of it. But wait for it to continue to happen. The networks will be the mouthpiece for what they want.
Click to expand...
I just don't see how you can say the "evidence" of a backup qb performing far below the level of a starter (in our example specifically and hundreds of others over time) isn't valid evidence for a logical ranking methodology. For someone as logical and rational as you always have been on here, that's the part that makes no sense to me.

If we had lost Hooker, Hyatt, Tillman, and Wright for the year at the USC game in 2022 instead of just Hooker, would you still insist it's illogical for them to rank us below Bama? At what point do injuries count as a valid reason to lower someone's ranking in their stated goal of ranking teams according to how the committee has said they want to rank teams?

I 100% agree they shouldn't be in the business of subjectively ranking and prognosticating. I don't want a committee ranking anyone at all anyway. Bring back the BCS in my opinion.

I'll drop it like you said though, I don't think we're going to convince each other. If you were usually an irrational, illogical poster, I wouldn't even bother; but you've always been aligned so closely with my definition of logical that it's just so perplexing to me that you seem so illogical in this one instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolGee4
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top