College Football - Week of 9/8

[CuseCubFan69]

Appalachian State got 19 votes in the AP Poll this week and are in 33rd place.

 

And Auburn gets more votes than South Florida in the good ole boy poll.

 

Just because USF beat Auburn it doesn't mean USF is a better team. Just because Oregon thrashed Michigan it doesn't mean Oregon is a better team. Just because ...

 

Just because Michigan is 0-2 doesn't mean the entire Big 10 is weak. Just because....

 

Apples and oranges.

 

One head-to-head matchup doesn't necessarily prove one team is better than the other.

 

Lord isn't using just Michigan to say the Big 10 is weak.

 

Maybe not but in college football you have to use it as a measuring stick because of all the teams the small amount of games.

[Mephistopheles]

when the sample size is small it doesnt mean you have to rely on it more.

 

thats about as dumb as a thought as ive ever seen. yes when the sample size is small we should put more stock into it.

 

brilliant!!!!

[CuseCubFan69]

when the sample size is small it doesnt mean you have to rely on it more.

 

thats about as dumb as a thought as ive ever seen. yes when the sample size is small we should put more stock into it.

 

brilliant!!!!

 

Good point. Since a team beats another 4 games to 3 why rely on that small sample size to determine who wins the world series or one stupid game in the Super Bowl. Hey genius, you may have something there.

[Mephistopheles]

when the sample size is small it doesnt mean you have to rely on it more.

 

thats about as dumb as a thought as ive ever seen. yes when the sample size is small we should put more stock into it.

 

brilliant!!!!

 

Good point. Since a team beats another 4 games to 3 why rely on that small sample size to determine who wins the world series or one stupid game in the Super Bowl. Hey genius, you may have something there.

 

Its posts like this that make me laugh.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

do you actually laugh or just tell people you do?

[CuseCubFan69]

when the sample size is small it doesnt mean you have to rely on it more.

 

thats about as dumb as a thought as ive ever seen. yes when the sample size is small we should put more stock into it.

 

brilliant!!!!

 

Good point. Since a team beats another 4 games to 3 why rely on that small sample size to determine who wins the world series or one stupid game in the Super Bowl. Hey genius, you may have something there.

 

Its posts like this that make me laugh.

 

That's nice. I'd make a post like that too if I were in your situation. Of course that's usually your type of response, isn't it?

[Mephistopheles]

do you actually laugh or just tell people you do?

 

Actually I do. The line of logic (well lack of) does make me laugh.

 

when the sample size is small it doesnt mean you have to rely on it more.

 

thats about as dumb as a thought as ive ever seen. yes when the sample size is small we should put more stock into it.

 

brilliant!!!!

 

Good point. Since a team beats another 4 games to 3 why rely on that small sample size to determine who wins the world series or one stupid game in the Super Bowl. Hey genius, you may have something there.

 

Its posts like this that make me laugh.

 

That's nice. I'd make a post like that too if I were in your situation. Of course that's usually your type of response, isn't it?

 

You didn't make an argument. You just supported mine. You defended your argument by supporting mine. What do I need to say? You said we should rely more on limited samples because they're all we have. Then you pointed out instances where relying on limited sample sizes has been erroneous (see Cardinals 2006 WS title). You just made my point and defeated your own argument.

 

Thanks.

[CuseCubFan69]

do you actually laugh or just tell people you do?

 

Actually I do. The line of logic (well lack of) does make me laugh.

 

when the sample size is small it doesnt mean you have to rely on it more.

 

thats about as dumb as a thought as ive ever seen. yes when the sample size is small we should put more stock into it.

 

brilliant!!!!

 

Good point. Since a team beats another 4 games to 3 why rely on that small sample size to determine who wins the world series or one stupid game in the Super Bowl. Hey genius, you may have something there.

 

Its posts like this that make me laugh.

 

That's nice. I'd make a post like that too if I were in your situation. Of course that's usually your type of response, isn't it?

 

You didn't make an argument. You just supported mine. You defended your argument by supporting mine. What do I need to say? You said we should rely more on limited samples because they're all we have. Then you pointed out instances where relying on limited sample sizes has been erroneous (see Cardinals 2006 WS title). You just made my point and defeated your own argument.

 

Thanks.

 

Nice try. So you'd have some 2 or 3 loss team in college football be #1 because of the small sample size of losses and your perception of what's better?

[dew1679666265]

do you actually laugh or just tell people you do?

 

Actually I do. The line of logic (well lack of) does make me laugh.

 

when the sample size is small it doesnt mean you have to rely on it more.

 

thats about as dumb as a thought as ive ever seen. yes when the sample size is small we should put more stock into it.

 

brilliant!!!!

 

Good point. Since a team beats another 4 games to 3 why rely on that small sample size to determine who wins the world series or one stupid game in the Super Bowl. Hey genius, you may have something there.

 

Its posts like this that make me laugh.

 

That's nice. I'd make a post like that too if I were in your situation. Of course that's usually your type of response, isn't it?

 

You didn't make an argument. You just supported mine. You defended your argument by supporting mine. What do I need to say? You said we should rely more on limited samples because they're all we have. Then you pointed out instances where relying on limited sample sizes has been erroneous (see Cardinals 2006 WS title). You just made my point and defeated your own argument.

 

Thanks.

 

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

[Mephistopheles]

Nice try. So you'd have some 2 or 3 loss team in college football be #1 because of the small sample size of losses and your perception of what's better?

 

It's quite possible. Assume a team like OSU plays an average team all season long. There's probably a 10 percent chance they lose a game to them. There's a 35% chance that they lose two games. That's 1 in 3.

 

And the 90% chance of winning is more than likely significantly overstated.

[Mephistopheles]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

[dew1679666265]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Interesting. Something tells me it wouldn't be nearly as exciting as the playoffs, though. :D

[Mephistopheles]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Interesting. Something tells me it wouldn't be nearly as exciting as the playoffs, though. :D

 

i dont doubt that. ive always been interested to see BCS rankings w/ point differential after the bowl season. i think wed be surprised at some of the things we would see. it quite honestly it would be correct. Why not have all 64 bowl teams play one bowl game in mid december, then have the 32 winners play in late december or early January. the sample size of cross-conference games between the elite doubles.

[CuseCubFan69]

Nice try. So you'd have some 2 or 3 loss team in college football be #1 because of the small sample size of losses and your perception of what's better?

 

It's quite possible. Assume a team like OSU plays an average team all season long. There's probably a 10 percent chance they lose a game to them. There's a 35% chance that they lose two games. That's 1 in 3.

 

And the 90% chance of winning is more than likely significantly overstated.

 

But your taking away actual performance and making it a statistical situation. Assumptions are fine but I'll take the actual performance in a head to head meeting. Of course there are going to be upsets and the best teams don't always win but in a situation such as college football the head to heads have to qualify highly in ranking along with the overall record. That's the beauty part of college football, the small sample size and zero room for error and once you start quantifying it to the point where you are just using numbers that are skewed, you take that beauty away. When so many teams play cupcakes as they all do, you have to use the head to head meetings as a measuring stick, especially when you are comparing 2 teams like Auburn and USF.

[CuseCubFan69]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Interesting. Something tells me it wouldn't be nearly as exciting as the playoffs, though. :D

 

i dont doubt that. ive always been interested to see BCS rankings w/ point differential after the bowl season. i think wed be surprised at some of the things we would see. it quite honestly it would be correct. Why not have all 64 bowl teams play one bowl game in mid december, then have the 32 winners play in late december or early January. the sample size of cross-conference games between the elite doubles.

 

You make an interesting point but what if the best team doesn't win, should the best team still move forward and the team that actually won get knocked out?

[dew1679666265]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Interesting. Something tells me it wouldn't be nearly as exciting as the playoffs, though. :D

 

i dont doubt that. ive always been interested to see BCS rankings w/ point differential after the bowl season. i think wed be surprised at some of the things we would see. it quite honestly it would be correct. Why not have all 64 bowl teams play one bowl game in mid december, then have the 32 winners play in late december or early January. the sample size of cross-conference games between the elite doubles.

 

That's an interesting idea. Not sure it would work logistically though. Each bowl would want some level of focus even in the first round and having all 32 games around the same time would be a bit of a jumbled mess from the bowl reps' perspective.

[CuseCubFan69]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are.

[imb]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are.

 

It really is fun to see how worked up you get. These college football threads always bring out the best in you.

[CuseCubFan69]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are.

 

It really is fun to see how worked up you get. These college football threads always bring out the best in you.

 

Yeah, they really do for some strange reason. I feel like the proverbial hippy that screams against the establishment when it comes to this topic. Just trying to stick it to the man I suppose.

[Andy]

ND's juniors currently contributing:

 

David Bruton - starting FS

Paul Duncan - starting LT (you might recognize him as the guy who was committing holds and false starts all over the place last night)

David Grimes - starting WR

DJ Hord - backup WR

Pat Kuntz - backup DT

Kyle McCarthy - backup FS

Asaph Schwapp - FB

Michael Turkovich - G

 

 

End of list.

 

Charlie won with Ty's recruits - what was Ty's record with them again? His last two years, partly assembled with his classes, was 11-13 if you don't count the ass kicking in the Insight Bowl that he didn't coach. Darius Walker was not the featured back in 2004 because Ryan Grant was just so good. Jeff Samardzija caught like seven passes in two years under Willingham. Most of the decent players on the team now that Ty recruited never saw the field with him even though they were no worse than the idiots who were playing.

[Derwood]

complicated algorithms? sports doesn't always have to = math

[imb]

The reason I'm in favor of a playoff for college football is that I don't feel that the best team has to be the champion, which is what the polls try to determine.

 

We're talking about teams playing, at most, 14 games. And it's not like there's much crossover, where the top teams are playing the same opponents and you can more accurately determine who is better than who.

 

Stick them in a playoff and at the end of the season, crown a champion that may or may not be the best team, instead of the stupidly arbitrary polls that try to do the impossible.

 

Another positive aspect of a playoff system, it would curtail some of the stupid "which conference is stronger" bs. THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL WHEN A GOOD TEAM PLAYS ONE STRONG NON-CON TEAM AND THEN GOES UP AGAINST NOTHING BUT CONFERENCE OPPONENTS.

[Mephistopheles]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are.

 

It really is fun to see how worked up you get. These college football threads always bring out the best in you.

 

Yeah, they really do for some strange reason. I feel like the proverbial hippy that screams against the establishment when it comes to this topic. Just trying to stick it to the man I suppose.

 

but youre going for the establishment. so youre a fake?

[shnsajax]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are.

 

It really is fun to see how worked up you get. These college football threads always bring out the best in you.

 

Yeah, they really do for some strange reason. I feel like the proverbial hippy that screams against the establishment when it comes to this topic. Just trying to stick it to the man I suppose.

 

I wonder how much Syracuse winning a couple of games a season would help :wink:

[CuseCubFan69]

So this brings us back to my earlier question you never answered. If a playoff system and a poll system are both poor, how would you crown a champion?

 

A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.

 

Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are.

 

It really is fun to see how worked up you get. These college football threads always bring out the best in you.

 

Yeah, they really do for some strange reason. I feel like the proverbial hippy that screams against the establishment when it comes to this topic. Just trying to stick it to the man I suppose.

 

but youre going for the establishment. so youre a fake?

 

Yeah, ok.

 

Well anyways IMB. Eastern football has had a tough time breaking the established midwestern/southern griphold on college football and I've been frustrated with it for years. The Penn States that went 11-0 and get voted 2nd or 3rd and now to still have that problem even though the teams in the BE are quite competitive. Are they better, who knows but they often are ranked under any of the " old power conferences" if they have the same record at a very alarming rate. Just look at the last polls for 2006. If a BE team has the same record as one of the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, USC or ND they are almost always ranked behind them. You guys that are in these conferences or teams have had this God given right and imo don't realize it's happening, choose to ignore it or think they're always better. Just look at the voting of the Heismans, the voters always go by area or section of the country on who they vote for and people talk about eastern bias well believe me, it sure as heck isn't in college football. So ya, it frustrates me because they don't allow this to be determined on the field and if they do get a playoff you better believe the good ole boys will control how it works and manipulate it to their benefit. The Barry Alverez types will keep the OSU and Michigan teams in it until they are forced out with 2 losses while if a BE team losses once they are out of the hunt, no matter how good the league is. Don't get me wrong, last year OSU deserved to play the final but a few teams like Louisville and Boise St as you know deserved a shot to be playing them and Michigan and Florida were the only 2 that had a chance.