College Football - Week of 11/17

[Sosa21MVP]

Indiana beats Purdue. I'm happy, we are going bowling. \:D/

[Transmogrified Tiger]

There you guys go again treating the world as wins and losses. The dumb politically correct bcs has messed you guys up. Is a 4 point win at home against Penn State more impressive than a loss by 1 point to Tennessee on the road?

 

Not really....theyre roughly equivalent...so MSUs resume didnt jump significantly today

 

Sorry, I can't follow you there. There's something to be said for the relativity between bad wins and good losses, but you can't weight them equally like that, it's the fundamental purpose of the sport.

 

sure you can. we're talking about predicting who is better. in terms of future performance, theyre identical.

 

This may sound crazy, but why are we talking about predicting future performance? Ranking the teams should be a reflection of what has happened, not what the percentages are moving forward.

 

we're asking which teams is better. Which is more important? what theyve done or how good they are?

 

answer: how good they are

 

Now you're just playing with words. What's more important in determining team strength, what might happen, or what actually has happened?

[Mephistopheles]

There you guys go again treating the world as wins and losses. The dumb politically correct bcs has messed you guys up. Is a 4 point win at home against Penn State more impressive than a loss by 1 point to Tennessee on the road?

 

Not really....theyre roughly equivalent...so MSUs resume didnt jump significantly today

 

Sorry, I can't follow you there. There's something to be said for the relativity between bad wins and good losses, but you can't weight them equally like that, it's the fundamental purpose of the sport.

 

sure you can. we're talking about predicting who is better. in terms of future performance, theyre identical.

 

This may sound crazy, but why are we talking about predicting future performance? Ranking the teams should be a reflection of what has happened, not what the percentages are moving forward.

 

we're asking which teams is better. Which is more important? what theyve done or how good they are?

 

answer: how good they are

 

Now you're just playing with words. What's more important in determining team strength, what might happen, or what actually has happened?

 

what might happen because it pretty much uses what has actually happened as a basis...we're talking about looking at what has happened, and then saying what things in the past point towards success in the future. in reality beating a team by 1 point is roughly equivalent to losing to the same team by 1.

 

that's the ultimate idea.

[cubweiser03]

So its Wins Losses and Moral Victories now.

[Mephistopheles]

not really....im not advocating giving out championships based on scores when you can play the games. im advocating using them to produce the top two teams to play for the NC and then let the winner win.

[E.J.]

It's hilarious watching you guys fight every weekend about who's the better (or worse?) conference. Who gives a crap? They don't play each other enough so it's impossible to know.

[Derwood]

Meph, have fun banging your head against the wall every year. the only metric that will ever matter in college football is wins and losses.

[Soul]

There you guys go again treating the world as wins and losses. The dumb politically correct bcs has messed you guys up. Is a 4 point win at home against Penn State more impressive than a loss by 1 point to Tennessee on the road?

 

Not really....theyre roughly equivalent...so MSUs resume didnt jump significantly today

 

Sorry, I can't follow you there. There's something to be said for the relativity between bad wins and good losses, but you can't weight them equally like that, it's the fundamental purpose of the sport.

 

sure you can. we're talking about predicting who is better. in terms of future performance, theyre identical.

 

This may sound crazy, but why are we talking about predicting future performance? Ranking the teams should be a reflection of what has happened, not what the percentages are moving forward.

 

we're asking which teams is better. Which is more important? what theyve done or how good they are?

 

answer: how good they are

 

Now you're just playing with words. What's more important in determining team strength, what might happen, or what actually has happened?

 

what might happen because it pretty much uses what has actually happened as a basis...we're talking about looking at what has happened, and then saying what things in the past point towards success in the future. in reality beating a team by 1 point is roughly equivalent to losing to the same team by 1.

 

that's the ultimate idea.

 

And that idea is flawed.

 

Actually getting the win carries with it a weight all its own.

[CubColtPacer]

There you guys go again treating the world as wins and losses. The dumb politically correct bcs has messed you guys up. Is a 4 point win at home against Penn State more impressive than a loss by 1 point to Tennessee on the road?

 

Not really....theyre roughly equivalent...so MSUs resume didnt jump significantly today

 

Sorry, I can't follow you there. There's something to be said for the relativity between bad wins and good losses, but you can't weight them equally like that, it's the fundamental purpose of the sport.

 

sure you can. we're talking about predicting who is better. in terms of future performance, theyre identical.

 

This may sound crazy, but why are we talking about predicting future performance? Ranking the teams should be a reflection of what has happened, not what the percentages are moving forward.

 

we're asking which teams is better. Which is more important? what theyve done or how good they are?

 

answer: how good they are

 

Now you're just playing with words. What's more important in determining team strength, what might happen, or what actually has happened?

 

what might happen because it pretty much uses what has actually happened as a basis...we're talking about looking at what has happened, and then saying what things in the past point towards success in the future. in reality beating a team by 1 point is roughly equivalent to losing to the same team by 1.

 

that's the ultimate idea.

 

 

But it isn't equivalent. You're penalizing teams who use a form of the prevent defense that makes scores closer than they should be but is an effective winning strategy. Some games that were decided by 7 points or less were decided on 1 play (a field goal going in or out, etc.) Others though were never in doubt. There is no easy way to account for the difference between those types of games, and so the win by itself has to count for a lot.

[Mephistopheles]

It's hilarious watching you guys fight every weekend about who's the better (or worse?) conference. Who gives a crap? They don't play each other enough so it's impossible to know.

 

For one season, probably. But given the fact it was the same story last season at the end of the bowl season (where sufficient cross games exist) we can at least believe the SEC is top overall for now.

 

Meph, have fun banging your head against the wall every year. the only metric that will ever matter in college football is wins and losses.

 

oh i know and don't care...

[Exile on Waveland]

Indiana beats Purdue. I'm happy, we are going bowling. \:D/

 

Yay Hoosiers! Big win for them; wow, gave up a 24-3 lead only to win it on a FG. Now I have to regroup so I can go party later.

[Mephistopheles]

But it isn't equivalent. You're penalizing teams who use a form of the prevent defense that makes scores closer than they should be but is an effective winning strategy. Some games that were decided by 7 points or less were decided on 1 play (a field goal going in or out, etc.) Others though were never in doubt. There is no easy way to account for the difference between those types of games, and so the win by itself has to count for a lot.

 

No one said it was perfect. Obviously all close games do not show the same thing, but how many close games are blowouts that turned close late? Not a large portion. If games are close the entire time, then winning or losing by a couple of points isn't really that important. Why? You said it yourself, 1 play or 2 plays decided the game. Yes, it may penalize teams who got back in late against scrubs, but generally they get back in and become down by 2 TDs, not five points. The ones who get back by five points are few and far between, and we really should reward them for coming back a bit...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Pat White looks like Mos Def's dumb cousin or something.

[Mephistopheles]

And that idea is flawed.

 

Actually getting the win carries with it a weight all its own.

 

statistically speaking this isn't really true...

[snoodmonger]

KU vs. MU for all the northern marbles. you Tigers have to be a little nervous, right? Our offense is clicking right now.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

KU vs. MU for all the northern marbles. you Tigers have to be a little nervous, right? Our offense is clicking right now.

 

For my own ego, I'm chalking that up to playing some awful defenses. Comparing the offensive output against some decent defenses(CU, KSU, aTm) makes me optimistic that our defense will do enough to keep you from keeping up with our offense.

[snoodmonger]

KU vs. MU for all the northern marbles. you Tigers have to be a little nervous, right? Our offense is clicking right now.

 

For my own ego, I'm chalking that up to playing some awful defenses. Comparing the offensive output against some decent defenses(CU, KSU, aTm) makes me optimistic that our defense will do enough to keep you from keeping up with our offense.

 

 

You really think we're only scoring because we've played bad defenses? Don't kid yourself. One thing we have done is played conservatively with leads on the road. That's a big part of why our offensive numbers have been less impressive against CU/aTm/KSU. But I think Reesing's leash has gotten longer now, and I still think our defense is better than yours. You definitely have the edge in O.

 

Overall, if I were a betting man, I'd bet on Mizzou. But I think it's gonna be a game, and if we can get our ground game going, we've got a great chance. Remember, last year it was 20-17 toward the end of the 3rd quarter, and our offense was simply give the ball to Cornish. One-dimesional. This year you'll have to guard the run and the pass.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

KU vs. MU for all the northern marbles. you Tigers have to be a little nervous, right? Our offense is clicking right now.

 

For my own ego, I'm chalking that up to playing some awful defenses. Comparing the offensive output against some decent defenses(CU, KSU, aTm) makes me optimistic that our defense will do enough to keep you from keeping up with our offense.

 

 

You really think we're only scoring because we've played bad defenses? Don't kid yourself. One thing we have done is played conservatively with leads on the road. That's a big part of why our offensive numbers have been less impressive against CU/aTm/KSU. But I think Reesing's leash has gotten longer now, and I still think our defense is better than yours. You definitely have the edge in O.

 

Overall, if I were a betting man, I'd bet on Mizzou. But I think it's gonna be a game, and if we can get our ground game going, we've got a great chance. Remember, last year it was 20-17 toward the end of the 3rd quarter, and our offense was simply give the ball to Cornish. One-dimesional. This year you'll have to guard the run and the pass.

 

I think you're scoring 50+ because of bad defenses. To simplify my point, Mizzou has scored at least 31 points in every game, and has played the two best defenses either team has faced this year in Illinois(40 points) and OU(the aforementioned 31). KU has scored < 30 points in three different games this season, Mizzou put up 40+ against all 3. Simply put, I think the gap between our offenses is greater than the gap between the defenses.

[snoodmonger]

I definitely think your offense is better, but I also think it's hard to compare offense by pure points. You have to consider both teams' philosophies. Mizzou's philosophy is scoring = defense. KU is more content to play a field position/time management game (IMO) because it trusts its defense to hold leads. But if you've followed our season, the times we have let up and the score has gotten closer again, we've almost always scored immediately. I think you guys never take your foot off the pedal.

 

I've said all year I think Mizzou is the more talented team. But I think you're kidding yourself if you're going to write off our success to simply playing weak teams.

Edited November 18, 2007 by snoodmonger

[Andy]

TT 20 Oklahoma 7 in the early going...

[shnsajax]

Tech is giving OU fits right now. They look to be in some real trouble if they can't get the offense going very soon.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I've said all year I think Mizzou is the more talented team. But I think you're kidding yourself if you're going to write off our success to simply playing weak teams.

 

That wasn't really what I was trying to convey, with the whole ego comment I thought it came across as being at least partially facetious.

 

 

Tech just went up 20-7 on OU in Lubbock. I guess it doesn't really matter at this point if OU loses for Mizzou's purposes, so go go Crybaby Graham.

[snoodmonger]

I've said all year I think Mizzou is the more talented team. But I think you're kidding yourself if you're going to write off our success to simply playing weak teams.

 

That wasn't really what I was trying to convey, with the whole ego comment I thought it came across as being at least partially facetious.

 

 

Tech just went up 20-7 on OU in Lubbock. I guess it doesn't really matter at this point if OU loses for Mizzou's purposes, so go go Crybaby Graham.

 

 

YOU MUST EARNESTLY GIVE US RESPECT WITHOUT ANY ACCOMPANYING ATTEMPTS AT LEVITY.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I've said all year I think Mizzou is the more talented team. But I think you're kidding yourself if you're going to write off our success to simply playing weak teams.

 

That wasn't really what I was trying to convey, with the whole ego comment I thought it came across as being at least partially facetious.

 

 

Tech just went up 20-7 on OU in Lubbock. I guess it doesn't really matter at this point if OU loses for Mizzou's purposes, so go go Crybaby Graham.

 

 

YOU MUST EARNESTLY GIVE US RESPECT WITHOUT ANY ACCOMPANYING ATTEMPTS AT LEVITY.

 

I SHALL DO NOTHING OF THE SORT AND WISH YOUR SQUAD ILL FORTUNE IN ALL THEIR FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

[snoodmonger]

I've said all year I think Mizzou is the more talented team. But I think you're kidding yourself if you're going to write off our success to simply playing weak teams.

 

That wasn't really what I was trying to convey, with the whole ego comment I thought it came across as being at least partially facetious.

 

 

Tech just went up 20-7 on OU in Lubbock. I guess it doesn't really matter at this point if OU loses for Mizzou's purposes, so go go Crybaby Graham.

 

 

YOU MUST EARNESTLY GIVE US RESPECT WITHOUT ANY ACCOMPANYING ATTEMPTS AT LEVITY.

 

I SHALL DO NOTHING OF THE SORT AND WISH YOUR SQUAD ILL FORTUNE IN ALL THEIR FUTURE ENDEAVORS.

 

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. I AM OUTRAGED. UNTIL YOU SEE FIT TO RETRACT THAT STATEMENT, THIS CONVERSATION WILL END. JUST LIKE YOUR TEAM'S CURRENT WINNING STREAK.