|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
[
No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game?
|
Right, because it would be impossible to think that a team is still the second best team after losing to the best team by three on the road. 
I'll tell you about horrendous. Arkansas was ranked 8th going into the SEC championship game despite losing its previous game AND getting Whacked in the most embarrssing fashion by USC earlier in the year. I'll repeat, any conference whose runner-up got beat by 36 points at home has no room to talk about how tough their conference is. Talk about short memories. That game was played this season. |
Short memory? At least I know that McFadden didn't really play that game, and when one of the best players in the country doesn't play, that can tend to have an effect on the outcome.
Incidentally, I find it interesting how you've started attacking Arkansas now rather than Florida. Could it be because you really don't have a case as to why Michigan is better than Florida? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JZer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Arkansas' #1 RB didn't play in the USC game. |
That still doesn't really explain why they lost by so many points. Allowing so many points in a game would give some evidence that your defense is not so great as well. With their top RB maybe they would have lost by 22. |
Wrong. A good running game eats up the clock, giving the opposing offense less time on the field. Less time of possession generally equals fewer points. Combine that with Arkansas scoring more, and the score would certainly not have been anywhere near as lopsided. But who knows? I'd have to check the box score to find out that information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
[
No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game?
|
Right, because it would be impossible to think that a team is still the second best team after losing to the best team by three on the road.
I'll tell you about horrendous. Arkansas was ranked 8th going into the SEC championship game despite losing its previous game AND getting Whacked in the most embarrssing fashion by USC earlier in the year. I'll repeat, any conference whose runner-up got beat by 36 points at home has no room to talk about how tough their conference is. Talk about short memories. That game was played this season. |
Short memory? At least I know that McFadden didn't really play that game, and when one of the best players in the country doesn't play, that can tend to have an effect on the outcome.
So Mc Fadden was worth 36 points? Lamest argument thus far.
Incidentally, I find it interesting how you've started attacking Arkansas now rather than Florida. Could it be because you really don't have a case as to why Michigan is better than Florida?
Uh, the point is that beating Ark is nothing special, yet UF leapfrogs UM because they beat them. And, in case you missed it, Vanderbilt is great case for UM over UF. UM and UF didn't play each other, but they both played Vandy. Take a gander at the results. UF has been unimpressive all year. |
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2685195
BTW, LSU is the other big winner in this scenario. Had USC won, most people had LSU going to the Rose to play UM. Now, they get to stay in their home state and play the Irish.
Congrats to Meyer, though. He ran a great campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hogwonguy1979
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: the racoon den
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This system stinks and what I hate is the hypocracy of Jim Tressel when talking about a playoff on FOX. He basiclly pulled the old "our players would be missing too much class" then in his next sentence he says "the players will be taking exams starting tomorrow"
Uh if there was a playoff it would start after exams for both quarter and semester schools. If a school makes the title game it would likely occur either during semester break or the first week of the winter quarter for those schools on the quarter system
the argument that the fans wouldn't travel is bunk too. In March hoops teams travel to 3 different sites if they make the final 4. If they are a top 16 it may not be far but still 3 weekends of travelling is there
4 games around Christmas, semis New Years, Final Jan 8, easy as pie
Did Mich get scr&wed? Yup, but so did LSU, OU and Boise St |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
[
No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game?
|
Right, because it would be impossible to think that a team is still the second best team after losing to the best team by three on the road.
I'll tell you about horrendous. Arkansas was ranked 8th going into the SEC championship game despite losing its previous game AND getting Whacked in the most embarrssing fashion by USC earlier in the year. I'll repeat, any conference whose runner-up got beat by 36 points at home has no room to talk about how tough their conference is. Talk about short memories. That game was played this season. |
Short memory? At least I know that McFadden didn't really play that game, and when one of the best players in the country doesn't play, that can tend to have an effect on the outcome.
1. So Mc Fadden was worth 36 points? Lamest argument thus far.
Incidentally, I find it interesting how you've started attacking Arkansas now rather than Florida. Could it be because you really don't have a case as to why Michigan is better than Florida?
2:Uh, the point is that beating Ark is nothing special, yet UF leapfrogs UM because they beat them. And, in case you missed it, Vanderbilt is great case for UM over UF. UM and UF didn't play each other, but they both played Vandy. Take a gander at the results. UF has been unimpressive all year. |
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2685195
BTW, LSU is the other big winner in this scenario. Had USC won, most people had LSU going to the Rose to play UM. Now, they get to stay in their home state and play the Irish.
Congrats to Meyer, though. He ran a great campaign. |
1: Just because you don't understand how the game would likely have unfolded vastly differently if McFadden had played doesn't make it a bad argument. But here's a hint: With McFadden in the game, I doubt Ark. throws 3 interceptions. Also, why you somehow think that one single game is indicative of how a team played the entire season is beyond me.
2: Oh, so the score a team beats Vanderbilt by is now the barometer by which we measure how good a team is? Well, I guess Tennessee is better than Florida or Michigan because they beat Vanderbilt by 29. I guess they should head to the title game then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JZer
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thundarr wrote:
| Quote: |
| 1: Just because you don't understand how the game would likely have unfolded vastly differently if McFadden had played doesn't make it a bad argument. But here's a hint: With McFadden in the game, I doubt Ark. throws 3 interceptions. Also, why you somehow think that one single game is indicative of how a team played the entire season is beyond me. |
Thunndarr, you are contradicting yourself. You seem to think that one game should be given more weight than others.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JZer
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| B: That's how college football works. |
Thunndarr, you cannot prove that something is true just because that is how it is done. I asked if there is any good reason to it. maybe the people who give more weight to the last game are not acting wisely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JZer wrote: |
Thundarr wrote:
| Quote: |
| 1: Just because you don't understand how the game would likely have unfolded vastly differently if McFadden had played doesn't make it a bad argument. But here's a hint: With McFadden in the game, I doubt Ark. throws 3 interceptions. Also, why you somehow think that one single game is indicative of how a team played the entire season is beyond me. |
Thunndarr, you are contradicting yourself. You seem to think that one game should be given more weight than others.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game? |
|
Exactly. Somehow we shouldn't judge a team too harshly for one game in which they got destroyed by 36 points in the most embarrassing fassion possible but we can judge a team harshly for losing by three on the road to the number one team because it was played later in the season. Smart.
And bringing up Tennessee was just plain silly. The Vandy game is being used as a tie-breaker between two teams with the same records. No one is saying Auburn should play for the title since they beat UF because they don't have the same record as UF. Other teams don't matter as they are not one-loss teams as UM and UF are. Only UF and UM matter and what they have done. To compare what UF has done against opponents that UM hasn't faced with what UM has done against opponents UF hasn't faced is ludricous and pointless.
If A is bigger than B,C, and D and if X is bigger than W,Y, and Z, we can conclude that:
1. A is bigger than X
2. X is bigger than A
3. A and X are the same size
4. None of the above
If A is 6 cm taller than B and if C is 20 cm taller than B, we can conclude that:
1. A is taller than C
2. C is taller than A
3. A and C are the same height
4. None of the above |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ESPN's Pat Ford:
| Quote: |
The voters have spoken. Between Gator chomps, here's what they said:
Never mind.
Never mind what we did the last couple of weeks, voting Michigan ahead of Florida. We've changed our minds because, hey, we can.
Because the rematch thing suddenly became too real. Because when Urban Meyer politicks, we listen. Because we thought it was time to throw the embittered SEC a bone after stonewalling Auburn's national title bid two years ago.
We thought the Wolverines were better than Florida back in November -- and even though Michigan hasn't played a down of football since Nov. 18, we've decided that we don't think so anymore. We were dazzled by the Gators' work since that date: a seven-point victory over Florida State and a 10-point win over Arkansas. And we decided that Ohio State-Michigan was not in need of a sequel.
That's our story and we're sticking to it. Now if you'll excuse us, we'd like to put our fake nose and glasses back on and return to anonymity. These publicized ballots make us more accountable than we'd prefer. Goodbye.
Some system, huh? You've got to love a sport that reduces its championship to a politicized popularity contest/guessing game.
I really don't have a problem with a Florida-Ohio State title game. In fact, I prefer it to Ohio State-Michigan -- prefer to see a battle of conference champs, and prefer not to put the Buckeyes in double jeopardy against a team they've already beaten.
But I don't like the way it came about.
On Nov. 26, the Wolverines led the Gators by 86 points in the Harris Poll and 30 points in the USA Today poll. By Sunday morning there had been a 154-point reversal in the Harris poll and a 56-point swing in the USA Today poll.
That was shocking. If you were already predisposed to voting Michigan ahead of Florida, I didn't see enough in that game to merit that kind of turnaround. We certainly didn't see anything from Michigan to merit a demotion, given the fact that the Wolverines weren't playing.
Which makes me suspect that habitual slot voters massaged their ballots simply to block a rematch -- something they should have considered the previous two weeks, it seems.
Or perhaps they simply liked the sound of Meyer's insistent voice, as he lobbied like nobody since Mack Brown groveled Texas into the Rose Bowl two years ago. If we've learned one lesson from recent BCS history, it's this: Whiners win. And that will only breed more whining in the future.
(Harris Poll voter Jim Walden was apparently so smitten by Meyer's pitch that he became the only voter on the planet to put Florida No. 1, ahead of Ohio State. Walden also voted Oklahoma fourth, Boise State fifth, Wake Forest seventh and LSU 11th. Makes me wonder whether we were watching the same sport all fall.)
|
Simply a travesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JZer wrote: |
Thundarr wrote:
| Quote: |
| 1: Just because you don't understand how the game would likely have unfolded vastly differently if McFadden had played doesn't make it a bad argument. But here's a hint: With McFadden in the game, I doubt Ark. throws 3 interceptions. Also, why you somehow think that one single game is indicative of how a team played the entire season is beyond me. |
Thunndarr, you are contradicting yourself. You seem to think that one game should be given more weight than others.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game? |
|
Ridiculous. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, contradictory in those two paragraphs. Indeed, they are completely unrelated. Arkansas lost to USC by 36. It is my contention that Arkansas is not a bad team. Yeah, they had a bad game (without their star player.) So what.
The second comment relates directly to the polls. Traditionally, teams that lose a game drop in the polls. Michigan lost its last game and didn't drop. Florida won its last game and leapfrogged Michigan. What's the problem? Where, exactly, is the contradiction? I don't believe I've claimed that Florida is a better team than Michigan, just that Florida has played a stronger schedule, which is the basis of my argument that Florida rightly belongs in the NC game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
Exactly. Somehow we shouldn't judge a team too harshly for one game in which they got destroyed by 36 points in the most embarrassing fassion possible but we can judge a team harshly for losing by three on the road to the number one team because it was played later in the season. Smart. |
Am I judging Michigan harshly? Have I claimed they are a bad team? Have I claimed that Florida is a better team? No, I've claimed all along that Florida has a better case, a point which seems to have gone well over your head. But please, keep trying to play the intelligent one here, it's amusing.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| And bringing up Tennessee was just plain silly. The Vandy game is being used as a tie-breaker between two teams with the same records. No one is saying Auburn should play for the title since they beat UF because they don't have the same record as UF. Other teams don't matter as they are not one-loss teams as UM and UF are. Only UF and UM matter and what they have done. To compare what UF has done against opponents that UM hasn't faced with what UM has done against opponents UF hasn't faced is ludricous and pointless. |
Let's recap: You claimed that UM had a "great case" over UF based on the Vandy result. Then you went on what will be sure to become an embarrassing attempt at lecturing me on logic. Keep reading to find out why.
You are clearly implying that UM is a better team than UF based on the results of the Vandy game. Yes? That is what you were implying, right? That implication is ridiculous. It indicates nothing at all about the respective teams involved. Here's why: Tennessee beat Vanderbilt by 29. In your hypothetical universe, Tennessee has a "great case" of being a better team than Florida. However, Tennessee actually lost to Florida by 1 point. The idea of the Vandy game being a "tiebreaker" between Florida and UM is ridiculous, because it indicates nothing. Disprove this.
You Michigan fans are grasping at straws. You don't have a case. Honestly, arguing that the VANDERBILT result indicates something? Come ON!
Finally, for JZer: Here is my position in short form. A full season is more indicative of a team's quality than a single game (wow, big shocker). And losing a game at the end of the season is worse than losing a game at the beginning(again, gasp!) It's not rocket science, it's college football. (You can argue all day long about the merits or lack thereof of the system, but you cannot argue that this is traditionally how college football operates.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| JZer wrote: |
Thundarr wrote:
| Quote: |
| 1: Just because you don't understand how the game would likely have unfolded vastly differently if McFadden had played doesn't make it a bad argument. But here's a hint: With McFadden in the game, I doubt Ark. throws 3 interceptions. Also, why you somehow think that one single game is indicative of how a team played the entire season is beyond me. |
Thunndarr, you are contradicting yourself. You seem to think that one game should be given more weight than others.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game? |
|
Ridiculous. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, contradictory in those two paragraphs. Indeed, they are completely unrelated. Arkansas lost to USC by 36. It is my contention that Arkansas is not a bad team. Yeah, they had a bad game (without their star player.) So what.
. |
Not only are you illogical, you are uninformed (despite bragging about your great memory). McFadden did play in that game.
"Darren McFadden had nine carries for 42 yards for Arkansas. McFadden, last year's Southeastern Conference freshman of the year, dislocated his toe in late July in a fight outside a Little Rock club. His status had been uncertain, but he was on the field for the Razorbacks' first play from scrimmage.
"It's a little sore, but it's all right," said McFadden, who said he felt about 80 to 85 percent." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hogwonguy1979
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: the racoon den
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
ESPN's Pat Ford:
| Quote: |
The voters have spoken. Between Gator chomps, here's what they said:
Never mind.
Never mind what we did the last couple of weeks, voting Michigan ahead of Florida. We've changed our minds because, hey, we can.
Because the rematch thing suddenly became too real. Because when Urban Meyer politicks, we listen. Because we thought it was time to throw the embittered SEC a bone after stonewalling Auburn's national title bid two years ago.
We thought the Wolverines were better than Florida back in November -- and even though Michigan hasn't played a down of football since Nov. 18, we've decided that we don't think so anymore. We were dazzled by the Gators' work since that date: a seven-point victory over Florida State and a 10-point win over Arkansas. And we decided that Ohio State-Michigan was not in need of a sequel.
That's our story and we're sticking to it. Now if you'll excuse us, we'd like to put our fake nose and glasses back on and return to anonymity. These publicized ballots make us more accountable than we'd prefer. Goodbye.
Some system, huh? You've got to love a sport that reduces its championship to a politicized popularity contest/guessing game.
I really don't have a problem with a Florida-Ohio State title game. In fact, I prefer it to Ohio State-Michigan -- prefer to see a battle of conference champs, and prefer not to put the Buckeyes in double jeopardy against a team they've already beaten.
But I don't like the way it came about.
On Nov. 26, the Wolverines led the Gators by 86 points in the Harris Poll and 30 points in the USA Today poll. By Sunday morning there had been a 154-point reversal in the Harris poll and a 56-point swing in the USA Today poll.
That was shocking. If you were already predisposed to voting Michigan ahead of Florida, I didn't see enough in that game to merit that kind of turnaround. We certainly didn't see anything from Michigan to merit a demotion, given the fact that the Wolverines weren't playing.
Which makes me suspect that habitual slot voters massaged their ballots simply to block a rematch -- something they should have considered the previous two weeks, it seems.
Or perhaps they simply liked the sound of Meyer's insistent voice, as he lobbied like nobody since Mack Brown groveled Texas into the Rose Bowl two years ago. If we've learned one lesson from recent BCS history, it's this: Whiners win. And that will only breed more whining in the future.
(Harris Poll voter Jim Walden was apparently so smitten by Meyer's pitch that he became the only voter on the planet to put Florida No. 1, ahead of Ohio State. Walden also voted Oklahoma fourth, Boise State fifth, Wake Forest seventh and LSU 11th. Makes me wonder whether we were watching the same sport all fall.)
|
Simply a travesty. |
yup and Jim Walden should have his vote pulled for making Fla #1 and the rest of his poll. We shouldn't have Mack Brown and Urban Meyer lobbying like some slimeball in Washington to get his team in
This is why March Madness is simply the best 3 weeks in sports, you have a committee seed the teams then play it out and its why CBS pays the NCAA like $1.3 BILLION a year to show it
Swear university presidents are almost as dumb as my univ students |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| JZer wrote: |
Thundarr wrote:
| Quote: |
| 1: Just because you don't understand how the game would likely have unfolded vastly differently if McFadden had played doesn't make it a bad argument. But here's a hint: With McFadden in the game, I doubt Ark. throws 3 interceptions. Also, why you somehow think that one single game is indicative of how a team played the entire season is beyond me. |
Thunndarr, you are contradicting yourself. You seem to think that one game should be given more weight than others.
You wrote:
| Quote: |
| No, the stupid thing was how UM didn't drop after losing their last game of the season. This week, if UF leapfrogs them, will be correction for that horrendous decision by the voters. By the way, how do you justify letting a team who lost its last game of the season into the national title game over a team who won its conference championship in its final game? |
|
Ridiculous. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, contradictory in those two paragraphs. Indeed, they are completely unrelated. Arkansas lost to USC by 36. It is my contention that Arkansas is not a bad team. Yeah, they had a bad game (without their star player.) So what.
. |
Not only are you illogical, you are uninformed (despite bragging about your great memory). McFadden did play in that game.
"Darren McFadden had nine carries for 42 yards for Arkansas. McFadden, last year's Southeastern Conference freshman of the year, dislocated his toe in late July in a fight outside a Little Rock club. His status had been uncertain, but he was on the field for the Razorbacks' first play from scrimmage.
"It's a little sore, but it's all right," said McFadden, who said he felt about 80 to 85 percent." |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Short memory? At least I know that McFadden didn't really play that game, and when one of the best players in the country doesn't play, that can tend to have an effect on the outcome. |
Yeah, that's the first comment I made about McFadden in the USC game. I apologize if I didn't make it clear in each and every subsequent comment that he did in fact have 9 whole carries. Next, quit being pedantic.
Edit: Incidentally, he was injured, AND he had fewer than half his normal number of carries. Yeah, I stand by the statement "he didn't really play." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
Not only are you illogical, you are uninformed (despite bragging about your great memory). |
Holy cow! I mention how some people have short memories, and suddenly I'm bragging that I've got a great memory? Nice stretch. I hereby dub thee Plastic Man.
Oh, and please show me how I'm illogical for not buying into your Vanderbilt Theory. (Which I've already proven is useless.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
