|
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 |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
[
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.
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." |
He had fewer carries than that against SE Missouri State. Why? Because that game was also a blow-out. McFadden carried the ball 9 times for 42 yards (4.7 yards a carry). Just so you know, that's a good average. Don't whine about him being injured, he didn't get many carries cause, you see, when you're down by more than 3 TDs in the third quarter, you're just not going to call many running plays. I suppose his toe is also the reason USC rolled up 472 yards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yawn. Pro tip: If your best argument is that Arkansas is a bad team (which, btw, is completely different than arguing that they had a bad game) you might not have a very strong case. I mean, seriously. You're not even talking about Florida v. Michigan anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| 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.) |
This will be my last response to you on this matter as this is becoming wearisome and I don't have time to keep checking if you have written accurate information. You did not prove anything other than that your memory is as selective as your application of logic. The Arkansas and Vandy games are important because they touch on the reasoning behind putting UF ahead of UM.
First, UM was ahead of UF in both pertinent polls before this weekend. UM didn't play, UF moderately beat an Arkansas team that really isn't all that great (the SEC hyped them as being great, but outside the SEC, well, they didn't exactly cover themselves in glory). The only reason to move them ahead of UM is because USC lost and some people didn't want a rematch. As one of the writers I posted said, there was nothing in that UF/Ark game that would make anyone suddenly think that UF was the second best team on the country.
Next, the Vandy game does mean something because the other argument is that UF is "more deserving" because it won the "tough" SEC or played a "tougher" schedule But how can one know which conferences are "tough?" If they just play in their own conference, there's no way to tell. I don't care about how many teams someone played with winning records or are going to bowls (going to a bowl is nothing special these days). Let's look at the BCS top 25. How many of the top 25 teams from other conferences did the SEC beat? I believe just one-Cal. How can people know that the SEC is the best conference from this? Other conferences have more wins against top 25 non-con teams (Big Ten and Pac Ten both do). It's just an assumption based a great deal on politicking and pre-season opion polls. I agree the Vandy game can't be made out to be a huge deal, but the fact is, comparing UF and UM schedules is apples and oranges...until it comes to Vandy. In that case, apples are being compared with apples. Look, if UF had played a better non-con schedule, it might be different (the combined record of UF non-con opponents is 20-28, while UM's is 28-21). To say they played a better schedule, then, is to say that the SEC schedule was tougher, and I don't see how the SEC proved that at all this year. So while the Vandy argument may not be too strong, I think it is stronger than the "tougher schedule" argument which is based purely on speculation. You bringing in Ten. means nothing. In a tie-breaker, only the teams who are tied matter. You know this, but are pretending not to. "UF is better than UM," is an opinion. "UF played a better schedule than UM," is an opinion. "UM beat Vandy by 2TDs more than UF," is a fact. Ten. is not part of the equation. Then we are back to comparing apples and oranges again (1-loss teams to a 3-loss team). The only way to compare apples to apples is look at how these teams did against the same competition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh wow. I've never read that stuff before  . I guess you didn't read my post. I don't think what the bottom teams in the conference do matters much as neither UF or UM is going to be challenged by the bottom teams in their conferences. So Northwestern loses to NH and that means UM's conference is weaker? This guys takes meaningless, bottom feeder games into account. Even by his own stats the Big Ten's opponents had a higher winning percentage, it had a better record against top 25 teams, and it had better "best wins." If you feel better believing that the SEC is better because their bottom-feeders did better than the Big 10 bottom-feeders, go right ahead. You sure put a lot of thought into that last post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gotte00
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
So this is how the greatest college football season in recent memory has to end? This was a year in which we saw the Big Two from the Big Ten dominant its opponents except in the same week when Michigan and OSU just got by Ball St. and Illinois. We saw Wake Forest and Rutgers come out of nowhere. We saw Boise St. continue to dominate the WAC and deserve a place in the BCS. Name me the school with the second best record over the last 5 years, possibly longer. That's right, Boise St. They will give Oklahoma a game. The Sooners will have a hard time stopping the Bronc passing and running game. We saw teams move up and down the rankings like an elevator.
But the season has to end with another controversy because the uni presidents, coaches, athletic directors don't want a playoff. Stop being hypocrits and don't use school as an excuse. If school was such a priority why are games scheduled during the week for hoops and most recently football? WHy can coaches pass their votes on to assistants, secretaries or in Tressel's case on the last poll, not vote at all. How can a team be penalized because their conference doesn't have a championship and have their season end two weeks earlier than the two teams that jumped them? Why is it ok for DI teams to schedule a DIAA team such as Florida did? Why do we have only two schools from a given conference can play in the BCS? Thus screwing Wisconsin who had an outstanding system. What is so difficult about having a playoff? What is wrong with a rematch in the BCS Championship game? But a rematch in a conference cham. game is no problem at all. This is the problem with coolege football, not every conference has a championship, Pac 10 and Big 10, and Michigan lost to the eventual conference champ. Should MIchigan really be penalized at all? Does USC deserve to be in the BCS while losing to TWO UNRANKED oppoenents? I don't hear anyone complaining about rematches in other college sports. Let the two best teams fight it out on the field and to get to the two best teams, we need a playoff.
I love college ball, but this is utterly ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gotte00
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oh yeah, Urban Meyer and the President of the SEC(the head of the BCS) are whiney, little biatches. The NCAA needs to employ an outside, independent panal to run the BCS,not conference presidents. Of course they're going to pull for their school, they want the money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JZer
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You want to know what the best conference is? Enjoy. |
Based on what? Anyways we will get a good chance at comparing the SEC and Big Ten in January. OSU will play Flordia , Wisconsin vs Arkansas, and PSU will play Tennessee! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| This will be my last response to you on this matter as this is becoming wearisome and I don't have time to keep checking if you have written accurate information. |
1: Blatant lie. 2: Yeah, I'm the inaccurate one here. You're the guy who hasn't mastered the reasoning ability of turnip, and I'm the guy who's inaccurate.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| You did not prove anything other than that your memory is as selective as your application of logic. |
Yawn. I schooled you, and will continue to do so. This argument amuses me, because you're basically left sputtering nonsense about games that happened 4 months ago and Vanderbilt as the cornerstone of your argument. I enjoy watching you try to sew that jackassery into a coherent defense of Michigan.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| The Arkansas and Vandy games are important because they touch on the reasoning behind putting UF ahead of UM. |
Only in your deranged mind.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| First, UM was ahead of UF in both pertinent polls before this weekend. |
Finally, something I can agree with.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| UM didn't play, UF moderately beat an Arkansas team that really isn't all that great (the SEC hyped them as being great, but outside the SEC, well, they didn't exactly cover themselves in glory). |
You know, you have yet to support your hypothesis that Arkansas is a bad team on anything beyond the one game with USC. You know, legitimately good schools get blown out every year in college football. That doesn't make them bad teams. Unless, of course, you've drunk the Michigan Kool-aid and are arguing about Arkansas. Please, elaborate how losing one game makes a team bad. Prove that good teams never lose games badly. Prove it.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| The only reason to move them ahead of UM is because USC lost and some people didn't want a rematch. |
No, that is the only reason that YOU see. Many, many other people don't see any reason why Michigan is better than Florida. You, apparently, see the world through yellow and blue glasses.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| As one of the writers I posted said, there was nothing in that UF/Ark game that would make anyone suddenly think that UF was the second best team on the country. |
And you know what? Other writers have said that they see no evidence at all that Michigan deserved to be ahead of Florida. But you ignore that.
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Next, the Vandy game does mean something because the other argument is that UF is "more deserving" because it won the "tough" SEC or played a "tougher" schedule But how can one know which conferences are "tough?" If they just play in their own conference, there's no way to tell. I don't care about how many teams someone played with winning records or are going to bowls (going to a bowl is nothing special these days). |
I'm not surprised you don't care, because it undermines your argument. However, I'm absolutely sure you'd be jumping up and down screaming it at the top of your lungs if Michigan had played the stronger schedule. But, they didn't. To be honest, I don't care if you don't care. You'll grasp at any straw to prove Michigan is better, and dismiss any evidence to the contrary. Fact of the matter, Florida played more good teams. End of story. (I see you've claimed that this is an opinion. Well, strength of schedule has an agreed upon definition in the college football world. According to that definition, Florida has a stronger schedule. Oh, and by the way, can you honestly say that strength of schedule wouldn't be your first argument if Michigan had, in fact, had the harder road? No, I didn't think so.)
| flakfizer wrote: |
| Let's look at the BCS top 25. How many of the top 25 teams from other conferences did the SEC beat? I believe just one-Cal. How can people know that the SEC is the best conference from this? Other conferences have more wins against top 25 non-con teams (Big Ten and Pac Ten both do). |
The SEC, right now, has 5 top 25 teams. How many does the Big Ten have?
| flakfizer wrote: |
| I agree the Vandy game can't be made out to be a huge deal, but the fact is, comparing UF and UM schedules is apples and oranges...until it comes to Vandy. In that case, apples are being compared with apples. Look, if UF had played a better non-con schedule, it might be different (the combined record of UF non-con opponents is 20-28, while UM's is 28-21). To say they played a better schedule, then, is to say that the SEC schedule was tougher, and I don't see how the SEC proved that at all this year. So while the Vandy argument may not be too strong, I think it is stronger than the "tougher schedule" argument which is based purely on speculation. You bringing in Ten. means nothing. In a tie-breaker, only the teams who are tied matter. You know this, but are pretending not to. "UF is better than UM," is an opinion. "UF played a better schedule than UM," is an opinion. "UM beat Vandy by 2TDs more than UF," is a fact. Ten. is not part of the equation. Then we are back to comparing apples and oranges again (1-loss teams to a 3-loss team). The only way to compare apples to apples is look at how these teams did against the same competition. |
And this is where you just get plain stupid. I'm sorry, there is no other word for it. Let me explain this really slowly, using small words so you'll be sure to understand. For something to be used as a meaningful barometer, it must accurately measure what it sets out to measure. In this case, you are attempting to measure the quality of 2 different teams, Michigan and Florida. Your barometer is Vanderbilt.
The premise is that the better team beat Vanderbilt by a larger margin. You have yet to show by anything other than opinion that this premise is a valid way to compare the strength of two teams. I, however, have shown that it is not valid. At all. Ever. Florida scraped by Vandy. Florida scraped by Tennessee. If the Vandy barometer is valid, Tennessee will either scrape by Vandy or lose. Are you following? However, Tennessee blew Vandy out of the water. If we were comparing Tennessee and Florida on the basis of nothing other than the Vanderbilt game (like you want to do with Florida and Michigan) we would conclude that Tennessee is the better team (much how you conclude that Michigan is better than UF.)
However, when we look at other factors, such as the fact that Florida beat Tennessee AND has a better record, we can see that no, the Vandy result actually doesn't mean anything. You can claim it does all you want, but I've proven that when you look at the Vandy game and nothing else, it means nothing.
Get this through your head. The Vanderbilt game does not indicate anything about any other game. That you continue to believe that it does only shows that you are A) incredibly biased or B) willfully ignorant. Just admit, the only reason you point to the Vanderbilt game is because it's all you've got. It's not that the Vanderbilt game can't be made out to be a huge deal. It can't be made out to be ANYTHING AT ALL. It is literally worthless as a predictor.
Once again, if you're only argument is that Arkansas is a bad team, and that a game played against Vanderbilt should be the tiebreaker, it probably means you don't have a very good case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JZer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You want to know what the best conference is? Enjoy. |
Based on what? Anyways we will get a good chance at comparing the SEC and Big Ten in January. OSU will play Flordia , Wisconsin vs Arkansas, and PSU will play Tennessee! |
And I'm excited to see it. It'll all shake out and we'll be left looking at this thread and the winning conference will have some serious bragging rights. However, until then, I give you this:
Most talented conference
3 of the top 5, and 5 of the top 10 are SEC baby. (No, it doesn't say anything about this year in particular. However, it does, I think, give a good indication of the general talent level in the conference.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JZer
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| However, it does, I think, give a good indication of the general talent level in the conference.) |
Except talent does not necessarily win ball games. There are other factors like heart and guts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| still waiting for non-um fans to come out and throw support behind the argument that the Wolverines should be in the national championship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It kinda all becomes irrelevant when we can all agree OSU is gonna sh*t stomp Florida come the title game. Urbab Myer is a great coach and Florida is a fiesty team but the Buckeyes are gonna punch them in the face. Hard. I am seeing a 2 touchdown win here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JZer
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| still waiting for non-um fans to come out and throw support behind the argument that the Wolverines should be in the national championship |
I'm not a Michigan fan and I support Michigan. |
|
| 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
