How does Congrove do this?

[Cane from the Bend]

I suppose this is the type of display, rolltide, was hoping for, when he said:

"I can't wait for Cane and Colorado Loves Football to get into it".

.

.

.

The season must be getting closer;
Because my posts keep getting longer.

[Cane from the Bend]

oops..

didn't mean to repost that.

However;

I seem to have been mistaken. I guess i got 112.something-or-other for that post.

[Spence]

I can't sit still long enough to get that many words typed. Then again I type a record breaking 5 words per minute.

[billybud]

Derek...I haven't responded to a post of yours...this commentary has been between mountainman and myself..sorry if that was not clear.

Now...that I've cleared that up...the bias towards the middle has nothing to do with any ranker "artificially raising" a ranking...it is standard statistical procedure of moving towards the mean. It amounts to no more than taking off the extreme ends of the Bell curve.

[mountainman]

Cane is able. (I just could not resist )

Nice piece of work from the admirer of the most powerful storms on earth who dwells in the land of Touchdown Jesus.

[billybud]

I am a slow learner...you get more moolah for double spacing like Cane?

[openSkies]

Oh, don't worry, you only get $0.01 for an extra space.

And besides, there IS a maximum limit earned for a post.

Don't think I don't have this all planned out haha. =]

[Spence]

If you know cane from the other board, he isn't long winded for the money. That is just part of how he does it. There was no "cash" on the other board and he made posts like that regularly.

[mountainman]

So, you think that was something? ...... If you're interested, ask Cane what his take is on what really happened during the Auburn fiasco of '04 ..... as it relates to the LSU, Oklahoma and USC fiasco or '03.

Maybe, when and if the numbness leaves his fingertips, he'll be gracious enough to share his thoughts.

[colorado_loves_football]

I don't even believe you actually feel that way. Nothing you typed is supportive of an even playing field, in the least bit.

Putting teams together in a 'playoff' arrangement, post-BCS, in my opinion, would do just that.

I honestly believe you only disagree with me, to deliberately (and unsuccessfully) contradict whatever it is I post.

Nothing you post is valid.

I disagree with that, for obvious reasons.

The difference between your rantings and my articles, are plain and clear. You ignore 'facts' and debate issues using emotion & opinion.

I use facts that 'you' twist the wordage of and deliberately misinterperet to say what you want it to say. I am not suggesting to 'ignore' the polls.

I am suggesting the polls predetermine a team's ranking before the season begins.

I don't 'misinterpret' anything at all. That's a big assumption, on your part. What I do, however, is 'interpret' what you type, and state my own feelings. Polls are exactly that, polls.

You have stated in your argument for TCU, that Oklahoma had just as much time to prepare for the opening game that the horned fogs did. If that were truely taken into account in the preseason polls, then Oklahoma would not have been ranked so highly to open last year.

Doesn't change a thing, they lost, to a better team. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Instead, Oklahoma had been preseason favorites, because 'of how the program performed in 2004'.

As a result.

Oklahoma was overrated going into last year.
That is not my opinion, that is historical evidence.

Because, that 'is' what happened.

'facts'

I don't know if they were over-rated. Seems to me they were a pretty good team, by most people's standards.

Yeah, preseason polls are 'unfair', and a terrible way to judge a new season's performance.

Unfair? Not necessarily. Depends on who's conducting the poll. "biased' and "slanted" probably apply, however.

What part of "Predetermined" did you not understand?

The part you are so convinced on. Nothing is 'predetermined'. Teams will either stay ranked, or drop-out based on how they play, througout the year. Pre-season doesn't determine a teams' overall succeess, it's just a way to 'size teams up'.

If the analysis calculated into the BCS is prefigured into the equation prior to week 8, then that is exactly how it works. And what I said is correct. Which 'infact', again, proves you are picking my posts apart, and arguing with your deliberate misquotation of what I typed.

Show where I misquote I don't do that, never have, never will either. I do'nt care two hoots about the BCS poll. I think it's as slanted a poll as there ever was.

Teams do infact establish themselves before the start of a season.

But that does not mean they should be ranked.

It is impossible to have a 'valid' prognosis of any team in the preseason, because you have nothing to base your up-to-date analysis on.

I disagree, teams have tradition on their side, otherwise there woudn't be a need to play the regular season at all. Traditon matters.

You simply can not have an accurate ranking system before these preseason teams have performed.

Not necessarily. CFP has all teams 'ranked' by the time the regular season begins. Shows how wrong you are, IMO.

Take into account, that teams also address issues regarding their past season's weaknesses during their preseason adjustments. And there is no way to determine who fixed the problems, or who still needs to spend a little more time, smoothing out the rough edges.

You have not yet witness a single on field competition.

Therefore, you have no basis to establish your ratings of these teams.

Like I said, that's a problem you need to take up with CFP, not me. Why is it so hard to swallow? Teams will determine their own fate, regardless, of what any one person things, says, or does. Get over it.

'None'

Again, 'facts' over 'opinions'.

If a team's game plan fails in their season opener, then they established themselves, either poorly, or insufficiently.

If said team who loses were a preseason national contender, then the analysis on them was also inaccurate.

I don't know if I agree with that. A team either wins or loses based on how they play. I don't think you can 'blame' that on anyone else, unless it's the head coach. Even then, he only has a 'role' in how the team does, a big one, obviously.

How is that a misinterperatation of things?

There is no 'evidence' to the contrary. Just 'opinions'.

I think everything posted here is an 'opinion'. Some are likely more valid than others, but opinions, nonetheless.

By waiting until after week 4, you have seen all of the teams play at least twice.

If it takes 4 weeks to 'fairly' gauge a team, you need to be doing something else. I think it's possible to 'fairly' assess how a team is, before they've played a game.

Many teams have bi-weeks at the start of a season.

Yeah, some do. Doesn't matter, they won't 'drop' much, if at all, by not playing. Some will likely move ahead, but some will likely 'drop' it has a way of evening itself out.

At least by waiting until all teams (or at least, most) have played 2 games, we can judge how a team will respond after a big win (ie. TCU losing to SMU), or how they react to an upset (ie. Oklahoma losing to UCLA in their second game).

Without this kind of information, the analysis is incomplete at best.

Hindsight is 20/20. Oklahoma didn't play UCLA 2nd game, Tulsa.
They won, in a 'squeaker'. TCU lost to SMU, 2nd game. They were 'tied', W/L. Oklahoma later lost to UCLA. TCU, I believe beat Army. If you are arguing SOS, that's another thing, altogether. Fact is, end of season TCU was 10-1, Oklahoma was 7-4. TCU was a better team, based on results (and head-to-head).

To predetermine a teams ranking due to their program, as opposed to waiting until they have establish current success, is to base your ratings off of 'opnions', which also assumes one is basing their 'opinions' off of probable bias (whether that bias is personal or indirect is upto idividual perception)(indirect bias, meaning a team's unfounded potential).

Bias does enter into it, but I think a good team can overcome some of that.

A program does not a team make.
A team effort, however, does.

A good program, a good team makes. They go hand-in-hand.

And, since we are dicussing preseason analysis, we have no effort, other than the wouldbe persuasive 'opinions' fed to us by analysists & pollsters.

Yep, that is another 'fact'.

The only controversy we would endure, by not having preseason polls, would be the heavy handed nonsense the media would repetitively implant into our heads, simply because the BCS system would work, and the media polls would become worthless, and in affect, insignificant

Polls, I believe are inherently 'biased'. I think it could be a good thing for all to lose them, altogether. That's possible, if a 'playoff' were to be implemented. Polls, at that point, become irrelevant, and inconsequential. The last team standing wins the NC.

The media would need the common viewer on their side in order to be credible.

And, (the media) as a whole, most of us agree they are not.

The media have their own poll. And it's not part of the BCS, anymore. They can select any team they want as 'their' NC. I guess that's their 'perk'.

No way to cut it. If you are assessing at team's value on how the 'program' faired in the previous season, you are in no way assessng the 'program' as it stands right now.

I think many believe (I do) that a team has success based in part on how they did the previous year. That's the mark of a good program.

If a team has lost many players to graduation/the nfl draft/injury/suspention/transfer/ect.. then you are rating them without the players who did well in the previous season.

You are ranking a program on who they 'use to be' and not on 'who they are'.

No, I'm making an 'assessment' on where a program likely stands using the last game as a reference point. Monumental difference.

No short order game play can take a preseason advantage away from a team who started ranked in the top 5.

Hypothetically speaking (now I'm talking your language):

Who would fair better at the end of a season -

Team (a.) who was ranked #22 in the preseason poll, then loses 2 games throughout the course of a season.

or

Team (b.) who was ranked #3 in the preseaon poll, then loses 2 games thoughout the course of a season.

Well, if one team loses to the other, then winning team 'fares' better. If they lose to two 'unrelated' teams, I guess team b. stands on 'higher' ground. Either way, it's fair.

And to be unbias objectors, let's assume both teams played equally difficult schedules, and suffered their losses during the same weeks.

Not hard to see who is going to fall into a better position, now is it?

Again, if they don't have any common opponents, it's next to impossible to know which team is better. Anohter argument for a playoff.

I do not see the fairness in that.

You dont' have to.

And, yes, credible polls should be designed to be 'fair'.

That is 'infact' the reason why the BCS was created.

No, it was 'created' by those who wanted to profit from a pairing of teams, that supposedly 'assured' a NC game. It hasnt' worked nearly as well as they hoped it might. Last year, while 'sufficient' didn't actually provide a 'true' NC, but it likely selected a deserving one, in Texas.

To establish an 'undesputed' #1 and #2 team, who would then play for the National title.

Undisputed? Tell that to the Boise St's of the world.

Yeah, it is a 'fact'.

And that is why these polls should be 'fair'.

I know it has not worked out that way in many seasons, though, in every season we have had a preranking system before the start of the competitive year.

Without a preseason ranking system, those two 'programs' (from the above example) would be on a level playing field.

In retrospect they were pretty close. Texas and USC played for the NC. That's who was ranked #1 & #2 to begin the year, unless I'm mistaken.

As for the Heisman.

That is absolutely the kind of reasoning that contradicts the very essence of the award.

The Heisman trophy is supposed to be awarded to the best player in college football from the current year.

It probably isn't awarded to the 'best' overall player, but more likely the one most 'deserving' of the recognition, based on a season (or more) of play. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, has last year's play been included, it's very likely Vince Young walks away with it, which would have made more sense. So, I disagree, I think all games likely have a bearing on it.

Giving a player credit for something he did not do during the season he is about to play in, is inexcusable.

He accomplished it, just not all in the same year.

Using your example;

Vince Young did not win the hiesman trophy, in no small part to the preseason hype Reggie Bush received before the start of the season.

Also, the heisman was awarded before the Rose Bowl took place, and many were predicting the Rose Bowl to be the Reggie Bush show.

(but it was cancled, and replaced with the Vince Young show)

I didn't award the Heisman, if I had, it would have gone to VY. I wouldn't have based it on 'hype'. I never do that, and I don't think the voters do.

No-one, regardless of who they are, should have any sort of advantage, what so ever, for something that has yet to take place.

It does not matter who one's teammates they are, or what they 'may' accomplish.

Several players are 'obLIVIously' overlooked by heisman voters, due to prerecognition from sports writers, toward the players of those sports writers' choosing.

It gos against the very tradition of the trophy.

It becomes commercial.

And it taints the basic fundementals of college football at its roots.

(Are you a media writer, because you sure do have that stench about you)

The award goes to the one player viewed 'most' outstanding. I think in general, it has gone to the player who has done the most with the talent he possessed. Some exceptions, not too many.

I have considered your argument on 1984 & Pitt.

They did not live upto the hype, because they were not good enough to live upto the hype.

Was it unfair to rank them #3 overall?

It wasn't 'hype'. They were viewed as a very good team. Unfortunately they weren't as good as their pre-season ranking suggested.

Obviously, they answered that question with a 3-7-1 final record.

They were 4-7-1 after beating Penn St. in Happy Valley, PA. Penn St had a pretty good team, that year.

Yeah, I'd say that was unfair to those teams who did play more competitively, but did not get a solid preseason ranking.

How could they have possibly earned a #3 ranking through competitive play?

Were they ranked #3 after losing to BYU? No. Rankings change over the course of the year, for good reason. Doesn't mean they weren't a good team, to begin the year. 20-14 to eventual NC, says something about how good your team is.

In the preseason, there hasn't yet been any games played.

They were not given a chance to earn the #3 ranking before it was given to them.

And that is where your argument is flawed.

No team 'earns' a pre-season ranking. it's 'awarded' to them. If they don't 'own' it they lose it.

A team's success and failures can only be measured by their performance.

Your stance is that Pitt was not that bad of a team.

Okay, let the 'facts' speak for themselves.

3-7-1

Is that is your idea of a good record?

4-7-1. In a conference (Big East) that didn't have one outstanding team, unless it was W. VA. (I'm not counting BC). So, you are likely mistaken.

If it is, then, sure, they were not that bad.

But, that is why it is your 'opinion' you are debating with.

And it is historical 'facts' you are debating against.

You are rationalizing that Pitt was not that bad of a team, 'because' they had a preseason #3 ranking.

Had there been no preseason rankings, Pitt would not have had any hype to live up to.

There wasn't any 'hype'. PItt was ranked #3 to begin the year. They didn't live up to their ranking. Should BYU have been ranked #3? No. They 'earned' their NC through competitive play, which included beating the #3 ranked team, in their backyard, to start.

You have previously stated that Oklahoma doesn't make excuses for their loss to TCU, and neither should there fans.

Then you should take a letter of your own advice, and stop making excuses for the 1984 Pitt team.

You say they were not that bad of a team, and yet, you have no foundation to establish that analysis.

And that is exactly the type of rationality that undermines the fabric of the sport itself. And only shows how flawed a preseason rating system can be.

Yep, you proved my point for me by using an example which shows your 'opinion' over 'facts' bias.

Who cares if the pre-season ranking if 'flawed'. It all comes out in the wash. BYU obviously was #1.

Thank you...

You're welcome.

As for SMU,

They would not have gone to a bowl game, even if they had finished .500 on the year.

There were too many inconference competitors who had better records than the Mustangs. So, a 6-6 record would have given them nothing more than another lucky win.

(and I say lucky, because they did not win)

And, no, I do not consider 6-6 a good record.

Anytime any team goes to a bowl, they are likely 'decent' if not good. So I will take your comment with a huge grain of salt. 5-6 was their final record. They didn't play in a bowl, but were within a FG of qualifying for one (OT loss to Marshall). That's not a misrepresentation of facts, it's the truth. SMU had as good a team as they've had since 1984, IMO. The facts mostly support that. If you don't agree with my assessment, that's your prerogative.

That is the record of a team who did not get the job done.

A bad team performance (even for SMU).

All I know is it was viewed by most as the best team since 1984, coincidentally, they very year we are discussing. SMU, that year won, 20-17 over ND, in the Aloha Bowl. So, SMU likely is a 'pretty' good football team, at any rate.

Fairness is supposed to begin on the field.

As a fan of college football, we are asked to let the teams prove there worth out on the field.

So, why not let them do that.

Prove it on the field, not in the preseason.

I don't have a problem with that.

Until we have witnessed a team's potential, we are only given glimpses of remenant possibilities on paper.

Past seasons' statistics do not help you win the game you are currently playing.

I dont base my 'assessment' on how a team has done, with one exception: pre-season ranking.

Especially if those players have moved on.

A good football team usually has good players waiting 'in the wings'. That's one mark of an outstanding football program. Case in point: 1984. Robbie Bosco went down in the Holiday Bowl. He later returned, but there was a capable backup ready to step in, if necessary.
One player doesn't a championship team make, but his gutty performance did inspire the team to play better.

Until we are allowed to let the teams settle it on the field, and not in the preseaon, we are investing too much hersey into the sport.

Might of's, would of's, could of's, should of's; are all great conversation peices.

But none of them are dids, or did nots.

They are the differences between paper teams & performers.

Those who 'do' step out onto that field and perform, 'should' be the one's that are rewarded.

Those who could, but have 'not yet', stepped onto the field to perform, 'should not' be.

Put up, or shut up, is the name of the game.

All that matters (in my opinon) is which team ultimately wins the game. All other things, are inconsequential. But, there are things like 'momentum', 'tradition', etc. Intangibles, I suppose, that likely affect the outcome of a game.

Not having a preseason poll only magnifies the neccesity to go out and prove yourself.

And that is what college football is 'Supposed' to be about.

It should be about tradition, and competitive play.

As for your blatant disregard for college football players' health, by refering to a playoff system...

Well...

That is an issue for a different thread.

I hope not, for your sake.

(another topic you would lose, by the way)

I'm not trying to 'win' but you are likely mistaken, either way.

[Cane from the Bend]

No, a plyoff system would only take the teams 'ranked' in the top 16.

The polls would still have to exist.

You disagree...

A common plurative in your responses.

Shows how you use your opinions, not the 'facts'.

You do 'infact' misinterpret what someone types, by interpreting their words to say what 'you' want them to say.

Take me at face value (and everyone else for that matter). Not for how you read into others' posts. But, rather, what is actually in them.

You said it best.

You write your feelings.

Good for you. But you are applying 'opinion' not truth.

Truth is what can be proven.
Opinion is speculative.

Everything you respond with, is 'highly' speculative.

>

Pretty good doesn't cut the top 10, in most peoples' standards.

Had Oklahoma not been 'over-rated' going into last season, you wouldn't have anything to base 95% of your TCU posts on.

Yeah, TCU was better than Oklahoma on the day that they played.

But it also doesn't change the 'fact' that TCU did not play the Oklahoma 'team' that you want TCU to get credit for.

You want TCU to get credit for beating the Oklahoma program.

But programs are built on year by year, season to season success.

There is nothing that suggests TCU's program is better than Oklahoma's.

Just that TCU played a better game, on that day.

>

If a poll is basing its pre-season rankings in portion to, biasness and slantedness, then that poll is giving an unfair advantage to an unproven team.

Everything is predetermined.

Take Billybud's comment for example:

His evidence shows, that every national championship team has had a top 10 ranking in the preseason polls.

>

Yes; teams stay ranked if they win - but why do these 'teams' deserve the ranking they have, anymore than someone not ranked, in the preseason?

Yes; teams drop out if they lose - but not on an even scale or the favored teams - ND lost to Michigan St an only dropped from #10 to #14, where Michigan St stayed ranked #17

Polls 'are' just that, polls.

But it is the 'Polls' who determine which teams play will in the National Championship game, and the BCS bowls.

Your ranting at the end of the year on how TCU deserved to play in a BCS bowl only proves that point.

TCU did not play in a BCS bowl, because they did not finish high enough in the polls.

And, for most teams, a ranking in a preseason poll is huge.

Because it gives them an inside advantage.

No; sizing up a team in the preseason does not guarantee their overall success. However, giving a team a preseason ranking does give them a pre-ordinated spotlight boost.

The Human polls are more likely to vote based on the teams who are already in the top 25.

The BCS standings are 3/4ths based on the human element..

>

Anytime you reinterpret what I have written, to better suit you argument, you misquote me.

You have deliberately mistranslated my posts.

You have done it, you continue to do it, and I expect nothing more than the same from you.

You want specifics.

Re-read everything you have responded to my posts with.

There is an example (often more than one) in all of them.

>

Determining a teams program based on their tradition, in the preseason, is a classic example of unfair bias.

You either didn't think that part through before you typed it, or, you simply don't have a clue.

Traditions have no buisness being a part of a preseason ranking system.

If they did, "Then" we should throw out the season and just play the bowl games.

You don't even realize how you are indirectly contradicting yourself.

>

CFP's poll does not show how wrong I am.

That is a twist of logic to make yourself look better.

Just because they have every team ranked before the preseason is not evidence of an 'accurate' system.

If even 40% of their rankings stay consistant, from the preseason to the end, then we would be talking about accuracy.

How many of the teams listed, in their top 25 alone, will switch places throughout the course of the season?

I interject your analysis. You only proved me right, not wrong.

>

Get over what?

It's your lack of understanding which has lead to this enlongated topic.

Not mine.

What has the CFP got to do with your fecklessness.

It was your response to my post, not theirs.

And you only responded because I used your name, and one of your tiresome played out crybaby rants, as an example, in my first draft to this thread.

Not because you have anything valid, or worthwhile to add.

Because you don't.

Teams control there own destiny in regards to their record, true. But teams do not have control of their own poll ranking.

If they did, we would have had 3 'recognized' National champions in 2004.

And seeing as we did not.

It proves you are wrong.

(remember what I said about fatcs)

>

Yeah, you don't give two hoots about the BCS.

But you gave about 75 hoots over them when TCU didn't get invited to play in one of their Bowl games.

(bottom of the post, the shoe laces thing)

>

The only reseason you see everything on this forum as an opinion, is because the truth is too hard for 'you' to swallow.

I have given facts.

You have given opinion.

>

You say it is possible to fairly assess a team before they have played a game...

How?

With what evidence do you use to support this claim?

Other than how that team did in the previous season. Which is no longer valid.

It is a ridiculous assumption to say the least.

Tennessee was in the top 3 going into last season.

They finished the year 5-6.

Forget about the fairness argument.
Forget about the, it all works itself out in the end, argument.

Was #3 an accurate assessment of Tennessee.

We are talking 'fatcs' here.
Not how good they could have been.

Sure, the Vols looked good, on paper (paper team again).

Or, let's take West irginia for example.

The Mountaineers were not ranked until after they beat Louisville, West Virginia's 7th game of the year.

The Mountaineers finished the regular season #12, with an 11-1 record.

After their season performances, it, would seem these teams were both inaccuraely analyzed in the preseason.

Without the preseason polls, Tennessee would have never reached the top 25, and West Virginia would have finished in the top 10 (or better).

Now, "that's", overwhelming evidence for you.

>

Hindsight is 20/20.
Oversight is more like 10/30.

I overlooked the Tulsa game. It wasn't deliberate, but I forgot about it.

Hey look at that, you actually used your first fact... Congradulations!

Yet, my point is still valid. UCLA beat Oklahoma in the Sooners third game of the year.

So,it is your hindsight in your bringing it up.

Because you conveniently left out that Oklahoma did 'infact' play UCLA within in the first 4 weeks.

An indirect, though, deliberately way to 'reinterpret' what I wrote, to make your point.

(remember the shoe laces thing)

>

Good programs are built by the consistancy of good team performances.

Without a team having performed, there is no way to determine how well a program is hoding up.

Tennessee has a good program.

But the team performed to a 5-6 record.

How did Tennessee's program help them with their preseason #3 ranking.

They fired most of their Offensive staff, aside from the head caoch.

Obviously, their program wasn't good enough for the administration department.

Eventhough they had a preseason #3 ranking.

>

Again, playoffs would only give greater strength to the polls.

And, it would make being ranked in the preseason that much more important.

All talks of playoffs, coming strictly from thhe media (you), bring the top 16 ranked teams (not just conference winners), as the intent for a bracket.

Playoffs would cause more controversy, not clear any of it up.

>

The media does have their own poll.

But it is only there to control the common viewer's opinion.

That is what the media does.

They are supposed to report the news, not create it.

But, instead, they have tried to establish control over the sport itself.

They over step their bounds.

So, yeah, they can name their own natioal champion.

But, if they were consistant, they would have done so for Auburn, in 2004.

(mountainman knows where this is going)

The media honored usc as the co-national champions in 2003.

By not honoring Auburn with that same respect in 2004, the media showed their true face.

Don't complain about it if you don't mean it.

By not giving Auburn a co-championship in 2004, the media lost 'ALL' of its credibiity.

All of it!

And, the associated press, was infact a calculated poll, in both 2003 & 2004.

The media has been a hypocritical force since they started to be taken seriously.

And they have bashed anything that has not supported their interests.

Yeah, the media is the major push for the plaoff system. Not the common viewer.

Without the media drilling the idea into everyone's heads, we wouldn't even be discussing it.

That is why the media needs the attention from the fans.

Because, if the BCS formula worked right every time, then the media's manipulation would end.

Their say would be pointless (in my opinion, it already is).

And they couldn't tollerate that.

>

The mark of a good program is in is ability to keep on winning, regardless of what they did in the previous year.

You build tradition off of a programs consistancy.

A good program knows how to win year to year.

So, good programs should not need the help of a preseason poll to boost their popularity.

Let the current record speak for itself. Leave the past behind.

You can only take with you what worked in the past season, to be successful.

You have to adjust to those things that did not work in previous years to avoid continued failure.

Without seeing how new players work together in actual competition, you can not accurately gauge a fair expectation of their on field performance.

It is imposible.

And, without actual competition, you can not accurately gauge how well a team adjusted to their weaknesses during the off season.

Again, it's impossible.

>

No, yor assessment of a program, based on how well that 'programs' team performed in the previous year;

Is 'infact' assessing a team with a preseason ranking, for who they use to be.

There is no difference what so ever. It is exactly the samme thing.

It's called self contradiction, supported by hypocracy.

(shoe laces man, shoe laces)

>

If the wo teams in the suggested scenario had common opponents, then you are basing your opinion off of team triangulation.

A theory inwhich, you youself said was ineffective.

(how do you get all of that saliva of of the leather)

The idea was, both teams played an equal hard schedule.

You neglected that part of the hypothetical.

But if you must delegate assessment on triangulation (eventhoughyou said ... never mind).

Then assume both teams beat 3 of the same opponents during that same season.

If you are saying it is 'fair' that the team who started #3 in the preseason, ended with a higher ranking than the team who started #22, then you are saying that preseason polls are 'fair' in and of themselves.

But, I thought you aid polls were not suposed to be 'fair'.

(I can pick you apart the same way buddy)

>

The NCAA headquarters and College Football Hall of Fame both 'Officially' reconize Texas as the National Champions.

They also recoginize without debate, all BCS naional champions.

And they recognize usc in 2003 with an *.


You mentioned, tell that to the Boise St's.

Okay, had Boise St been ranked higher in the preseason polls, then they would have gone to 2 consecutive BCS games.

It was their ranking in the polls that kept them out of the picture.

>

Saying a heisman trophy winner'
-
"accomplished it, but not all in the same year"
-
is disrespectful toward the nature of the award.

The heisman trophy is awarded every year.

And as such, it is 'that' season in which a player is accountable for.

With your thinking, we may as well give the darn thing to Brady Quinn right now.

He is the current spoaken about forerunner.

Just like Reggie Bush was last year in the preseason.

>

I was refering to your comment, on Pitt.

Go back and read your own post again.

You are the one who first posted that Pitt didn't live up to the hype.

If you are saying it wasn't hype, the reason for their preseason ranking...

Then don't say it was.

Stop contradicting yourself.

Either make a comment and stick with it. Or don't say it at all.
Even if Penn St was a go team.

Okay, Penn St as a good team in 1984.

But there are two things missing from your reference.

1.) You have in the past mentioned how rivalry games are played a little more aggressively by teams, to show how an unranked team can play competitively against the bigger guy.

Pittsburgh vs. Pennsylvania State

This game was considered a big rivalry back in the 80's.

2.) you have agred with the comment, that any given team can win on any given day.

If you mean it, the, that shold apply to the 1984 Penn St vs Pitt game, as well.

Just because Pitt beat a good Penn St rival, does not make Pitt very good themselves.

Futhermore, showing that Pitt took BYU to 20-14, and losing, does not prove they were a good team.

Especially when the original context of that comparrison, is to question BYU's legitimacy.

It only further proves, that:

(a.) BYU played a soft schdule
(b.) Pitt as not agd team
(c.) You are making excuses for both BYU and Pitt

>


The only comparison I have seen ayone sow, between the SMU 1984 & SMU 2005 teams, is you.

Yeah, SMU came within a field goal in over time to being bowl eligile.

Look at you, using your second fact... now doesn't that feel better.

Unfortunately, however, eligibilty is nothing.

The Northern Illinois Huskies were eligible for a bowl game last year with a 7-5 record.

But they didn't get a bowl bid.

They went 10-2 in 2003,

And they did not get a bowl bid.

They went 8-4 in 2002,

And they did not get a bowl bid.

They went 6-5 in 2001,

And they did not get a bowl bid.

SMU would have had to fall in line. And in their conference, the would have had to have gotten the bowl bid over Houston.

Memphis, UTEP, UFC, So Mississppi, Tulsa all had better records, and were bowl locks.

Houston has been a media favorite, so SMU would not have been invited, even if they had finished 6-5.

Anyway, that is irrelevant. Because we were 'assessing' how good of a team the Mustangs were.

Well, they weren't.

First, they were a 5-6 team.
That is not a good record.

Second, the over time loss they suffered, was to Marshall.

Marshall finished the season 4-7.

So that only tells me, SMU could not get the job done, in over time, against a not so good team.

And that is he 'Fact' that o so ardently want to push.

(it's looking bad for your case)

>

If you don't have a problem with letting teams settle it on the field, then, get rid of the preseason poll.

>

Winning is all there is to a college football team.

That is why they suit up and play, even if they have losing records.

Tradition is bult on performance. Compeitive play is the essence of winning. And those teams who feel like they have something to prove, are the ones who are playing with pride.

And, 'pride', is the reasons fans support the teams they do.

Who wants it more. That's what will push a team forward to victory.

That is why Texas beat usc.

The Longhorns dug down and wanted it more.

>

You are right, for my sake and everyone else's.

Because we're tired of your irrelevant drivle.

Besides, we have already had our post about the playoff thing, and, quite honestly, it isn't worth the effort.

>

You continue to argue, constantly debate, and have stated where you thought I was wrong (which turns out that you were the one in the wrong).

That shows how you are trying to win.

You don't debate your point of view, without attempting to get others to see things from your perspecive.

That is just another clear contradiction of your purpose.

(so, which tastes better, the leather, or the rubber sole)

[RazorHawk]

No, a plyoff system would only take the teams 'ranked' in the top 16.

The polls would still have to exist.

You disagree...

A common plurative in your responses.

Shows how you use your opinions, not the 'facts'.

You do 'infact' misinterpret what someone types, by interpreting their words to say what 'you' want them to say.

Take me at face value (and everyone else for that matter). Not for how you read into others' posts. But, rather, what is actually in them.

You said it best.

You write your feelings.

Good for you. But you are applying 'opinion' not truth.

Truth is what can be proven.
Opinion is speculative.

Everything you respond with, is 'highly' speculative.

>

Pretty good doesn't cut the top 10, in most peoples' standards.

Had Oklahoma not been 'over-rated' going into last season, you wouldn't have anything to base 95% of your TCU posts on.

Yeah, TCU was better than Oklahoma on the day that they played.

But it also doesn't change the 'fact' that TCU did not play the Oklahoma 'team' that you want TCU to get credit for.

You want TCU to get credit for beating the Oklahoma program.

But programs are built on year by year, season to season success.

There is nothing that suggests TCU's program is better than Oklahoma's.

Just that TCU played a better game, on that day.

>

If a poll is basing its pre-season rankings in portion to, biasness and slantedness, then that poll is giving an unfair advantage to an unproven team.

Everything is predetermined.

Take Billybud's comment for example:

His evidence shows, that every national championship team has had a top 10 ranking in the preseason polls.

>

Yes; teams stay ranked if they win - but why do these 'teams' deserve the ranking they have, anymore than someone not ranked, in the preseason?

Yes; teams drop out if they lose - but not on an even scale or the favored teams - ND lost to Michigan St an only dropped from #10 to #14, where Michigan St stayed ranked #17

Polls 'are' just that, polls.

But it is the 'Polls' who determine which teams play will in the National Championship game, and the BCS bowls.

Your ranting at the end of the year on how TCU deserved to play in a BCS bowl only proves that point.

TCU did not play in a BCS bowl, because they did not finish high enough in the polls.

And, for most teams, a ranking in a preseason poll is huge.

Because it gives them an inside advantage.

No; sizing up a team in the preseason does not guarantee their overall success. However, giving a team a preseason ranking does give them a pre-ordinated spotlight boost.

The Human polls are more likely to vote based on the teams who are already in the top 25.

The BCS standings are 3/4ths based on the human element..

>

Anytime you reinterpret what I have written, to better suit you argument, you misquote me.

You have deliberately mistranslated my posts.

You have done it, you continue to do it, and I expect nothing more than the same from you.

You want specifics.

Re-read everything you have responded to my posts with.

There is an example (often more than one) in all of them.

>

Determining a teams program based on their tradition, in the preseason, is a classic example of unfair bias.

You either didn't think that part through before you typed it, or, you simply don't have a clue.

Traditions have no buisness being a part of a preseason ranking system.

If they did, "Then" we should throw out the season and just play the bowl games.

You don't even realize how you are indirectly contradicting yourself.

>

CFP's poll does not show how wrong I am.

That is a twist of logic to make yourself look better.

Just because they have every team ranked before the preseason is not evidence of an 'accurate' system.

If even 40% of their rankings stay consistant, from the preseason to the end, then we would be talking about accuracy.

How many of the teams listed, in their top 25 alone, will switch places throughout the course of the season?

I interject your analysis. You only proved me right, not wrong.

>

Get over what?

It's your lack of understanding which has lead to this enlongated topic.

Not mine.

What has the CFP got to do with your fecklessness.

It was your response to my post, not theirs.

And you only responded because I used your name, and one of your tiresome played out crybaby rants, as an example, in my first draft to this thread.

Not because you have anything valid, or worthwhile to add.

Because you don't.

Teams control there own destiny in regards to their record, true. But teams do not have control of their own poll ranking.

If they did, we would have had 3 'recognized' National champions in 2004.

And seeing as we did not.

It proves you are wrong.

(remember what I said about fatcs)

>

Yeah, you don't give two hoots about the BCS.

But you gave about 75 hoots over them when TCU didn't get invited to play in one of their Bowl games.

(bottom of the post, the shoe laces thing)

>

The only reseason you see everything on this forum as an opinion, is because the truth is too hard for 'you' to swallow.

I have given facts.

You have given opinion.

>

You say it is possible to fairly assess a team before they have played a game...

How?

With what evidence do you use to support this claim?

Other than how that team did in the previous season. Which is no longer valid.

It is a ridiculous assumption to say the least.

Tennessee was in the top 3 going into last season.

They finished the year 5-6.

Forget about the fairness argument.
Forget about the, it all works itself out in the end, argument.

Was #3 an accurate assessment of Tennesee.

Weare talking 'fatcs' here.
Not how good they could have been.

Sure, the Vols looked good, on paper (paper team again).

Or, let's take West irginia for example.

The Mountaineers were not ranked until after they beat Louisville, West Virginia's 7th game of the year.

The Mountaineers finished the regular season #12, with an 11-1 record.

After their season performances, it, would seem these teams were both inaccuraely analyzed in the preseason.

Without the preseason polls, Tennessee would have never reached the top 25, and West Virginia would have finished in the top 10 (or better).

Now, "that's", overwhelming evidence for you.

>

Hindsight is 20/20.
Oversight is more like 10/30.

I overlooked the Tulsa game. It wasn't deliberate, but I forgot about it.

Yet, my point is still valid. UCLA beat Oklahoma in the Sooners third game of the year.

So,it is your hindsight in your bringing it up.

Because you conveniently left out that Oklahoma did 'infact' play UCLA within in the first 4 weeks.

An indirect, though, deliberately way to 'reinterpret' what I wrote, to make your point.

(remember the shoe laces thing)

>

Good programs are built by the consistancy of good team performances.

Without a team having performed, there is no way to determine how well a program is hoding up.

Tennessee has a good program.

But the team performed to a 5-6 record.

How did Tennessee's program help them with their preseason #3 ranking.

They fired most of their Offensive staff, aside from the head caoch.

Obviously, their program wasn't good enough for the administration department.

Eventhough they had a preseason #3 ranking.

>

Again, playoffs would only give greater strength to the polls.

And, it would make being ranked in the preseason that much more important.

All talks of playoffs, coming strictly from thhe media (you), bring the top 16 ranked teams (not just conference winners), as the intent for a bracket.

Playoffs would cause more controversy, not clear any of it up.

>

The media does have their own poll.

But it is only there to control the common viewer's opinion.

That is what the media does.

They are supposed to report the news, not create it.

But, instead, they have tried to establish control over the sport itself.

They over step their bounds.

So, yeah, they can name their own natioal champion.

But, if they were consistant, they would have done so for Auburn, in 2004.

(mountainman knows where this is going)

The media honored usc as the co-national champions in 2003.

By not honoring Auburn with that same respect in 2004, the media showed their true face.

Don't complain about it if you don't mean it.

By not giving Auburn a co-championship in 2004, the media lost 'ALL' of its credibiity.

All of it!

And, the associated press, was infact a calculated poll, in both 2003 & 2004.

The media has been a hypocritical force since they started to be taken seriously.

And they have bashed anything that has not supported their interests.

Yeah, the media is the major push for the plaoff system. Not the common viewer.

Without the media drilling the idea into everyone's heads, we wouldn't even be discussing it.

That is why the media needs the attention from the fans.

Because, if the BCS formula worked right every time, then the media's manipulation would end.

Their say would be pointless (in my opinion, it already is).

And they couldn't tollerate that.

>

The mark of a good program is in is ability to keep on winning, regardless of what they did in the previous year.

You build tradition off of a programs consistancy.

A good program knows how to win year to year.

So, good programs should not need the help of a preseason poll to boost their popularity.

Let the current record speak for itself. Leave the past behind.

You can only take with you what worked in the past season, to be successful.

You have to adjust to those things that did not work in previous years to avoid continued failure.

Without seeing how new players work together in actual competition, you can not accurately gauge a fair expectation of their on field performance.

It is imposible.

And, without actual competition, you can not accurately gauge how well a team adjusted to their weaknesses during the off season.

Again, it's impossible.

>

No, yor assessment of a program, based on how well that 'programs' team performed in the previous year;

Is 'infact' assessing a team with a preseason ranking, for who they use to be.

There is no difference what so ever. It is exactly the samme thing.

It's called self contradiction, supported by hypocracy.

(shoe laces man, shoe laces)

>

If the wo teams in the suggested scenario had common opponents, then you are basing your opinion off of team triangulation.

A theory inwhich, you youself said was ineffective.

(how do you get all of that saliva of of the leather)

The idea was, both teams played an equal hard schedule.

You neglected that part of the hypothetical.

But ifyou must delegate assessment on triangulation (eventhoughyou said ... never mind).

Then assume both teams beat 3 of the same opponents during that same season.

If you are saying it is 'fair' that the team who started #3 in the preseason, ended with a higher ranking than the team who started #22, then you are saying that preseason polls are 'fair' in and of themselves.

But, I thought you aid polls were not suposed to be 'fair'.

(I can pick you apart the same way buddy)

>

The NCAA headquarters and College Football Hall of Fame both 'Officially' reconize Texas as the National Champions.

They also recoginize without debate, all BCS naional champions.

And they recognize usc in 2003 with an *.


You mentioned, tell that to the Boise St's.

Okay, had Boise St been ranked higher in the preseason polls, then they would have gone to 2 consecutive BCS games.

It was their ranking in the polls that kept them out of the picture.

>

'll adress the rest in a moment, this post is getting to long,, and my lady neds to use the phone.
_________________
Cane...





Did anybody read all that crap? Just seeing if this is the way to get from $200 to $5000.

[RazorHawk]

Wow, I almost doubled my money.... This is sort of rediculous. Changes should be made. Only need to post the same crap about 100 more times and I will have thousands of dollars.

[Spence]

I always read canes work, but sometimes it takes me a couple trips to the board to do it. He doesn't do that for the cash, he did the same thing on the old board and there was no mention of anything for posting.

[Spence]

Wow, I almost doubled my money.... This is sort of rediculous. Changes should be made. Only need to post the same crap about 100 more times and I will have thousands of dollars.

We won't allow the double posting thing. If someone tries to do that they will just be deleted.