Latest Topics

[xiv]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 02 February 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

Your point was that Auburn didn't get in because of SOS. I pointed out a double standard in Alabama not having the best SOS and still getting into the title game anyway.

That isn't what a double standard is.  Again:  Whether or not Auburn should have played in the 2005 Orange Bowl has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Alabama should have been in the 2013 BCS Championship game.  Auburn didn't get in because they weren't one of the top 2 teams.  Alabama did get in because they were one of the top 2 teams.  That isn't a double standard; it's a single standard.

Quote

If you want to talk about "not understanding" something maybe you should start with yourself. The point is that the best SOS doesn't always get in when teams are tied.

You are having trouble understanding the concept of the results of different seasons being mutually exclusive.

Quote

Like you just admitted, Florida and probably Oregon *should* have gone to the BCS game over Alabama if you're looking at record and SOS.

No, I didn't say that. Oregon definitely should not have been ranked ahead of Alabama; Florida would have been ok; there is no reason to have a problem with Alabama being #2.

Quote

If your point is that Auburn shouldn't have gone because of SOS then logically Alabama should not have gone either.

No.  It's amazing how you don't get this.

Quote

And in 2004 the SEC went 3-3 in bowl games, which isn't great, but the only conference to do better was the Big 12 going 4-3. It was a pretty even season between major conferences, sure, but the SEC also had the most teams in the final polls (and Auburn faced each of those teams other than themselves, including Tennessee twice).

This does not matter.

Quote

It's weird to see you talk about how the record, strength of schedule, resume, etc. is why Auburn didn't deserve 2004 but then you say there's "no reason to have a serious problem" with Alabama making the NC despite several teams having equal records and a better strength of schedule.

The only team who had a better record than Alabama was Notre Dame.  The only team who had a record as good as Alabama was Northern Illinois.  Every other team in the country had a worse record than Alabama.  Oregon and Florida were the only one-loss teams with higher SOS's than Bama; both had worse records than Alabama.  Where's this "several?"

Quote

Oh yeah, my math was MASSIVELY WRONG. All I did was round the numbers because it seems silly not to round them. What you posted is pretty much exactly what I posted only with decimal points.

Yes, your math was wrong.  Mine was right.  Likewise, your points in this argument are wrong, and mine are right.

Edited by xiv, 03 February 2013 - 11:06 PM.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

xiv, on 03 February 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Yes, your math was wrong.  Mine was right.

Rounded numbers are not wrong. They're rounded. Deal with it.

[xiv]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 04 February 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Rounded numbers are not wrong. They're rounded.

Those rounded numbers didn't happen on the field.  They happened in your inability to do accurate math.  That's what rounded numbers do--make things easier on those who need to cut corners.

Quote

Plus, your assertion that USC and Oklahoma had larger margins of victories than Auburn is false:
USC - 37-13 = 24
Auburn - 34-11= 23
Oklahoma - 36-14 = 22

You were wrong when you said this.  

Quote

Deal with it.

Take your own advice.  Move on.  I'm tired of running circles around you.

[Neil Caudle is Superman]

xiv, on 04 February 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Those rounded numbers didn't happen on the field.  They happened in your inability to do accurate math.  That's what rounded numbers do--make things easier on those who need to cut corners.You were wrong when you said this.  Take your own advice.  Move on.  I'm tired of running circles around you.

The problem with what you said is that they did. The average score of a game in the 2004 season for each of those teams was exactly what I posted; you didn't see the Ravens score 34.3 points last night. Rounding makes logical sense.

You don't say that a running back averaged 5.693272363254  yards per carry because that is silly. Rounding numbers makes sense.

You don't say that Pi is 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745 because that is silly. Rounding numbers makes sense.

You don't say that Buster Posey lead the majors with a .3358490566037735 batting average last year because that is silly. Rounding numbers makes sense.

Furthermore, you yourself also rounded numbers as Oklahoma's average margin of victory, which you so LAZILY and INACCURATELY labeled as "22.41" was actually 22.4166666666666666666666667. THAT IS VERY CLEARLY A BIG DEAL.

Accept that everyone in society, including you, rounds numbers on a regular basis. It's not cutting corners, it just makes information more readily and easily accessible and understandable.

[xiv]

Neil Caudle is Superman, on 04 February 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

The problem with what you said is that they did. The average score of a game in the 2004 season for each of those teams was exactly what I posted; you didn't see the Ravens score 34.3 points last night. Rounding makes logical sense.

You don't say that a running back averaged 5.693272363254  yards per carry because that is silly. Rounding numbers makes sense.

You don't say that Pi is 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745 because that is silly. Rounding numbers makes sense.

You don't say that Buster Posey lead the majors with a .3358490566037735 batting average last year because that is silly. Rounding numbers makes sense.

Furthermore, you yourself also rounded numbers as Oklahoma's average margin of victory, which you so LAZILY and INACCURATELY labeled as "22.41" was actually 22.4166666666666666666666667. THAT IS VERY CLEARLY A BIG DEAL.

Accept that everyone in society, including you, rounds numbers on a regular basis. It's not cutting corners, it just makes information more readily and easily accessible and understandable.

Whenever somebody tries to give me a "math lesson" this badly, I tell her to take her box of tampons out of my bathroom and leave so I can start sleeping with other girls.

There is no reason that a self-respecting man should be this unwilling to just admit fault and move on.

[Booger]

pretty sure they're gonna screw up the playoff system, too. So who cares?

Anyone else notice how close the games were during the NFL playoffs? That was entertainment.

NFL Playoff Scores:

http://www.nfl.com/schedules

Edited by Booger, 05 February 2013 - 09:35 AM.

[SheLuvsBama]

So much bitterness in this thread......

[Noah]

There's no question that the Big Ten has been playing catchup to the SEC for the better part of the past decade. While the SEC has claimed seven straight national championships, the Big Ten has watched as its football brand has been hurt and taunted along the way.

The SEC has spent plenty of time looking down on its northern brothers, but the Big Ten is planning something that the SEC should seriously consider following. Actually, the league shouldn't just consider it, it should just do it.

On Tuesday, Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said on his radio show that Big Ten athletic directors have agreed to stop scheduling FCS opponents.

You hear that, SEC? For once in your life -- and I know this sounds bizarre -- follow the Big Ten's lead. Rid your schedules of all FCS opponents! Sure, feasting on cupcakes hasn't hurt the SEC's national championship dominance in the past seven years, but with a playoff coming next year, strength of schedule will finally matter again.

Now, the SEC champion probably won't be left out of the four-team playoff, even with an FCS darling on the schedule, but if SEC commissioner Mike Slive wants to get two teams in the playoff (and recent history tells us it's very possible), he'll need his teams to beef up their nonconference slates. You just can't risk it with a human selection committee dissecting everything about a team. Will an 11-1 SEC team not in the SEC title game be left out over the ACC champ? It might with an FCS team on its schedule. And maybe a Big Ten team slips in past an SEC team because it doesn't have that FCS team on its schedule and the SEC team does. That would really sting, I'm sure, so there's no point in taking the risk.

Also, let's be honest, FCS opponents don't bring in fans or viewers. We saw attendance numbers go down in college football last fall and scheduling cream puffs doesn't help. Plus, fans and selfish media members like myself are owed more exciting, high-profile games involving more competitive non-SEC opponents.

Slive won't ever let the SEC get caught looking in the college football arms race, but here's a chance to stay ahead. Better matchups on the field attract more people and will help the SEC even more come playoff time.

So, the SEC, which has made a killing with its not-so-tough nonconference scheduling tactics, should actually follow the Big Ten here and end future relationships with FCS opponents.