Ok Funny Debate

[SPURED]

Ok now i was talking with a friend of mine that Graduated from Penn State. and some how we got on the topic of what is .500 he was telling me that since in college football we play 12 games 6 games is .500, not arguing with him there because thats about the smartest thing he said. now he says if a team goes 7-5 they are 1 game over .500 because they have only won 1 more game than the 6 wich is 500. i cant believe he graduated from Penn St. with that kind of logic. does anyone get what he was trying to say and agree?

i layed out a rather simple answer for him to think about. and here it goes. if a 7-5 record is 1 game over .500, then what is a 6-5 record?

[AUFootball24]

7-5 is 1 game over .500

6-5 is .5 game(s) over .500


Of course, that is only true when you are comparing the 2 teams by way of standings. Or maybe that's not true..... 7-5 is half a game better than 6-5. So does that mean 6-5 is only half a game over .500? I don't think so, because 7-5 is 2 games better than 5-5 (aka .500). Hmm, I know I just contradicted myself, but I convinced myself that you are right throughout the course of this post. :happy:


Final edit. Standings are comparisons of total wins and total losses between 2 teams. Just looking at 1 teams record, you compare the wins to the losses (as opposed to your teams wins vs. their team's wins and your team's losses vs. their team's losses)

That is why 7-5 is only .5 game better than 6-5 in the standings, but 7-5 is 2 games over .500 and 6-5 is 1.

[OneBigDawg]

A 6-5 record is one game over .500 with one game still to play. Or that's how I look at it.

[SPURED]

7-5 is 1 game over .500

6-5 is .5 game(s) over .500


Of course, that is only true when you are comparing the 2 teams by way of standings. Or maybe that's not true..... 7-5 is half a game better than 6-5. So does that mean 6-5 is only half a game over .500? I don't think so, because 7-5 is 2 games better than 5-5 (aka .500). Hmm, I know I just contradicted myself, but I convinced myself that you are right throughout the course of this post. :happy:


Final edit. Standings are comparisons of total wins and total losses between 2 teams. Just looking at 1 teams record, you compare the wins to the losses (as opposed to your teams wins vs. their team's wins and your team's losses vs. their team's losses)

That is why 7-5 is only .5 game better than 6-5 in the standings, but 7-5 is 2 games over .500 and 6-5 is 1.
it is rather confusing the more you think about it. i went through the same thing you did. But if you win 7 games the mark of 6-6 can no longer be .500 it would have to be 7. wich would require you to play 14 games. the only way to play 14 games is with a conference championship game and a bowl game. i cant see a 7-5 team playing in a Conference championship. Especially the major Conferences.

[gatorunvrsty]

Ok now i was talking with a friend of mine that Graduated from Penn State. and some how we got on the topic of what is .500 he was telling me that since in college football we play 12 games 6 games is .500, not arguing with him there because thats about the smartest thing he said. now he says if a team goes 7-5 they are 1 game over .500 because they have only won 1 more game than the 6 wich is 500. i cant believe he graduated from Penn St. with that kind of logic. does anyone get what he was trying to say and agree?

i layed out a rather simple answer for him to think about. and here it goes. if a 7-5 record is 1 game over .500, then what is a 6-5 record?
He's saying 7-5 is one game over .500 and that's right. Because there are only 12 games, if you add 1 game in the win column, you have to remove 1 game from the loss column. There can only be 12 games, see? In a 12 game season .583 equates to 1 game over .500. A 6-5 season is different altogether because that's an 11 game season. It's an odd number. You can't have a .500 season with that because you either win or lose. You can't win as many as you lose. It's either a winning record or a losing one. 6-5 translates to.545, but isn't considered a game over .500, because there can be no .500. You can't win 5 1/2 games. In a 10 game season, 1 game over .500 would be 6-4. It has to be. 5-4 is only 9 games. 5-5 is exactly .500. 6-4 is 1 game over. Got it?

[SPURED]

He's saying 7-5 is one game over .500 and that's right. Because there are only 12 games, if you add 1 game in the win column, you have to remove 1 game from the loss column. There can only be 12 games, see? In a 12 game season .583 equates to 1 game over .500. A 6-5 season is different altogether because that's an 11 game season. It's an odd number. You can't have a .500 season with that because you either win or lose. You can't win as many as you lose. It's either a winning record or a losing one. 6-5 translates to.545, but isn't considered a game over .500, because there can be no .500. You can't win 5 1/2 games. In a 10 game season, 1 game over .500 would be 6-4. It has to be. 5-4 is only 9 games. 5-5 is exactly .500. 6-4 is 1 game over. Got it?

if you look at it like i am. if a teams record is 7-5 it would take 2 more losses to get back to .500 wich means you are 2 games Over .500. if you play 13 games and go 8-5 you are 3 games over .500 because it would take 3 more losses to equal the number of wins. weather you play 16 games in a season or not it will still take 3 losses to even it back out at .500

what would you say if the team was 4-0 at the time? are they 2 games under .500(Your logic) or are they 4 games over .500?(My Logic)

[GatorHunter]

He's saying 7-5 is one game over .500 and that's right. Because there are only 12 games, if you add 1 game in the win column, you have to remove 1 game from the loss column. There can only be 12 games, see? In a 12 game season .583 equates to 1 game over .500. A 6-5 season is different altogether because that's an 11 game season. It's an odd number. You can't have a .500 season with that because you either win or lose. You can't win as many as you lose. It's either a winning record or a losing one. 6-5 translates to.545, but isn't considered a game over .500, because there can be no .500. You can't win 5 1/2 games. In a 10 game season, 1 game over .500 would be 6-4. It has to be. 5-4 is only 9 games. 5-5 is exactly .500. 6-4 is 1 game over. Got it?

We got into this discussion last season...and I agree with gator, a 7-5 team is only one game better than .500. Now, they've won 2 more games than they've lost, but they're only one game over .500. You can't use the logic that "it would take 2 more losses to get to .500" because you are talking about a 12 game season. Turn one game into a loss, and you're .500...that's one game over .500. Sounds like the Penn State guy is a little smarter than you think... :laugh: Like gator said, if you are playing an 11 game season, there is no .500 because 11 is a odd number.

[GatorHunter]

what would you say if the team was 4-0 at the time? are they 2 games under .500(Your logic) or are they 4 games over .500?(My Logic)

The usage of ".500" only pertains to wins compared to losses...if a team is 4-0, it's a moot point.

[gatorunvrsty]

We got into this discussion last season...and I agree with gator, a 7-5 team is only one game better than .500. Now, they've won 2 more games than they've lost, but they're only one game over .500. You can't use the logic that "it would take 2 more losses to get to .500" because you are talking about a 12 game season. Turn one game into a loss, and you're .500...that's one game over .500. Sounds like the Penn State guy is a little smarter than you think... :laugh: Like gator said, if you are playing an 11 game season, there is no .500 because 11 is a odd number.
Thanks; I almost blew my brains out. :laugh: I even started to explain it again, but decided against it for my own sanity. :brick: There are only 12 games. Can be 6-6 or 7-5. Can't be 7-6. That's 1 game over even, but it's also 13 games. Spured, listen to Penn St.. :thumpsup:

[SPURED]

Thanks; I almost blew my brains out. :laugh: I even started to explain it again, but decided against it for my own sanity. :brick: There are only 12 games. Can be 6-6 or 7-5. Can't be 7-6. That's 1 game over even, but it's also 13 games. Spured, listen to Penn St.. :thumpsup:i guess it makes sence kind of. im just use to using the above .500 thing for baseball and they play a little more games than 12 so you tend to take it a little more literal. thats why i posted it because it really racked my brain and i wanted to see if you guys could make a little more sence out of it wich you did, sort of. im still going to use my logic but im bad at math so my way makes it easier for me to understand. haha

my Penn State friend is still an idiot. he claims they will win the National Title next year. everyone knows they dont stand a chance because my Gamecocks are going to keep it in the SEC east:thumpsup:

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

We got into this discussion last season...and I agree with gator, a 7-5 team is only one game better than .500. Now, they've won 2 more games than they've lost, but they're only one game over .500. You can't use the logic that "it would take 2 more losses to get to .500" because you are talking about a 12 game season. Turn one game into a loss, and you're .500...that's one game over .500. Sounds like the Penn State guy is a little smarter than you think... :laugh: Like gator said, if you are playing an 11 game season, there is no .500 because 11 is a odd number.

Yep, it was you and I that disagreed last year, and we will have to still disagree. For example, I see SC's 8-5 record as 3 games over .500 since if we played 3 more games it would take 3 losses to get back to .500. I even found and posted a website last year showing the way most of the sports sites look at it. Here's a couple of examples, with the best example at the end:

Examples:

The Tides, winners of 13 of their last 17, improved to 49-32 and moved to 17 games over .500 for the first time this season, stretching their lead in the International League West Division to 5 1/2 games over Toledo.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960702/07020426.htm

Seventeen days later, the team finds itself with a 12-10 mark, fourth best among Eastern Conference teams entering Thursday's play.
The West Siders will attempt to move three games above .500 for the first time this season tonight, when the Milwaukee Bucks visit the United Center.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/sports/174092,2_2_AU15_BULLS_S1.article

Since becoming a full-time starter in 2003, Zambrano has better numbers than Zito almost across the board -- even allowing for the designated hitter in the American League. In the four seasons since winning the Cy Young Award in 2002 with a 23-5 record, Zito is nine games over .500 (55-46). In the same span, Zambrano is 27 games over .500 (59-32). Zambrano is three years younger and nearly as dependable.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/quickhits/194994,CST-SPT-1hit03.article

And here's the best example:

Saban leaves Michigan State after five years at 10 games over .500...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/ivan_maisel/news/1999/12/01/maisel_insider/

and his record at Michigan State was 34-24!
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/michigan_state/coaching_records.php

[FutureBuckeye]

I would say 7-5 is 2 games over .500 because if your 5-5 (.500) and then you win 2 games straight you should be 2 games over .500.

[Jordan]

I would say 7-5 is 2 games over .500 because if your 5-5 (.500) and then you win 2 games straight you should be 2 games over .500.
But at the 5-5 mark you're only at 10 games of the 12 game season. For the 7-5, if you change just one of those wins to a loss, you'd be at 6-6 (.500)... so it's 1 game over .500.

Think of it in terms of a "winning season" versus an "even season". You're either 6-6 (even) or 7-5 (winning). There's no in-between due to there being 12 games.

This used to be a lot easier discussion when we were talking about 11 games, because there was no way for a .500 record at the end of the regular-season. :)

[Gibber]

Who cares?

[gatorunvrsty]

Yep, it was you and I that disagreed last year, and we will have to still disagree. For example, I see SC's 8-5 record as 3 games over .500 since if we played 3 more games it would take 3 losses to get back to .500. I even found and posted a website last year showing the way most of the sports sites look at it. Here's a couple of examples:

Examples:

The Tides, winners of 13 of their last 17, improved to 49-32 and moved to 17 games over .500 for the first time this season, stretching their lead in the International League West Division to 5 1/2 games over Toledo.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960702/07020426.htm

Seventeen days later, the team finds itself with a 12-10 mark, fourth best among Eastern Conference teams entering Thursday's play.
The West Siders will attempt to move three games above .500 for the first time this season tonight, when the Milwaukee Bucks visit the United Center.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/sports/174092,2_2_AU15_BULLS_S1.article

Since becoming a full-time starter in 2003, Zambrano has better numbers than Zito almost across the board -- even allowing for the designated hitter in the American League. In the four seasons since winning the Cy Young Award in 2002 with a 23-5 record, Zito is nine games over .500 (55-46). In the same span, Zambrano is 27 games over .500 (59-32). Zambrano is three years younger and nearly as dependable.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/quickhits/194994,CST-SPT-1hit03.article

And here's the best example:

Saban leaves Michigan State after five years at 10 games over .500...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/ivan_maisel/news/1999/12/01/maisel_insider/

and his record at Michigan State was 34-24!
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/michigan_state/coaching_records.php
The reason those figures are different is because there's no finite number of games. Those are games won or lost and still going. Spured's scenario is for 12 games and only 12 games. There can't be any making up the deficit, because it's just for that 12 game season. 49-32 is 17 games over .500 because it's not done yet. See? Say it was 50-32. That's 82 games. 41-41 would be .500. 18 games over would be 59-23 if the season was only 82 games long. For a finite number of games you add the number over to the wins side. But you also have to subtract that many games from the loss side, because 82 is the number of games there are. 50-32 is only 18 games over.500 if there are more games to be played. :thumpsup:

[AUFootball24]

Those of you who are saying 7-5 is 2 games over .500....

Your case is that if you take off 1 win, and make it 6-5, then THAT is 1 game over .500 (5-5), and you are correct in that regard. But where does that game go? Magically disappear? It still has to have a result. If it's not a win, then it's a loss, making it 6-6.

What you are not correct in is 'taking away 1 win'. You can't just make a game evaporate. In a 12 game season, you finish with 12 games. If you take 1 win away from 7-5, it doesn't become 6-5, that totals 11. It becomes 6-6, which is .500, so in that sense, you are 1 game away from .500.

At 7-5, if you change the outcome of ONE game, you are at .500 (6-6). You can't just take the game away all together, it has to have a result, either a win or a loss.

[gatorunvrsty]

Those of you who are saying 7-5 is 2 games over .500....

Your case is that if you take off 1 win, and make it 6-5, then THAT is 1 game over .500 (5-5), and you are correct in that regard. But where does that game go? Magically disappear? It still has to have a result. If it's not a win, then it's a loss, making it 6-6.

What you are not correct in is 'taking away 1 win'. You can't just make a game evaporate. In a 12 game season, you finish with 12 games. If you take 1 win away from 7-5, it doesn't become 6-5, that totals 11. It becomes 6-6, which is .500, so in that sense, you are 1 game away from .500.

At 7-5, if you change the outcome of ONE game, you are at .500 (6-6). You can't just take the game away all together, it has to have a result, either a win or a loss.
You're pretty smart for 16. If I have to explain this again, I might just walk out into traffic. I've explained it a little differently. I hope they get it. I'm not optimistic, though, because some think this is an opinion. It's not. Math is right or wrong. It's not how you look at it. It's can you understand how it is.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

The reason those figures are different is because there's no finite number of games. Those are games won or lost and still going. Spured's scenario is for 12 games and only 12 games. There can't be any making up the deficit, because it's just for that 12 game season. 49-32 is 17 games over .500 because it's not done yet. See? Say it was 50-32. That's 82 games. 41-41 would be .500. 18 games over would be 59-23 if the season was only 82 games long. For a finite number of games you add the number over to the wins side. But you also have to subtract that many games from the loss side, because 82 is the number of games there are. 50-32 is only 18 games over.500 if there are more games to be played. :thumpsup:
Look at the last example.....According to cnnsi.com, Saban was 10 games over .500 at Michigan State with a 34-24 record. I don't believe he'll be coaching again at Michigan State. He's done at Michigan State, with no more games to be coached by him there.

For those who disagree, show me a site(s) explaining your rationale and the way you're figuring it. I've always heard (and seen) it shown the way I indicated in my original post (with web sites supporting it).

Here's another one with a hockey team that has finished it's seasons (and the games over .500 reflected as I indicated).
2002-03
Record: 37-28-7, 81 Points, 9 games over .500
Home Record: 24-9-3, 51 Points, 15 games over .500
Division Finish: 6th Place, Northern Division
Playoff Results: Did not qualify
http://www.trentontitans.com/history.asp

[GatorHunter]

Those of you who are saying 7-5 is 2 games over .500....

Your case is that if you take off 1 win, and make it 6-5, then THAT is 1 game over .500 (5-5), and you are correct in that regard. But where does that game go? Magically disappear? It still has to have a result. If it's not a win, then it's a loss, making it 6-6.

What you are not correct in is 'taking away 1 win'. You can't just make a game evaporate. In a 12 game season, you finish with 12 games. If you take 1 win away from 7-5, it doesn't become 6-5, that totals 11. It becomes 6-6, which is .500, so in that sense, you are 1 game away from .500.

At 7-5, if you change the outcome of ONE game, you are at .500 (6-6). You can't just take the game away all together, it has to have a result, either a win or a loss.

Perfectly stated!!!!

Look, there is no "wrong" answer...there's just different "angles".....like last season:

The Gamecocks were 7-5...they won 2 more games than they lost. And if you said, "We're 2 games over .500"....most would understand...however, mathematically, it's incorrect. Just as Aub24 said...you played a 12 game season...you can't just add or subtract games to get where you want...you're 7-5...if you woulda lost 1 more game, you'd be 6-6...that's 1 game over .500.

Here's another explanation: You complete a 12 game season...you say, "we're 2 games over .500"...well....since a .500 record with a 12 game season equals 6-6....2 games over means adding 2 to the win column and subtracting 2 from the lost....8-4. With "1" game over .500, you add 1 to the win column and subtract 1 from the loss column....7-5. Can't explain it any easier than that.

[AUFootball24]

Look at it from a mathematical perspective. Just for now, let's say Wins=x and Losses=y

x+y=12, correct? That is our concrete, set in stone, fact. It can't be changed. We already know it is true.

We also know that in a .500 season, x=y. Combine that with the equation above and you know for sure that a .500 season in college football can not equal anything other than 6-6. With any other figures, the equations don't hold true.

Now that we know 6-6 is .500, let's go to 1 game over .500. Let's say that this is 6-5, as many of you are claiming. Remember this (x+y=12) and that x=wins and y=losses.

6+5=12? Untrue. The equations don't add up. What did we do wrong?

We made a game magically disappear. We previously determined that no matter what, x+y=12. 6-5 isn't even a possibly, therefore it cannot be the right answer.

Anyone who has done any algebra knows that you can't do something to one side of the equation and not do it to the other. If you subtract 1 loss from the x+y, then you also have to subtract 1 from the 12 total games for it to hold true. But there aren't 11 games in a CFB season, there are 12, so we can't do that.

In order for the x+y=12 equation to hold true, we can rearrange the x and y values any way we want (with possibilities of 0-12, 1-11, 2-10, 3-9, 4-8, 5-7, 6-6, 7-5, 8-4, 9-3, 10-2, 11-1, or 12-0, notice 6-5 is not on that list) but we cannot subtract or add to x or y without subtracting or adding from the 12 (and in turn magically adding or subtracting from the length of a season)


I just made that waaaaaaaaay more complicated than it really is or needed to be, but it may be easier for some to understand when done logically that way.

[SPURED]

Look at the last example.....According to cnnsi.com, Saban was 10 games over .500 at Michigan State with a 34-24 record. I don't believe he'll be coaching again at Michigan State. He's done at Michigan State, with no more games to be coached by him there.

For those who disagree, show me a site(s) explaining your rationale and the way you're figuring it. I've always heard (and seen) it shown the way I indicated in my original post (with web sites supporting it).

Here's another one with a hockey team that has finished it's seasons (and the games over .500 reflected as I indicated).
2002-03
Record: 37-28-7, 81 Points, 9 games over .500
Home Record: 24-9-3, 51 Points, 15 games over .500
Division Finish: 6th Place, Northern Division
Playoff Results: Did not qualify
http://www.trentontitans.com/history.asp

Using there logic. saban is Technically 5 games over .500 at Michigan State.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Using there logic. saban is Technically 5 games over .500 at Michigan State.
Using their logic, you are correct.

[gatorunvrsty]

Look at the last example.....According to cnnsi.com, Saban was 10 games over .500 at Michigan State with a 34-24 record. I don't believe he'll be coaching again at Michigan State. He's done at Michigan State, with no more games to be coached by him there.

For those who disagree, show me a site(s) explaining your rationale and the way you're figuring it. I've always heard (and seen) it shown the way I indicated in my original post (with web sites supporting it).
Don't you see the difference? Using their reasoning, 1 game over .500 in a 12 game season would be 7-6. By their reasoning, 6-6 is .500, so 7-6 must be 1 game over. But it can't be. That's 13 games. The season is only 12 games long. Mathematically, it's incorrect. To add 1 game over, you MUST subtract 1 game lost. In baseball, if a team beats an opponent in their div., they only gain a 1/2 game advantage. Unless the other team loses a game in that div.. The only way to get a 1 game advantage is to add one to the win side while subtracting 1 game from the loss side.

[Williams-Brice]

You look at it just as you would look at a major league baseball team's record. If a team goes 100-62, then everyone says they were 38 games over .500. They aren't 19 games over .500. Thus, 7-5 is 2 games over .500. I do, however, understand where the other side of this arguement feels justified.

[GatorHunter]

Look at the last example.....According to cnnsi.com, Saban was 10 games over .500 at Michigan State with a 34-24 record. I don't believe he'll be coaching again at Michigan State. He's done at Michigan State, with no more games to be coached by him there.

For those who disagree, show me a site(s) explaining your rationale and the way you're figuring it. I've always heard (and seen) it shown the way I indicated in my original post (with web sites supporting it).

Here's another one with a hockey team that has finished it's seasons (and the games over .500 reflected as I indicated).
2002-03
Record: 37-28-7, 81 Points, 9 games over .500
Home Record: 24-9-3, 51 Points, 15 games over .500
Division Finish: 6th Place, Northern Division
Playoff Results: Did not qualify
http://www.trentontitans.com/history.asp

Look, I highly doubt cnnsi consulted with any mathmaticians before posting these articles...people use this to describe wins and losses...doesn't mean it's correct. It's basic statistics...start with a "mean" or "median" and add or subtract. Very simple math. Look at MLB...they actually use the correct system.

[AUFootball24]

\
For those who disagree, show me a site(s) explaining your rationale and the way you're figuring it. I've always heard (and seen) it shown the way I indicated in my original post (with web sites supporting it).



Ahh, you see, there is a difference. You are doing it in terms of a career for a coach, which can be any number of games (within reason, of course).

There is no set in stone value for the length of a career for any given coach at any given position.

But in a college football season, there IS a set number of games, and that number is 12. The 12 games is not a variable, it is not subject to change, while a coaching career is. Therefore 1 game over .500 is 7-5 and 6-5 is not a possibility, unless you have 1 variable (or game) yet to be decided. And if a variable is undecided, it's worthless arguing a point as it is subject to (and will) change anyways :ph34r:

[SPURED]

Look at it from a mathematical perspective. Just for now, let's say Wins=x and Losses=y

x+y=12, correct? That is our concrete, set in stone, fact. It can't be changed. We already know it is true.

We also know that in a .500 season, x=y. Combine that with the equation above and you know for sure that a .500 season in college football can not equal anything other than 6-6. With any other figures, the equations don't hold true.

Now that we know 6-6 is .500, let's go to 1 game over .500. Let's say that this is 6-5, as many of you are claiming. Remember this (x+y=12) and that x=wins and y=losses.

6+5=12? Untrue. The equations don't add up. What did we do wrong?

We made a game magically disappear. We previously determined that no matter what, x+y=12. 6-5 isn't even a possibly, therefore it cannot be the right answer.

Anyone who has done any algebra knows that you can't do something to one side of the equation and not do it to the other. If you subtract 1 loss from the x+y, then you also have to subtract 1 from the 12 total games for it to hold true. But there aren't 11 games in a CFB season, there are 12, so we can't do that.

In order for the x+y=12 equation to hold true, we can rearrange the x and y values any way we want (with possibilities of 0-12, 1-11, 2-10, 3-9, 4-8, 5-7, 6-6, 7-5, 8-4, 9-3, 10-2, 11-1, or 12-0, notice 6-5 is not on that list) but we cannot subtract or add to x or y without subtracting or adding from the 12 (and in turn magically adding or subtracting from the length of a season)


I just made that waaaaaaaaay more complicated than it really is or needed to be, but it may be easier for some to understand when done logically that way.
Perfectly explained my tiger friend. i highlighted where Myself and other are messing up.

if this were a Math Test anyone who takes it from the angle you have would get a 100. if they take it from the angle that do they would get a 70. Still passing just not 100% Correct, Technically.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Don't you see the difference? Using their reasoning, 1 game over .500 in a 12 game season would be 7-6. By their reasoning, 6-6 is .500, so 7-6 must be 1 game over. But it can't be. That's 13 games. The season is only 12 games long. Mathematically, it's incorrect. To add 1 game over, you MUST subtract 1 game lost. In baseball, if a team beats an opponent in their div., they only gain a 1/2 game advantage. Unless the other team loses a game in that div.. The only way to get a 1 game advantage is to add one to the win side while subtracting 1 game from the loss side.
It's pretty simple. A team is 8 and 5. It would take three losses for that team to get back to .500. I've provided a crap load of web sites supporting my position. Where's yours?

Talking about how many games a team is behind an opponent is a different issue.

[AUFootball24]

You look at it just as you would look at a major league baseball team's record. If a team goes 100-62, then everyone says they were 38 games over .500. They aren't 19 games over .500. Thus, 7-5 is 2 games over .500. I do, however, understand where the other side of this arguement feels justified.

I know that is commonly used, but it's mathematically incorrect.

[GAMECOCK_FAN]

Look at MLB...they actually use the correct system.
MLB doesn't show how many games a team is over/under .500. In the standings they show how many games they are behind the top team. Different issue.

[AUFootball24]

\ I've provided a crap load of web sites supporting my position. Where's yours?


Web sites? Pshh. Websites aren't fact, my man. Mathematically proving something is *looks up*



....damnit, know the whole board is gonna think I'm a nerd :happy:. Hey, it's not nerdy if applied to football, right?

[GatorHunter]

You look at it just as you would look at a major league baseball team's record. If a team goes 100-62, then everyone says they were 38 games over .500. They aren't 19 games over .500. Thus, 7-5 is 2 games over .500. I do, however, understand where the other side of this arguement feels justified.

Right, WB...but because this "language" is used, doesn't make it correct. This thread asked a specific question...sure, it's easier understood that 7-5 is 2 games over .500...but, technically it's not correct. I have a feeling they use this jargon because 90% of the viewing population wouldn't understand it otherwise.

[SPURED]

Right, WB...but because this "language" is used, doesn't make it correct. This thread asked a specific question...sure, it's easier understood that 7-5 is 2 games over .500...but, technically it's not correct. I have a feeling they use this jargon because 90% of the viewing population wouldn't understand it otherwise.
and that is what is freaking wrong with our Public edumacation system. i bet if you asked the same question to the Chinese they would understand it right off the bat.

[AUFootball24]

I have a feeling they use this jargon because 90% of the viewing population wouldn't understand it otherwise.

I'm afraid your figure is a little low there my man, unfortunately.

[Williams-Brice]

Right, WB...but because this "language" is used, doesn't make it correct. This thread asked a specific question...sure, it's easier understood that 7-5 is 2 games over .500...but, technically it's not correct. I have a feeling they use this jargon because 90% of the viewing population wouldn't understand it otherwise.

That, and the brilliant minds on Baseball Tonight like Kruk probably can't do basic college algebra.

[gatorunvrsty]

It's pretty simple. A team is 8 and 5. It would take three losses for that team to get back to .500. I've provided a crap load of web sites supporting my position. Where's yours?

Talking about how many games a team is behind an opponent is a different issue.
SCHOOL. :happy: If there's only 13 games in that season, how do they get to .500, genius.

[SPURED]

i cant believe it took me this long to actually understand it. i argued with him for hours, through Email over the phone and everything. now i have to admit that "Technically" he was right, that freaking sucks Grrrrr. damnit im going to look like such an idiot when i see him tomorrow. :brick: :laugh: :laugh: :brick:

[AUFootball24]

and that is what is freaking wrong with our Public edumacation system. i bet if you asked the same question to the Chinese they would understand it right off the bat.

LOL, Chinese.

The thing is you're not too far off the bat. My highschool, of 3000+ kids, in Georgia, is 23% Korean. Not Chinese, Japanese, or anything else, just Korean. To put it in perspective it's only about 40% white and the other (roughly) 40% is split pretty evenly among everyone else.

Needless to say the valedictorian has a name that rhymes year in and year out! Whit boy don't touch that award, LOL. We also hold the Governor's Cup for highest SAT scores, thanks much in part to my brothers from the east :laugh:

[GatorHunter]

MLB doesn't show how many games a team is over/under .500. In the standings they show how many games they are behind the top team. Different issue.

You're right...it is a different issue...but mathematically correct!!!

[GatorHunter]

LOL, Chinese.

The thing is you're not too far off the bat. My highschool, of 3000+ kids, in Georgia, is 23% Korean. Not Chinese, Japanese, or anything else, just Korean. To put it in perspective it's only about 40% white and the other (roughly) 40% is split pretty evenly among everyone else.

Needless to say the valedictorian has a name that rhymes year in and year out! Whit boy don't touch that award, LOL. We also hold the Governor's Cup for highest SAT scores, thanks much in part to my brothers from the east :laugh:

Wow...you're still in HS. Very impressed. I majored in microbiology at UF...but have to say, most of my "knowledge" on this subject is acertained from organic chemistry....that damn periodic table is one huge math problem!!! :laugh:

[AUFootball24]

Wow...you're still in HS. Very impressed. I majored in microbiology at UF...but have to say, most of my "knowledge" on this subject is acertained from organic chemistry....that damn periodic table is one huge math problem!!! :laugh:

I just wrapped up with chemistry, and man did that course kick my ass!

I'll be more than happy to never have to deal with that again *remembers college*....damnit :blink:

[AUFootball24]

Wow...you're still in HS.


Speaking of which, my alarm rings in about 5 and a half hours :blink:

I've got a little reading to do to get ready for tomorrow and then I gotta crash so I can at least be semi-functional at 6:00 am!

[gatorunvrsty]

Wow...you're still in HS. Very impressed. I majored in microbiology at UF...but have to say, most of my "knowledge" on this subject is acertained from organic chemistry....that damn periodic table is one huge math problem!!! :laugh:
Yeah, he's 16. We just went through it on another thread. As for me, I was fortunate enough to go to a college prep school. We took college algebra in 10th grade. I hate all math. By the time I was in college, I already had enough credits and avoided math like the plague. I'm rusty, so I'm glad y'all could pick up my slack.:laugh: If I'd have had to remember the actual formulas, I'd still be throwing up. That's one of those things that I rarely find an opportunity to use, but pops up in my head ( along with a migraine ) when the subject comes up.

[Williams-Brice]

Wow...you're still in HS. Very impressed. I majored in microbiology at UF...but have to say, most of my "knowledge" on this subject is acertained from organic chemistry....that damn periodic table is one huge math problem!!! :laugh:

I still have nightmares about organic chemistry. It was the toughest course I have ever taken, but somehow I excelled on the organic chemistry questions on the MCAT. I guess I just busted my butt enough for two straight semesters that the stuff actually clicked. Thank goodness they let us use the periodic table on all tests. That thing would be a nightmare otherwise.

[AUFootball24]

Did we really just have a 3 page argument, in which 2 sides completely disagreed, with no name calling, flaming, or pissing matches?

Does this forum have an archives section? This thread deserves a spot, LOL

[jthomas666]

Ok now i was talking with a friend of mine that Graduated from Penn State. and some how we got on the topic of what is .500 he was telling me that since in college football we play 12 games 6 games is .500, not arguing with him there because thats about the smartest thing he said. now he says if a team goes 7-5 they are 1 game over .500 because they have only won 1 more game than the 6 wich is 500. i cant believe he graduated from Penn St. with that kind of logic. does anyone get what he was trying to say and agree?

i layed out a rather simple answer for him to think about. and here it goes. if a 7-5 record is 1 game over .500, then what is a 6-5 record?Penn State is in a conference that can't count to eleven. What did you expect?
:whistle: