Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
January 17, 2018, 09:58:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Poll
Question: With Dixon out for the season, who will win the Heisman?
Tim Tebow
Darren McFadden
Matt Ryan
Chase Daniel
Other

Pages: 1 ... 391 392 [393] 394 395 ... 466
  Print  
Author Topic: College Football  (Read 36200 times)
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
CaptainCargo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2654


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #5880 on: December 07, 2017, 12:58:30 PM »

Here is the thing about assuming wins: I would have.assumed OSU would have beaten. Iowa and ClemSIN would have beaten Shracuse.

I don't see why you'd have to assume that.

The separate line of reasoning that I indicated doesn't change any established fact. It only deals with projection to what hasn't taken place but might. Why would you have to assume OSU had beaten Iowa in this line of reasoning?

It doesn't take away OSU's win. Rather it quantifies it in a different fashion than the ordinary black and white in-line reasoning. I thought it was pretty simple but perhaps I explained it badly.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 01:00:06 PM by CaptainCargo » Logged

Yep
Driver125
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1103


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #5881 on: December 07, 2017, 01:12:58 PM »

Quote
Reasoning the whole equation is sometimes not as cut and dried as one might think and impossible to ever be 100% accurate.
   As an OSU guy it might seem strange to hear me say this, but I can live with the Alabama selection. I know what concerned many people was if the various so-called criteria were met (or not met). And by that sort of measure it is irrelevant how OSU went in this year or last year. Last year was last year. Don't expect any consistency from the committee from year to year. What is probably concerning people the most about OSU have been some very disturbing and embarrassing high-level, lopsided losses in the national spotlight (Clemson last year, Oklahoma this year). These were not just losses, but instead were pretty much total beat-downs. Whoever might be your favorite team, nobody wants to see a team that can be dominated in that way. Lose by a few points (Bama vs. Clemson last year)—well, while not satisfactory in Alabama, it was at least something that could be explained and lived with. Ohio State’s loss to Clemson was, by any measure, a total embarrassment. It was as if someone had put a MAC team in the playoffs….with the inevitable results.
     Now, during this year, OSU’s loss to Oklahoma was certainly not as bad as Clemsons loss to a very average Syracuse team. But the loss to Iowa can not be explained in any rational way….particularly the size of that defeat. That was a game that OSU could not afford to lose if they hoped to make the playoffs….and they only have themselves to blame that they did lose. Nobody knows why they made so many mistakes in that game that day…or why they seemed to be so poorly motivated to play…..even if Iowa may have played their best game of the year. OSU needed to win that day, and they didn’t do it--didn't even come close, and standout wins against Michigan St. & Michigan after that game ware not enough to make people forget Iowa. They failed when it most counted. It’s a shame that a game like this overshadows all of the good things OSU did this year, but in the end they killed their playoff hopes themselves, not because of the various esoteric arguments about who belonged in and who didn’t but by what they did on that field that day in Iowa. They couldn’t be placed in the final four on the chance that they might possibly play one of their great games. To be perfectly frank, I think people were more concerned that they might lay an egg again. Alabama was not only a talented team, but they were much more consistent over the length of this season. I think it is generally expected that they, at very least, will be able to hold their own (if not win) against any of the teams in the final four.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 01:22:42 PM by Driver125 » Logged
CaptainCargo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2654


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #5882 on: December 07, 2017, 01:26:16 PM »

Quote
Reasoning the whole equation is sometimes not as cut and dried as one might think and impossible to ever be 100% accurate.
   As an OSU guy it might seem strange to hear me say this, but I can live with the Alabama selection. I know what concerned many people was if the various so-called criteria were met (or not met). And by that sort of measure it is irrelevant how OSU went in this year or last year. Last year was last year. Don't expect any consistency from the committee from year to year. What is probably concerning people the most about OSU have been some very disturbing and embarrassing high-level, lopsided losses in the national spotlight (Clemson last year, Oklahoma this year). These were not just losses, but instead were pretty much total beat-downs. Whoever might be your favorite team, nobody wants to see a team that can be dominated in that way. Lose by a few points (Bama vs. Clemson last year)—well, while not satisfactory in Alabama, it was at least something that could be explained and lived with. Ohio State’s loss to Clemson was, by any measure, a total embarrassment. It was as if someone had put a MAC team in the playoffs….with the inevitable results.
     Now, during this year, OSU’s loss to Oklahoma was certainly not as bad as Clemsons loss to a very average Syracuse team. But the loss to Iowa can not be explained in any rational way….particularly the size of that defeat. That was a game that OSU could not afford to lose if they hoped to make the playoffs….and they only have themselves to blame that they did lose. Nobody knows why they made so many mistakes in that game that day…or why they seemed to be so poorly motivated to play…..even if Iowa may have played their best game of the year. OSU needed to win that day, and they didn’t do it--didn't even come close, and standout wins against Michigan St. & Michigan after that game ware not enough to make people forget Iowa. They failed when it most counted. It’s a shame that a game like this overshadows all of the good things OSU did this year, but in the end they killed their playoff hopes themselves, not because of the various esoteric arguments about who belonged in and who didn’t but by what they did on that field that day in Iowa. They couldn’t be placed in the final four on the chance that they might possibly play one of their great games. To be perfectly frank, I think people were more concerned that they might lay an egg again. Alabama was not only a talented team, but they were much more consistent over the length of this season. I think it is generally expected that they, at very least, will be able to hold their own (if not win) against any of the teams in the final four.


I agree, last year was last year. It should have no bearing on this year.

The only way previous years would have any bearing at all was if an occurrence of last year's blowout loss was duplicated say four or five years in a row with the same team or conference. Then it might become a small factor in making a reasoned decision. But anomalies like last year's OSU blowout loss are probably exactly that. Anomalies. Right now the Committee is batting .500 with that sort of thing as OSU won  the whole enchilada once too. Not a bad batting average.
Logged

Yep
Driver125
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1103


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #5883 on: December 07, 2017, 01:44:09 PM »

Quote
Not a bad batting average.
Yes….but I’m thinking that consistency is the main concern here. Anyone who has watched OSU this year knows that at times they have been really great. Their dismantling of Michigan State (a pretty good team before they arrived in Columbus) was amazing to watch. And any time you go to Michigan and come out of there with a win in your biggest rivalry game is something special. But as it turned out I think that many people were just too wary of the possibility of an OSU flop in the playoffs. Consistency. This year OSU has been great AND terrible in the SAME game (PSU).
Logged
CaptainCargo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2654


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #5884 on: December 07, 2017, 02:02:11 PM »

Quote
Not a bad batting average.
Yes….but I’m thinking that consistency is the main concern here. Anyone who has watched OSU this year knows that at times they have been really great. Their dismantling of Michigan State (a pretty good team before they arrived in Columbus) was amazing to watch. And any time you go to Michigan and come out of there with a win in your biggest rivalry game is something special. But as it turned out I think that many people were just too wary of the possibility of an OSU flop in the playoffs. Consistency. This year OSU has been great AND terrible in the SAME game (PSU).

Right special teams play and turnovers almost cost them the PSU game. The Michigan State game was a big surprise to me. Didn't expect the Spartans to get so totally dominated in that game. The Michigan game could have turned out badly for them but after getting down two TDs the Wolverines couldn't finish and sorta fell apart. I really expect them to have a killer defense next year if they can keep most of their players. I don't know how many will/could be leaving though.

Logged

Yep
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2323


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #5885 on: December 07, 2017, 02:14:15 PM »

Here is the thing about assuming wins: I would have.assumed OSU would have beaten. Iowa and ClemSIN would have beaten Shracuse.

I don't see why you'd have to assume that.

The separate line of reasoning that I indicated doesn't change any established fact. It only deals with projection to what hasn't taken place but might. Why would you have to assume OSU had beaten Iowa in this line of reasoning?

It doesn't take away OSU's win. Rather it quantifies it in a different fashion than the ordinary black and white in-line reasoning. I thought it was pretty simple but perhaps I explained it badly.
No, you said you assume Alabama would beat Wisky. I was pointing out that before they played I would have assumed ClemSIN would beat Syracuse. Basing your analysis on assumptions about games that have not been played is in here fly flawed because it runs into the reality of dj happens. The Committee looks at tje resumes.as.presented. I do not think their powers extend.to deciding the winners of.games not played.
Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
CaptainCargo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2654


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #5886 on: December 07, 2017, 03:52:32 PM »

Here is the thing about assuming wins: I would have.assumed OSU would have beaten. Iowa and ClemSIN would have beaten Shracuse.

I don't see why you'd have to assume that.

The separate line of reasoning that I indicated doesn't change any established fact. It only deals with projection to what hasn't taken place but might. Why would you have to assume OSU had beaten Iowa in this line of reasoning?

It doesn't take away OSU's win. Rather it quantifies it in a different fashion than the ordinary black and white in-line reasoning. I thought it was pretty simple but perhaps I explained it badly.
No, you said you assume Alabama would beat Wisky. I was pointing out that before they played I would have assumed ClemSIN would beat Syracuse. Basing your analysis on assumptions about games that have not been played is in here fly flawed because it runs into the reality of dj happens. The Committee looks at tje resumes.as.presented. I do not think their powers extend.to deciding the winners of.games not played.


My premise was for the final rankings. And I didn't say it was absolute which is what you are trying to do. My thinking being it would/could be a consideration in the eye test realm.


As far as their powers go I think it has been clearly demonstrated that they are allowed to do most anything they want in order to come to their final conclusion.

But it seems clear all you want to do is argue and obfuscate on a simple idea/thought. I'm sure you understand exactly what I meant but as usual just want to argue. Sorry, but I just don't have the mood to play that silly game with you. Besides you always get upset and then resort to name calling as demonstrated by your DJ remark, and I'm all out of neat creative insults today.


Maybe tomorrow Smiley
Logged

Yep
Espnthree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #5887 on: December 07, 2017, 04:35:09 PM »




As far as their powers go I think it has been clearly demonstrated that they are allowed to do most anything they want in order to come to their final conclusion.


An assumption that is totally wrong.

As for the Committee record in three playoff years,  it has been perfect.
It has seeded the four best teams And nothing that happens in the ensuing games makes a whit of difference to that order.
Logged
whiskeypriest
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2323


Life is skittles and life is beer.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #5888 on: December 07, 2017, 05:12:39 PM »

Here is the thing about assuming wins: I would have.assumed OSU would have beaten. Iowa and ClemSIN would have beaten Shracuse.

I don't see why you'd have to assume that.

The separate line of reasoning that I indicated doesn't change any established fact. It only deals with projection to what hasn't taken place but might. Why would you have to assume OSU had beaten Iowa in this line of reasoning?

It doesn't take away OSU's win. Rather it quantifies it in a different fashion than the ordinary black and white in-line reasoning. I thought it was pretty simple but perhaps I explained it badly.
No, you said you assume Alabama would beat Wisky. I was pointing out that before they played I would have assumed ClemSIN would beat Syracuse. Basing your analysis on assumptions about games that have not been played is in here fly flawed because it runs into the reality of dj happens. The Committee looks at tje resumes.as.presented. I do not think their powers extend.to deciding the winners of.games not played.


My premise was for the final rankings. And I didn't say it was absolute which is what you are trying to do. My thinking being it would/could be a consideration in the eye test realm.


As far as their powers go I think it has been clearly demonstrated that they are allowed to do most anything they want in order to come to their final conclusion.

But it seems clear all you want to do is argue and obfuscate on a simple idea/thought. I'm sure you understand exactly what I meant but as usual just want to argue. Sorry, but I just don't have the mood to play that silly game with you. Besides you always get upset and then resort to name calling as demonstrated by your DJ remark, and I'm all out of neat creative insults today.


Maybe tomorrow Smiley
I disagree with you because I think you are wrong. I discuss it here because tbe subject interests me. There is no reason for you to think there is anything else.to it. That you do is one of the four big problems I have with you on this board. (That you think there is such a thing as."winning" or "kicking ass" in.a.discussion, that the wronger you are the more aggressive you become, and the hideous monster.you release from your id every time you sleep).

The Committee.compares.team to team. Not hypothetical games involving a.third team. And they should not.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 05:26:00 PM by whiskeypriest » Logged

What does it matter?  All is grace.
CaptainCargo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2654


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #5889 on: December 07, 2017, 06:42:07 PM »




As far as their powers go I think it has been clearly demonstrated that they are allowed to do most anything they want in order to come to their final conclusion.


An assumption that is totally wrong.

As for the Committee record in three playoff years,  it has been perfect.
It has seeded the four best teams And nothing that happens in the ensuing games makes a whit of difference to that order.


You are wrong but you will never see it. Sad but there it is.

Others can see it as it is totally right and as clear as the light of day. But you and other misguided souls can't see it no matter how it is explained to you. I get that. Rock on with your bad wrong self.  Smiley


Logged

Yep
yankguy
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2987


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #5890 on: December 07, 2017, 07:17:42 PM »

I think the Commitee is not final because it is infallible, it is infallible only because it is final.
Logged

Come down off your throne and leave your body alone. Somebody must change. You are the reason I've been waiting so long. Somebody holds the key. But I'm near the end and I just ain't got the time. And I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.
CaptainCargo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2654


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #5891 on: December 07, 2017, 07:27:01 PM »

Here is the thing about assuming wins: I would have.assumed OSU would have beaten. Iowa and ClemSIN would have beaten Shracuse.

I don't see why you'd have to assume that.

The separate line of reasoning that I indicated doesn't change any established fact. It only deals with projection to what hasn't taken place but might. Why would you have to assume OSU had beaten Iowa in this line of reasoning?

It doesn't take away OSU's win. Rather it quantifies it in a different fashion than the ordinary black and white in-line reasoning. I thought it was pretty simple but perhaps I explained it badly.
No, you said you assume Alabama would beat Wisky. I was pointing out that before they played I would have assumed ClemSIN would beat Syracuse. Basing your analysis on assumptions about games that have not been played is in here fly flawed because it runs into the reality of dj happens. The Committee looks at tje resumes.as.presented. I do not think their powers extend.to deciding the winners of.games not played.


My premise was for the final rankings. And I didn't say it was absolute which is what you are trying to do. My thinking being it would/could be a consideration in the eye test realm.


As far as their powers go I think it has been clearly demonstrated that they are allowed to do most anything they want in order to come to their final conclusion.

But it seems clear all you want to do is argue and obfuscate on a simple idea/thought. I'm sure you understand exactly what I meant but as usual just want to argue. Sorry, but I just don't have the mood to play that silly game with you. Besides you always get upset and then resort to name calling as demonstrated by your DJ remark, and I'm all out of neat creative insults today.


Maybe tomorrow Smiley
I disagree with you because I think you are wrong. I discuss it here because tbe subject interests me. There is no reason for you to think there is anything else.to it. That you do is one of the four big problems I have with you on this board. (That you think there is such a thing as."winning" or "kicking ass" in.a.discussion, that the wronger you are the more aggressive you become, and the hideous monster.you release from your id every time you sleep).

The Committee.compares.team to team. Not hypothetical games involving a.third team. And they should not.


It's two way street between us that you have never had the guts to admit. You poke and goad and insult your way and basically try and elicit the responses you get from me. It seems awfully impolite of you not to accept them.

Rather you sometimes try act like you are as white and pure as the driven snow and I am some sort of aggressive nutjob. Maybe I am, but it isn't without at least some provocation now is it? And again I accept my part in the whole thing, my hands are dirty at times and I admit it. You are just as subtly aggressive as I. So I accept it as being what it is. You come with a four part plan as to why you have a 'right' to take umbrage. Me, I just say you pissed me off. I'm a simple honest guy that way.

You are the same as me. I admit it, I'm not afraid to admit it. But with you, rather than a winner or a loser, you subtly intimate that I am stupider than you, surely too stupid to understand you or anything for that matter, and condescend alternating between I am either a bully or to be pitied.

But no worries, you can keep dishing it out bro, I can take it. Me and Rich used to go at each other tooth and nail. But he took as good as he got and never cried about how morally unacceptable I was. Or a four part reason he took exception to me.

Since then we've managed to form a mutual respect for each, cut the petty bullshit, and have some good honest give and take discussions. And in fact I get into it with only two people on this board. You need to try to think about why that is. Sure some of it is my bullheaded fault I admit.  

I'm not a mean spirited person, but won't allow myself to be insulted by you or anyone else. I've tried to play nice with James a couple of times. But as I said it's a two way street. He wanted nothing to do with it. Fine.

And I've tried to play nice with you several times. We seem to be going swimmingly and then we have one of our stubborn little dust ups. Okay I'll take the blame for my part in it, not afraid to man up and do that.

Once again, two way street. But like I said I get along fine with everyone else and respect what they say and try to see the reasoning in what they say. You think all of this is my fault, well then, okay. Nothing I can do about that.


Take from this post what you will and do what you will going forward as will I.  
Logged

Yep
DeeJ
Guest

« Reply #5892 on: December 07, 2017, 11:07:18 PM »

It is so funny reading about Ohio State falling short in the national spotlight!  Oklahoma, Clemson, Virginia Tech at home, 1-16 vs SEC teams.  Losing record vs USC....
I can recall that most of the OSU fans swore they were under a curse back in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
They called it the "national TV curse".  Whenever the blip was spotted over the  Shoe, the OSU  fans were
Preparing themselves for the worst, and more often than not their worst fears came true.

I am sure Jim can give Driver a full account of that dark chapter in OSU's tradition, since he seems totally ignorant of it.


Logged
Espnthree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #5893 on: December 07, 2017, 11:10:53 PM »

I think the Commitee is not final because it is infallible, it is infallible only because it is final.
Not sure using Justice Jackson’s famous quote about the US Supreme Court is analogous to the work of the Committee but certainly the opinion of its members is the setup to the Championship Game which is final.
Logged
DeeJ
Guest

« Reply #5894 on: December 07, 2017, 11:15:45 PM »

I have not weighed in on the selection committee's procedures....my expectations were that four of the five power leagues would always fill the four chairs and that ND would not be a factor anymore than say the champion of the American Conference would be.

I didn't ever expect to see two teams from the same conference.
That is a mistake as was letting in a non-champion last year.

More to follow.....
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 391 392 [393] 394 395 ... 466
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!