(12-11-2013 11:44 AM)Smaug Wrote:  "We're better than you, I don't care how bad you beat the **** out of us."

How can you argue with logic like that?

So answer me this with the same logic in play. When a 3-9 Marshall team also dominated and made Chris Johnson look average and ECU 26-7 even though ECU went on to beat a ranked Boise State in a bowl and finish with 8 wins. Did Chris Johnson suck or did that Marshall team have the better season because they beat us badly? Yes or no?

I've said all along we'll see who has the better overall season when it's over. Right now we are having the better season and that is back up by higher rankings in every respected ranking system there is and that the CUSA front offices have already used to compare and judge overall seasons.

(12-11-2013 11:55 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 11:44 AM)Smaug Wrote:  "We're better than you, I don't care how bad you beat the **** out of us."

How can you argue with logic like that?

So answer me this with the same logic in play. When a 3-9 Marshall team also dominated and made Chris Johnson look average and ECU 26-7 even though ECU went on to beat a ranked Boise State in a bowl and finish with 8 wins. Did Chris Johnson suck or did that Marshall team have the better season because they beat us badly? Yes or no?

That is a strained analogy. When teams have equivalent records (Marshall & ECU before the championship game) you can clearly rely on head-to-head as a better indicator of the superior team than when there is a large discrepancy in the overall records of the teams being compared.

(12-11-2013 11:45 AM)banker Wrote:  Wrong, an ECU poster started it.

The key here is I didn't, even though I will get blamed for it. I also didn't keep on derailing this thread after the other guy posted off topic. You guys have kept on first and I am responding to your post.

Quote:Also, winning your division is 2/3rds of your season.

No, it's winning one extra game there, just like we did in our tougher OOC and more important IMO than coming in 2nd place in the 12 ranked conference, to beat local in state rivals from the BCS. You can have that all day long either way, I'll take having the better overall season. That's the larger goal.

(12-11-2013 12:01 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  That is a strained analogy.

No it's not. It's the exact same logic that he applied where one game is all that matters, but it doesn't.

Quote:When teams have equivalent records (Marshall & ECU before the championship game) you can clearly rely on head-to-head as a better indicator of the superior team than when there is a large discrepancy in the overall records.

Not when you beat teams they lost to as well and overall have as good or better of a record, even vs a stronger SOS. That's why unbias BCS computer polls are there to judge, grade, and compare overall seasons, even determine who plays for the national title. You know the entire season one. CUSA as a conference even used them as well to judge the entire season with equivalent records. That's what those polls are their and used for and they said we had the overall better season before they lost to Rice and the better season after. They all say it. It's not just one, it's unanimous.

(12-11-2013 11:55 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 11:44 AM)Smaug Wrote:  "We're better than you, I don't care how bad you beat the **** out of us."

How can you argue with logic like that?

So answer me this with the same logic in play. When a 3-9 Marshall team also dominated and made Chris Johnson look average and ECU 26-7 even though ECU went on to beat a ranked Boise State in a bowl and finish with 8 wins. Did Chris Johnson suck or did that Marshall team have the better season because they beat us badly? Yes or no?

I've said all along we'll see who has the better overall season when it's over. Right now we are having the better season and that is back up by higher rankings in every respected ranking system there is and that the CUSA front offices have already used to compare and judge overall seasons.

If I win 11 games and you win 1, with that one being over me, I can talk **** to 11 other teams' fans, but not to you.

I get that. Everybody else gets that. Why don't you?

(12-11-2013 12:09 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:01 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  That is a strained analogy.

No it's not. It's the exact same logic that he applied where one game is all that matters, but it doesn't.

Yes, it is a strained analogy. Perhaps you don't understand what that means. Below is an explanation as to why you cannot apply the same logic for every case. Every year is different.

(12-11-2013 12:01 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  When teams have equivalent records (Marshall & ECU before the championship game) you can clearly rely on head-to-head as a better indicator of the superior team than when there is a large discrepancy in the overall records of the teams being compared.

You have to remember an important distinction between this year and the other year you are citing. Marshall won the division this year. They didn't win the division the other year. That's a huge factor. They won the division and the head-to-head.

(12-11-2013 12:09 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  Not when you beat teams they lost to as well

BAHAHAHAH. Using the transitive property when we have head-to-head data... you're too much man. Good stuff.

(12-11-2013 12:11 PM)Smaug Wrote:  If I win 11 games and you win 1, with that one being over me, I can talk **** to 11 other teams' fans, but not to you.

I get that. Everybody else gets that. Why don't you?

You are right I don't get logic where a 1-11 team gets to feel better about the season they had than a 11-1 team because it makes no sense. Marshall can talk all the **** they want, it doesn't mean they had the better season or I have to care if a team ranked behind us everywhere is talking. The better season is what's more important and the largest goal.

(12-11-2013 12:18 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  BAHAHAHAH. Using the transitive property when we have head-to-head data... you're too much man. Good stuff.

Wrong, I've done nothing but post the results and rankings from the entire season many times on this thread already. Even that was in the context of pointing out why the overall results and rankings were most important when you guys want to only use one game, which in many cases tells you nothing of an entire season. That's why I have posted the grading/rankings of our ENTIRE season in which every BCS computer there is unanimously say we have had the better OVERALL season.

And got your ass handed to you when you lined up against them, mano e mano.

(12-11-2013 12:43 PM)Smaug Wrote:  And got your ass handed to you when you lined up against them, mano e mano.

So did our 8 win team and Chris Johnson. You think anyone really thought they had a better season after we beat a ranked Boise and sent Chris Johnson on to the 1st round? It just shows you the importance of one game in the big picture.

(12-11-2013 12:50 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:43 PM)Smaug Wrote:  And got your ass handed to you when you lined up against them, mano e mano.

So did our 8 win team and Chris Johnson. You think anyone really thought they had a better season after we beat a ranked Boise and sent Chris Johnson on to the 1st round? It just shows you the importance of one game in the big picture.

No, it doesn't mean they had a better season. What it means is that they beat your ass.

Damn, a little humility wouldn't kill you.

Can we all agree that BCS rankings outside of the top 25 really don't matter unless you're trying to solve a tie breaker? Also, WTF does what bowl we go to have to do with how well we played (excluding the Liberty Bowl)? We went to the Military Bowl by the skin of our teeth in 2010, and somehow it's been elevated to the 2nd best bowl because Marshall is going. It's almost as if the distance from Huntington WV to Annapolis MD has nothing to do with it.

Jesus.

[quote=Marshall can talk all the **** they want, it doesn't mean they had the better season or I have to care if a team ranked behind us everywhere is talking. The better season is what's more important and the largest goal.
[/quote]


Classic HOF

Most everybody on here wishes you didn't care.

(12-11-2013 12:41 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 12:18 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  BAHAHAHAH. Using the transitive property when we have head-to-head data... you're too much man. Good stuff.

Wrong, I've done nothing but post the results and rankings from the entire season many times on this thread already. Even that was in the context of pointing out why the overall results and rankings were most important when you guys want to only use one game, which in many cases tells you nothing of an entire season. That's why I have posted the grading/rankings of our ENTIRE season in which every BCS computer there is unanimously say we have had the better OVERALL season.

Wrong? I said nothing wrong.

Only you would argue that school A had a better season than school B in this case:

1. School B win the division OUTRIGHT in which school A competes.

2. School B defeated school A head-to-head by 31 points.

Quote:Only you would argue that school A had a better season than school B

Not me. Sagarin, Anderson Hester, Colley, Binglesy, Wolfe, and Massey that are paid to grade and compare seasons overall by the NCAA. It is unanimous, and they were 9 spots lower on average even before they lost to Rice.

I'll take the better overall season to this point.

ECU is 9-3 and average ranking of 50 on the BCS computers
Marshall is 9-4 and average ranking of 62 on the BCS computers

Okay... 10 middle of the road BCS spots is more important than winning the division and head-to-head?

You've exposed yourself as a fool.

(12-11-2013 02:40 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  I'll take the better overall season to this point.

And this is why no one takes you seriously.

(12-11-2013 02:48 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  Okay... 10 middle of the road BCS spots is more important than winning the division and head-to-head?

You've exposed yourself as a fool.

No. I have posted what all 6 BCS computers have said. You can call all 6 of them fools and the organizations that pay them money to used their rankings like the NCAA, CUSA etc if you want, but everyone of them unanimously say we have had a significantly better overall season. If you don't like it email them and the people that pay them to grade out overall seasons.

(12-11-2013 02:55 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 02:40 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  I'll take the better overall season to this point.

And this is why no one takes you seriously.

For what posting what ALL the BCS computers are in agreement over. The same that help pick the national championship game. You don't like their results whatever. They are part of the system already used by our conference to judge overall seasons and used by the NCAA to pick the national championship game. A lot of important organizations certainly take them seriously.

(12-11-2013 03:01 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(12-11-2013 02:48 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  Okay... 10 middle of the road BCS spots is more important than winning the division and head-to-head?

You've exposed yourself as a fool.

No. I have posted what all 6 BCS computers have said. You can call all 6 of them fools and the organizations that pay them money to used their rankings like the NCAA, CUSA etc if you want, but everyone of them unanimously say we have had a significantly better overall season. If you don't like it email them and the people that pay them to do so.

I'm not concerned with their stupid ranking system which objective thinkers and non-power schools such as ours have been dying to kill for years now.
My concern is with your inability to admit that the BCS formula may not be the best representation of a season's success.

SJ just likes to spin it to make himself feel good. ECU got whipped. Take it like a man and move on. Buh bye!