Sgt. Ryan Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Prior to this, I actually only recall ever debating you on two points: One, you said that OU deserved a spot in the NC game and I didn't. Two, that you felt that FL didn't deserve a spot in the NC game and I did. Not exactly sure what your version of "owning" is, but I don't think either played out in your favor. If you had an opinion on either of those subjects above they were after the fact, I have no doubt. And selective memory serves you well, just as percentages, with open ended discussions so you have an out no matter the case. You might as well stamp Owned on your forehead so you dont forget next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Let me preface by saying that I am absolutely in favor of a playoff, even if only 4 teams so this could truly be settled on the field. The BCS came about because we were tired of voting on the best team. I'm not sure exactly how voting to see who gets to play in the final is significantly better. That said, the debate before us has to be based on the current system and who deserves a shot based on that system. Reason #1: Those who defend the BCS explain that big games down the stretch in the regular season are the defacto quarterfinal and semi-final rounds. Well, if that's the case, the Michigan/OSU game in November was a semi-final matchup and Michigan lost. Why should the loser of a semi-final match-up get to go to the final? Reason #2: There is insufficient data that supports that OSU and Mich are the two best teams in the country. They, in fact, may be. Both have certainly looked impressive all year and OSU based on the fact that they've managed to go undefeated playing in a major conference have rightfully punched their ticket. That said, until the bowls are played and we see how good the second tier of the Big-10 is vs the second tier of the SEC is, we have no idea whether these two teams are truly great or were simply getting fat against mediocre teams. The only school that truly proved themselves outside of their conference, failed to do so within their conference (USC). That can't be said about anyone else. Thus, the dominance of OSU and Mich was defined essentially in a vaccum. As I have said before, it would be essentially the same as everyone simply deciding that the Yankees and the Red Sox were the two best teams in baseball and should therefore not only meet in the ALCS but go ahead and have a rematch in the WS simply because they both won 110 games and nobody in the NL managed better than 100. How do we know that each and every other team in the AL wasn't garbage and that either the Yankees or Sox would be lucky to win 90 if they played in the NL. There just is no way to tell. You are not punishing the loser of that series by not allowing them a rematch, you're simply approaching the situation scientfically and academically. What is known: OSU beat Mich head to head. What is unknown: Who is better between Mich and FL. How can you rationally decide given this that the best way to determine the best team in the country is to retry the known sample and ignore the unknown? Reason #3: This is more opinion than anything but I think it holds water. Who you beat is more important than who you lose to (assuming the loss is to an upper tier team). On any given day, any top 10ish team should be able to beat another, so saying that losing to OSU is more impressive than losing to Auburn doesn't do much for me. I think it is more significant to look at their best wins and who those teams also beat. Michigan's were against Notre Dame and Wisconson, neither of whom has a win against a team that finished in the top 25 of the BCS. Florida's were against LSU (who beat #12 Ark and #17 Tenn), Ark (who beat #8 Auburn and #17 Tenn), and Tenn (who beat #18 Cal). That batch of wins seems a whole lot more impressive to me. Reason #4: You can say all you want about the voters putting FL #2 because they didn't want to see Michigan/OSU, but what about the computers? The two teams finished in a dead heat. I'd have to assume that the program they use is consistant. Reason #5: This has more to do with why Michigan should not be complaining that they didn't get in more than why FL in particular should be there because they're essentially guilty of the same thing. If you want the benefit of the doubt, do like USC does and schedule better. If you play a three game season, you better win 'em all or you're left hoping for the best. OSU/ FLA will expose the Gators and the so called strength of that conference. Michigan already proved they could play with OSu in their building. Fla hasnt proved they can even stay within 2 TDs of OSU, and its my opinion they can not. Exhibit A. Please note the title of the thread that I started was "Why Florida Should be playing for the National Championship" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Another spineless debate for you, no opinion on your part. OSU clearly was not the same team without Ginn, but its a fact Ginn left his mark on the game, scoring on the opening kickoff. Who is to say He wouldnt have scored several more times. Taking away that weapon was certainly a big reason the game went the way it did. BTW, I had an opinion. Where is yours. Same ole Shi*t, debate, blah blah blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Another spineless debate for you, no opinion on your part. OSU clearly was not the same team without Ginn, but its a fact Ginn left his mark on the game, scoring on the opening kickoff. Who is to say He wouldnt have scored several more times. Taking away that weapon was certainly a big reason the game went the way it did. BTW, I had an opinion. Where is yours. Same ole Shi*t, debate, blah blah blah Funny, for a guy who didn't have an opinion, I sure as hell was forced to defend my "non-opinion" plenty in the weeks leading up to the game. Then, when UM and OSU got punked, everyone put on their best Sarge faces and tried to spin it. Whatever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 (edited) It's actually very simple. There is absolutely no way to determine the relative strength between Michigan and FL, so you absolutely can't have Michigan play again. It would be like saying after NY and Boston square off in the ALCS, "Well, those are obviously the two best teams, so let's just have them play in the WS as well." There is only one known fact, Mich had a shot at OSU and lost. So, for the purpose of the 2006 season, OSU is "better" than Mich. Now, it's somebody else's turn. Going into this weekend, the team with the best resume was USC but they pooped the bed. Next in line should be Florida. Unless there is some way to prove that Mich is the better team (like a head to head win or some significant interconference wins that put their record in perspective), there's no way you can say they deserve two shots at OSU more than FL deserves one. If OSU waxes FL, that won't even prove what I'm saying to be wrong because I'm not saying that FL is a better team than Mich. I'm simply saying that if Mich is allowed to play OSU over FL, we're essentially saying that we decided who the best teams were after week 7. What's the point of that? blah blah blah And I fully admit, Im a Sooner Homer so you can pull threads until the sky turns red about me and my boys. Have at it. I wont defend every post I made about my boys. But that doesnt change the facts at hand here. PERIOD. So knock yourself out there dumb sh*t. Edited May 15, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 (edited) I have no idea what series you are watching- to say Utah is the stronger team by far and a matchup nightmare is beyond ludicrous. This is an evenly matched series between 2 evenly matched squads . Utah is up 3-1, but anyone with a shred of common sense, or knows the game at all realizex for all intents and purposes this series is 2-2 and Utah is ridiculously fortunate to be up 3-1. Get real- seriously. Was Utah fortunate to win the series 4-1 as well. BTW, how did "for all intents and purposes this series is 2-2" work out for GS last night. Series Utah leads 4-1 May 7, 2007 @UTA 116, GS 112 - Utah won by 4 May 9, 2007 @UTA 127, GS 117 - Utah won by 10 May 11, 2007 @GS 125, UTA 105 - GS won by 20 May 13, 2007 UTA 115, @GS 101 - Utah won by 14 >May 15, 2007 @UTA 100, GS 87 - Utah won by 13 And looking at the scores above, only 1 game was decided by less than 10 pts, and it was the only close game at the end. So how did this comment work out for you. "This is an evenly matched series between 2 evenly matched squads" . If that were true, which it isnt, you would think GS would have won more than 1 game in 5 and at least make the series respectable. Just admit you are clueless when it comes to hoops. Or stop posting this spew making yourself look ignorant on the subject. OWNED again. Edited May 16, 2007 by Sgt. Ryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 When are you ever right about anything. OU is a bad example for me because Im a homer, I admit that. But get real, I punk your ass every time you decide you want to battle, and this was no different. I never claimed greatness about the Dela Hoya fight, I simply said it first, was given props for hitting it on the head, and then you or someone tried to downplay that prediction after the fight as if it was a given. Where the hell were you before the fight saying the same thing I said. Instead you bash me for being right after the fact, when I said it before the fight. Same thing here, I was right. Utah is the stronger team by far. Im not wearing my Maverick colored glasses anymore I wished GS well, and there is no doubt in my mind had they played Houston, they would advance this yr to the Western Conference finals. But Utah is a matchup nightmare like GS was for Dallas. I knew GS wouldnt hold Utah down both games, and predicted GS would win game 3, but lose game 4, when everyone else said they would hold serve at home. Instead of arguing with them, you come after me with percentages, and other BS. Again to discredit my prediction, like it was a given, what I said would happen. Basically in both instances, I was right, you argued after the fact on the Dela Hoya Fight, and left yourself and out no matter what happened here, using this percentage crap. "Count this among the "bold predictions that really aren't that bold" category. So, if there was no home court advantage, each team has a 50/50 chance each game. That means there's only a 25% chance that GS wins both. Even if you give the home team a 60% chance of winning each game, that still only means they have a 36% chance of winning them both. So, worst case, Sarge is looking at a 50/50 prop ('cause that is the true odds of each team winning one regardless of home court). " Did those same percentages say, GS would win game 3, but lose game 4, like I said would happen. Thats , what I thought. Schooled again by Sarge. You ought to just change your sigline to that. Saves me from having to repeat it everytime you decide you want to run your mouth. 2 Years ago, you said the following: The Steelers would get mauled by the Bengals The Steelers would get humiliated by the Colts The Steelers would be hammered by the Broncos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 2 Years ago, you said the following: The Steelers would get mauled by the Bengals The Steelers would get humiliated by the Colts The Steelers would be hammered by the Broncos Yep, Im wrong once every 2 yrs or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugar Magnolia Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 Yep, Im wrong once every 2 yrs or so. How old are you? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 How old are you? Just curious. How Old are you? nevermind, Im not curious. I dont care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Is this a message board or a pissing match? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonkis Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Everyone paid my dues for BcS this year. Thanks. signed, Champ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.