Boise State being snubbed by BCS

[Spence]

His numbers weren't misleading, they were pulled directly from the NCAA stats pages. How he, I, you, or anyone else interpreted the numbers may be up for debate, but the numbers were right.

[winter_kills_stuff]

His numbers weren't misleading, they were pulled directly from the NCAA stats pages. How he, I, you, or anyone else interpreted the numbers may be up for debate, but the numbers were right.

Spence, I don't want to make issue of this. I felt they were misleading.

[Spence]

The point is that the numbers may have been presented in a way that made you believe he was using them to prove something they didn't. That could be valid. But the numbers themselves are just numbers, if they are correct numbers, then the argument has to be in the interpretation.


I believe that some non BCS teams are competitive with some BCS teams and some are not. I also believe that some BCS conference teams aren't as good as some non BCS teams. I don't believe I have seen more then a couple non BCS teams who were capable of winning the national championship or that could compete to win a conference championship. The teams who compete for championships regularly are rare teams, with superior resources, who really make it impossible to compete with over time. A team outside that rare group can win in one year, but not consistently over time against equal competition. That is what ktffan's numbers showed. Not that a non BCS team couldn't win one game against major conference competition or even several games against major conference competition for one year. There are clearly non BCS teams that can be competitive against BCS conference teams, I don't think many people could argue that point. Competitive and superior are two completely different things, though.

It is had to argue that 1+1=2. You can argue as to it's relevance in the discussion. Ktffan never really debated anything (except that his numbers were the excepted numbers by the NCAA) He just presented them with his opinion on what they meant. Some agreed, some didn't. His numbers were correct, though.

[winter_kills_stuff]

The point is that the numbers may have been presented in a way that made you believe he was using them to prove something they didn't. That could be valid. But the numbers themselves are just numbers, if they are correct numbers, then the argument has to be in the interpretation.

My issue wasn't with the numbers themselves, but with the presenter and how they were presented. And, I felt he had an agenda, one of partisanship against my principles.
But, I will grant you, there was some merit in what he presented. I just didn't like how it was done, and felt he could have been more open to alternative interpretation.

I believe that some non BCS teams are competitive with some BCS teams and some are not. I also believe that some BCS conference teams aren't as good as some non BCS teams. I don't believe I have seen more then a couple non BCS teams who were capable of winning the national championship or that could compete to win a conference championship. The teams who compete for championships regularly are rare teams, with superior resources, who really make it impossible to compete with over time. A team outside that rare group can win in one year, but not consistently over time against equal competition. That is what ktffan's numbers showed. Not that a non BCS team couldn't win one game against major conference competition or even several games against major conference competition for one year. There are clearly non BCS teams that can be competitive against BCS conference teams, I don't think many people could argue that point. Competitive and superior are two completely different things, though.

What defines a champion, anyway? Is it playing the best competition, or playing your best, against the competition you face? Probably a little of both, if we are to be honest with ourselves. And that's what I believe. It isn't just about playing a champion's schedule, it's about playing to the level of your competition, and beating them, that defines a champion, in my mind.

It is had to argue that 1+1=2. You can argue as to it's relevance in the discussion. Ktffan never really debated anything (except that his numbers were the excepted numbers by the NCAA) He just presented them with his opinion on what they meant. Some agreed, some didn't. His numbers were correct, though.

Not all of them were correct. I recall there were a lot of gray areas he took upon himself to divulge. He demonstrated his lack of intelligence in how he presented the data, not the data itself.
You imply that all the data he collated was somehow endorsed by the NCAA. All it was was his own attempt to put himself above the rest of us, and I think it failed. He clearly lacked objectivity.

[billybud]

Good grief...we have CLF passing judgement on the intelligence of Ktffan's postings.

Kind of like Miss Piggy critiquing the looks of Heidi Klum.

That isn't to say others might not have qualified. Let us not forget Ball St had absolutely nothing to gain, whatsoever, by winning the MAC title, other than pride & sense of accomplishment. Maybe that's enough, but they are in a better bowl (GMAC) against a better team (Tulsa) at a better time (Jan 6). I'm not saying they lost the game on purpose, but it sure looks that way

ROFLMAO.....!!

[WoVeU]

Good grief...we have CLF passing judgement on the intelligence of Ktffan's postings.

Kind of like Miss Piggy critiquing the looks of Heidi Klum.

That isn't to say others might not have qualified. Let us not forget Ball St had absolutely nothing to gain, whatsoever, by winning the MAC title, other than pride & sense of accomplishment. Maybe that's enough, but they are in a better bowl (GMAC) against a better team (Tulsa) at a better time (Jan 6). I'm not saying they lost the game on purpose, but it sure looks that way

ROFLMAO.....!!

[Derek]

Not all of them were correct. I recall there were a lot of gray areas he took upon himself to divulge. He demonstrated his lack of intelligence in how he presented the data, not the data itself.
You imply that all the data he collated was somehow endorsed by the NCAA. All it was was his own attempt to put himself above the rest of us, and I think it failed. He clearly lacked objectivity.

but some people say cucumbers taste better pickled....

[WoVeU]

I eat more pickled than non-pickled!

[Spence]

Not all of them were correct. I recall there were a lot of gray areas he took upon himself to divulge. He demonstrated his lack of intelligence in how he presented the data, not the data itself.
You imply that all the data he collated was somehow endorsed by the NCAA. All it was was his own attempt to put himself above the rest of us, and I think it failed. He clearly lacked objectivity.

but some people say cucumbers taste better pickled....