CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Jimbo was talking to the faithful...about how FSU lost the last two games on the last flukey play and how both games were more than winnable.

Now comes the part that made me go "hmmmm".

He said..."Well, except for those two flukey plays, FSU would be 8-1. And do you think that we would be a better football team at 8-1 than 6-3? Naw, we're the same team. It's perception. Wins and losses drive public perception but we would be the same team at 8-1 that we are at 6-3. And you know what? We wouldn't be as good as people would think if we were 8-1 and we aren't as bad as people think at 6-3".

That about sums up the process and why you have to know teams.

Just for the purpose of discussion. What he says, may well be true. But to spectators...the majority that fill the stands, not fanatics...it is entertainment. We go to the game, we tailgate, we cheer and talk and go home. Then there are the masses, who watch it on TV. My observation of fanatics, those that are really concerned about rankings is, they do not attend all that many games in person. I understand why that may be. But watching 8 games on some electronic gadget is fun and it is entertaining for a few..but they are the ones that rank. Joe Spectator does not...so...win games..that is what people like. Have rivalries. Have traditions. Have school spirit that transcends the time spent in school. Jimbo may be right...but that is football spin.

But right is right.

billybud wrote:But right is right.

Indeed it is.

billybud wrote:Jimbo was talking to the faithful...about how FSU lost the last two games on the last flukey play and how both games were more than winnable.

Now comes the part that made me go "hmmmm".

He said..."Well, except for those two flukey plays, FSU would be 8-1. And do you think that we would be a better football team at 8-1 than 6-3? Naw, we're the same team. It's perception. Wins and losses drive public perception but we would be the same team at 8-1 that we are at 6-3. And you know what? We wouldn't be as good as people would think if we were 8-1 and we aren't as bad as people think at 6-3".

That about sums up the process and why you have to know teams.

That is exactly right, but the question is whether the 8-1 team or the 6-3 team is the correct perception. Same thing with an undefeated team. The problem is you can't really know the strength of one team unless you know the strength of the other teams. You get a good idea inside of conferences, but outside conference play you really have no clue.

This goes back to the heart of the ranking debate. Did you win your games? It doesn't even matter how "good" your team is, it is a measure of which teams have gotten it done when it meant something and then you rank how strong you subjectively feel they are. There isn't a world of difference between the teams ranked 15-50 or so, but if you accept the concept that winning football games is what mattered, then I have no problem with the rankings as they are.

A good example is Nebraska. If the Iowa State player somehow catches that fake PAT pass, Nebraska drops from being #9 or so in the polls to #18ish. It's still the same team, but the team wouldn't have played well enough to earn a victory. So instead of a pure power poll, it's more merit-based.

If Ohio State hadn't got their butt handed to them by very enthusiastic Wisconsin team they would be ranked the number one in the country, but that doesn't mean they should be. Until they fix the soft belly, they shouldn't be.

Spence wrote:If Ohio State hadn't got their butt handed to them by very enthusiastic Wisconsin team they would be ranked the number one in the country, but that doesn't mean they should be. Until they fix the soft belly, they shouldn't be.

And if Michigan didn't have a bad defense, we would have a good football team

Exactly.

And in the ultimate end....unless I have missed something. The determination of who won the game is the final score. All this downplay of final scores is nonsense. That is what our schools do today...Well, Billy...and I switched that from Johnny in a more Freudian moment, you got all the answers wrong, but you tried hard and you came to class on time and ....

and if you would have gotten a few more answers right you would have passed so..............

I agree. Having three girls each four years apart gives me an insight that some do not have. A 4th grade teacher tells me as long as my daughter understands how to set up a math problem she doesn't need to know the fundamentals (add, subtract, multiply, and divide) she can use a calculator for that. I tell him that unless she becomes proficient at the fundamentals she will hit a wall at some point. He assures me his methods of teaching are proven and accepted. Then my next one comes along four years later. The older one has hit her wall in algebra because her lack of fundamentals has made algebra abstract to her and her current teacher has had to spend the first part of this year teaching her class something they should have become learned in forth grade before she can move them forward - the whole class- none of them can do the work. When the forth grade teachers starts in with his genius theories about teaching and calculators for forth grade I let him know that he has so completely screwed up his classes that they have to start over when they get to middle school. Most people don't get to confront guys like this before their kids are through because most people have kids lots closer together.

This is supposed to be a quality school. One of the better ones in my region and most of the teachers are good, but one idiot teaching an important subject like math and hundreds of kids suffer. My daughter has never had a grade that wasn't an "A". "A" in that guys class, though, means nothing. I hired a real math teacher to work with my younger daughters until this guy is removed.

That's good to hear, Spence. I tutored middle schoolers for awhile for the sake of just helping them out (yes, I'm an absolute saint ), but some of them did not understand how to do algebra. It was basic "add to one side, take away from the other" stuff. I struggled with algebra once upon a time, but it wasn't the fundamentals it was just because I was lazy. I eventually understood it, but probably knowledge of the concepts came in handy. A lot of the kids today that get pushed through the public school system struggle to understand the basics and instead try to pass. Of course, teachers want to be easy on the kids so they get a good grade, which really isn't teaching at all.

I think one of the bigger issues is the philosophy behind schooling. I think it's too curriculum-based and not student-based enough. Instead of forcing kids to "learn" things, if they were able to voluntarily guide their own learning, I think it would help a lot. The formative years of public schooling really crush a lot of people's curiosity.

I just don't know where a teacher thinks that using a calculator to multiply and divide or to add and subtract fractions before the kid learns to multiply and divide is just the craziest thing I have ever heard. Once you have the function mastered, I have no problem with a calculator. Lets just wait until the kid is out of grade school.

My oldest daughtered is extremely intelligent. Every other subject she is advanced in, so the fact that she has any problems at all is troublesome, but then to find out that every class this guy teaches has to be "re"taught...........well it really makes you wonder how he still has a job.

Oh, I agree with you guys.

But it is also why you sometimes see a 6-6 team handily beat a 9-3 team in the bowl. The teams may be closer than the record shows. One team caught the breaks and one did not, one team had a schedule that would allow for a few mistakes, etc., etc.

I feel for FSU...Clemson is coming up and Ponder has been held out of practice after minor surgery to his elbow/ It is beginning to look like the back up will play.

I have seen FSU play several times and they look better than their record to me.