i didn't mean it that way but my first sentence in the last post is written poorly.

i think wear and tear will have a negative effect on a team as the season goes on. that doesn't mean a team can't see a net improvement due to practicing harder, familiarity with playbook, etc. it's a balancing act.

Disko's points about less chance of injury and the ability to gameplan weeks in advance instead of worrying about Southmidwest Idaho State on Saturday has some merit. His others have some holes.

dkgo Re: winning the conference,

Sorry, if you're in a non AQ conference and allegedly a top 10 team you have to win your ****ty conference. It's kind of required. If BSU moved to the Big 12 next year and went 10-2 and didn't win the conference everyone would be rather impressed and certainly not ragging on them for losing the conference.

So youre saying that if they went 11-1 with a nonconference loss to memphis but won the mwc, they would be more deserving since they "won their conference" than going 11-1 with a conference loss to tcu?

Seriously, Boise State doesn't deserve **** this year.

again, you guys are saying that a loss to memphis or tulane is better than a loss to tcu?

i just look at the team played and dont care where they are from

dkgo,

I'm not too educated about Internet arguments but I'm pretty sure that's a strawman. Obviously a loss to one of the worst FB teams in D1 is objectively a worse loss than TCU. I don't think you can make a case for an 11-1 BSU team in a BCS game losing to freaking Memphis - and no one except you said a Memphis loss is better than a TCU loss.

I always wonder why there's so much focus on which game was lost in assessing a team vs. just assessing the overall picture. Seems to me it should simply be full schedule + final W/L record + point differential that assesses a team's resume. If the team's schedule is sufficient overall, what does it matter when the loss came in?

Like, people kept busting Okie State's balls for losing to Iowa State when the final decision on the NCG came in, but why exactly is it that thumping OU and losing to ISU is worse than what thumping ISU and losing to OU would have been?

I'm not even looking at those wins and losses. Boise State did not win their conference, and they lost to an unranked team. They do not deserve any big game.


u still mad?

Your argument is weak because you are basically saying Houston is the best team in the country in two of the three categories.

im trying to show that there is no magical significance of "winning your conference". these same people didnt seem to mind judging alabama just on how good they are despite not winning their conference.

LKJ basically just said exactly what Ive been saying. You have a given schedule against 12 teams, and you win X number of games with a certain margin of victory and you lose Y games by some amount. Its looking at the picture as a whole. There is no reason to add or subtract bonus points just for winning the conference

obviously the argument is moot against ******s like gus who dont even look at wins and losses and somehow missed tcu at 15th in the usa today poll.

Umm...
LSU is 12-0
LSU has outscored its opponents by 363, Houston has by 360
LSU obviously with the way tougher schedule.

Which two did Houston emerge as the best in the country...?

Ok, fine, obviously LSU is number but, so Houston is not ultimately the best in the country, but 12-1 (12-0 in regular play) and 360 points is second for both those categories.

You are just trying to nitpick when my point was clear that your criteria in 2 of those categories would rate Houston as one of the best teams.

You missed the point as you tend to. I didn't list those categories as ones where you either attain success or don't...I listed them as the three ways when, WEIGHTED PROPERLY, tell the whole story. Since you're taking the whole schedule into account, what does it matter who the specific wins and losses happened against?

So you are just trying to modify parameters to fit into your argument of why Oklahoma State should get in. If you run a whole system based off of polls and rankings, who you beat and lose to is extremely important in determining the best teams.

Personally, I think Alabama's schedule was tougher than Oklahoma State's, and at worst, they are both too close to call, so the tiebreaker is the horrible loss that Oklahoma State suffered to Iowa State.

This started with a false accusation and proceeded into an unsubstantiated claim, but at no point was the question of "why?" addressed at all.

TCU was unranked before beating Boise State. They are only ranked because Boise is overrated, and they beat them. TCU is definitely not the same team as last year without Dalton.

they are in the 15-20 range in basically every single ranking out there

i believe TCU was ranked 24th at the time of the game. i remember this because i wanted to troll "boise loses to unranked team" so badly but couldn't.

24th sounds about right, but obviously Boise trolls themselves by only playing 3-4 games a year and usually dropping one along the way.

NEVADA IS A GOOD TEAM YOU SEC HOMER

nevada finished 13th in the massey ratings last year, generally between 10-15 everywhere

sorry for bringing actual data and analysis instead of lolcasualfanopinions into the discussion

For what it's worth, nothing in my post discredited Nevada as a team that wasn't good. They were solid.

lol, well if the massey rankings say so!

edit: i actually didn't think that nevada was a crap team. it's just funny how boise seems to only play 2 real teams per season and lose one of them.

Didn't see them ranked when I went back and looked, but I just skimmed them, so maybe I missed it.

You didn't read my last post at all.


I just looked and TCU was ranked 24th on USA Today but unranked on AP, BCS, and ESPN.

This doesn't matter wrt the whole spectrum of teams though.

You're assuming that wear and tear affects different teams differently, which (while likely true) is something that would be damn near impossible to quantify imo.

However, it would not be impossible to quantify risk of injury per play, and then to quantify how many plays Boise's starters play vs. the starters of teams in real conferences.