Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679082#msg679082 date=1196026040]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a pooh about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Not to get in the middle of this discussion but...If Missouri beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship do you believe they deserve to be in the title game?

    [/quote]

    Yes of course.

  2. #42
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a shit about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Wow man, let's get this straight. I totally repect your opinion, but you are more worried about "being right" than having a good discussion. I appreciate your hatred for the BCS. It is clearly a broken system, no doubt about it. All I am saying is that an undefeated Kansas deserves the same respect that an undefeated Oklahoma would get. If Oklahoma goes 10-0 and is ranked #2, nobody questions that. The same thing should be true for Kansas.

    Until they lost Saturday, Kansas was fully deserving of the #2 spot. They had done everything in their power up to that point. The BCS does not predict upsets or losses. It sees upsets and adjusts accordingly afterwards.Kansas deserved the #2 spot until they lost to Missouri.

    Otherwise, do you expect the BCS to predict that Kansas will lose and rank them lower based on that prediction?

    "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule"
    That was your logic, not mine. It's nice though that you see the contradiction. As I said before, the BCS plays favorites to certain conferences, which is not fair at all.

    "When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot."

    I read that as: When a great team beats a great team, it proves that a third great team wasn't so great.

    In reality, if Oklahoma beats Missouri, it tells us nothing about Kansas. Or to look at it another way, If Missouri beats Oklahoma, what does that tells us about Kansas?

    NOTHING.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  3. #43
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679082#msg679082 date=1196026040]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a shit about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Wow man, let's get this straight. I totally repect your opinion, but you are more worried about "being right" than having a good discussion. I appreciate your hatred for the BCS. It is clearly a broken system, no doubt about it. All I am saying is that an undefeated Kansas deserves the same respect that an undefeated Oklahoma would get. If Oklahoma goes 10-0 and is ranked #2, nobody questions that. The same thing should be true for Kansas.

    Until they lost Saturday, Kansas was fully deserving of the #2 spot. They had done everything in their power up to that point. The BCS does not predict upsets or losses. It sees upsets and adjusts accordingly afterwards.Kansas deserved the #2 spot until they lost to Missouri.

    Otherwise, do you expect the BCS to predict that Kansas will lose and rank them lower based on that prediction?

    "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule" That was your logic, not mine. It's nice though that you see the contradiction. As I said before, the BCS plays favorites to certain conferences, which is not fair at all.

    "When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot."

    I read that as: When a great team beats a great team, it proves that a third great team wasn't so great.

    In reality, if Oklahoma beats Missouri, it tells us nothing about Kansas. Or to look at it another way, If Missouri beats Oklahoma, what does that tells us about Kansas?

    NOTHING.
    [/quote]

    I never said Kansas was a good team!? I have watched them play several times and I am not impressed.

  4. #44
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679082#msg679082 date=1196026040]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a shit about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Wow man, let's get this straight. I totally repect your opinion, but you are more worried about "being right" than having a good discussion. I appreciate your hatred for the BCS. It is clearly a broken system, no doubt about it. All I am saying is that an undefeated Kansas deserves the same respect that an undefeated Oklahoma would get. If Oklahoma goes 10-0 and is ranked #2, nobody questions that. The same thing should be true for Kansas.

    Until they lost Saturday, Kansas was fully deserving of the #2 spot. They had done everything in their power up to that point. The BCS does not predict upsets or losses. It sees upsets and adjusts accordingly afterwards.Kansas deserved the #2 spot until they lost to Missouri.

    Otherwise, do you expect the BCS to predict that Kansas will lose and rank them lower based on that prediction?

    "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule"
    That was your logic, not mine. It's nice though that you see the contradiction. As I said before, the BCS plays favorites to certain conferences, which is not fair at all.

    "When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot."

    I read that as: When a great team beats a great team, it proves that a third great team wasn't so great.

    In reality, if Oklahoma beats Missouri, it tells us nothing about Kansas. Or to look at it another way, If Missouri beats Oklahoma, what does that tells us about Kansas?

    NOTHING.
    [/quote]

    How is that reality? Please explain.

  5. #45
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679082#msg679082 date=1196026040]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a shit about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Wow man, let's get this straight. I totally repect your opinion, but you are more worried about "being right" than having a good discussion. I appreciate your hatred for the BCS. It is clearly a broken system, no doubt about it. All I am saying is that an undefeated Kansas deserves the same respect that an undefeated Oklahoma would get. If Oklahoma goes 10-0 and is ranked #2, nobody questions that. The same thing should be true for Kansas.

    Until they lost Saturday, Kansas was fully deserving of the #2 spot. They had done everything in their power up to that point. The BCS does not predict upsets or losses. It sees upsets and adjusts accordingly afterwards.Kansas deserved the #2 spot until they lost to Missouri.

    Otherwise, do you expect the BCS to predict that Kansas will lose and rank them lower based on that prediction?

    "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule"
    That was your logic, not mine. It's nice though that you see the contradiction. As I said before, the BCS plays favorites to certain conferences, which is not fair at all.

    "When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot."

    I read that as: When a great team beats a great team, it proves that a third great team wasn't so great.

    In reality, if Oklahoma beats Missouri, it tells us nothing about Kansas. Or to look at it another way, If Missouri beats Oklahoma, what does that tells us about Kansas?

    NOTHING.
    [/quote]

    I would under the right conditions!

  6. #46
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679082#msg679082 date=1196026040]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a shit about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Wow man, let's get this straight. I totally repect your opinion, but you are more worried about "being right" than having a good discussion. I appreciate your hatred for the BCS. It is clearly a broken system, no doubt about it. All I am saying is that an undefeated Kansas deserves the same respect that an undefeated Oklahoma would get. If Oklahoma goes 10-0 and is ranked #2, nobody questions that. The same thing should be true for Kansas.

    Until they lost Saturday, Kansas was fully deserving of the #2 spot. They had done everything in their power up to that point. The BCS does not predict upsets or losses. It sees upsets and adjusts accordingly afterwards.Kansas deserved the #2 spot until they lost to Missouri.

    Otherwise, do you expect the BCS to predict that Kansas will lose and rank them lower based on that prediction?

    "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule"
    That was your logic, not mine. It's nice though that you see the contradiction. As I said before, the BCS plays favorites to certain conferences, which is not fair at all.

    "When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot."

    I read that as: When a great team beats a great team, it proves that a third great team wasn't so great.

    In reality, if Oklahoma beats Missouri, it tells us nothing about Kansas. Or to look at it another way, If Missouri beats Oklahoma, what does that tells us about Kansas?

    NOTHING.
    [/quote]

    The only thing I am worried about is people insulting others intelligence over an opinion. It happens all too often on here and basically makes that person look like an arogant ***hole.

  7. #47
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,880

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679121#msg679121 date=1196027293]
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679082#msg679082 date=1196026040]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a pooh about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Not to get in the middle of this discussion but...If Missouri beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship do you believe they deserve to be in the title game?

    [/quote]

    Yes of course.
    [/quote]

    Then everything works out in the end, at least with this conference.
    Just the ranking system up to this point that is in question.


    Doesn't really matter where you are at in the BCS rankings until the last poll comes out.
    If Kansas wanted to play for the title they had to beat Missouri and Oklahoma. Had they done it the BCS ranking would have looked good.
    Hawaii never had that opportunity because they don't have major programs on their schedule.

    Anomolies will pop up from time to time with the major conferences (like Kansas), but they usually work themselves out by the end of the season.
    With minors, you are always left wondering until they get smoked in the bowl game.






  8. #48
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    "marstc09" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679709#msg679709 date=1196089546]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679121#msg679121 date=1196027293]
    [quote author=marstc09 link=topic=39825.msg679082#msg679082 date=1196026040]
    [quote author=V link=topic=39825.msg679045#msg679045 date=1196024998]
    Do you have selective memory? I said before that I thought Kansas was overrated, and I also said I did not think they were going to win out.

    Beyond that, I was cheering for Missouri to win that game. And as I said before, now we get to have this whole argument again after Missouri is ranked #1. I look forward to it.
    I look forward to Missouri getting beat by Oklahoma again. Further proving my point!
    Do you even remember what your initial point was?
    Here it is.....
    "I do not agree with Kansas at #2 since they have only played one ranked team (Kansas State) and barely beat them (30-24). We will find out what they are made of this saturday against Missouri."

    So when Oklahoma beats Missouri that further proves my point.

    What are you not getting here? It seems all you want to do is call out my intelligence and you are failing!
    :
    What I have said all along is that a team with Kansas' record deserved the #2 spot, while you said you didn't agree with it.

    Oklahoma beating Missouri doesn't prove your point at all, because you point was not that these teams are overrated, which they may be, but that good teams, with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule.

    Maybe I am insulting your intelligence, because there is a difference between saying a team was overrated and saying they didn't deserve a high ranking. Kansas losing on Saturday proves the former, but not the latter. The BCS doesn't have a category called "probability that they might lose their next game" and give them a lower ranking because of it.
    Then you have some issues you need to take care of if you want to insult my intelligence.

    There is no difference between being overrated and not deserving a high ranking. They HAD a #2 spot and were clearly overrated. Plain and simple. I guess I have to repeat myself. When Oklahoma beats Missouri it will further prove my point. Kansas was overrated and did not deserve the #2 spot. I don't give a pooh about the BCS. It is my opinion and if you can't deal with that.................good lord people take things so seriously sometimes......

    Now I am going to use your logic "good teams with good records don't deserve a high ranking because of weak strength of schedule". That means Hawaii should be higher than #12, but they are not. Hmmmmmmmmmm... seems like a contradiction to me.
    :
    [/quote]

    Not to get in the middle of this discussion but...If Missouri beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 championship do you believe they deserve to be in the title game?

    [/quote]

    Yes of course.
    [/quote]

    Then everything works out in the end, at least with this conference.
    Just the ranking system up to this point that is in question.


    Doesn't really matter where you are at in the BCS rankings until the last poll comes out.
    If Kansas wanted to play for the title they had to beat Missouri and Oklahoma. Had they done it the BCS ranking would have looked good.
    Hawaii never had that opportunity because they don't have major programs on their schedule.

    Anomolies will pop up from time to time with the major conferences (like Kansas), but they usually work themselves out by the end of the season.
    With minors, you are always left wondering until they get smoked in the bowl game.






    [/quote]

    Very true.

  9. #49
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    I'll try to hit all of your posts.

    1. How is an 11-1 team not a good team? Even with weaker opponents, its still tough to go 11-1. I would say that every team ranked in the top 25 is a good team. Do you disagree, or ar you saying Kansas should even even be in the top 25?

    At the same time, there are good teams with records that are worse than Kansas. Because of that they are ranked lower. That is just an inherent flaw of the BCS. Look at Tennessee for example. They are playing for the SEC Championship, but because they lost at Cal earlier in the year while Georgia had an easier game at home against Oklahoma State, the Bulldogs are ranked higher, even though they lost to Tennessee. There is a possible scenario where Georgia plays for the national championship while SEC Champion Tennessee, who also has a win over Georgia, watches.

    2. Using the extended win theory just doesn't work. Too many assumptions. To assume that Kansas is worse than Oklahoma because Missouri is better than Kansas and Oklahoma is better than Missouri won't fly IMO.
    You can only judge a team based on games which that team has played. Kansas can't be judged based on the Oklahoma Missouri outcome because they have no control over that game. I hold you opinion from watching Kansas in much higher regard that such reasoning.

    Hurts for me to use this example: The Packers have proven they are better than the Vikings this year. However, you could argue that because The Vikings beat San Diego, and San Diego beat the Packers, the Vikings are better than the Packers. It may look good as a blanket comment, but the second you take a microscope to it, the whole argument falls apart.

    3. You certainly would have a right to question it, no matter what the conditions were, but do you really think there would be as many skeptics? Oklahoma is favored to beat Missouri this weekend. Look at their schedules, are they really that different? No. People are willing to give Oklahoma more respect, based on name and tradition alone.

    4. If you are saying I was acting like an arrogant asshole, when then that's too bad.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  10. #50
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,180

    Re: LSU Still 1 - Kansas 2 in BCS

    "V" wrote:
    I'll try to hit all of your posts.

    1. How is an 11-1 team not a good team? Even with weaker opponents, its still tough to go 11-1. I would say that every team ranked in the top 25 is a good team. Do you disagree, or ar you saying Kansas should even even be in the top 25?

    At the same time, there are good teams with records that are worse than Kansas. Because of that they are ranked lower. That is just an inherent flaw of the BCS. Look at Tennessee for example. They are playing for the SEC Championship, but because they lost at Cal earlier in the year while Georgia had an easier game at home against Oklahoma State, the Bulldogs are ranked higher, even though they lost to Tennessee. There is a possible scenario where Georgia plays for the national championship while SEC Champion Tennessee, who also has a win over Georgia, watches.

    2. Using the extended win theory just doesn't work. Too many assumptions. To assume that Kansas is worse than Oklahoma because Missouri is better than Kansas and Oklahoma is better than Missouri won't fly IMO.
    You can only judge a team based on games which that team has played. Kansas can't be judged based on the Oklahoma Missouri outcome because they have no control over that game. I hold you opinion from watching Kansas in much higher regard that such reasoning.

    Hurts for me to use this example: The Packers have proven they are better than the Vikings this year. However, you could argue that because The Vikings beat San Diego, and San Diego beat the Packers, the Vikings are better than the Packers. It may look good as a blanket comment, but the second you take a microscope to it, the whole argument falls apart.

    3. You certainly would have a right to question it, no matter what the conditions were, but do you really think there would be as many skeptics? Oklahoma is favored to beat Missouri this weekend. Look at their schedules, are they really that different? No. People are willing to give Oklahoma more respect, based on name and tradition alone.

    4. If you are saying I was acting like an arrogant asshole, when then that's too bad.
    1. I disagree because I do not believe in the BCS.

    2. You can't always have contol but I agree with you somewhat here. That is why there should be a playoff. I am going to post my 32 team playoff later.

    3. Not much difference.

    4. Too bad for me?

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. anyone know where to eat in kansas city?
    By marshallvike in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-04-2008, 05:46 PM
  2. Vikings fan in Kansas
    By vikestwinswild in forum Free Beer!
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 02:32 PM
  3. Kansas tornado pictures
    By Prophet in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 10:47 PM
  4. any vikes fans in kansas?
    By jough in forum Free Beer!
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-11-2006, 01:10 PM
  5. The Wizard of Az not in Kansas any more!
    By cajunvike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-18-2005, 07:49 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •