> Chris Bellomy wrote: >> stephenJ wrote, On 11/7/09 12:13 AM: >>> unclejr wrote: >>>> On Nov 6, 7:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
>>>> You, sir, are a dumnass. The AP national championship is the only >>>> true one for 2003. The AP had the Trojans #1 before the stupid MNCG >>>> and they had them #1 afterward.
>>>>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie >>>>> between UF, LSU, and UT.
On Nov 6, 5:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > unclejr wrote: > > Which team is the team of the decade? A valid argument can be made > > for Texas, Florida, LSU, and USC.
> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie > between UF, LSU, and UT.
> -- > Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
> - J. Fowles
I think it's overly simplistic to just look at MNCs - what teams do when they aren't winning MNCs also matters. I came up with a quick 'n' dirty point system, awarding points based on each season's final AP Poll on a 30, 24, 23 ... 1 basis. I gave ten bonus points for the a BCS championship, so a MNC was worth a total of 40 points most years. In the split season, LSU gets 34 and USC gets 30. I think that's a fair compromise between Jaros' position and everybody else's.
Here's the top 25 for the decade so far (2000-2008 seasons):
1. Oklahoma 185 2. USC 184 3. Texas 180.5 4. Ohio State 152 5. LSU 150 6. Florida 147.5 7. Miami 133 8. Georgia 127 9. Virginia Tech 106 10. Michigan 96 11. Auburn 84 12. Oregon 75.5 13. Boise State 71 Florida State 71 15. Tennessee 61 West Virginia 61 17. Iowa 60 18. Louisville 56 19. Alabama 53 Penn State 53 21. Utah 51 22. Washington State 49 23. Kansas State 48 24. TCU 47 25. Notre Dame 46
My point system is arbitrary, and it's so close at the top that this doesn't prove anything. A minor tweak would give us a different #1. But, I think it does show that Texas would be the most deserving "team of the decade" if they win another MNC, because they've been better than the other two-time winners between MNCs.
>On Nov 6, 5:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> > unclejr wrote: >> > Which team is the team of the decade? A valid argument can be made >> > for Texas, Florida, LSU, and USC.
>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie >> between UF, LSU, and UT.
>> -- >> Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
>> - J. Fowles
>I think it's overly simplistic to just look at MNCs - what teams do >when they aren't winning MNCs also matters. I came up with a quick >'n' dirty point system, awarding points based on each season's final >AP Poll on a 30, 24, 23 ... 1 basis. I gave ten bonus points for the >a BCS championship, so a MNC was worth a total of 40 points most >years. In the split season, LSU gets 34 and USC gets 30. I think >that's a fair compromise between Jaros' position and everybody else's.
LSU actually played a game and won THAT 2003 championship. The bias voters elected USC their paper champion
> Chris Bellomy wrote: > > stephenJ wrote, On 11/7/09 12:13 AM: > >> unclejr wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 7:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
> >>> You, sir, are a dumnass. The AP national championship is the only > >>> true one for 2003. The AP had the Trojans #1 before the stupid MNCG > >>> and they had them #1 afterward.
> >>>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie > >>>> between UF, LSU, and UT.
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 01:34:31 -0800 (PST), Seapig > <sea...@altavista.com>wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 5:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> > unclejr wrote: > >> > Which team is the team of the decade? A valid argument can be made > >> > for Texas, Florida, LSU, and USC.
> >> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
> >> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie > >> between UF, LSU, and UT.
> >> -- > >> Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
> >> - J. Fowles
> >I think it's overly simplistic to just look at MNCs - what teams do > >when they aren't winning MNCs also matters. I came up with a quick > >'n' dirty point system, awarding points based on each season's final > >AP Poll on a 30, 24, 23 ... 1 basis. I gave ten bonus points for the > >a BCS championship, so a MNC was worth a total of 40 points most > >years. In the split season, LSU gets 34 and USC gets 30. I think > >that's a fair compromise between Jaros' position and everybody else's.
> LSU actually played a game and won THAT 2003 championship. > The bias voters elected USC their paper champion- Hide quoted text -
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 01:34:31 -0800 (PST), Seapig > <sea...@altavista.com>wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 5:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> > unclejr wrote: > >> > Which team is the team of the decade? A valid argument can be made > >> > for Texas, Florida, LSU, and USC.
> >> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
> >> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie > >> between UF, LSU, and UT.
> >> -- > >> Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
> >> - J. Fowles
> >I think it's overly simplistic to just look at MNCs - what teams do > >when they aren't winning MNCs also matters. I came up with a quick > >'n' dirty point system, awarding points based on each season's final > >AP Poll on a 30, 24, 23 ... 1 basis. I gave ten bonus points for the > >a BCS championship, so a MNC was worth a total of 40 points most > >years. In the split season, LSU gets 34 and USC gets 30. I think > >that's a fair compromise between Jaros' position and everybody else's.
> LSU actually played a game and won THAT 2003 championship. > The bias voters elected USC their paper champion
Yea, a real meaningful game against an OU team that had just been obliterated by Kansas State. There's a reason only you and Jaros are impressed with that.
> On Nov 6, 5:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> > > unclejr wrote: > > > Which team is the team of the decade? A valid argument can be made > > > for Texas, Florida, LSU, and USC.
> > Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
> > surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie > > between UF, LSU, and UT.
> > -- > > Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
> > - J. Fowles
> I think it's overly simplistic to just look at MNCs - what teams do > when they aren't winning MNCs also matters. I came up with a quick > 'n' dirty point system, awarding points based on each season's final > AP Poll on a 30, 24, 23 ... 1 basis. I gave ten bonus points for the > a BCS championship, so a MNC was worth a total of 40 points most > years. In the split season, LSU gets 34 and USC gets 30. I think > that's a fair compromise between Jaros' position and everybody else's.
> Here's the top 25 for the decade so far (2000-2008 seasons):
> 1. Oklahoma 185 > 2. USC 184 > 3. Texas 180.5 > 4. Ohio State 152 > 5. LSU 150 > 6. Florida 147.5 > 7. Miami 133 > 8. Georgia 127 > 9. Virginia Tech 106 > 10. Michigan 96 > 11. Auburn 84 > 12. Oregon 75.5 > 13. Boise State 71 > Florida State 71 > 15. Tennessee 61 > West Virginia 61 > 17. Iowa 60 > 18. Louisville 56 > 19. Alabama 53 > Penn State 53 > 21. Utah 51 > 22. Washington State 49 > 23. Kansas State 48 > 24. TCU 47 > 25. Notre Dame 46
> My point system is arbitrary, and it's so close at the top that this > doesn't prove anything. A minor tweak would give us a different #1. > But, I think it does show that Texas would be the most deserving "team > of the decade" if they win another MNC, because they've been better > than the other two-time winners between MNCs.
This is interesting...nicely done!....had kinda forgotten that Miami was awfully good at the beginning of the decade - and how much consistency matters. Wazzou ahead of ND makes me laugh
Seapig wrote: > On Nov 6, 5:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> > unclejr wrote: >>> Which team is the team of the decade? A valid argument can be made >>> for Texas, Florida, LSU, and USC. >> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie >> between UF, LSU, and UT.
>> -- >> Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical.
>> - J. Fowles
> I think it's overly simplistic to just look at MNCs - what teams do > when they aren't winning MNCs also matters. I came up with a quick > 'n' dirty point system, awarding points based on each season's final > AP Poll on a 30, 24, 23 ... 1 basis.
I agree that other factors like overall win %, conference titles, BCS bowl wins, etc. should count, BUT they shouldn't be allowed to trump the main thing - winning national titles.
So, e.g., if schools A and B both have 2 national titles, but B has more BCS bowl wins and more conference titles, than those would tip the nod to B.
But if A has 3 national titles to 2 for B, no amount of other factors should be allowed to overcome that. Those other factors should be tie-breakers when the national title amount is equal.
-- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
McMahone wrote: > On Nov 7, 12:27 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> Chris Bellomy wrote: >>> stephenJ wrote, On 11/7/09 12:13 AM: >>>> unclejr wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 7:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion. >>>>> You, sir, are a dumnass. The AP national championship is the only >>>>> true one for 2003. The AP had the Trojans #1 before the stupid MNCG >>>>> and they had them #1 afterward. >>>>>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie >>>>>> between UF, LSU, and UT. >>>>> If UT wins it this year, then we have: >>>>> UF = 2 MNCs >>>>> LSU = 2 MNCs >>>>> UT = 2 MNCs >>>>> USC = 2 MNCs >>>> no, just 1 for USC. and there aren't any MNC's anymore. Just BCS titles. >>> Just as mythical. >> Well maybe to you, but not to the BCS member institutions.
> NCAA football <> BCS
Who says it is? Who cares? As Pete Carroll famously put it, the BCS is the system that "all the BCS schools agreed to", so its winner is their champion.
-- "The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any sudden increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
>>> On Nov 6, 5:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> > unclejr wrote: >>>>> Which team is the team of the decade? A valid argument can be made >>>>> for Texas, Florida, LSU, and USC. >>>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion. >>>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie >>>> between UF, LSU, and UT. >>>> -- >>>> Duty largely consists of pretending that the trivial is critical. >>>> - J. Fowles >>> I think it's overly simplistic to just look at MNCs - what teams do >>> when they aren't winning MNCs also matters. I came up with a quick >>> 'n' dirty point system, awarding points based on each season's final >>> AP Poll on a 30, 24, 23 ... 1 basis. I gave ten bonus points for the >>> a BCS championship, so a MNC was worth a total of 40 points most >>> years. In the split season, LSU gets 34 and USC gets 30. I think >>> that's a fair compromise between Jaros' position and everybody else's. >> LSU actually played a game and won THAT 2003 championship. >> The bias voters elected USC their paper champion
> Yea, a real meaningful game against an OU team that had just been > obliterated by Kansas State. There's a reason only you and Jaros are > impressed with that.
I may not be impressed with the Yankees win over the Phillies in the WS. But that doesn't change the fact that the Yanks are the .. world series champs.
-- Not to believe in the Devil is a French idea, a frivolous idea.
> McMahone wrote: > > On Nov 7, 12:27 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >> Chris Bellomy wrote: > >>> stephenJ wrote, On 11/7/09 12:13 AM: > >>>> unclejr wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 7:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion. > >>>>> You, sir, are a dumnass. The AP national championship is the only > >>>>> true one for 2003. The AP had the Trojans #1 before the stupid MNCG > >>>>> and they had them #1 afterward. > >>>>>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie > >>>>>> between UF, LSU, and UT. > >>>>> If UT wins it this year, then we have: > >>>>> UF = 2 MNCs > >>>>> LSU = 2 MNCs > >>>>> UT = 2 MNCs > >>>>> USC = 2 MNCs > >>>> no, just 1 for USC. and there aren't any MNC's anymore. Just BCS titles. > >>> Just as mythical. > >> Well maybe to you, but not to the BCS member institutions.
> > NCAA football <> BCS
> Who says it is? Who cares? As Pete Carroll famously put it, the BCS is > the system that "all the BCS schools agreed to", so its winner is their > champion.
Which is about as meaningful as the fact that the winner of the SECCG is the SEC champion. It's not a national title. It's really about on the same level as winning the Sugar Bowl -- actually, until the last couple of years, that's exactly what it was.
On Nov 7, 7:33 am, "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior"
<iamtj4l...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is interesting...nicely done!....had kinda forgotten that Miami > was awfully good at the beginning of the decade - and how much > consistency matters. Wazzou ahead of ND makes me laugh
Yeah, I had forgotten that they had any good teams post Ryan Leaf, but they had three consecutive top-ten finishes 2001-03.
McMahone wrote: > On Nov 7, 9:41 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >> McMahone wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 12:27 am, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>> Chris Bellomy wrote: >>>>> stephenJ wrote, On 11/7/09 12:13 AM: >>>>>> unclejr wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 7:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion. >>>>>>> You, sir, are a dumnass. The AP national championship is the only >>>>>>> true one for 2003. The AP had the Trojans #1 before the stupid MNCG >>>>>>> and they had them #1 afterward. >>>>>>>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie >>>>>>>> between UF, LSU, and UT. >>>>>>> If UT wins it this year, then we have: >>>>>>> UF = 2 MNCs >>>>>>> LSU = 2 MNCs >>>>>>> UT = 2 MNCs >>>>>>> USC = 2 MNCs >>>>>> no, just 1 for USC. and there aren't any MNC's anymore. Just BCS titles. >>>>> Just as mythical. >>>> Well maybe to you, but not to the BCS member institutions. >>> NCAA football <> BCS >> Who says it is? Who cares? As Pete Carroll famously put it, the BCS is >> the system that "all the BCS schools agreed to", so its winner is their >> champion.
> Which is about as meaningful as the fact that the winner of the SECCG > is the SEC champion. It's not a national title.
Well since the BCS encompasses 11 conferences spread throughout the country, "national" is a pretty fair adjective to use.
-- As a tourist, you become economically significant but existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
stephenJ wrote: >unclejr wrote: >> stephenJ wrote: >>> Bot for USC. 1 national title wouldn't cut it in that discussion.
>> You, sir, are a dumnass. The AP national championship is the only >> true one for 2003. The AP had the Trojans #1 before the stupid MNCG >> and they had them #1 afterward.
That's as bad as anything Jaros says. You may not agree with the way the AFCA chose its national champion in 2003, but they did choose LSU, and it counts every bit as much as AP's selection of USC.
>>> surprisingly, bellomy is right. a texas win would make a 3-way tie >>> between UF, LSU, and UT.
>no, just 1 for USC. and there aren't any MNC's anymore. Just BCS titles.
Somebody forgot to tell the NCAA that. Technically, the NCAA does not recognize "BCS titles", and anybody who receives a "BCS National Champion ring" is receiving an illegal benefit and forfeits any remaining eligibility. It's what the NCAA institutions agreed to (yes, including LSU, and they confirm this every year they accept NCAA basketball money and show up to things like the NCAA Men's Outdoor Track & Field Championship). If you can show me anywhere in the current NCAA bylaws where what I said is incorrect, let me know.
(Do not confuse the BCS Championship with the AFCA National Champion, which happens to be the BCS Championship Game winner, and which does entitle players to a championship ring. However, this is ONLY because of the deal between the AFCA and the BCS.)
(And note that Pete Carroll's comments about "the system the coaches agreed to" was a reference to the fact that USC wasn't the consenus/uninamous/sole national champion that year - not that LSU was the only one.)
-- Don ___________________________________________________________
Because everybody needs insurance, but not everybody needs a lawyer - THAT'S why
|
