Conference Pride

[nddulac]

Oh no, it's an unforeseen event, everything we know is worthless!

I didn't mean to imply that everything you know is worthless. I meant to imply that your opinion is worthless - particularly at this point of the season. But not to worry - the season begins next week. And then I will still dismiss your opinion as being worthless.

 

[The Crimson King]

Ess Jay Ess You San Jose State! (hey - they are still tied for first ...)

Week 2

 

[nddulac]

Week 2

I'll be sure to stock the liquor cabinet for that game ...

 

[LawDawg]

I'm pretty sure that it isn't because they have seen them play. Not this year anyway.

Non-answer. Not very scientific of you. What's that matter, no answer?

 

[nddulac]

Non-answer. Not very scientific of you. What's that matter, no answer?

here is a hint. I said they are uninformed.

 

[LawDawg]

here is a hint. I said they are uninformed.

I would have thought that a "scientist" would be more exact. What you said was: "I prefer to work real data rather than idle speculation by biased observers." I asked you to share with me how 49 of the 54 coaching voters, who aren't SEC coaches and have no incentive to be biased toward the SEC, would have voted 8 SEC teams in the top 25. You've dodged the answer because obviously there isn't a bias.

As to them being uninformed, I suspect they are more informed than most everyone else to make that judgment. Is it speculation? Hell, yes ... it's pre-season and we are all here speculating. If you don't want to speculate, come back in about 4 weeks and we can see what's happened. Are the pre-season polls worth a hoot. Nah. Total crap but fun to speculate about except when "scientists" butt in. But the coaches poll certainly is biased toward the SEC.

 

[LawDawg]

What everybody saying who aren't part of Team SEC is that unless your name is UF, Bama, AU or LSU, then don't talk about "SEC Dominance". UGA sure as fuck isn't part of this so called, "SEC Dominance". There are 4 schools in the SEC that matter and make a difference lately. The majority of the conference sucks. Which is OK b/c the SEC is just like all the other conferences: top heavy with some excellent teams then some decent to good teams, then average to below average teams. Once again and read closely (you claim to be a Vandy grad and attorney so this should be very easy to understand): TEAMS WIN TITLES, NOT CONFERENCES......

I am an proud member of Team SEC for reasons I've written about often. Often I get posters that tell me UGa blows/sucks, and we are riding the coattails of Bama, LSU, Auburn and UF. To the contrary, during the BCS era, the Dawgs held their own and were one of the top teams in the SEC and the BCS teams. The only thing you can really say they haven't done is win a NC, so if that is your sole measuring stick then there are a lot of teams out there that really suck. Looking at the Richt era, which entails 12 years:

- UGa has a 73% winning percentage, 6th best (excluding Boise and TCU for scheduling reasons). Only LSU in the SEC has a better win percentage. You read that right, UGa's win percentage is higher than Auburn, Bama, and UF and all the other teams UGa is supposedly coattail riding.

- 5 Division Championships, 2 SEC championships

- Have gone to a bowl game every year with an 8-4 record. 3 BCS Bowls, with a 2-1 record.

- UGa has been ranked in the top 25 EOY polls in 9 of 12 years - 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 10, 10, 19, 23. That's right, the "coattail riding" Dawgs have 5 top 6 finishes, and 7 top 10 finishes.

- Since 2007 (only data I could find), UGa has had 41 players drafted in the NFL, putting it in 3rd place nationally, and only behind LSU in the SEC. That includes 1 no. 1.

- UGa has played 2 BCS OOC in all but 2 years, including several games West of the Mississippi, so we've been in the lead of the SEC when it comes to manning up and playing OOC.

Other than no NC (in a conference that won 8 of the 12 during his tenure), does this really sould like a team that sucks and has to get its worth from other teams? Didn't think so.

 

[nddulac]

Originally Posted by nddulac
here is a hint. I said they are uninformed.

I would have thought that a "scientist" would be more exact.

Perhaps if you told me which word you didn't understand, I could help you out.

I will, however, expand. There are two important points to be made here. First, every coach (and perhaps more importantly, every coach's boss, the AD) has a huge incentive to NOT PISS OFF ESPN/ABC/The Mouse. ESPN is the source of revenue that keeps the toys flowing by creating exposure. (And if you don't think that ESPN is run by vindictive little PsOS, I can share an eye opening story with you.) You find a coach no toeing the ESPN party line, and that coach will be outted faster than shit through a goose's butt, and forever labeled as a dumbass. But perhaps that concern is such a subtlety that I give it too much credence. But I don't think so.

The second point, however, is one on which many coaches have commented - namely that as coaches of their own teams, they do not have time to see how other teams are doing. Why? Because they are too busy working on improving or maintaining how their own team is doing. They don't have time to recreationally watch games of teams not on their schedules. In many ways, the coaches are the least informed of the people who get to vote on rankings. And coaches themselves will say that (and have.)

If you don't want to speculate, come back in about 4 weeks and we can see what's happened.

Personally, I think that is a grand idea. By then, we will have some actual data. I've always liked how DIII does it - not releasing any rankings until October.

 

[4down20]

Perhaps if you told me which word you didn't understand, I could help you out.

I will, however, expand. There are two important points to be made here. First, every coach (and perhaps more importantly, every coach's boss, the AD) has a huge incentive to NOT PISS OFF ESPN/ABC/The Mouse. ESPN is the source of revenue that keeps the toys flowing by creating exposure. (And if you don't think that ESPN is run by vindictive little PsOS, I can share an eye opening story with you.) You find a coach no toeing the ESPN party line, and that coach will be outted faster than shit through a goose's butt, and forever labeled as a dumbass. But perhaps that concern is such a subtlety that I give it too much credence. But I don't think so.

The second point, however, is one on which many coaches have commented - namely that as coaches of their own teams, they do not have time to see how other teams are doing. Why? Because they are too busy working on improving or maintaining how their own team is doing. They don't have time to recreationally watch games of teams not on their schedules. In many ways, the coaches are the least informed of the people who get to vote on rankings. And coaches themselves will say that (and have.)


Personally, I think that is a grand idea. By then, we will have some actual data. I've always liked how DIII does it - not releasing any rankings until October.

Do you worry about your tinfoil hat interfering with your scientific studies?

 

[Olyduck]

Ok I will settle this MWC MWC MWC

MWC blew their chance to resemble a strong conference. if they would have retained Utah, BYU and TCU while adding in Boise and Fresno it would have at least been solid.

 

[4down20]

MWC blew their chance to resemble a strong conference. if they would have retained Utah, BYU and TCU while adding in Boise and Fresno it would have at least been solid.

Yeah I thought that kind of sucked. I am pretty sure if they had been able to maintain all those teams they would have been AQ status shortly after. It's a good example of why the top teams/conferences stay that way however.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

MWC blew their chance to resemble a strong conference. if they would have retained Utah, BYU and TCU while adding in Boise and Fresno it would have at least been solid.

It would have never happened but if they could have added Colorado I think that would have been mutually beneficial. MWC gets a program that historically had some success and Colorado gets a conference where they can actually win a few games and they could have rebuilt much easier. Its an interesting hypothetical to think about.

 

[nddulac]

Do you worry about your tinfoil hat interfering with your scientific studies?

Nope. Do you?

 

[4down20]

Nope. Do you?

You can't tell I soak in the ESPN rays like a 30lb tampon?

 

[4down20]

Btw, who is the ESPN guy who made it so the Notre Dame defense couldn't tackle Eddie Lacey?

I'd like to buy him a dinner.

 

[LawDawg]

Perhaps if you told me which word you didn't understand, I could help you out.

I will, however, expand. There are two important points to be made here. First, every coach (and perhaps more importantly, every coach's boss, the AD) has a huge incentive to NOT PISS OFF ESPN/ABC/The Mouse. ESPN is the source of revenue that keeps the toys flowing by creating exposure. (And if you don't think that ESPN is run by vindictive little PsOS, I can share an eye opening story with you.) You find a coach no toeing the ESPN party line, and that coach will be outted faster than shit through a goose's butt, and forever labeled as a dumbass. But perhaps that concern is such a subtlety that I give it too much credence. But I don't think so.

The second point, however, is one on which many coaches have commented - namely that as coaches of their own teams, they do not have time to see how other teams are doing. Why? Because they are too busy working on improving or maintaining how their own team is doing. They don't have time to recreationally watch games of teams not on their schedules. In many ways, the coaches are the least informed of the people who get to vote on rankings. And coaches themselves will say that (and have.)


Personally, I think that is a grand idea. By then, we will have some actual data. I've always liked how DIII does it - not releasing any rankings until October.

So, we go from scientific method to conspiracy theories ... got it. Well, that wraps this thread up ... it's a conspiracy.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

If your team is a "smaller" program you tend to cheer for the conference. If you cheer for a power team, you don't need the conference chant.

 

[nddulac]

So, we go from scientific method to conspiracy theories ...

Actually, what I said from the outset is that the pre-season polls are not based on data (for the rather obvious reason that no one has played yet.) How you got "scientific method" out of that is beyond me.

 

[LSU]

Since it relates to conference pride or lack there of I will take this opportunity to say Fuck Ole Piss.

That is all.

 

[4down20]

Actually, what I said from the outset is that the pre-season polls are not based on data (for the rather obvious reason that no one has played yet.) How you got "scientific method" out of that is beyond me.

I know you said you were a scientist and all....but do you know what scientific method is? Because I'm not sure how someone talking about a need for data to remove biases is not an indication of someone talking about scientific method. Especially so when you cite your need to see such data on you being a scientist.

Your shit isn't adding up.