Who's the best in nation ???

Hawaii is not a very good team either. Texas Tech is basically a much better version of the Rainbows.

 

Let's make sure that you don't lose this in the verbiage either.

Now, if you insist on your infantile continuting your "liar, liar" response, perhaps you could please quote me on where I said that you specifically said, MTSU vs. LSU or UL was a big game. Preesh.

I'll respond to the rest later.

 

Here:

I defined my big games as those between a top 25 team and another legitimate bowl-worthy team of that type that would be in the "others receiving votes" category. That does not include MTSU, which is why I did not list any of their games as "big games."

Moreover, you knew that I didn't, so can't we just stop with the games? You're trying to play with the word "solid" to focus on something entirely irrelevant that I didn't say because you're so badly losing the rest of your argument. Now will you or will you not admit that you wrong when you said:

"There are currently on a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler."

and "aside from established rivalries, there are almost no intra-sectional games in football anymore."

 

Vandy

 

Are you serious? Did you miss this part " at least as defined by you?"

I was using Collin’s Big Game Theory ™ to define the matchup. So, unless you want to argue that LSU or UL were not top 25 teams, that you did not state that MTSU was solid a team, or that your definition of a big game was a game involving a top 25 team and a generally solid, team, then you need to go ahead and shut the fuck up.

No, you defined it like this:

Are you denying that you wrote that?

But, since you brought it up, I went ahead and looked at your original list based on your latest (but presumably not last) definition of what is a big game and found that 4 out of the 16 don’t meet the CBGT, and there were others where one of the teams was barely on the ORV list (Oklahoma State 3, Washington 1, Florida State 5).

Week 1: KSU-Auburn
Week 3: WVU-Maryland
Week 4: TAMU-Miami, Maryland-Rutgers

So, that’s almost half the games that either don’t (or barely) meet the latest derivation of the CBGT. Combined with the changes that you make with seemingly every post, it really does make this statement particularly hilarious.

While it is certainly true that you did not include them in your list, your logic of what constitutes a big game certainly would mean that was a big game.

Really? You didn’t say this?

Are you sure, because the fact that I have quoted it multiple times and it is extremely clear that you actually DID type it would be kind of silly to try to deny it now. Unless you want to lie about it, of course.

As clearly shown by the schedules of each of the top 10 teams, I stand by that statement. Of course, I don’t know enough about college football to conclude that LSU v. MTSU is a big game.

Yes, that is what I wrote. Of course, you know very well that I meant big games – as that was the entire topic of the conversation. But yes, that statement is technically incorrect because there are plenty of intra-sectional games. They just generally don’t involve 2 heavyweight teams.

But, I really don’t have a problem admitting when I am wrong.

 

I’ll take your word for it, since it is extremely clear that you are the expert on this particular subject

Fully a quarter of your big games didn’t even live up to the say that you defined it, and another 3 barely qualify.

You clearly knew that I meant that there were few intra-sectional games involving major teams (since that has been the entire discussion). But, yes the fact is that there are plenty of intra-sectional games, because the major teams have to find their cupcakes from somewhere.

Where did I say that they should?

Nice to know that you established my standard for me. That was awfully kind of you. But since I never said that was my expectation, for me to try to argue in favor of it would be kind of dumb.

Really?

Incorrect – as the schedules that I posted clearly show, most of the preseason top 10 have only 2 to 5 big games, with the vast majority of those big games being in conference. I’m not sure how even you could think that somehow proves your theory.

That is totally incorrect. I said that a playoff, in conjunction with a SOS component, might have that effect. In case you have forgotten, here is the quote:

Not only did you not show any such thing, 25% of your game fail to live up to the artificial standard that you have used to define these games.

See the previous post. I’m not lying about anything. I am however applying your logic to the situation. I figured that would be OK, because, as you have repeatedly pointed out, Idon’t know as much about football as you do.

This is simply and unequivocally untrue.

Um, I was the one who listed the football schedules.

Is the season over? I didn’t think so.

But way to pin your argument on the happenings of what has widely been described as the most upset prone CFB season in quite some time.

Great, thanks for further evidence that the current 1-2 system does has plenty of holes.

While there certainly have been some exceptions to the rule, very few Cinderellas win it all.

 

No, they all do, which is why I included them. You said something dumb and instead of being honest enough to admit that you were wrong, you keep trying to invent new reasons why you supposedly weren't wrong. The fact is that I listed enough games to prove you wrong and yet you're still running your mouth.

Dude, there aren't "few." That's the whole point, and that's what I already proved. I showed you numerous examples while you claimed that there weren't any, but I should have known that you wouldn't have the integrity to admit that you were wrong. I think the fact that it's me you're arguing against is making you more stubborn because you just don't like conceding mistakes when I'm the one who points them out.

You're suggesting that teams playing only 2-3 of their 4-5 non-conference games against good opponents isn't enough. If they played many more, they'd just have to play each other all the time.

Can you honestly not remember what you wrote or are you lying about that because you don't want to stand by that opinion anymore? You did say:

"If you include a strength of schedule component, I think that a playoff system would actually enhance the regular season, because you could have good losses, as you do in b-ball."

&

"There are currently on a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler. There are more big games in the SEC, but they are the exception. Basketball has more in season marque games because the penalty for losing one of these games is not very great, and in the end, they can actually benefit you with your seeding."

Clearly you were saying that a playoff would cause teams to schedule more top notch opponents when, as I said, the opposite is true. Big match-ups have increased since the advent of the BCS because there are only two spots in the national championship and teams feel like they need to beat someone special to get one of those slots. If you increase their margin for error by increasing the number of teams qualifying for the national championship, you will decrease rather than increase the number of tough match-ups on their schedule.

Yes, really. You claimed that "There are currently on a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler." I would never agree on that because it's something only an idiot with absolutely no clue about college football would say. Hell, you've already admitted that you don't follow college football that closely or know that much about it, so it's amusing to see you pretending that you have enough knowledge for a qualified opinion. It's even more entertaining considering that you repeatedly prove your lack of knowledge.

You're trying to dodge answering for what you said. You claimed that all but a few games on any schedule are nothing but filler. Do you or do you not stand by that obviously wrong statement?

Huh? You just confirmed exactly what I claimed that you said, so how is that incorrect?

You specifically claimed that I said MTSU qualified as "big games" when I certainly did not say any such thing. You lied because you were badly losing this argument and wanted a petty way of attacking me for exposing the idiocy of your position. You lied, and I'm not surprised that you lack the integrity to correct yourself since that would presumably be the type of thing to prevent you from lying in the first place.

What facts have you provided?

I was the one who listed the significant inter-conference match-ups on page 3. You made your notations on page 4.

I applaud you for being such a coward that you refuse to admit being wrong about this either. Obviously if someone can rise from being unranked in the preseason to being #2 by midway through the college football season, they could make the national championship game if they simply won all their games. You claimed that it was impossible and you were wrong, but like everything else you've been wrong about, you refuse to acknowledge that.

I already acknowledged that it was far from perfect, but I've also pointed out that a playoff system would have most of the same flaws in addition to some all new ones. The models that have been proposed would make the situation worse, not better, and no one has ever dared to argue with me about that because they know that they can't win. They bitch at me and insist that it's "obvious" a playoff would be better, but they're too scared to actually make a case and stand by it.

Sure, but the true Cinderellas wouldn't even qualify for a football playoff because they wouldn't rank high enough. We're talking about good to very good teams getting hot at the right team and beating great teams that are clearly better over the course of the season but lost at an inopportune moment. That's happened time and time again in the NCAA tournament, although you can certainly get deserving teams like '06 Florida as well. Playoffs don't always fail to crown the best team or at least someone you could successfully argue was the best over the course of the season, but they have far less success at it than something like the BCS.


And just to highlight this again, you were wrong when you said:

• "There are currently on a few big games on any football schedule - the rest is just filler."
• "aside from established rivalries, there are almost no intra-sectional games in football anymore."
• "LSU or Louisville v. MTSU is a big matchup – at least as defined by you."
• "I think that a playoff system would actually enhance the regular season"

You haven't acknowledged any of those mistakes, vp. Instead you pretend that you weren't wrong or outright lie about what you said, just like S_Nut. You guys are two sides of the same coin, which is why I really despise both of you. I absolutely hate intelligent people who don't have the honesty or integrity to care about the truth far more than I do anyone for being stupid. The very existence of people like you makes me want to throw up. I would actually pay money for the opportunity to beat you into a bloody mess just to relieve the stress that comes from reading your posts.

 

Opinion does not equal truth.

 

that's just your opinion

 

Let me go google some cites and I'll be right back. You wait here, k?