Topic: RANT SPORTS: Ranking Every Top-25 Team's Biggest Strength Heading into 2014

[_sturt_]

I'm confident... absolutely confident... you're telling the truth about the laughing... what else can you do?... You laugh when someone makes a point that you can't counter intellectually... naturally, then, you laugh when someone brings up a time you embarrassed yourself... and then ... naturally, also... deflection... in this case, "oh it wasn't about me, silly, it was about you," followed by... naturally... another attempt at humor.

Comedy. Deflection. Both of those are your go-to reactions to anything that makes you uncomfortable. They define who you are. And you'll never be taken seriously because you clearly don't expect to be taken seriously.

[MUsince96]

I'm serious in threads that warrant it, but I also have a sense of humor. Sorry I can't argue againt lunacy, it's much better to have fun with it.

Did C-USA ever get back to you on your master-plan a few months back?

[_sturt_]

I'm serious in threads that warrant it, but I also have a sense of humor.

And I'm sure you're always considered among the most highly-regarded minds in those threads.

See? I also have a sense of humor.  :P

Sorry I can't argue againt lunacy, it's much better to have fun with it.

Again... comedy... aaaaaaannnnnndd...

Did C-USA ever get back to you on your master-plan a few months back?

...deflection.

Thanks for one more illustration.

And at the risk of replying seriously to what is only intended as another basis for your comedic impulse... yes, it was acknowledged. And even if it hadn't been, it's not as-if I could expect anything more than that. They aren't going to respond with "we're going to try to pursue this." If they ever do, we'll all learn of that at the same time, I'm sure. For those of us who don't sit on our hands, it's satisfying just to throw a starfish back in the ocean... we do what we can when we can, and we feel good about that, regardless of the result... or, as importantly, what anyone else would judge as a successful result.

[MUsince96]

Dang bruh, why you mad though? That was a serious question, I was interested.

[_sturt_]

Dang bruh, why you mad though? That was a serious question, I was interested.

Mad?

Who's mad?

From where I sit, a person doesn't have to be "mad" to be serious and straight with someone else.

Just shooting straight with you, my friend. I'm persuaded you want attention. I'm not persuaded that you want credibility. The comedian thing and the deflection thing just aren't going to let you get there, assuming that's even a goal.

[fuzzy fillez]

fuzzy, first, "mega-dittos" on most of what you said above.

Perhaps even more than appreciating the content, I appreciate the tone. Hopefully, I won't put you on the defensive if I offer a slight disagreement, and then I'd like to build on something you said...

1. It's one thing to say "I think we're in a good position just as things stand, positioning ourselves as the most attractive candidate for AAC expansion in the future." It's a different thing to say, "I recognize we're in a bad position, but what can we do? We have no influence."

Where the former is concerned, while I disagree with the premise... let me come back to that... I agree with you that the former is a legitimate long-term position and one that isn't inherently self-gratification-driven.

Notice what I said please: "We're in a real pickle here. A real one. Not imagined. Almost no one with any common sense is oblivious to that."

In saying that, I ruled out those who accept the "we're in a good position" premise. So, I did not actually talk about them... the oblivious... in that post. I wouldn't and didn't paint those people as only caring about themselves. But you can read into what I said that I do "paint them" as ignoring their own common sense. I feel a little sorry for them because I perceive them as the personality type that tends toward a feeling of powerlessness... in the vein of (but not so extreme as) Stockholm Syndrome, in that in the midst of their feeling powerless, they exaggerate every small/shallow something to feel good about to salve their conscience. Feeling like they have no influence, they cower to whatever authority or "the man" tells them and make the best of it psychologically.

2. Let's talk about that premise now--i.e., that we're not actually in a pickle..

You pointed to the recruiting disadvantages. True.

But I contend that there is a more substantial aspect to the problem staring us in the face that echo the same dire consequences:

Every year that an American or MWC conference gets the access bowl, they reap the financial benefits... and with every year they do so, they widen the gulf between us and them... the top tier of Go5 and the bottom tier of Go5... more and more.

In other words... sitting on our hands is the best option if you're content to see us become the best program among the bottom tier... of the bottom half... of D-1 schools.

I don't know how else to put it. We're at pivotal point. We need to be in contention for the major bowl and its financial benefits NOW, not later at some imagined date in the future when Texas and Oklahoma (the clear opinion leaders within the Big XII) flip-flop and decide the Big XII can expand after all, and there becomes some hope that the ripple effects give us a shot to fill an AAC slot. We cannot afford... literally... to put this off. We need to do whatever can be done to be a year-in-year-out contender that the CFP 13 looks at.

So you are saying that you see a divide between one group that you think are oblivious and the other who you think are cynical. Now maybe that's right--I haven't read everything--but from what I have read Im not seeing any distinct divide like you are. A lot of the same people who say that its futile to pursue anything seem to be the same people who say that Marshall and CUSA don't have anything to be worried about.

It makes some sense if you think about it that the ones who are satisfied with status quo would want to promote the idea that its pointless to try to change anything, so why bother. That way even the people who are willing to admit CUSA schools disadvantage don't pose a threat to what they want.

The way I see it we have been competitive with all of those AAC schools for all these years even without having the talented team we have this year. I hate that by practically any outsiders point of view we are going to have to come out of this season with at least one less loss than any of them and maybe even two. I agree that our players deserve better and that's what we all should care about more than anything else--this year and in future years.

And you know I just don't think its that big of a reach to think that if some of us rose up and got behind Hamrick to push for more scheduling flexibility that he would entirely agree with that and get it on a conference meeting agenda in the next year. Like I said before it only makes sense that having more options is a good thing whether youre talking about football scheduling or anything else.

[ought-three]

Oh crap, I got pulled into this discussion  :o

Here's my bright side: There are teams out there who would have a losing season against our upcoming schedule. I'm excited to see our team win a lot of games this year. I don't expect the team to receive a lot of accolades for it, but that's more of a secondary problem for me.

Going back to my post that _sturt_ liked, you have to have specific, measurable goals. For me:

* Beat Miami and Ohio.
* Double-digit wins. (If they reach the above goal then this one is optional)
* Win CUSA.
* Win a bowl.

I've started on the preseason ratings. It will take a while because I have two other big projects going, but they should be ready in time for the season. Yay fun.

[banker]

Had already corrected the entry error that the poster above also caught. But also, given a second glance, I see that I missed a couple of MWC teams, so instead of 104, it becomes 105.

I figure anyone having taken the most elementary math class recognizes the value of averages and medians as opposed to picking out a number and saying "there's 7 of A and 7 of B within these 50 numbers." That is because it's fairly arbitrary from a statistician's perspective to just pick a number... the top 48 or the top 28 or whatever... and count as-if that describes the picture very well. In this case, the original poster bringing up the "fun facts" could have just as easily made a big deal that there are only 2 American teams in triple digits, while there are 5 for everyone else. Curiously... and yes, there's a sarcastic tone in saying that word... he didn't. Curiouser still is that he thought anyone would be so shallow as to draw any worthwhile conclusion from such an arbitrary count and not look deeper. It's sometimes as-if he's a double-agent, setting up strawmen just to make the all-is-hunky-dorry crowd seem simple-minded.

I understand the desire to better account for the teams that don't show up in the "Lower 48" by calculating the lowest possible average each conference can obtain. And I appreciate that. It represents an improvement over merely showing the percentage of teams for each conference that show up in that L48 group, which is what I did.

We'll see how that plays out, of course, as the whole USA Today ranking is revealed. But statistically, it's doubtful we'll see much change in the pattern already evident--i.e., the conference's ranking relative to each other. 48 of 128 would seem a pretty decent data set from which to make some solid projections.

If so, we'll see the two tiers develop again:

American at the top, MWC slightly behind... a distinct gulf until the next conference shows up, which might be CUSA depending largely on Marshall's rank, or still could be MAC... and then Sun Belt slightly behind those two.

If the USM thing had been your only error.  I guess you don't realize that there are only 11 teams in the AAC, therefore having 7 already ranked means that 63% of their teams are already listed, not 58%.  Listing the number of teams already ranked is of significance as each new team listed serves to decrease the mean and the median. 

When you get right down to it, there is not a lot of difference between a team ranked 110 and a team ranked 95, they are both projected to be pretty bad. Both the AAC and CUSA have 7 teams ranked in the bottom third of FBS football.  The difference is that CUSA will have 6 schools not ranked in the bottom third while the AAC will only have 4. Now I fully expect that the AAC will have at least 3 schools ranked ahead of the second highest ranked CUSA team, but at the end of the countdown the difference in mean and median for the two conferences will be nominal.

Look at it this way, if you combine the conferences 6 of the 12 highest ranked teams will be from CUSA. That's already guaranteed. There's also a good possibility that CUSA could have the highest rated team. Given that I would be interested to know how anyone who has taken even an elementary math class could predict that there will be a wide divide between the two conferences (wow, trying to be snarky is fun.  Now I know why you do it all the time).

[fuzzy fillez]

 :P (oops--meant in response of ought-three's "pulled-in" comment)

[_sturt_]

So, I tell you I appreciate an idea you had, Moses, yet I'm the one who's "snarky."

Um. Yeah. Par for the course.  :P

Good pick-up on the AAC thing... I agree I missed that Navy arrives next season.

I also must have missed something on the MWC number since you brought 110 down from the mountain, and being a mere human myself, the average turned out to be 105.

Finally, glad you're suddenly getting all horned up over numbers, but hope you won't let numbers get in the way of any burning bush edicts. You're still smarter than the numbers. And like always, if you ever have reason to question that, heck, just change the criteria to fit your conclusion.

[banker]

Sturt, I always have the numbers and my opinions are always based on fact. I just don't bore everyone ad naseum by constantly filling up posts with them.

And yes, your original comment about anyone who has had even an elementary math class was just you being the pompous little azz you always are. Why do you even pretend like you don't realize your own intent?  I made it through 4 years of calculus, but in a way you are correct, I haven't had an elementary math class in quite some time, so maybe I forget something.  I did make a mistake once, I bought a pencil with an eraser.

[_sturt_]

Questions... you prompt so many questions with just a few lines...

1. Why are you such a pretender, Moses?

2. Why is it so difficult for you to admit you didn't have the numbers but asked me to put them together when you made the claim about CUSA teams' records when going west to east?

3. Why is it that your opinion on that occasion was not actually "always" justified by fact?

4. Isn't it fairly pompous of your little azz to expect that everyone should just accept whatever you present as brought down from a mountain or proclaimed from a burning bush?

5. And isn't it a little much for anyone to believe that you're only being considerate of everyone else to not support your opinions with so many facts at your divine disposal?

6. Could you inform me, a mere mortal, of what trick any of the calculus courses or that elementary math class taught you that produced a 110 average for MWC?

7. On that same topic... did you really figure no one noticed you avoided going there?

8. Is your ego that delicate that you can't acknowledge the occasional mistake?

Never mind #8. Rhetorical question.

EDIT==============================

Speaking of boring... this is so freakin ridiculous. The last word? Have at it. This particular discussion is just a rabbit hole course. Tedious. I've lost interest. Take your best shot.

Fuzzy, back to you... I believe the lesson here is that there are the oblivious but not particularly cynical... the cynical but not actually oblivious... and then, there are the oblivious and cynical.

[BuyNtelos4]

Now personally I think they miss that there's a hazard with that way of thinking, which is that you're going to eventually feel the effects of that in recruiting, with players choosing American and even Mid-American schools because, even assuming success (and that's actually not a given, of course), Marshall will have the reputation of never actually getting to an access bowl. I have come to agree that we really need to do something different. And that as fans we really need to be talking about this and attempting to come together to speak with one voice. I think that's what you're trying to say (?).

I understand where you are coming from about an easy schedule, but can not agree with your premise about it being our plan long term.  We have historically played very difficult non-conference schedules throughout the last 15 years or so, akways playing at least one former "BSCS" opponent and many years playing 2 of them in the 4 game non-conference portion of our schedule.  Everyone is making a huge deal about our schedule being notoriously easy this year, mostly IMO due to the fact that we have what is expected to be the best team we have had since 99.  However, no one created or planned for us to have this easy schedule.  I'm sure you know that Louisville backed out on us at basically the last minute due to their ACC commitments.  That is beyond our control. 

Your long term prognosis is what I disagree with.  You aren't going to have athletes committing to go to MAC schools over us because of the easy schedules tha we play, ever.  We will very likely to lose recruits to AAC programs, as will the MAC and the Sun Belt, but not because of the non-conference portion of our schedule, but instead simply based on the perception of that conference as possibly the strongest out of the non P5 conferences because they have Cincy, UConn, UCF, ECU, and Houston, among others, all generally stronger programs than what we have or what the MAC has. 

We aren't going to consistently miss out on the access bowl slot if we are undefeated either, and if we do, it won't be a MAC school beating us out of it, unless there is no undefeated program from the AAC, C-USA, or MWC, and the MAC has an undefeated program. 

We have Purdue and OH on the schedule next year, and Louisville in 2016, so just like in years past we are going to get right back to our consistency of having a tough non-conference schedule with a P5 school, 2 MAC/AAC level teams, and an FCS. 
Main point, we will never lose recruits to the MAC due to consistently being overlooked for the access bowl, if we aren't able to get there, they won't be able to either.  Not will we lose recruits to the MAC due to the ease of our schedule, because their schedule isn't any tougher. 

A lot of our conference mates lose recruits to the AAC, because of that conference being perceived as stronger.  We are the team in our conference that can fix that, by living up to our expectations, and getting that access bowl bid over them, and winning once we get there.  The AAC will be just like C-USA has been over the last 10 years.  The strongest mid shoe program a Ross the board, but the too 5-6 teams are close enough in quality and talent level that they will beat up on each other and each team akways seems to end the season with atleast one conference loss.  One team is never able to seperate away from the lack and go undefeated because there is true midmajor quality across the border with the top 6-8 schools in that conference. 

I don't think we will lose that many recruits to them, and a thang think unlike our conference mates, most seasons I think we will out recruit them, because of our recent and upcoming high levels of success and growth, and the Ace, or Doctor, up our sleeve that we call Doc Holliday!

[BuyNtelos4]

Gee whiz, I apologize for writing a book guys, got ahead if myself, and I'm to tired to re read it to delete half of it:) and Sturt I was just trying to ruffle your feathers with the smack board thing, and the mission was successful, I got a whole book written in reply to me and me alone with all sorts of unique jargon in it:). I truly feel you bring a lot to the board, and really do go out of my way to read about 25% of your stuff, and generally enjoy that 25%.  Just don't generally have the time to dedicate to sitting down and reading all if it.

Have you put any consideration into doing audiobooks, wait, I mean, audioposts; that I could perhaps listen to in the car while driving:)??

[fuzzy fillez]

While we all understand the history I dont think that matters to anyone but us. In fact what just happened to us (UL suddenly backing out added to having such a watered down conference schedule compared to past years) seemingly ought to add to support for this idea of taking two conference games away from the CUSA office and giving them to Hamrick and the other ADs to do as they see best.

I didn't mean for anyone to take it that Im saying recruits would choose others because of our easy schedule. Its not the easy schedule itself. Its the bottom line result. Im saying if we allow AAC and MWC to have a jump start on the rest of us dominating the access bowl race then the competitions coaches are going to make a big deal of that. And it will translate into gains for them increasing whatever gulf is already between us.

"If we go undefeated." If theres one thing that I think I read EVERYONE saying its that we all realize what a tall order that is even for one year. So if we go into every season needing to achieve one less loss than everyone else thats tough. I just agree with sturt that maybe we can maybe we cant overcome that but regardless we ought to do what we can. And certainly not dismiss something like this where theres really no downside. By "this" again I mean the change internally in the conference to give ADs the power to schedule two more games according to their own wisdom.

[fuzzy fillez]

Hmmm. Sturt Ill have to think about that and get back to you.

[_sturt_]

We have Purdue and OH on the schedule next year, and Louisville in 2016, so just like in years past we are going to get right back to our consistency of having a tough non-conference schedule with a P5 school, 2 MAC/AAC level teams, and an FCS. 
 

Yes, that much looks to be the same in the future. No one's disagreeing with that.

What's different is what's important. Of course. You know that.

And what's different is that we've been forced to replace the UCFs ECUs Tulsas and Houstons with the likes of FIU, UNT, UTSA and even a brand new program in Charlotte.

Will things seem different in 10 years? Likely.

But we are setting that trajectory right now as to whether we're going to shrink and eliminate the gap between us and AAC and MWC or if its going to just get wider.

What's that gap look like? I posted this several months ago...

Do the math, and you'll find that the difference between the top (SEC) and what was the bottom (Big East) is only about 6.64.

The conservative estimate (necessary to estimate since it is composed of about 30% former Big East and about 70% former CUSA) for the difference between the AAC (top) and Sun Belt (bottom) is 7.44.

So, the gap between the top of G5 and the bottom is even somewhat wider than the gap between SEC and Big East.

When you add to that the numbers I'd already charted showing 5-year ranking averages for the actual schools composing the realigned conferences, you see a spread like this...

AAC = ~75 (likely to regress slightly over time to the normal curve)
MWC = ~90
MAC = ~115
CUSA = ~118 (likely to increase slightly over time to the normal curve)
SBC = ~125

Translating those numbers into a grid and matching that against the P5 conferences for some context, here's the bottom line...

- AAC is essentially the SEC of the Go5

- MWC is essentially the Big XII of the Go5

- MAC and CUSA essentially are something somewhere between the ACC and old Big East of the Go5

- SBC essentially is something somewhere between the old Big East and MWC

Like I said, we're setting the trajectory now. If you're going to Myrtle Beach from Huntington this summer, the decisions you make early in the journey are most consequential to if/when you sink your toes in the sand. If we're blind to that and don't try to do what we can, we only have ourselves to blame for ending up meandering some backcountry roads and lost instead of promptly arriving at our condo and getting the fun started.

That's what's frustrating for me. Why be so hands-off as some seem to be about this. It makes no sense if you're truly pulling for your school to advance and put players in the position to play on the biggest stage reasonable.

Finally, I choke on the words earlier that someone would rather play in the Heart of Dallas Bowl and win rather than play in the Peach Bowl and lose.

First of all, who's to say we couldn't win the Peach Bowl... more to the point, why would anyone automatically assume that? UCF fans certainly wouldn't assume that, so why are any of us talking like that? I don't get it.

But second, pragmatically and accepting the other poster's premise that we would lose one but win the other... how is it to our long-term benefit to win a bowl that pays out $1.1 million to our conference versus playing in a bowl, even if we lost, and the conference payout being something north of, conservatively, $10 million? (By the way, I can't find that anyone has reported exactly what the new payouts are going to be, given that there are essentially 6 major bowls now instead of 4... if anyone has that, please add to the discussion).

I know it pains some of you to ever even come close to agreeing with me. But please don't be so personality-focused. Think of the merits of all of this. Think of that political figure who you most dislike... for me it might be Charles Schumer. I disagree with the President (who often agrees with Schumer, of course) on a lot of things, but I not only disagree with Schumer, I strongly dislike the guy and the way he comes across. I think Mr. Obama is a likeable guy. Schumer, not so much. But even Schumer says some things on occasion that I have to agree with. Rarely. But it happens. And that's as it should be. I can't let my dislike for Schumer overall to keep me from picking out those things he's right about and nodding my head in agreement. Some of you guys have formed your own little clique of sorts here defiantly trying to put up a counter-offensive anytime I post something--one poster even recently said that s/he considers it a form of recreational to do just that. That's responding to a personality, and it's merely unfortunate at best, and completely counterproductive at worst. We aren't the biggest fan base. But we might be the most passionate one, pound-for-pound. We can make a lot happen just by acting with one voice, as fuzzy put it. But will we act with one voice. That's a huge question. Right now, it doesn't look that way. But I don't give up hope.

[HoPPy785]

Sturt, I really wish you could sum up your points in about 20 less lines. I always start to read it then just tail off.

[_sturt_]

Maybe NTelos is on to something... hehe... its a little extra work... text to PDF to audio file... but I can be accommodating every now and then...  8)

_sturt_ Reply #66 | to BuyNtelos4 | Today at 10:34:37 AM

Hoppy, as for your request, all I can say is

[fuzzy fillez]

We aren't the biggest fan base. But we might be the most passionate one, pound-for-pound.

Cant help but think theres a couple of ways to take that.

Maybe were the most passionate given our number of fans.

Then maybe were the most passionate given the pants-size of our fans.  ;D

Sorry. Just kidding. Not meaning to offend anyone but I couldn't resist.

More seriously of course Id like to think youre right. You almost have to be. It matters more to us as a group because of November 14 1970 but it also matters more to us because I think many of us come from WV or at least Appalachia and many of us are raised with such an underdog or black sheep way of thinking.

[_sturt_]

Going back to my post that _sturt_ liked, you have to have specific, measurable goals. For me:

* Beat Miami and Ohio.
* Double-digit wins. (If they reach the above goal then this one is optional)
* Win CUSA.
* Win a bowl.

I expect us to lose once, and if you made me place a bet with my retirement riding on it, I'd have to have the luxury of at least two losses. I feel like we have reason for confidence, but not reason for swagger. Too many stupid close wins and losses in recent memory.

So the goal from my perspective is specific, measurable and simple: No losses, period. From all I've read, I get the impression there's no shortage of us who think that way.

[fuzzy fillez]

Okay. Thought about it sturt.

Maybe you have some specific people in-mind but at least as far as I've kept up with threads along these lines I dont really see anyone who seems to think us fans are powerless (cynical) who doesnt also seem to have the attitude that we have nothing to worry about and Marshall is actually in a good place as-is (oblivious). So I dont really see that there are any who are cynical but not oblivious.

Ive also given some thought to your claim that the AAC is the equivalent of the SEC and all that. I appreciate the time and thought youve put into trying to put all of it into some context we can all make sense of. It occurs to me tho if Im understanding correctly as I went back and read the original post you specifically focused on averaging Sagarin rankings not ratings. Given your knowledge of statistics I assume you realize that there could be some difference between those two. Im not trying to create more work for you but it might be important to look at the ratings instead of rankings to come to that conclusion.

Put it this way. Take the top 1000 hs seniors. Look at them both by rank and by how they grade in terms of "stars". Now if Im not mistaken there are more 1-star than 2-star players and more 2-star than 3-star and so on. So when you look at it the difference between Player #1 and #200 is probably more steep than the difference between Player #201 and #400. And by the time you get to comparing players in that bottom half of the top 1000 you might be looking at much less actual difference between Players #501 and #700. There is reason to suspect then that you probably would see the exact same situation when looking at teams.

I say all that not to discount what you did. I agree with you that there is definitely a divide as you say between the top two conferences and the bottom three. But Im only saying we need to look deeper and consider the ratings numbers instead of the rankings numbers to see if the differences are as dramatic as youve suggested. I would hate for us to be the equivalent of something between the ACC and Big East and looking up at two other conferences that are more like the SEC and Big 12. The rankings say that but we dont know if the ratings say that.

Still I guess I have to be open to the possibility that my protest is muchado about nothing. It occurs to me that the divide might be based more on perception than reality and yet it could be said that perception matters even more than reality since 13 people each with some biases of their own are going to make the final judgments.

[_sturt_]

I say all that not to discount what you did. I agree with you that there is definitely a divide as you say between the top two conferences and the bottom three. But Im only saying we need to look deeper and consider the ratings numbers instead of the rankings numbers to see if the differences are as dramatic as youve suggested. I would hate for us to be the equivalent of something between the ACC and Big East and looking up at two other conferences that are more like the SEC and Big 12. The rankings say that but we dont know if the ratings say that.

You might have a point here. I'm not sure. But if so, the 2013 numbers actually point to the opposite conclusion--i.e., that the differences top-to-bottom among the non-contract bowl conferences are actually more dramatic than at the top in among the contract bowl conferences (... I refuse to use that P word b/c its just another way of for big media to exercise their condescension against us).



Notably, the last place conference among the contracts ended up about the same distance from the top as the THIRD place conference among the non-contracts did from their top.

The greatest divide among the contracts was about 3 points. The greatest divide between the non-contracts was about 5 points.

So, again 2013 is just one year, but just in terms of the surface info, it's consistent with what we should expect from having looked at rankings comparisons.

Here's what should give us some hope though... being that I'm not one of the fatalists/cynics on this board, I should point this out  ;)...

Who won the national championship for the 2013 season? It was a school from the LAST place conference among the contracts (ie, in terms of ratings), which equated to appx. the 3rd place conference among the non-contracts.

Lesson: It's do-able.

(I should define "do-able"... i.e., emerging as the best school among your half of D-1.)

But. Yes, there's always a but.

But... with the caveat... that FSU's regular season schedule included three top 25 schools, two of those top 10 (Clemons was #3 when they played, and UMiami was #7).

Lesson: It's do-able when you have some high-caliber schools in your conference who show up on your schedule.

Failing that, to vault yourself to the top, you're going to need to find some other way to get some high-caliber schools perennially on your schedule.

Oh, and one more thing... indeed, it was widely taken for granted last season that FSU did need to go undefeated in order to get to pinnacle.

[banker]

Questions... you prompt so many questions with just a few lines...

1. Why are you such a pretender, Moses?

2. Why is it so difficult for you to admit you didn't have the numbers but asked me to put them together when you made the claim about CUSA teams' records when going west to east?

3. Why is it that your opinion on that occasion was not actually "always" justified by fact?

4. Isn't it fairly pompous of your little azz to expect that everyone should just accept whatever you present as brought down from a mountain or proclaimed from a burning bush?

5. And isn't it a little much for anyone to believe that you're only being considerate of everyone else to not support your opinions with so many facts at your divine disposal?

6. Could you inform me, a mere mortal, of what trick any of the calculus courses or that elementary math class taught you that produced a 110 average for MWC?

7. On that same topic... did you really figure no one noticed you avoided going there?

8. Is your ego that delicate that you can't acknowledge the occasional mistake?

Never mind #8. Rhetorical question.

EDIT==============================

Speaking of boring... this is so freakin ridiculous. The last word? Have at it. This particular discussion is just a rabbit hole course. Tedious. I've lost interest. Take your best shot.

Fuzzy, back to you... I believe the lesson here is that there are the oblivious but not particularly cynical... the cynical but not actually oblivious... and then, there are the oblivious and cynical.

1. I'm not a pretender.

2. I did have them, still do.

3. don't understand what you are trying to imply, see #2 above.

4. No, because I am correct.

5. No.

6. I don't know, maybe the fact that I actually know that New Mexico is in the MWC, you seemed to have excluded them from your numbers.  Oh, you missed Wyoming too.  Hard to keep data when you don't even know which teams are in a conference I guess.  You only had 4 MWC teams listed when, at the time of my post, I correctly had 5 teams listed, Hawaii at 123, UNLV at 111, New Mexico at 110, Wyoming at 103 and Air Force at 102.  If you add those up, that's 5 teams with a total of 549 points.  You divide 549 by 5 and you get 109.8, which rounds to 110.  Seriously, that's 4 errors I have now had to point out to you on your chart.  You want me to just email you mine when I update it so you have the correct numbers?

7.  I didn't go there because I didn't really want to embarrass you by showing your lack of even knowing who is in what conference.  But since you pushed, there you go.

8.  I didn't make a mistake, how you doing with your mistake?  Just remember, Wyoming and New Mexico, proud members of the MWC.

Glad I could help.

[_sturt_]

(oops... should've quoted for the archives... let me correct that...)