Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 384

Thread: Would be a joke

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    20,835
    Contribute to D2
    Rep Power
    244188

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by oldweevil View Post
    I think the point I'm trying to make is that plenty of teams lost to the three playoff teams GV lost to. Arguing the quality of your losses doesn't separate you from the crowd. The quality of your wins does. And at the end of the day, the best team GV beat was a 7-4 Northwood team.

    Scoreboard.
    i think you understand the point gliac fans are making and we understand yours...best part about this is that we get to see how these conferences match up this saturday...we've seen this movie quite a few times and it usually ends like it did the year before...and the year before...and the year before...an a$$ whooping and then the folks who came into the gliac forum the week of the game disappear after the game...will the trend continue? stay tuned

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Omaha, NE Area
    Posts
    43,136
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    12500

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
    1) I would urge you to re-read Bradon's post from last night. That historical perspective on how conferences earn cred is absolutely part of my thinking. Like it or not, it is trend-based and is accurate more often than it isn't.
    2) You mention that you "haven't seen anything that is justifying the selection committee made an error". Go back and read my posts, and point out where I indicated that the committee made an error.
    3) I still have not seen anyone from the GAC offer some sort of salient perspective to sway me that their conference's play (or their members' play prior to 2011) denotes that they are a consistently more powerful league than the GLIAC.
    If you go by that, then should UCM gotten in over GV? I mean the MIAA has earned more cred than the GLIAC as of late. 2 MIAA teams have won a NC, 5 total since the last GLIAC team has won a NC. That's the problem with the conference cred issue.

    So by your own criteria, UCM should of gotten in over GV and Harding.

    Not saying it should be like that, just saying your argument isn't bedrock either. I still stand by the, don't lose 3 games mantra. Minnesota Duluth, now that is a team that should be ticked at the playoff committee. They lost to Mankato and Sioux Falls in close games and got bumped by Pueblo.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    So you find no value in the idea that GV's only three losses came at the hands of the #2, #3 and #4 teams, while Harding's 3 losses to non-playoff teams somehow is trumped by a victory over the #5 playoff team? Give me a break.
    Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. GV couldn't beat the three best teams on its schedule. What they could do, however, was establish themselves as the best of the rest in the GLIAC, but not good enough to get into the playoffs against a team that had better wins, and if you're going to refer to history, went deeper in the playoffs last year than GV did too.

  4. #204
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
    Let me start this post by, once again, stating for the record that I am NOT lobbying the premise that GV should be in over Harding. At no point in this thread have I said that should be so. HOWEVER, I still contend the case can be made the GV is a better team, and that everyone on the committee knew it to be true. That does not make Harding's selection wrong, and again, I have not once stated as such.

    As for your "scoreboard" nonsense, Harding and GAC followers were as surprised as everyone else that Harding was seeded above GV entering Week 11. Everyone knew that the SOS component overwhelmingly favored GV after week 10 (not to mention again after Week 11). And since the committee never tells anyone how they are doing things, the premise that Harding's "quality of wins...particularly on the road" would outweigh GV's SOS advantage was perhaps guessed as a possibility, but it was hardly a concrete eventuality. Frankly, the argument of the premise only exists BECAUSE things shook out this way. SOS has often been such a large determinant previously that if GV was ahead of Harding, I wager very few (if any) would have even made a peep.
    Sorry, Tony, but the "scoreboard" line isn't nonsense. It's fact. GV's best win was over Northwood. HU's best win was over a 9-2 playoff team. There's no comparison here. They were even in the primary categories, but give the edge to Harding thanks to that scoreboard thing.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by dvaara View Post
    i think you understand the point gliac fans are making and we understand yours...best part about this is that we get to see how these conferences match up this saturday...we've seen this movie quite a few times and it usually ends like it did the year before...and the year before...and the year before...an a$$ whooping and then the folks who came into the gliac forum the week of the game disappear after the game...will the trend continue? stay tuned
    I understand the point GLIAC fans are making, I just don't buy the logic that somehow GV should have gotten the edge over Harding because of stuff that happened a few years ago. I mean, if we're looking at history, let's look at last year. Harding went deeper in the playoffs than GV.

  6. #206
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by oldweevil View Post
    Sorry, Tony, but the "scoreboard" line isn't nonsense. It's fact. GV's best win was over Northwood. HU's best win was over a 9-2 playoff team. There's no comparison here. They were even in the primary categories, but give the edge to Harding thanks to that scoreboard thing.
    Oh, and three losses to teams with a combined 17-16 record. But those don't count! Those teams could be 3-30, apparently, and it doesn't matter!

  7. #207
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by JR Chaney View Post
    If you go by that, then should UCM gotten in over GV? I mean the MIAA has earned more cred than the GLIAC as of late. 2 MIAA teams have won a NC, 5 total since the last GLIAC team has won a NC. That's the problem with the conference cred issue.

    So by your own criteria, UCM should of gotten in over GV and Harding.

    Not saying it should be like that, just saying your argument isn't bedrock either. I still stand by the, don't lose 3 games mantra. Minnesota Duluth, now that is a team that should be ticked at the playoff committee. They lost to Mankato and Sioux Falls in close games and got bumped by Pueblo.
    Bingo. Don't be a three-loss team. And if you are a three-loss team, have better wins.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    10,075
    Rep Power
    561677

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    So why do we even count losses? If you want to only award playoff spots based on how many wins have been accumulated and who they were against, then fine. But that isn't how it is done. If you want to tell me that the only games we can look at are the victories, and both teams had 8 wins and Harding had the best single win over those 16 games, then fine, albeit by not much of a margin. But there are three other games for each team that also are taken in to account. At what point does it matter? If Harding is 8-3 but those 3 losses came to teams that went a combined 3-30, is that relevant then? Or no, because they still beat a playoff team and GV didn't?
    Once again, you are twisting my argument. If you have to use an argument that our losses were good losses, you are really not having a good argument. I said nothing about not using them. It is just that that argument appears to be the only one that GV fans can hang their hat on outside of the GLIAC being a better league. GV had a mediocre to okay season. They may have been a marginal playoff team. Getting left out of the playoffs happens to average to mediocre playoff teams. That is what happened to GV.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    Oh, and three losses to teams with a combined 17-16 record. But those don't count! Those teams could be 3-30, apparently, and it doesn't matter!
    If GV had taken care of business when the lights were on, this wouldn't be a debate.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    571
    Blog Entries
    85
    Rep Power
    29104

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by JR Chaney View Post
    If you go by that, then should UCM gotten in over GV? I mean the MIAA has earned more cred than the GLIAC as of late. 2 MIAA teams have won a NC, 5 total since the last GLIAC team has won a NC. That's the problem with the conference cred issue.

    So by your own criteria, UCM should of gotten in over GV and Harding.

    Not saying it should be like that, just saying your argument isn't bedrock either. I still stand by the, don't lose 3 games mantra. Minnesota Duluth, now that is a team that should be ticked at the playoff committee. They lost to Mankato and Sioux Falls in close games and got bumped by a team with a worse record!
    AGAIN...POINT OUT WHERE I HAVE LOBBIED FOR GV TO BE IN. Read my posts...I have been effusive that the three losses removes any position to complain. I am simply trying to illustrate that GV is a better team than Harding.

    AND, I have also pointed out that the GLIAC's history AND GV's histories combine into who I think. Not the GLIAC exclusively. Given what you're saying and my perceptions, I would also make the case that UCM is better than Harding. I'm not selective in how I apply those theories.

    Posters need to actually READ what other posters write, and not instill their own inferences.

  11. #211
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    571
    Blog Entries
    85
    Rep Power
    29104

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by oldweevil View Post
    Sorry, Tony, but the "scoreboard" line isn't nonsense. It's fact. GV's best win was over Northwood. HU's best win was over a 9-2 playoff team. There's no comparison here. They were even in the primary categories, but give the edge to Harding thanks to that scoreboard thing.
    LOL...way to miss the point. Again, no one from Harding thought they would be above GV entering the last week due to the SOS differential. I'm not saying Harding's wins aren't concrete...the fact that those wins would outweigh their SOS deficit, most definitely WAS NOT.

  12. #212
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by oldweevil View Post
    If GV had taken care of business when the lights were on, this wouldn't be a debate.
    Or maybe if Harding hadn't lost to a 4-7 team.

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Omaha, NE Area
    Posts
    43,136
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    12500

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
    AGAIN...POINT OUT WHERE I HAVE LOBBIED FOR GV TO BE IN. Read my posts...I have been effusive that the three losses removes any position to complain. I am simply trying to illustrate that GV is a better team than Harding.

    AND, I have also pointed out that the GLIAC's history AND GV's histories combine into who I think. Not the GLIAC exclusively. Given what you're saying and my perceptions, I would also make the case that UCM is better than Harding. I'm not selective in how I apply those theories.

    Posters need to actually READ what other posters write, and not instill their own inferences.
    Really, so if you are arguing GV is better what is the point of arguing said point? Who cares if GV is better if you aren't saying they should be in over Harding which is the whole point of this thread. To say it's not drawing lines from a to b in alluded to thoughts, you'd be crazy. Inferences as you want to call them, is there because the other person has painted a picture showing that. So basically you don't think GV should be in over Harding, you just wanted to argue that GV is a better team.

    If that is the case you have no real point or merit to anything you've brought to this discussion. You just wanted people to look at your shiny toy and not theirs. It's okay theirs is in, you aren't wanting your toy to be the one on display, you just wanted them to know your toy is better.
    Last edited by JR Chaney; 11-14-2017 at 03:09 PM.

  14. #214
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Nicolette View Post
    LOL...way to miss the point. Again, no one from Harding thought they would be above GV entering the last week due to the SOS differential. I'm not saying Harding's wins aren't concrete...the fact that those wins would outweigh their SOS deficit, most definitely WAS NOT.
    Here's what you don't understand. There are six primary criteria. The two teams were tied in two. GV led in two. HU led in two. The committee had the latitude to break the tie and went to wins. SOS deficit is just one of six criteria.

  15. #215
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Anywhere He Damn Well Pleases
    Posts
    4,454
    Rep Power
    24161

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    Or maybe if Harding hadn't lost to a 4-7 team.
    The "we had better losses" argument holds zero water. Follow along.

  16. #216
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Runnin' Cat View Post
    Once again, you are twisting my argument. If you have to use an argument that our losses were good losses, you are really not having a good argument. I said nothing about not using them. It is just that that argument appears to be the only one that GV fans can hang their hat on outside of the GLIAC being a better league. GV had a mediocre to okay season. They may have been a marginal playoff team. Getting left out of the playoffs happens to average to mediocre playoff teams. That is what happened to GV.
    I'm not twisting anything. The argument here is that Harding had the single best win between the two teams. And that was the deciding factor. And that doesn't make any sense. If all we are picking playoff teams on is who their best win was, then what are we doing here? It is an aggregate result of the season, and GV was a winner over all non-playoff teams and within 6 points of all three of their losses to playoff teams. Harding was a winner over one playoff team and a loser to three non-playoff teams. Again, I ask, how does it make any sense that one win over the #5 playoff team erases all three losses against non-playoff teams somehow?

    If we want to talk about "best wins", then why don't we do that?

    Harding and GV's games, ranked by record, not even taking score in to account. GV games in bold, losses in red:

    at Indianapolis (10-0)
    at Ashland (9-1)

    at Ouachita Baptist (9-1)
    at Ferris State (8-1)
    at Arkansas Tech (8-2)
    vs Northwood (7-3)
    at SE Oklahoma (7-3)
    vs Southern Arkansas (6-4)
    vs Tiffin (6-4)
    vs Saginaw Valley (5-5)
    at Wayne State (5-5)
    vs Arkansas-Monticello (5-5)
    at Truman State (5-5)
    vs Henderson State (5-5)
    at NW Oklahoma (5-5)
    at Michigan Tech (4-6)
    vs SW Oklahoma (3-7)
    vs Southern Nazarene (3-7)
    vs East Central (2-8)
    at Oklahoma Baptist (2-8)
    vs Northern Michigan (1-8)
    vs Davenport (1-9)


    I would submit that Harding has the best TWO victories, actually. But that they also had three absolute cakewalks, and then LOST a cakewalk and two games that would fall in to very mediocre opponents. GV had the better victories outside the top two total, and also didn't lose to anyone awful. Additionally, both teams won five games against teams .500 or above when taking the result out of each opposing team's schedule, which I believe is how the NCAA does it?
    Last edited by KleShreen; 11-14-2017 at 03:24 PM.

  17. #217
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Omaha, NE Area
    Posts
    43,136
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    12500

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by KleShreen View Post
    I would submit that Harding has the best TWO victories, actually. But that they also had three absolute cakewalks, and then LOST a cakewalk and two games that would fall in to very mediocre opponents. GV had the clear better victories outside the top two total, and also didn't lose to anyone awful.
    So your defense is top 2 games don't count for Harding? Also the two worst games on the schedule were teams GV played? I feel like I'm reading an Enron financial statement. Oh ignore these, but count these, but not these, and you get X. You are stretching/reaching/cooking books here.

  18. #218
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Omaha, NE Area
    Posts
    43,136
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    12500

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by dvaara View Post
    nobody actually believes these gac schools can compete nationally...they're the leftover scraps from the gsc And lsc...it's a conference formed from the teams who couldn't compete in the gsc or LSC so they took their ball and went home...ease up on them and cut em a little slack
    A leftover team beat GV to start the year. Any given Saturday. :-D


    SORRY SORRY SORRY! BTW, I did forget about our bet. I'll get Brandon $100, do you need it in your name for taxes?

  19. #219
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8,146
    Rep Power
    160884

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by JR Chaney View Post
    So your defense is top 2 games don't count for Harding? Also the two worst games on the schedule were teams GV played? I feel like I'm reading an Enron financial statement. Oh ignore these, but count these, but not these, and you get X. You are stretching/reaching/cooking books here.
    Not at all. I mentioned Harding had the two best victories. But beyond those two victories there wasn't much of anything there. GV had only two victories which I would say weren't "much of anything". But if we're going to count everything, then why are we not counting three spectacularly awful losses?

    Also - the GLIAC had two spectacular teams. A combined 2 losses. If you have two spectacular teams in a conference who are beating everyone else, then the records of everyone else are going to be worse. Would you rather have two teams undefeated and then a bunch of teams below .500? Or a bunch of teams just barely over .500 or hovering right there? Which is a stronger slate of opponents? Say Ashland and Ferris both had an extra loss or two. That means two or three other games on GV's schedule are teams over .500. The GAC was a jumbled mess and had a bunch of teams beat each other. That resulted in no great teams torpedoing everyone else's record.
    Last edited by KleShreen; 11-14-2017 at 03:37 PM.

  20. #220
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    571
    Blog Entries
    85
    Rep Power
    29104

    Default Re: Would be a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by JR Chaney View Post
    Really, so if you are arguing GV is better what is the point of arguing said point? Who cares if GV is better if you aren't saying they should be in over Harding which is the whole point of this thread. To say it's not drawing lines from a to b in alluded to thoughts, you'd be crazy. Inferences as you want to call them, is there because the other person has painted a picture showing that. So basically you don't think GV should be in over Harding, you just wanted to argue that GV is a better team.

    If that is the case you have no real point or merit to anything you've brought to this discussion. You just wanted people to look at your shiny toy and not theirs. It's okay theirs is in, you aren't wanting your toy to be the one on display, you just wanted them to know your toy is better.
    I think what has really happened is what I feared originally and why I was originally avoiding the topic altogether: One gets roped into nuance that they can't get out of, and one winds up defending bits and pieces that don't really add up to their original point. On top of that, people nitpick one piece of your argument, don't bother to try and understand it, and you wind up defending something that isn't really what was intended originally.

    Revisit my original post. It's #115 in this thread. I simply made the case that GV is a better team, but they don't have any room to complain because the selection process isn't about getting the best teams AND GV didn't win enough games.

    I hear what you're saying, and tend to believe we agree on this more than we don't.

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

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
  •