From: lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: AP Top 25 (Was Re: Miami Can Not Be Denied!!!)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:47:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Oct15.164736.19544
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <kf7-FY#@engin.umich.edu> chyang@anaphora.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang) writes:
>	Teams improve over the season.  In order to make a good comparison
>you must have a controlled factor.  
But where is it stated that team progression in the season is out of  
a control factor?

>In this case, people tried to use 
>Nebraska as the control factor in comparing how good Washington or Miami is.
>But the problem here as point out by the person whom I am responding to, that
>this control factor must remain constant.  
But then there is no control factor, because a team's performance in
two different games won't be identical. Oh, you mean if the two games are
close to each other then it's a control factor? then you define the control
factor yourself, namely, two games played within, say, the same month. 

But your definition is not universally accepted, you can have yours, I can
also have mine, namely, games played within the same season. If I catch
a team when it's not ready, or with key players injured, or at my home
field, good to me!

That's all part of the game.

>Supposed that Miami beat a improved Nebraska team at the end of the Season.
>Therefore Miami is better then Washington.  
Nobody ever used this logic, beating an improved team or beating a not-yet-
improved team. You are probably the first one. The only argument is,
who beat Nebraska more soundly?

>With the same logic mentioned 
>above, how does one know if Washington hadn't improved???  
How does one know it had? there goes your what-if.

>If they had
>played Nebraska again at the end of the season, they might have beaten NU 
>much more soundly.  This kind of arguement is really very stupid. 
But this what-if is more stupid. We don't deal with what-ifs, we deal with
facts.

>	That is because they lost.  When you lose, there is really nothing
>you can do to get you're team back into the NC picture unless every one
>else loses.  But when you are comparing two unbeaten teams, that is a 
>completely different story. 
But you are talking improvement. Why do you let such an important factor
get in the way of something as insignificant as, say, records?

So why is it a different story?

>	I can also give another reason if you so desperately want to 
>waste your time and argue a moot point.  Miami played Nebraska at 
>the Orange Bowl whereas the Huskies played Nebraska at Lincoln.  So 
>Miami had a distinct home field advantage, so therefore if Washington had
>played Nebraska at home that year, they would have defeated them as 
>soundly if not more soundly than Miami.  
That's another what-if. You mean home field win doesn't count? A win is
a win, home or away. If Washington wants to show what if can do to
Nebraska at home, why don't they wait until 1992 to win the national
championship?

>	Do you think this kind of arguement is fair?   
It sure is.

-- 
                                          Edward Lor
                                          lor@cbnewsk.att.com
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college