From: chyang@anaphora.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang)
Subject: Re: AP Top 25 (Was Re: Miami Can Not Be Denied!!!)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:55:52 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa
Originator: chyang@anaphora.engin.umich.edu


In article <1992Oct14.204200.20826@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, lor@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (edward.lor) writes:
> In article <VZ7-p3A@engin.umich.edu> chyang@andalusian.engin.umich.edu (Chung Hsiung Yang) writes:
> >> Well, the same reasoning applies to Nebraska too.. how do you know they 
> >> *didn't* improve by the end of the season?
> >
> >	That is the point!  
> That's not the point!
> 
> >They may have improved, but then again they
> >may not.  And to use that as a measureing factor is absolutely useless.
> Why not? September is part of the season. The national championship
> is for the entire season, not for November-January alone. If you are
> not ready to play in September, tough!

	Teams improve over the season.  In order to make a good comparison
you must have a controlled 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.  In this case, it did not.  
Supposed that Miami beat a improved Nebraska team at the end of the Season.
Therefore Miami is better then Washington.  With the same logic mentioned 
above, how does one know if Washington hadn't improved???  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. 
	
> 
> Florida St. lost out the championship in 1989 because of two losses
> right off the gate. Their 10-0 finish, including a blowout over Miami,
> wasn't an adequate support of "to use that (early season performance)
> as a measuring factor is absolutely useless".
> 
	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. 

	When Miami and Washington did what they were supposed to do last
year.  They won all their games!  What else can they do?  To use the 
transitive property of Washington did not beat Nebraska as soundly as
Miami therefore Miami is better is absolutely ludicrous.  I was merely 
pointing out an inconsistency of this sort of comparison.  

	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.  

	Do you think this kind of arguement is fair?   

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