From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: Miami #1
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 20:09:18 GMT
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1992Nov12.143659.17738@u.washington.edu> yeonwook@hardy.u.washington.edu (Mark Choi) writes:
>This is where you are ignorant of the facts. Washington's schedule 
>is #11 on the official NCAA rating scale. Miami is #21. I agree

What official NCAA rating scale are you talking about???  I didn't realize
the NCAA had an "official" strength of schedule rating...  Miami's schedule is
considered higher on some strength of schedule ratings as well.

>that Miami should be number 1 due to a number of factors, mainly
>because of their record. However, it is inappropriate to assume that
>Washington doesn't deserve a high Top 10 ranking. It is also inappropriate
>to say that Washington's time in number one was not well deserved.

All of this is true.  I wouldn't say Washington deserves a "high" top 10
rating at this point.  All 5 teams ahead of them deserve to be so at this
point.

>that Michigan is much much better this year. Overall, Washington has
>played against more Top 25 teams than Miami has. 

Based on current standings or course of year schedules???  
Miami has played #5 FSU, #9 Arizona, and #22 Penn State so far.  They are
schedule to face #10 Syracuse next week.  Washington has faced the currently
#7 Nebraska, #9 Arizona, #15 Stanford, #18 USC, and are scheduled to face
the #21 WSU team.  If you take the schedule as of this week, then Washington
then has faced more ranked opponents.  This wasn't true 2 weeks ago when they
hadn't played but 2 ranked teams.  And, two weeks from now, I would venture
that things will be about even again...
>
>HUSKIES, not HUSKERS. First of all, yes, Washington did get shut down
>offensively. However, so did Arizona. You should note that the game was
>much harder fought than the 16-3 score indicates. A compliment to the
>Arizona team indeed. The game was statistically Washington's. I am not,
>however, going to make any excuses (and I can make a lot =), because I
>feel the game wasn't an upset, for Arizona is a genuine football team.
>You do not realize the competitive nature of the PAC-10...the conference
>of champions. There is no doubt that the PAC-10 is THE BEST CONFERENCE.
>If we go by your way of calculating team strength, I would be counting
>Stanford's win at Notre Dame and mixing it with Stanford's losses at 
>PAC-10 schools in order to determine a fair Stanford ranking. Arizona
>also shows you the depth of our conference. I'll bet on 95% of all 
>PAC-10 bowl playing teams to win their games.

No one is taking away anything from the PAC-10, which could very well be the
#1 conference this year, especially all the way down.  Don't count out some
of the others though.  The Big East has Miami (#1), Syracuse (#10), and 
Boston College (#17), as well as a previously ranked W.Virginia.
 
The SEC has Alabama (#2), Florida (#11), Georgia (#12), Mississippi (#16),
and Tennessee (#23), as well as very talented Mississippi and Auburn teams.

As a comparison, the PAC-10 has #6 Washington, #9 Arizona, #15 Stanford, 
#18 USC, and #21 WSU.  The PAC-10 has 6 teams with winning records at this
point  while the SEC has 8.  I am sure that their are many people that would
be willing to argue the point.  
-- 
David T. Meeks            || "New shadows tugging at the corner of his eye
VMark Software, Inc.      ||  Jostling for attention as the sunlight flares
uvmark!davem@merk.com     ||  Through a curtains tear, shuffling its beams
davem%uvmark@merk.com     ||  As if in nervous anticipation of another day"