From: sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mike.r.sager)
Subject: Re: Some comments
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:48:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.155931.67286@uvmark.uucp>, davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.040411.22578@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mike.r.sager) writes:
> >
> >If Miami beats Alabama, then they deserve to be ranked ahead of Alabama.  It
> >doesn't mean (to me, at least) that they deserve to be the MNC.  Because they
> >barely beat both Arizona and Florida St. in Miami doesn't convince me that
> >they're better than these two teams.  And just because Washington lost in
> >Arizona, I'm not convinced that Miami is better than Washington.  What would
> >a playoff prove?  How about, who the best team is in head-to-head matchups
> >at a neutral site.  It works quite well in college basketball.
> 
> Ok..  You state that if Miami beats Alabama, they should be ranked ahead of
> them.  By the same logic, you should then agree that Miami should be ranked
> ahead of Florida State, Arizona, and Penn State.  If Miami goes on and beats

First of all, the reason I stated that Miami should be ranked ahead of Alabama
if they beat them in the Sugar Bowl is that they're playing at a neutral site
unlike the Miami/Florida St and Miami/Arizona games.  To me, home field is an
important advantage and should not be discounted when comparing teams.  If
Miami had won these two games convincingly, that would be different.  It would
make me think that Miami could have probably beat them anywhere.  However, both
games were close right down to the end.  Because of this, I'm not convinced
that Miami is a better team than the other two teams.

> Syracuse, don't forget them, as they are currently #10.  That could be 4 top
> ten teams that Miami would have beaten (or five if you consider that PSU was
> top 10 for a long time). What more do you want???  FSU has looked great at 
> times.  They have beaten NCState, Clemson, NCarolina, and Virginia.   That
> is a good bunch.  They still face Florida, another quality team.  But, 
> that is not quite the same as facing FSU, PSU, Arizona, Syracuse, W.Virginia,
> and possibly Alabma, now is it...  Whether they win those games by 1 pt or

Well, since you're including Alabama on Miami's shcedule, you should also add
a quality opponent to Florida St's schedule, i.e., whoever they end up playing
in their bowl game.  But nevertheless, I'd probably concede that Miami has
a tougher schedule than Florida St.  However, when I look at these two teams,
I base my comparison on their meeting this year, a game barely won by Miami in
Miami.  As I've said before, given these factors, I'm not convinced that
Miami is better than Florida St.

> 30 pts, the point is, they won the game.  Everyone keeps talking year after
> year about how great FSU is.  And, I agree.  Everyone talks about how they are
> the best team in the nation, but when it comes down to it...  They keep losing
> to Miami. As for the UW/Miami comparison, it is really hard to make.  But,
> if Washington beat Arizona, everyone was ready to state UW was better than
> Miami.  Now that Arizona BEAT Washington (by a LOT of points also), you are
> still unwilling to admit the UW was not as good this year.   You talk

If Washington had won in Arizona, the only thing it would have to me is that
Washington is better than Arizona.  But Arizona did win the game and they
could be better than Washington.  I'm just going by personal opinion that I
think Washington would have won the game if it was in Washington.  I admit
I can't back up this statement.

> about head-to-head matchups, but then you discount Miami beating FSU and
> Arizona.  You lack any consistency in your arguments, with the exception of
> your obvious dislike of the fact that Miami is #1.

I've already explained this above.  You might disagree with me about the
importance of home field.  All I can say then is, we can agree to disagree.

> 
> >I agree.  What Miami did was very impressive and they just might be the
> >best team.  I just think a few other teams should be given some consideration
> >based on what they've done this year.  Miami may have overlooked Arizona,
> >but it's also possible Arizona is even better now than when they played
> >Miami.  As you said, they just tied Oregon St. the week before they played
> >Miami.  Did they suddenly become a great team in one week or could it be
> >that they've improved a little more each week since then.
> 
> And, it is possible that Miami is even better now as well.  Remember that
> not only could they have been overlooking Arizona, but they had some key
> injuries as well..

Yep, it certainly is possible.  I'd love to see the two teams play at the
end of the season at a neutral site.

You and Justin seem to think I have something against Miami.  That's not true.
As I've said before, if another team was atop the polls and the situation was
the same, I'd say the same thing.

My whole point is that I think that there are four teams above everyone else
in the country (listed alphabetically so as not to show any bias):  Arizona,
Florida St., Miami, and Washington.  Based on what I've seen this year and
considering things like home field, strength of schedule, etc., I believe
that these teams are interchangeable in terms of strength.  To me, not one
of them is clearly better than the other.  The reason I started this discussion
was that I disagreed with the apparent consensus that Miami was CLEARLY the
best team.  I've given my reasons; if you disagree, that's fine.  Unfortunately,
the only real way to settle this debate, a four team playoff at a neutral site,
is not going to happen.

> -- 
> 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"

Mike Sager
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college