From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: UW, Arizona, & Miami
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:46:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: uvmark.1992Nov17.194652.61537
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1992Nov17.012510.3086@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <1992Nov16.152533.30160@uvmark.uucp>,
>by davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks):
>
>[deleted blabbing]
>
>>>If you can draw any conclusions from this scenario then you have no
>>>grasp of logic and you are a pinhead!
>> 
>> The fact that you even are trying to make some point from this (lord knows
>> what that point is), shows you are a pin-head...
>
>Yo David!  How convenient that you don't post the stuff to which
>you are responding.  The scenario illustrated the lunacy, ignorance,
>and, well, pinheadedness associated with the "transitive property of
>athletic competition."  Now, go back and read this part of the original
>post (perhaps for the first time), and see that many (not just "lord"
>figured out the point.  Hurry!  It may already be too late to avoid
>at least temporary pinheadedness!

Exactly... what was your point.  No one was arguing anything concerning
the well known "transitive property" theorem.  I can't find any reference
in the posts that would lead you to believe that their was some "transitive
properties" being discussed.  No one was arguing that Miami is better than
Arizona because they beat Arizona and Washington didn't.  You made some
very erroneous comments, most notably...
1) Washington does not win by defense, that "everybody" scores on them.  
   Allowing under 11 points a game, especially when Washington has had a very
   good schedule, shows the idiocy of that statement.
2) You claim that since each team would make adjustments, the odds would be 
   the same.  However, you are assuming that both teams made the same 
   preparations and had the same expecations of the other team going into the
   game.  Miami was a well known entity.  Arizona was an unknown, and at that
   point, pretty bad team, or so it seemed.  They had not shown many signs of
   the strength they would show in the weeks to follow, especially defensively.
   Remember that they had allowed WSU to score 23 points and Oregon St. to
   score 14.  Neither team was considered a powerhouse team. At that point,
   Miami was ranked #1 (I think, maybe #2) and had already blown out the
   previously ranked Iowa Hawkeyes, in Iowa.  Arizona was expecting everything
   the got and were well-prepared.  Miami didn't expect Arizona to be that 
   tough, and were surprised.  

And then, you try to imply some kind of transitive relationship, as if I had
tried to establish such.   I have gone back and read your post, and the
related follow-ups, and haven't noticed many people figuring out your point,
as it were.
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college