From: davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks)
Subject: Re: rebuttle of Miami logic:
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 15:10:56 GMT
Organization: VMARK Software, Inc.

In article <1992Nov15.222739.22522@u.washington.edu> wessir@u.washington.edu writes:
>
>
>>and anyone tries to say that they don't deserve it, they obviously know 
>>almost nothing about football.  FSU, PSU, Arizona, and Syracuse??? Not
>>too shabby...  Guess we just have to wait to see if Miami can do it.
>So, here you imply that Arizona is a top team......
>even with 3 losses and a tie Miami claims it as a big win since it was close.
>

No.. I imply that Arizona is a "top team" because they only lost by a point
to Miami, UCLA, AT Stanford, AT California, and then beat your fabled 
Washington team.  That is why I consider them good.  They are apparantly
still a very yound team, so things like the Oregon State and WSU game will 
happen.

>>Alabama GOT LUCKY!!!!  That's right, Mississippi State should have won this
>>game, leading late in the fourth.  But, like great teams do, they got a few 
>So if Miami beats Alabama, we should not be impressed.  If Miami doesn't
>win easily, we should doubt Miami's claim to #1.....

No...  bad form...   If Miami beats Alabama you should still be impressed.
The point of the game is to win, whether by a point or by 70.  The point I was
making in the article was that everyone has been talking about Miami's "luck".
I was just making the point that "luck" happens to many teams, but the good 
teams no how to win anyway...

>
>>Michigan...  It seems that as good as Michigan is, I can't give them any 
>>respect this year.  In fact, the most impressive thing they have done is 
>>tie Notre Dame.  I personally can't see them as a top 10 team.  They have 
>So, by the same logic, Washington must crush Michigan to get any respect....

No...  this isn't saying Michigan isn't a good team.  I state that they are
good.  Personally, I think they are/were overrated.  With Washington at #5
and Michigan at #6/#8, I don't think this game has much bearing.  Washington
has gotten my respect, as they have played and beaten some tough teams. 
Their one failure has been to a tough team.  Michigan hasn't played the level
of competition a Miami or Washington has, and they failed twice...
>
>
>>Texas A&M... barely got by a mediocre Houston team...
>So A&M not that good either?  So Miami just gets by Arizona then Arizona
>must be equally good.....even though they have 3 losses and a tie ???
>I'm having trouble with your reasoning..

Arizona has 3 losses and a tie.  Their 3 losses come to WSU, USC, and Miami,
two of which were on the road.  Those teams are #25 (CNN/USA), #15/#14,
and #1 respectively.  They have beaten Stanford and Washington, which are
#14/#15 and #5 respectively.  They have also beaten Cal.  Arizona, at #16/#17
has proven itself a tough team.   Houston, they are 3-5 with wins over 
Illinois, SW Louisiana, and TCU.  Not exactly impressive.  Big difference in
barely beating an Arizona or FSU than barely beating a Houston or Texas Tech.
>
>>FSU crushed a team for the second season in the row.  Once again, without
>>the loss to Miami, they are the MNC...  This is what makes me respect Miami
>>even more...  
>support for the another argument for just getting by is because the 
>the opponent is great ???

Yep...  If a team beats another, even if just barely (which isn't entirely
true.  The best FSU could do at the end was tie...), and that team is a great
team, it looks good. Remember, FSU is currently the #3 ranked team in the 
nation.  #3, and without the loss to Miami, they would be #1.  
>
>>the fabled PAC-10 drop a notch, as Washington State drops out of the top
>>25 and after next week, out of the top 30.  California came into it with high
>>expectations, and were exposed as a pretty average team. And,UCLA suffered
>>injuries to hurt them this year.  So, the PAC-10 looks like Washington,
>>Arizona, USC, and Stanford as the cream, and WSU as a decent team, with 
>>the rest being pretty average teams...  
>"fabled", sounds like you place your opinions with the polls... which are
>based on records...  When the best teams start playing each other someone
>has to lose.. and drop in the polls.  WSU wins 6 straight and you give them
>respect because they are rated, then they start losing to pac-10 teams and
>now they aren't good anymore??  Well, your half right... They have been the
>suckers for a long time but always a threat, especially to teams outside
>the pac-10.  So they were good when they didn't face the 10 and bad when they
>did.  If they beat washington in the apple cup, will they be good again? NO!

WSU had 6 wins.  Against Montana, Arizona, Fresno St, Temple, Oregon State
and UCLA.  With the exception of Arizona, none of these teams are all that 
good (UCLA due mainly to injuries).  They beat Arizona at the end of the game,
barely beat Fresno State, and barely beat a pretty mediocre Arizona State
team as well.  They lost to USC, Oregon, and Stanford.  I wouldn't consider
them all that tough. As I said, decent...  Remember, if a team wins 6 straight,
even against wimp competition, they look good.  It isn't until the face a
real test that we can tell.  At 6-0, lot's of people thought WSU was a very 
good team.  Well, they have gone 1-3 since, barely pulling out the 1 win.  
With the last game against Washington, which they should lose, they will be
7-5... In other words, decent..
-- 
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"