From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: UW, Arizona, & Miami
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:11:04 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <1992Nov17.194652.61537@uvmark.uucp>,
by davem@uvmark.uucp (Dave Meeks):

> 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

Oh, my.  Dave, go back and read the post again.  It wasn't my post at
all.  I was one of the "related follow-ups", and I responded only
because the word "pinhead" was used; it happens to be one of my 
favorites.  Anyway, your points are well-taken, as were those of the
poster (names: 'wessir' in signature, 'Bill the Cat' in header) who
wrote the article in question.

See you around, pinhead.

JUST KIDDING!  JUST KIDDING!  (I *love* that word.)

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college