Quote:Just use common sense. If they do play down to Hofstra, why do you think that is?
And the entire debate started with Trav saying that teams do not play harder for different opponents. As in there is no difference. Zero. Zilch. The Hofstra example is to show that there is a difference. I can't get him from point A to point C without him conceding point B, first.
I have played football before. I know that when we were going up against the reigning State Champs, we had an incredibly intense week of practice. We knew we would have to be extremely prepared and to "bring our A game", and then some, if we wanted to pull the upset. We did. Likewise, if a team is facing the #1 team in the country, with an opportunity to put their team on the map / pull an upset, that team is going to bring it's "A game". This is our point
You can't answer a simple yes/no. Having intense weeks of practices, and thinking you're more prepared is a different conversation then the game. There are different thigs from week to week you do to try and motivate yourself, and your team. That's the nature of the beast.
I played for 16 years, and have coached/coaching another 14. Played in, and coached in some big games. Kids perform on the field to the best of their ability. They don't play harder based on who it is.
Quote:You can't answer a simple yes/no. Having intense weeks of practices, and thinking you're more prepared is a different conversation then the game. There are different thigs from week to week you do to try and motivate yourself, and your team. That's the nature of the beast.
I played for 16 years, and have coached/coaching another 14. Played in, and coached in some big games. Kids perform on the field to the best of their ability. They don't play harder based on who it is.
Whenever there is a discussion the parameters suddenly change with certain people. They will twist and turn it so you concede a bit, but when the same thing is done, that same person will argue to the death of it. It's just not worth it sometimes.
Quote:Whenever there is a discussion the parameters suddenly change with certain people. They will twist and turn it so you concede a bit, but when the same thing is done, that same person will argue to the death of it. It's just not worth it sometimes.
Hail is King of that. It occurs in virtually every one of his posts where a discussion of a topic occurs, or an opinion/s are made. if they don't fit what he originally thought then the twisting begins to try and fit.
Quote:Trav also refuses to call the Buckeyes Ohio State even after I scolded him for just calling the school Ohio.
I can see the confusion there because Ohio state and Ohio aren't really that much different talent wise
Quote:I can see the confusion there because Ohio state and Ohio aren't really that much different talent wise
Don't get talent confused with being big and slow. Ohio State has talent. They always will. They don't have the speed to keep up.
Quote:Don't get talent confused with being big and slow. Ohio State has talent. They always will. They don't have the speed to keep up.
I agree with that statement regarding Ohio.
Quote:FSUs best win was over an overrated ND team.
the top 25 poll midseason is really kind of a joke. maybe a top 25 come seasons end would hold more clout but still those ratings dont reflect which teams are actually the best.
my whole argument is that FSU is overrated in the poll and then you use an argument about beating teams based on the rankings in the polls......
The point is people judge teams based on who they beat and where they were ranked at the time. That's how it will be determined it for the playoff so yes the top 25 doesmatter and helps determine strength of schedule. To call FSU best win over a team ranked in the top 5 over rated and not a good win is bogus. If we go that route we may as well say that no wins over top 10 teams should count because they are over rated.
Quote:The point is people judge teams based on who they beat and where they were ranked at the time. That's how it will be determined it for the playoff so yes the top 25 doesmatter and helps determine strength of schedule. To call FSU best win over a team ranked in the top 5 over rated and not a good win is bogus. If we go that route we may as well say that no wins over top 10 teams should count because they are over rated.
I've always wondered why you give people credit for where they were ranked at the time. You see it every year....a team at the beginning of the year will beat a team ranked say No. 9. As the year goes on that team will get 4 to 5 losses and somehow the team that beat them earlier gets credit for beating a #9 team.
When we're basing the final results, shouldn't we base it on their final records?
I think the playoff committee has shown that rankings at the time doesn't matter. Current rankings do. Same hoes with playing a tougher schedule, as it should be.
Quote:Whenever there is a discussion the parameters suddenly change with certain people. They will twist and turn it so you concede a bit, but when the same thing is done, that same person will argue to the death of it. It's just not worth it sometimes.
Woah, what? What parameters have changed?
Quote:You can't answer a simple yes/no. Having intense weeks of practices, and thinking you're more prepared is a different conversation then the game. There are different thigs from week to week you do to try and motivate yourself, and your team. That's the nature of the beast.
I played for 16 years, and have coached/coaching another 14. Played in, and coached in some big games. Kids perform on the field to the best of their ability. They don't play harder based on who it is.
Right. But for some reason, you don't think being more motivated and prepared has any relation to better effort on the field. Doesn't make sense.
I'll ask you or your cheerleader, Josh, a simple question. Do you think Michigan players would rather beat Iowa or Ohio St.? Pretty easy answer.....
Quote:Right. But for some reason, you don't think being more motivated and prepared has any relation to better effort on the field. Doesn't make sense.
I'll ask you or your cheerleader, Josh, a simple question. Do you think Michigan players would rather beat Iowa or Ohio St.? Pretty easy answer.....
I don't care....I'm not a Michigan fan and I really dont know. I'll assume Ohio St since I saw a relatively decent biography on HBO. If your team plays harder against Ohio St than it does Iowa though, it could tell you a huge issue with your program.
FYI, being prepared for a game has no coorelation with effort on the field. They are two completely different things. I'm his cheerleader as if I dont have any rational thoughts on my own. Whatever makes you feel better.
Quote:I've always wondered why you give people credit for where they were ranked at the time. You see it every year....a team at the beginning of the year will beat a team ranked say No. 9. As the year goes on that team will get 4 to 5 losses and somehow the team that beat them earlier gets credit for beating a #9 team.
When we're basing the final results, shouldn't we base it on their final records?
Agree. The basketball selection committee uses end of the season ratings (they don' care about rankings) when looking at team "resumes". Makes a lot more sense to me. Sometimes there is problems with it, like when Kentucky lost Nerlens Noel a couple years ago. Beating Kentucky when they had Noel was a much more impressive win than when he was hurt, but the ratings wouldn't reflect that. That's why it's nice to have a little human element, too, to recognize those things.
Quote:Agree. The basketball selection committee uses end of the season ratings (they don' care about rankings) when looking at team "resumes". Makes a lot more sense to me. Sometimes there is problems with it, like when Kentucky lost Nerlens Noel a couple years ago. Beating Kentucky when they had Noel was a much more impressive win than when he was hurt, but the ratings wouldn't reflect that. That's why it's nice to have a little human element, too, to recognize those things.
FSU's final ranking last year was littered with teams that WERE previously ranked. I'm not saying they didnt deserve it, but it seems like an unfair comparison as opposed to end of year rankings. If NCAA b-ball does it, there's no reason football shouldnt. Then again thats rational thinking, and the NCAA is opposed to that.
Quote:I don't care....I'm not a Michigan fan and I really dont know. I'll assume Ohio St since I saw a relatively decent biography on HBO. If your team plays harder against Ohio St than it does Iowa though, it could tell you a huge issue with your program.
FYI, being prepared for a game has no coorelation with effort on the field. They are two completely different things. I'm his cheerleader as if I dont have any rational thoughts on my own. Whatever makes you feel better.
Ditto. Rah rah. Not sure how those things can be misconstrued.
Quote:I don't care....I'm not a Michigan fan and I really dont know. I'll assume Ohio St since I saw a relatively decent biography on HBO. If your team plays harder against Ohio St than it does Iowa though, it could tell you a huge issue with your program.
FYI, being prepared for a game has no coorelation with effort on the field. They are two completely different things. I'm his cheerleader as if I dont have any rational thoughts on my own. Whatever makes you feel better.
Being more prepared has direct coorelation to playing better, not harder.
Being more motivated (ie. playing against your rival, playing to upset the #1 overall team) has direct coorelation to playing with more effort or intensity.
Quote:Ditto. Rah rah. Not sure how those things can be misconstrued.
Calm down, he'll start calling you my cheerleader soon.
Quote:Being more prepared has direct coorelation to playing better, not harder.
Being more motivated (ie. playing against your rival, playing to upset the #1 overall time) has direct coorelation to playing with more effort.
You're going against your talking points now. Being prepared and motivated does not always translate to playing hard on the field. I would say motivation would translate more, but on its own....its not 100% correlation.