• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

College Football Friday - #1 LSU vs. #3 Arkansas

Fingolfin269

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Is there really no thread for this yet? Heading towards half time and the score is currently 21-14 LSU. LSU spotted them 14 before deciding to show up.
 
I'm watching. Not a fan of either team but I want to see the better team win, which is LSU. LSU deserves a spot in the BCS championship game over anyone else.
 
skim milk said:
I'm watching. Not a fan of either team but I want to see the better team win, which is LSU.
Click to expand...

At any given contest, the better team always wins.

That's why they play the games. Otherwise we can have the media, coaches, and computers set a pre-season ranking and award team #1 with a trophy.
 
Last edited:
I live in Arkansas and do not care at all about sports and who wins and loses. I hope Arkansas loses just so I can see all the bitter tears of everyone I know
 
cronos said:
At any given contest, the better team always wins.

That's why they play the games. Otherwise we can have the media, coaches, and computers set a pre-season ranking and award team #1 with a trophy.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot if you think that. Better team will win most of the time but not always.
 
I hope Arkansas wins. Never liked the BCS system and enjoy when their are big upsets. It puzzled me with Oklahoma State losing to an unranked team and only dropping to 4 in the rankings.
 
skim milk said:
You're an idiot if you think that. Better team will win most of the time but not always.
Click to expand...

Here's my statement again: At any given contest, the team that wins is better than the team that loses.

You can call me names all you want. I will stand by that statement.
 
cronos said:
Here's my statement again: At any given contest, the team that wins is better than the team that loses.

You can call me names all you want. I will stand by that statement.
Click to expand...

With football, this isn't true. There are too many elements of randomness that can tip the scale.
 
Dumac said:
With football, this isn't true. There are too many elements of randomness that can tip the scale.
Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing the fact that there are many factors that can and will affect the outcome of a game. However, as I have mentioned above, the reason the games are played is to determine the better team.

Why else would these athletes play the game then, if winning a game is not enough for them to be considered 'better'? Think about it.
 
And as for the other discussion going on in this thread, I think for at least the game this thread is about we can probably agree on who is the better team.
 
cronos said:
I'm not dismissing the fact that there are many factors that can and will affect the outcome of a game. However, as I have mentioned above, the reason the games are played is to determine the better team.

Why else would these athletes play the game then, if winning a game is not enough for them to be considered 'better'? Think about it.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think you understand the how randomness plays in.

With randomness considered, winning a game doesn't ensure that one team is better than the other; it just increases the likeliness.

For example, if Team A beats Team B once, you can't say with 100% probability that Team A is better. However, if Team A beats Team B over and over again, with each win the probability of Team A being better than Team B increases, and with enough victories you can say (with a reasonable doubt - 95%) that Team A is better.

In football, its trickier in that you have to rely more on Team A playing Team C, Team B playing Team D, Team C playing Team D, and what that means as far as Team A vs Team B.

So no. Winning one match doesn't mean the team that won is necessarily better. There can be flukes, upsets, and other random factors that can make a worse team win momentarily. These teams often go on to lose in the future.
 
TuxDave said:
No kidding. Now the next best thing that can happen is Alabama loses or everyone else in the top 5 don't lose. I really don't want to see LSU vs Alabama again
Click to expand...
meh, not sure who would be more deserving though. Oklahoma State? Houston just because they haven't lost while playing a soft schedule?

Plus if Alabama does beat LSU, then we're almost guaranteed the current #1 vs #2 BCS format will end. I'm fine with a 4-team tournament, but the current BCS just isn't optimal in most years.
 
Imagine if LSU has a decent quality QB such as Luck of Stanford goes with that defense and special team. That would be scary. Jefferson and Lee are average on their best day.

Hopefully, that transfer QB would fullfil his expectation next year.
 
Dumac said:
Again, I don't think you understand the how randomness plays in.

With randomness considered, winning a game doesn't ensure that one team is better than the other; it just increases the likeliness.

For example, if Team A beats Team B once, you can't say with 100% probability that Team A is better. However, if Team A beats Team B over and over again, with each win the probability of Team A being better than Team B increases, and with enough victories you can say (with a reasonable doubt - 95%) that Team A is better.

In football, its trickier in that you have to rely more on Team A playing Team C, Team B playing Team D, Team C playing Team D, and what that means as far as Team A vs Team B.

So no. Winning one match doesn't mean the team that won is necessarily better. There can be flukes, upsets, and other random factors that can make a worse team win momentarily. These teams often go on to lose in the future.
Click to expand...

We can agree to disagree. I definitely realize that this point of view is unpopular and I have no intention to force everyone to see this the way I see it.

This is not an 'extreme oversimplification' (as someone else said above) at all. I really think winning a game proves without a doubt that a team is better than its opponent in that contest. Should the two teams meet again subsequently and the result is flipped, then I have no reservation to admit that the opposite is true for that second contest.

I see the terms 'upset' and 'fluke' as explanations (even excuses, sometimes) of how general public's perception of the potential of the team that lost (and consequently the shortcomings of the team that won) ended up being untrue.

You (and possibly most people) believe that the potential of a team being better (statistically, perceptively, experts/computer rank, etc) is enough to call this particular team the better one. Your percentages talk above (of how likely it is that Team A can beat Team B) showed that this perception and likeliness takes precedent over the actual result of the game itself, which is clearly played and decided on the field instead of on papers.

Well I don't think like that. To me, the likeliness means absolutely nothing. The only way a team can prove that it is better than the other one is to beat them head to head. Winning proves that they are a better team. Otherwise, why bother playing the game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top