Originally posted by connsinfonia: And I posted the legitimate rankings you mentioned - Wolfe, Anderson, and Massey all put CUSA ahead, RealTimeRPI and Bennett have the AAC ahead. I even threw in the Colley and Sagarin scores for you, which each had CUSA ahead. Among these, only Bennett and RealTimeRPI have the AAC ahead. You also mentioned that almost as many polls had the AAC ahead as CUSA - that was the basis in posting the results of all 113 polls which the Massey Composite compiles.
yes, my point was to show you that there are polls which show the AAC to either be ahead of very close (look at the rating numbers in sagarin) between the two. the point, which you still dont understand, is that you gave the football point to C-USA even though some rankings have the AAC ahead or very close to C-USA. yet, you called basketball a tie even though there are no rankings that have C-USA ahead of the AAC or even close in rating or ranking. as i have said, it is intellectually dishonest to do that.
you must have also missed this- all 113 of those rankings are not legitimate. any ranking which places C-USA as the 10th or 11th conference in football is not legitimate. we both know that.
Originally posted by connsinfonia: In what world do you live in that it takes longer to look at the standings on ESPN, than it does to find several polls and post the results thereof? What were my three qualifiers, 15+ wins, 10+ wins, under 10 wins? That's pretty time consuming to count....
why look at several polls? you only mentioned one by name (sagarin) which seemed to be your argument. you couldnt have looked at too many others without seeing one of the ones that put the AAC ahead.
your qualifiers show just how truly pathetic your argument was. you were arguing which conference is better based on the number of teams with 15+ wins, 10+ wins, under 10 wins? there are so many flaws with this it is hard to take anything you say seriously. what is better, a 10 win SEC football team or a 10 win sun belt football team? in your world, they are even, which is how you are trying to argue for C-USA in basketball. in other words, just counting wins in the middle of the season without looking at strength of schedule is as dumb as the rest of your post. but, it gets better . . . you are looking at number of teams with certain amount of wins. so, pretend conference A has 20 teams and conference B has 10 teams. to stay simple-minded for you, assume they all play the same strength of schedule. if conference A has 10 out of 20 teams with 15+ wins and conference B has 10 out of 10 teams with 15+ wins, your attempt at arguing would say both conferences are equal.
saving face and admitting that you are simply looking for any benefit you can give to C-USA is a lot better than looking like an absolute moron who does not know how to judge two things on the same level.
Originally posted by connsinfonia:
Both conferences have a top 25 team, without significant differences between the two. CUSA has twice as many teams in the top 100 on the Massey Composite (out of 300). Both are projected to have two teams in regionals. You can also look at the fact that CUSA has two current members that have made it out of regionals and into the series this century, while the AAC has one. This is why I call them even.
this is some mind-blowing sh!t right here. you claim that it isnt fair to use results for AAC last year because louisville isnt in the conference. yet, a key argument for C-USA being as good is because they have two current members who made it out of regionals
this century? so, if a team was good for one season 15 years ago, then dammit, that means it counts to judge how two conferences are today (assuming that team from 15 years ago helps the C-USA side of the argument).
then, you want to talk about C-USA having twice as many teams in the top 100. this is fundamentally flawed on at least two major issues. again, this is basic sh!t that you are overlooking.
first, C-USA has 33% more teams than AAC in baseball. based simply on quantity, C-USA has a substantial, built-in advantage to having teams ranked in a certain area (regardless if it at the top or bottom of a ranking). ill dumb it down for you again: conference A has 100 teams. conference B has 2 teams. which conference do you think is more likely to have more teams in the top 100 teams? doh!
another major flaw which may be above your comprehension threshold is using your random numbers (top 100) to judge two things. you are neglecting a much bigger and more accurate statistic.
again, ill dumb it down for you. below are two conferences. next to the team names from each conference you will see their national ranking out of 300 teams.
conference A:
moron: #94
dumbass: #95
stupid: #96
idiot: #97
buffoon: #98
imbecile: #99
dolt: #290
dope: #291
ignoramus: #292
fool: #293
simpleton: #294
dunce: #295
conference B:
dimwit: #1
boob: #2
blockhead: #3
cretin: #101
oaf: #102
bonehead: #103
wvu fan: #104
fathead: #105
now, looking at those two conferences, you can see that conference A has twice as many teams ranked in the top 100. so, that is an argument that you used for an advantage for C-USA, right (even ignoring the quantity argument of teams in each conference)? do you see how asinine that is?
they have this new thing called an "average" which really is amazing. it is a much better indicator than generic numbers like you throw out. but, of course, you only want to use that in certain arguments that help C-USA.
Originally posted by connsinfonia:
Concerning basketball. Yes, CUSA comes in at 17 and the AAC at 9 in the Massey Composite. Let's dig a little deeper.
10. MWC
11. MAC
12. MVC
13. Big West
14. Ivy League
15. D1 Independent
16. Horizon
Two FBS conferences between CUSA and the AAC. Neither of which would Marshall ever move to at this point.
Now, for some ratings.
17. CUSA - 188.45
9. AAC - 132.99
6. P12 - 77.76
This shows me that the AAC is just as close to the next FBS conference above it, as to an FBS conference three below it. Or overall, just as close to a conference three ranks higher, as to a conference 8 ranks lower. So yes, I call this a difference, and I call it not very significant.
finally! you have now used an argument which uses a little bit of logic. yes, i would agree that the AAC is closer to being a G5 conference than a P5 conference. that doesnt change the fact that the AAC is substantially ahead of C-USA, overall, as a conference (all sports including facilities, performance on the field, budget, perception, attendance, etc.).
but to call the difference between the two conferences not significant? that's absurd! how can you claim this wide disparity, both in the ratings and in the number of conference ranked in between them, "not very significant" yet claim a point for C-USA in football when both the ratings and rankings are much closer in football than in basketball?
how can you argue this with a straight face? you continue to flip-flop on your stances based on what advantage you can find for C-USA.
again, the ratings and rankings of the two conferences in football are much closer than they are in basketball. yet, you claim the difference is "not very significant" in basketball but the closer difference in football is significant? stop wasting time with this. you're getting destroyed, and you know it.
Originally posted by connsinfonia:
From Merriam-Webster:
f (1) : satisfactory -often used in faint praise (2) : conforming to a standard
It seems to be you've described good, in trying to to argue that CUSA is not good. I've provided the link to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, if you so care to find another definition which helps you fight out of your hole.
you're really grasping. C-USA, compared to all of the FBS conferences, is not good. it is below average. you can argue that as much as you want, but everyone will laugh at you. is it a bad conference? no, i dont think so. it is substantially better than the sun belt and MAC. that doesnt make it good.
Where exactly have I been following you? I only go on two message boards - this, and the smack board. Where I have under 200 total posts. And why would I need to keep notes? You rub your employment in everybody's faces on half of your posts.
Maybe I've been paying a bit too much attention to you on this board recently, and you're getting mad because I keep calling you on the BS off-topic arguments you like to make, but that is hardly keeping notes and chasing you for months on multiple boards.
you follow me on both boards. you even claim to know a pattern of my posts. i wouldnt notice patterns of anyone's posts (unless they are vets on here) on this board since there are so many people who post. you have chased me on this board and the smack board.
i rub my employment in everyone's face? i have never once brought up my employment without first having somebody either use it as a personal attack (as you did in this thread) or ask me a legitimate question. not once. and you wont find anyone to support your stance on that because i purposely dont mention it. keep trying.
and BS off-topic arguments? my arguments have all been on topic and supported by logic and consistency. anyone taking the time to read this thread and actually attempt to see what you are arguing can see that.
Originally posted by connsinfonia:
My entire argument is that the AAC is not a better conference than CUSA.
using your own damn arguments, the AAC is better in everying except for football (and they will be most years, as well as ahead in the off-field football categories). how can you continue to sit here and claim the AAC is not a better overall conference? why would 125 athletic directors pick to have their school in the AAC instead of C-USA if it wasnt a better conference?
christ. give it up. your bias is making you look like a fool more than you usually are.
