TwinTownBisonFan wrote:JMU DJ wrote:
"Bangarang Robert! BANGARANG!!!"
have to agree - that's a strong post.
I think we differ in philosophy - i get the impression you and gil are very focused on "did they win?" a valid argument and basis for judgment - you aren't punishing UNI for losing to Iowa, but you aren't rewarding them for losing either, no matter how close it was... fair enough I suppose.
My preference would be to evaluate how a team looked in their game (where at all possible) a team can look very good in a close loss to a team well above them in the rankings (like UNI-Iowa) or they can look terrible in a victory over a much weaker team (like Montana St-Dixie St) which team should be rewarded? the team that scheduled up against the FBS team and pushed them to the limit? or the team that scheduled a D-II cupcake and nearly blew it, but managed to eke out a win? (or in your logic are both teams going to slide in favor of a third team who looked solid holding serve over their opponent (say... UNH over Northeastern?))
I guess for me, watching the Gophers over the last 15 years feast on a schedule of cupcakes to be 5-0 in early October, but having played nobody of consequence, I'm dubious of the won-loss record as a measure of a teams quality. this cuts both ways, a 3 loss CAA team at the end of this year could EASILY be a top 10 team in the nation, such is the strength of their conference (yeah that's right a midwestern guy admitted it) the true upside of FCS football is that at least these squads get to prove it where it counts, so we've got that going for us... which is nice. That said, in this case - most of the top teams in the FCS have a win over an FBS team... albeit the ACC and Temple... (this year i think only about half the ACC could win the CAA... if that) so while I'm impressed with those wins (any win over the FBS is a commendable win) none of those teams was sniffing the FBS top 25...
See, here is the thing. I agree with you 80%. I don't subscribe to a loss is a loss is a loss, but when you are a top team, fighting against other top teams for a ranking, it is a strong showing by an already percieved to be strong team. Had UNI been ranked say, 15 for arguments sake, prior to the Iowa game, and they weren't already considered a National Title contender, then its a "holy shit did you see UNI, UNDERESTIMATED". That wasn't the case though. If it were you would have seen a huge jump in my eyes.
Now, if a team like, say Villanova squeaks by Penn (or Mt St v. Dixie), because their O-Line didn't play to their capabilities, but they still won, where is the basis for dropping them? They won, didn't they? They managed to win with out the performance of their strongest component (for Nova). That to me is also a sign of a dominate overall team. I think if we had a stronger performance in the first half (less shit balls from whitney, catches by harvey like we had in the second half, and even the presence of an o-line) we would have DEMOLISHED Temple. However, it was also their, and our first game. Jsut like it was for Iowa and UNI. Believe me, from experience both first hand and second hand, that first game is TOUGH. Camp is not a game, and those guys are worn down from it and don't know where they stand yet. Regardless, win or lose, that first game is a kick in the teeth to most teams. You usually come out confident and ready for the season, or you come out disappointed and ready to prove something (Iowa v. Penn State). .02
Who knew this was something to get so worked up about.
It's not. You dullards asking me the same damn question, making the same damn unrelated points is what I get worked up about. See the previous page for confirmation that this is the most frustrating conversation I've had since I talked to that brick wall on shrooms once. 
But otherwise, rock on man! 
