|
Post by Gorf on Sept 19, 2006 11:16:13 GMT -5
If you want to add a spread of a couple or few spots in ranking that might be reasonable as well, but certainly not just based on whether the losing team is top 50, top 25, top 15, or top whatever.
Do you honestly think that a top 10 team defeating a 25-50th ranked team ought to be considered a quality win?
Top 50 is what you used to define a quality win in your early post(s) on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 19, 2006 11:39:13 GMT -5
Do ye honestly think that a top 10 crew defeating a 25-50th ranked crew ought to be considered a quality win? Ye$ I do. One that I would expect them to be able to do, but a quality win nonetheless. I consider a quality win to be a win over a good teÅm. There is wiggle room in the definition of good teÅm of course, but who they are playing is not a consideration of who I consider good or not. By your argument, Penn State beating, say, Sacramento State would be a less quality win than would Lehigh beating Southern Illinois. Personally, I don't consider a win over Southern Illinois to be a quality win, regardless of who does it, if quality win is going to be a useful concept in any way. Moreover, I believe a win over Sac St is a quality win, regardless of who does it.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 19, 2006 17:24:04 GMT -5
Indeed Iwould say that Penn State beating Sacramento State is less quality than Lehigh beating Southern Illinois. Penn State would be defeating a team ranked well below themselves while Lehigh would be defeating a team ranked well above themselves. If teams are similarly ranks, that could be called quality wins or good losses. I see no quality in a team beating a team that has little or no chance of winning the match. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 19, 2006 17:57:24 GMT -5
Indeed Iwould say that Penn State beating Sacramento State is less quality than Lehigh beating Southern Illinois. Penn State would be defeating a crew ranked well below themselves while Lehigh would be defeating a crew ranked well above themselves. As I said, if that is what y0u believe, then we certainly view them in different ways. I consider a quality win to be a win against a good quality teÅm. Sure, we can debate my definition of what is a quality teÅm, but any definition that considers Southern Illinois to be a win but Sacramento St not seems pretty useless. Tell y0u what: I will avoid using that terminology and just call them wins against good quality teÅms instead.
|
|
|
Post by bomber on Sept 21, 2006 15:10:51 GMT -5
I like Ohio State or Minnesota to finish in the 2nd spot. Although OSU has only one quality win over Arizona State, they have a lot of experience and the young kids are improving. Yeah, right.........................
|
|
|
Post by bomber on Sept 21, 2006 15:12:55 GMT -5
OSU's "quality" win is Arizona State???!!! Wow, that's some quality win. I think OSU is going to have their eyes opened a bit when they play some other teams that can play the game better. Their eye opening is going to start on Wednesday..... Ahem.............................
|
|
|
Post by hoosierman on Sept 21, 2006 15:15:49 GMT -5
I like Ohio State or Minnesota to finish in the 2nd spot. Although OSU has only one quality win over Arizona State, they have a lot of experience and the young kids are improving. Yeah, right......................... Well..... to give OSU credit, it was Penn State. Penn State could possibly do that to _everyone_ in the B10 this year. And, OSU could've even won the second game. They didn't, but.... it was there. It looks like a fight for positions 2-7.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 21, 2006 15:19:27 GMT -5
This HoosierGuy has a good point that folks need to remember.
Penn State is going to make a lot of teams look pretty bad this year. I wouldn't read too much into it yet.
All it tells me is that Ohio St is somewhere below one of the top teams in the country. But I think I knew that already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2006 15:20:41 GMT -5
By the way, Gorf lost that argument. Badly. He argued so poorly, as a matter of fact, that I can't even consider it a quality win for p-dub.
Now, if Gorf were to lose an argument to vbsamurai... nah.
|
|
|
Post by bomber on Sept 21, 2006 16:13:15 GMT -5
This HoosierGuy has a good point that folks need to remember. Penn State is going to make a lot of teams look pretty bad this year. I wouldn't read too much into it yet. All it tells me is that Ohio St is somewhere below one of the top teams in the country. But I think I knew that already. It's not that OSU lost, but how they lost. I believe that a lot of Buckeye fans felt the frosh were the answer to their middle issues, and it should now be obvious that they aren't. Playing the middle position in this conference ain't easy, and these young 'uns learned it last night, as opposed to the teams they had been playing previously this year. And Meyer is a wonderful player, to be sure, but as of now she seems to be the ONLY legitimate offensive threat they have. As talented as she is, she's only an adequate blocker, so many of the blocking (or rather, non blocking) issues that they had last year remain unanswered. Unless you have a Stacy Gordon, which they don't, nobody consistantly wins with one offensive gunner.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 21, 2006 16:40:07 GMT -5
It's not that OSU lost, but how they lost. r. Like I said, Penn St is going to make a lot of teams look really bad. I wouldn't consider this to be representative of how they are going to play against anyone outside the top 5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2006 21:08:11 GMT -5
PSU was _not_ playing that well last night. I'd argue the opposite: OSU made PSU look more dominant than they were.
Now, one could argue that PSU's "mystique" helps make teams look bad and PSU gets credit for that. OSU looked like toast from the get go.
|
|