O FORTUNA…
Ironic that during the Ohio State Texas game, one of the bands kept playing “O Fortuna,” the riff from Karl Orff’s Carmina Burana, a heart-stopping choral piece used in movie previews, fundraising drives by local symphonies, and in Counterstrike 2 highlight videos. (Karl would have been thrilled with that, we imagine. “BOOM, HEADSHOT!”)
The choice snuck out of the background as oddly appropriate. The lyrics, translated from the late Latin:
O Fortune,
velut luna like the moon
statu variabilis, you are changeable,
semper crescis ever waxing
aut decrescis; and waning;
vita detestabilis hateful life
nunc obdurat first oppresses
et tunc curat and then soothes
ludo mentis aciem, as fancy takes it;
egestatem, poverty
potestatem and power
dissolvit ut glaciem. it melts them like ice.
The internet can make you look, like, sooooo smart.
We’re pretty sure that what the people who wrote this are trying to tell you that tomorrow ain’t promised today, and that sooner or later the reaper catches up not just with you, but with everything. And in case you were still living in last year, or even last week, then Fortuna’s wheel just made you turn your bare back to its whip this weekend. Nothing was easy. Nothing was predictable. All assumption–all right, most all assumption–wilted in the face of Fate and its cruel whimsy.

–Texas fans, you have a freshman at quarterback, and no amount of joy-hopping Matthew McConoughey can change that. (We’re certain the actor smelled like the apholstery of Snoop Dogg’s tour bus–he looked wayyyy high. Difficult to search for intoxicants you smuggle in your bloodstream.) Bare your back to fortune.
–NC State fans, the rest of the nation now knows just what you’ve been complaining about, since losing to “the Zips” would mean flatline coaching prospects anywhere in the nation.
–FSU, you cannot run the ball; give up and turn Drew Weatherford into the next David Klingler, since you will never convince Bobby Bowden his son is an unqualified amateur with an unhealthy fixation on the jump ball. No amount of scantily clad catcher’s mitts cheering in the stand will change that.
–Texas Tech, you had to win a game with the man who hits the ball with his foot. For some reason, the powers-that-be award you three points for this. Vikings aren’t supposed to mess with the yellow forks they stick in the endzones.
–Tennessee, you may count on nothing except the continued possession of Erick Ainge’s body by the spirit of a long-dead great quarterback. John Chavis lamented that the reason Air Force ran for nearly 300 yards on the Vols was that the Vol defenders were “too fast.” If this equation holds, Chris Leak may resemble the second coming of Major Harris next week. (Don’t worry–it won’t.)
–Penn State showed exactly what a mobile quarterback can do that a pocket passer cannot: do things almost entirely unabetted to change the course of a game. Notre Dame showed what happens when everyone understands precisely where they’re supposed to be on the field. To not mention the superb job the offensive line did in this game would be criminal, since the much-ballyhooed ass-whipping of Brady Quinn never materialized in what a casual viewer would call the weekend’s least fulfilling marquee game–a blowout that had us watching the endless brainwashing of Yamaha ATV ads during the Vandy-Bama game instead of the Big Game on NBC. Tom Hammond, you still frighten us with your powdery white visage and oddly wet lips.
–Arizona dies against LSU. Washington loses to an Oklahoma team with the collective rhythm of an Iowa wedding party performing the Electric Slide. Boise crowbars Oregon State. Must be our East Coast bias, but if one does not take the L.A. clique into account, the Pac-10 is getting hammered in marquee games. Again, it’s because we’re all the way down here in Bumpkinville that we think that. Perhaps if we shooed the donkeys out of the house and took it easy on the antifreeze for a while, we’d see things a little bit clearer.
–Oh, and Illinois? You’re getting better and better! You’re seeing improvement! It’s correctable!
–Chuck Amato, R.I.P. We will miss those sweet bazongas, baby.









51
NorthCoastBias says:
Yeah, P10 fans are the only ones who make a big deal out of HF. You clearly pay attention anything ever said about any matchup in college football. I love when people outright admit that they know nothing about the sport they claim to be a fan of.
September 11th, 2006 at 12:41 am
52
DT says:
To those of us who take our college football in via television…the Thursday & Saturday nationally-televised primetime games and a Sat. afternoon regional ABC game are considered “marquee” games.
(Sorry…ESPN made me think that.)
September 11th, 2006 at 1:15 am
53
Erik says:
So, you’re saying the Pac-10 is good? hmmm.
September 11th, 2006 at 1:33 am
54
NorthCoastBias says:
I know they did. At no point did I think you were actually able to form your own opinions.
nevermind the fact that “primetime” is a different span of time on the east coast as on the west coast or that virtually every BCS team game is on TV now
September 11th, 2006 at 1:38 am
55
NorthCoastBias says:
I am not commenting on the specific quality level of the Pac10 (which we still have very little info about given that its only week 2). I am demonstrating that they are AT LEAST as good as the other BCS conferences (except maybe the SEC) and that the blatant Pac10 bashing is all bias and no reality
September 11th, 2006 at 1:45 am
56
oc phil says:
It seems to me that the Pac-10 bashers are mostly focusing on Cal. Yeah they got crushed by Tenn, but just because they turned out to be way less then they were hyped as in the pre-season. Considering that Oregon and UCLA both finished ahead of Cal last year, I didn’t quite see the extreme love sent their way.
There are still a number of teams that could exceed expectations, Oregon, ASU, or UCLA could go on a tear.
I’m interested to see what happens ithe the Oregon-Oklahoma game, that would be a chance to regain some pride for the conference as a whole.
I’ll also be interested to see how Arkansas does in the SEC this year. Last year they got one of the worst beatdowns I’ve ever seen on a football field in LA, but they played some close games with the power teams of the SEC. That improvement was why this year’s USC-AK game was supposed to be different. And we saw how that turned out.
September 11th, 2006 at 2:00 am
57
DT says:
NorthCoastBias:
Hearing of my inability to form my own opinions and other thoughts concerning “the dogma the idiots on ESPN feed you” are all pretty choice words coming from a pac10 apologist, considering that the network force-fed everyone for several months how SC was the greatest team of all-time (to take the field against Texas.) In my opinion, it’s quite apparent that your suggestion that anyone here gets their college football information solely from disneyco, is a pretty ridiculous one.
Mine was more of a jab at the way in which Orson can be found to agree with the worldwide leader on something (in this case, the definition of “marquee games”.)
But to complain about not getting highlights aired because they’re on FOX and the way that espn is generally responsible for the conference getting no respect is to basically concede that they run the system that supposedly gives you guys the shaft. To not likewise concede that the system they run should therefore dictate which games are the “marquee” matchups of the week defies the very “logical arguments” you mentioned. The pac10 doesn’t ever get enough love from the network responsible for framing public perception…but when the pac10 appears on the network (like last weekend, in three prominent programming slots) they’re somehow still not to be considered a part of the show. Which is it?
Oh, and if you haven’t figured out that the start times of nationally-televised “primetime” sporting events are dictated by the east coast, you must not have been following sports for the last 40 years or so.
September 11th, 2006 at 6:09 am
58
Boclive says:
Doesn’t matter to me if Georgia never wins another game… but they look BIG, and seem to always be standing over some opposing player lying on the ground.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:29 am
59
Chg says:
NorthCoast:
Everyone knows HF can make a difference in close games. However, to rely on “but they were on the road” as a defense of the PAC-10’s season to date is intellectually dishonest.
The five losses to respectable opponents came by an average of 26 points. No amount of homecooking will negate deficits of that size. The loss at San Jose State was as close as you can get, so Stanford’s probably better on a neutral field. I say probably, because judging by SJSU’s attendance numbers, a game at their place probably is a neutral field.
The three point win over BYU may turn out to be a good one, but it was close enough to suggest the results could have been different on a neutral field. Washington only beat SJSU by six at home, which puts the outcome in doubt if the home sides were reversed.
If you want to give the road team 27 points in each PAC-10 game, you can reverse four of your losses with one caveat: that would’ve probably just made Tennessee mad. To all us biased, dirt eatin’ SEC fans, it looked like they could’ve named the score. Adding 27 to Cal’s side of the ledger would’ve probably just inspired the Vols to score more.
The 27 point swing also results in conference losses to Minnesota, Rice, Northern Arizona, Utah, BYU, and San Jose State.
If you want to continue the charade of pretending any of the PAC-10’s losses save Stanford-San Jose State would have turned out differently had the home sides been reversed, that’s your business. Self delusion is a common coping mechanism, and I don’t want to interfere.
Don’t expect rational fans to buy it, and don’t condescend to those who won’t fall for your red herring.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:52 am
60
tzubear says:
DT-
I believe Arizona vs. LSU was on after noon on the west coast, so time is not the issue. This game was not a ‘marquee’ game for PAC 10 fans because of content, not time. If LSU fans think thier game vs. zona was ‘marquee’, then they are diluded. By that rational USC vs. the Arkensas was ‘marquee’, which it wasnt.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:56 am
61
Orson Swindle says:
All good points, Tzubear. Check our blogpoll for clarifications and corrections.
September 11th, 2006 at 10:03 am
62
Wooderson says:
LOUD NOISES!!!
September 11th, 2006 at 11:04 am
63
NorthCoastBias says:
THE POINT IS THAT THE ONUS IS NOT ON ME TO PROVE THAT THE PAC10 IS SO GREAT, IT IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE OTHER BCS CONFERENCES, WHICH YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE, HAVE NOT DONE.
Not a single poster in this thread made legitimate arguments to justify their claim the the Pac is much worse than the other conferences. The only point I’ve seen made is that they have a “staggering amount in the ‘L’ column”. As far as I know, 1 or 2 additional losses is not staggering. People state that the Pac10 sucks as a matter of fact, as self-evident, when it is clearly anything but.
Your point about Fox vs ESPN is exactly correct. I do concede that DisneyCo runs the show and that is exactly why there is bias. You bringing this up tells me that you do not bother to examine the true quality of teams, but simply take whatever image is presented to you on TV . This is why I say that you do not form your own opinions. I do not, however, concede that they should have the right to arbitrarily determine which conferences are good and which are bad. There is SUPPOSED to be equitable treatement and an effort to objectively measure the true quality of teams. There is not. We are not discussing who is “part of the show”. We are discussing who is good and who is not. “Marquee” is an irrelevant term. What is important is matchups between quality opponents. Just because a game is on national TV during primetime does not close the gap between the qualities of the two teams. I agree that it will have a greater effect on general opinions, but the so-called “experts”, that determine the polls and the dictating opinions, should know better. The fact that you support this effect says to me that you agree with the existence of bias and you like it that way. If this is the case (which I think it is) then we are not disagreeing, you are simply justifying the bias, putting you squarely inside of the ESPN herd. I guess you are entitled to your opinion, but don’t be surprised that there is so much outrage on the west coast. Obviously, opinion dictates the rankings of teams and there is nothing really to be done about that. However, our teams (besides SC) do not start out on a level playing field and ALWAYS must prove that we are every bit as good as any other BCS conference.
As for USC, the reason they get such high respect is that they have proved so far beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are one of the best teams in the country, that it would be laughable to not agree. They are part of the true elite in college football that will always get respect in the long term. The problem is the treatment the rest of the conference gets.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
64
Orson Swindle says:
You’re practically oppressed, NCB.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
65
NorthCoastBias says:
I was not using HF to justify individual losses. I was using it show that when you look at the overall results of OOC play, there is bound to be an above average number of losses when more teams from a particular conference are playing on the road.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
66
NorthCoastBias says:
blah blah blah. Way to cop out of the discussion that you initiated Orson. If you are bothering to discuss these things, then at least be open to the fact that people care about what they say.
It is the same story every time in threads like this – make statements that are countered and instead of providing your own counterarguments, simply pick apart the semantics.
September 11th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
67
NorthCoastBias says:
and if by “You’re practically oppressed, NCB” you mean “You clearly hold a minority opinion, NCB”, then yes I am practically oppressed
September 11th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
68
Intrigued CliffX says:
NCB, you have a great username. And that’s it.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
69
DT says:
NorthCoast:
The reasons that I hold my opinion that the Pac 10 sucks are primarily a result of the trends I’ve witnessed from the results on the field of play. I’ve honestly have never had the benefit of the talking heads from any network summarizing it for me, but I will for you if it will help to make you quit accusing me of being “squarely inside of the ESPN herd.”
In my lifetime (33 years) I’ve watched the Pac 10 schools combine to post the following records against the other power conferences:
-126-100-4 vs. the current big 10
-18-22 vs. the current ACC
-88-104-1 vs. the current Big 12
-23-43-6 vs. the current SEC
I’ve witnessed Pac 10 schools win just over half of the bowl games they’ve played in during that time.
I’ve seen the Pac 10 win a whopping one undisputed MNC, while winning four split titles in the same timespan.
This compared with:
Current ACC: 7 outright, 2 split
Current Big 12: 6 outright, 3 split
Current SEC: 5 outright, 3 split
Current Big 10: 3 outright, 1 split
In the same timeframe, only USC (at #12) UW (at #20) and UCLA (at #21) rank within the top 25 winningest teams in the NCAA.
In that time:
SEC Ranks 7 (ALA #8, UGA #11, UT #13, UF #15, AU #17, AR #22, LSU #25)
Big 12 Ranks 4 (NU #1, OU #4, UT #10, A&M #18)
ACC Ranks 4 (UM #6, FSU #7, CLEM #19, VT #24)
Big 10 Ranks 3 (UM #2, OSU #3, PSU #5)
In that time, only three schools in the Pac 10 (SC, UCLA & UW) even compile winning records AGAINST OTHER PAC 10 TEAMS!!
So think whatever you want about where I get the information that I use to form my opinions, because it’s all pretty irrelevant…the facts speak for themselves & they seem pretty clear as to why the pac 10 gets no respect. Do your own research, slice & dice the criteria (and timespans of such) however you see fit. I’m pretty confident that you’ll find the same results…that the Pac 10 has only enjoyed small smatterings of sporadic national relevance–at least when comparing themselves to the other true power football conferences (Big 12/SEC/ACC/Big 10). Take away USC and the pac 10 begins to more closely resemble the current Big East.
Until the Pac 10 displays a similar sustained success on the field as the other top conferences, the lack of respect these schools enjoy (supposedly a result of this vast media conspiracy that their fans cry about) can probably be more accurately attributed to a vast inferiority complex.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
70
Chg says:
DT, all those bowl games were played on the road.
September 11th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
71
NE says:
Marching Bands, Movie Previews, Counterstrike, blah, sissified.
That Song belongs to K-1 badass Jerome Le Banner.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:53 am
72
oc phil says:
DT, basically what you have shown is the Pac 10 is a more balanced conference. Without the benefit of a permenent underclass of teams like Vandy, KY, MIss and Miss State to whomp on every year things records even out as different teams rise to the top for awhile.
And considering your numbers show the Pac 10 beating the Big 10 in overall winning percentage and total number of MNC’s, why don’t you waste your time with “Big 10 SUX”?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:02 am
73
DT says:
oc phil, Exactly what I was trying to illustrate by pointing out that only three teams have managed a winning record within their own conference was that the Pac 10 is even LESS balanced. Now I’ll grant you that I didn’t examine the same process to see how it compared to the other conferences…mainly due to the ease of the Pac 10 being the only conference (of the five in question) that doesn’t include the complication of having added any teams or merged with another league sometime during the noted timeframe. But I can say that of the four categories of comparison that people like to throw around in making such arguments (head-to-head results, bowl results, MNC’s, overall wins/winning pct.) the Pac 10 hasn’t proven to fare too well during my brief time on Earth. Posting losing records while facing 3 of the 4 conferences they are trying to compare themselves to; winning just slightly more bowls than they’ve lost; coming in lower than all four other conferences in any sort of ranking of overall winning percentages; and having only a single team win more than 1/2 of a MNC are not compelling arguments that they should be considered as one of the big boys by this fan…no matter how “balanced” the conference may be.
However, I’d have no problem with anyone who’d want to take the position that (again, in my time as a fan) the pac 10 might have a debatable argument with the big 10 for the fourth seat at the big boy’s table. But the head-to-head comparison slants in the pac10’s favor, once again due to the presence of their big 3 (SC: 26-9, UCLA: 23-13-1, UW: 21-11) combining for 55% of all of the pac 10’s wins over the big 10. And when taking into account that 3 separate big ten teams have won or shared MNC’s, compared with two in the pac; that the big ten has 3 teams ranked among the top ten winners, where the pac has zero; and that the big ten has ND as an unofficial member…personally, I’d give the edge to the Big ten there.
But no, if that’s what your asking, I don’t think either of them have any realistic stake to claim anything more than being 4th-rate to the ACC, Big XII & SEC…at least not from what I’ve seen so far to date.
But you’re right, wasting my time with what I think about the big ten is a pretty moot point in this discussion. All I set out to do was to provide a satisfactory response to:
“THE POINT IS THAT THE ONUS IS NOT ON ME TO PROVE THAT THE PAC10 IS SO GREAT, IT IS ON YOU TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE MUCH WORSE THAN THE OTHER BCS CONFERENCES, WHICH YOU, OR ANYONE ELSE, HAVE NOT DONE.
Not a single poster in this thread made legitimate arguments to justify their claim the the Pac is much worse than the other conferences.”
September 12th, 2006 at 3:45 am
74
NorthCoastBias says:
“the facts speak for themselves & they seem pretty clear as to why the pac 10 gets no respect”.
In order for me to arrive at the conclusion that the Pac10 sucks, there must be overwhelming evidence that they are SIGNIFICANTLY worse than other conferences by OBJECTIVE measures. Let’s see what your facts say:
In 2 of the 3 metrics you use the Pac is clearly shown to be approximately equal that of the non-SEC conferences
Head to head records:
vs. Big10 – 54.8% winning
vs. ACC – 45%
vs. Big12 – 45.6 %
vs. SEC – 32 %
The only statistical outlier I see is the SEC record. The PacX OOC overall winning % is 48.6% (255-269-11, ties not included in calculation). Obviously we’d agree that a 50% record would mean the opposing conferences were equally good (using your metric). I’d say that 48.6 is sufficiently close to 50 to say that the Pac 10 is equally good. If your conclusion from these numbers is that the Pac10 is MUCH worse than the ACC or Big12, then it necessarily follows that the Pac is MUCH better than the Big10. I do not believe the latter to be true and thus I do not believe the former to be true either.
Top25 winningest teams:
Pac10 – 3
Big10 – 3
ACC – 4
Big12 – 4
SEC -7
Again, it is the SEC that appears as an outlier, not the Pac10
As for MNC’s , It is too difficult for me to determine who you are defining as the arbiters of the winner. What bodies are the splits between? Until I know the answer to this, it is impossible for me to refute. In response, though, to the constant claim that the Pac is USC + others, I would bet that the MNC results will show that the ACC is only FSU and Miami and the Big12 is only Texas and Oklahoma.
“I’ve witnessed Pac 10 schools win just over half of the bowl games they’ve played in during that time.”
So, how does this prove that the Pac10 sucks??? Show me the bowl records of the other conferences. Then show me they are siginificantly better than the Pac10 record.
“In that time, only three schools in the Pac 10 (SC, UCLA & UW) even compile winning records AGAINST OTHER PAC 10 TEAMS!!”
The fact that you do not see how self-evidently this reflects ONLY conference balance and not relative quality is astounding to me. I appreciate you bringing this up, though, as it validates the Pac10 claim that the other conferences always have the same teams at the top and simply have a group of perrenial doormats on which the top teams can pad their resumes.
You did demonstrate that the SEC is better than the Pac10. This I concede. Given your understanding of statistical analysis, one thing that YOU would say is demonstrated by these facts is that the Big10 sucks and the Pac10 is clearly superior. I do not believe this to be the case, given that the numbers do not demonstrate any clear conclusion to this end. The only clear conclusion demonstrated by significant stastical variation is that the SEC is better than the PacX.
I am finished with this. You will continue to look at the sport and find the conclusion that you wanted to see in the first place anyways. Thank you for confirming that there is indeed an agenda against the Pac10 and that most fans of the other conferences like it that way. It is beneficial to their teams and thus they will never come out against it.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:32 am
75
AWSOME-O says:
Punditry overload! LAME! LAME! WEAK!
September 12th, 2006 at 7:56 am
76
Dylan says:
Who gives a crap about the conferences? As a Big 10(11) grad I have no loyalty to the conference that abuses my team (Minnesota) more regularly than all others combined. I hate Iowa, Michigan & Wisconsin far more than other teams-and I cheer for them to always lose in the bowl games my crappy alma mater can’t make it to.
It is all unfortunate that the perceived conference strength and a flawed BCS postseason system keeps down what we all want-playoffs. The conference structure gives us great traditional matchups and sometimes great conference championship games.
But it also makes us fork over money for pay per view game packages so we can avoid the dreaded regional conference matchup-Oregon v Arizona, Colorado v Iowa State, Indiana v. Illinois or Rutgers v Anyone instead of a great matchup. The conferences, bowl games and networks are all in bed together making a fortune and the fans and players get screwed.
I do share in the ESPN hatred evident here mostly because of invented personalities and hyped matchups (see USC & Nebraska this week).
September 12th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
77
DT says:
NCB:
You decry the use of semantics to found one’s arguments, then you resort to little more than picking apart the mathematical semantics. You’re right, you’ve exposed me for not knowing jack squat about statistical analysis, but in doing so, you’ve exposed yourself as not being very knowledgeable in regard to the recent history of college football.
I suppose what really needs to be done is to examine all of the results of the 195 games the pac ten has played against the big 12, all 72 against the SEC, all 40 against the ACC & all 230 against the big 10 and assign a margin of difference similar to that which Chg did above (for the first two weeks for this season.) That would give a better picture of how the pac compares when facing the other conferences head-to-head. However, twisting the numbers to make the pac appear to be less sucky than I may have made them out to be doesn’t excuse the fact that the Pac has suffered a losing record to 3 of the 4 conferences in question, when playing them in head-to-head matchups. Whether that makes them substantially more sucky, or slightly more sucky is the semantic that you’d apparently like to debate here.
In your examination of the top 25 winningest teams, you’ve really leveled the playing field in an area where it doesn’t deserve to be leveled. In including the respective rankings with the list of teams I provided, it seems pretty obvious that extending the list to dip into the mid-20’s is actually being quite generous to the pac 10. Instead you’ve used the data to illustrate your belief that the #12, #20 & #21 ranked teams should somehow be given equal weight and consideration as the #2, #3 & #5 ranked teams? Look at the Pac compared to the BigXII for example…The best team in the BXii (#1 NU) has compiled 53 more wins and 37 less losses than the best team in the pac10 (#12 SC). BXii’s 2nd best team (#4 OU) has compiled 48 more wins and 44 less losses than the pac10’s second best (#20 UW). In third, #10 Texas has won 35 more games and lost 20 less than #21 UCLA. So even if you want to spin it that “the pac 10 has only one less team than the big12 in top 25 overall winning pct.” That doesn’t excuse the fact that the big 12’s 136 more wins and 101 less losses seperate the two groups that you want to make out to be so close in comparison. In any likely scenario, it would probably take dozens of years for the pac 10’s best teams to pass the best of the big 12 in this category.
But your comments about the MNC comparison is where any claims you want to make of being a knowledgable college football fan go out the window…
“As for MNC’s , It is too difficult for me to determine who you are defining as the arbiters of the winner. What bodies are the splits between?…I would bet that the MNC results will show that the ACC is only FSU and Miami and the Big12 is only Texas and Oklahoma.”
I guess you only pay attention to the seasons that SC wins the MNC–when you can ride their coattails while crunching the numbers to show that the oregons of the world should be taken seriously. Such a statement as you’ve made quickly displays your ignorance of some pretty easily-referenced facts…ones that most college football fans I know can pretty well rattle off the top of their head for the last twenty-five years or so. Like about 94.9597% of the nation over the last 5 years, you’ve managed to come off as being conveniently unaware of the fact that Nebraska completely dominated college football for the decade just prior to the turn of the 21st century.
Since you don’t even appear to know that much, (let alone that 4 ACC and 4 big 12 teams have won or split MNC’s in the last 25 years) you’ve gone a long way toward explaining your inability to understand or accept that the Pac10 has no business trying to include themselves in any discussion of who’s who among the nation’s elite conferences.
And Dylan, speaking as a fan of one of the handful of teams that can say they’ve posted an all-time winning record against EVERY conference (NU)…I agree that the whole argument of conference strength is pretty pointless to me, as well. But every now and then, I just like to pass the time while taking on uninformed fans who baselessly assert that I get all my knowledge strictly from Lee Corso.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
78
NorthCoastBias says:
“You decry the use of semantics to found one’s arguments, then you resort to little more than picking apart the mathematical semantics.”
There is no such thing as mathematical semantics. Semantics are differences between words. Statistical significance is not semantics. Statistical variation is a precise measurement of quantitative difference. Statistical significance is also not a subjective determination. There are clearly defined margins, based on the specific data in question, that determine whether a result is statistically significant or not.
“Whether that makes them substantially more sucky, or slightly more sucky is the semantic that you’d apparently like to debate here.”
Yes, I do want to debate that. “X sucks” implies that the difference between the thing that sucks and that which doesn’t suck is large. If something is “slightly more sucky”, then it doesn’t suck, it is simply silghtly not as good. However, given that we are talking about gross value-judgements like “X sucks” or “X dominates Y”, it is meaningless to say that one thing is slightly worse than the other. What is meaningful is if one is shown to be significantly better than the other (e.g. SEC vs Pac10). The fact that the stastical margin between the Pac and the non-SEC conferences is stastically insignificant invalidates a conclusion about relative quality. Thus, the conclusion shown by all of this data is that the ACC, Big10, and Big12 are comparable in quality, and the SEC is demonstrably better than the others. If I were to concede your assertion that the Pac10 doesn’t deserve to to sit at the big-boy’s table, then I would have to have seen that the others are substantially better.
Oh, and the MNC is stupid. Before the BCS, it was ALL subjectivity and politics. Now it is only mostly subjectivity and politics. Thus the reason there were as many as 5 different champions in certain years depending on who you asked.
Way to arbitrarily use your lifetime as the time-frame for discussion.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
79
tzubear says:
the inclusion of split championships as a tool to prove confernce strength or weakness is misguided. If anything it points to the very bias west coast fans rail against. Case in point: U-dub was the best team in the country in 1991, but shared the title with Miami.
DT- you make the point that north coast does not understand CFB. I dont think you understand the nature of PAC 10 parity. Any team in or conference has spent time as a powerhose at one point or another. Changes from top dog to just dog are common in less than 10 year periods. UW and Arizona were once conference and national powers now they are doormats. USC spent years in mediocraty. Oregon state was once good (long time ago) spent decades in the basement, was brifly a national power, and now is a cupcake again. Any given year Wazzu can be a pushover, or win the conference…etc, etc.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
80
DT says:
On multiple occasions, you’ve accused anyone who doesn’t believe your pac10 tripe as being “ESPN sheep”, “squarely inside of the ESPN herd” and that “the blatant Pac10 bashing is all bias and no reality”.
To this, I tried to show you that my “bias” against the pac 10 is derivative, not of anything I’ve seen or heard on TV (as you’ve asserted many times), but rather from a lifetime of witnessing that particular conferences’ futility (when compared to the truly elite members of the national arena.) You demanded that “legitimate arguments” be included…and I provided several legitimate arguments which illustrated how, from my own personal perspective, the pac 10 hasn’t enjoyed any sustainable success at the national level and is therefore basically irrelevant to any conversation about the nation’s elite. (Mind you…it’s not that I have any particular hatred for the pac10 at all…my lack of any connected emotion with regard to the conference is the very definition of “irrelevance”). But it’s pretty obvious that after demanding such evidence be provided, you find it easier to nitpick other people’s research than it is to actually conduct any of your own. (Ironic, considering that you’ve previously bemoaned the nitpicking of minutia to construct an argument…this is what I meant by “mathematical semantics”–although I should have guessed that such a play on words would be completely lost on such a math whiz like yourself.) Nevermind that, like I mentioned, you could probably carve up the data any way you want and still find similar trends in the results…but you don’t even bother to go that far. You ask for evidence that the pac ten is not as good as the big 4 conferences, all while you contend that the onus is not on you to rationalize your own beef with how the pac 10 gets no respect on a national scale…and after multiple pieces of evidence are provided, you cling to the claim that the difference is not “substantial” enough to be warranted. Otherwise, you dismiss any irrefutable piece of evidence as “stupid” and retreat to the same tired premise that it’s all the “subjective media’s fault” or ignore it altogether (as in the case of the vast discrepancy in all-time win pct. that exists between the “elite” Big 12 & Pac 10 teams.) And your willingness to leap to the conclusion that everyone who thinks the pac 10 sucks is little more than an espn drone makes about as much sense as your belief that the pac 10 can be judged on its merits as being the equal of the ACC or Big 12. Here’s a hint: if a school from the pac 10 (other than USC) actually came out some year, ran the table, and took home a MNC, you might then change your tune about “the MNC is stupid” and admit that such a statement pretty well defines the current disconnect between yourself and the typical college fan…many of us think that MNC’s are pretty important. I’ve seen my team win out on their schedule (leaving espn no choice but to cover it) three times in my life…and if it makes you feel any better, it really is quite satisfying to watch espn forced into the coverage of a team that they’d obviously rather not. But since that’s not likely to happen, in your case, any time soon…I’ll expect more of the same vitriolic rantings from you & others of your ilk–about how it’s all espn’s fault and how everyone who thinks that the pac 10 sucks is right to be accused of being under their spell.
Besides, I thought you were finished with this. I guess that’s just the type of thing that people say when they’re trying to get the last word in.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
81
DT says:
tzubear:
yours are good points, and you are right to mention the fact that I am far less informed as to the intricacies of the Pac 10 and their inter-conference history than I am the rest of the power cfb conferences. Thanks for this insight. But since NCB basically copped to not knowing that the University of Nebraska has won multiple national championships (and the first back-to-back undisputed titles in almost 40 years) in the very recent past…I’ll stand by my statements as to his acumen on the subject of national college football powers and their relevance.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
82
NorthCoastBias says:
Wow, you really got me there. Fine, you don’t get your bias from ESPN, you get it from some other source of bias towards the west. I would be finished if you hadn’t made utterly invented statements like “mathematical semantics”. Despite your contention, I did in fact include my own research. “Nitpicking” numbers is proper statistical practice. When results are shown not to be statistically significant, it is not nitpicking, it is called “rigorous quantitative analysis” and that is NOT a semantic distinction. Scientific rigor is a principle that is sadly missing in our society today. A society that continues to allow the persistence of paragons of ignorance like Creationism.
“I provided several legitimate arguments which illustrated how, FROM MY OWN PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, the pac 10 hasn’t enjoyed any sustainable success at the national level”
Thank you for admitting that you are making subjective statements based on your subjective interpretation of events you have personally witnessed. I was attempting to use objective criteria to demonstrate the falseness of an attitude that is based on your and the rest of the mainstream’s “personal perspective”
I made a huge oversight in regards to Nebraska – momentary lapse. The point is that every conference has it’s ruling party. In the Pac10, these teams have changed over the years, in the other conferences not so.
Using the MNC to dispute the existence of bias is circular. The rankings and MNC’s are the very embodiment of the subjectivity pervading the sport. Opinions dictate the rankings which dictate opinions.
Like I said, you will continue to see the conclusion that you wanted to see in the first place.
Anyways,
I think you said your team is Nebraska, so I wish a sincere Good Luck to the Huskers this year. Hopefully Oregon and USC will help prove me right this weekend.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
83
DT says:
Oh, one other thing, as I noted in the case of how long it would take the top-tier Pac teams to catch the top-tier BXII teams in overall wins…the practical reality of the head-to-head percentages that you’ve disparaged is that the Pac 10, if they were to go undefeated in all games against the Big12/ACC/SEC (a stretch, I know) would reverse the noted “insignificant” difference in about 3-4 years (against the B12/ACC) and reverse the trend against the SEC in about ten (figured at the rate of games played over the aforementioned 33 year timespan.)
And after throwing out split titles, they’d have to win the next 6 straight unanimous national titles (and have three teams other than SC & UW accomplish this) before they could be truly considered equal to the rest on the basis of this criteria.
So let’s all plan on getting back to this around about the time that jeb’s first term is over & see how the Pac 10 is coming along on reversing those insignificant trends.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
84
NorthCoastBias says:
“Jeb’s first term” – I think I just threw up in my own mouth
September 12th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
85
DT says:
Thanks for the math lessons…
The sincerity of your wishes, at this point, are pretty suspect.
But thanks anyway…we will need whatever luck we can get, sincere or otherwise, this weekend.
One last thing, my own personal experience has also seen some very good pac-10 teams beat my Huskers. Having seen NU compile a 23-6 record against the pac, that’s usually is what it takes…and I do believe we’ll be playing one this weekend. In truth, that’s probably what has formulated my admittedly underwhelming knowledge of the pac-10 the most…when there’s a pac-10 team on the schedule, it’s usually chalked up as a W 90% of the time. I’m just hoping that the Huskers come out and play with the Trojans and don’t get embarrassed in the coliseum on Sat. nite. And I hope OU & CU lose EVERY weekend…like I said before, rooting for conferences isn’t one of my deals. Playing the devil’s advocate is, however.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
86
DT says:
“Jeb’s first term” – I think I just threw up in my own mouth”
Me too!!
September 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
87
NorthCoastBias says:
Seriously, defending USC (by association) is a practice I’d rather not have to engage in ever again.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
88
DT says:
I will try to not put you in that position again…I actually learned a few things, which is more than I can say for most of the other internet debates I’ve participated in. (and largely due to the fact that I haven’t had a math class since trig in my junior year of HS). We Big 12/Pac 10 guys should stick together…we’re both on the same side of the bias, don’t you know? We both are forced to listen to someone shitty like Ron Thulin do our games every week.
But I just hate it when I hear Husker fans crying their diversionary excuses about “the media/espn/east coast bias” being against us. (which I do on a regular basis) It’s a convenient crutch to lean on at times when usually it’s just that…an excuse to distract from the fact that our team is not where we’d like them to be–when if they’d just win all their games, the talking heads could spout whatever they wanted & it wouldn’t make any difference. Ultimately, the sports media can only report on the events as they occur…and in the world of sports, the events on the field are conclusive…one team wins, the other loses…leaving very little room for creative license on the part of any media outlet. When I hear the same from fans of other teams, I usually have the same reaction…but I’m sorry if any of my points missed their intended aim.
And I withdraw what I said about your knowledge of football history, or lack thereof. I don’t know you and have no idea as to your level of expertise in this area…I was just pissed that the most dominant era of college football (one that is very dear to me) had slipped your mind. But like I said, not a terribly uncommon mistake to make, nowadays.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
89
NorthCoastBias says:
I would imagine that it would probably piss me off too if someone had left out the part of history where my team totally dominated. Unfortunately for my team that would have been about 80 years ago. For you see, I am in fact one of the many bitter Cal fans who was forced to suffer through the massive dissapointment of my team having their ass handed to them in one of the most important games in their team’s history. I have been forced to witness the ultimate heights of preseason hype and the subsequent bashing and hyperbole of how bad we are. Clearly, neither was true, but listening to the mainstream pundits go on and on about how Tedford is a fraud, we are going to suck this year, and we should just give up all hope of ever having a nationally respected program set me into a dizzying talespin of anger like I’ve never before experienced. Probably the most enfuriating was the disrespect shown to Tedford. Show me any coach that can take a 1-10 team to 7-5 in the span of a single off-season and a #5 final ranking in 3 seasons, and I”ll show you one of the best coaches in all of college football.
I do confess that I still have much to learn about the history and subtlety of the sport, and I too I learned a lot from this discussion. I totally agree that along with the Pac, the Big12 gets a totally unfair amount of criticism and lack of credit. Though, many make it out to be like the Pac is some two-bit conference like the WAC or something. Though we may not have quite as many banners to fly, I think the criticism we get is massively disproportionate. And so what if we are an offensively oriented conference? If you ask me, I’d rather watch a 42-31 barn burner over some 10-3 SEC snorefest any day of the week .
I especially hate the rankings because of the 2004 Mack Brown reach-around-fest which screwed us out of a rightly deserved and hard earned Rose Bowl bid. So, I have witnessed first hand how the corruption and politics in the ranking system can have a hugely negative affect. (and please, do not start in with me about the Holiday Bowl game against TexTech
Stop by BearInsider once in a while and say what’s up. I post as RoseBowlBears – a handle resulting from having joined in november ‘04, before said MackBrown reach-around-fest : -(
But hopefully my Bears can vindicate me by upsetting those bastard Toejams and earn that automatic bid this year.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
90
NorthCoastBias says:
P.S. sorry about the snippy attitude. I’m still a little, ok a lot, sensitive since the bashing Cal got by the national media
September 13th, 2006 at 12:53 am
91
R.I.P The Run Game « The Itch - Dry, Flaky Sports Commentary says:
[...] The tales of woe about the FSU rushing attack have been many. The quaint little neighborhood of NCAA rushing bottom-feeders that Jeffy’s offense now calls home includes the likes of Temple, Virginia and Baylor. Better? Duke. Worse? Only Hawai’i, who has yet to play a second game. The Noles will even commemorate the fallen half of the playbook, albeit 4 years too late, by breaking out black uniforms against BC later in the season.(Scroll down) [...]
September 13th, 2006 at 10:28 am