So, after we go 2-10 ...

[FreedComanche]

You could also say that they were much worse than their record in 2009, but that doesn't take away the BCS trophy.

They were. I remember a sports radio host calling them a paper mache team that year because almost every (not all wins) time they won, they won in such an underwhelming fashion that it almost didn't seem like a win.

 

[FreedComanche]

What is the point? Those who want to say they were better than their record will say they were 5 plays from 9-3....for those who want to make the case that they were worse than their record, will say they were 2 plays from 2-10. The fact is they were 4-8.

Ok, let me give an example. Let's say a team goes 10-2. By just looking at the record you'd think they are a very good team. But what if they played very poor competition, just barely won each game, never rushed for a 100 yards and never passed for over 180 yards a game? By looking at those details, one would have to conclude they are NOT as good as their record. Does this not make sense?

 

[theboat]

They were. I remember a sports radio host calling them a paper mache team that year because almost every (not all wins) time they won, they won in such an underwhelming fashion that it almost didn't seem like a win.

The fact that you refuse to see the other side of the coin tells me all I need to know. Trollollolloll

 

[FreedComanche]

The fact that you refuse to see the other side of the coin tells me all I need to know. Trollollolloll

I do see all points on this. And calling me a troll indicates you have just stopped using your critical thinking skills. And I still do not know what a troll is. Something tells me I don't have what it would take to be a troll.

 

[deanvogs]

Ok, let me give an example. Let's say a team goes 10-2. By just looking at the record you'd think they are a very good team. But what if they played very poor competition, just barely won each game, never rushed for a 100 yards and never passed for over 180 yards a game? By looking at those details, one would have to conclude they are NOT as good as their record. Does this not make sense?

No it doesn't make sense at all. If you are 10-2, you are 10-2. People can always debate how good a 10-2 team is, or how bad a 2-10 team is, and I think that is the point you are trying to make. No matter how you slice it 6 wins is better than 5, 10 wins is better than 9, etc. I would rather be a "bad 10-2 team according to you than a "good" 9-3 team according to you. Wins are much more fun to watch.

 

[FreedComanche]

If you are 10-2, you are 10-2. People can always debate how good a 10-2 team is, or how bad a 2-10 team is, and I think that is the point you are trying to make.

Yep, that's the point I was trying to make. Why this procedure is not followed in the BCS to determine the rankings is dumb. ND would not have been in the title game.