. . . You are really stuck on that, aren't you?  The point is, your principle does not work in practice.  It is not some sort of ironclad proof.  The better team does not win every game.

Then we should probably just not play if what happens in the game doesn't even matter.  As I said, 1 win ok maybe a fluke.  2 wins probably not.  Plus it was by a combined 23 points.  That to me would represent who is the better team very clearly.  Not sure how another argument could be made.  "You play to win the game."

What happens in games DOES matter. . what happens in ALL of the games. . not just those two.

I think it might be helpful to decouple issue with top 50 wins and the issue of head-to-head results.

Rightly or wrongly (and I would say from my vantage point it is leaning in the wrong direction), top 50 wins are very important.  You noted that in your first post and as such I think the two teams are nearly as equal as they would otherwise be.  I don't think this is necessarily an apples to apples comparison.  And so the head-to-head discussion isn't as applicable as it otherwise might be.

On the head-to-head results, I think this is probably an area where humans are going to do a better job than a program.  And as such I'm not sure I want head-to-head to have much, if any impact.  Otherwise you end up with one of those silly UConn lost to St. John's last season and they lost to St. Bonaventure and the Bonnies lost to Canisus.  Therefore Canisus should be national champs.  How close to the two teams need to be for the head-to-head comparison to be valid?  Should it matter when the game was played?  (A maxed out team of upperclassmen that beats a young team in non-conference might not mean a whole lot by season's end.)  In theory I like the head-to-head results having some role in determining bids and seeds.  In reality I don't think a program is going to handle the nuances.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/12/2011 12:56:00 PM (view original):
What happens in games DOES matter. . what happens in ALL of the games. . not just those two.

So you think they are a better team even though I beat them twice?  Makes perfect sense.

I'm glad to see Seth Greenberg plays Hoops Dynasty.

Posted by cburton23 on 12/12/2011 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/12/2011 12:56:00 PM (view original):
What happens in games DOES matter. . what happens in ALL of the games. . not just those two.

So you think they are a better team even though I beat them twice?  Makes perfect sense.

Yes.  Heck, all the time one team just has trouble with another team for one reason or another.  And pretty much. . you only beat them twice because he had a bad day at the free throw line, so lets not get overdramatic.  A normal free throw day, and there would be a split and nothing close to an argument.

So last year in the NBA, Dallas was worse than Milwaukee, Denver and Memphis.  Who knew?

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/12/2011 12:56:00 PM (view original):
What happens in games DOES matter. . what happens in ALL of the games. . not just those two.

Exactly.

This seems like a very straightforward concept.

Posted by 4green2 on 12/12/2011 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 12/12/2011 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 12/12/2011 12:56:00 PM (view original):
What happens in games DOES matter. . what happens in ALL of the games. . not just those two.

So you think they are a better team even though I beat them twice?  Makes perfect sense.

Yes.  Heck, all the time one team just has trouble with another team for one reason or another.  And pretty much. . you only beat them twice because he had a bad day at the free throw line, so lets not get overdramatic.  A normal free throw day, and there would be a split and nothing close to an argument.

So last year in the NBA, Dallas was worse than Milwaukee, Denver and Memphis.  Who knew?

And I was 1-12 from 3.  If I have a normal 3 pt shooting night I beat him by more and no argument.  But lets not just select random stats that prove our point.

It looks like I am in the minority here, but I just don't understand how you can beat a team twice and still be considered not as good as the team you beat.  Again, I did not just win once but twice, home and away by an average of 12 points.  This conversation reminds of of my biggest pet peeve with soccer coaches (I don't why its all soccer coaches but it is) who after getting beat will have a quote in the paper saying "Well we were the better team tonight, but we didn't win."  No coach you were not the better team, that's why they keep score. 

cburton, it's because you have to judge it on the entire body of work put together throughout the whole season, not just two games.

This is such a simple concept -- I think the fact that you have a dog in this fight is severely affecting your judgment/reasoning.

Thats the thing girt, how much better is their entire body of work than mine?  I would get your side of this if I was 14-14 or something, but is it such a small gap that I would think beating him would put me over the top. 

Isn't the other team 21-7, with 2 wins against rpi 1-50? So thats 4 more wins overall and 2 more quality wins?

Posted by cburton23 on 12/11/2011 9:20:00 PM (view original):
Then I have a problem with the real life committee too. If you beat somebody twice then by definition you are better than they are

trying to describe the world in these absolute black and whites will never get you anywhere

Posted by coach_billyg on 12/12/2011 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cburton23 on 12/11/2011 9:20:00 PM (view original):
Then I have a problem with the real life committee too. If you beat somebody twice then by definition you are better than they are

trying to describe the world in these absolute black and whites will never get you anywhere

Exactly, and that's been my problem with cburton's position.  I think he probably has an argument in this particular circumstance, even if the majority disagrees.  But there's no way that you can say 2-0 makes you the better team every time, without looking to anything else. 

I think my Bears/Packers example pretty clearly proves that, and it's frustrating that someone can look at that and say, "I guess the Bears must be the better team." 

28.

Maryland

ACC

mniven

34

1

13-13

11-5

2-8

0-0

4-6

Lock

anyone that can explain to me how a team that is in danger of falling below .500 and thus out of NT contention if they lose their first CT game is a lock for the NT? 

If they finish above .500 then, ok they played a brutal schedule...i get it, but at this point wouldnt they have to fall under the bubble heading? it's nitpicking maybe, but still...

(sorry, not trying to call out maryland or mniven, just found this odd)