He didn't say or imply that mike, but that is what you do.  Make preposterous statements that you don't support. 

There's what I do.   STFU.

even more typical mike.

Some people never learn.   If you wanna talk football, do so.    If you wanna be an ***, do it somewhere else.    At the very least, be an *** while talking football.

If you can't do that, perhaps step away.

you going to report this post also.  you know you can get banned for reporting posts improperly.  No one ever said that all 2-0 football teams should be ranked ahead of all 1-1 teams, yet you implied that was stated.  That is a preposterous statement because no one ever said it.  At least keep your crazy rants on point.  I mean this is a football thread, so lets discuss football in it and not imaginary statements.

No, you put some football in with your insult, dumbass.   You did exactly as I asked.

all3 implied that the "result" is all that matters.   The "result" of 2-0 is better than 1-1 and/or 0-2.   I know you're poor at understanding anything that isn't spelled out for you but that is what he implied.   BYU is 2-0.   No one has denied that.   But they are not Top 25 quality regardless of their "result".    Did I use small enough words for you?   Or do I need to use this format?

• all3 implied that the "result" is all that matters.  
• The "result" of 2-0 is better than 1-1 and/or 0-2.  
• I know you're poor at understanding anything that isn't spelled out for you but that is what he implied.  
• BYU is 2-0.  
• No one has denied that.  
• But they are not Top 25 quality regardless of their "result". 

He said that BYU should be rewarded for their result of the season thus far.  He never said that all 2-0 teams should be ahead of all 1-1 teams.  He never even said that all 2-0 are created equal.  He said that based on BYU's results (not just record, but opponents, locations, etc. i.e. a win at Nebraska and against a ranked Boise St team) they should be ranked at this point in the season.  The rest of your post is just silly nonsense. 

Posted by all3 on 9/14/2015 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2015 2:23:00 PM (view original):
I see no point in putting a team in the top 25 that has about zero chance of finishing there.    I see 5 losses on the schedule and they might finish with 7.   That's a pretty tough route to the top 25.

We all know you like to post some crazy sheit, but saying teams should be ranked on what you think might happen over the rest of the season instead of what you know has already happened is one of your "best".

OK, this is the post most relevant.    I'll break it down for you.

"instead of what you know has already happened"

I "know" that a 2-0 has won both of their games.
I "know" a 1-1 team has lost one of their games.
I "know" an 0-2 team has yet to taste victory.

I also "know" there are plenty of 1-1 teams that are better than 2-0 teams and I "know" there are 0-2 teams that are better than 1-1 teams.

all3 implies that teams shouldn't be ranked on potential, or actual talent, but only on the result.    Because the result is the only thing we know that has already happened.

Go back to waving your pompoms.    You're better at that than thinking.

BTW, it was stinenavy who said "reward".    I see no sense in "rewarding" teams that won't be there at the end.

Uh, stine was who you were having the entire conversation with about BYU until the end.  I'm not confused at all.  And again, Stine never said all wins are equal, which is the point you can't seem to understand.  Stine, likely isn't saying BYU should be ranked if they have wins over Jacksonville St. and Texas San Antonio.  He was saying that a road win against Nebraska and a win over a ranked Boise St. team, should get you ranked.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Uh, you realize I quoted all3, right?   So, no, this is incorrect: "Uh, stine was who you were having the entire conversation with about BYU until the end".   I'm not saying you're confused, I'm saying you're stupid.   Therefore, if you can't follow along, perhaps keep it shut.

As for what he/you are saying, I'm countering that you're either a top 25 team or you're not.    If BYU is, they have plenty of time to prove it.   A couple of late game wins isn't proof.   I sort of said that.   I'll quote that one since you can't seem to follow when the page turns over.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/14/2015 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Well, early season rankings are about as stupid as you but, if a team has little chance of finishing near the top, putting them up there is pointless.    BYU has plenty of time to "prove" they belong with the big boys.   If they do, I'll change my tune.   But, more than likely, UCLA beats them by 20 and Michigan beats them by double digits.     Will you come back and say "Yeah, OK, they aren't a Top 25 team and never should have been considered to be one" if that happens?

I mean, after all, Jax St should be top 25 if Auburn is 18, right?

This one.

Early season rankings are stupid, but if you are going to put them out they should be based on the early season.  BYU is a top 25 team based on the early season results.  BYU may or may not be a top 25 team later in the year, but it isn't yet later in the year.

Was OSU ranked number 1 because of what they'd done in the early season?    You know, before games were played?  No?   Then why?

Should a team like Clemson, beating Wofford and App State, move UP because of what they did in the early season?   Why?