Is it better or worse for USF if FAU upsets ucf?

[Hueyhog20]

Need UCF to lose so their fans can be brought back down to earth! They need to realize that Scott Frost was that team! 

[BrassBulls12]

35 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Because it is wrong. You can’t have empirical evidence, a system, tons of math and comparisons and then have it based on bad data but then say well it’s okay because the results are close enough to my opinion. It’s not trying to be a poll, it’s not trying to be an opinion piece it’s trying to be math and if you luck out and maybe get the right answer one time from your bad data that doesn’t make it okay because who knows how many more mistakes you have and what effect that could have on any future results. If you can’t get who played (or did not play) and what the results are right you can’t be relied upon to compare those results, it’s pretty simple why it’s a huge deal for them.   

First you "aren't arguing for a stronger MWC" but the result of the AAC being a stronger conference is wrong? You are one tough cookie to follwo. 

[puc86]

5 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

First you "aren't arguing for a stronger MWC" but the result of the AAC being a stronger conference is wrong? You are one tough cookie to follwo. 

I honestly don’t see what could be confusing about it. If you want to systematically rank teams and conferences then you need to have correct data, when your data is flawed your system will be flawed. 

[BrassBulls12]

5 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I honestly don’t see what could be confusing about it. If you want to systematically rank teams and conferences then you need to have correct data, when your data is flawed your system will be flawed. 

Because result is that the AAC is a stronger conference the MWC. I understand that its probably a few point off based on that ONE game. But unless you want to make the argument that that ONE game changes the result, which you have said multiple times that you aren't, you are basically arguing something that is meaningless. 

[puc86]

1 minute ago, BrassBulls12 said:

Because result is that the AAC is a stronger conference the MWC. I understand that its probably a few point off based on that ONE game. But unless you want to make the argument that that ONE game changes the result, which you have said multiple times that you aren't, you are basically arguing something that is meaningless. 

Maybe it’s one game maybe it’s not as I did not look at all of their data but if I feel the AAC is better than the MWC has nothing to do with if this system helps to prove it. If you are trying to be an algorithmic bias free arbiter of college football success you need to get your data and math right and not some of the time, of the time.

[BrassBulls12]

2 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Maybe it’s one game maybe it’s not as I did not look at all of their data but if I feel the AAC is better than the MWC has nothing to do with if this system helps to prove it. If you are trying to be an algorithmic bias free arbiter of college football success you need to get your data and math right and not some of the time, of the time.

So again we are back to I don't think it's wrong but it's wrong. You keep finding those molehills to make mountains out of big dog. I've wasted enough time on this thread. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by BrassBulls12

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

So again we are back to I don't think it's wrong but it's wrong. You keep finding those molehills to make mountains out of big dog. 

It’s not a molehill it’s the foundation of their entire system. Even if it’s one bad data point it destroys what they are trying to accomplish. Let’s say they accidentally had us beating Alabama 100-0,  you don’t think that would have a sweeping ripple effect thru their entire rankings? You can’t ignore it and say it’s not a big deal because you agree with the results because their carelessness can just as easily lead to a result you don’t agree with and most importantly it is supposed to be objective so that it can be argued about at all is a complete failure.

Edited September 19, 2018 by puc86

[raptorcj]

It's worse. I'd love to spoil an otherwise good season for them.

[USFBulls727]

I would like to see the same situation as last season happen every season....a trip to the CCG on the line for both teams. That game got a lot of attention last year....one site had it listed as the game of the year, in any sport. Any attention is good attention for us, so why wouldn't we want the stakes to be high for that game? If the whole package-deal thing is our best chance to get a P5 invite, it seems that both teams doing well wouldn't hurt. Personally, I'd get a kick out of seeing them lose, but if they win, it could eventually be a positive for us as far as SOS.

[puc86]

5 minutes ago, USFBulls727 said:

I would like to see the same situation as last season happen every season....a trip to the CCG on the line for both teams. That game got a lot of attention last year....one site had it listed as the game of the year, in any sport. Any attention is good attention for us, so why wouldn't we want the stakes to be high for that game? If the whole package-deal thing is our best chance to get a P5 invite, it seems that both teams doing well wouldn't hurt. Personally, I'd get a kick out of seeing them lose, but if they win, it could eventually be a positive for us as far as SOS.

Why is there any reason to believe the package deal with UCF is our best chance at a P5 invite? All history of expansion shows that the package deal idea has little root in reality and as such UCF would be our greatest obstacle to expansion. We need them to catastrophically fail as we do any other team we maybe fighting with for expansion.