> You are obviously not getting my point.
>Say you're in a math class and you've aced the first test - top grade
>in the class. Now, if you fail test #2, where do you think your class
>rank is going to be? Pretty far down the list.
That's deceiving...unless you're assuming test #2 is weighted the same
as test #1, and it's relative to how the others in that class performed
on that test. If everyone else did roughly the same overall for both
tests, it's hard to say who's number one.
>OTOH, if you ace tests #1-#5 and are ranked #1 in the class when you
>fail the 6th test, what do you think you're class rank is going to be?
Not enough information to deduce a conclusion from the circumstances
presented. Someone who scored lower overall on the first 5 exams, still
has the opportunity to overtake the person you mentioned, because the
person failed the 6th test, because the second person's range is not as
varied as the first person's. Consistency is usually good, unless it
means consistently awful.
>A lot better than the Week 3 rank of the guy who failed his 2nd test.
>Why? When FSU lost to Miami, there were many more teams that could
>make a claim to that high ranking. As they dropped and dropped, two
>thing happened: FSU moved back up AND the distance between the elite
>and these pretenders narrowed.
The difference is people know FSU is a national titlecontender, and
Miami came off probation, so they had arguably their best shot at Miami
since the mid 1990s. Another thing is Miami's loss was a close road loss
to a high caliber football team, Washington, whose only loss was to
Oregon, and Oregon has the inside track on the Rose Bowl along with
Purdue the last time I checked. FSU's team this year wasn't probably as
good as the 1999 version, but it wasn't too far off.
>So, when UNL loses later in the season (margin, location, opponent
>aside) the drop is going to be less.
That makes no sense at all. Interestingly, I believe it was yesterday or
the day before where Jim Rome talked about how the Big XII championship
game could hurt that conference. Ask Kansas State and Nebraska about the
game, when they had chances to win the national title in certain years,
but lost in the Big XII championship game. The same thing may or may not
happen to Oklahoma, which was a mediocre team as recently as two years
>For christ's sake, FSU has lost once and UNL has lost once, and UNL is
>ranked behind FSU. UNL's opponent is higher ranked, but the margin was
>greater, so this seems pretty fair.
You would think so, but when Kansas loses by only one point greater than
Nebraska did in Norman, you have to start to believe this year's
Nebraska team is getting help from the pollsters and the BCS standings.
This Nebraska team is nowhere as good as previous Nebraska team. Of
course the 1995 Huskers may be the best college football team in NCAA
history. This team is merely a good team, but not a great one. The only
impressive win was their opener against San Jose State. Notre Dame was a
good win, but they were lucky to get in on that third down gamble,
because that was a game they could have easily lost.
> Vijay R.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.