• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

We Can Move Up To 3rd In All-Time Winning Percentages This Year!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BuckeyeNation27 said:
Gee, really? You hadn't made that point. :roll2:

The point everybody is trying to pound into your head is that using the NCAA or using Stassen isn't the more correct or less correct method. It's just a method.
Click to expand...

Look, when Michigan played Texas in the Rose Bowl a year or so back, ABC showed that Nebraska and Texas were ties at 786 wins. Texas won and in their 2005 Record Book the NCAA showed Texas with 787 wins and Nebraska with 786. Stassen shows both win more wins. Where is ABC getting their information? After Texas won the Rose Bowl, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 352, which mentioned Texas' 800th win:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2006/01/26/whereas_the_us_senate_formally_recognizes_the_horns_championship.html

This number was also mentioned in news reports. Stassen has Texas with 803 wins. It's obvious that to be considered accurate, you have to match the school's total that they pass on to the NCAA. These are the sources that will be deemed correct and will be uses. These people to not go to stassen for their information.
 
Upvote 0
ktffan said:
Look, when Michigan played Texas in the Rose Bowl a year or so back, ABC showed that Nebraska and Texas were ties at 786 wins. Texas won and in their 2005 Record Book the NCAA showed Texas with 787 wins and Nebraska with 786. Stassen shows both win more wins. Where is ABC getting their information? After Texas won the Rose Bowl, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 352, which mentioned Texas' 800th win:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2006/01/26/whereas_the_us_senate_formally_recognizes_the_horns_championship.html

This number was also mentioned in news reports. Stassen has Texas with 803 wins. It's obvious that to be considered accurate, you have to match the school's total that they pass on to the NCAA. These are the sources that will be deemed correct and will be uses. These people to not go to stassen for their information.
Click to expand...
now we are back to this?

I'm surprised mili hasn't given you a vacation yet. You waffle more than an ego.
 
Upvote 0
You notice the NCAA doesn't list any games. In other cases the do. So which games are "forfeited"? None are listed, none got forfeited.
Click to expand...

If all wins in a season are forfeited there is no need to list them individual. Does that simple logic completely escape you?

Look, when Michigan played Texas in the Rose Bowl a year or so back, ABC showed that Nebraska and Texas were ties at 786 wins. Texas won and in their 2005 Record Book the NCAA showed Texas with 787 wins and Nebraska with 786. Stassen shows both win more wins. Where is ABC getting their information? After Texas won the Rose Bowl, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 352, which mentioned Texas' 800th win:
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

Here's a link you should read.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad antiquitatem
 
Upvote 0
when ABC television supports your opinion, it is a valid argument. When virtually everyone in the media states OSU won its first title since 68, well you get the picture. Personally, I think both examples are nice fodder, and little else.
ktffan said:
So you're saying they got this one wrong?
Click to expand...
no I'm saying ABC is a horrible example when trying to establish accuracy and general acceptance. Disney owns ABC, and since they took over ESPN, that network has become very 'free' in its representation of the truth.
 
Upvote 0
xrayrandy said:
If all wins in a season are forfeited there is no need to list them individual. Does that simple logic completely escape you?
Click to expand...

And that stassen in the place you can even find these games are "forfeited" means they are all forfeited, eh?

xrayrandy said:
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I've got the US Senate, University of Texas, the NCAA, and ABC on my side, you've got some guy with a website.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
when ABC television supports your opinion, it is a valid argument. When virtually everyone in the media states OSU won its first title since 68, well you get the picture. Personally, I think both examples are nice fodder, and little else.
Click to expand...

In lack of a direct quote in meaning what "titles" they were talking about, I really can't address that.

no I'm saying ABC is a horrible example when trying to establish accuracy and general acceptance. Disney owns ABC, and since they took over ESPN, that network has become very 'free' in its representation of the truth.
Click to expand...

Granted, but where did they get the 786 number they were using? Just who do they deem "credible"?
 
Upvote 0
Granted, but where did they get the 786 number they were using? Just who do they deem "credible"?
Click to expand...
personally I don't care.

In 03, if most of the media claims that OSU has not won a title since 68, but ABC claims they won it all in 1970, who are you going to listen to? The answer is irrelevant, the subjective nature of their analysis is what I'm getting at.
 
Upvote 0
ktffan said:
And that stassen in the place you can even find these games are "forfeited" means they are all forfeited, eh?



Oh, yeah. I've got the US Senate, University of Texas, the NCAA, and ABC on my side, you've got some guy with a website.
Click to expand...
So you have 1 thing on your side, since all others either get their data from the NCAA or give their data to the NCAA. Stop being such an ass.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
personally I don't care.

In 03, if most of the media claims that OSU has not won a title since 68, but ABC claims they won it all in 1970, who are you going to listen to? The answer is irrelevant, the subjective nature of their analysis is what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

So, if we can't tell who's got more wins or a higher winning percentage, what's the point of this thread in the first place?
 
Upvote 0
ktffan said:
I know what the word consensus means. Let's review what was said.

1. I said the NCAA called Ohio State a consensus champion. That is a fact.

2. You said I didn't know what I was talking about because, you assured me, that the NCAA would do no such thing.

3. I showed exactly where the NCAA called Ohio State a consensus champion.

4. You get rude because you were shown to be wrong.

What I said and what you claimed was wrong what that the NCAA calls Ohio State a consensus champion and that is a fact.
Click to expand...
your book is WRONG. in 1961, the Ascociated press voted ALABAMA #1; Ohio State was #2. likewise, the UPI (which is now the USA Today Coaches poll) voted ALABAMA #1, and Ohio State #2. if your book claims that Ohio State, who at best shared the Title with 'Bama, is the 'consensus champs' for 1961, then it ain't worth the paper it's printed on. LINK.

similarly, in 1970, the AP has Nebraska as #1, and Ohio State checks in down at #5. the UPI has Texas at #1, and Ohio State at #2. FWIW, the National FOotball Foundation awarded Ohio State the National Championship before the Rose Bowl, which Ohio State lost. once again, if your book claims that a team that was at best in a three way tie for the NC, as the 'consensus champs' then your book is worthless. LINK.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top