The Seinfeld Conference Week 5 "The Frogger"

[Southern Pigskin]

http://www.southernpigskin.com/socon/seinfeld/

[citdog]

Do y'all even put thought into these? When one team beats another on the field it means they are better. Seems simple even for a furple...

[The Cats]

When one team beats another on the field it means they are better.

Actually, it only means they were better on they day they played.

[citdog]

Actually, it only means they were better on they day they played.

it does? Why do they keep score then???

[thebootfitter]

it does? Why do they keep score then???
The score is what matters on the field that day.

I agree with Cats here. In fact, I suspect most folks on AGS do as well. Look at the poll results for evidence. Just because Team A beats Team B on X day, does not mean that Team A is a "better" team. There are simply way too many variables in the game for a qualitative judgment like that to depend entirely upon one factor (the score). If there were some way to play the game 10 times or 100 times, you could probably use those results to indicate that one team is better, but that's just not possible in football.

The score is the single factor/variable that determines who wins the game on that day, and it often is an indicator of which team is stronger overall, but it is certainly not a guarantee that the same team would win consistently over a stretch of games against the same team. In fact, the score on that day could be the one flukey win out of 99 additional tries for Team A.

[citdog]

The score is what matters on the field that day.

I agree with Cats here. In fact, I suspect most folks on AGS do as well. Look at the poll results for evidence. Just because Team A beats Team B on X day, does not mean that Team A is a "better" team. There are simply way too many variables in the game for a qualitative judgment like that to depend entirely upon one factor (the score). If there were some way to play the game 10 times or 100 times, you could probably use those results to indicate that one team is better, but that's just not possible in football.

The score is the single factor/variable that determines who wins the game on that day, and it often is an indicator of which team is stronger overall, but it is certainly not a guarantee that the same team would win consistently over a stretch of games against the same team. In fact, the score on that day could be the one flukey win out of 99 additional tries for Team A.

The result is why the game is played.

[thebootfitter]

The result is why the game is played.
Getting a bit philosophical here, but I think this is open for debate too. The result simply determines who wins and who loses on that day. A series of positive results throughout the season may lead a chance to extend their season in the playoffs.

But for fans or players, is it really why the game is played? I don't enjoy watching a football game just to see what the final score is. If it were all about the result, I'd just look at game results the next day.

Nay, I like to see the action... the battle on the field... the match ups... the grit and determination of individual players and the coordinated effort of individual players playing as a team. I like to see the chess match of the coaches.

When I was a player on an undefeated team in junior high or a team that won only 3 games my entire high school career, was the result on the scoreboard the reason that I played the game?

Nay, I played because I loved the action... to pit my skills against the man across from me... to rise to the challenge of defending a star wide receiver or threading a pass between star defenders... to see my fellow team mates work together on the grid iron, even though we were losing on the score board... to work harder in practice every week to try to get better... to grow and to learn as human beings.

The score is what matters on the field at the end of the day. It is what determines W/L records. But it is my opinion that it is NOT why the game is played. The game is played because on any given day, Team A can beat Team B if the stars are aligned -- even if they are the inferior team on paper.

[woffordgrad94]

I can see this debate both ways. If you've had a full season of results where say team A went 2-9 and team B went 7-4, you could probably (but not definitely) conclude that team B was better even if they lost to team A in one game. But we don't have that here for this poll, so I have to agree with Citdog in this instance. We have only played several games so far; not even half a season. When ranking WCU and The Citadel so early, the main thing we have to go on is their head to head meeting. Not only did The Citadel win, it wasn't even very close (28-10). So it was unlikely that it was a fluke. It could change later in the season, but right now at this moment you would HAVE to rank The Citadel above WCU.