In your recent Blog Pollin' post (http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2007/11/28/85811/733#commenttop), you call me out for my "revisionist horse shit" positions on LSU's place in the poll, specifically saying:
Before these notes came up, an argument broke out in the comments based on the poll alone, begun by commenter usckb and backed by LSU partisan crepusucular, who take their cues from fearless leader (or pope; he has the hat - ed.) Les Miles in arguing that, rather than suffer for its second defeat, the Tigers should remain at the top of the polls - in reality, they argue, "LSU has tied twice," and its collection of wins marks it as "still the best team in the nation."
Problem with that is that I never made such claims. Since you couldn't be bothered to actually distinguish between my and usckb's posts, I pasted my 3 posts (in chronological order) below:
yup (on the merits of quality wins)
That's pretty much the point I was making on an earlier thread. Except, not trying to make a case for the current 2 loss team, I pointed out that the neutral fan should be lamenting the falls of LSU and Oregon since they have each at least beat a couple of top 10 teams. OSU and WVU can't even claim a single top 14 win. Mizzou I've got no problem with. But as an LSU partisan, I can almost understand people not looking at my argument rationally.
I agree (on taking "into account the TWO LOSSES (note: not ties)"
That's what makes this so difficult, essentially comparing apples to oranges as far as quality wins vs. number of losses. I believe the number of losses category is typically given too much weight but obviously that's just my opinion.
For another approach to ranking teams at this point, I'd recommend envisioning the number of losses you would expect WVU and OSU to have if they played LSU's schedule and vice versa. Does anyone believe either of those teams escapes that with fewer than 2 losses?
I would concede that LSU doesn't have a strong argument to be ranked above WVU and OSU. But I don't feel they have a strong argument to be ranked above LSU either.
Can't argue with that (to an argument that WVU is better than LSU)
They have been very sloppy. I was hoping they'd manage to beat Arkansas (I knew it would be a difficult game), avoid Georgia in the SEC Title game, then heal-up and put in a dominating performance in the BCS Title game. Obviously that's not how you would expect to feel if you really think your team is currently #1, which contrasts strongly to how I felt 4 years ago at this time.
As for Tim J's comment upthread, I don't think you can really make a strong argument that Illinois and S. Florida are better than Kentucky and Arkansas. Without getting into specifics, all of those teams are just below the cream of the crop in each of their conferences. I've said before that Mizzou deserves to be ranked where they are so I don't count their loss to Oklahoma in this argument.
I only point this out because it's as plain as day that I did not make those "horseshit" arguments. To recap, you claim that I argue 1) "LSU has tied twice" and 2) LSU is "still the best team in the nation." I politely asked you at the bottom of the thread to re-read my comments and edit your post but it seems you only selectively read and interpret comments to fit whatever mold you want to see. Now it's my turn: Your claim, SMQ, is horseshit!
I come to this site because of how it's supposed to differ from other sites and TV networks fronted by annoying talking heads that spout whatever they want without having to listen to any counter-arguments. It would be a shame if you don't keep it that way.