| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Searn |
#81 | |||
|
All-Searn Hall of Fame
Posts: 7219 05/05/09 2:34 PM Board Owner |
I didn't want to bring it up .... but I was going to mention earlier that I believe there could potentially be zero elite teams during a given time
frame.....
But I decided there was enough debate going on in this topic. In short, I agree with what Snooze said above. |
|||
|
|
||||
 Mr NCAA |
#82 | |||
|
I guess that I will respond to SnoozeToMe's criticism. First, it is impossible for teams to be .500 and win the state championship. Even if all the teams
were 4 - 4 - 1 during the regular season, the team would have to win 5 straight games to win a state championship making the team 9 - 4 - 1 on the year. By
definition that would make them elite for that year. Second, I do believe that Searn left off some teams that belong in the elite class based on the responses
on here just as Searn put some teams on his list that definitely didn't belong.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
MegaFan66 |
#83 | |||
|
Junior
Posts: 128 05/05/09 6:12 PM |
Searn wrote:Maybe elite isn't as strong of a word as you think. It's not really a power level category because not everybody is on the same level. In my example to say that somebody has to be mentioned along with Rockford as elite, doesn't automatically mean they are also on Rockford's level. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MegaFan66 |
#84 | |||
|
Junior
Posts: 129 05/05/09 6:15 PM |
BIGREDS89 wrote:Of course, that's pretty self explanatory. But they would still be elite, with other teams. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MegaFan66 |
#85 | |||
|
Junior
Posts: 130 05/05/09 6:34 PM |
SnoozeToMe wrote: No, you're wrong, a group is a number of persons (plural) or things (plural) ranged or considered together as being related in some way. Technically that "group" of one nickname is actually a list. You are also dead wrong about the possibility of there being zero elite teams, that is impossible because to be elite, you are comparing teams against each other using a set of criteria, not just against a set of criteria. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Searn |
#86 | |||
|
All-Searn Hall of Fame
Posts: 7220 05/05/09 7:11 PM Board Owner |
If it helps for the sake of this forum I meant to say that I believe there can be zero SCOOTWAG (but I'd be lying if I really said I thought of elite as
being different)
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MegaFan66 |
#87 | |||
|
Junior
Posts: 132 05/05/09 7:32 PM |
Searn wrote: Well Searn, you can't form a definition of a word to fit what you think it means. And you can't make up words to help an argument, and still be credible in my opinion. I mean, someone said this topic had gotten sophomoric because I posted the definition of elite. If that's the case, then what would you call making up words? |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Searn |
#88 | |||
|
All-Searn Hall of Fame
Posts: 7221 05/05/09 8:22 PM Board Owner |
I just can't call someone/thing "elite" if I think it's just good or average ... that's my only issue.
If 10 different teams won D1 titles in a 10 year span, each winning that title with a 9-4 record .. and each of the 10 finished (0-9) the other 9 seasons that they didn't win it all ... that is a very unlikely case in which I can't in clear conscience say I believe anyone is "elite" And like I said I understand what you are saying about the definition ... but to this person something average can't also be elite at the same time. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
BIGREDS89 |
#89 | |||
|
All-Searn 2nd Team
Posts: 1495 05/06/09 6:45 AM |
MegaFan66 wrote: UMmm NO. In THAT example it's all Rockford. Thats it THATS the list.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k245/marinercoachkk/singlewing.gif
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
SnoozeToMe |
#90 | |||
MegaFan66 wrote: Zero IS exactly the number of PERSONS (plural) that are taller than 12 feet. One is EXACTLY the number of elite teams (plural) in the Rockford example given above. What is the number of noses on your face? You can't say one because I said noses (plural), not nose (singular). (for Mr NCAA too): Searn explained my example of zero elite far better than I did. 9-4 one year, 0-9 the rest, not elite in that decade. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Mr NCAA |
#91 | |||
|
Searn, it would be greatly appreciated if you quit playing with things on here as far as how many posts appear at one time both in the post topic and on the
page. Do one and leave it at that point. It's tough to follow posts when you are constantly changing it.
Next up for SnoozeToMe, you can't have it both ways. Either put out real numbers or put out fake ones. You said that the teams were 4 - 4 - 1 during the regular season. For starters the worst a team can be during the regular season is 5 - 4 or 4 - 4 and still make the playoffs (I don't recall any 4 - 3 teams automatically making the playoffs). So your hypotheotical won loss record doesn't exist. So the state championship team would be either 10 - 4 or 9 - 4. Ties aren't allowed by rule now. Care to mention a real team that won the state championship and fell to 0 - 9 the very next year? So put out real scenarios next time. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Searn |
#92 | |||
|
All-Searn Hall of Fame
Posts: 7223 05/06/09 5:04 PM Board Owner |
Most of the scenerios in this topic are not very realistic ... who is the last team to win 10 titles in a row either?
Extreme examples are being made up to make points ... (FYI for Mr. NCAA .. I have not made any changes to the # of posts or topics viewed in months) |
|||
|
|
||||
|
EastGuRu |
#93 | |||
|
Senior
Posts: 225 05/06/09 5:50 PM |
Hey Webster, I mean MegaFan, the definition of sophomoric is "conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature". By pressing
the definition of "Elite" as it is defined and used in the classic sense of socio-economic status, and trying to apply it to what is a more casual
(and accepted) reference to sports is, IMO, a bit sophomoric. Making up a word to keep the banter light and to try (unsuccessfully) to steer the conversation
back to a more light-hearted nature is called being amiable......definition: "having an easygoing and pleasing manner especially in social
situations". Try it sometime.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
SnoozeToMe |
#94 | |||
Mr NCAA wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "both ways". All of my football-related examples have been obviously hypothetical. I admitted that my 4-4-1 scenario was not as well-constructed as Searn's 9-4 (then 0-9) scenario. Nobody is saying these things have happened, or ever will happen. When the thread became reduced to a syntactical nit-picking argument, hypothetical scenarios were constructed simply to support a case. I respect your knowledge of "real scenarios" and appreciate your passion for sticking to them. If I were ever in the position of looking for a real scenario to support my case, you'd be the first person I'd go to. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Searn |
#95 | |||
|
All-Searn Hall of Fame
Posts: 7225 05/07/09 11:01 AM Board Owner |
I'll take the blame as I did say in the initial topic heading "Define an 'ELITE" program ... "
Hard to blame someone for breaking out an actual definition ... 
(HA! First time I've ever used the site emoticon above!) |
|||
|
|
||||
|
EastGuRu |
#96 | |||
|
Senior
Posts: 227 05/07/09 12:08 PM |
Well and I hope I didn't come off as harsh with my criticism but the constant drumbeat was growing thin on me. But hey, that's just me. What the heck
else is there to do this time of year. No offense MegaFan. Post away.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Mr NCAA |
#97 | |||
I would argue that there could be NO elite teams. For the sake of this discussion, imagine that every team in the state goes 4-4-1 for 10 years straight, and 10 different teams win the championship on 10 different fluke turnovers by the runners-up... You get the scenario... I would argue that there are zero elite teams during that decade. No where in that quote of yours does it mention that the team went 0 - 9 the following year or all those 4 - 4 - 1 records can't last for 10 freaking years. So that is what I meant that you want it every way but realistic. Plus the only 5 - 4 team to win a state championship was FHH and two of the 4 losses were due to forfeits. So they really didn't lose 4 games on the football field. I should put out stats to say all of this theorotical stuff is nonsense in the real world since teams have won multiple championships during the same decade. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
MegaFan66 |
#98 | |||
|
Junior
Posts: 133 05/07/09 4:56 PM |
Searn wrote:In that example, somebody is the best, and they are among the elite in comparison to everybody else. What might be average in other decades, obviously isn't in this decade. Like I said, it's about comparing teams to each other, not a set of criteria. In any group [in the context of competition], somebody is always the best, and some are in the elite, no matter what the records may be. Obviously you do not understand the full meaning of what it means to be elite. Sometimes to say someone or something is elite, isn't saying that much. Let's say in the year 2014, 20 teams finish 0-9, well, somebody is the best of those 20 0-9 teams, and at the very least, the top 2 teams are the elite of those 20 teams. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MegaFan66 |
#99 | |||
|
Junior
Posts: 134 05/07/09 5:00 PM |
BIGREDS89 wrote:Then you don't understand what it actually means to be elite. Or you are just being stubborn because you don't want to admit that you're wrong about teams having to win a state title to be considered elite. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Searn |
#100 | |||
|
All-Searn Hall of Fame
Posts: 7226 05/07/09 5:03 PM Board Owner |
By the actual literal definition of "elite" MegaFan66 is correct. ... I've conceded that a few times in different ways.
I'll leave it at that. |
|||
|
|
||||
Quick Links
