From wikipedia </p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In mathematics, a binary relation R over a set X is transitive if it holds for all a, b, and c in X, that if a is related to b and b is related to c, then a is related to c.</p> To write this in predicate logic:</p> <dl><dd></dd></dl> For instance, the "greater than" relation is transitive:</p> <dl><dd>If A > B, and B > C, then A > C.</dd><dd></dd><dd></dd><dd></dd><dd></dd></dl> </div></p> In general do you believe it applies in college football?</p> Now consider the following from this season</p> Oregon State beat Utah 24-7 Utah beat UCLA 44-6</p> </p>
The transitive theory should always apply to college football. It's better than the BCS.</p> This is why the Chadron St. Eagles should be considered the 2006 National Champions!</p>
I'm sure everyone is already aware of this, but...</p> </p> Chadron St. beat Montana St.</p> Montana St. beat Colorado</p> Colorado beat Iowa St.</p> Iowa St. beat Missouri</p> Missouri beat Ole Miss</p> Ole Miss beat Vanderbilt</p> Vanderbilt beat Georgia</p> Georgia beat Auburn</p> Auburn beat Florida</p> </p> I don't care about the BCS, Chadron St. is the reigning national champion. </p> Go Eagles! </p> </p>
Football is about matchups. There are way to many parts on the field that all have different functions for the transitive property to work. I think you could use it to say what could happen, but there is no way to use it to say what will or even what will likely happen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti)</div><div class='quotemain'> I'm sure everyone is already aware of this, but...</p> </p> Chadron St. beat Montana St.</p> Montana St. beat Colorado</p> Colorado beat Iowa St.</p> Iowa St. beat Missouri</p> Missouri beat Ole Miss</p> Ole Miss beat Vanderbilt</p> Vanderbilt beat Georgia</p> Georgia beat Auburn</p> Auburn beat Florida</p> </p> I don't care about the BCS, Chadron St. is the reigning national champion. </p> Go Eagles! </p> </p></div> Chadron St wasn't undefeated</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TucsonClip)</div><div class='quotemain'> I see what you are getting at..</p> Cincinnati > #11 UCLA </p></div> If that was my point, I simply would have pointed out that UC had more AP votes than UCLA </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TucsonClip)</div><div class='quotemain'> I see what you are getting at..</p> Cincinnati > #11 UCLA </p> </div></p> Cincinnati is better than UCLA.</p> They are also better than #7 Wisconsin.</p> So does this matter beyond wins and losses?</p> What about relative performances vs. similar teams?</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TucsonClip)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I see what you are getting at..</p> Cincinnati > #11 UCLA</p> </div></p> If that was my point, I simply would have pointed out that UC had more AP votes than UCLA</p> </div></p> </p> But the Coachs poll> AP... and Any Given Saturday any team can win. Just look at App. State</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ed the Decider)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> But the Coachs poll> AP... and Any Given Saturday any team can win. Just look at App. State</p> </div></p> How is the Coaches Poll better when it has been proven time and time again that most of the Head Coaches don't actually fill out the ballots? Nor do their lackeys that fill them out have the time to watch a wide enough variety of games to understand who is actually good. All they know about it is the teams they have played and the teams on their schedule.</p> </p>
