@Rdp77 said: @VegasFrank this is what you get when participation trophies are handed out to appease conference heads. I hope the committee is enjoying the level of competition of the game last night and the one so far today. I’m just glad there’s an NFL game on too.
@Rdp77 said: @VegasFrank this is what you get when participation trophies are handed out to appease conference heads. I hope the committee is enjoying the level of competition of the game last night and the one so far today. I’m just glad there’s an NFL game on too.
@TRayB said:
I am curious Rusty @Rdp77 , what are the subjective criteria for a quality win? Is there such a thing established, or is it all objective opinion?
By calling it subjective criteria you established that it is opinion.
You asked me a question and from what I gathered you did so looking for an argument….hence my one word answer.
Everything doesn’t have to be an argument. I think they’re overrated. You don’t. And I’m fine with that.
@TRayB said:
I am curious Rusty @Rdp77 , what are the subjective criteria for a quality win? Is there such a thing established, or is it all objective opinion?
By calling it subjective criteria you established that it is opinion.
You asked me a question and from what I gathered you did so looking for an argument….hence my one word answer.
Everything doesn’t have to be an argument. I think they’re overrated. You don’t. And I’m fine with that.
Sorry Rusty, I mixed up subjective/objective, I meant to write objective criteria, . Seriously, I am not looking for an argument, I am wondering if there is established criteria.
@TRayB said:
I am curious Rusty @Rdp77 , what are the subjective criteria for a quality win? Is there such a thing established, or is it all objective opinion?
By calling it subjective criteria you established that it is opinion.
You asked me a question and from what I gathered you did so looking for an argument….hence my one word answer.
Everything doesn’t have to be an argument. I think they’re overrated. You don’t. And I’m fine with that.
Sorry Rusty, I mixed up subjective/objective, I meant to write objective criteria, . Seriously, I am not looking for an argument, I am wondering if there is established criteria.
No apologies necessary. The entire thing is based on opinion from what I can tell. From us discussing it all the way up through the committee. If there were set guidelines for any of it there would be no questions or doubts of who should be in the playoff. The only thing they set in stone was that four conference champions would have spots. Anything beyond that is purely opinion.
@TRayB said:
I am curious Rusty @Rdp77 , what are the subjective criteria for a quality win? Is there such a thing established, or is it all objective opinion?
By calling it subjective criteria you established that it is opinion.
You asked me a question and from what I gathered you did so looking for an argument….hence my one word answer.
Everything doesn’t have to be an argument. I think they’re overrated. You don’t. And I’m fine with that.
Sorry Rusty, I mixed up subjective/objective, I meant to write objective criteria, . Seriously, I am not looking for an argument, I am wondering if there is established criteria.
No apologies necessary. The entire thing is based on opinion from what I can tell. From us discussing it all the way up through the committee. If there were set guidelines for any of it there would be no questions or doubts of who should be in the playoff. The only thing they set in stone was that four conference champions would have spots. Anything beyond that is purely opinion.
I was just apologizing for my mix up, which mistake I often make when discussing subjective/objective. Sort of a dyslexic mental mistake on my part.
That is kinda what I thought, though. It all seems to be based on the opinion of the people who decide, and even the strength of schedule is based on opinion, because the relative strength of a team changes throughout the season. Like, does it mean a team has a quality win if they beat a top 10 team in week 2, which team then goes on to drop out of the top 10 later in the season, and vice versa. It also seems that even though there is a playoff system now, it is still very subjective (almost as subjective as the previous ranking system deciding which two teams got into the national championship game). There will always be the idea that a particular team is not as good on the field as they are (or should be) on paper. That's why I think it should be based on wins and losses, even if some of the wins were in struggles or come-from-behind wins against inferior teams.
It does seem there should be adjustments and changes within the next few years to come up with an improved system, but I think it would be difficult to leave out a one-loss conference winning team from a lesser conference, and place in a team with two or three losses from a stronger conference.
@peter4jc said:
How do they determine "strength of schedule"? Is there a formula to make it objective?
They may have some kind of formula they claim they are using, but like Todd said, it constantly changes. With the constant changes there can’t be a concrete formula.
@TRayB said:
I am curious Rusty @Rdp77 , what are the subjective criteria for a quality win? Is there such a thing established, or is it all objective opinion?
By calling it subjective criteria you established that it is opinion.
You asked me a question and from what I gathered you did so looking for an argument….hence my one word answer.
Everything doesn’t have to be an argument. I think they’re overrated. You don’t. And I’m fine with that.
Sorry Rusty, I mixed up subjective/objective, I meant to write objective criteria, . Seriously, I am not looking for an argument, I am wondering if there is established criteria.
No apologies necessary. The entire thing is based on opinion from what I can tell. From us discussing it all the way up through the committee. If there were set guidelines for any of it there would be no questions or doubts of who should be in the playoff. The only thing they set in stone was that four conference champions would have spots. Anything beyond that is purely opinion.
I was just apologizing for my mix up, which mistake I often make when discussing subjective/objective. Sort of a dyslexic mental mistake on my part.
That is kinda what I thought, though. It all seems to be based on the opinion of the people who decide, and even the strength of schedule is based on opinion, because the relative strength of a team changes throughout the season. Like, does it mean a team has a quality win if they beat a top 10 team in week 2, which team then goes on to drop out of the top 10 later in the season, and vice versa. It also seems that even though there is a playoff system now, it is still very subjective (almost as subjective as the previous ranking system deciding which two teams got into the national championship game). There will always be the idea that a particular team is not as good on the field as they are (or should be) on paper. That's why I think it should be based on wins and losses, even if some of the wins were in struggles or come-from-behind wins against inferior teams.
It does seem there should be adjustments and changes within the next few years to come up with an improved system, but I think it would be difficult to leave out a one-loss conference winning team from a lesser conference, and place in a team with two or three losses from a stronger conference.
The only system that would work is to go strictly by the numbers like the NFL does. To me it looks like they are moving in that direction. Two conferences broken up into divisions. Wins and losses are what matters. Nothing else. Anything other than that leaves too much to opinion and therefore everything up for debate.
@TRayB I think we will all give you a quality win against smu, but let's not go sucking each other off too early.
I went trading my car in one time, and when I told the salesman that it had new tires, he told me that it was supposed to have tires, and then I didn't get extra credit for making sure that a car had tires.
Penn state's win over SMU is having new tires on the car you're trading in. You don't get credit for it, but had you lost, it would have been a black eye.
Disclaimer: All trolling is provided for the sole entertainment purposes of the author only. Readers may find entertainment and hard core truths, but none are intended. Any resulting damaged feelings or arse chapping of the reader are the sole responsibility of the reader, to include, but not limited to: crying, anger, revenge pørn, and abandonment or deletion of ccom accounts. Offer void in Utah because Utah is terrible.
I'm beginning to doubt the hydraulic principle that the video claims would drain the bowl. As described, (filling the bowl slowly) why wouldn't it simply start trickling down the s shaped drain and allow the water to remain at the current (full) level? If my commonsense understanding of common plumbing is correct it would only be able to drain the bowl if the bowl was somehow filled to a much higher than equal level and only then could the S drain form a siphon and drain the entire bowl. This bowl is supposedly filling slowly and would not create a higher level than the S drain and I believe that would be required for the siphon to take effect. If I slowly pour a gallon of water in my toilet does it siphon the bowl? No, but if I poured a gallon in fast or flushed the tank, creating a higher level quickly, the siphon would happen. Right?
My apologies for the ongoing edits and exposing you all to my current rabbit hole. At first, I thought the explanation of the design was impressive but now I'm convinced that the fountain would not work as described in the video without a float valve. Obviously, my hydraulic knowledge is limited to toilets.
At the time I read this a long time ago, back in the day that Mariah Carey was the only person to sell more records than Elvis. Of course that’s all changed now but I guess she was the first.
Comments
Rusty says not yet. _Maybe _next week.
I am curious Rusty @Rdp77 , what are the subjective criteria for a quality win? Is there such a thing established, or is it all objective opinion?
By calling it subjective criteria you established that it is opinion.
You asked me a question and from what I gathered you did so looking for an argument….hence my one word answer.
Everything doesn’t have to be an argument. I think they’re overrated. You don’t. And I’m fine with that.
Sorry Rusty, I mixed up subjective/objective, I meant to write objective criteria, . Seriously, I am not looking for an argument, I am wondering if there is established criteria.
No apologies necessary. The entire thing is based on opinion from what I can tell. From us discussing it all the way up through the committee. If there were set guidelines for any of it there would be no questions or doubts of who should be in the playoff. The only thing they set in stone was that four conference champions would have spots. Anything beyond that is purely opinion.
How do they determine "strength of schedule"? Is there a formula to make it objective?
I was just apologizing for my mix up, which mistake I often make when discussing subjective/objective. Sort of a dyslexic mental mistake on my part.
That is kinda what I thought, though. It all seems to be based on the opinion of the people who decide, and even the strength of schedule is based on opinion, because the relative strength of a team changes throughout the season. Like, does it mean a team has a quality win if they beat a top 10 team in week 2, which team then goes on to drop out of the top 10 later in the season, and vice versa. It also seems that even though there is a playoff system now, it is still very subjective (almost as subjective as the previous ranking system deciding which two teams got into the national championship game). There will always be the idea that a particular team is not as good on the field as they are (or should be) on paper. That's why I think it should be based on wins and losses, even if some of the wins were in struggles or come-from-behind wins against inferior teams.
It does seem there should be adjustments and changes within the next few years to come up with an improved system, but I think it would be difficult to leave out a one-loss conference winning team from a lesser conference, and place in a team with two or three losses from a stronger conference.
They may have some kind of formula they claim they are using, but like Todd said, it constantly changes. With the constant changes there can’t be a concrete formula.
The only system that would work is to go strictly by the numbers like the NFL does. To me it looks like they are moving in that direction. Two conferences broken up into divisions. Wins and losses are what matters. Nothing else. Anything other than that leaves too much to opinion and therefore everything up for debate.
@TRayB I think we will all give you a quality win against smu, but let's not go sucking each other off too early.
I went trading my car in one time, and when I told the salesman that it had new tires, he told me that it was supposed to have tires, and then I didn't get extra credit for making sure that a car had tires.
Penn state's win over SMU is having new tires on the car you're trading in. You don't get credit for it, but had you lost, it would have been a black eye.
There is the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl today and um, Arizona State is still in the college football playoffs. How the **** did that happen.
I briefly read what I believe to be the wikipedia page on this fountain and I found no reference to timekeeping. My apologies if I have posted fake history. I have to stop looking as my time to dawdle has ended. Feel free to research this topic yourself and post your results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_the_Lions
I'm beginning to doubt the hydraulic principle that the video claims would drain the bowl. As described, (filling the bowl slowly) why wouldn't it simply start trickling down the s shaped drain and allow the water to remain at the current (full) level? If my commonsense understanding of common plumbing is correct it would only be able to drain the bowl if the bowl was somehow filled to a much higher than equal level and only then could the S drain form a siphon and drain the entire bowl. This bowl is supposedly filling slowly and would not create a higher level than the S drain and I believe that would be required for the siphon to take effect. If I slowly pour a gallon of water in my toilet does it siphon the bowl? No, but if I poured a gallon in fast or flushed the tank, creating a higher level quickly, the siphon would happen. Right?
My apologies for the ongoing edits and exposing you all to my current rabbit hole. At first, I thought the explanation of the design was impressive but now I'm convinced that the fountain would not work as described in the video without a float valve. Obviously, my hydraulic knowledge is limited to toilets.
It's a bell siphon, the following video explains how it works. There's a coffee brewer that uses this principle.
Bell Siphon Coffee Maker, may no longer be for sale.
https://www.home-barista.com/brewing/bell-syphon-coffee-t64033.html
At the time I read this a long time ago, back in the day that Mariah Carey was the only person to sell more records than Elvis. Of course that’s all changed now but I guess she was the first.
The ‘Flying Flapjack’ that Never Flew: The Story of the Vought XF5U
https://theaviationist.com/2024/12/15/flying-flapjack-vought-xf5u/
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.
Understaffed
It's a 364 day effort.
Trapped in the People's Communist Republic of Massachusetts.