Englebert

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make regarding strength of schedule. The factors you listed are all relevant factors in the hiring process. But if the company hired you because you have blonde hair and I have dark hair, then they would be just like the pollsters...ranking a team based on irrelevant factors like strength of schedule.

I have no idea what you are saying. We can just leave it here.

Are you actually asking the moderators to ban me?

I agree 100%. The rankings are opinions only. What irritates me is when one of the so-called experts tries to justify their rankings by saying strength of schedule is a factor. I wish they would just say "Hey, I think this team is better than that team and that's my opinion." I wish the SEC would have got shutout of the BCS, because that would have spurred a 8 team playoff for next year. LOL I won't be happy until we have at least a 16 team playoff.

How about reading the scenario. HF would beat the crap out of WOS, because HF would be comprised of the 22 starting Dallas Cowboys. You seriously think WOS can beat the Dallas Cowboys. You either didn't read the scenario or...nevermind. The whole question is on strength of schedule. I never said an undefeated team was better than a one loss, or even a five loss team. The question is: Why do people think one team is better than the next because of who they have played? If the #3 team beats the #1 team, and the #2 team beats Lamar, what makes a person think that the #3 team is now the best team? Why are they now better than the #2 team? Could the #2 team have beaten the previous #1 just as bad or worse? How does strength of schedule propel you in the rankings over a team that has a weaker schedule. The rankings are an opinion only. Justifying a ranking by saying this team is better than that one because they played tougher opponents is ludicrous. In my example, the Dallas Cowboys beat four of the smallest schools in the area. WOS beat the top big schools in the area. So by SOS logic, WOS is better than the Dallas Cowboys. Is that logical?

So what does it matter? How is any team better or worse for their OOC schedule? That was the original question and not one response has articulated the significance of strength of schedule.

It is a mythical/made-up scenario. Nevermind.

The question is: should a mythical UIL Selection Committee pick WOS, who has a stronger strength of schedule, over a HF team that is made up of the starting 22 Dallas Cowboys?

Whew. I'm glad I read the article. I was about start a boycott.

Using the above example, if the Texas UIL had a BCS type Selection Committee for the playoffs, shouldn't West Orange-Stark be picked ahead of Dallas Cowboys Hamshire-Fannett for the playoffs?

I guess you missed the point. This thread is not about Baylor or Art Briles. Like the title says, it is about strength of schedule. Why do pollsters, or anybody for that matter, try to justify their rankings by saying this team is better than that team because they played a tougher schedule. Makes no sense. Do you agree?

I've heard more than I can "bear" about how weak Baylor's schedule was this year and how it hurts them in the polls. If a pollster thinks TeamB is all of a sudden better than TeamA because TeamB barely beat a "strong" opponent and TeamA beat the crap out of a cupcake, then that pollster should immediately resign, or be forced to. Strength-of-schedule is just a flawed ranking based on another flawed ranking. And just because TeamB can beat TeamC doesn't mean TeamB is now better than TeamA. Let me give an example: Jerry Jones decides he wants to have a photo of all the Dallas Cowboys holding their college diplomas. He is quickly informed that many, if not all, have never earned their diplomas. Dejected about losing this opportune idea, he methodically schemes of an alternative solution. And then it comes to him. He will have a picture of the entire team holding their high school diplomas. It is then discovered that all 22 of his starters are one semester short of credits. Darn, another idea shot down. But he will not give up. Needing a small in-the-middle-of-nowhere school to avoid the media circus, he enrolls them at Hamshire-Fannett High School to earn their credits. And to prevent his players from slipping out of playing shape, he uses his powers (translated to $$$) to persuade the UIL to grant them one year of eligibility. He then convinces the Hamshire-Fannett school board to change the mascot name from Longhorns to Cowboys. …strike that last sentence, I want to keep this story believable. Finally the Texas high school football season starts. Since the schedules have already been finalized, Hamshire-Fannett plays High Island, Sabine Pass, Orange Community Christian and Beaumont Legacy for their non-district games. Fellow district opponent West Orange-Stark plays Port Neches-Groves, Nederland, Beaumont West Brook and Port Arthur Memorial for their non-district games. After four weeks both teams are undefeated. Who should be ranked higher? According to the strength-of-schedule philosophy, there is no debate. West Orange-Stark has played a tougher schedule according to anyone that has a pulse. So you would have to rank West Orange-Stark over the Dallas Cowboys, err I mean Hamshire-Fannett Longhorns. Really? The pollsters need to be honest and just say “these are my rankings based on my opinion” and quit trying to justify them will flawed reasoning. And to steal Bill O'Reilly's mantra, Where am I going wrong?

I find it hypocritical of both sides to be arguing against Trump based on "unconstitutionality". The Republicans want to spy on every American without cause. The democrats, well there are too many examples to list, but I will just go with...The Democrats want to take away our 2nd Amendment Rights. They say they want "common sense" (whatever) gun control, but everyone over 6 years old (mental age) knows the true agenda is gun confiscation. I'm liking Trump more and more. I will vote for either Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, but I love that Trump forces everyone in both parties to show their true colors.

We've been in a now or never, suicide crisis mode regarding the weather since at least the 1970s. In the 70s people were going to freeze in mid-stride while walking down the street. Blizzards were going to be so powerful that the electrical grid would go down nationwide. Snow was going to get 50 feet high in some cities. Move on to the 80s and the polar ice caps would be completely gone by 1994. The sea level was going to rise 30 feet. Super hurricanes were going to obliterate major cities on the coast. Hurricanes and tornadoes were going to get big, stronger and more frequent than ever. Now the "crisis of the day" is crops will fail causing world-wide famine. I'm anxiously awaiting what they will come up with as the next apocalypse.

If his golf skills are anything like his POTUS skills he should be on the Putt-Putt course.

This seems to be the liberal playbook. When Obamacare was passed it was highly unpopular, and still is to this day. The Obama administration has claimed that the unpopularity is due to their messaging, claiming it has been inadequate on the subject. If the populace would just understand then Obamacare would be wildly popular. But lo and behold, no one in the administration has tried to explain away the misconceptions that the public has. Why...because they can't. Same thing with manmade global warming. This administration claims that 97% of the scientist agree, but yet no one will come out and try to convince the populace that they are right. Why...because they can't.

This is what the so called "climatologists" have been doing for years. They alter the data to fit the agenda. They say the debate is over and refuse to discuss any of their facts or conclusions. Then they use smear tactics on anyone that disagrees or questions them. This has been going on for a long time.

She is "working hard" to be offended.

I agree with you REBgp. The GW "scientists" have been caught way more than once on fudging numbers. Another strong argument for questioning GW is that these so called scientists will not debate. If global warming was such a modern day crisis, why won't they debate it at every opportunity. There is a group of real climate scientists that have tried over and over for years to debate anyone who champions the global warming theories, and they have offered to pay for the debates. None of the frauds will take their challenge.

"Potential felon" sounds like there's a chance she is actually innoncent. I prefer the term "unconvicted felon".

Thanks TVC.

Does anyone know definitively if a CHL is required to carry a pistol in a boat or PWC in Texas? I put definitively because I asked this question to 2 game wardens and 1 police officer and they all had the same answer...they "thought" it was legal without a CHL.

I loved his response on Hannity (I think last night) in reference to him announcing he has formed an exploratory committee. Hannity said, "You know you're gonna get attacked by the media now." His response was, "I'd be disappointed if I wasn't."

  They have stated that on many occasions. And by many top officials...not some rogue low-level officials in Cincinnati.

  Iran definitely has a missile that can reach Israel and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. And according to this link, they may have, or have in development, one that can reach the U.S.   [Hidden Content]