Here We Go Again ... Breathless Media Reports That Buzz Is Leaving For Texas A&M

[NersEllenson]

Sorry, but you don't understand the concept.

You created a "strawman" (the hypothetical schedule in which Cincinnati played Seton Hall twice and we played DePaul twice), and then tried to refute my argument by knocking down the fake schedule you invented (see, with that schedule their record is only 10-8, same as ours, therefore they didn't improve more than we did).

Its a textbook example of a straw man.

And then 84 submits this??  Talk about hypocritical.  Funny how 84 uses Straw Man arguments, but then criticizes others for doing the same:
Insert Quote
Quote from: Marquette84 on Today at 01:06:45 PM
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.

MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461

Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been  .8710.

In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall.  If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had 

[Pakuni]

 And then 84 submits this??  Talk about hypocritical.  Funny how 84 uses Straw Man arguments, but then criticizes others for doing the same:
Insert Quote
Quote from: Marquette84 on Today at 01:06:45 PM
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.

MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461

Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been  .8710.

In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall.  If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had  

Just for fairness' sake, a hypothetical argument is not a straw man. It only becomes a straw man when one supplants the hypothetical for the actual argument being made.
Neither I or 84 did this, ergo neither are guilty of a straw man (despite his incorrect claim to the contrary).

Sorry for re-entering the thread .... couldn't help myself.

[ChicosBailBonds]

  And then 84 submits this??  Talk about hypocritical.  Funny how 84 uses Straw Man arguments, but then criticizes others for doing the same:
Insert Quote
Quote from: Marquette84 on Today at 01:06:45 PM
I think you'd be willing to grant me that the important thing is the SOS number--not necessarily the rank.

MU's SOS was .8727. Cincinnati's was .8461

Remove one Seton Hall game and replace it with DePaul for MU, and our SOS would have been .8478.
Remove one DePaul game and replace it with Seton Hall for UC, and their SOS would have been  .8710.

In other words, the entire SOS difference between UC and MU amounts to the fact that UC's mirror was DePaul, and ours was Seton Hall.  If it were opposite, we would have had the easiest schedule in the conference, and Cincinnati would have had 

You have no idea what a straw man argument is apparently. 

Maybe you should concentrate on comparing a 3 seed from one year and say it's the same as a 3 seed from a different year.   

[rocky_warrior]

Since we're now discussing scarecrows, I think this thread has enough pages.