"quality losses"

[CDAGRIZ]

If there is no such thing as a good loss (or "not a bad" loss), then a getting blown out by Weber is the same as losing to NDSU in 3OT on a blown call. On the flip side, there would be no difference between wins. Therefore, blowing out NDSU by 40 would be the same as beating Weber in 3OT on a blown call. Call it whatever you want, but losing a competitive game to a great team looks better than getting your asses kicked by a shitty team. If that concept isn't a factor, it should be.

 

[PlayerRep]

And help with playoff selection and in the poll rankings (don't drop as far). Why is it so hard fro some of you to admit that? Just because I'm saying it?

That just means you probably lost to a quality opponent and played them tough. Still does not mean it was a quality loss.

I agree with you. I didn't coin the phrase. Someone else on egriz did.

coins? you championed the use of the phrase. geez, greenie, take credit when credit is due.

Okay, argh. Let's bet $100. I was not the first to use the term quality loss on egriz. Ready to bet?

 

[Fahque]

That just means you probably lost to a quality opponent and played them tough. Still does not mean it was a quality loss.

I agree with you. I didn't coin the phrase. Someone else on egriz did.

coins? you championed the use of the phrase. geez, greenie, take credit when credit is due.

Okay, argh. Let's bet $100. I was not the first to use the term quality loss on egriz. Ready to bet?

First to use it? Probably not.

Fight for and defend it? Looks that way in this thread.

 

[PlayerRep]

I agree with you. I didn't coin the phrase. Someone else on egriz did.

coins? you championed the use of the phrase. geez, greenie, take credit when credit is due.

Okay, argh. Let's bet $100. I was not the first to use the term quality loss on egriz. Ready to bet?

First to use it? Probably not.

Fight for and defend it? Looks that way in this thread.

Looks like Native used it in 2003, and used it pretty much in the way it's being used now. My guess is that 2506 actually coined the term in response to arguments I was making, based on brief research. I am the one who pushed the concept initially, but didn't use the term until after one or more others had used it.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Hey ... I didn't think we were supposed to talk about anything but BH as the next Griz head coach!!! :bad:

 

[AZDoc]

I agree there are only loses and bad losses. That being said, I totally understand the argument otherwise. As someone that has played the game...hahaha...it does give you confidence to say we almost beat whomever, but it is short lived. still was a loss and still sucks in the end. the only way a "quality loss" helps is in a rematch. you have confidence to do it again. just my :twocents:

Quality losses also help in being considered for the playoffs and in the polls. Example, if 2 Big Sky teams play the exact same schedule, don't play each other, get similar wins over the same teams, are each 8-4, lose to the same 4 very good teams but one team loses by 3 in each game and the other team loses by 21 in each game, and there's only room for one of the teams in the playoffs, which team gets in? Obviously, the team with the close losses, i.e. the quality losses.

Yeah i get ya. I wasnt thinking in selection committee terms. Youre right in that account. I was thinking just in terms of as a player. Sorry about that.

 

[PlayerRep]

I agree there are only loses and bad losses. That being said, I totally understand the argument otherwise. As someone that has played the game...hahaha...it does give you confidence to say we almost beat whomever, but it is short lived. still was a loss and still sucks in the end. the only way a "quality loss" helps is in a rematch. you have confidence to do it again. just my :twocents:

Quality losses also help in being considered for the playoffs and in the polls. Example, if 2 Big Sky teams play the exact same schedule, don't play each other, get similar wins over the same teams, are each 8-4, lose to the same 4 very good teams but one team loses by 3 in each game and the other team loses by 21 in each game, and there's only room for one of the teams in the playoffs, which team gets in? Obviously, the team with the close losses, i.e. the quality losses.

Yeah i get ya. I wasnt thinking in selection committee terms. Youre right in that account. I was thinking just in terms of as a player. Sorry about that.

In all of this discussion, it never occurred to me that someone could be looking at it through a player's eyes--compared to the point I was trying to make. But I don't disagree with your view of how a player would feel. Nothing to be sorry about.

 

[argh!]

That just means you probably lost to a quality opponent and played them tough. Still does not mean it was a quality loss.

I agree with you. I didn't coin the phrase. Someone else on egriz did.

coins? you championed the use of the phrase. geez, greenie, take credit when credit is due.

Okay, argh. Let's bet $100. I was not the first to use the term quality loss on egriz. Ready to bet?

i never said you coined the phrase, just championed it.

interestingly, i have heard from a reliable source that the citizens of great falls frequently use that term when discussing a lawyer who used to live there but moved to missoula.

 

[Ursa Major]

Now lets talk about quality ties. I've got a really cool maroon and silver one an ex-girlfriend bought me...

 

[GoldenEagle]

The griz will earn another "quality loss" this weekend. Gonna be a long, cold winter on egriz. :lol: :lol:

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So let me get this straight. PR's theory of "quality loss" went from a widely used tool to select a playoff team to a tool that is only really beneficial when 2 teams play an identical schedule and lose to the exact same teams. Is it necessary for these 2 teams to have the same home/road schedule or do they get adjusted? Seems to me his "quality loss" tool went from one he wanted people to think was widely used to one that is never used.

 

[PlayerRep]

So let me get this straight. PR's theory of "quality loss" went from a widely used tool to select a playoff team to a tool that is only really beneficial when 2 teams play an identical schedule and lose to the exact same teams. Is it necessary for these 2 teams to have the same home/road schedule or do they get adjusted? Seems to me his "quality loss" tool went from one he wanted people to think was widely used to one that is never used.

Do you disagree that playing good teams tough and close, but losing, are better than losing big to good teams and losing to bad teams, when it comes to playoff selection and the polls?

 

[JBS]

This is just plain stupid.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So let me get this straight. PR's theory of "quality loss" went from a widely used tool to select a playoff team to a tool that is only really beneficial when 2 teams play an identical schedule and lose to the exact same teams. Is it necessary for these 2 teams to have the same home/road schedule or do they get adjusted? Seems to me his "quality loss" tool went from one he wanted people to think was widely used to one that is never used.

Do you disagree that playing good teams tough and close, but losing, are better than losing big to good teams and losing to bad teams, when it comes to playoff selection and the polls?

PR, no loss is a good loss when it comes to playoff selection, but a strong schedule will help more than a weak schedule, just ask ISU. If ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either Simon Fraser or Chadron and wins, they are in the playoffs even though they got smoked by Utah and Utah St. It is more about getting to 7 FCS victories. Actually if ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either USU or Utah and wins, they would probably be in the playoffs even though they played Simon Fraser and Chadron. I just made an example of a team making it's schedule both more difficult and less difficult and not playing good teams tough and close, and in both circumstances they would get in. Why you ask? Because they won games and got to 7 FCS victories.

 

[PlayerRep]

So let me get this straight. PR's theory of "quality loss" went from a widely used tool to select a playoff team to a tool that is only really beneficial when 2 teams play an identical schedule and lose to the exact same teams. Is it necessary for these 2 teams to have the same home/road schedule or do they get adjusted? Seems to me his "quality loss" tool went from one he wanted people to think was widely used to one that is never used.

Do you disagree that playing good teams tough and close, but losing, are better than losing big to good teams and losing to bad teams, when it comes to playoff selection and the polls?

PR, no loss is a good loss when it comes to playoff selection, but a strong schedule will help more than a weak schedule, just ask ISU. If ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either Simon Fraser or Chadron and wins, they are in the playoffs even though they got smoked by Utah and Utah St. It is more about getting to 7 FCS victories. Actually if ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either USU or Utah and wins, they would probably be in the playoffs even though they played Simon Fraser and Chadron. I just made an example of a team making it's schedule both more difficult and less difficult and not playing good teams tough and close, and in both circumstances they would get in. Why you ask? Because they won games and got to 7 FCS victories.

And a close loss to a good team is better than a big loss to a good team. Just admit it. You agree with me. Anyone with a clue about football, playoffs and polls would agree with what I said. It isn't even debatable. It's just plain true. I think it's funny how people like yourself, want to disagree with me so much, that you often end up saying stupid things and making yourselves look like idiots.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So let me get this straight. PR's theory of "quality loss" went from a widely used tool to select a playoff team to a tool that is only really beneficial when 2 teams play an identical schedule and lose to the exact same teams. Is it necessary for these 2 teams to have the same home/road schedule or do they get adjusted? Seems to me his "quality loss" tool went from one he wanted people to think was widely used to one that is never used.

Do you disagree that playing good teams tough and close, but losing, are better than losing big to good teams and losing to bad teams, when it comes to playoff selection and the polls?

PR, no loss is a good loss when it comes to playoff selection, but a strong schedule will help more than a weak schedule, just ask ISU. If ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either Simon Fraser or Chadron and wins, they are in the playoffs even though they got smoked by Utah and Utah St. It is more about getting to 7 FCS victories. Actually if ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either USU or Utah and wins, they would probably be in the playoffs even though they played Simon Fraser and Chadron. I just made an example of a team making it's schedule both more difficult and less difficult and not playing good teams tough and close, and in both circumstances they would get in. Why you ask? Because they won games and got to 7 FCS victories.

And a close loss to a good team is better than a big loss to a good team. Just admit it. You agree with me. Anyone with a clue about football, playoffs and polls would agree with what I said. It isn't even debatable. It's just plain true. I think it's funny how people like yourself, want to disagree with me so much, that you often end up saying stupid things and making yourselves look like idiots.

As a program, player, or coach you always want to play your best, but for playoff selection the consideration of a "quality loss" is just a non factor. You get penalized for bad losses and awarded for good wins. So I guess your "quality loss" is good only because it will not penalize you.

 

[grizindabox]

Seriously, stop arguing with PR. No matter whether his thoughts are right or wrong, the dude will never ever admit when he is wrong or continue to twist the argument until he is correct, but it no longer is the same as when he started...just let it effing go, PR is not worth the time and effort. Dude is the biggest troll on the board.

 

[PlayerRep]

Do you disagree that playing good teams tough and close, but losing, are better than losing big to good teams and losing to bad teams, when it comes to playoff selection and the polls?

PR, no loss is a good loss when it comes to playoff selection, but a strong schedule will help more than a weak schedule, just ask ISU. If ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either Simon Fraser or Chadron and wins, they are in the playoffs even though they got smoked by Utah and Utah St. It is more about getting to 7 FCS victories. Actually if ISU schedules a pansy FCS team instead of either USU or Utah and wins, they would probably be in the playoffs even though they played Simon Fraser and Chadron. I just made an example of a team making it's schedule both more difficult and less difficult and not playing good teams tough and close, and in both circumstances they would get in. Why you ask? Because they won games and got to 7 FCS victories.

And a close loss to a good team is better than a big loss to a good team. Just admit it. You agree with me. Anyone with a clue about football, playoffs and polls would agree with what I said. It isn't even debatable. It's just plain true. I think it's funny how people like yourself, want to disagree with me so much, that you often end up saying stupid things and making yourselves look like idiots.

As a program, player, or coach you always want to play your best, but for playoff selection the consideration of a "quality loss" is just a non factor. You get penalized for bad losses and awarded for good wins. So I guess your "quality loss" is good only because it will not penalize you.

Nope, you are not correct. Close losses to good teams are better, for playoff selection and polls, that big losses to good teams and losses to bad teams. Of course, a win is better than a loss. No one is debating that.

 

[Mousegriz]

UM, MSU and San Diego all had "quality losses" to Cal Poly.

 

[ben dover]

no way we can lose this weekend if we win great if we lose we will call it a quality loss. win win situation.