stassen@spp2.UUCP (Chris Stassen) (01/21/86)
In article <850@spp2.UUCP> stassen@spp2.UUCP (I) write: >>>someone earlier said michigan was two field goals from a perfect season and >>>a nat'l championship. hell, they were also a few field goals from >>>a so-so season and dropping out of the top 10. >>> (Jim Brunet) >> >>Name the games which Michigan would have lost if the opposition scored >>three more points. >> Aha. I think that Jim would give both field goals to Nebraska, whom Michigan only beat by 4 points. That would put Michigan at 9-2-1. Therefore, UCLA (also 9-2-1) had a "so-so season" this year. Not only that, but UCLA had an easier schedule (see the article on opponents' winning percentages), and should therefore not be in the top 10, either. -- Chris
jimb@ISM780.UUCP (01/23/86)
SLAAAANNNNNDER! LIBEL! GROSS MIS-ATTRIBUTION! IS THERE A LAWYER ON THE
NET!
The quote attributed to me (below) is most emphatically not mine. I'm
generally a lot more careful about semantics (I'm a writer by training,
trade, inclination) and wouldn't have let myself be *quite* so wide open
to counter-attack -- at least without meaning to invite one. Apology will
be accepted, if offered.
-- Jim Brunet
("Can't these Sooner Boomers even shoot straight?")
>>>someone earlier said michigan was two field goals from a perfect season and
>>>a nat'l championship. hell, they were also a few field goals from
>>>a so-so season and dropping out of the top 10.
>>> (Jim Brunet)
>>
>>Name the games which Michigan would have lost if the opposition scored
>>three more points.
>>
Aha. I think that Jim would give both field goals to Nebraska,
whom Michigan only beat by 4 points. That would put Michigan at 9-2-1.
Therefore, UCLA (also 9-2-1) had a "so-so season" this year.
Not only that, but UCLA had an easier schedule (see the article on
opponents' winning percentages), and should therefore not be in the
top 10, either.
-- Chris