The Oliver Woofing Theorem - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Oliver Woofing Theorem (/thread-16418.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Oliver Woofing Theorem (/thread-16418.html)
The Oliver Woofing Theorem - yvonne - 09-15-2018
https://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/rsfc/Woof.html
Quote:Oliver's Woofing Theorem states, in a nutshell, that in any given
athletic competition (team, individual, amatuer, professional), the
team/player who is the most over-hyped/over-praised by his/her/its
fans/supporters is doomed to LOSE the competition. For example, if
immediately preceding a game between the Seattle Mariners and the
Toronto Blue Jays, two Blue Jay's fans state that "Toronto will kick
ass", while only one Seattle fan makes a similar claim, then Seattle
is guaranteed a win by the ubiquitious and omnipresent Gods of Woofing.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - CornFed - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 11:33 AM)yvonne Wrote: https://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/rsfc/Woof.html
Quote:Oliver's Woofing Theorem states, in a nutshell, that in any given
athletic competition (team, individual, amatuer, professional), the
team/player who is the most over-hyped/over-praised by his/her/its
fans/supporters is doomed to LOSE the competition. For example, if
immediately preceding a game between the Seattle Mariners and the
Toronto Blue Jays, two Blue Jay's fans state that "Toronto will kick
ass", while only one Seattle fan makes a similar claim, then Seattle
is guaranteed a win by the ubiquitious and omnipresent Gods of Woofing.
I am somewhat respectful of woofing superstitions, but if the theorem operated in the manner described, the Toejams would have never won a football game.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - yvonne - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 11:55 AM)CornFed Wrote: I am somewhat respectful of woofing superstitions, but if the theorem operated in the manner described, the Toejams would have never won a football game.
Superstitions can be silly (It's only weird if it doesn't work — Annheuser-Busch), but this one reflects a kind of arrogance from a fan base. If the team holds the same arrogance, it can lead to an upset.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - BostonCard - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 11:55 AM)CornFed Wrote:I am somewhat respectful of woofing superstitions, but if the theorem operated in the manner described, the Toejams would have never won a football game.(09-15-2018, 11:33 AM)yvonne Wrote: https://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/rsfc/Woof.html
Quote:Oliver's Woofing Theorem states, in a nutshell, that in any given
athletic competition (team, individual, amatuer, professional), the
team/player who is the most over-hyped/over-praised by his/her/its
fans/supporters is doomed to LOSE the competition. For example, if
immediately preceding a game between the Seattle Mariners and the
Toronto Blue Jays, two Blue Jay's fans state that "Toronto will kick
ass", while only one Seattle fan makes a similar claim, then Seattle
is guaranteed a win by the ubiquitious and omnipresent Gods of Woofing.
Also, in a USC - Notre Dame game, it would be kind of analogous to strapping a piece of buttered toast on the back of a cat. The system breaks down as both teams cannot lose.
BC
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - OutsiderFan - 09-15-2018
Let's be real. This only applies to opponents at your level of competition. Stanford is not losing to UC Davis as a Top 10 team. In fact, no Top 25, let alone Top 10 team has ever lost to an FCS team. It simply is not ever going to happen either.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - BostonCard - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 02:37 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Let's be real. This only applies to opponents at your level of competition. Stanford is not losing to UC Davis as a Top 10 team. In fact, no Top 25, let alone Top 10 team has ever lost to an FCS team. It simply is not ever going to happen either.
That's news to then #5 Michigan team and FCS Appalachian State who beat them in 2007.
BC
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - OutsiderFan - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 02:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-15-2018, 02:37 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Let's be real. This only applies to opponents at your level of competition. Stanford is not losing to UC Davis as a Top 10 team. In fact, no Top 25, let alone Top 10 team has ever lost to an FCS team. It simply is not ever going to happen either.
That's news to then #5 Michigan team and FCS Appalachian State who beat them in 2007.
BC
App State was kind of an anomaly. They were the #1 team in FCS that soon made the jump to FBS. They weren't UC Davis by a long shot.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - French Rage - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 02:47 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-15-2018, 02:40 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-15-2018, 02:37 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Let's be real. This only applies to opponents at your level of competition. Stanford is not losing to UC Davis as a Top 10 team. In fact, no Top 25, let alone Top 10 team has ever lost to an FCS team. It simply is not ever going to happen either.
That's news to then #5 Michigan team and FCS Appalachian State who beat them in 2007.
BC
App State was kind of an anomaly. They were the #1 team in FCS that soon made the jump to FBS. They weren't UC Davis by a long shot.
Yes but it did, like, happen. You can modify the statement to make it not apply to that game, but that game does negate the statement.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - Sonof80sCard - 09-15-2018
James Madison also beat a ranked Virginia Tech team as an FCS school. A few years ago North Dakota beat #13 Iowa, FCS vs ranked upsets are not unheard off.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - OutsiderFan - 09-15-2018
I see what happened. I saw a site that had FCS-FBS upsets listed, but it didn't indicate the ranking of the FBS teams, so I figured they weren't ranked at the time. Oops.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - CornFed - 09-15-2018
Ah. The old "no true Scotsman" rhetorical device. ??
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - Extra Point - 09-15-2018
Is Olivers's Woofing Theorem consistent with any accepted theory, principle, or belief taught at Stanford University? Why are we discussing this?
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - 2006alum - 09-15-2018
Just out of curiosity, what does Roberton3 have against Outsider that merits giving Outsider a -6 net negative reputation over the past 2 weeks, seemingly without explanation? It's one thing to occasionally dislike a single post, but I'm of the view that it's better that our members are not dished out substantial negative reputations without some clear rationale for doing so. I, for one, would love some clarity, because failing to recognize past ranked FBS upsets can't be *that* bad, right?
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - CornFed - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 07:23 PM)2006alum Wrote: Just out of curiosity, what does Roberton3 have against Outsider that merits giving Outsider a -6 net negative reputation over the past 2 weeks, seemingly without explanation? It's one thing to occasionally dislike a single post, but I'm of the view that it's better that our members are not dished out substantial negative reputations without some clear rationale for doing so. I, for one, would love some clarity, because failing to recognize past ranked FBS upsets can't be *that* bad, right?I am amazed that you pay so much attention to everyone's reputation points 2006.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - 2006alum - 09-16-2018
Well they show up next to every post by your name, so it's hard not to see them. (they don't on the mobile browser but I mostly read the board on my laptop.) Mostly I notice when people have distinctively high or low ratings. If the theory behind reputation points is to encourage good board citizenship and discourage bad citizenship, then it's worth examining why one poster seems to have it out for another without any seeming explanation.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - stupac2 - 09-16-2018
(09-16-2018, 05:24 AM)2006alum Wrote: Well they show up next to every post by your name, so it's hard not to see them. (they don't on the mobile browser but I mostly read the board on my laptop.) Mostly I notice when people have distinctively high or low ratings. If the theory behind reputation points is to encourage good board citizenship and discourage bad citizenship, then it's worth examining why one poster seems to have it out for another without any seeming explanation.
I've noticed this as well and wondered about contacting him, it seems odd to me too.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - yvonne - 09-16-2018
(09-16-2018, 05:43 AM)stupac2 Wrote:(09-16-2018, 05:24 AM)2006alum Wrote: Well they show up next to every post by your name, so it's hard not to see them. (they don't on the mobile browser but I mostly read the board on my laptop.) Mostly I notice when people have distinctively high or low ratings. If the theory behind reputation points is to encourage good board citizenship and discourage bad citizenship, then it's worth examining why one poster seems to have it out for another without any seeming explanation.
I've noticed this as well and wondered about contacting him, it seems odd to me too.
I'll look into this.
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - Roberton3 - 09-17-2018
(09-15-2018, 07:23 PM)2006alum Wrote: Just out of curiosity, what does Roberton3 have against Outsider that merits giving Outsider a -6 net negative reputation over the past 2 weeks, seemingly without explanation? It's one thing to occasionally dislike a single post, but I'm of the view that it's better that our members are not dished out substantial negative reputations without some clear rationale for doing so. I, for one, would love some clarity, because failing to recognize past ranked FBS upsets can't be *that* bad, right?
Wow. Didn't realize I'd downvoted one person that many times. It certainly wasn't anything personal (I upvote and downvote posts based on the content of the post, not based on who the poster is; indeed, I often don't even notice who wrote them).
I might be more inclined to downvote posts than most other people. One of the things I really like about this board is that people usually write thoughtful posts filled with intelligent, rational arguments (very different from most fan boards). So I tend to upvote posts that are particularly thoughtful and to downvote posts that strike me as the opposite (especially when a post is aggressively and confidently flat-out wrong). Still, I'm a bit surprised to hear that I've downvoted six posts in the last two weeks. (I'm sure I did that several years ago when a poster tried to bring the Thunderdome posting style to the Cardboard, but surprised that it's happened at any point since then.)
How do I see what posts I've upvoted and downvoted? Evidently you can see how I've voted, but it's not obvious to me how to find that info (even for my own votes, much less anyone else's).
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - 82lsju - 09-17-2018
(09-17-2018, 07:21 AM)Roberton3 Wrote: How do I see what posts I've upvoted and downvoted? Evidently you can see how I've voted, but it's not obvious to me how to find that info (even for my own votes, much less anyone else's).
on a computer, in the box with the posters name at the bottom is
reputation followed by a number
click on the number and you will see who up and down voted that poster and which posts got the votes
RE: The Oliver Woofing Theorem - 2006alum - 09-17-2018
Thanks for following up, Roberton3! I think the admins cleared the -6 for Outsider, so that might be why you're not seeing your past votes.
To each their own with in terms of doling out negative reputation, but I generally only downvote when someone unnecessarily trashes Stanford or says things that are not in keeping with our community standards. For hot takes I disagree with, I usually just go at those on the merits, and welcome others to do the same for mine.
And yes, we're so lucky to have so many thoughtful posters on this site. May it always be so! :)