AP ranked wins through regular season

Discussion in 'College Football Soundoff' started by DTP2, May 19, 2019.

  1. Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll

    Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    It was actually one of the better suicide by mods I have seen. We were all warned several times so I dont mind the mod doing what he did. I'm not sure what part of the buisness model telling a fanbase no one talks about them, on a site that exist to talk about different teams is, but hey, its yahoo, it's not like they are known for great decisions.

    https://forums.rivals.com/threads/the-little-man-of-the-b10-cfb.877598/page-5
     
  2. hawkit3113

    hawkit3113 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    76,241
    Likes Received:
    16,664
  3. Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll

    Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Yet again I find myself reading a a h8fultaint post and my immediate response is "where". Where do you see Iowa fans chirping at ISU? Its a new week h8ful and you have separated yourself as a tier 9 poster from the tier 10 of Gilligan and friedmanipmypants, dont go all homeboard potato on me. Where do you see Iowa crowing about thier status over Isu?
     
  4. Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll

    Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    #blackleafsmatter
     
    hawkit3113 likes this.
  5. H8FULLGR8

    H8FULLGR8 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    I spend significant time in Iowa, mostly Des Moines and western Iowa. I hear all the Iowa chatter about ISU and read about it online. You can deny how most Iowa fans feel about ISU if you want, I mean you’re known over here as an intellectually dishonest troll anyway. You could learn a thing or two from the 3-4 decent Iowa fans over here, until then you’re just another gilligan.
     
  6. Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll

    Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Guy calls someone an intellectually dishonest troll while referencing the opinions of people that can in no way be varified......... you cant make this chit up.
     
  7. H8FULLGR8

    H8FULLGR8 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    I know you’ve been on the Iowa Rivals site, it’s a safe bet there are multiple threads and posts about ISU and Nebraska on the first page right now. Keep the denials going gilligan.
     
  8. Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll

    Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    Your week in the Barrel eh bud?

    You would be wrong, again.

    https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/forums/iowa-football.26/


    You going keep digging at your false narrative or you want to go for a black knight draw?
     
  9. H8FULLGR8

    H8FULLGR8 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    I can’t go there, but thanks for providing the link for others, though next to no one cares enough about Iowa football to care. I’m sure there are no less than 7 threads dominated by anti ISU/Nebraska posts. Keep the denials going gilligan.
     
  10. Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll

    Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    1,031
    At this point I have asked you for an example of something you are attempting to reference and your response is in no way varifiable. You attempted to pass it off as something that happens on a homeboard, I then provided the proof to show that is not accurate and you are the one that uses the word denial...... classic nebby mental backflips.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. H8FULLGR8

    H8FULLGR8 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Dumb post is dumb gilligan. I’ll just assume you have total respect for the ISU program and see ISU as equals to iowa in college football, that would put you in the minority in the Iowa fan base, but statistically it makes sense that there are some of you out there that see ISU as iowas equal in football. Thanks gilligan.
     
  12. olsonab

    olsonab Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,989
    Likes Received:
    7,368

    Excellent post :)

    Auburn also beat 9-3 Tennessee, 8-4 FSU, and 8-4 Maryland with Boomer Esiason at QB that season. It felt like every game was a playoff game running that gauntlet that year. I have never seen a schedule like that up until some of AU's recently and probably AU's this year.

    1983 would have been a hell of a year for a playoff with Nebraska, Auburn, UGA, Texas, plus Miami, UF etc trying to make a claim to get in as well...
     
    H8FULLGR8 likes this.
  13. DTP2

    DTP2 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,511
    Likes Received:
    5,549
    FWIW, I had Auburn finishing first under my point system by a large margin. Miami is only one of two AP champs that leapfrogged another bowl winner.
     
    GE Nole and olsonab like this.
  14. olsonab

    olsonab Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,989
    Likes Received:
    7,368
    Yep, the end of 1983 was a sickening feeling for a lot of AU fans just like 2004 and even 1993 was with unbeaten seasons for us. Losing to FSU in the seconds in the BCS game sucked as well, but those other teams ended the seasons with wins yet had nothing to show...
     
  15. Tidaltown

    Tidaltown Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    14,477
    Likes Received:
    15,548
    2 observations:

    1. Spurrier kicked ass in the 90s.
    2. Thank God for Saban or Alabama would be about 20th on this list instead of #2.
     
  16. Amadiro

    Amadiro Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2013
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    3,539
    3. FSU owned Spurrier in the 90s. SmokinSmile
     
    Lvste.Nole likes this.
  17. Tidaltown

    Tidaltown Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    14,477
    Likes Received:
    15,548
    Maybe, but he was damn sure kicking someone's ranked team in the 90s to be at the top of that list.
     
  18. GE Nole

    GE Nole Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    33,468
    Likes Received:
    15,297
    That “someone” goes by Tennessee.
     
    Lvste.Nole and Amadiro like this.
  19. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    I know but it seems to infer that a team with more clout would maybe be given priority if it should come to brass tacks. I don't have any problem with what you post but there maybe should be a disclaimer. Ranked by definition is subjective. It really isn't the only thing that's relevant. My point isn't to contradict anything you are saying. I agree there are disproportionately more teams included among the P-5 "establishment" than there are apart. It's clear that's at least partly what you are addressing.
    That's probably the 'how'. By ranking. But you aren't necessarily addressing the why.
    Yes I concur you are going to find a much higher relative percentage of teams among those positioned in P-5 conferences than you will among the G-5 subgrouping.
    What was the separation? Something like 5/1? My point isn't to diminish that fact.
    I just want people to know that's exaggerated. There probably shouldn't be that large a gap between P-5 and G-5.
    But I'm not going to debate you on this.
    You are well within your right to post it.
    It's not a fabrication and I think we can maybe glean something useful from it.
     
  20. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    I think we all remember how that year went.
    I have no objection to putting Auburn in the forefront, but I think it diminishes the championship. The question, as I understand it to be, is which team (s) merit priority regardless of what follows?
    I've tried to explain how a playoff (championship) actually convolutes it.
    You are all certainly free to express whatever ideas you think might work.
    But there are still problems. I'll summarize.
    As I recall, and my memory admittedly isn't very good, there were 'variations to a theme' even then. But my thinking is, and I don't really want to press it, because I've already sort of put it out there a link from year-to-year might be the best way to coordinate it.
    For example, we already know that (preceding 1983) the majority of people felt the championship was settled by a pairing between Penn St and Georgia. Sufficient to warrant the title (Belt). It would therefore follow, as a result of beating Nebraska the title (Belt) befell to the Miami Hurricanes.
    I think that's what the focus should be. I've made this my rallying cry. People are free to either accept or dismiss it, but it makes sense to me. It would then follow (a variation where BYU is accredited with a win against U.C.L.A. preliminary to the 1984 season) BYU/U.C.L.A. carry the Belt forward.
    If you want to credit U.C.L.A. I guess there isn't a lot I can say about it. But I think BYU deserves special recognition, but BYU did ultimately fail to secure the Belt (NC).
    Lost to U.C.L.A . In a title game. But it's also clear preliminary to 1984, they prevailed.
    So it's an either/or situation I guess
    BYU can't claim the Belt but they can claim a chanpionship conditional to beating the Belt champion. Which I find very interesting.
    F.W I.W. In 1985 the Belt NC was Alabama
     
    UGADawg1988 likes this.
  21. UGADawg1988

    UGADawg1988 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    I do get what you're saying. But remember, we're talking about pre BCS days, when teams were forced by contract to play in certain bowls. The #1 team might be forced to play the #12 team (just for example). There really was no true championship game in 1983, although at least we did get #5 Miami vs #1 Nebraska in the Orange bowl.

    Also, I'm not going all out and saying that Auburn is the champion of 1983. I'm just saying that they had by far the best resume, and in hindsight maybe would have been a better choice. Miami did have something that no other team had that year: an exciting last second win against the prohibitive #1 team in the last bowl game played that year. It was the last thing that the voters saw before voting.

    1983 would have been a good year for an expanded playoff.
     
  22. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    Again and I don't want to really impress this too much, I'm not sure your method matters.
    It isn't that I want to create controversy. But I have a superior metric. I can say that because I'm familiar to the process itself. Yours frankly is antiquated. I quit using it because I found a better, simpler, and easier metric to apply that's more directly applicable to the problem. You can help me.
    Id rather you do that than continue pushing a formua I quit using. It might make you happier. My formula is fairly easy to apply.
    I don't think you will have any trouble with it.
    Why don't we try that for a change?
    I know how yours works and I'm convinced there is a better way. And this isn't about me anyway. It's about the kids. Don't you want whats best for the kids? I do. If you don't then I guess we are at an impasse.
    I think we need to put our heads together.
    I'm confident we can work this out. But you are going to have to abandon your half-cocked method in favor of mine. Is that o k?
    I mean I at least have some insight into what should be utilized and what should work. You are free to form your own opinion. But I think moving forward we should at least test the waters before we abandon ship. If you understand what I'm telling you.
     
  23. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    I
    Maybe I'm prejudiced I think the better more deserving more legitimate champion is Miami, FL. In that circumstance. It's really not conjecture is it? You would rather extend the season unnecessarily so we can see if Auburn might be better? They lost. Texas beat them. (I think I was confused earlier). I apologise if I got the facts wrong but Texas beat Auburn and therefore we can dismiss Auburn (in my opinion) why? Texas lost.

    Georgia beat them. Its sort of the process of elimination. Georgia (a good team) has no claim on the championship, they're out. IMO. Didn't they lose to Florida? I can't say to any measure if certainty what should apply. But the process of elimination points to Miami. Again in my opinion. But I can see why it would be a controversial decision to apply.

    Yeah in some fashion probably so but again I'm simply asking you to suspend disbelief and consider that a precedent was already in place that likely excluded Auburn, through no fault of their own as a result of having previously lost. I think that weighs into it. It's hard isn't it to position Auburn before Miami, FL. Auburn did beat Florda .And Georgia, too. It's hard not to include that within the process either.
    Yeah, I know but it also (Orange Bowl) continued forward the Belt lineage. The method from which a championship follows was oerpetuated forward by winning. And it continued forward until they lost to Michigan. Who surrendered it to Washington. Who lost to USC. Who lost to U.C L A. Who defeated Miami, FL. You can see why this all matters? It seems by seasons end, if you suspend disbelief.why it would be Brigham Young holding the title?
    They beat Michigan (team that beat Miami FL). They beat U.C.L.A. (team who beat Miami, FL. And when Miami, FL was ranked #1 they beat them. And they tied Iowa.

    BYU shares a legitimate title with Iowa. I noticed there were people disrespecting Iowa. I'm not sure I like that. Iowa I think is a very accomplished football program. Anyway if you think my procedure is too detailed I think it still works pretty well it seems (to me if to nobody else) the better team was Miami, FL. Otherwise my method falls apart. Not that I necessarily have to be right. I'm just saying there is a protocol to use. And it seems to give preference to Miami, FL. But to be fair a title limited only to the season in question (similar to 1984) would favor Auburn as 1984 favors Florida.

    I don't agree but I respect your opinion nevertheless. I think everything came out in the wash. I think the result was fair and valid.
     
    143 collegefbfan2017, May 21, 2019
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  24. UGADawg1988

    UGADawg1988 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    I'm not trying to change your opinion or teach or learn anything here. I was only giving my own opinion about the interesting 1983 season. Your opinion is just as good as mine. Part of what made that season interesting and controversial is that all of the teams at the top had a loss. Also, UGA was not a contender for #1 in 1983 since the Dawgs had a tie (to #11 Clemson) in addition to a loss.

    But there were many things that made it confusing, such as Auburn lost to Texas, but beat Georgia. Georgia lost to Auburn, but beat Texas. Texas lost to Georgia, but beat Auburn. Florida beat Miami pretty badly that year, but Miami won out otherwise, including a big win over Nebraska. Both Auburn and Georgia beat Florida that year. There are many 'circles' like that in 1983 which do nothing to clear up the picture.

    Back then the precedent was if #1 lost, then usually #2 moved up a notch and is the new #1. But in 1983 Miami went from #5 to #1, jumping over Auburn.

    Both Nebraska and Texas were undefeated when they played in their respective bowl games and were #1 and #2, but both lost very close games. Auburn was #3, won their bowl game, and remained at #3 when the final polls came out despite the two teams ahead of them losing their games.
     
  25. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    I'm simply trying to justify my side. One thing I don't think people are doing is being completely fair to what I consider to be the process. Or the manner to which tradition applies. Maybe people are tired of it but I'm of the option that tradition ought to remain a part of what selects a champion. I guess I haven't done a very good job outlining that element. That there is a process. Hopefully you can at least understand how that might impede a team like Auburn (a national champion by the New York Times. Or Florida (also a champion by the New York Times).
    Point being there WAS a championship applied to either circumstance. Assuming you are upset that neither team got their NC.
    I'm simply saying that there are extenuating circumstances that might impede either.
    Not to discriminate. But to be fair to the process. Why isn't Auburn included? I see two problems. The Sugar Bowl wasn't (IMO) a chanpionship. But admittedly a tough competitor with respect to Michigan. And a tough win, but as tough as Nebraska? I guess that might be my own prejudice as Michigan and Nebraska were in fact paired.
    And Michigan won. (Fiesta Bowl). 1985
    So I won't make that a bone of contention.
    Is there anything else that might impede Auburn? Well, as you stated Auburn beat some really good teams. Including Georgia .
    But I still think (right, wrong, indifferent) there maybe was more to lose in the Orange Bowl. Simply an opinion, nothing more
    But the Cotton Bowl was where Texas fell.
    I think that changes the dynamic. Is it Auburn? (Beat Georgia beat Florida). Or is it Miami, FL? (Beat Nebraska, lost to Florida).
    Maybe I'm preuduced but I think maybe in this particular circumstance it's Miami, FL..
    Why? Well for one thing I think losing to Florida despite the way things played out might be less detrimental to the cause
    Florida was one of the teams you think should have been in a playoff. But I think I would have selected Miami, FL instead.
    Maybe I'm being too particular but I would probably have taken Miami FL in a pinch.

    Yeah I know. There was a conflict but again UF was 9-2-1. I think Texas was 11-1, and if I remember correctly Nebraska 12-1. At least that's how I remember it BYU was 11-1. They very nearly advanced. And of course Auburn 11-1 and Georgia. I guess we could have handed a ribbon to all participants, but I think the best strategy might be to remove any redundancy. Such as say Georgia losing to Auburn. Texas losing to Georgia. And Auburn losing to Texas. Miami, FL losing to UF seems to me less detrimental. Florida lost, twice. To Georgia and I think to Auburn. Twice removed. Eliminated. But if three of four (Auburn, Georgia Texas) all are equally misqualified then that leaves Florida.
    Where do they fall? I guess my point is there might not be one sure-fire way to resolve it.
    But there are a lot of ways to convolute it.
    Hopefully we can come to some condition from which we can make a pact. A compact.

    But I think you have to include them in some fashion to remain true to the process itself. I think they must be included to keep it fair. Or we can simply dismiss them as a matter of principle). I guess some of that might depend greatly on perspective.

    Georgia lost to Auburn, but beat Texas.
    Yeah I kind if remember hearing about that. But I think sort if what it says is that there are variants or possibilities other than a simple pairing and I'm still not convinced it necessarily requires a playoff to resolve.

    I remember the Orange Bowl played a pivotal role in the outcome to the national championship.

    But do they circle or do they maybe paint a picture (abstract) of what might define what a championship is?
    I guess I'm of the opinion that there still might be a way to sort it out . UGA beat UF. Who for all intents and purposes might be removed from the process. But beat Miami, FL. Fairly handily. As you indicated. But UF also won their championship. The Gator Bowl. So there might be some subtlety. About which team merits a championship.
    I'm not going to debate what might not really matter anymore. It seems to me what followed was a disputed title that I think eventually unravelled and put Miami, FL #1.

    But there wasn't a title game apart from the bowls. I think that they were paired in a logistical title pairing resolved it sufficiently. Albeit the next year. But programs develop. I don't think timing is as essential to the process as following protocol is. Which lends itself to having Miami, FL as a legitimate champion .Apart from Auburn. If you follow protocol.

    Yeah, I know but that only complicates it further if you implement a playoff that necessarily means we include them to even everything out. Which means at least four teams post-season. I'm guessing Auburn, Texas, Nebraska, and Miami, FL. And what would that accomplish? Practically nothing. IMHO.
    Well I'm guessing you are suggesting an injustice was put upon Auburn? I doubt Texas was ranked ahead of them and I suspect neither was Nebraska, but regardless I am not really talking about a poll. I'm suggesting that a protocol follow a logistic that might infer a national champion. That's not too difficult to do. That would appear to favor (in this circumstance) the Miami FL Hurricanes. Not because I want it to but because of the procedure I use. Simple as that. Fairy simple to apply.
     
    145 collegefbfan2017, May 21, 2019
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  26. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I don't think there was any conspiracy against Auburn. If there was and I suspect there wasn't I can't fathom a guess relative to why. Weren't they on probation? In 1993, I suspect they were. If they were then there isn't really much reason to be deflated as best as I can tell. Furthermore I think in 2004, again as best as I can recall they were given priority status. They weren't admitted to the championship but that didn't necessarily remove them. At least not entirely. From a championship.
    See and I disagree. Who finished with a win? Why is everything about a national championship.? There are more things to life. I think maybe the problem us with you. Are they complaining or is it you?
    I don't know but you guys are going to mess everything up. For everyone. Mark my words. You will ruin college football. Playotfs are stupid. They are almost never definitive and if you want evidence look to the N.F.L. Protests were filed I think in BOTH championship games. Which means people were pissed off and unhappy with the result.
    And I'm pretty sure almost nobody really cared that much about the Super Bowl.
    It wasn't highy attended or publicized. The novelty has worn off. I'm sure I'm not the only person to feel that way. It's entertaining.
    But it's also a publicity stunt. It rarely maybe even never lives up to the hype. That's not me saying it I think that's a fair reflection of what it actually is. Which is why it upsets me that you guys are so deadset on it. It doesn't work in the pros. Why would it work in college? It can't. Simple as that. It's stupid.
    And I seriously doubt any Auburn players are upset with 1993 or 2004. Nothing to show?
    Bullshit. They get a championship trophy.
    Probably not in 1993. That was a probation.
    They probably didn't deserve one.
    Losing to Florida St is evidence they weren't deserving of a championship in the first place. I'm not sure what else to say about it.
    If you aren't happy not being in a bowl, quit.
    Playoffs are ridiculous and stupid regardless. They really aren't worth talking about and I think we are better off without it.
    Seriously. I doubt you would attend one.
    You are aware they'd be played either at home or at the opponents venue. I think that's crazy nonsense. Ridiculous and wrong. You are going to ruin college football. That's assuming you haven't yet. To what end to win more titles? Fat chance. You weren't the last dog standing in 2004. That was Utah. You might lose. Maybe not but it was anything but a lock. GMAFB.
     
  27. Lvste.Nole

    Lvste.Nole Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    27,363
    Likes Received:
    29,168
    Location:
    J-Ville
    The obligatory *you're gotdamn right* gif.
     
  28. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    What do you mean? The vote? Fact is that it was mostly Brigham Young that gave Alabama the Belt (a variation of the NC) in 1985. Although I will admit particular to 1984 it is a toss up. I don't know who the better team is. It's really anyone's guess.
    But it's not like some suggest. @Tidaltown.
    Says it's definitively Florida. Here's why that's not necessarily the case.
    Because they (UF) were ineligible, it seems the only fair way might be to include Alabama (Belt NC) in some fashion. I think the fact that Alabama lost to Tennessee makes for a difficult proposition, at best.
    I'm not dismissing Florida. I never will.
    But it just seems to me they are a wildcard.
    Equally probable as well as improbable.
    I have difficulty making sense of their role.
    I wonder am I alone? Do others share in my angst particular to how they shake up?
    I'm curious because I'm still trying to sort this out. Alabama proved superior to USC.
    Who were superior to U.C.L.A. who tied Tennessee but beat Brigham Young before losing to Washington. Is any of that evidence of Florida supremacy? IDTS. I'm being as nondescript as I can but I honestly see no evidence personally of any Florida supremacy.
    I see Alabama superiority. But that's all. Nothing more. That's about all I care to say.
    Alabama lost to Penn St who lost to Oklahoma
    Who lost to Kansas who I think were beaten by Missouri. Anyway that's what I see. F.W.I W.
     
    148 collegefbfan2017, May 21, 2019
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  29. DTP2

    DTP2 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,511
    Likes Received:
    5,549
    No.
     
    olsonab likes this.
  30. olsonab

    olsonab Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,989
    Likes Received:
    7,368

    None of this made sense and none of this had anything to do with what I was talking about.

    Please STFU, Chris.
     
    MajorWarren and DTP2 like this.
  31. DTP2

    DTP2 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,511
    Likes Received:
    5,549
    Insane.
     
    MajorWarren and olsonab like this.
  32. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    I'm just trying to give you good advice. If I remember correctly your objections were with the process from which a NC followed.
    The implication being that a title necessarily came as result if being admitted to a championship. Correct? Don't you guys get that bowl games every single one are title pairings! I don't think you do. Because professional sports (NFL) chooses a champion through a single elimination post-season format (12/32) you are convinced it would apply to the collegiate level just as well. It wouldn't. To include FCS and you probably if necessity would need to would require as many as 96 teams. 96/256 = 12/32. Don't believe me? Try it out.
    You want to watch 95 playoff games?
    I don't. If you do great. I'd rather not
    Hell, you couldn't do it even if you wanted to and I suspect you probably know it, too.
    Nobody can. Exclude FCS? Apply their rather unusual method of admitting 24? Ok.
    That's still 23 games. 24 single elimination requires 23 games. Simple as that too many.
    Limit it to eight? Or make it exclusive to 8?
    Ok. Still a problem. Even Dan Wetzel said to admit eight would require seeding teams and playing preliminary (quarterfinal abd semufubsl ) in home venues (to work)
    A la NFL . So you would drastically alter the dynamic simply to accodate four additional teams. How practical is that!!
    I'm giving you straightline information. I advise you to consider what I'm telling you.
    Finally you're also opening a can if worms.
    Pabdora"s Box. We don't need a playoff.
    Nobody really wants it. I doubt YOU do if you are honest with yourself. It's a bad idea.
    It's stupid, it's ridiculous and it's redundant.
    And to top it off as a mechanism it sucks!
     
  33. DTP2

    DTP2 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,511
    Likes Received:
    5,549

    All bowl games are not title pairings.
     
  34. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    Certainly they are. I'm going to address this again. A bowl is a title game. They might vary relative to consequence which generally follows a progressive theme. Assuming you want a playoff I think it's fair I give the details particular in advance.

    Right now the season is twelve games long.
    To accommodate a playoff (a la FCS) would require games (season) be forestalled to ten. Dan Wetzel actually outlined it, himself.
    So this is as much his doing as it might he, yours. Anyway an abbreviated (shortened) regular season followed by a championship, probably, but not necessarily, of sixteen teams. From which (obviously) a single titleist is selected encompassing FBS.

    But I'm sure you will claim there are alternatives. So I'll play fair the only other alternative I see (logistically) is including eight. That can be done without shortening the regular season, but again would require seeing (a la CFP) and coordinating. And logistically putting teams in home or away venues. Because otherwise it won't work.

    Which means that there would be fallback.
    A championship might therefore require more work than necessary and it might require having to make a prediction (presumption) relative to the last team in

    That problem existed when the BCS included eight and resulted in controversy which required altering it to include (if you'll allow me to include the Cotton Bowl) twelve teams. So eight is problematic.

    Which is why I'm nearly certain it will be sixteen. Which will split FBS and FCS and likely (almost certainly) require a title game (additional pairing) afterward. To select a united championship. Because it's illegal to have a separate championship at one level if competition. It's illegal. You CAN'T use the same method (championship) and unite it without including both subsets.

    So in reality (and I like to live in reality) by initiating a playoff you are changing the paradigm from bowl (neutral) to select (hone/away) without altering the condition. (What qualifies a team for selection)
    Therefore same as now, fifteen games five of which are post-season would be required. That's as simple as I can explain it.
    I'm nearly positive that's what will follow.

    A united championship or at least a united title game between FBS (Alabama, say) and FCS (N. Dakota St ) to unite it together.

    That's reality. And an abbreviated regular season. Possibly although not assuredly admitting deserving teams to bowls but a more likely scenario probably would be putting as many as 48 teams (96 total) each subdivision, or essentially the NFL format.

    Which I think is the basis people are applying. As evidence in favor of a playoff.
    Which means NO bowl pairings. And only championship (playoff) or as many as six weeks of post-season pairings to select a champion for Division I. That's reality. Ok?

    So when you accused me of lying like a dog when I said a playoff would require as many as 96 teams now you can see how that was fair. I wasn't lying and I wasn't exaggerating either. If you want a playoff you will need to include as many as 96 teams to fill the bracket.

    And because I understand the legal end of 96 admitted 48 would be FBS and 48 FCS. And yes you would have to include FCS. It's illegal not to and you're actually taking a chance by not admitting an FCS team right now. A risk. Because if CFP becomes profitable FCS is going to want a cut. Right now they aren't getting squat, but because FCS schedules FBS, the distribution is at least adequate applied.

    If in unusual way. But FCS is getting their share. But you start mandating a playoff, I see problems. Serious problems. You thought I was crazy saying it might require 96 teams. That's reality. That's what you are selecting. Seriously.
     
    154 collegefbfan2017, May 21, 2019
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  35. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    My method is superior to yours. Yours isn't simpler or better prepared or better thought out mine actually works. Sorry if that hurts your feelings but that's how I feel about it

    Also assuming you're determined to a playoff as per usual there are alternatives to consider. Such as admitting six FBS (expanding the field to include, say the Rose) and on the FCS side including the Ivy (Princeton) and the SWAC/MEAC champion on one side against the FCS champion (N.Dakota St) to advance to a Final Four.

    I consider that the most reasonable (viable) alternative. It still allows for separation and a single FCS championship (title game) but doesn't extend the season out beyond reason.

    Another option, one I've presented is simply to realign teams into conferences. Of sixteen. Sufficient to merit priority status (exemption) to the champion. In a single bracket (post-season) if eight but likely sixteen. Since FCS would likely follow suit
     
  36. DTP2

    DTP2 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,511
    Likes Received:
    5,549
    False and insane.
     
    olsonab and MajorWarren like this.
  37. DTP2

    DTP2 Well-Known Member
    Gold Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,511
    Likes Received:
    5,549
    False and insane squared.
     
  38. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    Like I said you are using a method I quit using because I discovered a better one. It doesn't make you stupid, just obsolete. I'm trying to get you to remedy your own problem. This isn't personal. This is just being proactive. Taking a problem and breaking it down. Your method sucks.
    So what? That's part of life. It has less of a condition placed upon it. I don't really care what you do but I'm giving you sage advice.
    Learn from my mistakes. Upgrade to premium. It will do you good. It's better.
    Your method isn't precise enough. Follow?
    So when you include it it's really only relevant from the position of history.
    Mine I think has a better result. I know it does. But I doubt I'll be able to convince.
    But I'm not lying. I'm trying to help you.
    It's probably easier to apply my metric. Too.
     
  39. Jennerpeach41

    Jennerpeach41 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    70,435
    Likes Received:
    33,987
    Location:
    Georgia
    ....and the point is?
     
  40. collegefbfan2017

    collegefbfan2017 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    15,321
    Likes Received:
    3,878
    Location:
    Alamosa, Colorado
    None of it is false. Read a few books you don't believe me? O.k. let me then tell you what Wetzel (the guy who took down the BCS) wants. Maybe that will sink in.

    He wants to admit eight. But he said for that to happen we would (of necessity) axe conference championships. Take them out.

    And like I said and I can only speculate how the eight would be selected play 7 games with preliminary games (lead-ins) at home venues (his thinking being in a home venue would make for greater drama and intrigue) but I suspect the REAL reason is to make it fly. Because I suspect even Wetzel knows a playoff is a tough sell. And people wouldn't have to travel (home team) so it would reduce expense demonstrably. (and it would) but I suspect it would also substantially reduce profit margin, too.

    Making it a wash. Nothing then is gained from a playoff. I think the past five years prove I'm right. Costs (expenses relative to the condition) have gone through the roof.

    Conservatively I say tripled. But when everything is taken into account costs are substantially higher. Which in reality (I play fair) might be justified by a field of eight.

    But you are sacrificing the tradition of what a bowl includes the pageantry, the gala, the soectacle so you can rest on your stratolounger. Which I consider ridiculous.

    Nothing I'm telling you is a lie. It won't stop at eight. It will include as many as sixteen. Which means curtailing the season to ten.
    Just like in the FCS. Which means INCLUDING the FCS. And probably eventually putting every bowl- eligibile (all 48) in the championship which means a tournament of 96 teams. Think I'm crazy?

    Think again. Mike Leach doesn't want 48. Which is on the low end, really of it. He wants 64. Which assuming it includes FCS, would require a championship of 128 teams. Maybe we can cut that in half. Ok, whatever let's do that. 64 teams. MINIMAL.

    32 each subdivision (federal law would require equal reprentation). That's six weeks and 63 games to select a deserving champion. Again that's reality. How many of those 63 games do you honestly think people will want to watch and participate in? I don't know but it sounds like a bad idea. And I think if you are honest you will admit it. But I'm not that interested in you. The kids are who I'm interested in. Their welfare.
     
    MajorWarren likes this.

Share This Page