Deep Creek
Well-Known Member
U r old.Do you know how much it sucks when you make a mistake on an etch-I-sketch
U r old.Do you know how much it sucks when you make a mistake on an etch-I-sketch
I'd have been entirely fine with that. This would have been one of those always existing exception years where there wasn't a clear run away team and the ones you had left to pick from were all flawed.Good thing it wasn't done that way this year or Clemson would have been national champions and Saban wouldn't have gotten another one. But, Bama would have gotten one in 2014 so I guess that balances out...except Ohio State would be one short.
I can't ever get any of you auto bid people to actually discuss it, but what is your solution to the OOC problem with taking conf champions purely on winning their conference?It depends on how you want to look at that.
It's a Countdown to Number One.
It begins with the start of a season.
By season's end 10 Conf Champs will have eliminated 120 teams.
If I play only shit schools in the OOC...and I win my league, what does that say about the teams
in my League?
I understand a natural response, although not a correct one, is the other school could have more
injuries because of playing better schools. No way. Most injuries occur from folks losing focus
in a game or loafing. A week before UF played us a few years back, they lost both their DT's
against the Citadel. The better the team the harder you play.
For Wizard...A playoff and/or a season long chase to be #1 is not intended to find who is number
2 or 3...just who is #1. One league could have 4 of the top 5 in the Country, but not the best
team in the country. So what. The Rules are the same for everybody and they're fair. You advance
by winning your league.
Auburn beat Georgia this year. Then Georgia beat Auburn. When are they going to break the 1-1
tie. Hell Soccer fans would say Auburn should have advanced because of outscoring Georgia 47-41.
(Whatever term those people use...aggregated, or something like that).
Now you guys are part of a group that blame Bama for playing Mercer. And you can complain about
Bama even getting in the playoffs.
But this is the system you want...so there can be no complaining.
In a playoff...EVERYBODY knows the rules going into the season. The committee that will be used
is comprised of 130 scoreboards.
Ain't nobody gonna be selected. 10 are gonna earn a spot. 1 will earn the title.
We can spend all year debating who is number 2...but we will know who is number 1.
They won their league and then they won the playoff with the other 9 Champs.
You'd make a good Beauty Pageant judge if it doesn't bother you who gets crowned.See, I'm not all that bothered by who gets crowned to begin with.
I think a few of us fully understand there isn't a way to make this decision pure. So bashing your head against a wall over any of the entirely expected flaws seems counterproductive.You'd make a good Beauty Pageant judge if it doesn't bother you who gets crowned.
I thought we settled this ...... I said "YES!"
My wife refers to this act as stubborn! But, she's narrow minded.I think a few of us fully understand there isn't a way to make this decision pure. So bashing your head against a wall over any of the entirely expected flaws seems counterproductive.
I prefer to spend a lot more of my energy appreciating the regular season as it stands.
No I do not agree the committee, it's complete bullshit
I can't ever get any of you auto bid people to actually discuss it, but what is your solution to the OOC problem with taking conf champions purely on winning their conference?
That is, are you entirely ok with making all out of conference games purely exhibition and have absolutely no impact on post season play at all? Because I find it funny some of you preach about wanting to find a champion on the field of play, but are entirely willing to ignore the results of somewhere between 25%-33% of all actual games played. I mean even the NFL only ignores 20% and all of those are up front, not as late as the week before rivalry weekend.
So you want the champ to be because of results on the field of play, but only for some games?
Our current system takes everything into account. Every single thing. Who, when, injuries, how you looked doing it, quality of opponent.
Yours entirely ignores that ALL major conferences have imbalanced league play within their own conference schedules AND you want to just ignore losing to scrubs in OOC if/when it happens.
I'll pass.
I'm not ignoring anything. I just want it away from Human Hands.
I'm going to comment immediately on one thing you wrote...the part about imbalanced
Conf Schedules. Isn't that kind of a two-headed statement?
Every League now has a Conf Title game...except the Sun Belt and they could be
forced into one. BUT, let me remind you that until this season, during the Playoff Era,
there was only one league that had a Balanced Schedule...the Big12.
And what did everybody complain about..."They don't have a Conf Title Game?"
Huh? They played everybody in their league. There is no doubt they were producing
the only True League Champ in the Country. The argument of imbalanced scheduling
wasn't found in the Big12. Thus we changed the argument to "No Conf Title Game."
When that was done, it wasn't me that ignored the imbalanced conf schedules, it was
everybody else. They were fine with accepting the winner of the CCG as the true champ of the
league.
What always made CFB so great was there were no second chances. In baseball we play teams
3 times during the reg season and then we face them in the Tournaments. In basketball
we play them home and home and then in the tournament. In CFB you got one chance.
We're slowly removing that from CFB.
What did we do this year and last year in the Big10. LY...One loss OSU didn't make
their title game because they lost to the eventual Big10 Champ. The Big10 Champ
didn't make it because they lost 2 games...and one was to Pitt. (Who also beat the eventual
NC...Clemson) But the committee allowed Ohio St to go because they only had one loss...even
though it was to the eventual Conf Champ. (We ignored the results on the field)
This year...Bama loses to Auburn. But we took them, even though they didn't play in their
conf title game, because they were...Bama? They only lost once? Playing Mercer
won't affect that w/l mark that much...now will it.
The current problem is one that has always plagued CFB
You WANT somebody to tell you who the best teams are. You thrive on it. It's
in your blood. (And when I type "You" I'm not referring to you alone). It's habit.
CFB has always decided its NC using the formula..."Another man's opinion."
I just prefer the scoreboard. I know that the Conf Champs will eliminate 120
teams thru regular season play. Then, one team will eliminate the other 9.
And that one team would have accomplished everything on the field of play.
Ok do you have those numbers for say the last 4 seasons?
It's not a two headed statement and whether or not we needed a title game to solve who wins a conference is a different topic than the balance of the schedules.I'm not ignoring anything. I just want it away from Human Hands.
I'm going to comment immediately on one thing you wrote...the part about imbalanced
Conf Schedules. Isn't that kind of a two-headed statement?
Every League now has a Conf Title game...except the Sun Belt and they could be
forced into one. BUT, let me remind you that until this season, during the Playoff Era,
there was only one league that had a Balanced Schedule...the Big12.
And what did everybody complain about..."They don't have a Conf Title Game?"
Huh? They played everybody in their league. There is no doubt they were producing
the only True League Champ in the Country. The argument of imbalanced scheduling
wasn't found in the Big12. Thus we changed the argument to "No Conf Title Game."
When that was done, it wasn't me that ignored the imbalanced conf schedules, it was
everybody else. They were fine with accepting the winner of the CCG as the true champ of the
league.
What always made CFB so great was there were no second chances. In baseball we play teams
3 times during the reg season and then we face them in the Tournaments. In basketball
we play them home and home and then in the tournament. In CFB you got one chance.
We're slowly removing that from CFB.
What did we do this year and last year in the Big10. LY...One loss OSU didn't make
their title game because they lost to the eventual Big10 Champ. The Big10 Champ
didn't make it because they lost 2 games...and one was to Pitt. (Who also beat the eventual
NC...Clemson) But the committee allowed Ohio St to go because they only had one loss...even
though it was to the eventual Conf Champ. (We ignored the results on the field)
This year...Bama loses to Auburn. But we took them, even though they didn't play in their
conf title game, because they were...Bama? They only lost once? Playing Mercer
won't affect that w/l mark that much...now will it.
The current problem is one that has always plagued CFB
You WANT somebody to tell you who the best teams are. You thrive on it. It's
in your blood. (And when I type "You" I'm not referring to you alone). It's habit.
CFB has always decided its NC using the formula..."Another man's opinion."
I just prefer the scoreboard. I know that the Conf Champs will eliminate 120
teams thru regular season play. Then, one team will eliminate the other 9.
And that one team would have accomplished everything on the field of play.
I agree with Wiz.
by only using champs you in theory have teams that are 10-3 or 9-4 having lost all non conference games but sweeping through the conference to win it and play in the playoff.
So you simply keep ducking the question (pun intended based on who you chose to respond to)What would that say about their league?
Do we punish Ohio St for losing to Oklahoma but reward Wisconsin for beating Utah St?
We do but the committee doesn't.
If my OOC schedule was Alabama, Notre Dame and Florida and I lost all of them, but beat Clemson
for their only loss of the year...Is Clemson a better team than I am because their OOC schedule
included Furman, Texas State and UCONN?
Who would be the more competitive champion...Me or Clemson?
What would that say about their league?
Do we punish Ohio St for losing to Oklahoma but reward Wisconsin for beating Utah St?
We do but the committee doesn't.
If my OOC schedule was Alabama, Notre Dame and Florida and I lost all of them, but beat Clemson
for their only loss of the year...Is Clemson a better team than I am because their OOC schedule
included Furman, Texas State and UCONN?
Who would be the more competitive champion...Me or Clemson?
His 'point' was to avoid the question in the first place and ignore throwing out 1/4 - 1/3 of every schedule and still claiming we are deciding a champion based on play when in fact we are deciding it on MUCH less play.This is untrue. Ohio St receives very little "punishment" for beating Ohio St and Wisconsin receives very little reward for beating Utah St.
It was the Iowa blowout loss that Ohio St was punished for, and Wisconsin never received a big reward because they didn't play anyone all year.
I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be here. Neither of these sounds like they are deserving to be in the playoffs, but if you given AQ status to conference champions, then both are good enough because all those games are irrelevant.
I'll give it a stab Wiz.Again though, in your ideal world we would not only take these imbalanced and imperfect championships at face value and make them a seed, but we also entirely ignore every single out of conference game. I keep bringing it up and no one will address that.