How to Fix College Football

WizardHawk · Dec 7, 2019

dtgold88 said:
Except I have agreed with many things you have said in this thread and the NFL thread....you of course make it combative Do As I say Not as I do Guy. As another as you accuse me of following you around....while you follow me around.

why do I need to look in a mirror? I'm not accusing you of anything. You are the one who doesn't like when others disagree and also wants what he wants with no give and take.

lol, more of the same.

You don't care to actually discuss the topic of this thread, it's just attack attack attack and making it all 100% personal, while accusing others of the same. It's not working. If you were actually asking for give and take on something maybe you'd have a point. You aren't. Again, it seems that rivals poster gave us fair warning.
When you are over this nonsense and actually want to discuss some relevant point related to this thread and the article that started it, feel free. I won't hold my breath that will come soon though.

dtgold88 · Dec 7, 2019

WizardHawk said:
lol, more of the same.
You don't care to actually discuss the topic of this thread, it's just attack attack attack and making it all 100% personal, while accusing others of the same. It's not working. If you were actually asking for give and take on something maybe you'd have a point. You aren't. Again, it seems that rivals poster gave us fair warning.
When you are over this nonsense and actually want to discuss some relevant point related to this thread and the article that started it, feel free. I won't hold my breath that will come soon though.

me - "I prefer an 8 teamer but would be fine if they keep it as is, which I'm aware is what you and many others want."
you - "main format must be as I want or CFB will be ruined."

Ya gotta love this forum.

the ole SportsHoopla "I cannot refute what you said" facepalm.

WizardHawk · Dec 7, 2019

dtgold88 said:
me - "I prefer an 8 teamer but would be fine if they keep it as is, which I'm aware is what you and many others want."
you - "main format must be as I want or CFB will be ruined."

Ya gotta love this forum.

the ole SportsHoopla "I cannot refute what you said" facepalm.

So, you want to project more things not said. Are these the only two forms of posting you know? Just attack and misrepresent others words?

It seems you can say you are fine with things being as they are, but oh my God! anyone saying they wouldn't be fine with it going to 8! No! What a selfish asshole!

I actually like this sport. I like the post season just fine. What is wrong with that? Tell me. What is wrong with that statement when you yourself said you'd be fine with it staying this way?

Can't wait for the next round of nonsense attacks.

Moab · Dec 7, 2019

I figured it out. The best way to fix college football is to stop reading idiots that think they know how to fix college football.

dtgold88 · Dec 7, 2019

WizardHawk said:
So, you want to project more things not said. Are these the only two forms of posting you know? Just attack and misrepresent others words?

It seems you can say you are fine with things being as they are, but oh my God! anyone saying they wouldn't be fine with it going to 8! No! What a selfish asshole!

I actually like this sport. I like the post season just fine. What is wrong with that? Tell me. What is wrong with that statement when you yourself said you'd be fine with it staying this way?

Can't wait for the next round of nonsense attacks.

weird you cannot say what attack I offered or what I misrepresented. I have to say if you consider what I said attacks you shouldn't be in a sports forum.

Nothing wrong with saying you like the sport fine and want it to stay where they are......but the sport will be ruined if they change? Ignoring or deflecting every time a comment of of yours might be refuted with something factual and/or logical? You are a little dramatic. But amusing.

Have a good night. sorry you wont be able to follow me around any longer while complaining I follow you around.

WizardHawk · Dec 8, 2019

dtgold88 said:
weird you cannot say what attack I offered or what I misrepresented. I have to say if you consider what I said attacks you shouldn't be in a sports forum.

Nothing wrong with saying you like the sport fine and want it to stay where they are......but the sport will be ruined if they change? Ignoring or deflecting every time a comment of of yours might be refuted with something factual and/or logical? You are a little dramatic. But amusing.

Have a good night. sorry you wont be able to follow me around any longer while complaining I follow you around.

Go ahead and post something 'factual and/or logical' to refute something. It will be the first time you've done so today. Might be a bold new step for you.

romeo212000 · Dec 8, 2019

8 fucking teams.

HuskerOC · Dec 8, 2019

I say we go through the current CFP rankings and really see just how fucking stupid this thread really is:

1. Ohio State - Beat #8 Wisconsin won Big 10, will be in CFP
2. LSU - Drummed #4 Georgia, won the SEC, will be in the CFP
3. Clemson - Beat #23 Virginia, won the ACC, will be in the CFP
4. Georgia - got doors blown off by #2, out
5. Utah - got doors blown off by #13 Oregon, out
6. Oklahoma - Beat #7 Baylor, will be in the CFP
7. Baylor - Lost to #6, out
8. Wisconsin- Lost to #1 Ohio State, out
9. Florida - 2 losses, couldn't win own conference division, out
10. Penn State - 2 losses, couldn't win own conference division, out
11. Auburn - Lost 3 games, couldn't win own conference divsion, out
12. Alabama - lost to #11 last game and didn't win own conference division, out
13. Oregon - Beat #5 Utah, won the Pac12, lost to nobody Arizona State 3 weeks ago
14. Michigan - 3 losses including finale against #1 by about 50
15. Notre Dame - #14 beat them by 100 points
16. Iowa - 3 losses, didn't win own conference division, out

That is your top 16 teams that people 'want' to be in a playoff. In case you didn't notice, we just had the 1st round of the playoffs this weekend that included that magic number of 8 teams. Guess what, 4 of them will advance.

Neilcar · Dec 8, 2019

Most years you only need 2 teams in the playoffs. Some years 4. About once every 10-15 years you need 6...

It is working fine just as it is
… Maybe take away or penalized teams that play FCS or cupcakes every year to pad their win column...

dtgold88 · Dec 8, 2019

WizardHawk said:
Go ahead and post something 'factual and/or logical' to refute something. It will be the first time you've done so today. Might be a bold new step for you.

Funny as usual you were asked to provide proof of one of your comments and you deflected.

But I will answer your query......

There have been claims going to 8 with CCG winners in will mean teams will either schedule weaker or not even try in their OOC games (latter could not be more absurd). I countered by saying if they make round 1 at home sites teams will do everything they can to be a top 4 and host those games.

Now, are you going to tell me where I rustled your jimmies so much in the post to which you replied (the attack)?

dtgold88 · Dec 8, 2019

HuskerOC said:
I say we go through the current CFP rankings and really see just how fucking stupid this thread really is:

1. Ohio State - Beat #8 Wisconsin won Big 10, will be in CFP
2. LSU - Drummed #4 Georgia, won the SEC, will be in the CFP
3. Clemson - Beat #23 Virginia, won the ACC, will be in the CFP
4. Georgia - got doors blown off by #2, out
5. Utah - got doors blown off by #13 Oregon, out
6. Oklahoma - Beat #7 Baylor, will be in the CFP
7. Baylor - Lost to #6, out
8. Wisconsin- Lost to #1 Ohio State, out
9. Florida - 2 losses, couldn't win own conference division, out
10. Penn State - 2 losses, couldn't win own conference division, out
11. Auburn - Lost 3 games, couldn't win own conference divsion, out
12. Alabama - lost to #11 last game and didn't win own conference division, out
13. Oregon - Beat #5 Utah, won the Pac12, lost to nobody Arizona State 3 weeks ago
14. Michigan - 3 losses including finale against #1 by about 50
15. Notre Dame - #14 beat them by 100 points
16. Iowa - 3 losses, didn't win own conference division, out

That is your top 16 teams that people 'want' to be in a playoff. In case you didn't notice, we just had the 1st round of the playoffs this weekend that included that magic number of 8 teams. Guess what, 4 of them will advance.

agree there are years there is a clear 4 teams. But there are also years there are a clear top 2 or top 3 (like this season). Maybe even a clear top team. In those instances, should they change the CFP to 2 or 3 games, or just cancel it when only 1 such team? Doesn't mean there are not years where there are more worthy teams.

Also agree 16 is way too many....should not go beyond 8.

WizardHawk · Dec 8, 2019

dtgold88 said:
Funny as usual you were asked to provide proof of one of your comments and you deflected.

But I will answer your query......

There have been claims going to 8 with CCG winners in will mean teams will either schedule weaker or not even try in their OOC games (latter could not be more absurd). I countered by saying if they make round 1 at home sites teams will do everything they can to be a top 4 and host those games.

Now, are you going to tell me where I rustled your jimmies so much in the post to which you replied (the attack)?

So now it's a shift to trying to cover attacks with something of substance while still continuing the same behavior. Learning a lot about your posting style and why your reputation came tarnished from Rivals.

I've said quite a few times there are several reasons why I don't care for 8. The OOC is just one part of it. The answer to your question is we already see teams not going to any real extra degree when we have less spots to fight for so there's no reason to assume it would improve with more spots. More spots equals easier road for the select few teams with high levels of talent. You now have a LOT more margin of error. You can lose and still get in. We are watching a Clemson team with no meat on their schedule not only getting in, but not even sneaking in at 4.

Again, look at what we see today and project forward. Going to 8 on our current system wouldn't suddenly have teams changing course. Adding home games wouldn't alone make one single bit of difference. And before you slip back into some weird nonsense, those are my OPINIONS (

) based squarely on actual evidence today.

CJH9972 · Dec 8, 2019

WizardHawk said:
So now it's a shift to trying to cover attacks with something of substance while still continuing the same behavior. Learning a lot about your posting style and why your reputation came tarnished from Rivals.

I've said quite a few times there are several reasons why I don't care for 8. The OOC is just one part of it. The answer to your question is we already see teams not going to any real extra degree when we have less spots to fight for so there's no reason to assume it would improve with more spots. More spots equals easier road for the select few teams with high levels of talent. You now have a LOT more margin of error. You can lose and still get in. We are watching a Clemson team with no meat on their schedule not only getting in, but not even sneaking in at 4.

Again, look at what we see today and project forward. Going to 8 on our current system wouldn't suddenly have teams changing course. Adding home games wouldn't alone make one single bit of difference. And before you slip back into some weird nonsense, those are my OPINIONS ( ) based squarely on actual evidence today.

Not telling you what to favor but again, the number of playoff teams is not to blame for weak scheduling. It is the method of rankings plus the importance of seeding which is impacted by things like home field advantage.

dtgold88 · Dec 8, 2019

WizardHawk said:
So now it's a shift to trying to cover attacks with something of substance while still continuing the same behavior. Learning a lot about your posting style and why your reputation came tarnished from Rivals.

I've said quite a few times there are several reasons why I don't care for 8. The OOC is just one part of it. The answer to your question is we already see teams not going to any real extra degree when we have less spots to fight for so there's no reason to assume it would improve with more spots. More spots equals easier road for the select few teams with high levels of talent. You now have a LOT more margin of error. You can lose and still get in. We are watching a Clemson team with no meat on their schedule not only getting in, but not even sneaking in at 4.

Again, look at what we see today and project forward. Going to 8 on our current system wouldn't suddenly have teams changing course. Adding home games wouldn't alone make one single bit of difference. And before you slip back into some weird nonsense, those are my OPINIONS ( ) based squarely on actual evidence today.

My reputation is tarnished by one Rivals' poster who is just like you? Irrational and emotional? stopped reading after that.

Guess that's another attack, too.

WizardHawk · Dec 8, 2019

dtgold88 said:
My reputation is tarnished by one Rivals' poster who is just like you? Irrational and emotional? stopped reading after that.

Guess that's another attack, too.

So ignore the actual discussion of this thread by pretending you didn't read it.

Did that ever work on Rivals? :noidea:

WizardHawk · Dec 8, 2019

CJH9972 said:
Not telling you what to favor but again, the number of playoff teams is not to blame for weak scheduling. It is the method of rankings plus the importance of seeding which is impacted by things like home field advantage.

If the current playoff format isn't to blame, then expanding on the current system isn't going to fix it.

This idea that home field advantage is somehow for sure going to change things is odd. So they are lazy about getting in, but dangle a home game and now they will suddenly throw out the FCS garbage? It doesn't pass the logic test IMO.

You have to change quite a bit in the system to get voluntary change, otherwise you need to force their hand and push them into better schedules. Neither is likely to happen.

I can't see them going to an autobid system (thankfully). I doubt there will be any push to changing the size of the majors to go back to balanced schedules (required IMO to do autobids, but also fixes a lot that is wrong in the sport by itself). Really don't see a wholesale change to the committee system.

So if expansion did happen, it's likely to be 6 or 8 under the current selection process.

You two seem to believe that this change alone will somehow improve the incentives for teams to voluntarily add more meat to their OOC and I see no signs it would have any impact at all. You are making best guess efforts to attribute importance when we already see most teams don't.

Again, Clemson this year is kind of a big deal for those trying to assert this line of logic.

CJH9972 · Dec 8, 2019

WizardHawk said:
If the current playoff format isn't to blame, then expanding on the current system isn't going to fix it.

This idea that home field advantage is somehow for sure going to change things is odd. So they are lazy about getting in, but dangle a home game and now they will suddenly throw out the FCS garbage? It doesn't pass the logic test IMO.

You have to change quite a bit in the system to get voluntary change, otherwise you need to force their hand and push them into better schedules. Neither is likely to happen.

I can't see them going to an autobid system (thankfully). I doubt there will be any push to changing the size of the majors to go back to balanced schedules (required IMO to do autobids, but also fixes a lot that is wrong in the sport by itself). Really don't see a wholesale change to the committee system.

So if expansion did happen, it's likely to be 6 or 8 under the current selection process.

You two seem to believe that this change alone will somehow improve the incentives for teams to voluntarily add more meat to their OOC and I see no signs it would have any impact at all. You are making best guess efforts to attribute importance when we already see most teams don't.

Again, Clemson this year is kind of a big deal for those trying to assert this line of logic.

You have to change the method of ranking teams to one that creates a greater incentive to schedule better than what the committee does. The committee basically ranks P5 teams most to fewest losses 97% of time. If SOS is only a tiebreaker and no one knows what it takes to overcome more losses, they aren't going to be inclined to schedule OSU vs some FCS cupcake.

dtgold88 · Dec 8, 2019

WizardHawk said:
So ignore the actual discussion of this thread by pretending you didn't read it.

Did that ever work on Rivals?

I answered your question, you ignored mine about what so-called attack you were referring to.

But your Rivals' buddy did the same on Rivals (and here).

WizardHawk · Dec 8, 2019

CJH9972 said:
You have to change the method of ranking teams to one that creates a greater incentive to schedule better than what the committee does. The committee basically ranks P5 teams most to fewest losses 97% of time. If SOS is only a tiebreaker and no one knows what it takes to overcome more losses, they aren't going to be inclined to schedule OSU vs from FCS cupcake.

Again, having two different discussions. One is things we would all like to see, and things likely to happen if any change does at all.

While I don't want to see them go to 8, it is more likely if they do it's more of the same or with minor tweaks not likely to change the OOC value.

I don't agree that giving home field for 4 games will move the needle. There's just no evidence that changes things IMO. It's wishful thinking. There are things they could do to change it, but I can't see those happening either.

We all do agree it is currently weak and we would like to see it change. I just don't see it happening.

WizardHawk · Dec 8, 2019

dtgold88 said:
I answered your question, you ignored mine about what so-called attack you were referring to.

But your Rivals' buddy did the same on Rivals (and here).

Again, you are only here right now to make this something personal. Notice I've answered the thin attempt you gave to be relevant and you chose to fully ignore it and go back to just making it personal.

The other person in this thread is staying on topic and not going on attacks. What kinds of posts are the two of us exchanging?

You aren't interested in a discussion. That is clear. Fine by me. We have no lack of idiots up here looking to rant, trying to find gotcha moments, and masterbating to their own circular logic. They will surely welcome you into their fold.

How to Fix College Football

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Well-Known Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Self-proclaimed Asshole

Huskers 24/7 365

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Rivals' DTP2

Well-Known Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Rivals' DTP2

Well-Known Member

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Release the Kraken - Fuck the Canucks

Similar threads