David Shaw: CFP should look at full schedules

[nddulac]

Good thing most people who engineer and design things use higher levels of math, so your ass doesn't fall through the golden gate bridge.

Gee, Einstein. What kind of math do I use?

 

[4down20]

Yes the coaches wanted black players it was the fans the alumni and people in Alabama they had to convince. It wasn't till they lost to USC did they get the go ahead. Thats what Coach Bryant wanted when he scheduled the game.

So you really think having USC come to Alabama and play that game suddenly made race integration ok in Alabama?

I mean really?

 

[4down20]

Gee, Einstein. What kind of math do I use?

The wrong kind apparently.

 

[nddulac]

Agreed, though I am more about seeing good game than “best team”. Also why I prefer a larger playoff. The arguments matter less as the sample size gets larger and hopefully I get a few extra solid games

The thing about any form of playoff is that you are no longer tied to crowning "the best team" as the champion. If that was the point, there would be no fun at all in watching the games and looking for that upset victory.

However, you do want to place the most deserving teams into the playoff. And that is where the process becomes very tricky and imprecise.

Also - I found myself considering an expanded playoff this past season. The main reason was because I felt UCF got absolutely screwed out of a shot simply because they play in a G5 conference. And the only way a G5 superstar team will ever get a shot is if they expand the field.

 

[nddulac]

The wrong kind apparently.

Okay - once again, why don't you show me? Take my data set and show me that my results are incorrect.

 

[ralphiewvu]

So now your complaining about the example choice?

Petty bitch.

That was the only example you could use to make your point valid. 1 Of 12.

You truly are the dumb cocksucker you portray yourself to be, bitch.

 

[4down20]

Okay - once again, why don't you show me? Take my data set and show me that my results are incorrect.

The results don't matter if you aren't using the proper math for the problem. And you aren't even close to using the proper math and your results are a reflection of that.

How the hell you think they accurately reflect anything in college football is beyond me. When I did my rankings I started out with a group of people who all did their own rankings. I used programming and they used excel and they all had better results than you do.

Have fun with it, but if you can't admit they are shit then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's why you don't improve them?

 

[4down20]

That was the only example you could use to make your point valid. 1 Of 12.

You truly are the dumb cocksucker you portray yourself to be, bitch.

I only needed 1 example to make my point, so cry more.

But just in the Pac12 alone there is Colorado who went 2-7 in conference, Cal went 2-7 and then Utah went 3-6, etc. All of which give heavy bias towards the rest of the conference being above .500.

 

[socaljim242]

So you really think having USC come to Alabama and play that game suddenly made race integration ok in Alabama?

I mean really?

Yes really when it came to blacks being allowed to play football at Alabama . History says so. It;s just a fact. It's hilarious you're even disputing it since people from both sides of the ball say the same thing.
"Bryant was, for the first time, inviting an integrated team from outside the state to play in Alabama against one of the last schools in the country with an all-white team. That game would go on to change football in the South, in the National Football League, and in all of the country":


"that game did more for civil rights than a lot of events in this country"
"that game was the most important game in college football history"

 

[nddulac]

The results don't matter if you aren't using the proper math for the problem. And you aren't even close to using the proper math and your results are a reflection of that.

Alright, professor. Explain the difference between the mathematics I use and the "correct" math.

This is your chance to demonstrate that you know something and aren't just arguing from a position of entrenched ignorance.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I only needed 1 example to make my point, so cry more.

But just in the Pac12 alone there is Colorado who went 2-7 in conference, Cal went 2-7 and then Utah went 3-6, etc. All of which give heavy bias towards the rest of the conference being above .500.

Bullshit you can’t fucking say one example when it’s literally the only example you have and claim it’s the norm. That is exactly what you are doing here.

An Colorado, Cal and Utah all swept their OOC midmajors/FCS. Hell Cal beat ole miss and Colorado beat the aforementioned Colorado State. The school you said was better than Missouri to help fit your narrative. LOL

 

[Codaxx]

The thing about any form of playoff is that you are no longer tied to crowning "the best team" as the champion. If that was the point, there would be no fun at all in watching the games and looking for that upset victory.

However, you do want to place the most deserving teams into the playoff. And that is where the process becomes very tricky and imprecise.

Also - I found myself considering an expanded playoff this past season. The main reason was because I felt UCF got absolutely screwed out of a shot simply because they play in a G5 conference. And the only way a G5 superstar team will ever get a shot is if they expand the field.

The best team has always been nonsense. BCS was the first move toward a playoff. It was a 2 team playoff, but #1 didn’t always win. I think #4 has more trophies in the playoff era than #1. Best team nonsense was just an attempt to slow progress and a full playoff. I just want a deserving champion. Best is in the eye of the beholder. You win 2-4 games in a playoff, you are deserving in my eyes

 

[nddulac]

The best team has always been nonsense. BCS was the first move toward a playoff. It was a 2 team playoff, but #1 didn’t always win. I think #4 has more trophies in the playoff era than #1. Best team nonsense was just an attempt to slow progress and a full playoff. I just want a deserving champion. Best is in the eye of the beholder. You win 2-4 games in a playoff, you are deserving in my eyes

I think we agree more than we disagree here. I want a process that places deserving teams into the tournament. After that - yes - the one who wins the games is the deserving champion, irrespective of whether or not they are the "best" team.

 

[4down20]

Yes really when it came to blacks being allowed to play football at Alabama . History says so. It;s just a fact. It's hilarious you're even disputing it since people from both sides of the ball say the same thing.
"Bryant was, for the first time, inviting an integrated team from outside the state to play in Alabama against one of the last schools in the country with an all-white team. That game would go on to change football in the South, in the National Football League, and in all of the country":


"that game did more for civil rights than a lot of events in this country"
"that game was the most important game in college football history"

Dude, I know the fucking story, I'm just pointing out it's nothing more than a story. If they had been able to recruit players sooner, then they would have. They had multiple black players walk-on years before the game, they actively recruited black players, and that was all there was too it.

It wasn't even the first time we lost to a team with black players.

 

[4down20]

Bullshit you can’t fucking say one example when it’s literally the only example you have and claim it’s the norm. That is exactly what you are doing here.

An Colorado, Cal and Utah all swept their OOC midmajors/FCS. Hell Cal beat ole miss and Colorado beat the aforementioned Colorado State. The school you said was better than Missouri to help fit your narrative. LOL

I gave you plenty more examples of teams in the conference taking the bulk of the losses which creates way more teams above .500 than 1 less game in a conference could ever dream of.

And that was just 1 conference. Want me to start at the Big12 with Kansas next?

As I've pointed out over and over it's a max of 7 wins over 168 total games. The truth is there are many other factors that actually determine how many teams in a conference make it to .500 or better.

Say what you want, it's not like I expect you to suddenly get a brain.

 

[4down20]

Also, David Shaw should be spending more time learning about when to go for 2 and when not too so he doesn't repeat that noob mistake again.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I gave you plenty more examples of teams in the conference taking the bulk of the losses which creates way more teams above .500 than 1 less game in a conference could ever dream of.

And that was just 1 conference. Want me to start at the Big12 with Kansas next?

As I've pointed out over and over it's a max of 7 wins over 168 total games. The truth is there are many other factors that actually determine how many teams in a conference make it to .500 or better.

Say what you want, it's not like I expect you to suddenly get a brain.

No, you have cherry picked that stat of the worst teams here so you could think your point is valid you simple fuck. Your second paragraph proves this fact. Why would you use Kansas and not a middle tier team like Kansas State or WVU? Because simply you know that disproves your point.

As the Iowa fan pointed out teams that finished 5-7 with 9 conference games likely finish 6-6 with 8 because the midmajor they play instead of that conference foe is likely a win.

Thus bringing us back to what I have called you out on FOREVER. Playing 9 conference games is harder than playing 8. Now it’s your turn to call me butthurt or say I’m crying or whatever else you do when you’re put in a corner. Anyone with a brain can see that.

 

[Deep Creek]

The best team has always been nonsense. BCS was the first move toward a playoff. It was a 2 team playoff, but #1 didn’t always win. I think #4 has more trophies in the playoff era than #1. Best team nonsense was just an attempt to slow progress and a full playoff. I just want a deserving champion. Best is in the eye of the beholder. You win 2-4 games in a playoff, you are deserving in my eyes

#1 and #3 seeds haven't won it yet.

2014 - #1 Alabama #2 Oregon #3 Florida State #4 Ohio State
2015 - #1 Clemson #2 Alabama #3 Michigan State #4 Oklahoma
2016 - #1 Alabama #2 Clemson #3 Ohio State #4 Washington
2017 - #1 Clemson #2 Oklahoma #3 Georgia #4 Alabama

 

[Deep Creek]

I think we agree more than we disagree here. I want a process that places deserving teams into the tournament. After that - yes - the one who wins the games is the deserving champion, irrespective of whether or not they are the "best" team.

You mean settle it on the field instead of voting on it? That's a novel idea.

 

[4down20]

No, you have cherry picked that stat of the worst teams here so you could think your point is valid you simple fuck. Your second paragraph proves this fact. Why would you use Kansas and not a middle tier team like Kansas State or WVU? Because simply you know that disproves your point.

As the Iowa fan pointed out teams that finished 5-7 with 9 conference games likely finish 6-6 with 8 because the midmajor they play instead of that conference foe is likely a win.

Thus bringing us back to what I have called you out on FOREVER. Playing 9 conference games is harder than playing 8. Now it’s your turn to call me butthurt or say I’m crying or whatever else you do when you’re put in a corner. Anyone with a brain can see that.

Because I don't know the records of those teams off the top of my head, but I know Kansas sucks ass.

It's not cherry picking when I've named like 8 teams now.