How to Fix College Football

[dtgold88]

I would love to see something done about strength of schedule. SO far based on strength of schedule Clemson does not deserve to be anywhere near the playoffs.

I would, too, but they actually scheduled 2 decent OOC teams at the time they were scheduled.....and not their fault their conference opponents aren't very good.

But I would like to see uniform rules about number of conference games as well as number of P5 teams that must be scheduled OOC.

 

[dtgold88]

We had computer models in the BCS that attempted to make everything down to if/then. It wasn't any better than the polls and was so not trusted that they had to add in human polls to balance it. They were quite deep in their structure.

What you want is a set of rules a mile long to equate what the humans are doing. I haven't seen any case where they have gotten things 'wrong' yet. The cases a few want to bring up like bama when they didn't play for the CCG all were fairly reasonable when you look at the alternatives.

Win and you are in. Lose and you better not look worse than those around you in similar slots. Seems like a fairly straight forward set of rules to me.

Putting words in his mouth, are ya?

 

[CJH9972]

We had computer models in the BCS that attempted to make everything down to if/then. It wasn't any better than the polls and was so not trusted that they had to add in human polls to balance it. They were quite deep in their structure.

What you want is a set of rules a mile long to equate what the humans are doing. I haven't seen any case where they have gotten things 'wrong' yet. The cases a few want to bring up like bama when they didn't play for the CCG all were fairly reasonable when you look at the alternatives.

Win and you are in. Lose and you better not look worse than those around you in similar slots. Seems like a fairly straight forward set of rules to me.

First of all, they used several computers where no one was influenced by their rules. You can't have several different sets of rules unknown to the teams and think that is a good idea. Furthermore, I don't want rules that are a mile long and such is not necessary. Finally, the issue is not about the committee producing right or wrong results. The problem is that the committee picks winners and losers by adopting justifications as they go along and those justications carry no more weight than those argued on behalf of other teams.

 

[WizardHawk]

You needing things as they are was in regard to plan for the CFP. And, yes, you said if it goes to 8 the sport is ruined.

Funniest is you think it's not OK to like one plan but not cry if you don't get it.

I gave you lots of alternatives. That means saying someone needs thing to stay exactly as they are now is completely false. Just admit it and move on. You are wrong.

Stop being so hung up on how bad I think those proposals are for the sport. Yes, for me it ruins the things I love about this sport. I'm entitled to that opinion whether you agree or not. I'm entitled to better ideas that actually help fix real problems in the sport without making any other parts of it worse. I'm not for knee jerk not well thought out changes that break more than they supposedly fix.

Again, you can stop putting words in my mouth anytime now. I'm for smart change, not stupid ones. Those are my actual words.

 

[dtgold88]

I gave you lots of alternatives. That means saying someone needs thing to stay exactly as they are now is completely false. Just admit it and move on. You are wrong.

Stop being so hung up on how bad I think those proposals are for the sport. Yes, for me it ruins the things I love about this sport. I'm entitled to that opinion whether you agree or not. I'm entitled to better ideas that actually help fix real problems in the sport without making any other parts of it worse. I'm not for knee jerk not well thought out changes that break more than they supposedly fix.

Again, you can stop putting words in my mouth anytime now. I'm for smart change, not stupid ones. Those are my actual words.

You didn't give alternatives to the actual playoff. You want 4 teams. End of story for you. And you don't want restrictions.......and if they go to 8 the sport per you is ruined and I would hate to see the tears you'd let out.

I never said you were not entitled to your opinion. In fact, I wont cry if you get your way.

 

[WizardHawk]

First of all, they used several computers where no one was influenced by their rules. You can't have several different sets of rules unknown to the teams and think that is a good idea. Furthermore, I don't want rules that are a mile long and such is not necessary. Finally, the issue is not about the committee producing right or wrong results. The problem is that the committee picks winners and losers by adopting justifications as they go along and those justifications carry no more weight than those argued on behalf of other teams.

The point about the computer models is they weren't simple rules. To do the same things the committee is trying to do, and the BCS was formed to do, in a hard set of rules would be a very big rulebook.

 

[CJH9972]

The point about the computer models is they weren't simple rules. To do the same things the committee is trying to do, and the BCS was formed to do, in a hard set of rules would be a very big rulebook.

And I'm not advocating complex rules when simple rules will do.

 

[WizardHawk]

Putting words in his mouth, are ya?

You are just being plain stupid now.

Read the bold part again. That isn't the same as actually putting words in someone's mouth.
WHAT YOU WANT IS A SET OF RULES A MILE LONG

People with a basic understanding of English would get that is stating a consequence to what was actually said. That's not the same thing as continuing (to this very moment) to make blanket assertions as actual words said, that were never said by someone.

 

[WizardHawk]

And I'm not advocating complex rules when simple rules will do.

What simple rules would do? Going on win/loss won't do so that is excluded.

I haven't seen yet a simple set of rules proposed by all the people upset by the current system. All I see are complaints that the current system also doesn't have simple rules.

 

[WizardHawk]

You didn't give alternatives to the actual playoff. You want 4 teams. End of story for you. And you don't want restrictions.......and if they go to 8 the sport per you is ruined and I would hate to see the tears you'd let out.

I never said you were not entitled to your opinion. In fact, I wont cry if you get your way.

Do you spend a lot of time crying? Because you bring that up a LOT.

 

[dtgold88]

You are just being plain stupid now.

Read the bold part again. That isn't the same as actually putting words in someone's mouth.
WHAT YOU WANT IS A SET OF RULES A MILE LONG

People with a basic understanding of English would get that is stating a consequence to what was actually said. That's not the same thing as continuing (to this very moment) to make blanket assertions as actual words said, that were never said by someone.

Dance, deflect, distort....sorry, you cannot get past you are a do as I say not as I do type (many in these forums so don't let it bother you too much).

Never mind the extreme comment of "a mile long" but he hasn't asked for many rules. Just something.

But no shame in wanting what you want and only what you want.....if you are a child.

 

[dtgold88]

What simple rules would do? Going on win/loss won't do so that is excluded.

I haven't seen yet a simple set of rules proposed by all the people upset by the current system. All I see are complaints that the current system also doesn't have simple rules.

Its OK......just tell him he wants a list of rules again a mile long.

 

[dtgold88]

Do you spend a lot of time crying? Because you bring that up a LOT.

I spend a lot of time crying because I point out you will cry if you don't get your way and the sport is ruined?

Um......OK.

 

[CJH9972]

What simple rules would do? Going on win/loss won't do so that is excluded.

I haven't seen yet a simple set of rules proposed by all the people upset by the current system. All I see are complaints that the current system also doesn't have simple rules.

My own idea is a point system that is Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses. Beyond that, I'm sure there are plenty of simple options that define what beats what.

 

[WizardHawk]

Its OK......just tell him he wants a list of rules again a mile long.

It's cool. The English language really isn't your thing. Before you claim otherwise, that's just obvious from your lack of basic understanding. I'm not saying you have actually admitted it so no, it's not the same thing as you continuing to put words in others mouths.

You are as lost as I've ever seen a poster.

 

[WizardHawk]

I spend a lot of time crying because I point out you will cry if you don't get your way and the sport is ruined?

Um......OK.

YOU used tears and crying in that same post, once about you by the way, and have brought it up in quite a few others. Not just here, but on the NFL board. You bring up crying a lot. Just wondering if you need some help.

 

[dtgold88]

YOU used tears and crying in that same post, once about you by the way, and have brought it up in quite a few others. Not just here, but on the NFL board. You bring up crying a lot. Just wondering if you need some help.

Bring it up only for those who get bent out of shape if they don't get their way.....like you.

 

[WizardHawk]

My own idea is a point system that is Games Won Opponents' Wins - Games Lost Opponents' Losses. Beyond that, I'm sure there are plenty of simple options that define what beats what.

If they ever find a way of doing it that doesn't involve an auto bid system I'm not against it. I have yet to see a points system of any kind that worked for this purpose, but that doesn't mean one can't exist. I don't know that it's necessary, but no system will be perfect.

 

[WizardHawk]

Bring it up only for those who get bent out of shape if they don't get their way.....like you.

... says the tard running around making one personal attack after another on someone...

I've dared to share my opinions on this topic. I must be crying.

What the hell is wrong with you? That other poster from Rivals that said everyone on that site ignored you because you are kind of stupid appears to have been on to something.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You didn't give alternatives to the actual playoff. You want 4 teams. End of story for you. And you don't want restrictions.......and if they go to 8 the sport per you is ruined and I would hate to see the tears you'd let out.

I never said you were not entitled to your opinion. In fact, I wont cry if you get your way.

Same old if they go to 6 or 8 the games lose meaning rhetoric. This year is a great example for the need to expand and set an actual criteria. After tonight Clemson gets in despite most likely not playing one team ranked by the end of the year. On a Schedule comparable to UCF. While other teams play marquee in conference match ups that end up holding no meaning in the end. We have an ACC CCG that holds no real value of interest. And OSU is playing complacent right now. If they don’t expand and find a better selection process the spot will continue to digress.....