Make me Laugh. Try to explain SOS - Strength of Schedule

[4down20]

The biggest reason that his system would never be used as the sole selector in the playoff is that playing a P5 schedule isn't the same as playing a G5 schedule, and the representatives of the P5 schools aren't going to use a system that assumes it is.

Here, I included the context, you are just moving the goal posts. You've gone from that to this:

The biggest reason that his system won’t ever be used to select the playoff teams is that the playoff is a creation of the P5 conferences, and they damn sure aren’t going to use a system that assumes that the AAC and Sunbelt are equal to the P5s.

All teams are treated equal, you claimed they weren't and that any system that did so wouldn't be used. You can not treat P5 and G5 teams any differently based on the labels of P5 and G5. The differences come out in other ways.

So, you can just admit that maybe you didn't read it quite correctly the first time, or you can just keep being a dick. I have an idea of which you'll choose.

If you want to change your story, that's fine. But I'm not going to take responsibility for it, so I guess you're right about one thing.

 

[CJH9972]

You are sure how? You have yet to even show a single example of a wrong pick, much less the reason for such things. All you do is make up fantasy shit that hasn't happened.



If you are among the best teams, you have to prove it. You are just creating a false dilemma and saying the 2 don't go hand in hand - well they do.



I would have agreed with Wisconsin going in over Alabama, and I'm an Alabama fan. What the fuck are you talking about? Oh yeah, you're making up scenario's and then demanding the result will be whatever it is you imagine.



If a real problem existed you wouldn't need hypothetical scenarios in the first place. Hypothetical meaning - you've made it up, it doesn't exist and hasn't happened. AKA, it's made up bullshit.

When it came time to go from the BCS to the playoffs, hypothetical scenarios were not used. Actual examples were used. Because it was a legit problem that needed fixed, while you're just a dumbass who doesn't understand a process and demands it needs attention.

Show a real problem, otherwise it must not exist.

Once again, I do not need to show a wrong pick when I'm not claiming wrong pick. My opposition to committees is not about right and wrong picks. I'm not, for example, arguing that the committee is bad because it wrongly picked Oklahoma over Georgia. The problem is that teams are picked at all and the teams ultimately picked are favored for reasons that do not carry more weight as a matter of rule under the committee format than the reasons that might used to favor another team.


As for Wisconsin, the whole point there is that I do not believe, had they beat Ohio State, they would have been picked based on the belief that they were a better team than Alabama which, if true, makes my point that the committee does not strictly abide by picking the four best teams. You said it is about picking the four best teams than changed to proving to be among the best teams when I brought up the Wisconsin beating Ohio State scenario.

 

[NU_FTW]

As for Wisconsin, the whole point there is that I do not believe, had they beat Ohio State, they would have been picked based on the belief that they were a better team than Alabama which, if true, makes my point that the committee does not strictly abide by picking the four best teams. You said it is about picking the four best teams than changed to proving to be among the best teams when I brought up the Wisconsin beating Ohio State scenario.

You do realize you are basing your real world argument on something completely hypothetical. If Wisconsin was good enough to beat Ohio State they would have beat Ohio State and been good enough and likely passed an eye test. Wisconsin was not good enough to beat Ohio State thus did not look good enough.


I guess you are using too much roundup on your corn you have been growing. too much glyphosate or something yea?

 

[Bayou Tiger]

The strength of ticket sales in a conference probably factors into the equation.....

 

[4down20]

Once again, I do not need to show a wrong pick when I'm not claiming wrong pick. My opposition to committees is not about right and wrong picks. I'm not, for example, arguing that the committee is bad because it wrongly picked Oklahoma over Georgia. The problem is that teams are picked at all and the teams ultimately picked are favored for reasons that do not carry more weight as a matter of rule under the committee format than the reasons that might used to favor another team.


As for Wisconsin, the whole point there is that I do not believe, had they beat Ohio State, they would have been picked based on the belief that they were a better team than Alabama which, if true, makes my point that the committee does not strictly abide by picking the four best teams. You said it is about picking the four best teams than changed to proving to be among the best teams when I brought up the Wisconsin beating Ohio State scenario.

1st paragraph - you're just wrong and as I said pages ago, you're trying to provide a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Highlighted by the fact that you can't show an actual problem.

2nd paragraph - again, I'm not sure what to tell you. You simply don't get it, Wisconsin was not a good enough team that year and pretending they did things that would have been better without saying they are improved is just a bullshit scenario.

And I didn't change anything, to be among the best 4 teams you have to prove it, that's the entire point of SoS. Always been that way, I've been posting for YEARS saying the same shit since day 1 of my posting here when it was only 2 teams. Hell, find some of the older posters on here that pay attention to the topic, they know what the hell I'm going to post before I even post because nothing changes here.

 

[CJH9972]

You do realize you are basing your real world argument on something completely hypothetical. If Wisconsin was good enough to beat Ohio State they would have beat Ohio State and been good enough and likely passed an eye test. Wisconsin was not good enough to beat Ohio State thus did not look good enough.


I guess you are using too much roundup on your corn you have been growing. too much glyphosate or something yea?

Since when did hypotheticals become useless with respect to making a point about the real world? That said, the Wisconsin discussion is ultimately insignificant to me. I'm not claiming Wisconsin is better than any other team win or lose vs Ohio State. My only reason for bringing it it up is that had they won, I believe they would have been picked for the playoffs but not because the committee would be convinced they were a better team than Alabama but because, in this instance, better results would have trumped the better team. Of course, I could be wrong and perhaps, a last drive game winning TD win over Ohio State would have convinced the committee Wisconsin was a better team than Alabama. If I'm wrong about the committee's reasons for picking Wisconsin had they won, I don't care.

 

[CJH9972]

1st paragraph - you're just wrong and as I said pages ago, you're trying to provide a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Highlighted by the fact that you can't show an actual problem.

2nd paragraph - again, I'm not sure what to tell you. You simply don't get it, Wisconsin was not a good enough team that year and pretending they did things that would have been better without saying they are improved is just a bullshit scenario.

And I didn't change anything, to be among the best 4 teams you have to prove it, that's the entire point of SoS. Always been that way, I've been posting for YEARS saying the same shit since day 1 of my posting here when it was only 2 teams. Hell, find some of the older posters on here that pay attention to the topic, they know what the hell I'm going to post before I even post because nothing changes here.

The problem is that teams are picked. That problem exists. I'm proposing a solution which would determine playoff teams without the need to pick teams. You don't have to agree that it is a problem nor do you have to like my solution.

I'm not making any claims about how good Wisconsin was that year win or lose the Ohio State game. I'm simply suggesting had they won, they would have been picked but not because the committee would have been convinced they were among the four best teams. If true, the committee does not strictly abide by a best four teams rule. If false, I'm wrong, I don't care, and picking the four best teams is still a bad idea.

 

[NU_FTW]

Since when did hypotheticals become useless with respect to making a point about the real world? That said, the Wisconsin discussion is ultimately insignificant to me. I'm not claiming Wisconsin is better than any other team win or lose vs Ohio State. My only reason for bringing it it up is that had they won, I believe they would have been picked for the playoffs but not because the committee would be convinced they were a better team than Alabama but because, in this instance, better results would have trumped the better team. Of course, I could be wrong and perhaps, a last drive game winning TD win over Ohio State would have convinced the committee Wisconsin was a better team than Alabama. If I'm wrong about the committee's reasons for picking Wisconsin had they won, I don't care.

LMFAO, re-read what you wrote. You are talking about hypotheticals involving human error/choice the only thing you say is "if wisconsin won" If wisconsin won maybe they would have been better than bama, fact is they didnt and were not.... hypothetically speaking since we get to live in the world of make believe, i say wisconsin wins that means they were better than bama. Since the entire purpose of a 4 team playoff is to ensure the best 2 teams duke it out for the championship i really dont care who the bubble 4th team is. Most years it wont matter and is just an exercise.

 

[4down20]

The problem is that teams are picked. That problem exists. I'm proposing a solution which would determine playoff teams without the need to pick teams. You don't have to agree that it is a problem nor do you have to like my solution.

I'm not making any claims about how good Wisconsin was that year win or lose the Ohio State game. I'm simply suggesting had they won, they would have been picked but not because the committee would have been convinced they were among the four best teams. If true, the committee does not strictly abide by a best four teams rule. If false, I'm wrong, I don't care, and picking the four best teams is still a bad idea.

Not only does the problem not exist, you don't even provide a real solution for the one you claim. In fact, I would be straight up embarrassed by such a system. I mean hell, I could easily write a system that used scores on, not have to worry about data or anything, but I'm not fucking ignorant enough to pretend like it means something, so I don't waste my time.

Well hmmm, what is required for Wisconsin to win that game?

Oh yeah, they would have needed to be a better team, or Ohio St would have needed to be worse.

You can NOT get around that no matter how much you want to try.

PS: The Alabama team that won the national championship wasn't exactly the same one as that which won the playoffs. If you recall, it required changing out QB's otherwise the result would have been a lose as bad or worse than the Auburn lose and all anyone would talk about is how Alabama didn't belong etc. So I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that Alabama was somehow always the best team or that the data supported it - because it didn't and required a change.

Yet the fact of the matter is, in your own example the committee was...right.

 

[CJH9972]

LMFAO, re-read what you wrote. You are talking about hypotheticals involving human error/choice the only thing you say is "if wisconsin won" If wisconsin won maybe they would have been better than bama, fact is they didnt and were not.... hypothetically speaking since we get to live in the world of make believe, i say wisconsin wins that means they were better than bama. Since the entire purpose of a 4 team playoff is to ensure the best 2 teams duke it out for the championship i really dont care who the bubble 4th team is. Most years it wont matter and is just an exercise.

Holy shit! I'm not making an argument that Wisconsin is a better team win or lose that game. I was simply speculating that had they won, it would not convince most people that they were suddenly a better team than Alabama. I could be absolutely wrong about that and I don't care. It wasn't that important of an issue for me.

 

[CJH9972]

Not only does the problem not exist, you don't even provide a real solution for the one you claim. In fact, I would be straight up embarrassed by such a system. I mean hell, I could easily write a system that used scores on, not have to worry about data or anything, but I'm not fucking ignorant enough to pretend like it means something, so I don't waste my time.

Well hmmm, what is required for Wisconsin to win that game?

Oh yeah, they would have needed to be a better team, or Ohio St would have needed to be worse.

You can NOT get around that no matter how much you want to try.

PS: The Alabama team that won the national championship wasn't exactly the same one as that which won the playoffs. If you recall, it required changing out QB's otherwise the result would have been a lose as bad or worse than the Auburn lose and all anyone would talk about is how Alabama didn't belong etc. So I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that Alabama was somehow always the best team or that the data supported it - because it didn't and required a change.

Yet the fact of the matter is, in your own example the committee was...right.

So teams are not picked for the playoffs? As far being embarrassed by my system, it just rules for determining a competition's standings. That it doesn't consider as much data as you like and is not attempt to determine the best teams is no concern of mine. And I don't care whether Wisconsin is or is not a better team than any other team. I was never making a claim they were. Just stating my belief that a win over Ohio State would not have convinced people they were suddenly a better team than Alabama. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and it makes no difference to me.

 

[4down20]

So teams are not picked for the playoffs? As far being embarrassed by my system, it just rules for determining a competition's standings. That it doesn't consider as much data as you like and is not attempt to determine the best teams is no concern of mine. And I don't care whether Wisconsin is or is not a better team than any other team. I was never making a claim they were. Just stating my belief that a win over Ohio State would not have convinced people they were suddenly a better team than Alabama. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and it makes no difference to me.

Fuck you're an idiot. I guess it's a good thing it makes no difference to you.

 

[Kevin12773]

Fuck you're an idiot. I guess it's a good thing it makes no difference to you.

Could’ve told you that 16 pages ago

 

[CJH9972]

Fuck you're an idiot. I guess it's a good thing it makes no difference to you.

I'm an idiot because you continue to argue against positions I don't stake and claims I don't make?

 

[CJH9972]

If Texas beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 CCG, who gets the fourth playoff spot?

 

[4down20]

If Texas beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 CCG, who gets the fourth playoff spot?

Georgia off the top of my head.

 

[NU_FTW]

If Texas beats Oklahoma in the Big 12 CCG, who gets the fourth playoff spot?

Who cares, they are not good enough to win the whole thing anyway. Bubble teams in years where 1 and 2 are vastly superior to 3 and 4 do not matter.

the 4 team playoff was only to ensure the 1 and 2 best teams got in. You could say it only needed to be top 3 to stop the whining and bitching about BCS but that would just make things funky so they went to 4.

You seem very new to football and how things work at the college level.

 

[CJH9972]

Who cares, they are not good enough to win the whole thing anyway. Bubble teams in years where 1 and 2 are vastly superior to 3 and 4 do not matter.

the 4 team playoff was only to ensure the 1 and 2 best teams got in. You could say it only needed to be top 3 to stop the whining and bitching about BCS but that would just make things funky so they went to 4.

You seem very new to football and how things work at the college level.

That is why the lower seed has a winning record through five years and the fourth seed has won two titles and top seed none because it actually makes no difference who is awarded that opportunity and why.

 

[CJH9972]

Georgia off the top of my head.

Do you believe it is a certainty they would have picked Georgia over Ohio State if a playoff berth were on the line because they did for 5th when it didn't matter?

 

[4down20]

Do you believe it is a certainty they would have picked Georgia over Ohio State if a playoff berth were on the line because they did for 5th when it didn't matter?

Yeah pretty much, but I would be fine with either of them being chosen. It's the 4th spot, so if either of them had a problem with the results, they shouldn't have lost.

I'm not even looking at their rankings, I don't pay attention to them ever.