Qualifications for making the College Football Playoff

[TheRobotDevil]

So you support a system that equates beating bama as the same as beating vandy. A win is a win. Yes, I fundamentally disagree with that. Blind rules harm the game and do not improve fairness which is the primary thing most of you believe this system is lacking.

We will have to agree to disagree.

But you are using a system. That equates playing Iowa as the same as playing Mercer. The problem with the math is you're not accounting for the variables. Which means he fundamentals are not sound. If they were using a system with sound fundamentals. There would not be this many inconsistencies

 

[CJH9972]

So you support a system that equates beating bama as the same as beating vandy. A win is a win. Yes, I fundamentally disagree with that. Blind rules harm the game and do not improve fairness which is the primary thing most of you believe this system is lacking.

We will have to agree to disagree.

No. Wins versus Alabama and Vanderbilt are not equal under my particular idea. That said, rules are the only thing that ensures fairness so long as the rules apply the same to all teams without regard to identity and perception.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Seriously, after that lame ass trolling from last night all I have to say to you is go fuck yourself. Didn't read this and not going back into your bullshit again. You are nothing but a weak troll.

I don't agree with the other guy, but he is talking and discussing the topic without spin and nonsense. Learn something from him you tool.

Yes I was trying to keep you on topic. You veer from time to time. Now we have a platform to discuss the topic. Solets discuss the variables and fundamentals. Lacking in the math of the current CFP system

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Uniformity is best but I think the 8 vs 9 league game difference under the current format is a problem because the incentive to schedule to strong OOC games is limited to one game for most teams so the extra game OOC game for the SEC for example is another cupcake.

I agree the first thing they should do. Is start by using a formula that is actually functional. Which means going to a uniform schedule. Right now all I see is manipulated numbers. If they want to make comparisons that requires uniform schedules. Or its really just opinion. Otherwise its just really bad math and opinion. Raising the number to 6-8 also reduces margin of error.

 

[WizardHawk]

No. Wins versus Alabama and Vanderbilt are not equal under my particular idea. That said, rules are the only thing that ensures fairness so long as the rules apply the same to all teams without regard to identity and perception.

But they don't. The winner of each conf has a completely different path. 11 win Georgia isn't the same as an 11 win Utah or an 11 win Wisconsin, yet 'rules' based seeding treats their paths as the same. They do and there isn't a way not to with 'rules'.

 

[SteelersPride]

I didnt read 13 pages but @ralphiewvu had a decent starting point for this

 

[WizardHawk]

Yes I was trying to keep you on topic. You veer from time to time. Now we have a platform to discuss the topic. Solets discuss the variables and fundamentals. Lacking in the math of the current CFP system

I'm not kidding. Go fuck yourself. I'm finished with your bullshit. If the Iowa fan wants to have an actual discussion I'm game. Same for anyone else no matter what their view is. This new bunch will learn soon enough that having you on their side of anything probably isn't a good thing.

 

[CJH9972]

But they don't. The winner of each conf has a completely different path. 11 win Georgia isn't the same as an 11 win Utah or an 11 win Wisconsin, yet 'rules' based seeding treats their paths as the same. They do and there isn't a way not to with 'rules'.

I'm not arguing for AQs. That said, I don't think you can guarantee the same path no matter how you set things up nor do I think it is a huge concern. Playing by rules that apply equally to all teams is not the same thing as everyone having the same path.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I'm not kidding. Go fuck yourself. I'm finished with your bullshit. If the Iowa fan wants to have an actual discussion I'm game. Same for anyone else no matter what their view is. This new bunch will learn soon enough that having you on their side of anything probably isn't a good thing.

Than by all means you do not need to choose to reply to me. When I am discussing the play off system with others most of which I already knew.....Its his kind of veering off topic. That really just confirms my play off stance.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'm not arguing for AQs. That said, I don't think you can guarantee the same path no matter how you set things up nor do I think it is a huge concern. Playing by rules that apply equally to all teams is not the same thing as everyone having the same path.

You would have to actually spell out in detail exactly what your idea/plan looks like because we are talking in generalities past each other. And I'm sure that is best left to after the title game going into the long off season.

We've been through a bunch of well intentioned plans in previous years. Again, I'd be happy to adopt something else as I have no real love of this committee or format, but I'm not really in favor of expanding in general because I like that losses matter now. That's just me and I'm fine with being in the minority of that view.

I'll be interested to see what your full plan is once the season ends. Happy holidays.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I'm not arguing for AQs. That said, I don't think you can guarantee the same path no matter how you set things up nor do I think it is a huge concern. Playing by rules that apply equally to all teams is not the same thing as everyone having the same path.

This is a major factor in the current systems flaws. By using a committee working off no sound foundation for comparison. And multiple variables including mass scheduling differentials. It really just comes down to the opinion of the committee. Im all for expansion and uniform scheduling. They have to find a more reliable system regardless. Otherwise its the same old every year. If its not Penn State its Ohio State or TCU/Baylor etc. I just cant buy an 11-1 team that failed to win their conference on a softer schedule. Being considered better than an 11-2 team that played a stronger schedule with a conference championship. Based on content such as the eye test

 

[WizardHawk]

Than by all means you do not need to choose to reply to me. When I am discussing the play off system with others most of which I already knew.....Its his kind of veering off topic. That really just confirms my play off stance.

You have a sickness and you've admitted it before. You know damned well you go way too far with your spin punk ass bullshit. You apologized once and said you were done with it. That literally lasted about a week as I recall. It was around the same time as you made that stupid lifetime ban bet with nabb and I told you both you were complete idiots at the time.

This happens every single time. You aren't capable of having a rational discussion about pretty much anything. The moment someone tosses something your way that you don't have a ready made answer for, you go full retard and start the shit show all over again. You have a couple of their fans on the hook so leave it at that and move on.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You have a sickness and you've admitted it before. You know damned well you go way too far with your spin punk ass bullshit. You apologized once and said you were done with it. That literally lasted about a week as I recall. It was around the same time as you made that stupid lifetime ban bet with nabb and I told you both you were complete idiots at the time.

This happens every single time. You aren't capable of having a rational discussion about pretty much anything. The moment someone tosses something your way that you don't have a ready made answer for, you go full retard and start the shit show all over again. You have a couple of their fans on the hook so leave it at that and move on.

yes I decide the play off teams. If you cant stay on topic ad have nothing on topic to contribute. I have no problem ignoring you. No need to quote me when I'm discussing the topic with others.....See easy now that wasn't that hard

 

[WizardHawk]

yes I decide the play off teams. If you cant stay on topic ad have nothing on topic to contribute. I have no problem ignoring you. No need to quote me when I'm discussing the topic with others.....See easy now that wasn't that hard

Seriously. For some strange reason now you are copying my avatar and icons presumably to try and fuck with me, but I'm not sure why I would care. It's just more examples of your odd and abnormal behavior. You know full well you are back to your old retard mode. Just stop it and move on. Whatever you think you will gain from trying to snowball the new Rivals posters, it's going to be as short lived as all of the other times you've done the same shit before. Going back to the doob show nonsense and all that thumbs up you all handed out each other like candy to make it seem like people actually liked you guys. It was odd as fuck, but we just laughed. The fan nation people you followed around and tried to get to like you. You camped out in their group threads talking drugs, music, and trying to act like one of them. Lasted a bit before some caught wind of your weird crap. I'm sure you are doing it again now. This is what you do. If you think any of this garbage is impressing them I'm betting it isn't, even if they haven't yet figured out you are a complete tard.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Seriously. For some strange reason now you are copying my avatar and icons presumably to try and fuck with me, but I'm not sure why I would care. It's just more examples of your odd and abnormal behavior. You know full well you are back to your old retard mode. Just stop it and move on. Whatever you think you will gain from trying to snowball the new Rivals posters, it's going to be as short lived as all of the other times you've done the same shit before. Going back to the doob show nonsense and all that thumbs up you all handed out each other like candy to make it seem like people actually liked you guys. It was odd as fuck, but we just laughed. The fan nation people you followed around and tried to get to like you. You camped out in their group threads talking drugs, music, and trying to act like one of them. Lasted a bit before some caught wind of your weird crap. I'm sure you are doing it again now. This is what you do. If you think any of this garbage is impressing them I'm betting it isn't, even if they haven't yet figured out you are a complete tard.

You literally told me to take your avy for a month. If you would like I would happily go back to my avy. Wasn't sure why you would want mine. All you have to do is say the word and I'll go back to my avy. As pertaining to the rest if its not college football related and on topic with the thread.I really don't see the point......

 

[ralphiewvu]

I didnt read 13 pages but @ralphiewvu had a decent starting point for this

My idea for having conference champions in was:

1) SoS in the top 60
2) No more than 2 losses
3) must be ranked in the top 8 or I’d go as high as 10

Ethier way this system is not perfect but if you want the conference champions to have first dibs then this would be the way to go. An this is all assuming the playoff gets expanded.

 

[SteelersPride]

My idea for having conference champions in was:

1) SoS in the top 60
2) No more than 2 losses
3) must be ranked in the top 8 or I’d go as high as 10

Ethier way this system is not perfect but if you want the conference champions to have first dibs then this would be the way to go. An this is all assuming the playoff gets expanded.

that was it!

 

[ralphiewvu]

that was it!

Looking at it I’m sure those numbers will need to come down. But it’s a starting point.

 

[SteelersPride]

a

Looking at it I’m sure those numbers will need to come down. But it’s as starting point.

absolutely . its the best idea ive heard yet

 

[4down20]

Of course you can. For example, suppose teams were ranked by adding their win % and opponents' win % and the top 8 totals qualify for the playoffs. You would be comparing teams based on who best accomplishes winning and playing winning opponents. That is the shared objective. Post a better total according to those rules. To be clear, a better total only tells us who is more accomplished according to those particular rules. It makes no other claims especially claims about purely subjective considerations like best team.

Rules are not concerned with subjective perceptions about tougher. The point of rules is accomplish what the rules value. In this example, your objective is to schedule and beat opponents that win (who are trying to do the same). Your objective is not to beat tougher opponents as a matter of opinion. That every objective formula has been dismissed by those who expect objective formulas to validate their subjective opinions about matters that rules are meant to ignore is not the fault of rules.

Ummmm, there are lots of quality SoS metrics out there. The SoS metric you mention is not new, it's probably one of the oldest SoS methods out there because it's so simple, but it's extremely flawed and can be demonstrated as such.

Because stats used improperly are LIES. They are not objective as you seem to claim, they are LIES. The formula you are wanting to use try to suggest that all 6-6 teams are equal, and anyone with a little common sense knows this is bullshit. So to base anything on such a formula is to be a system on lies.

You can sit here and say whatever you want, but everyone who matters know this(which is why so many other better formulas exist) and by proposing such systems you only highlight your own ignorance on the topic and why nobody should take you seriously.