Qualifications for making the College Football Playoff

[4down20]

The motive behind using opponents' records to determine win and loss values is to encourage/compel teams to pursue stronger schedules than they would if simply ranked by their records but there is no claim that a better record equals a stronger team. So, it is quite possible to get equal or greater value for beating a lesser team with respect to ability. That said, the method works when comparing my system to a best record system. The two methods have agreed on 126 of 160 top four teams over the past 40 seasons. However, the 34 teams favored by my method won 60 more games and played 93 more games versus AP ranked teams than the 34 teams favored by the best record method. So, is 6-6 team a better team than a 5-7 team. Not necessarily, but the method still promotes stronger scheduling even if "team strength" does not determine win/loss values.

Yeah, if you don't think you are making those claims you're a fucking retard and a waste of time.

See ya.

 

[Rolltide94]

Ah I see, the semantics game of absolutes. A wise Hooplan past time of debate. The second weakest position one can take in a debate behind name calling. Shoulda prefaced my reply that was coming, I knew better.

No shit you're not going to have a 100% win percentage? But stop moving the goal post each time when you lump in G5 teams as you did below. We're here to debate the advantages of playing 8 conferences games versus 9 as it pertains to giving an advantage for conference playoff participation. What I was getting at before you moved the goal posts, that by playing an extra conference game versus an FCS November opponent, it leaves the top tier of the conference (team(s) in playoff contention) much more vulnerable to an additional loss. You'd be forced into an extra cross divisional game, and depending on the year or schedule you'll face a much more formidable opponent than a FCS team. That can't be debated, that's just fact.

I said from the beginning it's a smart move by the SEC. That's why I'm in favor of the NCAA stepping in and requiring a standardized number of conference games played.

The fact that you think the NCAA has any power in this equation is proof positive that you're not function with a loaded gun. Retard...ooops, guess I went to the weakest position, yet somehow your argument didn't get any better.

We didn't move the goal posts, you did. You were playing 8, we were playing 8, you switched to 9 and now it's unfair, and somehow we are gaming the system, lol. Y'all are a special kind of stupid.

 

[CJH9972]

Yeah, if you don't think you are making those claims you're a fucking retard and a waste of time.

See ya.

Why be an asshole? Do best record systems claim that all teams are of equal strength because wins and losses against all count the same in the standings?

 

[4down20]

Why be an asshole? Do best record systems claim that all teams are of equal strength because wins and losses against all count the same in the standings?

You are using records as measures of team strength and you're either trolling to the point of refusing admitting it, or you're too fucking retarded for the topic.

Take your pick, but the bottom line is you are using team records to represent team strength no matter if you admit it or not. That's a fact.

 

[Rolltide94]

Dropping league games takes away a .500 win/loss. That math just can't be too hard for you yeah?
Suggesting any P5 conference wouldn't be able to sustain better than a .500 win rate against G5/FCS schools is just plain stupid. No way to sugar coat it.

SEC plays those extras to get more home games you fucking dolt. They don't care about how lame it makes their schedule. Without 4 OOC you can't have 7 home plus (wink wink) one 'neutral' and only play 4 actual road games a year. They make them against those lower shit stains because they can't do home/home without doing more road games.

SEC cares far more about making extra money than playing quality football. Dropping the FCS teams and playing an extra league game would make for better football, but lose money.

This isn't hard.

No shit sherlock. I was just talking about the losses. claiming it's an automatic 14 vs 7 wins is the fallacy. Pretending that we are going to replace the FCS team with a conference game is retarded. We are going to replace one of the g-5 games. Since our winning percentage against g5's is higher than 1.00, the number of additional losses will be less than 7. For example, if we played 14 games against g-5 teams and went 11-3 and instead played a conference game, we would go 7-7. We would have 4 less losses and 4 less wins...not 7 and 7 as was claimed. If we were the PAC, the discrepancy would be even less, because you suck and make a habit of losing to FCS teams as well as G-5's. If our record against G-5's was 9-6 I would advocate for playing more games in my own shitty conference too...9-6, 7-7, tomato,tomahto, the double benefit of getting the same result while at the same time pretending we are doing something fierce...you go girl.

 

[WizardHawk]

No shit sherlock. I was just talking about the losses. claiming it's an automatic 14 vs 7 wins is the fallacy. Pretending that we are going to replace the FCS team with a conference game is retarded. We are going to replace one of the g-5 games. Since our winning percentage against g5's is higher than 1.00, the number of additional losses will be less than 7. For example, if we played 14 games against g-5 teams and went 11-3 and instead played a conference game, we would go 7-7. We would have 4 less losses and 4 less wins...not 7 and 7 as was claimed. If we were the PAC, the discrepancy would be even less, because you suck and make a habit of losing to FCS teams as well as G-5's. If our record against G-5's was 9-6 I would advocate for playing more games in my own shitty conference too...9-6, 7-7, tomato,tomahto, the double benefit of getting the same result while at the same time pretending we are doing something fierce...you go girl.

This from the same idiot that thinks Bama v Stanford would be the result of playing less conf games, not adding yet even more shit stains like the SEC already does.

No, it wouldn't. And you have to be pretty stupid to think that way. Adding another P5 creates home/home normally which means one year getting the extra gate money and the other passing on it. Adding another G5/FCS gives that home game every time. Stop being stupid. For once.

If The SEC went back to 7 games it would make it so every other year you only had 3 road games. It's what the SEC does. And on top of that, it would mean skipping 6 of your conference teams every year which creates even more imbalanced league schedules and more discrepancy in quality. You seriously have your head up your ass to think otherwise.

The SEC chose to add teams and go to 14. It was their choice to muddy the water. The more teams you skip every year, the bigger the joke of calling yourself a conf champion really is. And yes, as we have pointed out many times it's a problem for every P5 conference outside of the B12. They are the only ones doing it right.

 

[ralphiewvu]

It's only simple math if you're simple.

As I stated, no conference beats even FCS opponents at a 100% rate, so the 7 games clip is a ridiculous argument. If you want to put some actual thought behind the numbers and come back with some real analysis I will entertain your argument.

Nobody is taking advantage of a loophole. Shit, back in the day, we all played 8...or less when we had less members. Your the ones adding games to your conference schedule...almost as if you were scared of playing teams outside your conference, likely true in the case of the PAC, or at least it should be based on their record. They incidentally have the lowest win percentage against G5 teams...they would barely get 4 more wins if they switched to 8 games by adding g5's. If you guys think playing 8 is an unfair advantage, you have my permission to drop back too. Would certainly leave room for inter-conference opportunities.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha you can’t be serious with this nonsense can you?

 

[Crimson Kirk]

1. Don’t lose more than 1 game

2. Play a schedule that is objectively complicated

3. Be a team a large audience gives a shit about

 

[Hang_On_Sloopy08]

The fact that you think the NCAA has any power in this equation is proof positive that you're not function with a loaded gun. Retard...ooops, guess I went to the weakest position, yet somehow your argument didn't get any better.

We didn't move the goal posts, you did. You were playing 8, we were playing 8, you switched to 9 and now it's unfair, and somehow we are gaming the system, lol. Y'all are a special kind of stupid.

You demonstrate a very low level of reading comprehension. What you're effectively doing is reading an opinion such as mine with a whole lot of absolute minded thinking. It shows how small minded you and how incapable you are to rationalize. I didn't say anything about the NCAA's power or lack thereof over conferences, I simply said the NCAA needs to step in and have more influence. They could easily do this by setting a criteria for their committee to choose playoff participation by how many conference games you schedule. That would effectively force conferences to fall in line.

 

[Crimson Kirk]

You demonstrate a very low level of reading comprehension. What you're effectively doing is reading an opinion such as mine with a whole lot of absolute minded thinking. It shows how small minded you and how incapable you are to rationalize. I didn't say anything about the NCAA's power or lack thereof over conferences, I simply said the NCAA needs to step in and have more influence. They could easily do this by setting a criteria for their committee to choose playoff participation by how many conference games you schedule. That would effectively force conferences to fall in line.

The mistake many of you make is assuming the NCAA gives a flying fuck about anything but money, and under the CFP, the money is plentiful.

 

[WizardHawk]

You demonstrate a very low level of reading comprehension. What you're effectively doing is reading an opinion such as mine with a whole lot of absolute minded thinking. It shows how small minded you and how incapable you are to rationalize. I didn't say anything about the NCAA's power or lack thereof over conferences, I simply said the NCAA needs to step in and have more influence. They could easily do this by setting a criteria for their committee to choose playoff participation by how many conference games you schedule. That would effectively force conferences to fall in line.

Yeah, about that. The CFP is ran by the presidents/chancellors of each conference. Or I should say one school from each plus ND. And the day to day operations are ran by the 10 commissioners.

So you want them to police themselves and set rules they wouldn't otherwise do on their own?

When you speak of 'their committee' it has zero to do with the NCAA organization. At all.

This system was a compromise meant to appease the G5's. They got a lot more money out of it, and full inclusion in running the organization equally. You will not find the CFP making decisions that hurt G5's more than they already do, nor give them less hurdles. You also will not find 'falling in line' to be a thing when it is the schools running it.

Honestly it's the same with the NCAA anyway. It is a member institution. That's why most discipline is a joke.

 

[WizardHawk]

The mistake many of you make is assuming the NCAA gives a flying fuck about anything but money, and under the CFP, the money is plentiful.

No, the thing most people screw up is believing the NCAA is anything other than a member institution. It isn't a seperate governing body. It IS the schools. Not unlike the commissioners of major sports leagues really being hired/ran by the owners so their governing power is quite limited. The NCAA is pretty much impotent. And it's that way because the member institutions want it that way otherwise THEY would change it.

 

[Crimson Kirk]

No, the thing most people screw up is believing the NCAA is anything other than a member institution. It isn't a seperate governing body. It IS the schools. Not unlike the commissioners of major sports leagues really being hired/ran by the owners so their governing power is quite limited. The NCAA is pretty much impotent. And it's that way because the member institutions want it that way otherwise THEY would change it.

Everything you said, because of disgusting profits.

 

[Rolltide94]

This from the same idiot that thinks Bama v Stanford would be the result of playing less conf games, not adding yet even more shit stains like the SEC already does.

No, it wouldn't. And you have to be pretty stupid to think that way. Adding another P5 creates home/home normally which means one year getting the extra gate money and the other passing on it. Adding another G5/FCS gives that home game every time. Stop being stupid. For once.

If The SEC went back to 7 games it would make it so every other year you only had 3 road games. It's what the SEC does. And on top of that, it would mean skipping 6 of your conference teams every year which creates even more imbalanced league schedules and more discrepancy in quality. You seriously have your head up your ass to think otherwise.

The SEC chose to add teams and go to 14. It was their choice to muddy the water. The more teams you skip every year, the bigger the joke of calling yourself a conf champion really is. And yes, as we have pointed out many times it's a problem for every P5 conference outside of the B12. They are the only ones doing it right.

Talk about moving the goalposts...you picked the fucking things up and moved them to a new stadium.

You can argue if you want want would happen to OOC schedules if everybody went to 8, that's your choice. But if you want to pretend playing 9 Pac-12 games would be harder than playing 9 SEC games then you aren't that bright.

No conference is going to unilaterally drop to 8 and and more P5 OOC games, we would have to reach some sort of agreement, but it makes more sense to do that than the ridiculous peer pressure campaign you morons are trying to pull off. Why would we go to 9? It serves no purpose.

 

[Rolltide94]

You demonstrate a very low level of reading comprehension. What you're effectively doing is reading an opinion such as mine with a whole lot of absolute minded thinking. It shows how small minded you and how incapable you are to rationalize. I didn't say anything about the NCAA's power or lack thereof over conferences, I simply said the NCAA needs to step in and have more influence. They could easily do this by setting a criteria for their committee to choose playoff participation by how many conference games you schedule. That would effectively force conferences to fall in line.

LOL, who the fuck do you think the NCAA is? They=us. They are not some omnipotent overlord, it is just us, collectively. You could have said Congress needs to step in and have more influence on these Congressmen and Senators...and been equally right...and equally dumb.

 

[WizardHawk]

Talk about moving the goalposts...you picked the fucking things up and moved them to a new stadium.

You can argue if you want want would happen to OOC schedules if everybody went to 8, that's your choice. But if you want to pretend playing 9 Pac-12 games would be harder than playing 9 SEC games then you aren't that bright.

No conference is going to unilaterally drop to 8 and and more P5 OOC games, we would have to reach some sort of agreement, but it makes more sense to do that than the ridiculous peer pressure campaign you morons are trying to pull off. Why would we go to 9? It serves no purpose.

Saban in favor of 9 SEC games to combat 'dwindling attendance'

 

[Rolltide94]

Saban in favor of 9 SEC games to combat 'dwindling attendance'

I'd support that too, but we aren't going to 9 and playing all P5 OOC unilaterally.

If we were talking about what I want, I would like us to all play 11 P5's. 8 conference games, 1 team scheduled OOC P5 opponent and 2 assigned OOC.

Tell me you couldn't sell an opponent selection show to ESPN. Even if it was only 1 game...imagine 32 or 33 games if we add Notre Dame and I guess BYU, chosen at random on live tv. It would make the NCAA Tournament show look like Family Feud in comparison.

I guess there would have to be some sort of seeding so you don't get two good teams in a row or two doormats, but if you want to level the playing, this is the conversation we should be having, not playing more conference games.

 

[WizardHawk]

I'd support that too, but we aren't going to 9 and playing all P5 OOC unilaterally.

If we were talking about what I want, I would like us to all play 11 P5's. 8 conference games, 1 team scheduled OOC P5 opponent and 2 assigned OOC.

Tell me you couldn't sell an opponent selection show to ESPN. Even if it was only 1 game...imagine 32 or 33 games if we add Notre Dame and I guess BYU, chosen at random on live tv. It would make the NCAA Tournament show look like Family Feud in comparison.

I guess there would have to be some sort of seeding so you don't get two good teams in a row or two doormats, but if you want to level the playing, this is the conversation we should be having, not playing more conference games.

Sure, who wouldn't want to see more P5's. It's not going to happen. And for the reasons already mentioned.

If all P5's play 11 among themselves you get 5 home games off that one year, and 6 the other. You'd get a MAX of 6 homes games one year and 7 the other with a G5 filler.

There is zero chance any school is going to give up those extra homes games. As I said, right now Bama gets 7 full home games plus a lucrative neutral site game and only has 4 road games. Every single G5/FCS you drop from that is PURE home game profits up in smoke.

I doubt there are many fans that wouldn't be in favor of less home games but way more improved matchups, but there just isn't any interest in that by the schools that rely on that money for all of their sports programs. It's just not going to happen.

And there isn't a body that can force it to happen.

 

[Rolltide94]

Sure, who wouldn't want to see more P5's. It's not going to happen. And for the reasons already mentioned.

If all P5's play 11 among themselves you get 5 home games off that one year, and 6 the other. You'd get a MAX of 6 homes games one year and 7 the other with a G5 filler.

There is zero chance any school is going to give up those extra homes games. As I said, right now Bama gets 7 full home games plus a lucrative neutral site game and only has 4 road games. Every single G5/FCS you drop from that is PURE home game profits up in smoke.

I doubt there are many fans that wouldn't be in favor of less home games but way more improved matchups, but there just isn't any interest in that by the schools that rely on that money for all of their sports programs. It's just not going to happen.

And there isn't a body that can force it to happen.

Yes there is, but since they just had another round of layoffs, I don't think they have much interest at the moment.

I'd be happy with an assigned random game, and there are less barriers to that. In fact, I'd be happy to start next year, I'd rather have a rando than Duke.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yes there is, but since they just had another round of layoffs, I don't think they have much interest at the moment.

I'd be happy with an assigned random game, and there are less barriers to that. In fact, I'd be happy to start next year, I'd rather have a rando than Duke.

So you believe ESPN actually has the power to dictate to the schools that they lose home gate income and free wins? That'd have to be a HELL of an increase in payouts to make up that difference. How much do you think Bama brings in for even bad FCS games in tickets, merch, food/drink, and everything else? x14 just for the SEC contract. And that's just one game. You want to dump 3 of the 4 OOC and turn them into P5's.

No sir, there isn't an organization on earth that can make that happen. WAY too much money, AND all those G5 wins for the middle tier teams that need them to reach the ever important .500 bowl eligible mark. The big teams won't give up their extra home games and the lower/middle ones won't give up their only shots at making a bowl. The system is way too entrenched to have any shot at the changes you propose. It's just not going to happen.