The committee experiment failed

[dtgold88]

Seriously you are asking if i am a child because 8 teams waters down a product and i am against it? No seriously are you a child? judging by the 88 in your name i can assert i am older than you, by more than a bit.

Little fella, you're getting cute now, because you have been beating your chest and ive proven you to be full of it, you are trying to imply im a child, seriously you are 31 acting like you are in your teens. I am going to guess you are single living with your parents (perhaps an only child of a broken home, living with mommy and her new fella)

I'm asking you if you are a child because you are acting like a child in this discussion. You are irrational and emotional.

You accuse me of saying things you are saying. I don't care if you don't like 8, like 4, whatever. Your right. Read this as many times as it takes to sink in......If you prefer 4, OK. Cool.

Let's see how you've proven me to be "full of it" recently

you - did the committee say Wisky was better?
me - in fact, they did before wisky played an extra game Bama avoided
you - deflection and said committe rankings don't matter until the last one

OK, but before the last one they said Wisconsin was better so doesn't it stand to reason if both teams don't play wisky remains ahead?

A) yes
B) no

 

[NU_FTW]

Originally the declared champion wasn't considered the same thing it is today. There was a time when there were 3 or 4 different panels that declared their own and often there were more than one winner each season. And everyone was fine with it.

The goal was to win your conference and beat your rivals. Then, make it to one of the VERY few bowl games. Never had to worry about 'bowl eligibility' because there wasn't any such thing as a sub .500 going to one. There were many over .500 that didn't get to a bowl because of how few there were. It was special to get an invite. THAT was the pinnacle of the sport. Be attractive enough to get a good bowl invite.

I remember In some aspects i miss it, but i understand why things are where they are now, and to some extent i enjoy it. Nebraska has played plenty of the top tier bowls before they were BCS or NY6

 

[WizardHawk]

Rivals posters, ignore what is said and make things up to try and talk smack. You people havent changed.

If you cannot read and comprehend what you read that is not something i can help you with.


Does your mom know you are on the internet?

He's been passive aggressively snarky this whole time. Kind of funny when questions name calling or similar responses given how condescending quite a few of his posts have been really.

But then ALL Rivals posters are so smart and way way better than everyone else. Didn't you get that memo?

 

[CJH9972]

I am only trying to explain to you fans at the end don't care who the best team is. They care who the champion is.

This.

 

[dtgold88]

it is a road block because black and white criteria isnt possible to find the best team, sure it would put out a product, that would be watered down garbage.

well, at least you didn't say literally watered down garbage.

 

[dtgold88]

No, under the current system we don't get some unified for sure best 4 teams, and I don't believe anyone suggests otherwise. What we get are the most deserving teams as seen by a committee. There is no way to pick the teams that actually are better than each other to the point of only bringing in the actual 4 best teams. The format of scheduling doesn't allow for it and never could with all these leagues and teams.

never said otherwise.

 

[NU_FTW]

So no one can be for a larger playoff because of the intent someone else assigns to the CFP? Personally, although I prefer 8, I'm fine with four so long as subjectivity does not determine the playoff teams.

Subjectivity will have to play a part with the current format of scheduling and number of games played against the same team.

Like i said if we could some how give these guys a pill to prevent injury i would be 100% for going with black and white criteria and normalize/standardize scheduling, move every conference to 10 teams and require playing every team in conference very year 5 times each. That would be enjoyable still though it would reduce a lot of the drama and make it a bit more boring

 

[NU_FTW]

well, at least you didn't say literally watered down garbage.

I dont think you understand the word literally

 

[dtgold88]

Because the gap between the best teams in the top 4 and the teams outside looking in is huge. some years there will be 1 clear cut better team some years the top 3 will be close most years there isnt need for 4 teams. the only point in expanding to 4 was to make sure 1 and 2 got in, since some years the #3 in the BCS was possibly #2 or #1 but too hard to say. That was the justification for 4 teams, it wasnt to find #4, if you dont play well enough to get in the top 4 there are usually very easy things to point at why you didnt make it in.

weird, then, the committee chair has said it was razor thin between 4 and 5 (or even 6) then isn't it?

 

[NU_FTW]

weird, then, the committee chair has said it was razor thin between 4 and 5 (or even 6) then isn't it?

You have already said this, and i already said the gap between 3 and 4/5/6 is HUGE, clearly those teams are not that good, and whoever is in that position didnt play well enough to separate themselves from 5/6/7 etc... that is the entire point 1-3 are vastly superior teams to 4-8 the further away you get the larger the difference in quality/performance/ability

 

[dtgold88]

What does the difference between 4 and 5, or 8 and 9 (next iteration after going to 8 and that doesn't satisfy you) have to do with the large gap between 1 and 4, 1 and 5, or more? The farther you go away from 1, the more gap there is in talent and earned accolades.

Because he said he was OK going to 3 because 2 and 3 was razor thin, so why wouldn't he also be willing to go further if 4 and 5 are so close.

If your goal is to jst have the best team win by opinion then just crown the champ by committee after the CCGs

 

[WizardHawk]

I remember In some aspects i miss it, but i understand why things are where they are now, and to some extent i enjoy it. Nebraska has played plenty of the top tier bowls before they were BCS or NY6

I don't know what the perfect number of bowls is, but 15 wasn't enough (like in the 80's) and it feels way too watered down now IMO. They are handed out like participation trophies and have for sure added to the issues with getting teams to schedule good games OOC. Particularly for the mid to lower tier teams that need automatic wins to pad their records to have any shot at .500. If there were less, we would expect to see some of those lower P5's and G5's less afraid of tougher schedules knowing they can take the bigger paydays and not worry about bowls they weren't going to reach anyway.

 

[douggie]

I know how to settle all this, let’s have a college football playoff!

 

[dtgold88]

Originally the declared champion wasn't considered the same thing it is today. There was a time when there were 3 or 4 different panels that declared their own and often there were more than one winner each season. And everyone was fine with it.

The goal was to win your conference and beat your rivals. Then, make it to one of the VERY few bowl games. Never had to worry about 'bowl eligibility' because there wasn't any such thing as a sub .500 going to one. There were many over .500 that didn't get to a bowl because of how few there were. It was special to get an invite. THAT was the pinnacle of the sport. Be attractive enough to get a good bowl invite.

"Everyone was fine with it"? No one thought it was silly to have co-champs or not allow a team a shot because they had to play in a different bowl? No one?

 

[CJH9972]

Subjectivity will have to play a part with the current format of scheduling and number of games played against the same team.

Like i said if we could some how give these guys a pill to prevent injury i would be 100% for going with black and white criteria and normalize/standardize scheduling, move every conference to 10 teams and require playing every team in conference very year 5 times each. That would be enjoyable still though it would reduce a lot of the drama and make it a bit more boring

Not even remotely required. Seems a bit odd that we need humans to decide which teams best meet a subjective claim despite vastly different schedules but humans are incapable of devising simple rules that tell us what record/schedule combinations have more value based on wins and losses and other relevant criteria they wish to assign value.

 

[NU_FTW]

I don't know what the perfect number of bowls is, but 15 wasn't enough (like in the 80's) and it feels way too watered down now IMO. They are handed out like participation trophies and have for sure added to the issues with getting teams to schedule good games OOC. Particularly for the mid to lower tier teams that need automatic wins to pad their records to have any shot at .500. If there were less, we would expect to see some of those lower P5's and G5's less afraid of tougher schedules knowing they can take the bigger paydays and not worry about bowls they weren't going to reach anyway.

I mean the ny6 still holds significant value (to most fans) but after that they are kinda meh not sure what can be done to separate the next 14ish bowls from the other 19 to make them feel significantly better (aside from records of the teams involved)

 

[WizardHawk]

never said otherwise.

You suggested the neb fan was claiming they were the best 4 teams. No one that I've read believes that. Most deserving doesn't necessarily mean best.

 

[dtgold88]

So no one can be for a larger playoff because of the intent someone else assigns to the CFP? Personally, although I prefer 8, I'm fine with four so long as subjectivity does not determine the playoff teams.

I said earlier I always thought 8 was the way to go. Admittedly, after the first playoff I could see thinking that would be some gauntlet had OSU had to win still one more game to be the champ.

But agree with you it's still my preference for the reasons you gave......I'm just more OK with 4 if that's where they stay

 

[dtgold88]

I dont think you understand the word literally

you thought the NFL "literally" could turn into garbage.

As I said, if you want to learn the correct meaning (and to help you not use it as opposed to figuratively) just ask.

 

[NU_FTW]

Not even remotely required. Seems a bit odd that we need humans to decide which teams best meet a subjective claim despite vastly different schedules but humans are incapable of devising simple rules that tell us what record/schedule combinations have more value based on wins and losses and other relevant criteria they wish to assign value.

I have already explained what computers cannot see, computers cant see a team that just has a minor fluke for whatever reason (maybe the whole team has norovirus and is shitting their pants on the field, in the most literal sense ) a computer cannot see a team who is beating its conference who is full of crappy teams maybe they get to undefeated or 1 loss by beating inferior competition, a computer cannot gauge execution of assignments on each side of the ball when it can only see box score and stats and efficiency

 

[NU_FTW]

you thought the NFL "literally" could turn into garbage.

As I said, if you want to learn the correct meaning (and to help you not use it as opposed to figuratively) just ask.

NO it actually is garbage, would be hard to be anything else. It belongs in a landfill. Literally

 

[dtgold88]

I dont think you understand the word literally

you thought the NFL "literally" could turn into garbage.

As I said, if you want to learn the correct meaning (and to help you not use it as opposed to figuratively) just ask.

 

[WizardHawk]

Because he said he was OK going to 3 because 2 and 3 was razor thin, so why wouldn't he also be willing to go further if 4 and 5 are so close.

If your goal is to jst have the best team win by opinion then just crown the champ by committee after the CCGs

I was in favor of 2 because of the issues with BYU in '84 and the split title in '91, both of which impacted my team. Yes, I'm old enough that I was a part of the debates over BYU at the time. I would have been fine if they kept it the way it was pre BCS, but accepted that very narrow addition to unify the champion and at least ensure they had to play one nationally recognised team before being handed it. It was a change, and one I was ok with. There was no need to go to 4. It didn't fix anything IMO.

 

[NU_FTW]

you thought the NFL "literally" could turn into garbage.

As I said, if you want to learn the correct meaning (and to help you not use it as opposed to figuratively) just ask.

Hey kid, you posted this exact post twice, how about you quote me posting with the incorrect usage instead of making things up.

Okay?