The committee experiment failed

[NU_FTW]

please keep going if you want. Free comedy.

and keep arguing when you say you are done arguing.

Irrational, emotional and no self control is no way to go through life son.

You have none of the above, lol look at you tryin to call me son when i am your superior in every single way.

any one of my children has more brains than you

 

[CJH9972]

Maybe you aren't disparaging Clemson, but feel the need to point out that they are defending champs, undefeated, cannot help that the ACC is not good right now and played two SEC teams on thei OOC schedule... Again, not their fault that A&M didn't live up to the hype, but that was a solid OOC opponent.

Nothing against Clemson at all and I'm not disputing their present ranking either. The point is the system allows for P5 teams with 0-1 ranked wins to advance to the playoffs but places arguably the best mid-major resume in the past 40+ years 12th.

 

[dtgold88]

you didnt define how large the pizza was, if it was microscopic and 1000 pizzas fit into a thimble you most certainly could eat 1000 pizzas.

This is why it isnt fun to pick on you anymore, you cant comprehend due to your mental disability

I made the comment. wouldn't I be the one who determined the size of the pizzas I literally wanted to eat? Just like I let you decide on the definition of garbage you wanted from the list YOU provided.

still arguing even though you said you were not going to argue with me any longer.

How long can I make you dance do you think?

 

[NU_FTW]

I made the comment. wouldn't I be the one who determined the size of the pizzas I literally wanted to eat? Just like I let you decide on the definition of garbage you wanted from the list YOU provided.

still arguing even though you said you were not going to argue with me any longer.

How long can I make you dance do you think?

That parameter was not set in your original statement, which is why i said depending on the size it is most certainly possible. You also didnt tell me how big you were, maybe you are atlas holding up the planet and 1000 "normal" pizza's wouldnt even begin to fill you up (obviously not plausible) but the parameters were not set so it all depends, maybe you are a food eating champ and bagle bite pizzas constitute "pizza" and you can eat 1000 (not likely but who am i, i certainly am no expert on the subject of competitive eating)

Now the famed "i got you to reply" tactic from rivals.



again quote where i said i was not going to argue? i said i wasnt going to make fun of the mentally challenged anymore. Have you seen me "LOL" ing at every stupid comment you make? hmmmmmm ? (i know now why that bothered you so much too)

If we are getting right down to the nitty gritty you have been "dancing" for me the whole time.

You replied, I WIN!!

 

[volbound2002]

I would really like to see the BCS system prior to when they gutted it in 2003 when USC didn't make the title game. That BCS system was accurate and non-biased primarily looking at SOS, Margin of Victory, and Quality Wins. It was a lot like the RPI. I hate the so-called "eye test" bias. USC was great for the eye test that year but the BCS rightfully projected that LSU and Oklahoma played tougher schedules and rewarded them for it.

Now I do like the playoff system (and that system would have had 2003 USC in the playoff). However a playoff mixed with the original BCS (i.e. CFB version of the RPI) would be the best option.

 

[dtgold88]

That parameter was not set in your original statement, which is why i said depending on the size it is most certainly possible. You also didnt tell me how big you were, maybe you are atlas holding up the planet and 1000 "normal" pizza's wouldnt even begin to fill you up (obviously not plausible) but the parameters were not set so it all depends, maybe you are a food eating champ and bagle bite pizzas constitute "pizza" and you can eat 1000 (not likely but who am i, i certainly am no expert on the subject of competitive eating)

Now the famed "i got you to reply" tactic from rivals.



again quote where i said i was not going to argue? i said i wasnt going to make fun of the mentally challenged anymore. Have you seen me "LOL" ing at every stupid comment you make? hmmmmmm ? (i know now why that bothered you so much too)

If we are getting right down to the nitty gritty you have been "dancing" for me the whole time.

You replied, I WIN!!

you said you were done arguing with me. You cannot stop yourself. If I ever say I'm done I'll be done. But at this point I don't want to give up the free comedy you provide.

 

[NU_FTW]

you said you were done arguing with me. You cannot stop yourself. If I ever say I'm done I'll be done. But at this point I don't want to give up the free comedy you provide.

Quote where i said i was done.

Learn to read kid

You replied, i win.

 

[dtgold88]

Quote where i said i was done.

Learn to read kid

You replied, i win.

Post 527 - "I already said im not going to argue with you,"

No self control.

 

[NU_FTW]

Post 527 - "I already said im not going to argue with you,"

No self control.

Okay and that does not say "im done" does it.

I win

 

[dtgold88]

Okay and that does not say "im done" does it.

I win

but you said you are not going to argue with me yet keep arguing. No self control. Kind of sad, really, but I still thank you for the comic relief you provide.

 

[NU_FTW]

but you said you are not going to argue with me yet keep arguing. No self control. Kind of sad, really, but I still thank you for the comic relief you provide.

Replying isnt arguing. It is a simple response. As is this one.

You replied, i win

 

[dtgold88]

Replying isnt arguing. It is a simple response. As is this one.

You replied, i win

who said replying is arguing?

But in our case we are arguing. Nice try. you cannot help yourself and it's hilarious.

 

[NU_FTW]

who said replying is arguing?

But in our case we are arguing. Nice try. you cannot help yourself and it's hilarious.

You are insisting that i am arguing.

You replied, i win

 

[belcherboy]

I would really like to see the BCS system prior to when they gutted it in 2003 when USC didn't make the title game. That BCS system was accurate and non-biased primarily looking at SOS, Margin of Victory, and Quality Wins. It was a lot like the RPI. I hate the so-called "eye test" bias. USC was great for the eye test that year but the BCS rightfully projected that LSU and Oklahoma played tougher schedules and rewarded them for it.

Now I do like the playoff system (and that system would have had 2003 USC in the playoff). However a playoff mixed with the original BCS (i.e. CFB version of the RPI) would be the best option.

I had heard that they had run the BCS formula for all the playoff committee teams over the years and the BCS was virtually identical to what the committee had chosen. I don’t know how accurate that statement is, but I have heard it a few times.

 

[NU_FTW]

I had heard that they had run the BCS formula for all the playoff committee teams over the years and the BCS was virtually identical to what the committee had chosen. I don’t know how accurate that statement is, but I have heard it a few times.

for the top 4 (which is all that matter) all years the top 4 BCS teams were in the top 4 of the CFP committee (i am not sure they were in exact order every year)

 

[CJH9972]

I had heard that they had run the BCS formula for all the playoff committee teams over the years and the BCS was virtually identical to what the committee had chosen. I don’t know how accurate that statement is, but I have heard it a few times.

Good possibility since both are primarily subjective systems. The BCS formula was essentially two polls after the 2003 season.

 

[WizardHawk]

You were the one who said only after the system hurt your team did you want to see a change (FTR, while I didn't think your team was the best I did think they deserved the #1 ranking in 84). So I wonder if BYU is shafted again if you'll want change again.

Yep, definitely just trolling now. Is this really necessary? Out of ammo on your debate topics so just troll that crap out of us now?

I'm not sure what part you are stuck on at this point. Let me try this again until it gets through.

There isn't any possible type of event EVER that would have me in favor of more than 4 teams in a college football FBS postseason. Period. I don't care if you want to keep the committee and go to 8, go to some computer driven matrix, autobids, draw names from a hat. There isn't any type of possible scenario I would ever go for. At all. Clear?

And no, that's not what I said. You want to add things to characterize what was said in a different light and then use it in some odd form of trolling.

It wasn't just those two years. There were other famous splits. Neb/Mich fans still debate '97. Had it stayed the way it was I would have been fine with it. I really don't care if more than one team is awarded that title by different entities, but the momentum to want unification was overwhelming. I didn't fight against it. I understood why it was going to happen. I accepted the public demand to fix those two issues. I would not go back to how it was prior to the BCS now. I would go back to a 2 team format if I had a choice. It's a solid compromise. We don't need more than that IMO.

I get so many in this debate think with just what is in their own teams best interest. That's not why I hold these views. With an autobid system UW would have been in the playoffs last year and didn't deserve to be. They were not a worthy champion even if they won the weak ass Pac12. I hold these opinions no matter who benefits or misses out.

Just so we are again clear, you should win ALL 12 of your games to remove doubt. Failure to do so leaves you vulnerable. And I won't change my mind no matter which teams are on either side of that bubble. Not now, not ever. Adding more is not in the best interest of the sport.

 

[NU_FTW]

Yep, definitely just trolling now. Is this really necessary? Out of ammo on your debate topics so just troll that crap out of us now?

I'm not sure what part you are stuck on at this point. Let me try this again until it gets through.

There isn't any possible type of event EVER that would have me in favor of more than 4 teams in a college football FBS postseason. Period. I don't care if you want to keep the committee and go to 8, go to some computer driven matrix, autobids, draw names from a hat. There isn't any type of possible scenario I would ever go for. At all. Clear?

And no, that's not what I said. You want to add things to characterize what was said in a different light and then use it in some odd form of trolling.

It wasn't just those two years. There were other famous splits. Neb/Mich fans still debate '97. Had it stayed the way it was I would have been fine with it. I really don't care if more than one team is awarded that title by different entities, but the momentum to want unification was overwhelming. I didn't fight against it. I understood why it was going to happen. I accepted the public demand to fix those two issues. I would not go back to how it was prior to the BCS now. I would go back to a 2 team format if I had a choice. It's a solid compromise. We don't need more than that IMO.

I get so many in this debate think with just what is in their own teams best interest. That's not why I hold these views. With an autobid system UW would have been in the playoffs last year and didn't deserve to be. They were not a worthy champion even if they won the weak ass Pac12. I hold these opinions no matter who benefits or misses out.

Just so we are again clear, you should win ALL 12 of your games to remove doubt. Failure to do so leaves you vulnerable. And I won't change my mind no matter which teams are on either side of that bubble. Not now, not ever. Adding more is not in the best interest of the sport.

 

[WizardHawk]

Even if teams have no one to blame for losses that had they avoided, they would be playoff locks, who gets the opportunity to advance should still be determined as a matter of rule. Rules can compel teams to play schedules that provide a larger margin of error and those teams should be rewarded even if they happen to lose a game. Also, simply telling G5 teams to schedule better doesn't tell them what better is or when it is enough nor does it give the teams they need to play an incentive to schedule them. Just because teams lose doesn't mean those teams should have their fate determined by poor method.

If you can create rules to compel teams to schedule better on an 8 team playoff, you can also create them to do so on a 4 team format. For example, wins against FCS teams should count as .5 of a win. There are others. Conferences have set standards before and can do so again.

There seriously are no rules that would repair the damage of an autobid system. And we don't need a set of rules to fix an 8 team format not including an autobid. Again, many of us feel watering down what it takes to get in does more harm that good. You can disagree with that all you like, but there are a great many who feel the same.

 

[CJH9972]

If you can create rules to compel teams to schedule better on an 8 team playoff, you can also create them to do so on a 4 team format. For example, wins against FCS teams should count as .5 of a win. There are others. Conferences have set standards before and can do so again.

There seriously are no rules that would repair the damage of an autobid system. And we don't need a set of rules to fix an 8 team format not including an autobid. Again, many of us feel watering down what it takes to get in does more harm that good. You can disagree with that all you like, but there are a great many who feel the same.

I wasn't referring to an 8 team playoff. Just commenting that it matters who qualifies and why under the current format even we don't feel sorry for any teams that miss the playoffs due to a loss.