header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 20   Go Down
Author

Topic: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages

 (Read 13556 times)

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18796
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #168 on: May 28, 2020, 04:15:38 PM »
If they were smart, they'd pay into a new, improved, active replacement home-body for the NCAA.  And if they were really smart, they'd acknowledge being a minor league for the NFL and get money from that golden goose.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #169 on: May 29, 2020, 12:04:07 AM »
Quote from: Kris60 on May 27, 2020, 11:05:04 AM
I wouldn’t mind a system with some objective measures but with a caveat. Conference champs get an auto bid provided they finish in the top 10 or something like that.





Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71094
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #170 on: May 29, 2020, 07:43:40 AM »
Weirdness happens if you wait long enough.  In 1978, UGA almost won the SEC and a Sugar Bowl bid with FOUR OOC losses.

We could have a year with 2 or 3 conference champs with 3 losses and some nonconference champs with one and clearly better.

And Notre Dame fits in somewhere.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37369
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #171 on: May 29, 2020, 12:46:58 PM »
we've killed most great traditions anyway

why not force ND to join a conference ?

ya know, for uniformity's sake
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

ftbobs

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 118
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #172 on: May 29, 2020, 01:51:03 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on May 27, 2020, 04:06:49 PM
My point: the entire process is predicated by this desire to see the "best team" win the championship, and we define "best team" based on a bunch of subjective eye tests, polls, popular opinion, etc.

If that's what we want, ditch it all and give the championship based on the beauty pageant. And maybe that'll mean we won't have one unified champion. Maybe the AP and the coaches will vote different from each other. Maybe we'll have two champions, who never stepped foot on the field against each other. So what? I see no issue there.

BUT, if you want an objective champion, you have to give up the "best team" nonsense. Because the best team doesn't always win. The BCS didn't ensure that the best team was the champion. The CFP doesn't ensure the best team is the champion.

ALL that the BCS or CFP are designed to do is legitimize the winner as the "true" champion. NOT the best team in the league. Just the one who gets the honor of calling themselves champion, at the exclusion of all others.

What I'm saying is that a system designed to legitimize the champion above all scrutiny but which has a capricious and arbitrary selection process to even gain a seat at the table cuts their legitimacy claim off at the knees.

The CFP's objective it to pick "the 4 best teams".  The' CFP's history at deciding who the "best teams" are is sketchy at best, so the idea the CFP can tell us who the "best teams" are is nonsense.  Team's that fail to win their conference should never be selected.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71094
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #173 on: May 29, 2020, 01:52:14 PM »
I believe the phrase is "four best teams for the playoff", which I think is different from "four best teams, period".

Logged

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #174 on: May 29, 2020, 01:58:36 PM »
Quote from: Kris60 on May 27, 2020, 08:30:27 AM
Because the system in place at the time matched them up again in the championship game and they settled it on the field.  Everybody seems to want college football to have a postseason that resembles that of other sports, but then balks at something like championship rematches because we aren’t used to seeing it in CFB.

Rematches happen all the time in the postseasons of other sports.
That's why I don't want college football to have a post-season that resembles that of other sports.
Logged
Play Like a Champion Today

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12128
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #175 on: May 29, 2020, 02:00:53 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on May 29, 2020, 12:46:58 PM
we've killed most great traditions anyway

why not force ND to join a conference ?

ya know, for uniformity's sake
I don't want to force them to join a conference. 

I want them to remain "independent" as the rest of the CFB world passes them by, relegated to a life as irrelevant as football in the Ivies. 

POTFI!
Logged

ftbobs

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 118
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #176 on: May 29, 2020, 02:05:00 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on May 29, 2020, 01:52:14 PM
I believe the phrase is "four best teams for the playoff", which I think is different from "four best teams, period".


"Best" will always be subjective.
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12128
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #177 on: May 29, 2020, 02:05:15 PM »
Quote from: ftbobs on May 29, 2020, 01:51:03 PM
The CFP's objective it to pick "the 4 best teams".  The' CFP's history at deciding who the "best teams" are is sketchy at best, so the idea the CFP can tell us who the "best teams" are is nonsense.  Team's that fail to win their conference should never be selected.
Why not? 

The best team doesn't always win on the field, and sometimes a team, which didn't win their conference, is better than the team from another conference who did. 

Now, if you want to make the claim that a team that didn't win its conference doesn't deserve or isn't entitled to a bid, I'm with you. But if your argument is that you want the 4 best teams, it doesn't follow that a runner-up in one conference can't be head and shoulders better than the champion of another conference. 
Logged

ftbobs

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 118
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #178 on: May 29, 2020, 02:15:33 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on May 29, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
Why not?

The best team doesn't always win on the field, and sometimes a team, which didn't win their conference, is better than the team from another conference who did.

Now, if you want to make the claim that a team that didn't win its conference doesn't deserve or isn't entitled to a bid, I'm with you. But if your argument is that you want the 4 best teams, it doesn't follow that a runner-up in one conference can't be head and shoulders better than the champion of another conference.

I'm saying that a team that didn't win it's conference doesn't deserve a SECOND chance for a bid.   They already had a chance and blew it and the only way you can claim they deserve a second chance is through subjective measures that many deprive a deserving team of a chance.  The CFP has proven they can't tell us who the "best" teams are, why should they determine who gets a second chance while depriving another team of a first chance?
Logged

ftbobs

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 118
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #179 on: May 29, 2020, 02:28:12 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on May 29, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
Why not?

The best team doesn't always win on the field, and sometimes a team, which didn't win their conference, is better than the team from another conference who did.

Now, if you want to make the claim that a team that didn't win its conference doesn't deserve or isn't entitled to a bid, I'm with you. But if your argument is that you want the 4 best teams, it doesn't follow that a runner-up in one conference can't be head and shoulders better than the champion of another conference.

To be clear, I was agree with you.  The CFP states that they want the "4 best teams", but that is nonsense because nobody can tell you who the four best teams are.  The "4 best teams" is propoganda typical of the BCS/CFP.
Logged

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18796
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #180 on: May 29, 2020, 02:28:16 PM »
Name a "best" team that was left out of the CFP.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18796
  • Liked:
Re: The Helmets (and near helmets) rolling 10-year winning percentages
« Reply #181 on: May 29, 2020, 02:33:33 PM »
Quote from: ftbobs on May 29, 2020, 02:28:12 PM
To be clear, I was agree with you.  The CFP states that they want the "4 best teams", but that is nonsense because nobody can tell you who the four best teams are.  The "4 best teams" is propoganda typical of the BCS/CFP.
Yeesh, we're throwing propaganda around?  Mkay.

The term "4 best teams" that everyone seems to have a hissy fit about simply means the top 4 teams of the consensus of the body of stakeholders tasked to do so.
Instead of the old days of strong regional bias (like you still see with the Heisman voting) by media members, they've done a great job of creating a mix of people for the committee.  They meet face-to-face and have to support their opinions - they have to be persuasive instead of cowardly mailing in their anonymous list.

It's far superior to anything before it and has nothing to do with propaganda.  Now, here's the thing:  they absolutely may be incorrect in determining the best 4 teams.  BUT - since there is no actual way to do that, getting a consensus of a mix of stakeholders is honestly the very best next thing.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 20   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
FAFO No Trespassing Sign

Smokey Record Hoodie