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

And yet you still haven't actually changed the question to be what you actually want people to answer, yet call others lazy.  Seems weird to me

You literally could just change "Who would win the 2002 CFP?" to "Who would you have predicted to win the 2002 CFP?"

To me, this is the fundamental issue with this series of posts, which--by the way--I really enjoy.

Whether its what OAF intended, I'm taking it from the perspective of what I think would have happened, not what I would have expected in December of that year. The whole point of arguing over who is in the playoff or not is the idea that in a league where most of the best teams don't play each other, you have to guess at who really belongs. To me, ignoring the bowl results is silly, because that told us how they performed against other good team--in some cases the teams that are in these playoffs. (I know OAF has repeated that instruction ad naseum--I just choose to ignore it). In instances where two of these teams played each other and the result was very close, I'm less inclined to assume the result would be the same a second time. So here, if Ohio State and Miami were to play each other again, I think it's reasonable to conclude that either team had a good shot at the other--and if you are an OSU fan, you'll pick OSU; if you're not, maybe you think Miami was really the better team, or whatever.

So, yeah, USC crushing co-BigTen champ Iowa is further evidence that should USC have been in this playoff, it would have been a force to be reckoned with, notwithstanding its losses earlier in the year. And I remember believing at the time that USC was by far the best team that wasn't involved. Just as Oregon was the year before.

If the question is who would have been predicted to win, why bother--just look at the odds. Here, the odds makers thought Miami would stomp on OSU. We know that. There's no reason to ask an OSU-heavy board who the odds makers picked; we know the answer.

Highly shocking that OSU fans would pick OSU to win the national championship in a year they won the national championship

Agreed i had them on the money line 

To me, this is the fundamental issue with this series of posts, which--by the way--I really enjoy.

Whether its what OAF intended, I'm taking it from the perspective of what I think would have happened, not what I would have expected in December of that year. The whole point of arguing over who is in the playoff or not is the idea that in a league where most of the best teams don't play each other, you have to guess at who really belongs. To me, ignoring the bowl results is silly, because that told us how they performed against other good team--in some cases the teams that are in these playoffs. (I know OAF has repeated that instruction ad naseum--I just choose to ignore it). In instances where two of these teams played each other and the result was very close, I'm less inclined to assume the result would be the same a second time. So here, if Ohio State and Miami were to play each other again, I think it's reasonable to conclude that either team had a good shot at the other--and if you are an OSU fan, you'll pick OSU; if you're not, maybe you think Miami was really the better team, or whatever.

So, yeah, USC crushing co-BigTen champ Iowa is further evidence that should USC have been in this playoff, it would have been a force to be reckoned with, notwithstanding its losses earlier in the year. And I remember believing at the time that USC was by far the best team that wasn't involved. Just as Oregon was the year before.

If the question is who would have been predicted to win, why bother--just look at the odds. Here, the odds makers thought Miami would stomp on OSU. We know that. There's no reason to ask an OSU-heavy board who the odds makers picked; we know the answer.

I can at least respect this.
He's not calling me names or whining or bitching about the points I bring up.  He just shares that he ignores the parameters I set up.  Great.  Fine.  

What bothers me is that many on this board acknowledge its bias and then just shrugs its collective shoulders as if that's just how it is.  We (or you) as a group don't have to be biased.  My problem isn't about Miami or Ohio State, but by this "welp, that's just how we are" idea.  But that's on me, I need to learn to not expect more of people.


*the betting line is one data point, but all that goes into it is far more than that.  The draft stuff is another, but also margin of victory and all statistical analyses favored Miami.

*the betting line is one data point, but all that goes into it is far more than that.  The draft stuff is another, but also margin of victory and all statistical analyses favored Miami.

agreed, but there is also bias that goes into the betting line.  And as discussed many times, this line is set to make money for the book, not for any other reason.

In 1993 Bowden's FSU squad led by Hypesman winner Charlie Ward was a 17 1/2 point favorite over the Huskers

the Huskers lost a nail-biter, I won money, and to many it was apparent that the Huskers were the better team on the field that night in the Orange Bowl

There's another piece to this, which is how the playoff works, as opposed to the week-to-week season, and bowl games more generally. Some coaches are definitely better than others at preparing for bowl games. And there's a difference between the three weeks between the conference championship games and the first playoff game, and the week between the semi-final and the finals. So Jim Tressel, as I recall (and my memory might be off--it often is) was pretty good at prepping teams for bowls. But he would have prepped OSU for the Georgia game, then, assuming a win, had a week to prep for Miami/USC. Very different situation. Same for Miami, of course. And, matchups matter, too. So I think the discussion around 1997 centered on what Nebraska and Michigan were good at (as well as Tennessee and...someone). I recall looking at those write-ups and thinking, "yeah, probably not Michigan."

And there's a difference between what got the team into the playoff, and what the playoff rewards. Getting into the playoff takes consistency every week (which is why people are questioning USC as an entrant in 2002), but winning the playoff means playing the best two games. Not the same as qualifying--as we used to discuss ad naseum before there was a playoff. In the English Premier League, the title is won based on the regular season effort (which is fine when all the teams play each other twice, one home and one away). The FA Cup that is played for at the same time is an elimination based playoff, and often has a different champion than the Premier League. It's a big deal to with the FA Cup, but it's not nearly as prestigious as the league crown. This playoff system we use is a hybrid, so rewards a little of both. 

In hockey the regular season is just a prelude because what wins night after night for six months isn't the same as what wins in the playoffs. Baseball is similar; basketball not quite as much because the individual talent differences are more pronounced. Football is probably somewhere in between baseball and hockey on one side and basketball on the other for how playoffs differ from the regular season.

Anyhoo...I still think USC in 2002.

yup, I understand what OrangeMan wants here in this exercise......... it's the playoff

some don't agree with the 4 teams he selects, that's fair, but those are the 4 teams

I try to give an honest vote using his criteria.  Many times I post a smart ass remark about the Canes or some other reason I may vote for a certain team, but it's not true, I'm just pulling his chain.

obviously each to his own, but I try to give the correct answer within the parameters.