CFP expansion discussion

[Machinator 32099]

 

[Machinator 32099]

 

[Machinator 32099]

 

[Machinator 32099]

 

[Big Frog II 511]

I really don't understand why 16 is unwieldy.  You just don't have any byes.

[BigHornedLurker 1968]

2 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:

I really don't understand why 16 is unwieldy.  You just don't have any byes.

"We felt like 12 was the optimal size to make all the P5 happy and toss the smallest bone to G5 without splitting the pie too much and reduce the opportunities of Cinderella upsets" 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

feasibility study lol

[Slacks 6862]

1 hour ago, Big Frog II said:

I really don't understand why 16 is unwieldy.  You just don't have any byes.

Can't wield power against the G5 if the G5 is half the playoff.

[LTbear 4171]

2 hours ago, Snacks said:

Can't wield power against the G5 if the G5 is half the playoff.

The G5 is guaranteed 1 of 12. They wouldn't be 8 of 16.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

3 hours ago, Big Frog II said:

I really don't understand why 16 is unwieldy. 

Unwieldy is not the right word for it, but college football has traditionally been a sport that tries to use the regular season to determine the top teams, and then in a completely illogical but occasionally lovable way, use the post-season to try to pick the best from those teams.

Under that system, a lot of deserving teams got left out of proper consideration over the years, but we never had an 8-3 team invited to play for the national championship. 

That's the problem with the 16-team field. It's too inclusive. If the pre-BCS was too random, and the BCS and four-team playoff excluded too many teams from consideration, a 16-team field (FUCK FCS/I-AA) includes too many teams who over the course of a dozen games already showed they weren't national championship caliber.

[utee94 15863]

20 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Unwieldy is not the right word for it, but college football has traditionally been a sport that tries to use the regular season to determine the top teams, and then in a completely illogical but occasionally lovable way, use the post-season to try to pick the best from those teams.

Under that system, a lot of deserving teams got left out of proper consideration over the years, but we never had an 8-3 team invited to play for the national championship. 

That's the problem with the 16-team field. It's too inclusive. If the pre-BCS was too random, and the BCS and four-team playoff excluded too many teams from consideration, a 16-team field (FUCK FCS/I-AA) includes too many teams who over the course of a dozen games already showed they weren't national championship caliber.

All of this is also true of a 12-team field.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

Pure bullshit.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

11 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

so this is cool, but I am not sure I buy the premise that these rankings would have been the same had they been selecting for 12 instead of 4. It's a lot easier to tell Shithead State "aw, rats, you just missed it, you were fifth!" when it doesn't matter. When it means Shithead State gets to host a first round game in a 40,000 seat stadium in Bumfuck, Mississippi, it's a different question. 

In the same way, it's a lot easier to say "we consider all comers, look who finished 10th and 11th!" when only four get in than it is to actually give those two shitbird programs spots in the playoff instead of a three-loss Michigan or USC team. 

possible, but its the closest we have.   Kind of like projecting the final 4 coming out of the BCS

[Mitch Cumsteen 18575]

I wish they had given automatic bids to the power 5 just because I think it would be a portend better non conference games. If you have a direct, guaranteed path to the playoffs regardless of what happens in the non conference schedule maybe you play better competition. As it stands, we're still going to get just as many bullshit games as ever to facilitate the beauty contest. 5 auto bids and 3 at large would have put more of a premium on those conference championships whereas now we are going to see a lot of teams angling to keep their ranking by playing patsies non conference. 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

2 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

I wish they had given automatic bids to the power 5 just because I think it would be a portend better non conference games. If you have a direct, guaranteed path to the playoffs regardless of what happens in the non conference schedule maybe you play better competition. As it stands, we're still going to get just as many bullshit games as ever to facilitate the beauty contest. 5 auto bids and 3 at large would have put more of a premium on those conference championships whereas now we are going to see a lot of teams angling to keep their ranking by playing patsies non conference. 

Funny you should mention that ...

The 'P' now stands for 'Pathetic' thanks to outgoing Pac-12 commissioner's CFP whining

Quote

During the infuriating days of the Bowl Championship Series, the Pac-12 sat as one of the gatekeepers to college football’s path to a national title.

It would routinely look down its collective nose at upstart programs from smaller conferences, especially those out West, and brush their championship aspirations aside by demanding they “earn” their way to the top.

There really was no way to do that, of course. The system was essentially rigged.

It wasn’t enough, for instance, when Utah went unbeaten in 2004 with Urban Meyer as coach and Alex Smith as quarterback. Or when Boise State put together perfect regular seasons in 2004 or 2006 or 2008 or 2009.

Beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl (Boise, 2006)? Nope, still didn’t earn it. Beat Alabama by two touchdowns in the Sugar (Utah, 2008)? Nope, still didn’t earn it. Win the damn Rose Bowl (TCU, 2010)? Nope, still didn’t earn it.

College football was a meritocracy, the Pac-12 would explain, and those teams from those leagues just didn’t earn it the way Pac-12 teams did. Fair is fair. No participation trophies here. What are you, a communist?

Well, the BCS is gone and the nearly-as-exclusive four-team playoff is soon to follow. The new plan calls for a 12-team playoff that actually provides access to teams from outside the so-called Power 5 leagues (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC).

The top six conference champions (as picked by a selection committee) get automatic spots in the playoff. There are an additional six at-large bids. While there is almost no scenario where the champions of the biggest conferences (SEC, Big Ten, etc.) don’t get in, officially no league is assured of anything.

Automatic bids can go to any champion of any of the 11 conferences, including the Mountain West (where Boise State still resides). Conversely, any league could miss out if it isn't good enough.

In other words, you have to earn it.

Except now the Pac-12 isn’t so into that concept.

In a statement that may serve as the perfect exit interview for his doomed run as Pac-12 commissioner, Larry Scott took issue with the expansion plan because it didn’t set aside a guaranteed slot to each of the Power 5 (or Autonomy 5) leagues.

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott is on his way out, leaving a legacy of missed opportunities. (Alika Jenner/Getty Images)

“The Pac-12 … believes the Autonomy Five champions should annually qualify,” Scott wrote last week.

The Pathetic-12 is so scared that its champion might get beat out by not just one, but two teams from non-major conferences that it wants to rig the rules so it gets in, even if it doesn’t deserve it.

The commissioners of the SEC and Big 12 were on the committee that wrote the proposal, so neither of those leagues have similar fears. There has been no word from the Big Ten or ACC that they are quaking in their boots over this either.

In fact, the top six champions proposal has been hailed as an innovative and elegant solution to assuring increased access to all of college football. After all, if your conference champion can’t clear this reasonable bar — let alone earn one of the six at-large spots — then exactly why should you be in the playoff? Is top 12 too much to ask? Do we need special rules to prop up mediocrity?

Give Scott credit for this: college football is a uniquely American creation and there is little more American than someone being assured status and advantage based on the accomplishments of prior generations … and then using it to squash new and superior competition that it finds threatening.

This is the codification of daddy’s money, college football-style.

Scott’s league has fallen behind in recent seasons of course. The four-team playoff has been around for seven years and the Pac-12 got just two teams into the field and none since 2017.

Even worse, just last year, after endless delays created a COVID-truncated season, its champion, Oregon, finished 25th in the rankings and, indeed, would have been left out of a 12-team playoff behind AAC champion Cincinnati and Sun Belt champion Coastal Carolina.

That isn’t all the commissioner’s fault — underperforming USC is the main culprit. But Scott's failure to build a conference television network equal to other major conferences has led to a lack of exposure and revenue for league teams.

Scott will leave his job at the end of the month. Coming out publicly to beg for the Pac-12 simply because it’s the Pac-12 is akin to waving the white flag.

It’s embarrassing. Or it should be. Considering the league is made up of big, wealthy, tradition-rich institutions with enormous potential, the Pac-12 champion should easily be able to earn its spot (and other league teams at least one or two at-large berths as well).

Apparently Larry Scott isn't so sure. Besides, earning it is for suckers. Now that the Pac-12 might have to actually prove itself in a real playoff, prove it's really, truly better than Boise State, well, it isn’t even hiding the desperation anymore.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

What we’re going to get from expanding the playoff is some shitty blowout football games and a greater chance of career-ending injuries to players who are hoping to have a job in the pros. 

[notre dame joe 196]

20 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I fully believe had they announced Baylor as the clear champion Baylor would have made it to the CFB playoff that year. The co-champion was used by the subjective committee to rationalize ohio state.

Why would you believe that?

[Hurtlocker 2213]

4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Why would you believe that?

Because he's a ray of sunshine in an otherwise dismal world.

[hpslugga 4062]

15 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Unwieldy is not the right word for it, but college football has traditionally been a sport that tries to use the regular season to determine the top teams, and then in a completely illogical but occasionally lovable way, use the post-season to try to pick the best from those teams.

Under that system, a lot of deserving teams got left out of proper consideration over the years, but we never had an 8-3 team invited to play for the national championship. 

That's the problem with the 16-team field. It's too inclusive. If the pre-BCS was too random, and the BCS and four-team playoff excluded too many teams from consideration, a 16-team field (FUCK FCS/I-AA) includes too many teams who over the course of a dozen games already showed they weren't national championship caliber.

The word "too" is a word that is used to compare. The alternatives to "too," in that context, are "not inclusive enough" or "sufficiently inclusive" It's basically a Goldilocks principle. So when you say that 16 is "too inclusive," by what comparison are you basing that? Well we can only assume that it's the FCS since that was the only thing to which you referred. That's a start.

The FCS currently uses a 24-team model in its league of 127 teams.

FBS is a league of 130, and we're talking about a playoff that would use 8 fewer teams than FCS. As a percentage, roughly 19% (18.897) of the FCS makes it to the playoff. With 16 in the FBS, that would constitute 12.3% of the league. So it'd be less inclusive by a factor of fully one third.

On average, HS football includes 50% of its various leagues around the country
In the NFL, it's 43.75%
FCS is 18.9%
Division II is 16.6% (28 out of 169)
Division III is 12.8% (32 out of 250)

So a 16-team playoff would make it the most exclusive playoff in the fucking sport, being surpassed by no league in that regard, and by that standard, you conclude it's...too inclusive? 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

15 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

So a 16-team playoff would make it the most exclusive playoff in the fucking sport, being surpassed by no league in that regard, and by that standard, you conclude it's...too inclusive? 

yes, and if you go back and read my post without thinking "ooh I gotta play Smart Boy and disagree with this!" and leaping to write your response, the explanation of "why" is clearly stated.

it is an opinion based on personal preference, it won't change

Edited June 23, 2021 by SwanderedTalent

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

15 hours ago, utee94 said:

All of this is also true of a 12-team field.

 

Maybe. The perfect and entirely unrealistic solution would be to just let one person (me) pick the field every year and let that person (me) shape it depending on the year. So in 2005, we skip the playoff and go right to Texas-USC. In 2008, it's eight teams. 

If you have to have a set number, four isn't enough. Just from personal experience, the cutoff between "qualified to compete" and "a total also ran" doesn't feel like it happens at 4/5. Sixteen (or, God forbid, more) is too many. The only problem I have with eight is that it doesn't give us enough headroom to get G5 represented (that's not much of a concern for me, personally, but other people seem to care that Central Florida et al not get left out). I'd be OK with 8. 

[hpslugga 4062]

33 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

yes, and if you go back and read my post without thinking "ooh I gotta play Smart Boy and disagree with this!" and leaping to write your response, the explanation of "why" is clearly stated.

it is an opinion based on personal preference, it won't change

Who’s playing smart boy? You didn’t present it as opinion. You asserted it as though it were a matter of fact. You shouldn’t have to do such things if your opinion was so unshakable as to not ever be susceptible to change.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

6 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

You didn’t present it as opinion. You asserted it as though it were a matter of fact.

Who did you think I was speaking for?

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

6 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Why would you believe that?

Because “Fuck Ohio State!”

That’s why. And it doesn’t matter that Ohio State won the championship. It doesn’t matter how many of their starters got drafted in the first round over the next few years. Fuck them. That’s why. That’s all there is to it.

But at least he’s saying it was 5th ranked Baylor who got screwed and not 6th ranked TCU. So that’s progress in this community. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

So a 16-team playoff would make it the most exclusive playoff in the fucking sport, being surpassed by no league in that regard, and by that standard, you conclude it's...too inclusive? 

Not just football, but of any of the major sports, pro or college.

Counterpoint from others:  "OMG!  Expanding to 12, or Gaia forbid, 16 teams, just increases the risk that a stadium full of players and fans will be hit by a meteor.  Too much risk!"

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by clapclapclap

[Al_4_ISU 12485]

44 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Because “Fuck Ohio State!”

That’s why. And it doesn’t matter that Ohio State won the championship. It doesn’t matter how many of their starters got drafted in the first round over the next few years. Fuck them. That’s why. That’s all there is to it.

But at least he’s saying it was 5th ranked Baylor who got screwed and not 6th ranked TCU. So that’s progress in this community. 

Ohio State absolutely acquitted themselves in that playoff by winning the damn thing, but if you did a blind resume test comparing OSU's slate to TCU's, I think a large majority of people would find TCU's more impressive.  TCU lost to a one loss team on the road by 3 points, had 4 Top 20 wins, and 2 Top 10 wins.  Ohio State lost by 2 scores at home to a 6 win team, had 1 Top 10 win and 2 Top 20 wins, and that was with one extra game.

If Northwestern or Iowa has Ohio State's resume that year, they aren't getting in.

Baylor got screwed by the Big 12.  TCU got screwed by the committee.  Your continued refusal to acknowledge that Ohio State got in that game predominantly by having a large fanbase, and massive brand is puzzling and stupid.

[Slacks 6862]

20 hours ago, LTbear said:

The G5 is guaranteed 1 of 12. They wouldn't be 8 of 16.

a bit of hyperbole..  but if they were 1 of 16, all kinds of legal entanglement... "we were 0 of 4... how are we only 1 of 16?!?!"  then, when they get 4 of 16 and there are two upsets, it's 2 of 8... "SEE!!!" and off so on... and we end up with 32 teams...  so 12 it is.

it's easy math for anybody to make up.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

3 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Not just football, but of any of the major sports, pro or college.

Counterpoint from others:  "OMG!  Expanding to 12, or Gaia forbid, 16 teams, just increases the risk that a stadium full of players and fans will be hit by a meteor.  Too much risk!"

 

derp

[notre dame joe 196]

On 6/23/2021 at 7:10 AM, hpslugga said:

The word "too" is a word that is used to compare. The alternatives to "too," in that context, are "not inclusive enough" or "sufficiently inclusive" It's basically a Goldilocks principle. So when you say that 16 is "too inclusive," by what comparison are you basing that? Well we can only assume that it's the FCS since that was the only thing to which you referred. That's a start.

The FCS currently uses a 24-team model in its league of 127 teams.

FBS is a league of 130, and we're talking about a playoff that would use 8 fewer teams than FCS. As a percentage, roughly 19% (18.897) of the FCS makes it to the playoff. With 16 in the FBS, that would constitute 12.3% of the league. So it'd be less inclusive by a factor of fully one third.

On average, HS football includes 50% of its various leagues around the country
In the NFL, it's 43.75%
FCS is 18.9%
Division II is 16.6% (28 out of 169)
Division III is 12.8% (32 out of 250)

So a 16-team playoff would make it the most exclusive playoff in the fucking sport, being surpassed by no league in that regard, and by that standard, you conclude it's...too inclusive? 

What is this High School National Championship?  

 

Something that big would have to be voted on, just as college football is too spread out and diverse for an orderly post-season tournament.  That national title in college football answered the question Who had the best season?

 

No one has bothered to pose that question for HS Football.  But everyone can understand why picking X teams to play in a tournament does not answer it. 

[hpslugga 4062]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

Something that big would have to be voted on,

High school? Yeah, it would, but not for reasons you think.

You say that as if totally unaware of the existence of postseason tournaments in the other classifications of college football. Almost as if you completely ignored everything I said other than the letters "HS"

FCS: 127 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 24-team playoff (maximum of 15 games)
DII: 169 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 28-team playoff (maximum of 15 games)
DIII: 246 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 32-team playoff (maximum of 15 games)

FBS? 130 teams, 12 games against 12 opponents, and we'll not mention the playoff size because we haven't even established to which one you're referring.

Oh right, but you brought up HS. Ok. Well I didn't look at the precise numbers in other states, but I'll just tell you how it works in one division in Texas (since they're all essentially the same):

5A Division 1: 129 teams, 10 games against 10 opponents, 64-team playoff (maximum of 16 games)

 

Quote

just as college football is too spread out and diverse for an orderly post-season tournament. 

It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact. There are 3 different NCAA tournaments in the sport of football, 2 of which concern leagues of noticeably larger size with shorter schedules. Tell me about all this trouble they've been having with achieving with "orderly post-season tournaments."

Quote

No one has bothered to pose that question for HS Football. 

I can't even believe I'm entertaining this because the notion is so stupid, but yeah they have, and the answer is the same: it'd be a logistical nightmare. The easiest way to even conceive of doing it is to construct a 50-team bracket of all 50 of the state champions in the top classifications of each state. Here are the problems with that:

1. There's no central governing body for high school football in the US.
2. You're, therefore, going to have to deal with 50 different governing bodies, and their rules aren't all the same, either. So whose rules are we playing by?
3. A 50-team bracket means 32 teams would get a bye. How do you go about sorting that shit out?
4. In addition to the 16 games that a lot of states require of their state champions, you're going to have to dedicate 6 more weeks of that. So that means that to play in the National Final, you'd have to play 21-22 games. Not even the NFL requires 22, and to get to 21 means that you'd have to be a wildcard team.

Quote

But everyone can understand why picking X teams to play in a tournament does not answer it. 

You're comparing a seemingly impossible concept like a national high school tournament to a league that is as large as, or smaller than, its most immediate counterparts at the same level. That's about as dishonest as it gets. 

Oh and just FYI, no one serious gives two shits about that stupid, mythical "national championship" at the HS level. It's an absurd concept that includes an indefinite number of teams (there are between 4 or 5 every year), there's no governing body or any entity that even rewards a fucking trophy. It's just mumbo jumbo that websites and sports networks vote on every year. Meanwhile, the players and coaches can hardly be bothered to even care. They care about the state title, yes, but national? Shit, I even knew a guy who played for the 2004 SLC team in college that won it from 4 different services that year, and he wasn't even aware of it for like a month after they "won" them. The fucking guy graduated in the spring of 2006, which meant that he was at the school for 3 state championships they won in those 4 years and I never heard him say anything like "yeah man those 3 titles were really special but the 2004 one meant the most because some websites said we were national champions!"

Edited June 24, 2021 by hpslugga

[notre dame joe 196]

10 hours ago, hpslugga said:

l

Yeah thanks for downvoting me and then building a wall of text that proves the point.  There's too many teams playing too few games to say that a knock out tournament tells you who had the best season.   This is a money grab that honors those who run good in the post-season 

[hpslugga 4062]

3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Yeah thanks for downvoting me and then building a wall of text that proves the point.  There's too many teams playing too few games to say that a knock out tournament tells you who had the best season.   This is a money grab that honors those who run good in the post-season 

You didn’t even read it, had nothing to say in response, and all you had to contribute was that you’re butthurt that I negged you for being obviously dishonest. You didn’t make any “point,” much less did I “prove it” for you.

Edited June 25, 2021 by hpslugga

[Bill Lumbergh 7186]

What we’re going to get from expanding the playoff is some shitty blowout football games and a greater chance of career-ending injuries to players who are hoping to have a job in the pros. 

Color me shocked that a fan of a team for whom the committee will bend over backwards to guarantee they make the playoffs isn't that interested in expansion.

Don't worry, you'll still be gifted a bye in most years.

I love how worried you are about injuries. Let's ask the players who were ranked 5 and didn't get a chance to compete if they would have preferred that opportunity or rather played it safe to protect themselves for "the pros."

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

21 minutes ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

Color me shocked that a fan of a team for whom the committee will bend over backwards to guarantee they make the playoffs isn't that interested in expansion.

Don't worry, you'll still be gifted a bye in most years.

I love how worried you are about injuries. Let's ask the players who were ranked 5 and didn't get a chance to compete if they would have preferred that opportunity or rather played it safe to protect themselves for "the pros."

Color you stupid because I think we should’ve stuck with the BCS. Yeah, the expanded playoff won’t hurt my school’s team. That’s not the point.

[hpslugga 4062]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Color you stupid because I think we should’ve stuck with the BCS. Yeah, the expanded playoff won’t hurt my school’s team. That’s not the point.

The BCS was a colossal failure.

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

5 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

The BCS was a colossal failure.

I disagree. In fact it was so successful that they decided to expand it. Duh. 

[hpslugga 4062]

14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I disagree. In fact it was so successful that they decided to expand it. Duh. 

It was a colossal failure because it failed at a colossal level. 

It promised to deliver an undeliverable promise, which was it was going to use human and computer polls to match the “top two teams” in a championship game. 

The very concept of that is absurd and for reasons already discussed here: it’s impossible to do such a thing using such tools for a league of that size. 

Hell, the BCS would be inadequate for the NFL, and you think it was appropriate for the FBS? 

Human polls are worthless. They are a consensus of arguments from imagined authority. Human polls are assumed improbable claims from credulous sources based on insufficient evidence, which by definition renders anyone who takes them seriously a fool. 

Computer polls have the same problem: the assign arbitrary weights to criterion that cannot possibly be measured accurately given the size of the league coupled with the limited schedule. It’d be like if you went to Port Aransas beach and someone asked you “which grain of sand do you think is the biggest?” I mean I suppose there’s a definite answer to the question but discovering it would be an exercise in futility on a practical level. 

So you’ve got two rankings systems with absolutely horrid flaws and defects, and we’re going to mix them together to come up with two fucking teams in a league of 130? That’s not a goal; that’s a fantasy. It’s a particularly stupid fantasy given that the template for a far more suitable alternative has been available now for literally 100 years.

And by the way, they didn’t expand the BCS, either. As I said, the BCS is a compendium of polls derived by coaches who don’t pay attention to anything, bad comedy writers in sports media and computer nerds. The CFP is a selection committee of people associated with the P5. It’s also a stupid concept, but it’s also different.

[BurntOrange&White 40010]

14 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

It was a colossal failure because it failed at a colossal level. 

It promised to deliver an undeliverable promise, which was it was going to use human and computer polls to match the “top two teams” in a championship game. 

The very concept of that is absurd and for reasons already discussed here: it’s impossible to do such a thing using such tools for a league of that size. 

Hell, the BCS would be inadequate for the NFL, and you think it was appropriate for the FBS? 

Human polls are worthless. They are a consensus of arguments from imagined authority. Human polls are assumed improbable claims from credulous sources based on insufficient evidence, which by definition renders anyone who takes them seriously a fool. 

Computer polls have the same problem: the assign arbitrary weights to criterion that cannot possibly be measured accurately given the size of the league coupled with the limited schedule. It’d be like if you went to Port Aransas beach and someone asked you “which grain of sand do you think is the biggest?” I mean I suppose there’s a definite answer to the question but discovering it would be an exercise in futility on a practical level. 

So you’ve got two rankings systems with absolutely horrid flaws and defects, and we’re going to mix them together to come up with two fucking teams in a league of 130? That’s not a goal; that’s a fantasy. It’s a particularly stupid fantasy given that the template for a far more suitable alternative has been available now for literally 100 years.

And by the way, they didn’t expand the BCS, either. As I said, the BCS is a compendium of polls derived by coaches who don’t pay attention to anything, bad comedy writers in sports media and computer nerds. The CFP is a selection committee of people associated with the P5. It’s also a stupid concept, but it’s also different.

The BCS was successful compared to it's predecessor, the CFB playoffs expanded upon that. Every year since it's inception the BCS formula has produced the same 4 teams as the CFB playoffs. There are some variations in placement but regardless the computers selected the same 4 teams as the humans every year. To say the BCS is a failure is idiotic compared to what CFB was prior.

Quote

 

 

 

 

[hpslugga 4062]

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The BCS was successful compared to it's predecessor

That's like "the nicest guy in prison." Beating the Alliance concept is about as easy as it gets. Not a very high bar to clear.

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

To say the BCS is a failure is idiotic compared to what CFB was prior.

I didn't argue for what was being done prior, so this statement has no real application. 

[Zeus 6126]

On 6/22/2021 at 1:05 PM, Big Frog II said:

I really don't understand why 16 is unwieldy.  You just don't have any byes.

4 team playoff = $$$$

12 team playoff = $$$$$$$$$$$$

16 team playoff = $$$$$$

Somebody did the math, friggin unwieldy 

[BurntOrange&White 40010]

Just now, hpslugga said:

That's like "the nicest guy in prison." Beating the Alliance concept is about as easy as it gets. Not a very high bar to clear.

I didn't argue for what was being done prior, so this statement has no real application. 

Yes it does because the context of what college football was and what college football became in terms of a national champion/championship matters. No system will ever be perfect until you follow the FCS route as far as CFB is concerned but to say the BCS was a failure is ignorant given the context of CFB at it's inception.

[hpslugga 4062]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yes it does because the context of what college football was and what college football became in terms of a national champion/championship matters.

No, that suggests that the BCS was the only alternative to the Alliance, which is a false dichotomy. The BCS was concocted in the late 1990's. The other 3 NCAA football subdivisions already had a postseason tournament for fully a generation prior to that (and not at one point did they ever use a BCS-type system prior to that), so there's no excuse for this logical fallacy that you're trying to push. That model was absolutely available to the FBS, and the powers that be chose to eschew it. But that's what it was: a choice. 

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by hpslugga

[hpslugga 4062]

1 hour ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

Color me shocked that a fan of a team for whom the committee will bend over backwards to guarantee they make the playoffs isn't that interested in expansion.

Don't worry, you'll still be gifted a bye in most years.

I love how worried you are about injuries. Let's ask the players who were ranked 5 and didn't get a chance to compete if they would have preferred that opportunity or rather played it safe to protect themselves for "the pros."

Oh that's been a well known ruse for quite some time. Here's an incomplete list of the fallacious ruses that have been offered in that fantasy world:

"BUT TOO MANY GAMES!"
"BUT INJURIES!" and its cousin ruse...
"BUT THE NFL DRAFT!"
"BUT PLAYERS CAN'T SEE THEIR FAMILIES AT CHRISTMAS!"
"BUT THE REGULAR SEASON WON'T MEAN ANYTHING!"
"BUT THE BOWLS WON'T MEAN ANYTHING!"
"BUT FINAL EXAMS!"

There have been others, but those are the big ones and they all fall under one of four distinct categories:

1. True but not indicative of the position (this is mostly a reference to the final exams excuse)
2. Not evidently true
3. Evidently not true 
4. Fractal wrongness 

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

It was a colossal failure because it failed at a colossal level. 

It promised to deliver an undeliverable promise, which was it was going to use human and computer polls to match the “top two teams” in a championship game. 

The very concept of that is absurd and for reasons already discussed here: it’s impossible to do such a thing using such tools for a league of that size. 

Hell, the BCS would be inadequate for the NFL, and you think it was appropriate for the FBS? 

Human polls are worthless. They are a consensus of arguments from imagined authority. Human polls are assumed improbable claims from credulous sources based on insufficient evidence, which by definition renders anyone who takes them seriously a fool. 

Computer polls have the same problem: the assign arbitrary weights to criterion that cannot possibly be measured accurately given the size of the league coupled with the limited schedule. It’d be like if you went to Port Aransas beach and someone asked you “which grain of sand do you think is the biggest?” I mean I suppose there’s a definite answer to the question but discovering it would be an exercise in futility on a practical level. 

So you’ve got two rankings systems with absolutely horrid flaws and defects, and we’re going to mix them together to come up with two fucking teams in a league of 130? That’s not a goal; that’s a fantasy. It’s a particularly stupid fantasy given that the template for a far more suitable alternative has been available now for literally 100 years.

And by the way, they didn’t expand the BCS, either. As I said, the BCS is a compendium of polls derived by coaches who don’t pay attention to anything, bad comedy writers in sports media and computer nerds. The CFP is a selection committee of people associated with the P5. It’s also a stupid concept, but it’s also different.

Jesus. Your logic is dizzying.

Maybe you’re too young to remember college football before the BCS. And that’s part of the problem because after a number of years, people won’t remember what came before. It’s foolish for anyone to think that the 16-team playoff isn’t coming right around the corner. It’s all about tv money. That’s it. And a bunch of meatheads who just want to sit at home on their couches and watch more football. Never mind the students, never mind the donors and season ticket holders, and least of all never mind the players who are risking career-ending injuries with each additional game just to entertain you during the postseason.

Even with a 4-team playoff, John Cooper might’ve won a national championship in 1998, the first year of the BCS. He would’ve had an even better chance of winning one in ‘95, ‘96, and/or ‘98 if there was a 12-team playoff. Regardless of the system, I figure my alma mater is going to win her share of championships over time. I still think that beating Michigan and winning the Big Ten should be the number one goal. Where we’re headed is a place where that doesn’t matter. Soon, an Ohio State coach will be able to have a long career without accomplishing either of those things as long as he makes it into the playoff every year...or often enough. He might even win a bonus just for making the playoff without ever winning a game. Maybe you think that equals success. I don’t.

Recommended offseason reading:

Edited June 25, 2021 by WhatTheBuck

[BurntOrange&White 40010]

49 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

No, that suggests that the BCS was the only alternative to the Alliance, which is a false dichotomy. The BCS was concocted in the late 1990's. The other 3 NCAA football subdivisions already had a postseason tournament for fully a generation prior to that (and not at one point did they ever use a BCS-type system prior to that), so there's no excuse for this logical fallacy that you're trying to push. That model was absolutely available to the FBS, and the powers that be chose to eschew it. But that's what it was: a choice. 

 

Just because it’s not the system you want doesn’t mean that the BCS was a failure. 

[hpslugga 4062]

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Just because it’s not the system you want doesn’t mean that the BCS was a failure. 

I already explained why it was a failure and it had nothing to do with what I wanted. That’s a canard.

[hpslugga 4062]

15 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Jesus. Your logic is dizzying.

Maybe you’re too young to remember college football before the BCS. And that’s part of the problem because after a number of years, people won’t remember what came before. It’s foolish for anyone to think that the 16-team playoff isn’t coming right around the corner. It’s all about tv money. That’s it. And a bunch of meatheads who just want to sit at home on their couches and watch more football. Never mind the students, never mind the donors and season ticket holders, and least of all never mind the players who are risking career-ending injuries with each additional game just to entertain you during the postseason.

Even with a 4-team playoff, John Cooper might’ve won a national championship in 1998, the first year of the BCS. He would’ve had an even better chance of winning one in ‘95, ‘96, and/or ‘98 if there was a 12-team playoff. Regardless of the system, I figure my alma mater is going to win her share of championships over time. I still think that beating Michigan and winning the Big Ten should be the number one goal. Where we’re headed is a place where that doesn’t matter. Soon, an Ohio State coach will be able to have a long career without accomplishing either of those things as long as he makes it into the playoff every year...or often enough. He might even win a bonus just for making the playoff without ever winning a game. Maybe you think that equals success. I don’t.

Recommended offseason reading:

I remember the pre-BCS system. Again just because that was a terrible system does not mean that the BCS was a good system. it was a terrible system and it was not the only option at the time.

[BurntOrange&White 40010]

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I already explained why it was a failure and it had nothing to do with what I wanted. That’s a canard.

 

 

[notre dame joe 196]

When you feed the troll you just get more troll.

[Bill Lumbergh 7186]

Color you stupid because I think we should’ve stuck with the BCS.

This part was really, really funny. I'm not going to address any of the rest of the idiocy you're spouting. Even by Ohio State standards, it's really dumb