The playoff system is perfect. Let's not fuck it up.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1606]

5 hours ago, hornian said:

Wait, OP was serious?

 

OP would rather just have a 2-team playoff and be done with it.

[VaLonghorn99 340]

I would be good with a 5 or 6 team playoff with play in  games

[Landomatic 3813]

Never understood why anyone thinks it needs to be a set number of games.  Saying it needs to be 8 is as stupid as saying it should be 4.

Playoff needs to be all P5 conference champions and/or undefeated teams.

Why is that so hard?  Completely eliminates all arguments from all sides.  Still have huge emphasis on regular season, still have chance for non P5's to get in, still gives teams a chance that might have dropped a fluke game early, etc.

Logistics aren't that big of a deal.  It's 2018 and with the number of bowls and TV channels available, the infrastructure is already in place to handle it.  Set the rules ahead of time and plug the teams in at the end of the conference championships games as needed based on ranking (i.e. if 5 teams then X, if 6 teams then Y, if 7 teams then Z).

Here's what the teams would have looked like the last 5 years.  Pretty hard to argue these.  Never needed 8 and always needed more than 4 to include teams that "deserve" to be in the playoff...

2013 - 5 Teams - Florida St, Stanford, Michigan St, Auburn, Baylor

2014 - 5 Teams - Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, Alabama, Baylor

2015 - 5 Teams - Clemson, Stanford, Mich St, Alabama, Oklahoma

2016 - 6 Teams - Alabama, Western Michigan, Washington, Penn St, Clemson, Oklahoma

2017 - 6 Teams - UCF, USC, Ohio St, Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma

[Zavala 1384]

I agreed until I watched that pirate clip. 

[El Hornarino 368]

How about a 0 team playoff?  That way no single team is unfairly left out because they all are.

The current system is just set up to make money, which is partly why it is only four teams for five power conferences, and also why there is a beauty pageant panel to pick the four teams.  Not sure which aspect is more ridiculous really.

Edited October 12, 2018 by El Hornarino

[Thetexashammer 1062]

6 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

OP would rather just have a 2-team playoff and be done with it.

Reading comprehension, how does it work?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

22 hours ago, BigOrange1 said:

• 8 teams
• every conference plays 9 conference games
• all P5 conference champions make the playoff
• top ranked non-P5 team makes the playoff
• top ranked non-P5 team and final 2 playoff teams are determined by "bcs" type formula
• bcs type formula also determines seeding
• first round games take place at the home stadium of the higher ranked team
• semifinals and finals are in neutral site settings as they are now

the end.

9 conference games - This isn't possible. It's a fairy tale. No power exists to make that happen.

All P5 champs are in - This will give you teams with up to four losses and who have no claim on being a champion

BCS formula - Retain the subjective element that people hate? Are you nuts?

NonP5 automatic bid - Why include some joke team? You're trying to say everybody gets a trophy. 

8 teams- Why? I just want to know why 8 versus 16. Why not a play in game?

 

I love how you construct this Rube Goldberg contraption that confidently declare "The End" about your entirely arbitrary and necessarily imaginary system. 

 

Despite the popular opinion here, there seem to be other opinions out there.

https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/05/bill_hancock_on_cfp_popularity.html?utm_source=reddit.com#incart_river_index

Quote

"It's enormously popular," Hancock said of the CFP. "We do surveys every year. We want to know what fans are thinking.

"The committee has something like an 87 percent favorable rating. The CFP, itself, has a favorable rating at over 80 percent. People love the playoffs."

The public opinion has the existing system ranked somewhere slightly below Mother Theresa and slightly above Abraham Lincoln.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Magus Ossis 2784]

7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

9 conference games - This isn't possible. It's a fairy tale. No power exists to make that happen.

All P5 champs are in - This will give you teams with up to four losses and who have no claim on being a champion

BCS formula - Retain the subjective element that people hate? Are you nuts?

NonP5 automatic bid - Why include some joke team? You're trying to say everybody gets a trophy. 

8 teams- Why? I just want to know why 8 versus 16. Why not a play in game?

 

I love how you construct this Rube Goldberg contraption that confidently declare "The End" about your entirely arbitrary and necessarily imaginary system. 

 

Despite the popular opinion here, there seem to be other opinions out there.

https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/05/bill_hancock_on_cfp_popularity.html?utm_source=reddit.com#incart_river_index

The public opinion has the existing system ranked somewhere slightly below Mother Theresa and slightly above Abraham Lincoln.

People are apparently happy because we went from no championship game to a 2-team field to a four-team field. They like the result of giving teams a chance to settle it on the field. To argue that the above-referenced poll is meaningful statistical evidence that people would not be happier with an 8-team field is to reach beyond the evidence offered.

The logical extreme of avoiding letting "inferior" teams win is never to let anyone but the "best" play: no NCG at all. The logical extreme in the other direction is potentially to let anyone in FBS play in the game. Find a way to make it a 130-team tournament. The real-world application advocated by many for the latter is to include the usual suspects in addition to a "lucky few" less-favored teams who play their way in by being the best among their group. The regular season is your pool play, and the single elimination (playoffs) starts afterwards.

[Beau Vine 54001]

1 minute ago, Magus Ossis said:

People are apparently happy because we went from no championship game to a 2-team field to a four-team field. They like the result of giving teams a chance to settle it on the field. To argue that the above-referenced poll is meaningful statistical evidence that people would not be happier with an 8-team field is to reach beyond the evidence offered.

Fucking this, it's not complicated.

If I were sentenced to have both my eyes poked out, and at the last second the king decreed that only one of my eyes would be poked out, I'd be pretty fucking happy about that.

If you asked me how I felt about the decision to poke one of my eyes out, I would give it an extremely favorable rating.

[DanTheHorn 4901]

I have always liked six with wild cards and semis played at home stadiums. Only the national championship played at a neutral site. So basically if you are a P5 champion and ranked in the 8 your are in. If you are  not a P5 and in the top 6 then you are in and if there is more than one in the top 6 then the highest one gets the nod. There is only room for others  if some P5 champs are not in the top 8 and no non-p5 is in the top 6.

 

By making 1 and 2 only have to play one game to get into the final and have the game be at home the beauty of the regular season is left intact and by expanding to 6 and guaranteeing access to conference champions with high ranking then every team knows what it has to do. Win your conference with the least number of possible losses and you are in the playoffs.

Edited October 12, 2018 by DanTheHorn

[Thetexashammer 1062]

53 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Fucking this, it's not complicated.

If I were sentenced to have both my eyes poked out, and at the last second the king decreed that only one of my eyes would be poked out, I'd be pretty fucking happy about that.

If you asked me how I felt about the decision to poke one of my eyes out, I would give it an extremely favorable rating.

I can't argue with this logic.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Keep in mind, if you are depending on conference champs in any way, your system will be frequently changing. The Big East was always really weak, then it disappeared. The Big 12 is likely to die in the midterm. Conferences are arbitrary distinctions that come and go. I think having a system than changes every few years would harm the sport. 

What about Notre Dame? What if another Blue Chip (Texas?) decides to abandon its rotten conference?

Edited October 12, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Landomatic 3813]

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

All P5 champs are in - This will give you teams with up to four losses and who have no claim on being a champion

 When has this ever happened?  Or happened recently?

[Sgt Hulk 13647]

Kansas City tie breakers for all teams 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

47 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

 When has this ever happened?  Or happened recently?

2002 Sugar Bowl. FSU had four losses. Five after losing to UGweve sen more than once where the two best teams are in the same conference.

If you apply arbitrary criteria you get arbitray outcomes. 

[Huckleberry 32701]

2002 Sugar Bowl. FSU had four losses. Five after losing to UGweve sen more than once where the two best teams are in the same conference.
If you apply arbitrary criteria you get arbitray outcomes. 

2004 Pittsburgh was more recent although they were Big East champions.

Of course even more recent than that was a season where 6 teams were legitimate title contenders (2008), so your example from 16 years ago is predictably weak.

[C-Man 27054]

On 10/10/2018 at 8:31 PM, Thetexashammer said:

They playoffs are perfect the way they are, and changing them by adding more teams would harm the sport irreparably by lessening the importance of the regular season. And if you disagree with me, then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.

The beauty of college football is unique among sports, as is our system for determining a champion. And that’s not an accident. Unlike professional athletes, they are really young adults who play for fun and have another full-time job. There are real differences between one school and another. Aggies really are different from Sooners who are different from Longhorns. People’s values, ethics, cultures, and even intelligence vary by school. And because of this disorganized organization, we had multiple claims to championships, then the Bowl Alliance, then the BCS, now the playoffs. And they work.

As a result of a wonderful historical accident, college football developed a bowl system rather than a tournament. This means we had the single most important regular season of any sport. Because you went to the mythical national championship based on rankings, all kinds of ridiculous and subjective elements came into play. And the drama was, and is, incredible. But there was a problem.

With multiple ranking systems came multiple champions. And this problem needed a solution. First the Alliance, then the shitty BCS, now a four game playoff system. And indeed, the only reason for the system is to identify a true champion. And it’s fantastic. But some want to ruin it.

Contrast this with the NFL. The Super Bowl has been won by teams with a regular season record of 9-7, 10-6, or 11-5. Those teams clearly demonstrated they were not the best teams. What you had, in effect, was two separate tournaments. You had a regular season winner, with players resting for the playoffs, and a winner of the end of season tournament. No true champion.

The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals were 83-78 in the regular season. Not even close to best. Pretty close to average, actually. What else were they? Well since you ask, they were the winners of the World Series. Were they the best team? Uh, no. That system doesn’t work. 

In 2007 the Patriots went undefeated. Were they Super Bowl champs? No. But they were undeniably one of the greatest teams of all time forever and ever amen.

So this Sacred Cow, the idea that playoffs identify the “Best Team”, I’m sorry but that’s wrong. It feels good to settle it on the field, but no, you aren’t the best if you win a sudden death playoff, it’s too random. The regular season is a better gauge of the quality of your team.

So if the purpose of college football playoffs is to determine the champion, does the fifth ranked team have any claim to be the best? No chance. Never. Won’t happen.  There simply are no other teams with a valid claim to a title. Fifth best has no claim.

Expanding to eight teams simply invalidates the idea that the winner is the best team, aka true champion. It just means we had two tournaments, the regular season, and another tournament after the regular season. You can drop two games, still get in. Who cares. I mean, let’s just do like NCAA basketball where nobody even watches the regular season. Expanding means the regular season doesn’t matter.

Don’t get me started on people who think “conference champions” matter. They do, but they’re also arbitrary. You can have two great teams from the same conference, a great team with no conference, or no teams from a conference. The conferences are college football’s version of OPEC, trying to monopolize the money.

College football has the single best regular season and has stumbled ass backwards into the best way to determine its champion. Let’s not fuck it up by delegitimizing the regular season.

I didn't read your wall of words here because I figure I've already read your thoughts in the other thread. Why you chose to take this idiocy out of this thread and bring it to the masses is beyond me. The playoffs are not perfect. Bama won it all and didn't even win their own fucking division. The only way to avoid that is to come up with a system that includes ALL Power 5 champs with a sprinkling of at-large berths -- so either a 6- or 8-team playoff would be much better than this system, which admittedly is better than what we had.

[chase25 2048]

4 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

9 conference games - This isn't possible. It's a fairy tale. No power exists to make that happen.

All P5 champs are in - This will give you teams with up to four losses and who have no claim on being a champion

BCS formula - Retain the subjective element that people hate? Are you nuts?

NonP5 automatic bid - Why include some joke team? You're trying to say everybody gets a trophy. 

8 teams- Why? I just want to know why 8 versus 16. Why not a play in game?

 

I love how you construct this Rube Goldberg contraption that confidently declare "The End" about your entirely arbitrary and necessarily imaginary system. 

 

Despite the popular opinion here, there seem to be other opinions out there.

https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/05/bill_hancock_on_cfp_popularity.html?utm_source=reddit.com#incart_river_index

The public opinion has the existing system ranked somewhere slightly below Mother Theresa and slightly above Abraham Lincoln.

UCF beat the same team that beat the two teams that played for the National Title last year so don't give me that bull shit. TCU beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl while they were in the MWC, Boise State beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl while they were in the WAC, Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl while they were in the MWC and since it looks like I need to remind you, that Alabama team was the #1 team in the country for 4 weeks up until they lost to Florida in the SEC championship game. Saying some of these teams aren't deserving of a shot is just plain ignorant.

If you revised the BCS and put more of an emphasis on SOS then you could either force conferences to go to 9 conference games or at least force the SEC to quit scheduling 2 FCS cupcakes a year. This also addresses your point about the BCS being subjective, if the BCS is subjective then what the hell is that committee? Siting an Alabama website about their happiness with the playoff is like asking the New York Giants about their thoughts on the wild card system. Alabama is a lock every year with Saban, lets see how much they like it when old Saint Nick retires and they get left on the outside looking in a couple of years. I don't want a BCS system like the days of old that includes the AP and Coaches poll, f*** that, I'm talking about one that factors in SOS, SOR, efficiency ratings, home/away. Something that is totally objective.

We've been so irrelevant the last few years it hasn't mattered but in your heart of hearts, if Texas' name came up as a team that could make the playoff in that 3-6 range where it is up for debate, do you think Tom Osborne who was on the committee for 2 years is going to view us objectively? HELL NO.

On any given year I believe there are no more than 8 teams that can win a national title, some years it isn't even that, and I don't think there has ever been a year in which there has been more than 8 teams that could make a case that they were deserving. 8 is the right number IMO and I would bring back a revised BCS to determine the top 8. Then let the teams determine the champion on the field, not because some people in a room decided that an 11-1 Alabama who didn't even win their own division is better than an 11-2 Ohio State who won their conference. No wonder Alabama people love the committee.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Texas25

[Landomatic 3813]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

2002 Sugar Bowl. FSU had four losses. Five after losing to UGweve sen more than once where the two best teams are in the same conference.

If you apply arbitrary criteria you get arbitray outcomes. 

So forever ago.  Gotcha.

Whats arbitrary is to select teams based on a predetermined number of teams (whether that’s 4, 8 or 64) rather than a predetermined set of criteria.

All P5 conference champs and undefeated teams get in.  Problem solved.  All arguments eliminated.

Problem is, nobody ever discusses it because it’s unconventional and...must have set number and number must always be bigger to include more.

[honolulu horn 6157]

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

2002 Sugar Bowl.

January 2002:

Janet Jackson was awarded best pop artist.

No Child Left Behind becomes law.

Marty Schottenheimer was hired as the Kansas City Chief's head coach.

Julia Roberts won best actress for Erin Brockovich.

 

Of all the shitty things that happened in January 2002, FSU getting into the Sugar Bowl doesn't register.

 

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

 

 

[hpslugga 4044]

20 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

so your example from 16 years ago is predictably weak.

Such is the mind of the change averse. If they can find any straw to grasp, they'll do so and they'll run with it forever. 

[Huckleberry 32701]

So forever ago.  Gotcha.
Whats arbitrary is to select teams based on a predetermined number of teams (whether that’s 4, 8 or 64) rather than a predetermined set of criteria.
All P5 conference champs and undefeated teams get in.  Problem solved.  All arguments eliminated.
Problem is, nobody ever discusses it because it’s unconventional and...must have set number and number must always be bigger to include more.

While conceptually it's a good idea it unfortunately is not a practical option because television contracts are negotiated well in advance and the networks will want to know exactly how many spots they have to sell, so an unknown number of games won't fly. That's why it's not discussed. Sucks but that's reality.

[hpslugga 4044]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

19 hours ago, Landomatic said:

So forever ago.  Gotcha.
Whats arbitrary is to select teams based on a predetermined number of teams (whether that’s 4, 8 or 64) rather than a predetermined set of criteria.
All P5 conference champs and undefeated teams get in.  Problem solved.  All arguments eliminated.
Problem is, nobody ever discusses it because it’s unconventional and...must have set number and number must always be bigger to include more.

While conceptually it's a good idea it unfortunately is not a practical option because television contracts are negotiated well in advance and the networks will want to know exactly how many spots they have to sell, so an unknown number of games won't fly. That's why it's not discussed. Sucks but that's reality.

It's a sketchy concept at best because you'd also open the door to a huge bitchfest that reads "hey, we had to go through 3 playoff games to win the NC, and these fuckwads from a different season only had to play 2."

[SunUvAbitchMarcos 129]

Authentic internet gibberish

[yaqdum 182]

the first time a supposedly unseeded team wins it all will be delicious just for the opportunity to watch the experts piss all over themselves trying to explain that what we just saw we didn't really see.

 

[hpslugga 4044]

2 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

the first time a supposedly unseeded team wins it all will be delicious just for the opportunity to watch the experts piss all over themselves trying to explain that what we just saw we didn't really see.

Well what they'd do is simply hope like hell that some #1-type team wins the next year and they'll say not a word about the previous year as if to pretend it just didn't happen at all. Their method in dealing with that reality is basically the way you defeat Freddy Kruger. 

[yaqdum 182]

2 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Well what they'd do is simply hope like hell that some #1-type team wins the next year and they'll say not a word about the previous year as if to pretend it just didn't happen at all. Their method in dealing with that reality is basically the way you defeat Freddy Kruger. 

agree with that, but in the days following the upset, they gotta say something.

i recall with fondness the early days of tom landry when he would bypass several blue-bloods to draft some unknown out of a supposed tiny speck of significance like valdosta state, say.  valdosta state is not insignificant now but it was thought to be so then.  the experts laughed at landry and then when tom began beating the teams with the blue-bloods, specious reasoning ruled the day.

we don't bat an eye anymore when a quarterback from some tiny program goes high in the draft.  before landry it was unthinkable.  same kind of logic that sank the titanic on her maiden voyage.

[Landomatic 3813]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

19 hours ago, Landomatic said:

So forever ago.  Gotcha.
Whats arbitrary is to select teams based on a predetermined number of teams (whether that’s 4, 8 or 64) rather than a predetermined set of criteria.
All P5 conference champs and undefeated teams get in.  Problem solved.  All arguments eliminated.
Problem is, nobody ever discusses it because it’s unconventional and...must have set number and number must always be bigger to include more.

Read more  

While conceptually it's a good idea it unfortunately is not a practical option because television contracts are negotiated well in advance and the networks will want to know exactly how many spots they have to sell, so an unknown number of games won't fly. That's why it's not discussed. Sucks but that's reality.

No, that’s not an issue.  You just take the top bowls and fill in accordingly (just like now).  Some years you’d need the top 4 bowls, some years the top 5.  Those bowls and the TV contracts will be fine getting a playoff matchup instead of some random meaningless game.  And they’ll have the same amount of time as they do now to sort it out.

[Landomatic 3813]

54 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

It's a sketchy concept at best because you'd also open the door to a huge bitchfest that reads "hey, we had to go through 3 playoff games to win the NC, and these fuckwads from a different season only had to play 2."

As opposed to what we have now?  There might still be some bitching, but not nearly as much as now.  Win your conference or go undefeated and your in. Easy.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Landomatic

[hpslugga 4044]

Just now, Landomatic said:

As opposed to what we have now?  There might still be some bitching, but not nearly as much as now.

I don't say what I said to defend the current system. The current system is a joke. Having said that, you'd have even less legitimate bitching if it's based on CC's. 

"Wah wah wah we didn't get into the playoff"

"Shoulda won your conference."

Seriously, that discussion terminates there because anything beyond it is garbled verbal effluvia.

[Drew 2331]

 I mean the OP thought this actually made sense?

 

Yes of course this 4 team playoff is much better than the BCS, which was better than no BCS.  But having it stuck at 4 is ridiculous.  Sure you'd have teams griping about being left out if they're 9th in the Country...but that's not nearly as egregious as being left out when you're 5th or 6th and legitimately have a chance to win the title.

[Rabidhorn 121]

Not perfect, 6 big conference winners 2 at large teams.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

So, in criminal punishment the public, being angry at criminals, likes hard and fast rules like "if we catch you with one pound of marijuana, you go to jail for five years". You can catch a convicted felon holding a pound and three handguns and dealing to high school kids, or you can have a dude who planted some plants in his backyard for personal use, goes on vacation, and then comes back with several pounds of the wacky tabacky by accident. The two different situations call for two different penalties.

The rigid application of absolutes inevitably leads to both Type 1 and Type 2 errors. The playoff committee has none of these absolutes for exactly that reason. Though it may provide comfort to people, rigid application of absolutes, taking no consideration of the wide variety of circumstances of different teams (a one loss Alabama versus undefeated UCF, for example) renders a system illegitimate. It's why we don't just use computers.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Magus Ossis 2784]

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So, in criminal punishment the public, being angry at criminals, likes hard and fast rules like "if we catch you with one pound of marijuana, you go to jail for five years". You can catch a convicted felon holding a pound and three handguns and dealing to high school kids, or you can have a dude who planted some plants in his backyard for personal use, goes on vacation, and then comes back with several pounds of the wacky tabacky by accident. The two different situations call for two different penalties.

The rigid application of absolutes inevitably leads to both Type 1 and Type 2 errors. The playoff committee has none of these absolutes for exactly that reason. Though it may provide comfort to people, rigid application of absolutes, taking no consideration of the wide variety of circumstances of different teams (a one loss Alabama versus undefeated UCF, for example) renders a system illegitimate. It's why we don't just use computers.

The need for reason and exceptional cases is legitimate. Some would argue that such is a large part of the rationale for at-large teams. Also, whatever decision is ultimately made is by criteria. A good enough system doesn’t need human tweaking at the last minute because all we add that computers lack is emotion and creativity. The problem lies in computer algorithms that encompass what we think encapsulates our reasoning but which really only model a part(the part we can identify and admit) of our process. When a computer selects one of two clearly controversial candidates, we can say that it settled the question with some objectivity. When our wider, partially unaknowlesged, criteria clearly mark one team as better, but the computer disagrees, we don’t like it. 

[Landomatic 3813]

1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

I don't say what I said to defend the current system. The current system is a joke. Having said that, you'd have even less legitimate bitching if it's based on CC's. 

"Wah wah wah we didn't get into the playoff"

"Shoulda won your conference."

Seriously, that discussion terminates there because anything beyond it is garbled verbal effluvia.

Exactly.  Win your conference or go undefeated eliminates 99% of the legitimate bitching.  Playoff based on merit not number of teams.

[hpslugga 4044]

13 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

Exactly.  Win your conference or go undefeated eliminates 99% of the legitimate bitching.  Playoff based on merit not number of teams.

Again, what you're pushing for isn't realistic for reasons Huck already mentioned. It's far more realistic to:

1) Sever the G5 from FBS and reclassify them between P5 and FCS

2) Re-align the remaining conferences after the Big 12 inevitably dies (4x16 or 8x8, however you want)

3) Allow the CCG's to serve as the de facto 1st round.

With that, you're using a formula to allow the playoff to be based on merit AND number of teams.

Edited October 13, 2018 by hpslugga

[El Squared 1793]

The current system IS perfect for the secsecsec, everyone else, not so much.

When you can lose your conference and leapfrog into the playoffs its a good deal.

[Landomatic 3813]

8 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Again, what you're pushing for isn't realistic for reasons Huck already mentioned. It's far more realistic to:

1) Sever the G5 from FBS and reclassify them between P5 and FCS

2) Re-align the remaining conferences after the Big 12 inevitably dies (4x16 or 8x8, however you want)

3) Allow the CCG's to serve as the de facto 1st round.

With that, you're using a formula to allow the playoff to be based on merit AND number of teams.

I already addressed Huck’s rebuttal.  So that’s not a problem.  And the rest of your drivel is pure crap.

Other than that, though...sure man 👊

[hpslugga 4044]

2 hours ago, Landomatic said:

I already addressed Huck’s rebuttal. 

In fantasy-speak, yes.