(01-13-2015 12:43 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:31 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 11:56 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Im arguing the opposite of what you think I am arguing. I think you are making an assumption based on who I root for, thinking I am making a point I am not. You may want to re-read my post. My point is that the old system put more of an emphasis on "settling it on the field" and scheduling tough. In the old system you had to do both. In the new system you can lose a game you shouldn't ( like Va Tech) and still make the playoff and won the championship.

The old system is simple. The new system is complicated. The old system doesn't account for the fact that a team grows during the season. These teams change drastically during the year. It is a constantly evolving process.

The simple system ignores that extremely important aspect of college football. The new system takes it into account and based upon the result, the new system is the right one. The two teams that supposedly "earned" it as you say? Florida State and Alabama would have been those two teams.

Honestly, you don't even have an argument based upon the fact that both of them lost in those big games. How you can argue that one of them would have been a worth champion if they only had to play each other, that is beyond me.

You are more biased against this new system than you realize. The teams with the strongest schedules are the ones that actually got in. Your argument is based upon false evidence. What evidence do you actually have for your claim that the old system better served strong schedules? The evidence shows that this new system absolutely gave strong credit to having strong schedules.

Virginia Tech, when they weren't heavily injured, was a very strong team and likely would have competed at the level of possibly winning the ACC as we saw it this year. They were hit hard by injuries AND they created a specialized defensive plan for taking on an Ohio State team that just lost their Heisman candidate quarterback an were relying upon a freshman to take over.

For you to still try and hold that out as a reason why this Ohio State team wasn't worthy? That is a joke. That is why the old system was a joke. One is much more realistic than the other and that has been made very clear this year.

I think you are confused. Read the whole thread, including the original post and don't make assumptions about what I am saying..

I'll try one more time: my only point in this thread is that there was less room for error with the old system than the new one. I'm not against the new system. Love it in fact. But the argument in the original post was that the new system makes it so that you have to schedule tougher and puts more emphasis on "winning it on the field". I think that is wrong. The old system actually allowed less room for error in either regard (as evidenced by the fact that both OSU and Oregon would have been left out in the old system).

Florida State and Alabama looked poor in quite a few showings during the season. Alabama received quite a lot of biased favoritism thanks to a well acknowledged fact that the SEC West was overrated this year by quite a bit.

Pitting those two teams together based upon their perceived strong schedules wouldn't have necessarily put the two teams together with the strongest schedules that proved the most.

So I am sorry but I perfectly understand what you are trying to say despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise. You are just continuing to deflect the criticism of your opinion. You are wrong and true factual stats say so.

Your criticism was directed at TCU thinking I was making points about TCU getting left out. Or that I wanted the old system. Neither is true. I'm simply stating that if the goal was to encourage people to schedule tough and let it be determined "on the field", the old system was better at that. There was no room for error with the old system. With the new system, there is room for error. You can lose or have a weak schedule and really not be eliminated, relative to previous years.

You've identified the fundamental difference between then and now.

The old system pitted the two best teams judged at the end of the season. The playoff is just that. The new system is about making it to the dance. When you do nothing else matters.

The playoff is a total paradigm shift. And, that's precisely why you can't compare it to the old system. You are picking a winner in an entirely different way. Being the best team at the end of the season and the best team at the end of the playoff are two totally different animals.

The good news is that we do at least get to watch more good football.

(01-13-2015 10:40 AM)Strut Wrote:  Settle it on the field! Don't tell us how good you are, show us! Stop scheduling like a baby's bottom by playing the Lil' Sisters of the poor and whine about being left out! I expect to see meaningful games prior to CCG! WHAT!


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

With three or four non conference a year it's impossible to compare the conferences. ESPN constantly does it because they have time to fill.
I think the ESPN SEC bias is due to college footballs popularity in the South. Also the South is SOUTH this and Southern that they eat it up. To be fair the SEC is the best conference just not by a large margin.

(01-13-2015 12:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Florida State and Alabama looked poor in quite a few showings during the season. Alabama received quite a lot of biased favoritism thanks to a well acknowledged fact that the SEC West was overrated this year by quite a bit.

Pitting those two teams together based upon their perceived strong schedules wouldn't have necessarily put the two teams together with the strongest schedules that proved the most.

So I am sorry but I perfectly understand what you are trying to say despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise. You are just continuing to deflect the criticism of your opinion. You are wrong and true factual stats say so.

But that H1 is the fundamental flaw of any playoff system. There doesn't objectively exist a way to determine who the best team is. I don't have a problem with the CFP and I'm happy for tOSU and their win. But if you are asking me if I see a major distinction between the CFP and the BCS I would say no. The only thing that has changed is that the field is larger than before.

(01-13-2015 01:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:43 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:31 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The old system is simple. The new system is complicated. The old system doesn't account for the fact that a team grows during the season. These teams change drastically during the year. It is a constantly evolving process.

The simple system ignores that extremely important aspect of college football. The new system takes it into account and based upon the result, the new system is the right one. The two teams that supposedly "earned" it as you say? Florida State and Alabama would have been those two teams.

Honestly, you don't even have an argument based upon the fact that both of them lost in those big games. How you can argue that one of them would have been a worth champion if they only had to play each other, that is beyond me.

You are more biased against this new system than you realize. The teams with the strongest schedules are the ones that actually got in. Your argument is based upon false evidence. What evidence do you actually have for your claim that the old system better served strong schedules? The evidence shows that this new system absolutely gave strong credit to having strong schedules.

Virginia Tech, when they weren't heavily injured, was a very strong team and likely would have competed at the level of possibly winning the ACC as we saw it this year. They were hit hard by injuries AND they created a specialized defensive plan for taking on an Ohio State team that just lost their Heisman candidate quarterback an were relying upon a freshman to take over.

For you to still try and hold that out as a reason why this Ohio State team wasn't worthy? That is a joke. That is why the old system was a joke. One is much more realistic than the other and that has been made very clear this year.

I think you are confused. Read the whole thread, including the original post and don't make assumptions about what I am saying..

I'll try one more time: my only point in this thread is that there was less room for error with the old system than the new one. I'm not against the new system. Love it in fact. But the argument in the original post was that the new system makes it so that you have to schedule tougher and puts more emphasis on "winning it on the field". I think that is wrong. The old system actually allowed less room for error in either regard (as evidenced by the fact that both OSU and Oregon would have been left out in the old system).

Florida State and Alabama looked poor in quite a few showings during the season. Alabama received quite a lot of biased favoritism thanks to a well acknowledged fact that the SEC West was overrated this year by quite a bit.

Pitting those two teams together based upon their perceived strong schedules wouldn't have necessarily put the two teams together with the strongest schedules that proved the most.

So I am sorry but I perfectly understand what you are trying to say despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise. You are just continuing to deflect the criticism of your opinion. You are wrong and true factual stats say so.

Your criticism was directed at TCU thinking I was making points about TCU getting left out. Or that I wanted the old system. Neither is true. I'm simply stating that if the goal was to encourage people to schedule tough and let it be determined "on the field", the old system was better at that. There was no room for error with the old system. With the new system, there is room for error. You can lose or have a weak schedule and really not be eliminated, relative to previous years.

You've identified the fundamental difference between then and now.

The old system pitted the two best teams judged at the end of the season. The playoff is just that. The new system is about making it to the dance. When you do nothing else matters.

The playoff is a total paradigm shift. And, that's precisely why you can't compare it to the old system. You are picking a winner in an entirely different way. Being the best team at the end of the season and the best team at the end of the playoff are two totally different animals.

The good news is that we do at least get to watch more good football.

The old system didn't pick the best two teams at the end of the season. Otherwise Texas A$M would have been in the "title" game in 2012. And Notre Dame clearly wasn't even a top 10 team that year, despite the 12-0 start.

(01-13-2015 02:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 01:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:43 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:31 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think you are confused. Read the whole thread, including the original post and don't make assumptions about what I am saying..

I'll try one more time: my only point in this thread is that there was less room for error with the old system than the new one. I'm not against the new system. Love it in fact. But the argument in the original post was that the new system makes it so that you have to schedule tougher and puts more emphasis on "winning it on the field". I think that is wrong. The old system actually allowed less room for error in either regard (as evidenced by the fact that both OSU and Oregon would have been left out in the old system).

Florida State and Alabama looked poor in quite a few showings during the season. Alabama received quite a lot of biased favoritism thanks to a well acknowledged fact that the SEC West was overrated this year by quite a bit.

Pitting those two teams together based upon their perceived strong schedules wouldn't have necessarily put the two teams together with the strongest schedules that proved the most.

So I am sorry but I perfectly understand what you are trying to say despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise. You are just continuing to deflect the criticism of your opinion. You are wrong and true factual stats say so.

Your criticism was directed at TCU thinking I was making points about TCU getting left out. Or that I wanted the old system. Neither is true. I'm simply stating that if the goal was to encourage people to schedule tough and let it be determined "on the field", the old system was better at that. There was no room for error with the old system. With the new system, there is room for error. You can lose or have a weak schedule and really not be eliminated, relative to previous years.

You've identified the fundamental difference between then and now.

The old system pitted the two best teams judged at the end of the season. The playoff is just that. The new system is about making it to the dance. When you do nothing else matters.

The playoff is a total paradigm shift. And, that's precisely why you can't compare it to the old system. You are picking a winner in an entirely different way. Being the best team at the end of the season and the best team at the end of the playoff are two totally different animals.

The good news is that we do at least get to watch more good football.

The old system didn't pick the best two teams at the end of the season. Otherwise Texas A$M would have been in the "title" game in 2012. And Notre Dame clearly wasn't even a top 10 team that year, despite the 12-0 start.

Okay

(01-13-2015 12:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:31 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 12:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 11:56 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 11:37 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It would have been Alabama vs Florida State if it was the old way. You can honestly say that Alabama and Florida State would have better earned those spots than Oregon and Ohio State? Wrong. Bias would have gotten them in and nothing more. It now has been proven to be a faulty system and any amount of TCU angst of not getting in this year doesn't change that proven fact.

Your whole perspective on this is backwards. You can't schedule easy and get in. That is why Baylor DIDNT make it. Both Ohio State and Oregon had higher rankings for their SoS than either Baylor or TCU had after week 16. Sorry, but sour grapes are sour grapes. Move on, TCU should be rated in the top 3 next year at the start of the season. Dwell on that instead.

Im arguing the opposite of what you think I am arguing. I think you are making an assumption based on who I root for, thinking I am making a point I am not. You may want to re-read my post. My point is that the old system put more of an emphasis on "settling it on the field" and scheduling tough. In the old system you had to do both. In the new system you can lose a game you shouldn't ( like Va Tech) and still make the playoff and won the championship.

The old system is simple. The new system is complicated. The old system doesn't account for the fact that a team grows during the season. These teams change drastically during the year. It is a constantly evolving process.

The simple system ignores that extremely important aspect of college football. The new system takes it into account and based upon the result, the new system is the right one. The two teams that supposedly "earned" it as you say? Florida State and Alabama would have been those two teams.

Honestly, you don't even have an argument based upon the fact that both of them lost in those big games. How you can argue that one of them would have been a worth champion if they only had to play each other, that is beyond me.

You are more biased against this new system than you realize. The teams with the strongest schedules are the ones that actually got in. Your argument is based upon false evidence. What evidence do you actually have for your claim that the old system better served strong schedules? The evidence shows that this new system absolutely gave strong credit to having strong schedules.

Virginia Tech, when they weren't heavily injured, was a very strong team and likely would have competed at the level of possibly winning the ACC as we saw it this year. They were hit hard by injuries AND they created a specialized defensive plan for taking on an Ohio State team that just lost their Heisman candidate quarterback an were relying upon a freshman to take over.

For you to still try and hold that out as a reason why this Ohio State team wasn't worthy? That is a joke. That is why the old system was a joke. One is much more realistic than the other and that has been made very clear this year.

I think you are confused. Read the whole thread, including the original post and don't make assumptions about what I am saying..

I'll try one more time: my only point in this thread is that there was less room for error with the old system than the new one. I'm not against the new system. Love it in fact. But the argument in the original post was that the new system makes it so that you have to schedule tougher and puts more emphasis on "winning it on the field". I think that is wrong. The old system actually allowed less room for error in either regard (as evidenced by the fact that both OSU and Oregon would have been left out in the old system).

Florida State and Alabama looked poor in quite a few showings during the season. Alabama received quite a lot of biased favoritism thanks to a well acknowledged fact that the SEC West was overrated this year by quite a bit.

Pitting those two teams together based upon their perceived strong schedules wouldn't have necessarily put the two teams together with the strongest schedules that proved the most.

So I am sorry but I perfectly understand what you are trying to say despite your repeated attempts to say otherwise. You are just continuing to deflect the criticism of your opinion. You are wrong and true factual stats say so.

This thread is bizarre to read because nothing you have posted makes a lick of sense to me. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I seriously think you should read the thread again.

Concerning out-of-conference scheduling- Baylor's schedule next year includes- Lamar, SMU, and Rice. Now, I have nothing against a warm up game and nothing against SMU or Rice but Baylor needs something else on this schedule if they wish to compete for a national championship.

Trading out one of Baylor's games for a game against Arkansas or Ole Miss would strengthen the Bears' national perception. Even an away game at Duke or Vanderbilt or Illinois could have more national weight.

Baylor's schedule is the old Southwest Conference challenge- It is too Texas-centric and needs something more national.

(01-13-2015 02:28 PM)chess Wrote:  Concerning out-of-conference scheduling- Baylor's schedule next year includes- Lamar, SMU, and Rice. Now, I have nothing against a warm up game and nothing against SMU or Rice but Baylor needs something else on this schedule if they wish to compete for a national championship.

Trading out one of Baylor's games for a game against Arkansas or Ole Miss would strengthen the Bears' national perception. Even an away game at Duke or Vanderbilt or Illinois could have more national weight.

Baylor's schedule is the old Southwest Conference challenge- It is too Texas-centric and needs something more national.

This is why the SEC plays an 8 game conference schedule. An 8 game schedule gives them an opportunity to schedule a quality out of conference game plus enough cup cakes to almost guarantee the bulk of the conference is bowl eligible. It's really a brilliant strategy which maximizes conference revenues and gives them the perception of being the top P5.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The BCS won't be an asterisk. It was a better system than having voters pick one, just like having a panel of voters picking 4 is better.

(01-13-2015 10:40 AM)Strut Wrote:  Settle it on the field! Don't tell us how good you are, show us! Stop scheduling like a baby's bottom by playing the Lil' Sisters of the poor and whine about being left out! I expect to see meaningful games prior to CCG! WHAT!


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Does this mean that some of Sparty's titles have an asterisk now? Because you claim 1951 and 1952 and you didn't play in a bowl game. In addition, you claim other titles without bowl games. Didn't settle it on the field.

Titles are titles regardless of the era. If a team has a solid claim (not 1941 Alabama type claims) then there is no asterisk.