I Think Gary Patterson Is On To Something.......

[PaintedontheSky]

.......... it's no Round Robin, but all things considered, I like it. [smoke]


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-football-playoff-system-to-go-to-eight-teams

 

[topdecktiger]

Why? You said in an earlier thread that you didn't want the CFP committee forcing conferences to have a CCG. Now you're ok with it if they force conferences not to have a CCG? A little hypocritical.

 

[wvurelic]

Glad somebody else see's it. He spouts out so much BS how is supposed to remember what he said

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Why? You said in an earlier thread that you didn't want the CFP committee forcing conferences to have a CCG. Now you're ok with it if they force conferences not to have a CCG? A little hypocritical.

Sure it hypocritical...... appears to be the "Flavor of the Season" when it comes to the College Football Selection Committee. [smoke]

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Glad somebody else see's it. He spouts out so much BS how is supposed to remember what he said

 

[topdecktiger]

Sure it hypocritical...... appears to be the "Flavor of the Season" when it comes to the College Football Selection Committee. [smoke]

Actually, no, that's not the case. There is a reason the committee selected the teams it did, based on actual facts. You just aren't interested in the facts.

Aside from that, if TCU had gotten in rather than Ohio St, you wouldn't have any problem with the committee.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Actually, no, that's not the case. There is a reason the committee selected the teams it did, based on actual facts. You just aren't interested in the facts.

Aside from that, if TCU had gotten in rather than Ohio St, you wouldn't have any problem with the committee.

Wrong again, Captain Assumption, Florida State is the team that didn't belong...... Notre Dame showed that, but that 13th data point of a victory 37 - 35 over the Mighty Ramblin' Wreck was the tipping point for the committee...... for god's sake, give me a break [smoke]

 

[topdecktiger]

No, I'm right. Here are the facts.

Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St all had 3 wins over ranked teams. Baylor and TCU each only had 2. (Alabama had 5.)

Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama all a higher strength-of-schedule than Baylor/TCU.

Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama were all outright conference champions, whereas Baylor and TCU were only co-champs.

When you look at the facts, it's clear that the other four schools had more on their resumes, which is what led the committee to make the decision it did. Sorry that the facts got in the way of your theory.

 

[wvurelic]

Agree!!!!!

 

[skygusty_rivals]

.......... it's no Round Robin, but all things considered, I like it. [smoke]


http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-football-playoff-system-to-go-to-eight-teams

4 spots for 5 conferences is going to create pressure. Like the article says, when it is the SEC, the ACC, the Big10 and the PAC12 left out the pressure will only increase. If you guys think that a conference as tough as the BIG12 is from top to bottom is going to be left out of the 4 team playoff every year you are dreaming. If you think those other conferences won't LOUDLY ***** and MOAN about being left out, you are dreaming. If you think that fans of conferences left out don't have their own set of supportive statistics for their arguments for why they should have been included, you are dreaming. All these scenarios are pretty interesting. I think it will be expanded but I have no idea which route will be taken.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

No, I'm right. Here are the facts.

Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St all had 3 wins over ranked teams. Baylor and TCU each only had 2. (Alabama had 5.)

Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama all a higher strength-of-schedule than Baylor/TCU.

Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama were all outright conference champions, whereas Baylor and TCU were only co-champs.

When you look at the facts, it's clear that the other four schools had more on their resumes, which is what led the committee to make the decision it did. Sorry that the facts got in the way of your theory.

Good Grief..... "Facts" are not determined by subjective judgment. Ranking and strength-of-schedule are determined by subjective judgment and therefore cannot be used to determine what is "fact".

Ask yourself. Who determined those "rankings"? Who decided those "strength-of-schedules"? Who decided which teams would participate in the College Football Playoff? All subjective judgments...... and therefore cannot be used to determine what is "fact".

This Selection Committee process is no better, from a subjective judgment application, than the very thing college football decided they wanted to get away from, i.e. AP Poll, UPI Poll, Coaches Poll, Sports Illustrated Poll, Sporting News Poll, etc, etc, etc..... college football has simply exchanged one subjective process for another subjective process. And you sir, have bought into it, support it, and endorse it.

Hell, by your own data and wrongheaded thinking, Alabama (5 ranked team wins) should simply have been declared the 'champion' as opposed to my position on the matter where it's determined on the field where Ohio State 'won' the title.

If you want a "Champion", gotta' get the subjectivity out of it by determining it on the field of play . [smoke]

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Agree!!!!!

[smoke]

 

[topdecktiger]

Good Grief..... "Facts" are not determined by subjective judgment. Ranking and strength-of-schedule are determined by subjective judgment and therefore cannot be used to determine what is "fact".

Ask yourself. Who determined those "rankings"? Who decided those "strength-of-schedules"? Who decided which teams would participate in the College Football Playoff? All subjective judgments...... and therefore cannot be used to determine what is "fact".

This Selection Committee process is no better, from a subjective judgment application, than the very thing college football decided they wanted to get away from, i.e. AP Poll, UPI Poll, Coaches Poll, Sports Illustrated Poll, Sporting News Poll, etc, etc, etc..... college football has simply exchanged one subjective process for another subjective process. And you sir, have bought into it, support it, and endorse it.

Hell, by your own data and wrongheaded thinking, Alabama (5 ranked team wins) should simply have been declared the 'champion' as opposed to my position on the matter where it's determined on the field where Ohio State 'won' the title.

If you want a "Champion", gotta' get the subjectivity out of it by determining it on the field of play . [smoke]

No, they are facts. That was the actual data that the committee used to determine the selections. If you don't like the fact that teams are selected in the first place, that's a different story. That's not what we're dealing with here. You said that Florida St was the team that didn't belong, and I showed you that by the data the committee uses, Florida St had a better resume that TCU or Baylor. Again, if you don't like that any subjective judgment was used in the process, that's fine, but again that's a different discussion.

By the way, whey you said:

Florida State is the team that didn't belong...... Notre Dame showed that,

That's the definition of subjectivity. You don't have any "facts" that prove either Florida St didn't belong, or that Notre Dame "showed that." It's only your subjective opinion that Florida St didn't belong. Again, you are being hypocritical. You complain about the committee's subjectivity, and then inject your own subjectivity.

 

[skygusty_rivals]

No, they are facts. That was the actual data that the committee used to determine the selections. If you don't like the fact that teams are selected in the first place, that's a different story. That's not what we're dealing with here. You said that Florida St was the team that didn't belong, and I showed you that by the data the committee uses, Florida St had a better resume that TCU or Baylor. Again, if you don't like that any subjective judgment was used in the process, that's fine, but again that's a different discussion.

By the way, whey you said:



That's the definition of subjectivity. You don't have any "facts" that prove either Florida St didn't belong, or that Notre Dame "showed that." It's only your subjective opinion that Florida St didn't belong. Again, you are being hypocritical. You complain about the committee's subjectivity, and then inject your own subjectivity.

Well, they are ordinal facts, in that they are ordered rankings based upon best guesses, complicated comparisons and analyses and also frankly tradition. Flagship schools with identical facts as a program that is on the edge of elite will still be ordered into a ranking, one higher than the other because there are no ties in rankings - that does not make them accurate. 4 proved it was 1, at least on that day. 5 never got the chance, nor did 6, or 7 or 8 to prove that on any given day - they were the best in college football. 4 slots for 5 isn't going to work. Can't wait to see who the number 5 and 6 are that get left out next year. Then the howling will commence from a different quarter. If it is the BIG12 again, the howling will increase from the partisans of that conference. 8 teams - or 6 settles it on the field.

 

[eers1foru_rivals]

As much as I hate to say it, I think the ACC is on the right path. Being able to pick which teams play in your conference championship game is the way to go. If I were in charge of college football I'd make the conferences play their 2 highest ranked teams in a conference championship. With the winners getting bids to a six team playoff. Five conference champions and one at large. The two highest ranked conference champs would get a first round bye. It leaves room for independents if worthy as well as a team that falls through the cracks but has a real shot at winning a championship on the field. Like an extra power five team. It would be a ten team playoff basically.

 

[topdecktiger]

Well, they are ordinal facts, in that they are ordered rankings based upon best guesses, complicated comparisons and analyses and also frankly tradition. Flagship schools with identical facts as a program that is on the edge of elite will still be ordered into a ranking, one higher than the other because there are no ties in rankings - that does not make them accurate. 4 proved it was 1, at least on that day. 5 never got the chance, nor did 6, or 7 or 8 to prove that on any given day - they were the best in college football. 4 slots for 5 isn't going to work. Can't wait to see who the number 5 and 6 are that get left out next year. Then the howling will commence from a different quarter. If it is the BIG12 again, the howling will increase from the partisans of that conference. 8 teams - or 6 settles it on the field.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that since Team A was ranked #10, then Team A is really the #10 team in the country. I understand that the rankings are subjective.

What I'm saying is, using that consistent set of rankings, Florida St, Oregon, Alabama, and Ohio St had a better resume than Baylor or TCU. Here's the difference. Let's say the committee counted wins for Florida St against teams who were ranked at the time, and only counted teams ranked at the end of the season for TCU. That would be a completely unfair metric. However, if you keep the metric the same for everybody, (for example, only teams ranked at the end of the year) then that's a more reasonable comparison.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that the committee didn't just pull names out of a hat, as some people are trying to insist. The committee had a method. Was it subjective? Yes it was. If teams are selected, then by definition it's subjective. My point is that the selection was reasonable, given the criteria that was in place.

 

[topdecktiger]

As much as I hate to say it, I think the ACC is on the right path. Being able to pick which teams play in your conference championship game is the way to go. If I were in charge of college football I'd make the conferences play their 2 highest ranked teams in a conference championship. With the winners getting bids to a six team playoff. Five conference champions and one at large. The two highest ranked conference champs would get a first round bye. It leaves room for independents if worthy as well as a team that falls through the cracks but has a real shot at winning a championship on the field. Like an extra power five team. It would be a ten team playoff basically.

Well, that's actually not what the ACC is doing. Swofford said in an interview two weeks ago that most of the ACC schools don't support that format. The majority of the schools favor keeping the current format.

 

[eers1foru_rivals]

Most of the Big XII ADs don't even want a championship game. How many times in the Big East did round robin have "One True Champion"? We usually had a shared title between tow or three schools with tie breakers deciding who was the "true champion". It'd be much easier to decide that on the field I'd think. Holding your breath and hoping one year we catch lightening in a bottle and get two teams in the playoff is a failing strategy. We are refusing to put ourselves on a level playing field with the other power five conferences. It would be hard for you to make me believe that if Baylor and TCU played a championship game this past season that the winner of two top ten teams doesn't make the playoff.

 

[LowFatMilk]

The big 12 made an *** of itself with the one true champion campaign. .... Given the rope to hang itself.


There's plenty that I can add to that........ But let's just keep it simple and obvious.

 

[11nut]

Most of the Big XII ADs don't even want a championship game. How many times in the Big East did round robin have "One True Champion"? We usually had a shared title between tow or three schools with tie breakers deciding who was the "true champion". It'd be much easier to decide that on the field I'd think. Holding your breath and hoping one year we catch lightening in a bottle and get two teams in the playoff is a failing strategy. We are refusing to put ourselves on a level playing field with the other power five conferences. It would be hard for you to make me believe that if Baylor and TCU played a championship game this past season that the winner of two top ten teams doesn't make the playoff.

Looks like our administration wants one.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

No, they are facts. That was the actual data that the committee used to determine the selections. If you don't like the fact that teams are selected in the first place, that's a different story. That's not what we're dealing with here. You said that Florida St was the team that didn't belong, and I showed you that by the data the committee uses, Florida St had a better resume that TCU or Baylor. Again, if you don't like that any subjective judgment was used in the process, that's fine, but again that's a different discussion.

By the way, whey you said:



That's the definition of subjectivity. You don't have any "facts" that prove either Florida St didn't belong, or that Notre Dame "showed that." It's only your subjective opinion that Florida St didn't belong. Again, you are being hypocritical. You complain about the committee's subjectivity, and then inject your own subjectivity.

You need a dictionary..... and to stop with this thing you've got about redefining the meaning of words.

No they are not facts. Facts by definition are indisputable. Data on the other hand is subject to a variety of interpretations and is subjective.

I'll let 'skygusty' give you definition of "ordinal" and while he's at it maybe he'll d give you the definition of 'arbitrary' and the function and use of such things.

............by the way, of course it's my 'subjective opinion' about Florida State and of course it's hypocrisy. And since that's the case, why on earth would you defend 'subjective opinions' and hypocrisy on one hand and condemn it on the other?

The stated objective of the Playoff Committee was "To select the 4 best teams". You think the method(s) they used resulted in placing the 4 best teams in the playoff in light of the "FACT" one 1 of their "4 best" lost by 39 points while omitting 1 or 2 better teams? And "ranking" Alabama as their 1st seed who lost, Oregon as their 2nd seed who lost, Florida State as their 3rd seed who lost BIG TIME? Hell, the Playoff Committee demonstrated that they can not only NOT select the '4 BEST TEAMS' they can not even seed the 4 they did select correctly.

Settle it on the field of play, my man. [smoke]

 

[PaintedontheSky]

The big 12 made an *** of itself with the one true champion campaign. .... Given the rope to hang itself.


There's plenty that I can add to that........ But let's just keep it simple and obvious.

Yeah, they did. But no more of an "*** of itself" than the College Football Playoff Selection Committee did with their promise to select "the 4 best teams". [smoke]

 

[topdecktiger]

You need a dictionary..... and stop with this thing you've got about redefining the meaning of words.

No they are not facts. Facts by definition are indisputable. Data on the other hand is subject to a variety of interpretations and is subjective.

I'll let 'skygusty' give you definition of "ordinal" and while he's at it maybe he'll d give you the definition of 'arbitrary' and the function and use of such things.

............by the way, of course it's my 'subjective opinion' about Florida State and of course it's hypocrisy. And since that's the case, why on earth would you defend 'subjective opinions' and hypocrisy on one hand and condemn it on the other?

The stated objective of the Playoff Committee was "To select the 4 best teams". You think the method(s) they used resulted in placing the 4 best teams in the playoff in light of the "FACT" one 1 of their "4 best" lost by 39 points while omitting 1 or 2 better teams? And "ranking" Alabama as their 1st seed who lost, Oregon as their 2nd seed who lost, Florida State as their 3rd seed who lost BIG TIME? Hell, the Playoff Committee demonstrated that they can not only NOT select the '4 BEST TEAMS' they can not even seed the 4 they did select correctly.

Settle it on the field of play, my man. [smoke]

Yes, they are facts. You are once again being dishonest, and twisting what I said. It is a FACT that Florida St beat 3 ranked teams. It is a FACT that TCU only beat 2 ranked team.

If you go look up the final committee rankings, 3 of the teams Florida St beat are listed. Only two of the teams TCU beat are listed. That is a "fact." It is "indisputable" that 3 teams Florida St beat are listed in the rankings, and only 2 teams TCU beat are listed.

Here is the problem. You may disagree with whether the teams deserve that ranking. You are correct that the rankings themselves are subjective. I never said otherwise. The fact is not whether the rankings are accurate. The fact is whether the teams simply appeared in the rankings. Just because you misunderstood is not my fault. It's your fault.

To answer the rest of your questions, why don't you read what I actually write instead of what you assume I wrote. Let me try to explain it so you will understand.

I agree with you that the playoffs should be based on a qualifying process, rather than by selection. I don't have a problem with that. What I'm saying is, that's a completely separate argument from how the committee performed within the framework of the selection process. The committee did not decide that there would be a selection process themselves. The conferences decided there would be a selection process. The committee is just the entity that actually makes the selections. If you want to do away with the selection process entirely, that that is above the committee's heads. If you want the selections process removed, then you argument is with the conference commissioners, not the committee.

The point I'm making is that within the framework of the selection process, the committee did about as well as they can do. They had a set of criteria, and Alabama, Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St measured up the best within that criteria. If you had an actual qualifying process on the field, then yes you are correct that the results may have been different. The problem is, you can't use that to judge the committee's performance, because the idea to have a selection process was already decided before the committee ever sat down.

 

[skygusty_rivals]

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that since Team A was ranked #10, then Team A is really the #10 team in the country. I understand that the rankings are subjective.

What I'm saying is, using that consistent set of rankings, Florida St, Oregon, Alabama, and Ohio St had a better resume than Baylor or TCU. Here's the difference. Let's say the committee counted wins for Florida St against teams who were ranked at the time, and only counted teams ranked at the end of the season for TCU. That would be a completely unfair metric. However, if you keep the metric the same for everybody, (for example, only teams ranked at the end of the year) then that's a more reasonable comparison.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that the committee didn't just pull names out of a hat, as some people are trying to insist. The committee had a method. Was it subjective? Yes it was. If teams are selected, then by definition it's subjective. My point is that the selection was reasonable, given the criteria that was in place.

No I understand perfectly what you are saying. That was the measurement, that was the result. It simply isn't a good enough metric. There will never be a metric good enough to satisfy college fans and 4 teams guarantees incessant complaints. 6 teams would be better if workable. 8 teams in the playoff ought to silence nearly everybody because even though the metric is flawed it is inclusive enough to cover its inadequacy. If you aren't good enough to place in the top 8 you don't realistically have a shot at the national title. More than 8 teams is not practical anyway. Number 4 finishing number 1 illustrates perfectly the problem that the metric for selection is crude. All 5 major conferences should be in the playoff most years as well as 1 or more teams that excel who are not in one of the major conferences. I understand your metric - in the current system 4 will be chosen. In the years where there is really a tie for 4th there will be a decision based on something else.
Let me put it another way - in statistics you place a confidence interval around a mean. Lets say the mean is 87.14, depending on the amount of variance between all the individual measurements you can place a confidence interval around the mean - Lets say it is 68.9-108.6, which says that you are 95% confident that the real mean is somewhere between these two extremes. The selection committee is tasked to select the best 4 teams, but because the measurements are so subjective, they really have to include 8 teams to have any sort of confidence that the 4 best teams are actually part of that group. It isn't exactly the same but you get the picture.
TCU and Baylor is water under the bridge anyway, they are getting ready for next year. Like I said - I can't wait till it's another conferences turn to be left out.

 

[topdecktiger]

No I understand perfectly what you are saying. That was the measurement, that was the result. It simply isn't a good enough metric. There will never be a metric good enough to satisfy college fans and 4 teams guarantees incessant complaints.

No, you don't understand what I'm saying at all. (I was actually directing that comment at the other poster, not you, but anyway).

Here is what you are missing. The committee has no control over how may teams get into the playoff. You said that 4 is not a good number, and it needs to be 6 or 8. I have no problem with that. That's a valid argument.

The problem is, that argument is completely separate from the committee's decision. If you want to criticize the committee, then you have to criticize them within the framework of a 4-team playoff.

For example, you said the metrics the committee used are flawed. Ok, well which metrics should they use, within the context of a 4-team playoff? Not under a hypothetical framework with 8 teams, automatic bids, etc. What metrics should the committee use under the current system?

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Yes, they are facts. You are once again being dishonest, and twisting what I said. It is a FACT that Florida St beat 3 ranked teams. It is a FACT that TCU only beat 2 ranked team.

If you go look up the final committee rankings, 3 of the teams Florida St beat are listed. Only two of the teams TCU beat are listed. That is a "fact." It is "indisputable" that 3 teams Florida St beat are listed in the rankings, and only 2 teams TCU beat are listed.

Here is the problem. You may disagree with whether the teams deserve that ranking. You are correct that the rankings themselves are subjective. I never said otherwise. The fact is not whether the rankings are accurate. The fact is whether the teams simply appeared in the rankings. Just because you misunderstood is not my fault. It's your fault.

To answer the rest of your questions, why don't you read what I actually write instead of what you assume I wrote. Let me try to explain it so you will understand.

I agree with you that the playoffs should be based on a qualifying process, rather than by selection. I don't have a problem with that. What I'm saying is, that's a completely separate argument from how the committee performed within the framework of the selection process. The committee did not decide that there would be a selection process themselves. The conferences decided there would be a selection process. The committee is just the entity that actually makes the selections. If you want to do away with the selection process entirely, that that is above the committee's heads. If you want the selections process removed, then you argument is with the conference commissioners, not the committee.

The point I'm making is that within the framework of the selection process, the committee did about as well as they can do. They had a set of criteria, and Alabama, Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St measured up the best within that criteria. If you had an actual qualifying process on the field, then yes you are correct that the results may have been different. The problem is, you can't use that to judge the committee's performance, because the idea to have a selection process was already decided before the committee ever sat down.

Well topdecktiger.... in this thread I've shown your assumptions to be wrong, and I've shown where you've attempted to redefine the meaning of words. And now, your response about me is "You are once again being dishonest, and twisting what I said."

Shame on you, that is simply not true.

Why you would attempt to create an illusion about the doings of the Playoff Committee, as well as me, myself, being "dishonest'? And attempt to have these illusions stand for the truth of the matter(s) when knowingly, as you've conceded, is not the truth of the matter(s).

[smoke]

 

[skygusty_rivals]

No, you don't understand what I'm saying at all. (I was actually directing that comment at the other poster, not you, but anyway).

Here is what you are missing. The committee has no control over how may teams get into the playoff. You said that 4 is not a good number, and it needs to be 6 or 8. I have no problem with that. That's a valid argument.

The problem is, that argument is completely separate from the committee's decision. If you want to criticize the committee, then you have to criticize them within the framework of a 4-team playoff.

For example, you said the metrics the committee used are flawed. Ok, well which metrics should they use, within the context of a 4-team playoff? Not under a hypothetical framework with 8 teams, automatic bids, etc. What metrics should the committee use under the current system?

Any metric for a 4 team playoff is flawed. I never criticized the committee, I criticized the 4 team playoff. That is what you are missing. If you aren't responding to me then why include my quote - it is pretty easy to reply to who you intend to reply to. I am not in favor of a 4 team playoff. I would favor an 8 team playoff, maybe a 6. Maybe you forgot that the OP was about expanding the field to 6 or 8 teams?

 

[topdecktiger]

Well topdecktiger.... in this thread I've shown your assumptions to be wrong, and I've shown where you've attempted to redefine the meaning of words. And now, your response about me is "You are once again being dishonest, and twisting what I said."

Shame on you, that is simply not true.

Why you would attempt to create an illusion about the doings of the Playoff Committee, as well as me, myself, being "dishonest'? And attempt to have these illusions stand for the truth of the matter(s) when knowingly, as you've conceded, is not the truth of the matter(s).

[smoke]

No, you haven't shown my "assumptions" to be wrong. I haven't attempted to redefine any words. I haven't treid to create an "illusion" about the doings of the playoff committee. That's why I called you dishonest, because I never did any of the things you said.

 

[topdecktiger]

Any metric for a 4 team playoff is flawed. I never criticized the committee, I criticized the 4 team playoff. That is what you are missing. If you aren't responding to me then why include my quote - it is pretty easy to reply to who you intend to reply to. I am not in favor of a 4 team playoff. I would favor an 8 team playoff, maybe a 6. Maybe you forgot that the OP was about expanding the field to 6 or 8 teams?

The reason I included your quote is because you responded to my previous post, which was not aimed at you. I had not intended that previous response for you, but since you commented on it anyway, I addressed it.

The OP was talking about removing the CCG. That's what I was responding to. From there, the other poster started complaining about the committee, and I challenged his assertions. Then, you jumped in mid-conversation. I understand that you don't even like the 4-team playoff at all. That was not the argument I was having with the other poster. The argument was about how the committee performs within the constraints of a 4-team playoff.

 

[eers1foru_rivals]

Looks like our administration wants one.

Probably because we just saw this exact scenario play out. Don't expand, no championship game, just wait and see! yeah anyone care to remind me how that ended? If the big XII is not willing to play by the same rules as everyone else they will not survive long term. Its just that simple!

 

[skygusty_rivals]

The reason I included your quote is because you responded to my previous post, which was not aimed at you. I had not intended that previous response for you, but since you commented on it anyway, I addressed it.

The OP was talking about removing the CCG. That's what I was responding to. From there, the other poster started complaining about the committee, and I challenged his assertions. Then, you jumped in mid-conversation. I understand that you don't even like the 4-team playoff at all. That was not the argument I was having with the other poster. The argument was about how the committee performs within the constraints of a 4-team playoff.

I jumped in mid-conversation? My bad - I didn't know you were having a private conversation on a public message board. I can't wait till Vernon gets the new board installed.

 

[topdecktiger]

I jumped in mid-conversation? My bad - I didn't know you were having a private conversation on a public message board. I can't wait till Vernon gets the new board installed.

I wasn't having a private conversation. Again, you keep assuming thing that lead you to the wrong conclusions.

You asked why I quoted you. Here's why I did that.

I had originally responded to the OP, regarding the CCG. You responded to my post (which was actually directed to the OP), and shifted the direction to the merits of a 4 vs 8-team playoff.

When I made the comment, "I was actually directing that comment at the other poster, not you, but anyway," what I was pointing out was that you weren't exactly getting the point of my conversation with the OP, because it was centered more around the CCG, and less about the 4 vs 8 team argument.

I think the thing you are missing is that the OP started an earlier thread in which he was upset that the committee is "forcing" (his interpretation) the Big 12 to have a CCG. I argued with him about that point, and the discussion carried over into this thread.

 

[skygusty_rivals]

The best metric to ensure that they select the 4 best teams is to include the top 8 teams. I'm not really worried about how accurate the formula is for determining number 7 and 8 because what it really does is give you a confidence interval that you have selected the top 4 teams somewhere in that 8. 4 slots for 5 major conferences will never work. One more game does it. Settle it on the field and enjoy the years when an 8 seed threatens to win it all. I don't have an opinion about a CCG. I think the SEC game gets a lot of attention, but on the other hand the ACC CCG is often boring and poorly attended. The BIG12 will probably wait and see how things shake out - if they are consistently left out of the Final 4 they will make an adjustment. Even if they have a CCG, or if they name a champion there is still no guarantee that there won't be one or more teams with identical statistics vying for the 4th slot.

 

[PaintedontheSky]

Heads-up skygusty, just an FYI.... this guy is full-of-****. He and I have a history, I kicked his *** over his position on the Marcus Smart incident and he's never got over it. :boxing:

He's one of those guys who attempts to justify and explain away wrongdoings.

Some people never learn, while other people are just too stupid to realize they're wrong. [smoke]

 

[skygusty_rivals]

I prefer him to Uder and his multiple personalities but don't know why a Clemson fan spends so much time on a WVU message board. Public duty to educate the heathens of Appalachia I suspect. He is very patient though and doesn't resort to name calling. Tedious at times and dependably infallible but often actually well informed. Bombastic, yet civil. Not all bad. How many of our posters hang out on other schools message boards? I never have. Wouldn't interest me in the least. When I make a post, or start a thread, I expect people to jump in, take it off topic, ramble on to new tangents. Have some fun. I don't take any of this seriously.