(08-14-2015 03:53 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Where did I say it was absolute? I did say I thought it was likely, though, but to me that just means more than 50% chance- hardly a hard lined opinion. I just thought I'd bring up a difference of opinion about how Big 12 divisions are likely to be split up. Didn't mean to hit a nerve and trigger such a condescending discourse. Have a great weekend.

You do realize what you are complaining about, is what I said right? You didn't hit a nerve, you just sound like a ******* when you sit her and complain about my assumption, which was actually based on the previous divisions, then say it is because of your own assumption, which is based on your opinion and nothing that has actually happened. It does not mean it will not, but you actually are arguing from the mindset that this IS how it will work, and anyone who thinks otherwise is insane, when actual history, not what is in your mind, but actual history says otherwise. And you are basing it ALL on your own assumptions, the very thing you are complaining about.

(08-14-2015 04:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 03:53 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Where did I say it was absolute? I did say I thought it was likely, though, but to me that just means more than 50% chance- hardly a hard lined opinion. I just thought I'd bring up a difference of opinion about how Big 12 divisions are likely to be split up. Didn't mean to hit a nerve and trigger such a condescending discourse. Have a great weekend.

You do realize what you are complaining about, is what I said right? You didn't hit a nerve, you just sound like a ******* when you sit her and complain about my assumption, which was actually based on the previous divisions, then say it is because of your own assumption, which is based on your opinion and nothing that has actually happened. It does not mean it will not, but you actually are arguing from the mindset that this IS how it will work, and anyone who thinks otherwise is insane, when actual history, not what is in your mind, but actual history says otherwise. And you are basing it ALL on your own assumptions, the very thing you are complaining about.

I made a comment that I thought your assumption was wrong and when pressed, gave reasons why. I'm not "complaining" about anything. You need to calm down.

(08-14-2015 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  the delusional world i live in is called the present.

ok let me spoon feed it for you.

CFP playoff ranking from the committee the week of championship games.

#3 TCU
#4 FSU
#5 OSU
#6 Baylor
#11 GT
#13 Wisonsin

this is THEIR perception of SOS up to this point..... NOT YOURS!!! this is a FACT.

Before you attempt to speak down to me, you should probably look up the definition of the word "Fact." For example, "perception" and "fact" do not go in the same sentence. But carry on.

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  this is the BASELINE..... the committee's baseline, not yours.

You are aware that those were the rankings of the schools, not their SOS, correct? But carry on....

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  #4 FSU gets to play #11 GT and wins.
#5 OSU gets to play #13 Wisconsin and wins.
Baylor and TCU sit on their behinds and the rest is history.

HOWEVER lets throw in:
#3 TCU gets to play #6 Baylor and wins....... or #6 Baylor beats #3 TCU
#4 FSU gets to play #11 GT and wins.
#5 OSU gets to play #13 Wisconsin and wins.

You can send it to the bank that based of the FACTUAL information of the committees perception (ie ranking) going into championship week that the Big 12 would have gotten the nod for the CFP.

Again you might want to look up the word "fact." You are displaying opinions on the committee's rankings, not facts, but carry on. You are also forgetting that Ohio State changed quarterbacks and that was a part of why their ranking was where it was, you know using things like "facts" as those were the exact words of the committee chair, and they wanted to see how they did with a new QB before moving them up. Again, thos erp3esky facts and all. At no point did he or anyone else state or claim that either TCU or Baylor had a superior SOS to any other team in the playoff. In fact their SOS, was cited (along with no champion declared, and lack of a 13th game) as the reason Ohio State moved up. A CCG would have solved the last two (assuming TCU played Baylor, and TCU won), but would not have solved the first one.

Here is another little "fact" for you. Not an opinion, but a fact. The NCAA actually publishes a SOS schedule statistic. You can find it here. For a little recap, of the teams in question, we have:

4) Ohio State
5) Oregon
7) Alabama
13) Florida State
.....
71) TCU
72) Baylor

But just for ish and giggles, let's use Sagarin, shall we:

2) Alabama
3) Ohio State
20) Oregon
21) Florida St
...
51) TCU
59) Baylor

You see that right there? That is what we call a fact (well the NCAA one anyway since it is pure wins and losses). See SOS is based on winning percentage. Some metracies such as Sagarin or Kempom adjust them for home and away, power conference foe vs. G5, or whatnot, but they are all based on winning percentage. And guess who's opponents have the worst? No need for a nutkick, as you just racked yourself. But carry on.

Like I said, learn what a fact is, then how to properly apply

you are the master of going on a tangent. it is a FACT that this is how the committee viewed everything going into the championship week. call it what you want if it makes you feel better.

are you honestly trying to tell me that the committee uses one standard for their rankings prior to championship week, and then a completely different standard for that final week?

you are also stuck on this SOS argument that you manifested. your argument would have worked one year ago if we had no history of rankings from the committee.

and talking about the committee being afraid of moving OSU up due to their quarterback situation........... lets see them try to use that excuse if #3 beats #6 in a championship. the committee would have been neutered.
either: A. they would have had to have OSU ranked higher throughout their rankings, or
B. they would have had to ignore OSU and keep them out.
they cannot suddenly change a ranking like that after a #3 beats a #6, SOS be damned because they had them ranked high going into championship week.

so great, so you feel SOS is important and TCU/Baylor were low........ the committee must not have put much weight into it leading up to championship weekend. if you turn around and say that they did in the end....... then you have a tall order of proof to provide that their standards change for the final ranking. if this was the case, what is the point of having weekly rankings to begin with towards the end of the season?

(08-14-2015 04:45 PM)otown Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  the delusional world i live in is called the present.

ok let me spoon feed it for you.

CFP playoff ranking from the committee the week of championship games.

#3 TCU
#4 FSU
#5 OSU
#6 Baylor
#11 GT
#13 Wisonsin

this is THEIR perception of SOS up to this point..... NOT YOURS!!! this is a FACT.

Before you attempt to speak down to me, you should probably look up the definition of the word "Fact." For example, "perception" and "fact" do not go in the same sentence. But carry on.

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  this is the BASELINE..... the committee's baseline, not yours.

You are aware that those were the rankings of the schools, not their SOS, correct? But carry on....

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  #4 FSU gets to play #11 GT and wins.
#5 OSU gets to play #13 Wisconsin and wins.
Baylor and TCU sit on their behinds and the rest is history.

HOWEVER lets throw in:
#3 TCU gets to play #6 Baylor and wins....... or #6 Baylor beats #3 TCU
#4 FSU gets to play #11 GT and wins.
#5 OSU gets to play #13 Wisconsin and wins.

You can send it to the bank that based of the FACTUAL information of the committees perception (ie ranking) going into championship week that the Big 12 would have gotten the nod for the CFP.

Again you might want to look up the word "fact." You are displaying opinions on the committee's rankings, not facts, but carry on. You are also forgetting that Ohio State changed quarterbacks and that was a part of why their ranking was where it was, you know using things like "facts" as those were the exact words of the committee chair, and they wanted to see how they did with a new QB before moving them up. Again, thos erp3esky facts and all. At no point did he or anyone else state or claim that either TCU or Baylor had a superior SOS to any other team in the playoff. In fact their SOS, was cited (along with no champion declared, and lack of a 13th game) as the reason Ohio State moved up. A CCG would have solved the last two (assuming TCU played Baylor, and TCU won), but would not have solved the first one.

Here is another little "fact" for you. Not an opinion, but a fact. The NCAA actually publishes a SOS schedule statistic. You can find it here. For a little recap, of the teams in question, we have:

4) Ohio State
5) Oregon
7) Alabama
13) Florida State
.....
71) TCU
72) Baylor

But just for ish and giggles, let's use Sagarin, shall we:

2) Alabama
3) Ohio State
20) Oregon
21) Florida St
...
51) TCU
59) Baylor

You see that right there? That is what we call a fact (well the NCAA one anyway since it is pure wins and losses). See SOS is based on winning percentage. Some metracies such as Sagarin or Kempom adjust them for home and away, power conference foe vs. G5, or whatnot, but they are all based on winning percentage. And guess who's opponents have the worst? No need for a nutkick, as you just racked yourself. But carry on.

Like I said, learn what a fact is, then how to properly apply

you are the master of going on a tangent. it is a FACT that this is how the committee viewed everything going into the championship week. call it what you want if it makes you feel better.

are you honestly trying to tell me that the committee uses one standard for their rankings prior to championship week, and then a completely different standard for that final week?

you are also stuck on this SOS argument that you manifested. your argument would have worked one year ago if we had no history of rankings from the committee.

so great, so you feel SOS is important and TCU/Baylor were low........ the committee must not have put much weight into it leading up to championship weekend. if you turn around and say that they did in the end....... then you have a tall order of proof to provide that their standards change for the final ranking. if this was the case, what is the point of having weekly rankings to begin with towards the end of the season?

I absolutely believe the selection committee made up their rules as they went along, and changed them week by week. Their job - their only job - was to judge which were the four best teams. Not which had the toughest SOS, or whether one conference should be penalized for following NCAA scheduling rules.

(08-14-2015 04:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 04:45 PM)otown Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  the delusional world i live in is called the present.

ok let me spoon feed it for you.

CFP playoff ranking from the committee the week of championship games.

#3 TCU
#4 FSU
#5 OSU
#6 Baylor
#11 GT
#13 Wisonsin

this is THEIR perception of SOS up to this point..... NOT YOURS!!! this is a FACT.

Before you attempt to speak down to me, you should probably look up the definition of the word "Fact." For example, "perception" and "fact" do not go in the same sentence. But carry on.

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  this is the BASELINE..... the committee's baseline, not yours.

You are aware that those were the rankings of the schools, not their SOS, correct? But carry on....

(08-14-2015 03:45 PM)otown Wrote:  #4 FSU gets to play #11 GT and wins.
#5 OSU gets to play #13 Wisconsin and wins.
Baylor and TCU sit on their behinds and the rest is history.

HOWEVER lets throw in:
#3 TCU gets to play #6 Baylor and wins....... or #6 Baylor beats #3 TCU
#4 FSU gets to play #11 GT and wins.
#5 OSU gets to play #13 Wisconsin and wins.

You can send it to the bank that based of the FACTUAL information of the committees perception (ie ranking) going into championship week that the Big 12 would have gotten the nod for the CFP.

Again you might want to look up the word "fact." You are displaying opinions on the committee's rankings, not facts, but carry on. You are also forgetting that Ohio State changed quarterbacks and that was a part of why their ranking was where it was, you know using things like "facts" as those were the exact words of the committee chair, and they wanted to see how they did with a new QB before moving them up. Again, thos erp3esky facts and all. At no point did he or anyone else state or claim that either TCU or Baylor had a superior SOS to any other team in the playoff. In fact their SOS, was cited (along with no champion declared, and lack of a 13th game) as the reason Ohio State moved up. A CCG would have solved the last two (assuming TCU played Baylor, and TCU won), but would not have solved the first one.

Here is another little "fact" for you. Not an opinion, but a fact. The NCAA actually publishes a SOS schedule statistic. You can find it here. For a little recap, of the teams in question, we have:

4) Ohio State
5) Oregon
7) Alabama
13) Florida State
.....
71) TCU
72) Baylor

But just for ish and giggles, let's use Sagarin, shall we:

2) Alabama
3) Ohio State
20) Oregon
21) Florida St
...
51) TCU
59) Baylor

You see that right there? That is what we call a fact (well the NCAA one anyway since it is pure wins and losses). See SOS is based on winning percentage. Some metracies such as Sagarin or Kempom adjust them for home and away, power conference foe vs. G5, or whatnot, but they are all based on winning percentage. And guess who's opponents have the worst? No need for a nutkick, as you just racked yourself. But carry on.

Like I said, learn what a fact is, then how to properly apply

you are the master of going on a tangent. it is a FACT that this is how the committee viewed everything going into the championship week. call it what you want if it makes you feel better.

are you honestly trying to tell me that the committee uses one standard for their rankings prior to championship week, and then a completely different standard for that final week?

you are also stuck on this SOS argument that you manifested. your argument would have worked one year ago if we had no history of rankings from the committee.

so great, so you feel SOS is important and TCU/Baylor were low........ the committee must not have put much weight into it leading up to championship weekend. if you turn around and say that they did in the end....... then you have a tall order of proof to provide that their standards change for the final ranking. if this was the case, what is the point of having weekly rankings to begin with towards the end of the season?

I absolutely believe the selection committee made up their rules as they went along, and changed them week by week. Their job - their only job - was to judge which were the four best teams. Not which had the toughest SOS, or whether one conference should be penalized for following NCAA scheduling rules.

that is fine, but if a #3 beats a #6, no committee in the world is going to drop them. remember, this is their own ranking.......... they would have destroyed the integrity of the the whole weekly ranking system...... because there really wouldnt have been a reason to drop TCU out as they would have just beaten the highest ranked opponent out of FSU and OSU.

(08-14-2015 04:45 PM)otown Wrote:  you are the master of going on a tangent. it is a FACT that this is how the committee viewed everything going into the championship week. call it what you want if it makes you feel better.

Did I go off on a tangent, or since we were talking about SOS, did I just undress your comments to the point of ridiculousness? It was the latter.

(08-14-2015 04:45 PM)otown Wrote:  are you honestly trying to tell me that the committee uses one standard for their rankings prior to championship week, and then a completely different standard for that final week?

I don't have to try to tell you that. Their rankings changing absolutely proved it.

(08-14-2015 04:45 PM)otown Wrote:  you are also stuck on this SOS argument that you manifested. your argument would have worked one year ago if we had no history of rankings from the committee.

I am not stuck on it. That was precisely the argument you railed against, when I SPECIFCIALLY was talking about SOS, and you came back and said the committee thought otherwise. You lack of understanding and reading comprehension is not my concern. Nor are your feelings.

(08-14-2015 04:45 PM)otown Wrote:  and talking about the committee being afraid of moving OSU up due to their quarterback situation........... lets see them try to use that excuse if #3 beats #6 in a championship. the committee would have been neutered.

Again I don't need an excuse. I used the exact words of the committee chair. Don't like it, send him an email. The fact is, both Big 12 teams won their games, and got passed by one or two teams, depending on which team you are talking about.

(08-14-2015 04:45 PM)otown Wrote:  either: A. they would have had to have OSU ranked higher throughout their rankings, or
B. they would have had to ignore OSU and keep them out.
they cannot suddenly change a ranking like that after a #3 beats a #6, SOS be damned because they had them ranked high going into championship week.

They can't? Then how come FSU dropped in the ranking after beating number 5 Notre Dame? This is not some hypothetical, this is literally what happened. A "Fact" if you will.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/teams
so great, so you feel SOS is important and TCU/Baylor were low........ the committee must not have put much weight into it leading up to championship weekend. [/quote]

First off, you need to recognize that I specifically was talking about, SOS and you decided to throw your two cents in. So if you didn't understand that, that is certainly not my fault. And secondly, contrary to what you think. they did AFTER championship weekend. Their exact words were "Ohio State played more good quality teams and beat them" This part is not debatable: that is SOS. I don't really care what you think. But your attempt to troll me has really backfired because of you not understanding what they hell you are talking about.

When the dude a chump pump points a finger like a stump tell him step off, I'm doin' the Hump

(08-14-2015 05:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They can't? Then how come FSU dropped in the ranking after beating number 5 Notre Dame? This is not some hypothetical, this is literally what happened. A "Fact" if you will.


First off, you need to recognize that I specifically was talking about, SOS and you decided to throw your two cents in. So if you didn't understand that, that is certainly not my fault. And secondly, contrary to what you think. they did AFTER championship weekend. Their exact words were "Ohio State played more good quality teams and beat them" This part is not debatable: that is SOS. I don't really care what you think. But your attempt to troll me has really backfired because of you not understanding what they hell you are talking about.

When the dude a chump pump points a finger like a stump tell him step off, I'm doin' the Hump

im sorry to have to pop your bubble genius......

lets do the spoon feed routine again, even if it is futile

lets start this time slowly.........
you base your argument on two points

first you claim FSU dropped after beating #5 notre dame week EIGHT.
so please explain to me how they dropped in ranking, because THEY didn't. they did not drop in the coaches or AP...... but we are arguing about the committee ranking.......i would hope you would have realized that the committee doesn't start ranking until week ten. FSU dropped after week eleven in which they played UVA. man.... you are grasping at straws which are completely incorrect as proven now...... or you really didnt know the committee starts ranking week 10. which is it?

the second point is easy. when a team (#3) knocks off #6 in the country in a championship game...... the line "Ohio State played more good quality teams and beat them" doesnt work for TCU the day after the game does it?........ let alone enough for them to jump them.

(08-14-2015 03:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 10:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  Currently under consideration by the NCAA are changes to the current scheduling rules which allow conferences with 12 or more teams to stage a single championship game pitting their two division winners, and require that each division play a full round robin.

I have a few suggestions, as follows.

Conferences would be free to organize into divisions or not, and to determine their conference schedules without restriction.

Conferences may elect to allow their members to schedule one preseason game against an FCS team in week zero which does not count against their 12 permitted games. This game is unofficial, and doesn’t count in any standings or statistics.

If this option is chosen, conference teams can’t schedule an FCS team in the regular season. If it’s not chosen, then conference teams may schedule FCS teams during the season which count against their 12 permitted games, and count one FCS win toward bowl eligibility. This is a conference option, not an individual school option.

Conferences with 8-9 football members:
Must play a full round robin league schedule, and may not also hold a conference championship game.

With 10-15 members:
May either play a full round robin schedule with no championship game or, with less than a full round robin schedule, have a single championship game, with participants chosen at discretion of the conference.

With 16 or more members:
May have championship playoff of up to two games with participants chosen at the discretion of the conference.

All conference championships must be decided by December 7th.

Thoughts?

I'd go with something like this:

- conference must have a minimum of 8 teams, no maximum

- a minimum of eight conference games must be played by every conference member, no maximum

- no conference team may play another conference team more than once in the regular season

- every conference team must play every other conference team in a timely manner (ie, you can't have team X avoid team Y for 10 years ... not exactly sure how to word this most generally)

- divisions are not required, but if used then all teams must be in a division and any division may not have less than six members

- it is NOT required that division teams play a round robin schedule within the division

- a Conference Championship Game may be played after the last week of the regular season, if the conference chooses

-- if divisions are not used, then the conference may select any two teams for the CCG

-- if divisions are used, then the CCG teams must be division champions (per tie breakers, if needed)

Not sure why you want to insist that each division have 6 teams. In a 15 team conference, 3 5-team divisions might work better. Frankly, Im for allowing any system a conference wants. If conferences want to rig schedules---fine---let them do it. It wont last long once the selection committee catches onto the purposely watered down schedules. First time a school is passed over for the playoff because its schedule was artificially weakened the practice will end.

Nothing wrong with regulations. No need to let a conference rig its schedule, that's a waste of time.

Divisions should be an even split of the conference.

If you want to have weird "pods" or whatever, then just keep the conference division-less and schedule the teams however you'd like, provided that all teams play all other teams in a timely manner and the other criteria are satisfied.

Pods---divisions---multiple divisions--no divisions at all----what difference does it make? If you believe there is a shortage of "regulations" at the NCAA level, then we can end this debate now. I assure you, allowing conferences to do whatever they want with respect to creating their divisions, their schedules, or determining the two CCG participants will not damage the game in any way.

Prior to 1990's there were no CCG's. The only reason 12 teams were required to have a CCG was because it suited the Pennsylvania State Athletics Conference when they proposed the legislation. The truth is, the original proposal was for 14---but another conference (The Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association) found out about the proposal and thought it might work well for their conference as well--but they only had 12 members. They made a quick phone call to the PSAC and requested that the proposal be modified to 12 so the CIAA could use it too. That's the ENTIRE sum total of research that was put into determining that number. Zero. I was done because a pair of D-2 conferences needed it to be 12 so they could both use it. Funny thing is--neither even used it. It was passed in 1987, but it wasn't until 1990 when an FBS conference decided to take advantage of the forgotten rule allowing a CCG.

The reality? CCG's and divisions are not part of some long college tradition. They are a relatively recent addition that college football did just fine without for over 100 year prior to their implementation. Back in the day, the conferences regulated schedules, the number of scholarships allowed, and ALL the rules used to determine who won their conference. They are perfectly capable of determining how their champion will be named without any help from the NCAA. Their fans will force them to keep it reasonable. The NCAA wont need to be involved.

The fact is, a proposal allowing conferences full control over how their champ determined IS tradition. The current arbitrary rules controlling CCG's is NOT tradition---its actually just the opposite. The only thing that needs to be kept from the current legislation is the right to play a 13th game to determine the conference champ. The rest of the CCG rules need to be left in the dumpster.

More regulations than just allowing a CCG are worthwhile and meaningful.

Preventing a conference from rigging its schedule, for example, is a valid reason to put the ink on paper. Maybe it never ends up being needed, but it also prevents the possibility in the first place. And all it cost was a little ink. That's worth it.

Why are people so scared of regulations?

Must be strict adherence to an ideology.

Obviously not driven from recognizing the practicality of it.

Would it have been better that people on the selection committee did not have any type of connections with any schools in the FBS level? The SEC have been overrank the past several years. Alabama, Florida State, Oregon and Ohio State have been over rank. I may have rank it as this way.

1.TCU
2.Baylor
3.Oregon
4.Alabama
5.Ohio State
6.Florida State

Florida State played nobody really. They almost lost to schools who almost lost to G5 schools, or were beaten by G5 schools. Alabama, Oregon and Florida State were exposed as posers as they were.