(11-29-2015 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:10 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You seem to have a notion that a CCG is a better way of choosing a champion than having a round-robin regular season. In fact, the round-robin system actually produces a conceptually more valid champion, because you prove yourself by facing all of the teams in your conference.

A CCG is actually a crutch, a second-best solution when, for whatever reason, having all the team play round-robin is not feasible.

So the notion that the committee will prefer champions crowned via a CCG to ones crowned by round-robin is not only officially untenable (there's nothing in the CFP rules that say that), it makes no sense either.

Actually, there is a very simple reason why a round-robin is an inferior method: home field advantage.

CCG are neutral site. (at least, in the big time conferences)

No question, round-robin in college football isn't perfect. As you say, it would be better if they played home and home.

But, that's still better than winning a championship without playing some teams in your conference at all, which is what we have with the CCG conferences. E.g., if Iowa wins the B1G, they would have done so without ever facing Michigan or Ohio State.

So in the end, RR is still better.

In that scenario, Iowa beat the team that beat Ohio St and for all intents and purposes beat Michigan.

That that demonstrates why CCG is better.

It demonstrates that the CCG is inferior, because Iowa's superiority over Ohio State isn't direct, it's second-hand, by inference ("we beat the team who beat the team").

But in round-robin play, you have to play everyone. You have to prove yourself the best directly, not by inference.

As for pressure, Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State WAS for the Big 12 title, and Oklahoma had to play it on the road, not a neutral setting. Even tougher.

It may have lucked out that way, this year. But in general, it's inferior because of home field advantage.


While true that Iowa didn't get to luck out and play Ohio St at home, playing Michigan St at a neutral site on the last week of the regular season is better and harder than what OU had to do.

Dude, give it up. Oklahoma has a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of making the playoffs right now. The only way they miss is if an asteroid hits the earth.

quo, just curious about one thing: why do you always fight for the XII and its current format?

Is it just for your own entertainment, to take that side - since usually only XII fans do? You're obviously not a XII fan, since you root for South Florida and Georgetown.

(11-29-2015 10:26 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Dude, give it up. Oklahoma has a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of making the playoffs right now. The only way they miss is if an asteroid hits the earth.

And no one will remember or care in a month that you made this post, if OU misses.

So why wouldn't you pretend that you have inscribed tablets sitting on your desk?

Dude you are the ONLY person who really thinks Oklahoma won't make it. Doesn't that tell you something?

stever, at least admit the following:

If the playoff ends up being Clemson, Alabama, B1G CCG winner and Stanford or B1G CCG loser ....... OU nation, President Boren included, will literally blow all of their gaskets. At once. The state of Oklahoma will be ablaze in a matter of hours.

(11-29-2015 10:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If OU played and won a CCG, I would have to admit that they would likely be in.

But they'd rather go to the beach on the last week of the season and stick their heads in the sand.

.. so as I said, what if instead of going to the beach, they played Charleston Southern or Delaware? Then they'd have your Holy Grail 13th game. Satisfied?

See how silly that is?

Your scenario is silly.

A CCG would be valid.

It's not silly. What difference does it make if you play Charleston Southern before your last conference game, like Alabama did, or after, like OU would in my scenario?

Or like Navy does, playing Army after AAC play is over?

Oklahoma vs OK State was for the conference title. They just played the game yesterday instead of next week. So what?

That's fine. It just means they're ducking the risk of playing on the last week of the season.

The committee will look down on that, as they should.

Good luck with that.

(11-29-2015 10:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Dude you are the ONLY person who really thinks Oklahoma won't make it. Doesn't that tell you something?

The only one out of ... a handful of people?

What does that prove?

(11-29-2015 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:10 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Actually, there is a very simple reason why a round-robin is an inferior method: home field advantage.

CCG are neutral site. (at least, in the big time conferences)

No question, round-robin in college football isn't perfect. As you say, it would be better if they played home and home.

But, that's still better than winning a championship without playing some teams in your conference at all, which is what we have with the CCG conferences. E.g., if Iowa wins the B1G, they would have done so without ever facing Michigan or Ohio State.

So in the end, RR is still better.

In that scenario, Iowa beat the team that beat Ohio St and for all intents and purposes beat Michigan.

That that demonstrates why CCG is better.

It demonstrates that the CCG is inferior, because Iowa's superiority over Ohio State isn't direct, it's second-hand, by inference ("we beat the team who beat the team").

But in round-robin play, you have to play everyone. You have to prove yourself the best directly, not by inference.

As for pressure, Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State WAS for the Big 12 title, and Oklahoma had to play it on the road, not a neutral setting. Even tougher.

It may have lucked out that way, this year. But in general, it's inferior because of home field advantage.


While true that Iowa didn't get to luck out and play Ohio St at home, playing Michigan St at a neutral site on the last week of the regular season is better and harder than what OU had to do.

"In general", RR is obviously better, because you have to play everyone!

And how is playing at a neutral site harder than playing on the road?

(11-29-2015 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  stever, at least admit the following:

If the playoff ends up being Clemson, Alabama, B1G CCG winner and Stanford or B1G CCG loser ....... OU nation, President Boren included, will literally blow all of their gaskets. At once. The state of Oklahoma will be ablaze in a matter of hours.

I'd admit it. But it's ******* meaningless. OU isn't getting left out. That's the bottom line. You may WANT it to happen, but the fact is, that's not reality. Stanford can't do a thing about it.

By the way ... I have absolutely NOT said that I think OU won't make it.

My main message is simply: none of you know anything, yet. So stop pretending like you do.

(11-29-2015 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  stever, at least admit the following:

If the playoff ends up being Clemson, Alabama, B1G CCG winner and Stanford or B1G CCG loser ....... OU nation, President Boren included, will literally blow all of their gaskets. At once. The state of Oklahoma will be ablaze in a matter of hours.

I'd admit it. But it's ******* meaningless. OU isn't getting left out. That's the bottom line. You may WANT it to happen, but the fact is, that's not reality. Stanford can't do a thing about it.

Maybe Stanford can't. Maybe.

But maybe Iowa can.


And yes, I do *want* it to happen.

College football needs to get down to four P conferences. That's what's best for the sport.

(11-29-2015 10:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  stever, at least admit the following:

If the playoff ends up being Clemson, Alabama, B1G CCG winner and Stanford or B1G CCG loser ....... OU nation, President Boren included, will literally blow all of their gaskets. At once. The state of Oklahoma will be ablaze in a matter of hours.

I'd admit it. But it's ******* meaningless. OU isn't getting left out. That's the bottom line. You may WANT it to happen, but the fact is, that's not reality. Stanford can't do a thing about it.

Maybe Stanford can't. Maybe.

But maybe Iowa can.


And yes, I do *want* it to happen.

College football needs to get down to four P conferences. That's what's best for the sport.

Iowa losing in the title game won't impact Oklahoma one iota. So now you're ******* holding your hat on Iowa losing the Big Ten title game- but passing Oklahoma? You are truly delusional if you believe that for a second.

(11-29-2015 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question, round-robin in college football isn't perfect. As you say, it would be better if they played home and home.

But, that's still better than winning a championship without playing some teams in your conference at all, which is what we have with the CCG conferences. E.g., if Iowa wins the B1G, they would have done so without ever facing Michigan or Ohio State.

So in the end, RR is still better.

In that scenario, Iowa beat the team that beat Ohio St and for all intents and purposes beat Michigan.

That that demonstrates why CCG is better.

It demonstrates that the CCG is inferior, because Iowa's superiority over Ohio State isn't direct, it's second-hand, by inference ("we beat the team who beat the team").

But in round-robin play, you have to play everyone. You have to prove yourself the best directly, not by inference.

As for pressure, Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State WAS for the Big 12 title, and Oklahoma had to play it on the road, not a neutral setting. Even tougher.

It may have lucked out that way, this year. But in general, it's inferior because of home field advantage.


While true that Iowa didn't get to luck out and play Ohio St at home, playing Michigan St at a neutral site on the last week of the regular season is better and harder than what OU had to do.

"In general", RR is obviously better, because you have to play everyone!

And how is playing at a neutral site harder than playing on the road?

But you might luck out and get to play the hard teams at home. So it's an inferior method.

More pressure playing at a neutral site, bowl game atmosphere on a national, prime time audience, than simply playing another regular season game at a home site.

(11-29-2015 10:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  quo, just curious about one thing: why do you always fight for the XII and its current format?

Is it just for your own entertainment, to take that side - since usually only XII fans do? You're obviously not a XII fan, since you root for South Florida and Georgetown.

I try to be as logical as I can be, despite my biases. Would I like it if the Big 12 couldn't make the playoffs without a CCG and if the NCAA wouldn't let them have a CCG unless they have 12 schools, so that they would have to expand and maybe take USF? Absolutely!

But do I think it is sensible that those things happen? No, because they aren't.

I do NOT support the current system. The current system says that the CFP is to give preference to conference champions. IMO, that is wrong. Being a conference champion is nice, but, e.g., the fact that Oklahoma is the best Big 12 team doesn't tell me anything about whether they are better than a team from any other conference, or from no conference, so why should the committee be instructed to prefer them? Nonsensical.

Heck, even WITHIN a conference, being a conference champ doesn't make you necessarily better than other teams in your conference.

So since the preference for conference champs is itself nonsensical, it would make even LESS sense to prefer champs chosen by one method, the CCG, over another, RR, especially since RR is conceptually better.

(11-29-2015 10:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  stever, at least admit the following:

If the playoff ends up being Clemson, Alabama, B1G CCG winner and Stanford or B1G CCG loser ....... OU nation, President Boren included, will literally blow all of their gaskets. At once. The state of Oklahoma will be ablaze in a matter of hours.

I'd admit it. But it's ******* meaningless. OU isn't getting left out. That's the bottom line. You may WANT it to happen, but the fact is, that's not reality. Stanford can't do a thing about it.

Maybe Stanford can't. Maybe.

But maybe Iowa can.


And yes, I do *want* it to happen.

College football needs to get down to four P conferences. That's what's best for the sport.

Iowa losing in the title game won't impact Oklahoma one iota. So now you're ******* holding your hat on Iowa losing the Big Ten title game- but passing Oklahoma? You are truly delusional if you believe that for a second.

Baylor and TCU won ... and didn't make it.

Oklahoma is at the beach, drinking beer while Iowa and Mich St beat the heck out of each other.

(11-29-2015 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  quo, just curious about one thing: why do you always fight for the XII and its current format?

Is it just for your own entertainment, to take that side - since usually only XII fans do? You're obviously not a XII fan, since you root for South Florida and Georgetown.

I try to be as logical as I can be, despite my biases. Would I like it if the Big 12 couldn't make the playoffs without a CCG and if the NCAA wouldn't let them have a CCG unless they have 12 schools, so that they would have to expand and maybe take USF? Absolutely!

But do I think it is sensible that those things happen? No, because they aren't.

I do NOT support the current system. The current system says that the CFP is to give preference to conference champions. IMO, that is wrong. Being a conference champion is nice, but, e.g., the fact that Oklahoma is the best Big 12 team doesn't tell me anything about whether they are better than a team from any other conference, or from no conference, so why should the committee be instructed to prefer them? Nonsensical.

Heck, even WITHIN a conference, being a conference champ doesn't make you necessarily better than other teams in your conference.

So since the preference for conference champs is itself nonsensical, it would make even LESS sense to prefer champs chosen by one method, the CCG, over another, RR, especially since RR is conceptually better.

The CFP shouldn't be the four conference champions of a P4.

That much we can agree on.


But getting down to a P4 would allow it to simply be four reserved slots for the best/highest ranked team from each conference. (with a special exception for Notre Dame)

(11-29-2015 10:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:30 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  stever, at least admit the following:

If the playoff ends up being Clemson, Alabama, B1G CCG winner and Stanford or B1G CCG loser ....... OU nation, President Boren included, will literally blow all of their gaskets. At once. The state of Oklahoma will be ablaze in a matter of hours.

I'd admit it. But it's ******* meaningless. OU isn't getting left out. That's the bottom line. You may WANT it to happen, but the fact is, that's not reality. Stanford can't do a thing about it.

Maybe Stanford can't. Maybe.

But maybe Iowa can.


And yes, I do *want* it to happen.

College football needs to get down to four P conferences. That's what's best for the sport.

Iowa losing in the title game won't impact Oklahoma one iota. So now you're ******* holding your hat on Iowa losing the Big Ten title game- but passing Oklahoma? You are truly delusional if you believe that for a second.

Baylor and TCU won ... and didn't make it.

Oklahoma is at the beach, drinking beer while Iowa and Mich St beat the heck out of each other.

And Oklahoma has a 100000000 times better case than either Baylor or TCU did. Baylor had a ******* cupcake schedule. TCU lost to Baylor. So Baylor with their putrid schedule was compared to Ohio St. And it wasn't close.

(11-29-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  In that scenario, Iowa beat the team that beat Ohio St and for all intents and purposes beat Michigan.

That that demonstrates why CCG is better.

It demonstrates that the CCG is inferior, because Iowa's superiority over Ohio State isn't direct, it's second-hand, by inference ("we beat the team who beat the team").

But in round-robin play, you have to play everyone. You have to prove yourself the best directly, not by inference.

As for pressure, Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State WAS for the Big 12 title, and Oklahoma had to play it on the road, not a neutral setting. Even tougher.

It may have lucked out that way, this year. But in general, it's inferior because of home field advantage.


While true that Iowa didn't get to luck out and play Ohio St at home, playing Michigan St at a neutral site on the last week of the regular season is better and harder than what OU had to do.

"In general", RR is obviously better, because you have to play everyone!

And how is playing at a neutral site harder than playing on the road?

But you might luck out and get to play the hard teams at home. So it's an inferior method.

No, it means that it depends: If the round-robin 'title' game is won by the road team, it's a superior method (on that one count) to winning at a neutral site, if the title game is won by the home team, that's inferior to having to win at a neutral site.

But that's just one issue. On the bigger issue, RR is clearly better, because you have to face all teams directly, you can't win the title without facing everyone, whereas in the CCG conferences you not only can, you will.

(11-29-2015 10:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'd admit it. But it's ******* meaningless. OU isn't getting left out. That's the bottom line. You may WANT it to happen, but the fact is, that's not reality. Stanford can't do a thing about it.

Maybe Stanford can't. Maybe.

But maybe Iowa can.


And yes, I do *want* it to happen.

College football needs to get down to four P conferences. That's what's best for the sport.

Iowa losing in the title game won't impact Oklahoma one iota. So now you're ******* holding your hat on Iowa losing the Big Ten title game- but passing Oklahoma? You are truly delusional if you believe that for a second.

Baylor and TCU won ... and didn't make it.

Oklahoma is at the beach, drinking beer while Iowa and Mich St beat the heck out of each other.

And Oklahoma has a 100000000 times better case than either Baylor or TCU did. Baylor had a ******* cupcake schedule. TCU lost to Baylor. So Baylor with their putrid schedule was compared to Ohio St. And it wasn't close.

And Oklahoma lost to a crap Texas team. Needed overtime to beat a middling Tennessee.

Then didn't play anyone for a long time, because the XII purposely made it so all it's "decent" teams didn't play each other until the end, making it give the illusion that they were all top 25 teams.

Then should've lost to TCU, with their 3rd string QB. Would've lost if Boykin played. Played Baylor with their backup QB, not the same team. And then finally an overrated Okla St team.


And last, but not least, they ducked having to play a high-pressure game on the last week of the season, while everyone else is still out there working.


Maybe it's just me (fine), but that's not really that impressive.