(03-05-2018 11:44 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:10 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In 2001 Goran Ivanisevic was ranked 125th in the world when he won Wembleton

Fair point, but Goran was a 3-time Wimbledon runner-up before winning that title. He obviously had the skills to do damage at Wimbledon.

So like a former Fiesta Bowl winner might be seen as legitimate?

In a word, no. Fiesta Bowl was won four years earlier with totally different personnel, coaches, etc.

UCF did have a chance to win the playoff, but their chance was around 1 in 100, maybe 1 in 50. Probably 4 or 5 other teams with better chances were also left out, starting with Ohio State. The current playoffs aren't ideal, as there probably are 3-4 teams left out each year that conceivably could win. Eight teams would be better, for sure.

But re UCF specifically, their odds weren't enough to get excited about in terms of the validity of the playoffs. Heck, none of those other teams have complained.

(03-05-2018 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

You've never heard of the US Open golf tournament? If you have $200 and 1.4 or better handicap index you can pay your entry fee at a local tournament and earn your way to play against the very best. The tournament has twice been won by people coming out of local and sectional qualifying. In 2012 a local and sectional qualifier placed fourth. In 2012 two collegiate golfers made it through local and sectional to tie for 16th.

The way the CFP is designed, a G5 cannot earn the right to play in the field of four absent a freak year of P5 chaos.

The US Open isn't any more prestigious than The Masters, and the Masters doesn't have an "Open" style admissions process.

Point is, a championship event doesn't have to offer a straight path for everyone in order to be a valid championship.

And of course, the P5 conferences aren't guaranteed admission to the playoffs either, just ask the B1G and PAC champs this past season. Yet you don't hear them whining about it.

Which is utterly irrelevant since the claim was there was no such all comers event.
We also have the US Open Cup soccer tournament the third oldest tournament in any sport where basically any team in USSF can compete against the pros. An amatuer team made the round of 32 in the 99 team event and the more prestigious FA Cup is open to all member clubs in England.

College Football is probably the only sport where you can go undefeated and not win the title.

(03-06-2018 01:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

You've never heard of the US Open golf tournament? If you have $200 and 1.4 or better handicap index you can pay your entry fee at a local tournament and earn your way to play against the very best. The tournament has twice been won by people coming out of local and sectional qualifying. In 2012 a local and sectional qualifier placed fourth. In 2012 two collegiate golfers made it through local and sectional to tie for 16th.

The way the CFP is designed, a G5 cannot earn the right to play in the field of four absent a freak year of P5 chaos.

The US Open isn't any more prestigious than The Masters, and the Masters doesn't have an "Open" style admissions process.

Point is, a championship event doesn't have to offer a straight path for everyone in order to be a valid championship.

And of course, the P5 conferences aren't guaranteed admission to the playoffs either, just ask the B1G and PAC champs this past season. Yet you don't hear them whining about it.

Which is utterly irrelevant since the claim was there was no such all comers event.

It doesn't matter if there are. Point is, there also aren't, and those 'aren't' events aren't regarded as "shams" or invalid as a result.

(03-06-2018 08:11 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  College Football is probably the only sport where you can go undefeated and not win the title.

Yes, but there's a good reason for that: Without 100% impartial third-party creation of schedules, there's no competitive/rational imperative for there to be a structure that says if you go unbeaten you have to win the title.

You can have that structure if you want, like in college hoops, but it isn't an imperative the way it is in the NFL, NBA, etc. Because if you are crafting part of your own schedule, that is self-dealing and going unbeaten against it doesn't necessarily prove anything versus teams you didn't play.

Since the only parts of a schedule that are impartially created are the conference schedules, you can argue that college football should have a structure where conference champs get auto-bids, and we don't have that.

But FWIW, we don't have it for the P5 either, not just for the G5.

obviously they deserved a shot!! it would have been one thing if they didn't play any one. But they played and beat 4 ranked teams. You can throw in navy to make it five ( they were ranked for a part of the season) this is not a WMU team that didn't play anyone..
The flat out disrespect that they got from the committee didn't help either..

While many on this forum would like to think the given a chance something special may have happened. It’s equally as likely that UCF could have been crushed and we’d have been talking about how the committee needs to maintain the integrity of the process by picking the best four.

It’s not perfect but the committee is supposed to pick the top four teams and the way the playoff shook out it looks like they did.

(03-06-2018 09:20 AM)Huskypride Wrote:  obviously they deserved a shot!! it would have been one thing if they didn't play any one. But they played and beat 4 ranked teams. You can throw in navy to make it five ( they were ranked for a part of the season) this is not a WMU team that didn't play anyone..
The flat out disrespect that they got from the committee didn't help either..

Remember, it wasn't just the committee that thought UCF didn't deserve a shot, every other ranking system felt the same way: AP poll, Coaches poll, aggregate of old BCS computers, Massey Composite - all had UCF out of the top 4.

In fact, they all had UCF out of the top 4 *after* the bowl games.

IMO, yes, in an ideal world, UCF deserved a shot, just like all the other conference champions did. But for a 4-team playoff, they didn't.

(03-06-2018 09:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  While many on this forum would like to think the given a chance something special may have happened. It’s equally as likely that UCF could have been crushed and we’d have been talking about how the committee needs to maintain the integrity of the process by picking the best four.

It’s not perfect but the committee is supposed to pick the top four teams and the way the playoff shook out it looks like they did.

I don't think they should have been chosen as one of the top four teams. I think the playoffs need to be expanded and changed so that they would have the chance.

(03-06-2018 09:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  While many on this forum would like to think the given a chance something special may have happened. It’s equally as likely that UCF could have been crushed and we’d have been talking about how the committee needs to maintain the integrity of the process by picking the best four.

It’s not perfect but the committee is supposed to pick the top four teams and the way the playoff shook out it looks like they did.

Then they should have been seeded low in a proper playoff with autobids and crushed.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(03-06-2018 09:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  While many on this forum would like to think the given a chance something special may have happened. It’s equally as likely that UCF could have been crushed and we’d have been talking about how the committee needs to maintain the integrity of the process by picking the best four.

It’s not perfect but the committee is supposed to pick the top four teams and the way the playoff shook out it looks like they did.

a solid amount of playoff semis have been blowouts...they still should have gotten a chance



2014–15 Rose Bowl 2 Oregon vs 3 Florida State 59–20 Rose Bowl Stadium, Pasadena, California
Sugar Bowl 4 Ohio State vs 1 Alabama 42–35 Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana
2015–16 Orange Bowl vs 1 Clemson 4 Oklahoma 37–17 Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, Florida
Cotton Bowl 2 Alabama vs 3 Michigan State 38–0 AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas
2016–17 Fiesta Bowl vs 2 Clemson 3 Ohio State 31–0 University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona
Peach Bowl 1 Alabama vs 4 Washington 24–7 Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia
2017–18 Rose Bowl 3 VS Georgia 2 Oklahoma 54–48 (2OT) Rose Bowl Stadium, Pasadena, California
Sugar Bowl 4 Alabama 1 Clemson 24–6 Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_Playoff

(03-06-2018 09:34 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 09:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  While many on this forum would like to think the given a chance something special may have happened. It’s equally as likely that UCF could have been crushed and we’d have been talking about how the committee needs to maintain the integrity of the process by picking the best four.

It’s not perfect but the committee is supposed to pick the top four teams and the way the playoff shook out it looks like they did.

I don't think they should have been chosen as one of the top four teams. I think the playoffs need to be expanded and changed so that they would have the chance.

That's a more than fair point.

(03-06-2018 10:22 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 09:21 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  While many on this forum would like to think the given a chance something special may have happened. It’s equally as likely that UCF could have been crushed and we’d have been talking about how the committee needs to maintain the integrity of the process by picking the best four.

It’s not perfect but the committee is supposed to pick the top four teams and the way the playoff shook out it looks like they did.

Then they should have been seeded low in a proper playoff with autobids and crushed.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I think that's conflating two separate issues.

Auto-bids are something that stands completely and separately apart from the idea of the playoff itself--even an expanded one.

Auto-bids are just charity.

Alabama was selected for the playoff 4 spot because of bias.

The only way to get rid of bias in an FBS playoff is for autobids for conference champs.

If you don't like the playoff games, don't watch them. We already don't watch the majority of the bowl games which mean nothing. Banning teams in the division from ever playing for a national championship borders on racketeering. It is criminal.

(03-06-2018 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 01:30 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 10:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

You've never heard of the US Open golf tournament? If you have $200 and 1.4 or better handicap index you can pay your entry fee at a local tournament and earn your way to play against the very best. The tournament has twice been won by people coming out of local and sectional qualifying. In 2012 a local and sectional qualifier placed fourth. In 2012 two collegiate golfers made it through local and sectional to tie for 16th.

The way the CFP is designed, a G5 cannot earn the right to play in the field of four absent a freak year of P5 chaos.

The US Open isn't any more prestigious than The Masters, and the Masters doesn't have an "Open" style admissions process.

Point is, a championship event doesn't have to offer a straight path for everyone in order to be a valid championship.

And of course, the P5 conferences aren't guaranteed admission to the playoffs either, just ask the B1G and PAC champs this past season. Yet you don't hear them whining about it.

Which is utterly irrelevant since the claim was there was no such all comers event.

It doesn't matter if there are. Point is, there also aren't, and those 'aren't' events aren't regarded as "shams" or invalid as a result.

Well I wasn't arguing that they were only responding to the claim no such event existed.

(03-06-2018 12:05 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Alabama was selected for the playoff 4 spot because of bias.

The only way to get rid of bias in an FBS playoff is for autobids for conference champs.

If you don't like the playoff games, don't watch them. We already don't watch the majority of the bowl games which mean nothing. Banning have of the division from ever playing for a national championship borders on racketeering. It is criminal.

I survived a system where the presumed #3 had no opportunity that replaced a system where under the right circumstances #5 could win it all (see Miami-Nebraska Orange Bowl).

CFP is a step in the proper direction but it shouldn't be the finish line.

(03-06-2018 12:05 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Alabama was selected for the playoff 4 spot because of bias.

The only way to get rid of bias in an FBS playoff is for autobids for conference champs.

If you don't like the playoff games, don't watch them. We already don't watch the majority of the bowl games which mean nothing. Banning teams in the division from ever playing for a national championship borders on racketeering. It is criminal.

You act like P5 leagues have auto-bids to the playoffs, but they don't. Nobody does, it's all up to the committee. Just ask the PAC and B1G this year, two of the three most powerful conferences. They sat out just like UCF.

The committee has to make the best choices it can given the limits it faces, namely four slots to fill, and the available evidence.

By all accounts, they've done a good job, as their selections comport with the human polls, the computers, everything.

(03-06-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 12:05 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Alabama was selected for the playoff 4 spot because of bias.

The only way to get rid of bias in an FBS playoff is for autobids for conference champs.

If you don't like the playoff games, don't watch them. We already don't watch the majority of the bowl games which mean nothing. Banning teams in the division from ever playing for a national championship borders on racketeering. It is criminal.

You act like P5 leagues have auto-bids to the playoffs, but they don't. Nobody does, it's all up to the committee.

The committee has to make the best choices it can given the limits it faces, namely four slots to fill, and the available evidence.

By all accounts, they've done a good job, as their selections comport with the human polls, the computers, everything.

Circular logic.
Computer rankings can influence how poll voters vote. Once the committee votes their released polls can influence the other voters as well and committee is given the computer results in making their votes.

(03-06-2018 01:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 12:05 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Alabama was selected for the playoff 4 spot because of bias.

The only way to get rid of bias in an FBS playoff is for autobids for conference champs.

If you don't like the playoff games, don't watch them. We already don't watch the majority of the bowl games which mean nothing. Banning teams in the division from ever playing for a national championship borders on racketeering. It is criminal.

You act like P5 leagues have auto-bids to the playoffs, but they don't. Nobody does, it's all up to the committee.

The committee has to make the best choices it can given the limits it faces, namely four slots to fill, and the available evidence.

By all accounts, they've done a good job, as their selections comport with the human polls, the computers, everything.

Circular logic.
Computer rankings can influence how poll voters vote. Once the committee votes their released polls can influence the other voters as well and committee is given the computer results in making their votes.

It's not circular. First, the computers aren't influenced by anything but the inputs, the performance numbers.

Poll voters will rely on a variety of sources - games they watch, games they read about, computer rankings, what others are saying about teams, etc. They rely on the available evidence too.

The one idea with no traction is the notion that the CFP determines the AP and coaches polls. For the only CFP vote hat matters, the final one, the AP and Coaches come out first.

There just isn't any ranking system in creation that is going to have Alabama behind Arkansas State, if you believe it's because of 'circular logic' you're deluding yourself.

(03-06-2018 01:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 01:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-06-2018 12:05 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Alabama was selected for the playoff 4 spot because of bias.

The only way to get rid of bias in an FBS playoff is for autobids for conference champs.

If you don't like the playoff games, don't watch them. We already don't watch the majority of the bowl games which mean nothing. Banning teams in the division from ever playing for a national championship borders on racketeering. It is criminal.

You act like P5 leagues have auto-bids to the playoffs, but they don't. Nobody does, it's all up to the committee.

The committee has to make the best choices it can given the limits it faces, namely four slots to fill, and the available evidence.

By all accounts, they've done a good job, as their selections comport with the human polls, the computers, everything.

Circular logic.
Computer rankings can influence how poll voters vote. Once the committee votes their released polls can influence the other voters as well and committee is given the computer results in making their votes.

It's not circular. First, the computers aren't influenced by anything but the inputs, the performance numbers.

Poll voters will rely on a variety of sources - games they watch, games they read about, computer rankings, what others are saying about teams, etc. They rely on the available evidence too.

The one idea with no traction is the notion that the CFP determines the AP and coaches polls. For the only CFP vote hat matters, the final one, the AP and Coaches come out first.

There just isn't any ranking system in creation that is going to have Alabama behind Arkansas State, if you believe it's because of 'circular logic' you're deluding yourself.

I have never said Arkansas State should be ranked ahead of Alabama, you want chameleon your arguments all the time to change the terms.

CFP voters get the computer results and see the polls. They vote. When they are using those to vote, it makes no sense to claim the CFP is doing a great job because their polls line up with the data they rely on to vote.

You got pointed out that your argument makes no sense so you create a strawman.