|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Nov 27, 2017 10:30:10 GMT
Bevo: “There are NO RULES... NONE... that prevent a G5 team from qualifying for the CFP.”
FHF: The excessive emphasis on SOS together with the ban on consideration of MOV makes it impossible to evaluate teams on merit based upon how well they play vs. who they play. The CFP is blind to occasions where decisive wins over weaker opponents have greater merit than close wins over a stronger opponents. Those rules together prevent a G5 team from qualifying from the CFP. Not surprisingly, no one took up the challenge of the series of questions I posed in reply to James Howell in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Nov 27, 2017 14:18:41 GMT
Well, if UCF does win out it will draw some name brand P5 club team which will certainly pound UCF...therefore lets have a serious wager $$$$$ and I expect about 35 points and UCF since you're reasonably certain that UCF will get pounded. Can't wait. LSU was supposed to pound something called Troy. You said getting pounded was mythical, so I will spot you 35 mythical points.
If you are so confident, let's wager straight up...you don't need any points.
C'mon CPA, mythical, my ass...you brought up how the hyped name brands would pound UCF so have confidence in your claim and lay the points if UCF makes the new Years Six. I'll let you off with UCF + 30 vs any P5 they draw. Three wager proposals : A) UCF + 30 loses, I'll send you $100. UCF +30 wins you change your avatar to a UD BLUE HEN ( like Evil honorably did ) B) UCF + 30 loses I'll send you $100. UCF +30 wins you burn your NRA membership card and don't renew. C) $1000 cash based on UCF + 30 ( easy $ for you since the real teams will 'pound' UCF by at least 45 points) Take your choice
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Nov 27, 2017 14:57:32 GMT
You said getting pounded was mythical, so I will spot you 35 mythical points.
If you are so confident, let's wager straight up...you don't need any points.
C'mon CPA, mythical, my ass...you brought up how the hyped name brands would pound UCF so have confidence in your claim and lay the points if UCF makes the new Years Six. I'll let you off with UCF + 30 vs any P5 they draw. Three wager proposals : A) UCF + 30 loses, I'll send you $100. UCF +30 wins you change your avatar to a UD BLUE HEN ( like Evil honorably did ) B) UCF + 30 loses I'll send you $100. UCF +30 wins you burn your NRA membership card and don't renew. C) $1000 cash based on UCF + 30 ( easy $ for you since the real teams will 'pound' UCF by at least 45 points) Take your choice Cuts both ways...you are certain they won't get pounded, then you don't need points. Here's the chance to prove on the field UCF belongs in the playoff as an undefeated team. Looks like they might get UGA in the Peach Bowl. These type matchups depend on whether UGA is interested or not..
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 27, 2017 15:10:43 GMT
Not surprisingly, no one took up the challenge of the series of questions I posed in reply to James Howell in this thread. There's no point in answering rhetorical questions. No rule, not one... preventing a G5 team from being accepted into the CFP. It can happen... likely even will happen.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Nov 28, 2017 0:52:49 GMT
Not surprisingly, no one took up the challenge of the series of questions I posed in reply to James Howell in this thread. There's no point in answering rhetorical questions. No rule, not one... preventing a G5 team from being accepted into the CFP. It can happen... likely even will happen. Do you know what a “rhetorical question” is? The real reason no one will answer any of my questions is because truthful answers would expose the CFP as a fraud. Of course, I didn’t actually expect any truthful answers. “...likely even will happen”? You are quite the comedian!! It is impossible, and you know it. Anytime in the future a G5 team goes undefeated, I predict a united chorus of CFP apologists saying, “yeah, but look at who they played”:
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 28, 2017 1:56:14 GMT
There's no point in answering rhetorical questions. No rule, not one... preventing a G5 team from being accepted into the CFP. It can happen... likely even will happen. Do you know what a “rhetorical question” is? Of course, I didn’t actually expect any ...answers. Yes.... And you just proved I was correct.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Nov 28, 2017 8:52:40 GMT
Not quite — but I’ll gladly accept your characterization that my questions were rhetorical. A rhetorical question is one in which the point being implied is accepted as true.
Example: What if the best team has a weak schedule? The accepted truth: The best team should have an opportunity to compete for whatever championship, regardless of its schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 28, 2017 14:35:08 GMT
Not quite — but I’ll gladly accept your characterization that my questions were rhetorical. A rhetorical question is one in which the point being implied is accepted as true.Example: What if the best team has a weak schedule? The accepted truth: The best team should have an opportunity to compete for whatever championship, regardless of its schedule. Not quite.. "A rhetorical question is a question that you ask without expecting an answer. The question might be one that does not have an answer. It might also be one that has an obvious answer but you have asked the question to make a point, to persuade or for literary effect."The primary definition is: a question that is asked without expecting an answer. You confirmed that. They can also be questions where the answers are "known"...not necessarily "True". We ALL know what answers YOU think are correct. You've made the same banal points a zillion times here. I don't agree with you on those, and I don't think many others here do either. If they do, they've missed plenty of opportunities on this board to agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Nov 28, 2017 15:53:36 GMT
Wrong.
Each question is easy to answer. The problem is that the correct answers expose the inherent bias, inequities and unfairness intentionally built into the CFP.
Let me simplify one question for you. Multiple choice: Should the best team in college football have the opportunity to compete for the CFP national championship? A. Yes B. It depends
The correct answer is A: yes. Do you agree?
Here are the questions I posed to James Howell, together with the correct answers:
What if the best team in FBS plays a weak schedule? Should the best team in FBS be denied an opportunity to compete in the CFP? Answer: no
What if a few years back UCF had scheduled away games for 2017 at Nebraska, at Oregon State, at FSU and at Baylor, and won all four games? Answer: UCF should not be penalized for scheduling such weak OOC opponents, but rather upon how well it plays vs. the opponents on its schedule.
Should the measure be a team’s schedule or how it performs vs. the teams on its schedule? Answer: solely upon how it performs vs. the teams on its schedule, regardless of the strength of its schedule.
Is it possible for a dominating win over a weaker opponent to be more impressive than a close win over a stronger opponent? Answer: yes.
What have we learned from the NYD games between G5 teams with weak schedules and P5 teams with strong schedules? Answer: overall, teams from G5 conferences have proved to be marginally superior to the teams from P5 conferences they have faced in NYD bowl games.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Nov 28, 2017 17:33:01 GMT
Wrong. Each question is easy to answer. The problem is that the correct answers expose the inherent bias, inequities and unfairness intentionally built into the CFP. Let me simplify one question for you. Multiple choice: Should the best team in college football have the opportunity to compete for the CFP national championship? A. Yes B. It depends The correct answer is A: yes. Do you agree? Here are the questions I posed to James Howell, together with the correct answers: What if the best team in FBS plays a weak schedule? Should the best team in FBS be denied an opportunity to compete in the CFP? Answer: no maybeWhat if a few years back UCF had scheduled away games for 2017 at Nebraska, at Oregon State, at FSU and at Baylor, and won all four games? Answer: UCF should not be penalized for scheduling such weak OOC opponents, but rather upon how well it plays vs. the opponents on its schedule. nopeShould the measure be a team’s schedule or how it performs vs. the teams on its schedule? Answer: solely upon how it performs vs. the teams on its schedule, regardless of the strength of its schedule. nopeIs it possible for a dominating win over a weaker opponent to be more impressive than a close win over a stronger opponent? Answer: yes. agreeWhat have we learned from the NYD games between G5 teams with weak schedules and P5 teams with strong schedules? Answer: overall, teams from G5 conferences have proved to be marginally superior to the teams from P5 conferences they have faced in NYD bowl games. marginally superior, is that like getting a little bit pregnant? In 2016, the G5 was 18-76 / .191 against the P5 (19-80 / .192 if you include bowls).
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Nov 28, 2017 17:36:54 GMT
Quarter final playoff games this weekend...
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 28, 2017 17:51:04 GMT
Not wrong.. every word I said was 100% correct. Let me simplify one question for you. Multiple choice: Should the best team in college football have the opportunity to compete for the CFP national championship? That's a silly question based on a false premise: That it is possible to know who the "best team" is? How is anyone supposed to know? Best team when? At the end of the season? Over the season as a whole? Anyway.... you should take solace in knowing the CFP committee is charged with selecting the "Best Teams". So, as best as is humanly possible, they are doing what you ask. From their charter: www.collegefootballplayoff.com/documents/2017/10/20//CFP_Selection_Committee_Protocol.pdf?id=23
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Nov 28, 2017 19:38:44 GMT
The question was hypothetical, where the “best team” was a given.
I think that you won’t answer this hypothetical question because you would have to admit your obvious bias and acceptance of the discrimination against G5 conferences teams.
The CFP’s lofty stated goal of selecting the four best teams is betrayed by its rules, which effectively prohibit any consideration of teams with weaker schedules that perform at levels expected only of the very top P5 teams. The exaggerated emphasis on SOS and prohibition of consideration of MOV effectively blocks any opportunity for any deserving G5 conferences team to earn an opportunity to compete in the CFP.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the CFP limiting its final four to teams from P5 conferences. All I ask is the CFP doesn’t go through with the false pretense that the playoff is open to all FBS teams.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Nov 28, 2017 20:37:42 GMT
C'mon CPA, mythical, my ass...you brought up how the hyped name brands would pound UCF so have confidence in your claim and lay the points if UCF makes the new Years Six. I'll let you off with UCF + 30 vs any P5 they draw. Three wager proposals : A) UCF + 30 loses, I'll send you $100. UCF +30 wins you change your avatar to a UD BLUE HEN ( like Evil honorably did ) B) UCF + 30 loses I'll send you $100. UCF +30 wins you burn your NRA membership card and don't renew. C) $1000 cash based on UCF + 30 ( easy $ for you since the real teams will 'pound' UCF by at least 45 points) Take your choice Cuts both ways...you are certain they won't get pounded, then you don't need points. Here's the chance to prove on the field UCF belongs in the playoff as an undefeated team. Looks like they might get UGA in the Peach Bowl. These type matchups depend on whether UGA is interested or not.. no, no, no "pounding ' is points !..lots of points!. You feel certain of a pounding by lots of points. Back it up. Easy money if you're certain of a "pounding"Seeing how UGA scored 6 points in its last bowl game vs UCF maybe it will try to dodge UCF again
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Nov 28, 2017 21:01:23 GMT
The question was hypothetical, where the “best team” was a given. I think that you won’t answer this hypothetical question because you would have to admit your obvious bias and acceptance of the discrimination against G5 conferences teams. The CFP’s lofty stated goal of selecting the four best teams is betrayed by its rules, which effectively prohibit any consideration of teams with weaker schedules that perform at levels expected only of the very top P5 teams. The exaggerated emphasis on SOS and prohibition of consideration of MOV effectively blocks any opportunity for any deserving G5 conferences team to earn an opportunity to compete in the CFP. Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the CFP limiting its final four to teams from P5 conferences. All I ask is the CFP doesn’t go through with the false pretense that the playoff is open to all FBS teams. I won't answer it because I don't even know what "best team" means? It's an exercise in futility. Who needs that? I don't deny that G5 conference teams have a MUCH harder path to the CFP than P5 teams do. But, I don't accept that it's impossible for one of them to make it. The problem, as I see it, isn't inherent bias by the committee against P5 teams. The problem is, in general, the G5 conferences are NOT ON PAR with the P5 conferences in terms of resources and overall talent. If the NCAA were not so feckless and irrelevant, they would split the FBS conferences into two, along the very obvious and logical boundary. Then, it would be much easier for each group to compete on a totally fair basis for consideration in post-season competition. Instead the NCAA tries to funnel two disparate groups into one, VERY LIMITED playoff format.... guess what? It sucks for the conferences at the bottom. Big surprise. As it is now, the committee is supposed to pick the "Best 4 teams" from among a group of teams having a "legitimate claim" to being the best. Since very few of the teams actually play against each other, the ONLY method for the committee to decide is, by analysis of available data. SOS is one of the key pieces of this analysis. Not the only piece, but an important one. That automatically puts the G5 teams at a disadvantage because their schedules are naturally substantially weaker. P5 teams have the freedom to improve their SOS by scheduling games against good P5 programs. Of course, that's difficult because a) It's not that easy to predict WHO will be good 5 years in the future, and b) if they do schedule a good P5 team, they're PROBABLY going to lose. It's NOT easy for them. But then, it's not actually "easy" for anyone to make it. Only 4 do, from the 130 or so potentials? I could see a G5 team (like Houston last year)... building a solid program for a few consecutive years, having a good coach, recruiting some good players.... managing to beat a TOP P5 program (or two) in OOC games, running the table in their own league plus having a few of the P5 conferences get mired in parity and produce 2-loss Champions... and then having the Committee select a G5 team. Note: There were G5 conference officials involved in the CFP setup, they have representation on the committee. I actually think the committee would WELCOME the opportunity to legitimately select a G5 school, if one were qualified. That would forever remove any potential for anti-trust prosecution. The problem is: There haven't been any G5 teams, yet, that have been able to run that gauntlet. I am extremely confident that, given enough time, one will do it. But, it's a tough road. One made even harder by that fact that, when good G5 coaches come along, they get snatched away by P5 schools with gobs of money to offer. I'm sympathetic to the plight of the G5 teams. But, I'm not ready to radically change the structure of P5 college football, just to give the G5 teams a better chance.
|
|