|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 14:45:04 GMT
You say that there are plenty of examples, yet you didn’t - or couldn’t - cite a single one. No... I didn't, this time. We're been on this merry-go-round many times in the past. I've lost interest.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 14:47:43 GMT
If championship playoffs do not determine which, from among the chosen field of competitors, is the best team, then what is the purpose? To determine a "Winner" in a post season tournament. Nothing more. If everyone involved agrees that this winner is the "Champion"? Then, terrific. It's not automatic that everyone agrees the "winner" was the "best team" in the country.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 14:51:46 GMT
Ok so a team's season accomplishments aren't good enough to earn a division championship within a conference but are good enough to make a 4 team playoff " ? Hard to find logic in that. It sounds odd, sure... but it makes sense when you consider that: - Not all conferences are equal - The conferences themselves can be extremely unbalanced in talent between divisions, and - These bloated mega-conferences do not play a balanced schedule. That's how a team like Wisconsin can float through a season without every having to play a power team in their OWN conference... at least, not until the CCG. Bama was better, overall... through the season. Despite not winning their Conference Division.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 4, 2017 14:52:59 GMT
The CFP does NOT want a 4-loss lucky team in the final four. That's one of the reasons they agreed on a committee approach. To stop that kind of crap. What if the 4-loss Kentucky team wasn’t lucky, but had evolved over the course of the season to become the best team in the SEC? Even with 4 losses, the Kentucky team would have won its division, based upon its full conference schedule. Now, suppose that the 4-loss Kentucky team had evolved and improved to become one of the 4 best teams in FBS, perhaps even the best? Even so, I can appreciate such a team not being selected for a 4-team playoff. But, what if the championship playoff field included all 10 FBS conference champions plus 6 at-large teams? In all likelihood, none of the teams that the CFP committee would have selected for a 4-team playoff would have been excluded from an opportunity to compete.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 4, 2017 14:54:53 GMT
You say that there are plenty of examples, yet you didn’t - or couldn’t - cite a single one. No... I didn't, this time. We're been on this merry-go-round many times in the past. I've lost interest. You didn’t cite a single example because you can’t cite a single example.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 14:58:44 GMT
No... I didn't, this time. We're been on this merry-go-round many times in the past. I've lost interest. You didn’t cite a single example because you can’t cite a single example. I can, I have.... go look for them if you want. That said, I don't think it's happened yet in the CFP era. It's been such a short time. So far, I think all the winners have been pretty well accepted as being "the best".
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 4, 2017 16:23:41 GMT
What if the 4-loss Kentucky team wasn’t lucky, but had evolved over the course of the season to become the best team in the SEC? That was exactly the point of the example. They might well be one of the four best teams at the end of the season. I agree with you that, teams change...especially when the players are 18-21 year old males. However, the point of all of this is to award teams that have had the best OVERALL season. The playoff, such as it is, has become a defacto tie-breaker among teams that meet the minimum requirements.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 4, 2017 16:58:56 GMT
Wrong! While it is highly unlikely that a 4-loss team could win an inclusive (16 team) FBS playoff, history has taught us that teams are anything but static over the course of a season. Some improve dramatically. Some regress dramatically. Villanova and NC State basketball proved that teams that struggle earlier in the season can evolve as the season progresses, and gel into powerhouses by the end of the season. The beauty of an inclusive 16-team playoff system, sanctioned and administered by the governing body, is that the chances of the best team not being permitted to compete for the championship are slim. We will never know whether or not Ohio State is the best team in FBS this season. Or, for that matter, UCF. If championship playoffs do not determine which, from among the chosen field of competitors, is the best team, then what is the purpose? In what universe would a team that has lost 33% of its 12 games be considered the best team? none. they all have a chance to compete, no one is restricted from competing - see Utah and Houston. they aren’t eliminated. they simply have to earn their way in. they’re not entitled to a charity spot reserved for spunky upstarts. Just like any other team. Play harder non-conf. schedule and establish a history of winning. A G5 team with a history of recent excellence not a one-year wonder could get in.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2017 6:09:10 GMT
You didn’t cite a single example because you can’t cite a single example. I can, I have.... go look for them if you want. That said, I don't think it's happened yet in the CFP era. It's been such a short time. So far, I think all the winners have been pretty well accepted as being "the best". You can’t and you haven’t. I am not going to waste my time searching in vain for something that doesn’t exist. There can be no doubt that each and every winner of the CFP has been the best of the 4 teams that competed each respective year. However, there can be no way of ever knowing if any of the winners were the best team in all of FBS. If Ohio State and/or UCF win their bowl games, doubt will inevitably be cast upon the legitimacy of this season’s CFP.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 5, 2017 6:18:16 GMT
That was exactly the point of the example. They might well be one of the four best teams at the end of the season. I agree with you that, teams change...especially when the players are 18-21 year old males. However, the point of all of this is to award teams that have had the best OVERALL season. The playoff, such as it is, has become a defacto tie-breaker among teams that meet the minimum requirements. This is the first I have ever heard of “minimum requirements”. Just what are these (supposed) minimum requirements? Is the “eyeball test” among them? To the best of my knowledge, the minimum requirements for FCS, D-II and D-III to compete in the respective NCAA football national championships are: 1. Acknowledgement by the NCAA of membership in the applicable football division or subdivision 2. Eligible to compete post-season 3. Not a member of a conference that has elected not to compete in the playoffs
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 6, 2017 12:59:42 GMT
I can, I have.... go look for them if you want. That said, I don't think it's happened yet in the CFP era. It's been such a short time. So far, I think all the winners have been pretty well accepted as being "the best". You can’t and you haven’t. I am not going to waste my time searching in vain for something that doesn’t exist. There can be no doubt that each and every winner of the CFP has been the best of the 4 teams that competed each respective year. However, there can be no way of ever knowing if any of the winners were the best team in all of FBS. If Ohio State and/or UCF win their bowl games, doubt will inevitably be cast upon the legitimacy of this season’s CFP.In your opinion. Is there really any doubt that Alabama and Clemson have been the 2 best teams over the last 3 years? We're talking elite level. Clemson is 43-3 over its last 46 - 3 losses by a total of 9 points. BAma is 42-4.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Dec 6, 2017 13:12:57 GMT
Wrong! While it is highly unlikely that a 4-loss team could win an inclusive (16 team) FBS playoff, history has taught us that teams are anything but static over the course of a season. Some improve dramatically. Some regress dramatically. Villanova and NC State basketball proved that teams that struggle earlier in the season can evolve as the season progresses, and gel into powerhouses by the end of the season. The beauty of an inclusive 16-team playoff system, sanctioned and administered by the governing body, is that the chances of the best team not being permitted to compete for the championship are slim. We will never know whether or not Ohio State is the best team in FBS this season. Or, for that matter, UCF. If championship playoffs do not determine which, from among the chosen field of competitors, is the best team, then what is the purpose? In what universe would a team that has lost 33% of its 12 games be considered the best team? none. they all have a chance to compete, no one is restricted from competing - see Utah and Houston. they aren’t eliminated. they simply have to earn their way in. they’re not entitled to a charity spot reserved for spunky upstarts. Just like any other team. Play harder non-conf. schedule and establish a history of winning. A G5 team with a history of recent excellence not a one-year wonder could get in. Bevo, that is absurdly ridiculous and you know it......."they all have a chance to to compete"
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2017 14:11:19 GMT
In what universe would a team that has lost 33% of its 12 games be considered the best team? none. they all have a chance to compete, no one is restricted from competing - see Utah and Houston. they aren’t eliminated. they simply have to earn their way in. they’re not entitled to a charity spot reserved for spunky upstarts. Just like any other team. Play harder non-conf. schedule and establish a history of winning. A G5 team with a history of recent excellence not a one-year wonder could get in. Bevo, that is absurdly ridiculous and you know it......."they all have a chance to to compete" I didn't say that, CPA did. But, I do agree with it. They all have the 'SAME' chance, in a larger macro sense. Realities of each team's current position (Conference, recent success/failure,etc... ) certainly tip the scales in one direction or the other. But, NO TEAM is compelled by any rule to stay in their current condition forever.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 6, 2017 14:12:50 GMT
You can’t and you haven’t. They say the memory is the first thing to go.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 6, 2017 14:28:25 GMT
Bevo, that is absurdly ridiculous and you know it......."they all have a chance to to compete" I didn't say that, CPA did. But, I do agree with it. They all have the 'SAME' chance, in a larger macro sense. Realities of each team's current position (Conference, recent success/failure,etc... ) certainly tip the scales in one direction or the other. But, NO TEAM is compelled by any rule to stay in their current condition forever. Has anyone ever seen Hen and Herd in the same room at the same time? Just sayin'....
|
|