re: SIAP UCF to hang a national championship banner in their stadium

quote:

---

I couldn't stop being right if I tried.

---

You wouldn't know what being right feels like... illusory superiority is a very funny thing.

quote:

---

Sure, but why pretend that the system is something it isn't?

---

What are we pretending that it "is"? You seem to enjoy asking questions and not answering them. Let's try to switch that up a bit, eh?

quote:

---

Money. These schools know there's money to be made by agreeing to it.

---

So you're saying it's beneficial for them financially to be part of a system that likely is going to make it difficult for them to play on a level basis consistently, they agreed to it, and now because said system may have potentially (didn't) worked against them, that it's somehow the system's fault?

Cake... [eat] have

Pick one.

quote:

---

Yes...absolutely. We can reevaluate when new information becomes available, and admit to making the wrong choices.

---

Cool. So is it correct to assume that Ohio State did not belong in the playoffs last year based on what we saw and other game outcomes?

UCF played Auburn in Atlanta... neutral site. Won by 7...
UGA played Auburn in Atlanta... neutral site. Won by 21...

Is it safe to say that UGA was correctly selected to make the final 4? I can't keep up with where you've got the goal posts here.

Alabama played 9 P5 teams... UCF played 1

If we get to include the UCF v Auburn game... then we also get to include the Alabama v Clemson game and the UGA v Oklahoma game...

So which team are you saying should have been left out in your scenario where we get to reevaluate and work backwards to who the correct final 4 selection is (let's call it the "Hindsight CFP Final 4")?

quote:

---

Name them.

---

InB4 claim that any usage of any form of human poll is biased and therefore not objective. Can grab some strictly computer based simulations if you prefer.

quote:

---

You wouldn't know what being right feels like

---

I suppose it's possible that I've become numb to it.

quote:

---

What are we pretending that it "is"?

---

A system that objectively determines a champion from a pool of 130 schools.

quote:

---

So you're saying it's beneficial for them financially to be part of a system that likely is going to make it difficult for them to play on a level basis consistently, they agreed to it, and now because said system may have potentially (didn't) worked against them, that it's somehow the system's fault?

---

Now? Agreeing to a shite system doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. I think a lot of people had complaints even before it was implemented.

quote:

---

Cool. So is it correct to assume that Ohio State did not belong in the playoffs last year based on what we saw and other game outcomes?

---

You tell me. I'd say it'd be dishonest if you think it didn't influence this year's rankings.

quote:

---

Is it safe to say that UGA was correctly selected to make the final 4?

---

Yes. I’ve never said otherwise.

quote:

---

Alabama played 9 P5 teams... UCF played 1

---

This point alone is meaningless.

quote:

---

So which team are you saying should have been left out in your scenario where we get to reevaluate and work backwards to who the correct final 4 selection is (let's call it the "Hindsight CFP Final 4")?

---

That depends on which criteria we decide to use. Or, I could just be my own committee and use the one that fits my desired outcome.

quote:

---

Can grab some strictly computer based simulations if you prefer.

---

Sure, do that.

So what did we learn from this post...

quote:

---

A system that objectively determines a champion from a pool of 130 schools.

---

If you want pure objectivity, you're going to have a rough go of it. I think a better description would be:

A system that *attempts* to objectively determine a champion from a pool of 130 schools.

You can disagree with the results/outcomes... people did prior to the BCS, people did with the BCS, they do now, and they will continue to do so going forward no matter what system is used in all likelihood.

quote:

---

Now? Agreeing to a shite system doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. I think a lot of people had complaints even before it was implemented.

---

What improvement needs to be made? Again, try to be specific and thorough in your responses... we wouldn't want to let anyone think that you're having trouble formulating a fully thought out opinion that can then be evaluated on its own merit.

quote:

---

You tell me. I'd say it'd be dishonest if you think it didn't influence this year's rankings.

---

The question was posed *to you* an Ohio State fan... I'm interested in your opinion, as it's significantly more interesting than a neutral party.

As to influencing this year's rankings, please elaborate. Are you saying that Ohio State was left out because of last year's results? If so, please confirm for us all. If not, please provide an alternative rationale for why this statement was made.

quote:

---

Yes. I’ve never said otherwise.

---

I didn't claim you did, I legitimately can't keep up with who has said what in which thread at this point... as I've alluded to. My interest in this discussion is less about whether UCF should or shouldn't make the claim, I'm curious about the logic of how you believe we will fairly select 4 teams objectively. I may condescend at times, but it's generally in response to your own choice of words. I'm legitimately interested in what a "better way" would be.

quote:

---

This point alone is meaningless.

---

Is it? Let's look at it differently. If we allow Bama to play UCF's schedule, in your opinion, what is the outcome? Are they undefeated through the regular season and conference championship game? If so, would they have deserved to get in over say Ohio State?

Let's pretend for a moment that they don't lose any games. Undefeated Alabama plays 1 P5, 12 G5 schools... Ohio State plays their schedule and loses to Oklahoma at home and Iowa on the road by 30+... Is Alabama's on field performance an exhibition of one of the "4 best teams" more so than Ohio State?

quote:

---

That depends on which criteria we decide to use. Or, I could just be my own committee and use the one that fits my desired outcome.

---

You define the criteria and tell me who should be in... you're the one with the grand ideas on how we improve the system to ensure objectivity. Go!

quote:

---

Sure, do that.

---

So you asked "name them" to a question of "by any objective standard..."

I offered what would probably be considered one of the most objective standards that we've had in college football to which you provide zero feedback on. Let's try it another way.

You tell me an objective standard that disproves my original statement. Again, do try to be specific about what your position is... everyone would like to see how smart you are.

quote:

---

So this all goes back to one thing. Why even bother playing the games, then? If they know enough about football to make this determination, there's no reason not to just let them lay the season out for us.

Sorry, but this is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and not something we need to consider here.

---

The "authorities" are making judgments based on games played. That's the focal point of the analysis, actually. Even pre-season rankings take into account the games played the previous season and then attempt to analyze the changes from that team. Often times the pre-season rankings are garbage, but that's exactly why games are played from that point on. It's also why the CFP rankings don't come out until later in the year; they need a large enough sample size of games played before making any judgments.

"Better" and "worse" are subjective designations by necessity given the nature of competitive sports. In order to declare "the best", you have to have some authority make that designation. In this case, UCF is trying to be their own authority rather than the CFPC, which the NCAA recognizes. So yes, we absolutely need to consider it because their authority--for better or for worse--is the only one that matters in terms of legitimacy and acceptance beyond a singular school.

quote:

---

Sure. Just because Georgia/Alabama thinks they're playing for a national championship doesn't mean much.

---

Actually it does, for the reason I just stated. The recognized authority for NCAA Div I football is the playoff selection committee. They are the ones who determine the top teams and it is that designation that matters because that results in bonuses and NCAA-sanctioned awards, titles, and trophies. Anyone can claim they are the champions (UCF), but right now the playoff committee is the only group sanctioned by the NCAA to officially recognize the top teams and crown a champion based on the outcome of the playoffs.

Georgia and Alabama don't just think they are playing for the championship, they actually are playing for it.

quote:

---

We both know that the system isn't getting changed at the request of a school like UCF.

---

They don't have to lobby the committee by themselves. They can join forces with the other schools that feel like they were slighted based on the current selection criteria and the format of the playoffs. And who knows, if they start their own grassroots marketing campaign (this stunt they are pulling is probably that very thing), they might get the attention of the NCAA by themselves, or at least with the help of the talking heads that will cover it.

quote:

---

UCF now has a common opponent with three of the four teams placed in the playoff.

---

They do now, after their bowl appearance. That was my point previously: if UCF scheduled Auburn for the regular season and beat them, they would have been given more consideration. You can't look to what happened after the playoffs were decided and say UCF got screwed; you have to look at the body of work available to the committee at the time.

quote:

---

I figured.

For starters, it's a heavy outlier for a lot of teams. Almost every reputable source has Alabama's SoS much lower than 6th. Their methods are also circular. High rankings for some teams based on nothing more than subjectivity benefit certain teams more than others.

---

That site claims to be data-driven. If you'd like to take issue with it, that's fine, but perhaps you can point out what part of their methodology you disagree with in particular. Claiming circular subjectivity is fine as long as you show where in their algorithim they are doing that and how that is different from other standards that you prefer, outlier or not.

You also didn't provide an alternative like I asked for. If you'd rather me use something else to prove that UCF didn't deserve a shot, I'd be more than happy to use it. It's up to you if you care to belabor the point further.

quote:

---

Sure, but it's also not the only thing used.

---

Right, but it has to have some weight to it because no two teams are alike and no two games are alike. It's why the transitive property doesn't work.

SoS is useful because without it, you couldn't tell which team is better in a group with the same record. If UGA went independent and beat up a bunch of Div II teams every year to go undefeated, would you say that they deserve a spot in the playoffs over a 1-loss team who played nothing but Div I schools?

UCF got "punished" because they are in a weak division and they didn't schedule any powerhouses as OOC games to have a semblance of parity to compare them against schools from traditionally better/stronger conferences. They can fix that without changing the playoff structure: they can schedule better OOC teams to play.

quote:

---

"Deserve" doesn't matter, according to the committee. I'll give that "according to the committee" now means exactly nothing, though.

---

"Deserve" was based on the criteria the committee determined for its selection and I know you know that. Based on their criteria, UCF didn't make the cut. It happens. It'll happen to some teams whether the playoff is expanded to 6 teams, 8 teams, or 25 teams.

quote:

---

It's a small enough difference that eight spots different is ridiculous, particularly when taking their resumes in wholly. We're not talking about facts, either. We're talking about nothing more than subjective rankings rotated into whatever system a particular entity feels like using.

---

What objective measure would you use to standardize different teams playing different opponents in different venues with different players available week to week (injuries, etc.) with different talent levels at different points in the season? Statistics play a heavy role in these rankings but there has to be some level of subjective eye test as well because statistics can be misleading, as well. Even computer models are programmed by people who create algorithms in a subjective way (weighting certain factors higher than others, for instance).

The bottom line is that there is no objective way to determine who is "better" and who is "worse", which is why many different factors are brought to the table and a committee of people make a judgment. The only way do away with this subjectivity is to force all Div I schools to join conferences and every conference champion gets a spot in the playoffs with maybe a couple of wild cards. Since the NCAA allows independents to exist, the current system is the type of system we have to have.

quote:

---

Well, they do have a point.

---

What point is that? Are you seriously claiming that the win/loss record is all that matters and the only thing the committee should have considered? If so, schools would be stupid not to load up on cupcakes every year.

Displaced voted for Crooked Hillary..you’re arguing with a stump dude..but an upvote for your logic and spunk

they earned it

quote:

---

This system doesn't even attempt it. It only claims to do so.

---

In your opinion... which you're not willing to expound upon. Check.

quote:

---

There is no single improvement. The multiple improvements that could be made have been discussed at length multiple times and in multiple threads. I'd recommend reading those.

---

If you have a comment where you have offered up *your opinion* on what improvements need to be made, feel free to link to them. Otherwise, a simple gist would be sufficient. For those of us who don't follow your posts religiously.

quote:

---

Cool. I'd like to hear your answer.

---

I have many outstanding questions that have been posed to you... once those have been satisfied, I'll be more than happy to provide my answer. That's how this works, right?

quote:

---

No. That isn't what I said.

---

Perfect... A concrete answer... about something that you *didn't* say. Could you clarify for everyone what you *intended to say*? Also, would you say that it's reasonable to *infer* from what you *said* that this is something that you believe?

quote:

---

Well, then I think we need a reset, either in another thread or a new post.

The choice is yours.

---

I'm not sure what a new post requires here, let alone a new thread... we're still more or less on topic given that this stemmed from discussion of UCF and their claim to a national championship or their lack of inclusion in the CFP. It was a simple question which you could have given your thoughts to... but elected not to do so.

quote:

---

You're asking the wrong questions.

Do you think this Ohio State gets in over an undefeated Alabama with any schedule?

---

In your opinion. I asked the question that I intended. More than happy to provide a response to yours once we've concluded answering all of the outstanding questions that have been asked of you.

quote:

---

The degree of objectivity is irrelevant.

---

In your opinion. "By any objective standard"... this would imply a standard that *could actually be achieved*, rather than say a hypothetical 100% objective system that has yet to be invented. It is a common phrase that is used in that manner. If you're unfamiliar with the usage, fair enough... one would simply believe that an educated man such as yourself would be well acquainted with the basic parlance of the uneducated fans of SEC football.

If you want to argue semantics, we can do that as well, but let's make sure we define what it is that with which you take objection...


























So class.. the lesson of the day is this:

DisgracedBuckeye is either unwilling or unable to take a position and provide any substantive logical argument in support of said position... When asked to do so, he will attempt to deflect, distract, or evade... This is also known as fear of failure. If one elects to not take a position and defend it, one does not "lose"... nor do they "win"... it becomes the Schrödinger's Cat of debate... instead you are both a winner and a loser, but until we learn your position, no one can answer the question.

So, basically, the undefeated team with the toughest schedule did not.