Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

[CollegeFBFan2021]

... waiting on the flow chart.

And to be fair, feel free to add the weights/measurements you use, in a bulleted legend at the bottom of the flow chart.

I will supply the info you require. There's nothing mysterious about method. I'm still trying to decipher it, however. But it should be available fairly soon. If you are curious, there should be a way to select a champion without having to muddy the waters. Like I said had Notre Dame simply participated as one of the fifteen Atlantic Coast Conference teams that they are, things would be much simpler. Admitting them as an 'at large' seems superfluous to me and is muddying the waters. We shouldn't have admitted them to the Championship a year ago. They weren't deserving, but fortunately everything came out in the wash as they were eliminated. Thank Heavens! I might add that neither Ohio St. nor Clemson were fully removed given the fact two losses are required. Meaning they might both still hold a candle to this year's proceedings. But ordinarily, neither would have advanced.
It's simply a way to give either a second chance. Relatively few teams advance. Most don't. That's the Crux of playing fir a Belt. It really narrows the field of teams. Particularly in a Championship. F.W.I.W.

 

[Tenn"cock]

If you are curious, there should be a way to select a champion without having to muddy the waters.

See folks, this is called irony. ^^^^^^

That's our word for the day... be sure and use it in a sentence.

 

[tinp]

See folks, this is called irony. ^^^^^^

That's our word for the day... be sure and use it in a sentence.

Bugs Bunny eats carrots for the irony.

 

[Preacherman]

I will supply the info you require. There's nothing mysterious about method. I'm still trying to decipher it, however. But it should be available fairly soon. If you are curious, there should be a way to select a champion without having to muddy the waters. Like I said had Notre Dame simply participated as one of the fifteen Atlantic Coast Conference teams that they are, things would be much simpler. Admitting them as an 'at large' seems superfluous to me and is muddying the waters. We shouldn't have admitted them to the Championship a year ago. They weren't deserving, but fortunately everything came out in the wash as they were eliminated. Thank Heavens! I might add that neither Ohio St. nor Clemson were fully removed given the fact two losses are required. Meaning they might both still hold a candle to this year's proceedings. But ordinarily, neither would have advanced.
It's simply a way to give either a second chance. Relatively few teams advance. Most don't. That's the Crux of playing fir a Belt. It really narrows the field of teams. Particularly in a Championship. F.W.I.W.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

View attachment 5466

It is simple as putting the onus on winning a Championship rather than backing in. I'm not sure what else to say. A Championship is essential to claiming a national title. In 2017 Alabama wasn't a conference champion. But Ohio St was eliminated. Two losses, unless said team has a measure of the Belt in tow, and Ohio St didn't, removes said team from any claim to the Belt. Pittsburgh had seven losses but ought to have been represented in some fashion. Even if it meant taking Miami, FL out. That shouldn't upset anyone. Miami, FL lost to Pittsburgh, after all, in a game they ought to have known had Belt ramifications. Given that they were in possession of it at the time. Meaning, should Clemson have beaten Pittsburgh (a hypothetical pairing that obviously never happened) a title game between Clemson and Georgia would have been sufficient. A la BCS. And, coincidental to the protocol already in place at the time.
Oklahoma and Alabama could have played in the Sugar Bowl. To me that's simpler. Fairer, easier and better for everyone involved. BCS effectively is what I'm for.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

... waiting on the flow chart.

And to be fair, feel free to add the weights/measurements you use, in a bulleted legend at the bottom of the flow chart.

As far as the method I use it's as simple as simple gets. The Belt is always passed forward along team-to-team, year-to-year. In fairness, it rarely actually is the basis for selection to a title game. That's done independently. I shouldn't have to outline which people use criteria I endorse. I think we all know who they are. Bowl representatives. They select whichever teams they feel are best suited the the Championship. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. As far as what I would like to see initiated, I would prefer a metric that follows precedent. Title games should select teams in the playoffs, assuming we are heading down that road. Assuming we aren't, then I am suggesting we maintain the BCS as previously outlined. People who want to argue against it are faced with a dilemma. The BCS seems satisfactory to the condition of a national championship. I think that's worth mentioning again. Playoffs haven't made it easier for anyone not already included in the BCS. So why expand the playoff?

 

[Preacherman]

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

View attachment 5470

We are all looking for a simpler, fairer, and easier way to select a deserving national champion. I believe I know what the solution is. Fewer teams, less confusion. I am channeling my inner Tom Cruise here. From the movie Jerry Maguire. Yes, I think at times the solution isn't to keep expanding, ad infinitum. Pull back, rest easy and (dare I say it) let nature take it's course. If we've learned anything, it's that there are many solutions, and none necessarily are the ideal, but I think we can reasonably conclude (please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong) for amateur athletics, particularly Division I athletics, playoffs are ridiculous, protracted, and boring, not to mention, unnecessary. And honestly the answer is to expand? So, let me see if I understand. People are already protesting the title game as extraneous, wasteful, boring and pointless (compared to the BCS format, anyway). Yet the solution is an extended Championship, including a minimum of sixteen?
How many people truly care about the FCS National Championship? That's playoffs. I doubt anyone does. It's so much better that method? I mean assuming that's the case why aren't people running to the FCS instead of the opposite? It doesn't really make any sense to include more teams in a national championship.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

... waiting on the flow chart.

And to be fair, feel free to add the weights/measurements you use, in a bulleted legend at the bottom of the flow chart.

I mostly have isolated BYU's claim to the Belt. It wasn't what I expected. It seems to require having Florida vacate the Championship. Which I presume they do. In which case it becomes a fairly simple matter if anointing a successor, in this case Brigham Young. A resilt, curiously, of Florida being ineligible, but also a direct result of Brigham Young being capable of holding serve. Which they do for all of one game. Boston College. Boston College is the lynchpin connecting Penn St to the Championship. Oklahoma obviously claims it directly from Penn St. Brigham Young claims it from Boston College who claimed it from Syracuse. It's decidedly round-about. But I was correct in my theory that the Championship was shared between Brigham Young and Iowa. I'm mostly happy with the result. Iowa actually lost to Penn St. But that alliows BYU to pick it up on the back-end. BYU owes a debt of gratitude to a host if teams including every team that beat Iowa. Also Wisconsin who tied Iowa. It allowed for a joint (co-championship). Quite unusual, but not unprecedented. Co-championships are actually common from the standpoint no team necessarily covers all the bases but some occasionally do. 1984 isn't thst odd if we allow for the idea of a co-championship. It actually makes life better for everyone. U.C.L.A. retains the Belt. Florida retains the New York Times NC. And Brigham Young retains the Associated Press as well as the Football Foundation (AVCA).

 

[Tenn"cock]

I mostly have isolated BYU's claim to the Belt. It wasn't what I expected. It seems to require having Florida vacate the Championship. Which I presume they do. In which case it becomes a fairly simple matter if anointing a successor, in this case Brigham Young. A resilt, curiously, of Florida being ineligible, but also a direct result of Brigham Young being capable of holding serve. Which they do for all of one game. Boston College. Boston College is the lynchpin connecting Penn St to the Championship. Oklahoma obviously claims it directly from Penn St. Brigham Young claims it from Boston College who claimed it from Syracuse. It's decidedly round-about. But I was correct in my theory that the Championship was shared between Brigham Young and Iowa. I'm mostly happy with the result. Iowa actually lost to Penn St. But that alliows BYU to pick it up on the back-end. BYU owes a debt of gratitude to a host if teams including every team that beat Iowa. Also Wisconsin who tied Iowa. It allowed for a joint (co-championship). Quite unusual, but not unprecedented. Co-championships are actually common from the standpoint no team necessarily covers all the bases but some occasionally do. 1984 isn't thst odd if we allow for the idea of a co-championship. It actually makes life better for everyone. U.C.L.A. retains the Belt. Florida retains the New York Times NC. And Brigham Young retains the Associated Press as well as the Football Foundation (AVCA).

Still waiting on that "simple" flowchart...

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Still waiting on that "simple" flowchart...

It's still being invented. I doubt when I unveil it it will do much other than pique your curiosity some. With respect to Brigham Young, it would seem it (direction of the flow) is backwards. From Boston College.
A team Brigham Young necessarily had to wait to play, a consequence I suspect, of BYU not having been invited to another bowl apart from the Holiday Bowl. A game they obviously were suited to being in.
One I suspect had there been a concerted effort to host a prominent team (taking nothing away from what Michigan brought to the table) might, correctly have been thought as s competitive advantage.
But Brigham Young frequently lost Holiday Bowls. It's just that it was something of s given BYU would shine in that venue. And frequently, that in fact was the result. And that seasons Holiday Bowl was no exception.
As far as your query, it isn't hard to investigate that a Belt Championship running from Texas through Georgia ,(Cotton Bowl) preceding year, dead-ends on Army.
Army, therefore, deservedly carries a measure (vis Texas, who otherwise claim a national championship) to Georgia, to S. Carolina, to Navy, and finally to Army.
I believe the metric stalls, and necessarily has to be reto fitted. Meaning I believe there is basis through which (following retrofit) Brigham Young assumes a measure,.moving forward. A result of many teams laying claim to the championship. But none quite earning it. Florida being ineligible aids BYU.
But the reality is, like it or not (and you can investigate it for yourself) Florida does themselves no favors by losing to Georgia.
Brigham Young also lost to Georgia, but it was in 1982. And Georgia advanced to play Penn State. A game Penn State won.
Bottom line, 1984 was a perfect storm. No single event lent itself to BYU reaching a NC.
A cascade of events any one of which, kept apart might not have mattered, lent itself to Brigham Young reaching the top of the mountain. Ultimately, it was about pride. BYU played well enough to advance. After they advanced, they surrendered it to U.C.L.A. U.C.L.A. therefore unified the Belt.
It's all documented. There used to be a platform from which it was transmitted.
I'm not exactly sure who documents it now.

 

[Preacherman]

 

[Preacherman]

So what would have happened in say...........1992?

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

So what would have happened in say...........1992?

I have Notre Dame winning the Belt NC from Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl. 28-3. This can be fun if you'll allow it to be. It should be fun, anyway. It would seem the Belt is quartered again. Moving forward, anyway. Alabama (Belt NC), Texas A&M, Iowa and Georgia. Those are the primary contenders for this year's NC.
The others mostly aren't qualified. Mississippi beat Indiana and Oklahoma beat Florida. And Clemson and Ohio St. Might be considered if the field were eight.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

View attachment 5473

I have evidence supporting Brigham Young's claim to the Belt, in absentia. Meaning the game against U.C.L.A. was a Belt Championship. Interesting because it makes CFP more legitimate, in my opinion. U.C.L.A., therefore was a Belt (CFP) National Champion. That's something many people ought to be interested in talking about. These are interesting topics to discuss.IMO.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

He was a guy who came up with his own CFB ranking system called Relative Proficiency. He had strong opinions on why it is the best and only valid ranking system. Ultimately, he grew tired of people not taking him seriously so he posted his full name and address and invited people to challenge his rankings in person. He would post in all caps at times, and was a bit wordy when pitching his case.

You can make up your own mind. Is the New York Times as s publication a reputable POV? Because that's the godparents of R.P.

 

[Shower Fart]

You can make up your own mind. Is the New York Times as s publication a reputable POV? Because that's the godparents of R.P.

I guess it’s not clear to some of us then. Are you advocating for one particular ranking system as more valid then? If so,is it to the exclusion of others?

Do you view any metric as always correct, simply more correct, or more fair but not necessarily correct in some years?

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

I guess it’s not clear to some of us then. Are you advocating for one particular ranking system as more valid then? If so,is it to the exclusion of others?

Do you view any metric as always correct, simply more correct, or more fair but not necessarily correct in some years?

I don't really advocate any system. I know how to calculate relative proficiency. Which yields the intended result. Coincidental to what used to be the New York Times. At present, we are at a crossroads. Either maintain what seems to have worked (IMO) pretty darned well, or abandon it, entirely.
There might be other options to consider.
I favor one not unlike the BCS, but more practical. I know how to implement it. It might have allowed, for example, a more direct a approach to selecting teams to the national championship. A la BCS. But less formal. No committee.
The committee has worked o.k. I think most people are disappointed with CFP. Many are frustrated with it. I think the BCS was better.
Admittedly very flawed but it seemed to 'auto-correct'. A weird result of relative proficiency among other things. CFP probably isn't ideal. There need to be some changes to make it more palatable.
The thing I find most interesting, as best as I can tell, at least, apart from the very weird year of 2017, we might have had better pairings in a BCS format. That's the irony.
I think it proves the adage, less is more. Even the kids are sick of playing by the time the NC finally presents itself. Fifteen games is at least one too many.
One last comment. There will always be disagreement relative to the process. A playoff (expanded to eight, I presume) won't fix anything, unless we have rules for selection. Meaning we would (of necessity) expand to sixteen. I'm against doing that.

I outlined how to fix the problem. It's high time someone listened. Expand to eight. But include every conference championship.
1. Atlantic Coast Conference: include Cincinnati, Navy and Notre Dame.
2. Big Ten Conference: include Colorado and West Virginia.
3. Big XVI Conference: include Arkansas, Central Florida, Coastal Carolina, Liberty, Memphis, Rice,S. Methodist and Tulsa.
4. Pacific-12 Conference: include Boise St., Brigham Young, Hawaii, San Diego St. and Nevada Las Vegas.
5. Southeastern Conference: include Kansas, Tulane and Clemson.
6. Mid-American Conference: include Army, E. Carolina, Marshall and Temple.
7. Mountain West Conference: include Arkansas St., Houston, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico St., S. Alabama, S.Mississippi, Texas St. and UTEP.
8. C-USA and Sun Belt: merge, add USF.
Massachusetts: FCS.

That's eight conferences of sixteen teams.

 

[TechRaiderRider]

I don't really advocate any system. I know how to calculate relative proficiency. Which yields the intended result. Coincidental to what used to be the New York Times. At present, we are at a crossroads. Either maintain what seems to have worked (IMO) pretty darned well, or abandon it, entirely.
There might be other options to consider.
I favor one not unlike the BCS, but more practical. I know how to implement it. It might have allowed, for example, a more direct a approach to selecting teams to the national championship. A la BCS. But less formal. No committee.
The committee has worked o.k. I think most people are disappointed with CFP. Many are frustrated with it. I think the BCS was better.
Admittedly very flawed but it seemed to 'auto-correct'. A weird result of relative proficiency among other things. CFP probably isn't ideal. There need to be some changes to make it more palatable.
The thing I find most interesting, as best as I can tell, at least, apart from the very weird year of 2017, we might have had better pairings in a BCS format. That's the irony.
I think it proves the adage, less is more. Even the kids are sick of playing by the time the NC finally presents itself. Fifteen games is at least one too many.
One last comment. There will always be disagreement relative to the process. A playoff (expanded to eight, I presume) won't fix anything, unless we have rules for selection. Meaning we would (of necessity) expand to sixteen. I'm against doing that.

I outlined how to fix the problem. It's high time someone listened. Expand to eight. But include every conference championship.
1. Atlantic Coast Conference: include Cincinnati, Navy and Notre Dame.
2. Big Ten Conference: include Colorado and West Virginia.
3. Big XVI Conference: include Arkansas, Central Florida, Coastal Carolina, Liberty, Memphis, Rice,S. Methodist and Tulsa.
4. Pacific-12 Conference: include Boise St., Brigham Young, Hawaii, San Diego St. and Nevada Las Vegas.
5. Southeastern Conference: include Kansas, Tulane and Clemson.
6. Mid-American Conference: include Army, E. Carolina, Marshall and Temple.
7. Mountain West Conference: include Arkansas St., Houston, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico St., S. Alabama, S.Mississippi, Texas St. and UTEP.
8. C-USA and Sun Belt: merge, add USF.
Massachusetts: FCS.

That's eight conferences of sixteen teams.

for 16-team conferences,
would have to go to 11 conf games,
playin 7 divisional games
and rotatin the non-div 4 n 4 -

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

for 16-team conferences,
would have to go to 11 conf games,
playin 7 divisional games
and rotatin the non-div 4 n 4 -

Yeah, probably so. But there are other possibilities to consider even if the prospect of a sixteen team conferences seems too unwieldy, I think it would be a better way to select a representative. The WAC experimented with it from 1995-97.
It eventually split into two divisions. Of eight.
The WAC and the MWC. But I like the idea of a sixteen team conference. Maybe I'm alone.