Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

CollegeFBFan2021 said:
I'm still in developmental phase. But this isn't tough sledding. It's actually fairly simple. I reference Brigham Young because people still want to diminish their title claim. So my efforts are focused on whether they earned the recognition. You be the judge. I will summarize. Data inflection points.
WAC competitively is (or was) at or very near 40% relative proficiency. Yeah. That's a pretty fair approximation. 40% says 'fair'. Below average, but in the ball park of comparability. SEC teams were at or very near 70%. O.k. we can compare them.
Clearly there's a wide gap. 70% is demonstrably high. I remember Michigan averaged 70% as a BCS participant. Michigan is arguably the G.O.A.T.
Therefore, 70% also is the baseline for excellence. SEC teams are excellent!
So, we are comparing s team (Brigham Young) from a 'fair' conference against one that is demonstrably excellent.
How does BYU bridge the gap? They don't!
That's why they need an emissary. A stand-in. Fortunately there is one available. Iowa.
I already covered this but together they right any wrong perpetuated against either one.
It's really quite remarkable. It truly is.
It probably should almost never happen, yet it happened again in 2017. UCF can claim a championship If they are allowed to include Iowa. Hard to believe, yet easy to demonstrate.
Neither team (Brigham Young or Central Florida) necessarily claim a championship.
But they can lean on Iowa. In either case.
It will be interesting to see what Iowa does this season. They are among the teams on my radar as far as the national championship. I think they might surprise.
The other part I demonstrated. Brigham Young lost to Baylor in 1983. Baylor went 7-4-1 as memory serves. Making BYU an unlikely national championship contender.
But they rallied to win thirteen games!
At 2/3 comparability over the course of two seasons that's 23-1-1. Or 23.5/25 = .94 (94%).
Hardly a national champion until Iowa is represented. Iowa was 17-7-1 = 17.5 / 25 = .7 (70%).
United together:
[(.94 / 3) + (.7 / 3)] = .5467 + .5 = 1.0467 (1.05) % cumulative relative proficiency.
That's including both seasons. I excluded 1983. Which is how I got 96%. F.W.I.W.
Click to expand...

1sel5b.gif
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Assuming you are limiting your argument to hockey that's a ridiculous point given that most programs aren't involved. Making it somewhat redundant as far as it being impractical. It's impractical anyway!
The other sports would fall in line. I don't think anyone would lose money by joining an established conference.
As far as sixteen teams that is approaching a measure to which few might meet the requirements. Making it imperative the right teams are selected. I did my part.
I'm going getting tired of this discussion. I've done the homework. I guess if individual institutions are opposed that's one thung.
But don't tell me it's impractical. Hockey?
Really. Maybe it will make it possible to include hockey teams elsewhere. Why us it with you people glass half fucking empty?
Click to expand...
Ok, forget hockey, focus on football, pretend the other sports and academics don’t exist.

No one would lose money by joining an established conference but everyone IN that conference would lose money, and tons of it. Money that is used to keep most other sports teams in existence including all women’s sports.

Even if we pretend that money doesn’t matter, what does Texas gain by adding Tulsa? What does Miami or FSU gain by adding USF or UCF?

By selecting “the right teams”, you essentially end all the mid major programs that are left out. That’s why the glass is half empty, almost everyone loses.
 
Shower Fart said:
Ok, forget hockey, focus on football, pretend the other sports and academics don’t exist.

No one would lose money by joining an established conference but everyone IN that conference would lose money, and tons of it. Money that is used to keep most other sports teams in existence including all women’s sports.

Even if we pretend that money doesn’t matter, what does Texas gain by adding Tulsa? What does Miami or FSU gain by adding USF or UCF?

By selecting “the right teams”, you essentially end all the mid major programs that are left out. That’s why the glass is half empty, almost everyone loses.
Click to expand...
I assume you saw the way I reorganized it? Anyway I'm not banking on anyone losing money. Quite the opposite. I'm going to repost the way I think it ought to be done. I don't really mind the criticism. But you need to remind me again why a person isn't interested in putting together sixteen team conferences. Include hockey. It's all good
1. Atlantic Coast Conference: Include Cincinnati, Navy, and Notre Dame.
2. Big Ten Conference: include Colorado and West Virginia.
3. Big XII Conference: include Arkansas, C. Florida, Coastal Carolina, Liberty, Memphis, Rice, S. Methodudt and Tulsa.
4. Pacific 12 Conference: include Boise St., Brigham Young, Hawaii, San Diego St , Nevada Las Vegas.
5. Southeastern Conference: include Kansas, Tulane and Clemson.
6. Mid American Conference: include Army, Temple, East Carolina, 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: independent.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
3. Big XII Conference: include Arkansas, C. Florida, Coastal Carolina, Liberty, Memphis, Rice, S. Methodudt and Tulsa.
Click to expand...
would love to have arkansas come back
(old swc days)
cfu would be a good add,
esp for wvu -
but in yer model,
eers leave the conf -
so, no -
rice n smu ??
naw, already have too many tex teams -
need to kick the rapists out, too
whike we're at it -
tulsa, liberty n memphis ??
thats just dumb -
(excuse the rough language)
 
TechRaiderRider said:
would love to have arkansas come back
(old swc days)
cfu would be a good add,
esp for wvu -
but in yer model,
eers leave the conf -
so, no -
rice n smu ??
naw, already have too many tex teams -
need to kick the rapists out, too
whike we're at it -
tulsa, liberty n memphis ??
thats just dumb -
(excuse the rough language)
Click to expand...
It's o.k. I'm not the commish. I thought I had it laid out pretty well, though. Maybe you can recommend a better way that will serve the conference better. Nothing's set in stone. But I think the advantages of having s sixteen team conference outweigh any disadvantages. West Virginia seems better suited to the Big Ten Conference to me. I wouldn't have made the recommendations I did unless I thought they were suitable. Meaning I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
I'm guessing you think my ideas are worthless? Pointless? Asinine? I'm going to keep trying to push them through. F.W.I.W.
Click to expand...

I think your ideas are nonsense.... but never pointless as ultimately I just read your posts and snicker to myself.

Still waiting on the charts.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
It's o.k. I'm not the commish. I thought I had it laid out pretty well, though. Maybe you can recommend a better way that will serve the conference better. Nothing's set in stone. But I think the advantages of having s sixteen team conference outweigh any disadvantages. West Virginia seems better suited to the Big Ten Conference to me. I wouldn't have made the recommendations I did unless I thought they were suitable. Meaning I disagree with you wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...
the only way 16-team confs work,
is if they play the 7 plus alt 4 n 4 -
that only leaves 1 non-conf game -
we need several ooc games,
to assist with conf-strength eval -

10 or 12-team confs work best -
the evidence is obvious -
 
TechRaiderRider said:
the only way 16-team confs work,
is if they play the 7 plus alt 4 n 4 -
that only leaves 1 non-conf game -
we need several ooc games,
to assist with conf-strength eval -

10 or 12-team confs work best -
the evidence is obvious -
Click to expand...
Yeah that's probably the case, but maybe it's time we went away from outside conference scheduling anyway? Last year there wasn't much of it and things worked out pretty well.
I know there have been a few conferences like the SEC that prefer playing four games, outside of conference. I think they are maybe focusing on the past rather than the present. Even More Dame didn't lose anything by playing exclusively within the conference, or if they did, it wasn't much.
I think the fact that a team can play primarily conference games is an advantage.
Particularly when kids are in school. That makes everything more geographically central, still allows for an OOC pairing, like you said makes the conference pairings more of a priority and allows for in house receipts. Meaning every conference isn't obligated to someone else. But I understand that some people might not like that metric.
 
Tenn"cock said:
I think your ideas are nonsense.... but never pointless as ultimately I just read your posts and snicker to myself.

Still waiting on the charts.
Click to expand...
Yeah well that's what they call the breaks. But I have to ask, if my ideas are in fact meaningless, pointless, and asinine and who am I to suggest otherwise, then why bother reading them? I never said they were pearls if wisdom. That being said, I have the opinion (right, wrong or indifferent) they are worthwhile, fairly well thought-out, maybe a little asinine, but nevertheless productive.
I offer them as a testimony to my method.
I can offer an outline. It isn't complicated.
Quite simple, actually. Surprisingly so.
But for you to make anything from it, you will have to suspend disbelief. Simple as that.
Are you afraid by doing so there's something to be lost? I personally can't think of anything. I don't work in mystery.
I present viable solutions to workable problems.
I'll summarize. There is a Belt and it's occupied by a single entity, but several methods are required to secure it.
I've outlined the protocol. It isn't hard. A person would necessarily be mentally deficient not to follow it. That's ONE metric I utilise among many others.
I admitted not every championship necessarily falls back to the same result.
More typically than not it does. But a unique method requires a unique result and different methods yield different results.
Pretty cut and dried. If you aren't sold on my methods, don't utilise them. O.k.fine by me.
I wish I could prove to you I'm intelligent, but I guess that sort of thing is open to interpretation. Regardless of what's being debated. I can outline the metric. I'm not afraid of losing face. Usually, although not always I manage to accomplish my objective. So you might want to keep that in mind.
As far as Brigham Young, there's evidence in spades to support the position I'm maintain their position St the top of the food chain.
U.C.L.A. be exhibit A. But there are others.
Here's something to chew on. But for losing to Iowa, following year, obviously. Michigan might otherwise be claiming a NC. Hmm.
That's interesting. But for losing to a team I said helped BYU hold serve, there might otherwise be a consensus national champion. Why us that relevant? Simple.
Retract from 1985 back to 1984. (Take the Belt, effectively and reverse it) you will see without any difficulty, again but for losing to Iowa (who, in turn were blasted out if the park by U.C.L.A. in the Rose Bowl). A consensus national champion.
That proves my method works, Buddy.
It doesn't get any clearer than that. It proves BYU was a legitimate contender, that the Belt was appropriated fairly, that Alabama win it appropriately in 1985 and it proves the Belt NC was U.C.L.A. in 1984. Laugh if you want.
I'm taking this and running with it. It proves a legitimate national champion must also be a Belt national champion. F. W.I.W.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Yeah well that's what they call the breaks. But I have to ask, if my ideas are in fact meaningless, pointless, and asinine and who am I to suggest otherwise, then why bother reading them? I never said they were pearls if wisdom. That being said, I have the opinion (right, wrong or indifferent) they are worthwhile, fairly well thought-out, maybe a little asinine, but nevertheless productive.
I offer them as a testimony to my method.
I can offer an outline. It isn't complicated.
Quite simple, actually. Surprisingly so.
Click to expand...

To the first bolded part ... LOL - that's why. Also, I rarely get past the first few sentences before I laugh and write my reply.

As to the second bolded part.. then why do you never do this seemingly simple thing, DO IT.

Stop making excuses.
 
Tenn"cock said:
To the first bolded part ... LOL - that's why. Also, I rarely get past the first few sentences before I laugh and write my reply.

As to the second bolded part.. then why do you never do this seemingly simple thing, and DO IT.

Stop making excuses.
Click to expand...
You should read the entire post. I do my best to summarize. I might put things that might not interest you. But you aren't the only person I'm interested in as far as putting information into the cyberspace. I think I mentioned it's a work in progress. You think I have a magic button I can press? Yes, it's quite simple. Easy to follow, and to apply. If it wasn't I wouldn't bother with it. Why does it matter whether you understand it? You as best as I can tell aren't the last word. As far as it making sense I think it will make perfect sense to a person with common sense. There's no point to answering you if you don't bother reading the entire text message. At that point you are being rude. Yes, it's very simple. Maybe too simple, IDK
It's as simple as Follow the Yellow Brick Road. I think it will surprise a few people.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
You should read the entire post. I do my best to summarize. I might put things that might not interest you. But you aren't the only person I'm interested in as far as putting information into the cyberspace. I think I mentioned it's a work in progress. You think I have a magic button I can press? Yes, it's quite simple. Easy to follow, and to apply. If it wasn't I wouldn't bother with it. Why does it matter whether you understand it? You as best as I can tell aren't the last word. As far as it making sense I think it will make perfect sense to a person with common sense. There's no point to answering you if you don't bother reading the entire text message. At that point you are being rude. Yes, it's very simple. Maybe too simple, IDK
It's as simple as Follow the Yellow Brick Road. I think it will surprise a few people.
Click to expand...

TL;DR
 
Tenn"cock said:
TL;DR
Click to expand...
It wasn't that long. You can't ask me to outline the method, then ignore me. But you aren't who I'm interested in. You asked me if there was a way to select a champion, distinct and unique and there is! Meaning you've already LOST this grudge match. That's the irony. You probably don't think so. But I'm not worried about whether or not you like or agree with my method. It works.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
It wasn't that long. You can't ask me to outline the method, then ignore me. But you aren't who I'm interested in. You asked me if there was a way to select a champion, distinct and unique and there is! Meaning you've already LOST this grudge match. That's the irony. You probably don't think so. But I'm not worried about whether or not you like or agree with my method. It works.
Click to expand...

I can ignore your nonsense when you do not ever really explain it. I noticed in several posts when commenting that you say you are probably wrong... on that point we both agree. I think you believe you have some advantage in football knowledge when in actually all you have is a wall of meaningless text. It is always bullshit and what ifs based on inferior teams winning easy schedules which is the height of stupidity.

You should do yourself a favor and take up being a fan of Cricket. At least that way we could not call you out on your bullshit.
 
Tenn"cock said:
I can ignore your nonsense when you do not ever really explain it. I noticed in several posts when commenting that you say you are probably wrong... on that point we both agree. I think you believe you have some advantage in football knowledge when in actually all you have is a wall of meaningless text. It is always bullshit and what ifs based on inferior teams winning easy schedules which is the height of stupidity.

You should do yourself a favor and take up being a fan of Cricket. At least that way we could not call you out on your bullshit.
Click to expand...
Again I'm not following. Assuming you are suggesting I'm promoting a way for an inferior team to merit a championship, by any standard, whatsoever, that's the height of lunacy. And I don't appreciate the accusation. I don't remember saying I was 'probably wrong' with respect to my method.
I think you're taking things out of context. Probably wrong is what I say about anything I'm unfamiliar with, and assuredly there are a lot of things I'm not familiar with. But I didn't say that about my metric. You exaggerate.
That's my first complaint. I am probably wrong about most things. That's called humility. I am assuredly NOT wrong about the method I employ, nor am I wrong about where to apply it, the degree to which it's relevant, or the way it applies toward a title.
I outlined pretty clearly how Brigham Young merits consideration. Better I think than most. They weren't born in a vacuum. They clawed their way to relevance. And, honestly, assuming that's your beef, if you want to prove them inconsequential, you will lose.
That isn't arrogance. That's called being fair. They rank among the top-60. All time.
Actually that PROVES them relevant beyond s reasonable doubt. I already win the argument. Unless you want to double-down?
Go ahead. Most people already know the truth. They've been relevant for a long time.
Anyway, your arguments against me are stupid. I've already won this debate. It takes time to go through every teams schedule.
I said Brigham Young's schedule was deficient. Apparently you aren't very bright.
Covered that. 2/3 only of what is necessary.
Meaning they need an ally. Thry have one. Iowa. Iowa covers the gap needed to claim a full measure of a national championship.
2/3 + 1/3 = 1. Is your problem with fractions? Because that's pretty damn easy.
Yes Brigham Young shared a NC with Iowa.
I already mentioned that. 96% composite.
That's 4% deficient. So if you want to get pissy about it whether or not it's legitimate, I recommend you start there. I think I might have a clue about what legitimizes a NC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top