Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Ohhhh my. ROFL

1st bolded - Hardly lol

2nd bolded - everything in front of this line is more diatribe. Also, It was a rhetorical question since your statement was nonsense.

3rd bolded - I never claimed you did and the fact that you think I did illustrates your flawed thinking processes.

4th bolded - No you did not and will continue to not since I am beginning to doubt you even know what your trying to explain.

5th bolded - Where? provide the link showing where it already existed. I would love to see what flawed method you took and bastardized into creating what you wanted the results to be.

6th bolded - Link?

I'll hang up and listen.

Again I'm mystified particular to what you think I can't explain about something as simple as relative proficiency. I'm setting the bar at 100% and calling it good. Simple as that. I only go into detail because YOU can't seem to follow a concept that's clear as that. You did attend school I'm guessing? Ever ACE a test? That's you 100% staring you in the face. Many don't quite get there.
I mostly never did. That should explain how 100% defines a national champion. It does.
How does that tie into the other part?
Pretty simple, dude. Hard to get to 100% without winning nearly every game. Again that's not a difficult concept. Pretty simple.
The two tie together nicely. Win EVERY game, you're probably going to be recognized as a legitimate national champion. So far I'd say that's pretty self-explanatory. Ace the test, get a passing grade. SEC football averages 70%. Not because I say so. It's because I requisitioned it. Meaning they are 70% comparable to a national champion, on average. WAC was 40%. Again not too hard to follow.
Making Brigham Young an unlikely national champion. But not impossibly. What's 40/70 anyway? I mean if the argument is about comparability thats where you start.
Anyway it seems pretty clear what I'm doing.
If it doesn't make sense to you I pity you. As far as the Belt that precedes a championship. Brigham Young didn't secure the Belt. But they were in a position where they might have been. Their saving grace was beating U C.L.A. I'm advance. Hmmm, that's interesting, isn't it? They didn't claim a Belt but they challenged for one and we're in a Belt title pairing, post-season against U.C.L.A. in Provo, UT. A game they very nearly won but unfortunately lost. I'd say that about wraps everything up. I never said BYU claimed a NC independently. They required assistance. And assistance was rendered.

 

[tinp]

Hello, Larry. That is your real name I assume. Mama's dead, in case you were wondering. I did in fact live in Mama's house. But I no longer do. She's been dead a considerable length of time. I'm fifty-two. I try not to aggravate people. Some try to make me into something bad. I am not bad. But I don't like being told I'm an idiot. If you want to reach me you sure can, Larry.

RIP MAMA

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

RIP MAMA

Thank you. I mean that sincerely. Sylvia Joyce was my mother's name. She died in 2010. My brother passed away in 2009. My mother was seventy years young. My brother was forty-six when he passed away. F.W.I.W.

 

[tinp]

Thank you. I mean that sincerely. Sylvia Joyce was my mother's name. She died in 2010. My brother passed away in 2009. My mother was seventy years young. My brother was forty-six when he passed away. F.W.I.W.

I think we've reached a milestone moment.
I believe the solution to relative proficiency is humanizing it.

I will henceforth decide the participants in an 8-team playoff from this day forward.

It will be called the TINPlayoff.

/thread

 

[Tenn"cock]

Again I'm mystified particular to what you think I can't explain about something as simple as relative proficiency. I'm setting the bar at 100% and calling it good. Simple as that. I only go into detail because YOU can't seem to follow a concept that's clear as that. You did attend school I'm guessing? Ever ACE a test? That's you 100% staring you in the face. Many don't quite get there.
I mostly never did. That should explain how 100% defines a national champion. It does.
How does that tie into the other part?
Pretty simple, dude. Hard to get to 100% without winning nearly every game. Again that's not a difficult concept. Pretty simple.
The two tie together nicely. Win EVERY game, you're probably going to be recognized as a legitimate national champion. So far I'd say that's pretty self-explanatory. Ace the test, get a passing grade. SEC football averages 70%. Not because I say so. It's because I requisitioned it. Meaning they are 70% comparable to a national champion, on average. WAC was 40%. Again not too hard to follow.
Making Brigham Young an unlikely national champion. But not impossibly. What's 40/70 anyway? I mean if the argument is about comparability thats where you start.
Anyway it seems pretty clear what I'm doing.
If it doesn't make sense to you I pity you. As far as the Belt that precedes a championship. Brigham Young didn't secure the Belt. But they were in a position where they might have been. Their saving grace was beating U C.L.A. I'm advance. Hmmm, that's interesting, isn't it? They didn't claim a Belt but they challenged for one and we're in a Belt title pairing, post-season against U.C.L.A. in Provo, UT. A game they very nearly won but unfortunately lost. I'd say that about wraps everything up. I never said BYU claimed a NC independently. They required assistance. And assistance was rendered.

*sigh* I promised myself I wont waste my time unpacking this mess you are pushing but... *sigh* I at least try and point out the obvious to anyone with at least half a brain.

1st bolded - You never explain it - what are the ACTUAL measurements used ie Head to Head, Strength of schedule, & performance? Exceptions like injuries, or loss of team personnel, & even weather... these are factors that takes a human to factor in, something a math based system cannot do. You can call it anything you want ( for example I call your system "bullshit in a can").
Why can you not link to any source for your system? Any moron should be able to do that but, alas this seems insurmountable by you even tho I have asked for this many times... but still nada. I know why you cant... because it doesn't exist. Stop making shit up.

2nd bolded - LOL Stop trying to muddy the waters with stupid analogies. Acing a test is not comparable to winning a national championship in a team sport.

3rd bolded - Jeebus stop trying to create examples out of the obvious.

4th bolded - Not always true as other factors weigh in like opponents record, & division you play in as well. Systems that simply judge strength of schedule by the straight records of opponents have other problems. Typically, there is a big power difference between a 7-3 SEC team and a 7-3 WAC team. But a simple system, particularly the older ones (such as Houlgate), will judge such opponents as the same. And even modern systems that alleviate this problem with a more sophisticated formula can still be affected by it, if to a lesser degree.

Using a real example - Coastal Carolina vs Brigham Young:

11-1 Coastal Carolina (#14) defeated 11-1 Brigham Young (now #12) 22-17 in December, and as a result they ought to be rated higher. CC did take an "upset" loss in their bowl game, giving it greater emphasis than a regular season game, but the team they lost to, 10-1 Liberty (#17), is a far better team than anyone BYU beat. As such, I don't see why that loss should move BYU ahead of Coastal Carolina. As a matter of fact, BYU didn't beat any rated team this season, and what's more, they didn't beat any of the 13 teams in the "Others Receiving Votes" section of the AP poll. Meanwhile, in addition to beating BYU, Coastal Carolina defeated 10-1 Louisiana (#15) and 9-3 Appalachian State (just outside top 25 at #26).

Given their atrocious schedule and resulting lack of accomplishments, I see no legitimate reason at all for Brigham Young to be ranked ahead of Coastal Carolina, so we'll drop the Cougars back behind them, where they belong. That puts BYU just ahead of Louisiana, who has a better relevant record thanks to an "upset" win over Iowa State (now #7). However, the performance difference between these 2 teams is immense: Louisiana posted 6 close wins (touchdown or less) over unrated opponents, BYU just 1. So I think BYU can legitimately remain ranked ahead of Louisiana.

Indiana moves up to #12, Coastal Carolina to #13, and Brigham Young drops back to #14. <---- See how an example should work?

5th bolded - Yes, it is clear. You are perpetuating some bullshit system you thought was cool because it supports whatever you want it to.

6th bolded - LOL ... and you gave them that help with bullshit.

 

[RTR...USN (ret)]

"bullshit in a can")

I just spit tea all over the deck when I read this!

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

*sigh* I promised myself I wont waste my time unpacking this mess you are pushing but... *sigh* I at least try and point out the obvious to anyone with at least half a brain.

1st bolded - You never explain it - what are the ACTUAL measurements used ie Head to Head, Strength of schedule, & performance? Exceptions like injuries, or loss of team personnel, & even weather... these are factors that takes a human to factor in, something a math based system cannot do. You can call it anything you want ( for example I call your system "bullshit in a can").
Why can you not link to any source for your system? Any moron should be able to do that but, alas this seems insurmountable by you even tho I have asked for this many times... but still nada. I know why you cant... because it doesn't exist. Stop making shit up.

2nd bolded - LOL Stop trying to muddy the waters with stupid analogies. Acing a test is not comparable to winning a national championship in a team sport.

3rd bolded - Jeebus stop trying to create examples out of the obvious.

4th bolded - Not always true as other factors weigh in like opponents record, & division you play in as well. Systems that simply judge strength of schedule by the straight records of opponents have other problems. Typically, there is a big power difference between a 7-3 SEC team and a 7-3 WAC team. But a simple system, particularly the older ones (such as Houlgate), will judge such opponents as the same. And even modern systems that alleviate this problem with a more sophisticated formula can still be affected by it, if to a lesser degree.

Using a real example - Coastal Carolina vs Brigham Young:

11-1 Coastal Carolina (#14) defeated 11-1 Brigham Young (now #12) 22-17 in December, and as a result they ought to be rated higher. CC did take an "upset" loss in their bowl game, giving it greater emphasis than a regular season game, but the team they lost to, 10-1 Liberty (#17), is a far better team than anyone BYU beat. As such, I don't see why that loss should move BYU ahead of Coastal Carolina. As a matter of fact, BYU didn't beat any rated team this season, and what's more, they didn't beat any of the 13 teams in the "Others Receiving Votes" section of the AP poll. Meanwhile, in addition to beating BYU, Coastal Carolina defeated 10-1 Louisiana (#15) and 9-3 Appalachian State (just outside top 25 at #26).

Given their atrocious schedule and resulting lack of accomplishments, I see no legitimate reason at all for Brigham Young to be ranked ahead of Coastal Carolina, so we'll drop the Cougars back behind them, where they belong. That puts BYU just ahead of Louisiana, who has a better relevant record thanks to an "upset" win over Iowa State (now #7). However, the performance difference between these 2 teams is immense: Louisiana posted 6 close wins (touchdown or less) over unrated opponents, BYU just 1. So I think BYU can legitimately remain ranked ahead of Louisiana.

Indiana moves up to #12, Coastal Carolina to #13, and Brigham Young drops back to #14. <---- See how an example should work?

5th bolded - Yes, it is clear. You are perpetuating some bullshit system you thought was cool because it supports whatever you want it to.

6th bolded - LOL ... and you gave them that help with bullshit.

Again I have explained much, probably not every aspect to which I include many factors. That you think I'm simply making stuff up, unfortunately isn't my problem.
Nor will it be, ever. It's incredibly disappointing to me, your attitude.
But, that's something you have to address. Many of the variables you cite are internal factors. Most are inconsequential to the outcome. It would never work to attempt to include some of them.
Someone pretty smart, having difficulty remembering who, exactly, it was summed up YOUR endless pretentious bullshit simply.
The only statistic that matters is the W or the L. I'm actually glad you are trying to fanagle your way around it. As if there are things other than the result? More relevant?
BULLSHIT.
Hence, the many things supposedly so essential, and honestly you only mentioned a few, and why didn't you include whether or not each individual player were sufficiently motivated? I mean, isn't that the basis for why any game a team from the SEC loses?
You forgot the most essential ingredient!
So, unless YOU can devise one that assesses properly the consensus relative to ability, team perspective particular to the outcome you've done everyone s disservice here.
Bottom line.
I'm tired of playing stupid games. If you can't motivate for whatever reason, you are saying you aren't interested in winning. To me, that's the same as a forfeit, which means, UNLESS you are clear to the people involved, your lack of interest in the game, you have no business being out there. Meaning you lose.
See how much simpler it becomes.
Called on account of the weather? Fine. That's o.k., too. That actually happens, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Actually you're clearly WRONG. About everything. If team A has no interest in playing team B there are options to consider.
But I quite frankly don't remember there ever being a protocol for ' not interested' in being there, didn't give a shit, whatever. Doesn't cut it. Why should I have to explain it? Fine I will.
Season is twelve weeks long. Actually it shouldn't extend beyond it, but with conference championship games it does. One additional week, followed by bowl pairings. Pretty much the end except for CFP.
So, with such an abbreviated schedule, it's imperative for ANY team, noy simply SEC, to run the table, ordinarily.
Playoffs complicate things. Unnecessarily. Teams are given an out. I'm not stupid. Expand to eight that's more SEC teams on the docket. Whatever! I addressed that, too.
I recommended EVERY conference be admitted. Easy to do, actually. Expand to sixteen and include every conference champion. I don't necessarily like that idea.
But it sure as shit is better than anything you're suggesting here. And it's easily done.
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-16 Conference; include Boise St., Brigham Young, Hawaii, San Diego St. and Nevada Las Vegas.
5. Southeastern Conference: include Kansas, Clemson, and Tulane.
6. Mid American Conference: include Army, Temple, East Carolina and Marshall.
7. Mountain West Conference: include Arkansas St., Houston, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico St. S. Alabama, S. Mississippi, Texas St., UTEP.
8. C-USA and Sun Belt: merge, add USF
Massachusetts: FCS.
Pretty cut and dried and I REALLY hope someone utilizes it A.S.A.P.
Addresses so many of the stupid things YOU seem to think are relevant. Also, we don't really have to guess about who's admitted.
Last year it would have admitted included Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St., Liberty, Ball St., San Jose St., Alabama-Birmingham and Cincinnati. Hmm. Seems pretty tight to me.

 

[Tenn"cock]

Again I have explained much, probably not every aspect to which I include many factors. That you think I'm simply making stuff up, unfortunately isn't my problem.
Nor will it be, ever. It's incredibly disappointing to me, your attitude.
But, that's something you have to address. Many of the variables you cite are internal factors. Most are inconsequential to the outcome. It would never work to attempt to include some of them.
Someone pretty smart, having difficulty remembering who, exactly, it was summed up YOUR endless pretentious bullshit simply.
The only statistic that matters is the W or the L. I'm actually glad you are trying to fanagle your way around it. As if there are things other than the result? More relevant?
BULLSHIT.
Hence, the many things supposedly so essential, and honestly you only mentioned a few, and why didn't you include whether or not each individual player were sufficiently motivated? I mean, isn't that the basis for why any game a team from the SEC loses?
You forgot the most essential ingredient!
So, unless YOU can devise one that assesses properly the consensus relative to ability, team perspective particular to the outcome you've done everyone s disservice here.
Bottom line.
I'm tired of playing stupid games. If you can't motivate for whatever reason, you are saying you aren't interested in winning. To me, that's the same as a forfeit, which means, UNLESS you are clear to the people involved, your lack of interest in the game, you have no business being out there. Meaning you lose.
See how much simpler it becomes.
Called on account of the weather? Fine. That's o.k., too. That actually happens, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Actually you're clearly WRONG. About everything. If team A has no interest in playing team B there are options to consider.
But I quite frankly don't remember there ever being a protocol for ' not interested' in being there, didn't give a shit, whatever. Doesn't cut it. Why should I have to explain it? Fine I will.
Season is twelve weeks long. Actually it shouldn't extend beyond it, but with conference championship games it does. One additional week, followed by bowl pairings. Pretty much the end except for CFP.
So, with such an abbreviated schedule, it's imperative for ANY team, noy simply SEC, to run the table, ordinarily.
Playoffs complicate things. Unnecessarily. Teams are given an out. I'm not stupid. Expand to eight that's more SEC teams on the docket. Whatever! I addressed that, too.
I recommended EVERY conference be admitted. Easy to do, actually. Expand to sixteen and include every conference champion. I don't necessarily like that idea.
But it sure as shit is better than anything you're suggesting here. And it's easily done.
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-16 Conference; include Boise St., Brigham Young, Hawaii, San Diego St. and Nevada Las Vegas.
5. Southeastern Conference: include Kansas, Clemson, and Tulane.
6. Mid American Conference: include Army, Temple, East Carolina and Marshall.
7. Mountain West Conference: include Arkansas St., Houston, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico St. S. Alabama, S. Mississippi, Texas St., UTEP.
8. C-USA and Sun Belt: merge, add USF
Massachusetts: FCS.
Pretty cut and dried and I REALLY hope someone utilizes it A.S.A.P.
Addresses so many of the stupid things YOU seem to think are relevant. Also, we don't really have to guess about who's admitted.
Last year it would have admitted included Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St., Liberty, Ball St., San Jose St., Alabama-Birmingham and Cincinnati. Hmm. Seems pretty tight to me.

I didn't think it was possible, but you are dumber than I tell people.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

I didn't think it was possible, but you are dumber than I tell people.

Well in fairness to your position, I'm not advocating for something that takes things such as whether or not teams are sufficiently prepared into consideration. Because if I WAS I might have to reevaluate the RESULT of the Coastal Carolina vs. Brigham Young game. After all, Coastal Carolina was preparing to play Liberty. A game, in retrospect, Liberty might have won? (Not saying I know the result in advance). But given that Liberty actually DID win, second go around, if nothing else I'm being fair to what (oh the concept) ACTUALLY happened?
Oh, Brigham Young wasn't motivated.
I forgot to include that part. Silly me! Thankfully you're here to remind me! Yeah, AFTER (since this is how these things are evaluated) losing to Coastal Carolina, they took a poll and everyone agreed nobody really cared that much about playing Coastal.l Carolina. That was evident by how Brigham Young didn't try to anyone who saw the game. They weren't motivated. Why not?
BYU was only ranked #13 and it was unlikely because of where Cincinnati lay within the polling process that Brigham Young could pass them. Even with a win.
But that should be obvious to anyone who saw the game. Brigham Young admitted it was a wasted effort, but still nearly pulled it out in the end, in spite of not giving a shit.
Actually Brigham Young had nothing to play for. Like many SEC teams they knew beating Coastal Carolina (an upstart without much street cred), did little if anything to push them higher up the food chain.
After the loss, since Coastal Carolina simply took BYU's position at #13 David Pollack said the committee really knew a lot! After all they knew BOTH where BYU properly stood BEFORE as well as AFTER losing!
Gosh, I didn't know a committee of thirteen redneck asswipes could be that clairvoyant. Silky me I thought they were dumb, prejudiced and uncivilized. What do I know about the price of tea in China? Nothing. I guess I should have quit while I was ahead. Brigham Young clearly sucks!

Let's cut through the bullshit, shall we?
If an SEC team wants to tank, that's an internal affair. I don't need to assess the present condition or mindset of every player to assess whether or not a loss truly counts.
Meaning Brigham Young lost even if every player had a vasectomy the week prior to. If they weren't sufficiently motivated, tough shit! Counts the same as if everyone was Jazzed for playing, which I'm guessing at the collegiate level most (maybe not all) ARE.
So. Where does that leave us?
The simple fact, as I see it us people were pissing their pants in fear of Brigham Young.
E.S.P.N. certainly questioned it. But it didn't stop at Brigham Young. They were shitting their pants after Coastal Carolina won. Liberty probably never entered into it.
Hugh Freeze coached at Ole Miss. It would have been a feather in a cap if they went.
Anyway the hypocrisy is thick enough to stir.
Yeah Brigham Young was overrated. I think they proved that by dismantling UCF in the Boca Raton Bowl. UCF nearly beat Cincinnati. Cincinnati nearly beat Georgia.
Oh. But Georgia wasn't motivated! I forgot.
Supposedly played theur worst game in a century but still managed to beat Cincy.
Sorry. I'm not buying it.
Georgia won. That's the bottom line.
Actually that's all that matters. Ask anyone.
But I wished they list so I could have heard the excuses. Im guessing it would have been something like 'we had nothing to play for'. We were looking forward to next season. It was their Super Bowl. It meant nothing to us. We were short several players who sat out. We didn't really care about the game. Nobody really cared it wasn't a playoff game, maybe if it was we'd have tried but it wasn't, do we didn't and it's obvious to anyone who saw the game that our heart wasn't in it.
Grow a pair of testicles!
Actually there's really no good reason to lose. That's why I never consider the reason. It's irrelevant. Plus if nobody cared it at least weren't especially interested they could (if they don't want the stain a forfeit gives) decline the invitation in the first place!
Hmmmmm. I'm starting to wonder. Since it IS college and since most I think would like to end (as was evident in Brigham Young's game against Coastal Carolina) on a high note. And since NOBODY's questioning whether or not C. Florida 'wanted to be there'. Maybe that excuse never matters? Oh. But if we do THAT it might mean actually having to give a shit!
We wouldnt want that to define us!

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

I think we've reached a milestone moment.
I believe the solution to relative proficiency is humanizing it.

I will henceforth decide the participants in an 8-team playoff from this day forward.

It will be called the TINPlayoff.

/thread

You are free to select whichever teams you feel are best suited to a playoff. I just want you to be aware it probably won't go exactly as planned, especially if it includes eight. The BCS experimented with eight. It was too prohibitive and made it especially difficult to advance for an outsider (Tulane, 1998).
A twelve team championship most likely includes Tulane, but I'm personally against it. A simpler, better, and fairer might have allowed Tulane to play Tennessee, post-season. Lest anyone think I'm loading it to position G-5 teams, unfairly, that's what many people thought ought to be at the time.
Which, again ties back into letting the most deserving teams advance, only, year-to-year.
Probably Tulane loses. Most agree Tennessee was a deserving national champion, but clearly not a consensus one.
There are other examples. Too many it seems to count, but a simple pairing of teams, post-season ought to suffice. Not unlike CFP but without preliminary pairings.
Actually if a person were to implement the method I subscribe to, there would be little doubt which team merits a championship.
Certainly some would complain. But most would recognize the method as legitimate.
Frankly, and I must confess ignorance to the cause, I suspect most are glad to be done by December. People think kids want to spend Winter break playing in a championship bracket? All a person needs to do is look at the FCS to see how popular that set-up is. Not very. Kids are playing games many probably wish weren't scheduled at all. Someone really ought to ask what lower divisions of think of the championship format. I told of a season, 1988 as I recall a local team (Adams St College) qualified to a sixteen team championship. NAIA. Division I.
They were 9-2 on the year. F.W.I.W. But had been blown out by Mesa State College. 72-7 or something. Away. In hostile territory.
I'm simply reporting the facts. You be the judge Anyway, I think they won their first road game and advanced to play Pittsburgh St. Kansas. A perennial contender. The Gorillas. Were the namesake and Adams St held on to defeat them here in Alamosa, CO.
It was an unexpected victory. Im mostly uncertain about why it was played here. But it was and it was an unexpected win for us.
I think Adams won three successive games.
Ultimately they advanced to the national championship. Against Tennessee.
Carson Newman. Adams St lost. The Eagles were a perennial national champion. F.W.I.W.

There's even a park bench here commemorating it. It isn't likely ever to happen again. And I guess maybe if things had worked out differently we might even be talking about the year Adams State beat Tennessee. So I'm throwing that out there.
My own opinion is if you are 9-2 you are a very unlikely national champion. 72-14 kind of proves the adage 'less is more'.
Were people excited about it? Yeah. I was pretty jazzed. But not any more than if they'd simply beaten Mesa St College. I wasn't there. I'm not the student-athlete.
I just think when you play eleven games which obviously Adams St did, that's a season;. 9-2 doesn't really scream NC to me.
Anyway they qualified (sixteenth team admitted) and advanced to the championship. Were defeated but not humiliated. The better team won the title.
Make of it whatever. Adams St beat Pittsburgh St. 14-10 I think it was. Here.
That was the reason they advanced. Kudos I guess, for the way they were able to move forward. But maybe at 9-2 maybe they shouldn't have went particularly since the following year (maybe a result of what happened) they cut the field to eight teams.
Adams State still advanced. But lost. Emporia St Kansas beat them here. They had Leon Lett. He was one of their players.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Ohhhh my. ROFL

1st bolded - Hardly lol

2nd bolded - everything in front of this line is more diatribe. Also, It was a rhetorical question since your statement was nonsense.

3rd bolded - I never claimed you did and the fact that you think I did illustrates your flawed thinking processes.

4th bolded - No you did not and will continue to not since I am beginning to doubt you even know what your trying to explain.

5th bolded - Where? provide the link showing where it already existed. I would love to see what flawed method you took and bastardized into creating what you wanted the results to be.

6th bolded - Link?

I'll hang up and listen.

There is a way to transfer title year-to-year without having to initiate a championship. I thought I outlined it. Fairly simple.
Take notes I guess. U.C.L.A. won the Belt in 1984. That was a consequence of Miami, FL having beaten Auburn (Kickoff Classic). And Michigan having beaten Miami, FL. Washington having beaten Michigan. USC (Pac-10 Championship) having beaten Washington. And U.C.L.A. having beaten USC. Miami, FL lost to U C.L.A. Fiesta Bowl.
Those were all title pairings. Miami, FL also defeated Florida en route. Meaning Florida lost the Belt as a consequence. But also tied L.S.U. in a game with SEC title consequences riding on the outcome.
The Belt therefore was won by U.C.L.A. 1984.
The preceding year we had variables like Georgia beating Texas in the Cotton Bowl. 10-9. Miami, FL losing badly to Florida. Illinois losing badly to U C.L.A. in Rose Bowl.
And as already stated Missouri defeating Illinois 27-17. Leaving Illinois at 10-2. F. W.I.W. Brigham Young's only loss was to 7-4-1 Baylor, away. Who were beaten by Oklahoma St. Bluebonnet Bowl. Brigham Young defeated Missouri 20-17 in the Holiday Bowl. Leaving them at #7 overall.
Brigham Young in there retrospective with LaVell Edwards present admitted they didn't beat Pittsburgh but probably only tied them.
20-14 ought to be adjusted to 20-20. Forgive me for not crediting Pittsburgh with a win.
Obviously we can't know for certain but BYU admitted they were lucky to escape with a W. So I'm adjusting it to reflect their attitude.

In 1985 Alabama won a Belt Championship. By winning against USC in the Aloha Bowl. 24-3. A decisive win. Means Alabama earned it the old fashioned way. By winning.
Penn St lost to Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. But Oklahoma previously lost to Miami, FL. It isn't hard to retro fit a NC.
It says heading into 1985 U.C.L.A. was the team to watch and for good reason, besides!

Do I really have to explain that part? Anyway U.C.L.A. went in to beat Brigham Young. And they plastered Iowa in the Rose Bowl. But Alabama was the Belt National Champion.
Penn St defeated Alabama 6-3. Brigham Young defeated Air Force 28-21 to thwart AFA's championship hopes. In Provo, UT.

Oklahoma sneaked in as a result otherwise it's Air Force vs. Penn State University. Meaning Brigham Young assisted Oklahoma.
Since Oklahoma was supposed to play Brigham Young the preceding year, it seems reasonable to assume BYU might have won.
At least that's my interpretation.
Which if they had would have spotlit BYU. At the time that was the argument. BYU or OU.
Finally, by beating Michigan, again looking backwards from 1985. Brigham Young, other than Iowa, was the LAST team to win.
That should help explain the title being split.
Furthermore, Brigham Young was the first team to beat U C L.A. in Pasadena, CA. 1983. It all hinges on U C.L.A. it would seem. U C.L.A. is the reason. Michigan also
Both defeated Miami, FL in title games.
If you look at it from that angle there's little speculation about which team merired a NC.
It was Brigham Young for a litany of reason.

 

[Tenn"cock]

There is a way to transfer title year-to-year without having to initiate a championship. I thought I outlined it. Fairly simple.
Take notes I guess. U.C.L.A. won the Belt in 1984. That was a consequence of Miami, FL having beaten Auburn (Kickoff Classic). And Michigan having beaten Miami, FL. Washington having beaten Michigan. USC (Pac-10 Championship) having beaten Washington. And U.C.L.A. having beaten USC. Miami, FL lost to U C.L.A. Fiesta Bowl.
Those were all title pairings. Miami, FL also defeated Florida en route. Meaning Florida lost the Belt as a consequence. But also tied L.S.U. in a game with SEC title consequences riding on the outcome.
The Belt therefore was won by U.C.L.A. 1984.
The preceding year we had variables like Georgia beating Texas in the Cotton Bowl. 10-9. Miami, FL losing badly to Florida. Illinois losing badly to U C.L.A. in Rose Bowl.
And as already stated Missouri defeating Illinois 27-17. Leaving Illinois at 10-2. F. W.I.W. Brigham Young's only loss was to 7-4-1 Baylor, away. Who were beaten by Oklahoma St. Bluebonnet Bowl. Brigham Young defeated Missouri 20-17 in the Holiday Bowl. Leaving them at #7 overall.
Brigham Young in there retrospective with LaVell Edwards present admitted they didn't beat Pittsburgh but probably only tied them.
20-14 ought to be adjusted to 20-20. Forgive me for not crediting Pittsburgh with a win.
Obviously we can't know for certain but BYU admitted they were lucky to escape with a W. So I'm adjusting it to reflect their attitude.

In 1985 Alabama won a Belt Championship. By winning against USC in the Aloha Bowl. 24-3. A decisive win. Means Alabama earned it the old fashioned way. By winning.
Penn St lost to Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. But Oklahoma previously lost to Miami, FL. It isn't hard to retro fit a NC.
It says heading into 1985 U.C.L.A. was the team to watch and for good reason, besides!

Do I really have to explain that part? Anyway U.C.L.A. went in to beat Brigham Young. And they plastered Iowa in the Rose Bowl. But Alabama was the Belt National Champion.
Penn St defeated Alabama 6-3. Brigham Young defeated Air Force 28-21 to thwart AFA's championship hopes. In Provo, UT.

Oklahoma sneaked in as a result otherwise it's Air Force vs. Penn State University. Meaning Brigham Young assisted Oklahoma.
Since Oklahoma was supposed to play Brigham Young the preceding year, it seems reasonable to assume BYU might have won.
At least that's my interpretation.
Which if they had would have spotlit BYU. At the time that was the argument. BYU or OU.
Finally, by beating Michigan, again looking backwards from 1985. Brigham Young, other than Iowa, was the LAST team to win.
That should help explain the title being split.
Furthermore, Brigham Young was the first team to beat U C L.A. in Pasadena, CA. 1983. It all hinges on U C.L.A. it would seem. U C.L.A. is the reason. Michigan also
Both defeated Miami, FL in title games.
If you look at it from that angle there's little speculation about which team merired a NC.
It was Brigham Young for a litany of reason.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

If Brigham Young can beat the two teams (U.C.L.A., Michigan) in reverse sequential order to that which Miami, FL did? What does that say about Brigham Young? Seriously. It doesn't say Brigham Young is superior? Because it says that to me. In 1990 Brigham Young defeated Miami, FL.

 

[tinp]

If Brigham Young can beat the two teams (U.C.L.A., Michigan) in reverse sequential order to that which Miami, FL did? What does that say about Brigham Young? Seriously. It doesn't say Brigham Young is superior? Because it says that to me. In 1990 Brigham Young defeated Miami, FL.

Apology accepted by @Tenn"cock via @tinp

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

Apology accepted by @Tenn"cock via @tinp

I'm not asking for an apology. He asked me to outline the method. It really isn't about U.C.L.A. It includes U.C.L.A. The Belt was won by Miami, FL. After besting Nebraska they unified the Belt against Auburn. Following season opener. I'm saying BYU needed to prove superior. I think they did. But U.C.L.A. still won the Belt. Meaning BYU failed. But at least that was AFTER having beaten Michigan. Meaning BYU demonstrated superiority over Miami, FL. But not U.C.L.A.
At least not with respect to the Belt.
The Belt makes life easier.
Another thing maybe ought to have been considered was a pairing against Nebraska.
Had Brigham Young defeated them, seems reasonable to assume that puts them on a higher plateu than U.C.L.A. But that didn't happen. But U.C.L.A. deserved the Belt NC. So far be it from me to suggest otherwise.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

1st bolded - Sooo you are telling me this is a system the New York Times came up with? Then link it so I can see if someone who knows how to lay out an actual system has done so beyond the diatribe you seem to be making up on the fly.

2nd bolded - Apparently not, since you do not seem to be able to convey this system in a logical, analytical way.

3rd bolded - LOL .... are you asking for help? Because I can see why you need someone to make sense of what you post.

4th bolded - No, actually if you posted something that actually made sense I would give you some input.

You seem to forget we went back and forth on Rivals, for about a week, over your bullshit and I just gave up when you started spouting stupidity like your views on OT games... do you remember what you told me about those? Do yourself a favor, and stop trying to use obscure ideas just because it makes your dick hard to think you have actually come up with something worth promoting.

You want the Truth? You can't handle the truth. Because somewhere deep in the recesses of you mind you want me on that wall. You need me in that wall. So when you are at a cocktail party having senseless and meaningless banter you can thank me. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand post. Otherwise I couldn't care less what you think my metric entails. You have that luxury. You don't know what I do.

 

[Hard2Bluff]

You want the Truth? You can't handle the truth. Because somewhere deep in the recesses of you mind you want me on that wall. You need me in that wall. So when you are at a cocktail party having senseless and meaningless banter you can thank me. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand post. Otherwise I couldn't care less what you think my metric entails. You have that luxury. You don't know what I do.

 

[Copejunkie]

The "belt" as you describe it dosen't pass from team to team in a given year. Every year every team starts from scratch. Alabama wont be the champions at the start of next season. They will be just like everyone else. If they loose sometime next season, that doesn't automatically transfer their title to another team. Kind of seems to me you view this like boxing or MMA, where the "belt" is handed off to the next guy. Football has seasons.

 

[RTR...USN (ret)]

The "belt" as you describe it dosen't pass from team to team in a given year. Every year every team starts from scratch. Alabama wont be the champions at the start of next season. They will be just like everyone else. If they loose sometime next season, that doesn't automatically transfer their title to another team. Kind of seems to me you view this like boxing or MMA, where the "belt" is handed off to the next guy. Football has seasons.

Your wasting your time and bandwidth.

 

[CollegeFBFan2021]

View attachment 5500

I have a responsibility you can hardly fathom. Who's going to do it? You Lieutenant Weinberg?