Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

Copejunkie said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're actually right, but if Alabama doesn't lose they will retain the championship. I know I make it less about Alabama and more about my own interpretation. But the simple fact is the top contenders will remain Alabama, Ohio St., Clemson, Texas A&M. And obviously include several other teams. Oklahoma (obviously they merit consideration) Iowa (clearly deserve consideration) Mississippi (are in the mix) and Georgia (upset Cincinnati) all advance.

It is the Belt Championship. You will learn. It would seem at this point it will include SEC and Big Ten Champions. Most likely. Or an ACC representative. But it isn't fixed. I'm not about the fix. Clearly some of it is open to interpretation. But ultimately it should convey pretty clearly a single championship.

I apologize for the mystery. I wish that part wasn't included. But with respect to Alabama it did in fact transfer through several SEC teams before landing on Alabama. That pretty much ices it. Nobody's guessing about which team merited the title. And to that point there ought to be a straight line between Alabama (this year's Belt NC) and L.S.U. (last year's Belt NC). Is there? Yes, there is. That's the proof that this method works.
 
Last edited:
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
You don't know what I do.
Click to expand...

Oh I think I do,,,

200.gif
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
You're actually right, but if Alabama doesn't lose they will retain the championship. I know I make it less about Alabama and more about my own interpretation. But the simple fact is the top contenders will remain Alabama, Ohio St., Clemson, Texas A&M. And obviously include several other teams. Oklahoma (obviously they merit consideration) Iowa (clearly deserve consideration) Mississippi (are in the mix) and Georgia (upset Cincinnati) all advance.

It is the Belt Championship. You will learn. It would seem at this point it will include SEC and Big Ten Champions. Most likely. Or an ACC representative. But it isn't fixed. I'm not about the fix. Clearly some of it is open to interpretation. But ultimately it should convey pretty clearly a single championship.

I apologize for the mystery. I wish that part wasn't included. But with respect to Alabama it did in fact transfer through several SEC teams before landing on Alabama. That pretty much ices it. Nobody's guessing about which team merited the title. And to that point there ought to be a straight line between Alabama (this year's Belt NC) and L.S.U. (last year's Belt NC). Is there? Yes, there is. That's the proof that this method works.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
You're actually right, but if Alabama doesn't lose they will retain the championship. I know I make it less about Alabama and more about my own interpretation. But the simple fact is the top contenders will remain Alabama, Ohio St., Clemson, Texas A&M. And obviously include several other teams. Oklahoma (obviously they merit consideration) Iowa (clearly deserve consideration) Mississippi (are in the mix) and Georgia (upset Cincinnati) all advance.

It is the Belt Championship. You will learn. It would seem at this point it will include SEC and Big Ten Champions. Most likely. Or an ACC representative. But it isn't fixed. I'm not about the fix. Clearly some of it is open to interpretation. But ultimately it should convey pretty clearly a single championship.

I apologize for the mystery. I wish that part wasn't included. But with respect to Alabama it did in fact transfer through several SEC teams before landing on Alabama. That pretty much ices it. Nobody's guessing about which team merited the title. And to that point there ought to be a straight line between Alabama (this year's Belt NC) and L.S.U. (last year's Belt NC). Is there? Yes, there is. That's the proof that this method works.
Click to expand...
Just no dude. There is no straight line, and it never transferred. Deal with it.
 
Copejunkie said:
Just no dude. There is no straight line, and it never transferred. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
You don't think there is a straight line between titles? Who was the last team Alabama lost to? Louisiana St. That's what I'm talking about. Pardon me for not making that part as clear as the rest. In 1985 Oklahoma won a national title. Not the Belt, at least not the same Belt Alabama won. (There honestly is only one Belt NC). But we can still straight line. That's how Brigham Young manages to be included.
A straight line follows Penn State (defeated Alabama 6-3) back to Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh was the last team to beat the Nittany Lions.
That's what I mean by straight line.
Obviously that isn't Brigham Young. But Brigham Young was the first to beat Pitt.
That's what a straight line is. That's why Brigham Young is represented, even without winning a Belt, they're included.
Penn St deserves a lot of credit for Brigham Young's NC. And Brigham Young failed to beat Penn State in the Holiday Bowl. 1989.
 
Copejunkie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Alabama won the Championship. Again and I know it's somewhat confusing, I'm not the proprietor of the Belt. But assuredly if they lose at any point this season, title will directly fall to whichever team defeats them. No, it doesn't necessarily mean said team claims a Belt Championship. It SHOULD. But CFP has a protocol I hate that includes teams besides the Belt Champion. It doesn't matter, because to claim a CFP necessarily requires a team to claim a Belt NC.
2017 was a cluster-fuck. Honestly, nobody really won it. Pittsburgh was exempted. They probably ought to have been admitted to the Championship against Georgia. My guess is Georgia would have beaten them.
Or, put them against Clemson in the ACC.
Again, while not a certainty would have addressed protocol appropriately. Meaning a simple pairing (Georgia vs. Clemson) would have been sufficient, assuming Clemson defeats Pittsburgh. But since that isn't what happened, the only thing I know to do is to retrofit the Championship with respect to a pairing of S. Carolina vs. N. Carolina St. A game S. Carolina won.
It's legal, since the Belt can be retrofitted.
That results in Georgia surrendering the retrofitted Belt to Alabama. Simple as that.
 
Tenn"cock said:
FIFY
Click to expand...
Jealous much? Sounds like someone can't deal. Penn St in 1985 defeated Alabama 6-3. I'm guessing that might trump any claim Alabama might otherwise have on a title. Penn St lost to Oklahoma. National Title.
Oklahoma was defeated by Miami, FL. Whom we all know surrendered the Belt to U.C.L.A. U.C.L.A.'s losses to Oregon and Stanford were trumped by Washington St.'s victories over them. Brigham Young defeated Washington St in 1982 Holiday.
Washington St. defeated Utah in 1984. In Pullman, WA. Both Utah and Washington St were beaten by Tennessee in Knoxville, TN.
Quite honestly, it would seem Brigham Young really only needed (in retrospect) to schedule Nebraska. But that wasn't possible. They did the next best thing. Michigan's only loss in 1985 was to Iowa. Meaning, Iowa shares in the Championship. A consequence of having won, obviously. Meaning my method works. Go figure.
 
Copejunkie said:
Just no dude. There is no straight line, and it never transferred. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
The straight line is what connects titleists. It's actually quite simple. L.S.U. obviously won a championship a year ago. The straight line obviously required them to win against Alabama. Who, in turn were defeated by Clemson the previous year. Who were beaten by Alabama in the Sugar Bowl in the decidedly confusing 2017. Working backwards, it selects a national championship. Appropriately. IMHO.
I've tried to outline it. Maybe my explanation sucks, but it's real. It gets real interesting about the time Brigham Young came along.
There's really no disputing had Texas beaten Georgia in the Cotton Bowl, Texas wins a NC.
We can straight-line that title backward.
Florida would have been involved since they were the ONLY team to beat eventual NC.
Miami, FL. Miami, FL unified (Belt NC) against Auburn. Lost Belt to Michigan. Who lost to Washington, who lost to USC, who lost to U.C.L.A , who secured against Miami, FL 39-37 in the Fiesta Bowl. A Belt Championship. Was won by U.C.L.A. F.W.I.W.
Nobody's going to convince me that Brigham Young having been the first team to beat them in Pasadena (Rose Bowl) isn't relevant.
But that isn't what I mean by straight-line.
Straight-line is taking the Championship won by Oklahoma in 1985 and working it back.
Penn St. is the last team to claim a Belt (retrofit) by beating Alabama 6-3. Penn St.'s last loss was to Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh's last loss was to Syracuse. Syracuse's last loss was to Boston College. Boston College's last loss I believe was to Penn State. That's straight-line with respect to Penn St. Brigham Young defeated Boston College.
28-14 in the 1985 season opener. A straight-line takes Penn State's championship to Brigham Young. From Brigham Young it falls to Texas. Texas loses to Georgia. Georgia loses to S. Carolina. S. Carolina loses to Navy. Navy loses to Army. Army (FY) loses to Notre Dame. Notre Dame (PY) loses to S. Methodist. S. Methodist loses to Houston. Who were defeated by Boston College.
A straight-line therefore connects Brigham Young directly back to Boston College. Kind of round-about, but it was the same way Miami, FL secured it the preceding year.
 
Last edited:
tinp said:
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
Click to expand...
I actually agree it should be humanized. We are inching closer, I think to some kind of consensus of opinion. So how can that be done? Pretty simple, actually. Instead of a committee blindly putting their spin on the rankings, we could insist they utilize relative proficiency as a model. I actually tried to initiate a change. I was unsuccessful.
But there is hope. F.P.I. is the basis from which teams are assessed, independently.
It isn't relative proficiency. Relative proficiency is more about Sports Reference.
A database that utilizes a metric called SRS.
I can take that data and rework it to mimic my method without much difficulty.
As luck would have it, the same method makes F.P.I. more tenable as a ranking.
Meaning we already have the tools. F.P.I., obviously isn't something I invented, neither for that matter is SRS. Both are legitimate.
The interesting part is it isn't difficult to take those ratings and rework them. I'm confused nobody else other than myself has.
It would have yielded a similar result. Thankfully. So it isn't like reinventing the wheel. And it would have more properly seeded teams within CFP. Ohio St and Alabama for example could have been seeded #1 and #2 since that's where F.P.I. adjusted for relative proficiency puts them.
Isn't that a lot simpler than a playoff??????
 
Tenn"cock said:
*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.
Click to expand...
The best way sometimes to present a solution is to demonstrate how it might work in another division. So I will do that. N. Dakota St just had a 39 game winning streak snapped by S. Illinois. 38-14. A rout. The problem is S. Illinois was beaten senseless by N. Dakota, 47-21 who later beat S. Dakota. Putting them at 2-0. My method would still give S. Illinois the Belt, since the Belt is always transmitted forward. But N. Dakota would take priority. It isn't any different than 1985. Alabama won the Belt.
But Penn State advanced, in part due to having beaten Alabama, 6-3. It would be moronic in that circumstance to advance Alabama. Penn St therefore challenged, appropriately, over Alabama against Oklahoma, whose only loss was to Miami.
Air Force actually would have advanced. Except that they were beaten by Brigham Young. But for that we'd have seen Air Force playing Penn State in a championship. Admittedly not a Belt Championship but close. Oklahoma didn't secure the Belt. But they took the Championship away from P.S.U. Obviously, they are two separate things, but they coincide with respect to a legitimate title claim. Oklahoma's claim is legitimate. As a result of the Belt. Alabama lost to Penn State. Penn State lost to Oklahoma. Taking that and reversing it. It would seem (to me if to nobody else) Penn State likely had a say in who won 1984.
That's all I'm doing. Brigham Young obviously never beat Penn State (ever). That's relevant. But they played P.S.U. lost.
But I doubt anyone would position Penn State before Brigham Young in 1984.
Penn St's last loss was to Pittsburgh. I already admitted BYU didn't beat Pitt. That's another team BYU has yet to beat.
But they have beaten S. Methodist. Notre Dame lost to S. Methodist in 1984. It's relevant because a Belt running through S. Carolina dead ends on Notre Dame. Making that game important in the outcome.
The bottom line is that Brigham Young defeated a Baylor team (5-6) good enough to topple Texas, 24-10. Texas was a legitimate title contender in 1983. A straight-line through Baylor obviously passed through Brigham Young before landing on Texas. It might even be hinted that Brigham Young's NC was played against Baylor. But it included multiple teams with title hopes. When Brigham Young played Tulsa, Tulsa was 2-0 and defeated S. Illinois. The very team that just beat N. Dakota St. I'd wager a guess S. Illinois was respectable in 1984. Defending national champion Salukis.
Things don't turn on a dime, ever. Teams relevant in 1984 are relevant today. Anyway, by beating Michigan BYU cemented their place as one of a token few to challenge for a Championship. No, it wasn't a Belt NC.
 
Tenn"cock said:
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.
Click to expand...
The New York Times never published it, no. It isn't something they patented, or copywrote. It is something I mostly invented myself. And it was never presented to the public as anything other than my own invention. As far as the source, I'm uncertain how to address that query other than I rely upon database. One was the one Ktffan presented and there was an interesting story behind that adventure. Not long after publishing my results, that website mysteriously vanished. College football trivia. Anyway the data I mined was primarily from that place. I've later adapted it to suit my own position, but I posted all of it in full. I believe earlier in this thread was a link to the rivals webpage where I did all the arithmetic.
And the arithmetic was my invention. At least the protocol. Meaning if there is a proprietor I suppose it's me but it still closely approximated the New York Times so I figured I might as well give them credit for the result. A variation is from Sports Reference. SRS. Simple Ranking System that I guess you could properly say I bastardized. But it wasn't my invention. So if there's a problem it's with there rating, not my bastardization. Unless you can show me how taking a result I have no say whatever about and legitimizing it through SOP somehow convolutes it? I can say nothing more than, good luck with that! It's among the more reliable methods available. It would be hard if not impossible for me to make it suck. As far as what I've been doing lately I'm revising my own metric so I won't have to rely upon another source. Taking the bastard out of the equation, so to speak. It hasn't yet quite fully passed inspection. Meaning I can't unveil it yet. Satisfied?
 
Copejunkie said:
Nope
Click to expand...
Nope what? The Belt is the method behind the madness. That should be clear to anyone with a pulse. It explains how Brigham Young was recognized. U.C.L.A. obviously won the Belt. It's not even my metric! Neither is relative proficiency. Actually none of it is about me. I wish it was, but it isn't. U.C.L.A. won the Belt in dramatic fashion by defeating DNC Miami, FL. 39-37.
Dude, that's how Championships are decided. It didn't take a committee of thirteen people acting together to decide it.
It took hutspa. Testicles. I'm actually surprised I have to explain any part of it.
Brigham Young lost to U.C.L.A. A game with a televised audience and people 'giving a shit'. About the result. BYU lost. U.C.L.A. won.
People knew it was a title game. People cared. BYU didn't make up lame excuses afterward. Contrast that to EVERY loss ever inflicted on an SEC team against a G-5. Excuses galore! They might as well have said 'we surrender'. I'd rather hear that quite frankly than some idiotic excuse.

Anyway, like I said a Belt run laterally through Brigham Young intersects Baylor. I quite frankly don't care if you like it. It's factual. It's because Texas is Texas Tough.
And Baylor beat Texas in 1984. Cinvincingly.
I hate to make excuses. That's cowardly.
I'm admitting BYU lost to U.C.L.A. I actually could throw out a ton of excuses. BYU lead until nearly the end of the game. U.C.L.A. went ahead on something like a 90 yard pass. It was probably a fluke given how well BYU played leading up to it. BFD. It happened. It counts the same regardless. Isn't it a lot easier to accept the result? Rather than complain about it being unfair?
Why can't ANY if the SEC teams grow a pair of testicles? Why are they always making excuses every time they lose? That's cowardly. That's stupid and incredibly lame.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Nope what? The Belt is the method behind the madness. That should be clear to anyone with a pulse. It explains how Brigham Young was recognized. U.C.L.A. obviously won the Belt. It's not even my metric! Neither is relative proficiency. Actually none of it is about me. I wish it was, but it isn't. U.C.L.A. won the Belt in dramatic fashion by defeating DNC Miami, FL. 39-37.
Dude, that's how Championships are decided. It didn't take a committee of thirteen people acting together to decide it.
It took hutspa. Testicles. I'm actually surprised I have to explain any part of it.
Brigham Young lost to U.C.L.A. A game with a televised audience and people 'giving a shit'. About the result. BYU lost. U.C.L.A. won.
People knew it was a title game. People cared. BYU didn't make up lame excuses afterward. Contrast that to EVERY loss ever inflicted on an SEC team against a G-5. Excuses galore! They might as well have said 'we surrender'. I'd rather hear that quite frankly than some idiotic excuse.

Anyway, like I said a Belt run laterally through Brigham Young intersects Baylor. I quite frankly don't care if you like it. It's factual. It's because Texas is Texas Tough.
And Baylor beat Texas in 1984. Cinvincingly.
I hate to make excuses. That's cowardly.
I'm admitting BYU lost to U.C.L.A. I actually could throw out a ton of excuses. BYU lead until nearly the end of the game. U.C.L.A. went ahead on something like a 90 yard pass. It was probably a fluke given how well BYU played leading up to it. BFD. It happened. It counts the same regardless. Isn't it a lot easier to accept the result? Rather than complain about it being unfair?
Why can't ANY if the SEC teams grow a pair of testicles? Why are they always making excuses every time they lose? That's cowardly. That's stupid and incredibly lame.
Click to expand...
Yawn
 
Copejunkie said:
Yawn
Click to expand...
Dude it says there is legitimacy behind the metric. It really doesn't matter if you like it. Iowa beat Texas. 55-17. That says Iowa was a champion to the necessary degree. Brigham Young obviously needed help. Iowa obviously gave them the help they needed. Together they are a Champion to 96% of what is required to claim sole proprietorship.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Dude it says there is legitimacy behind the metric. It really doesn't matter if you like it. Iowa beat Texas. 55-17. That says Iowa was a champion to the necessary degree. Brigham Young obviously needed help. Iowa obviously gave them the help they needed. Together they are a Champion to 96% of what is required to claim sole proprietorship.
Click to expand...
You are crazier than a shithouse rat. Talk to a therapist... or a priest. Hell, talk to an exorcist, maybe he can expunge this damn relative proficiency demon from your soul, but talk to someone. Just damn!
89625E21-B95B-4BAF-97E5-7B05EE017ECE.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top