Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

Preacherman said:
What the fuck does BYU have to do with any of this!? I’m lostttttt
Click to expand...
Protocol. I outlined it. The Belt was won by U C.L.A. in the Fiesta Bowl. A game U.C.L.A
desperately needed to secure the Belt indirectly assisted Brigham Young. Brigham Young needed to play Nebraska to challenge U.C.L A 's claim to Belt superiority. That's where the championship ought to have been. Instead someone sent L.S.U. A ridiculous mistake that should have been prevented. Brigham Young ought to have been in the Sugar Bowl against Florida. That's why BYU can only claim a part if a national title. To fill claim a title requires every part to be met. Since only a part was met only a part of the championship is duly recognized by law. Brigham Young met 2/3 of the condition. Iowa met the remainder. Not too difficult. That's the basis for why it was a co-championship. U C.L.A. won the Belt, which is the same as CFP, F.W.I.W. A playoff between BYU, U.C.L.A. and Iowa rests with U.C.L.A. The Belt therefore IS the Championship. Kind of funny how nobody believes me. Any playoff including those three teams, retroactively rewards U.C.L.A.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Protocol. I outlined it. The Belt was won by U C.L.A. in the Fiesta Bowl. A game U.C.L.A
desperately needed to secure the Belt indirectly assisted Brigham Young. Brigham Young needed to play Nebraska to challenge U.C.L A 's claim to Belt superiority. That's where the championship ought to have been. Instead someone sent L.S.U. A ridiculous mistake that should have been prevented. Brigham Young ought to have been in the Sugar Bowl against Florida. That's why BYU can only claim a part if a national title. To fill claim a title requires every part to be met. Since only a part was met only a part of the championship is duly recognized by law. Brigham Young met 2/3 of the condition. Iowa met the remainder. Not too difficult. That's the basis for why it was a co-championship. U C.L.A. won the Belt, which is the same as CFP, F.W.I.W. A playoff between BYU, U.C.L.A. and Iowa rests with U.C.L.A. The Belt therefore IS the Championship. Kind of funny how nobody believes me. Any playoff including those three teams, retroactively rewards U.C.L.A.
Click to expand...
so if BYU wasnt present
when the belt was up for grabs,
how could they lay claim to any portion?
the simplicity and objectivity of the belt metric
doesn't seem to be honored in this case -
 
TechRaiderRider said:
so if BYU wasnt present
when the belt was up for grabs,
how could they lay claim to any portion?
the simplicity and objectivity of the belt metric
doesn't seem to be honored in this case -
Click to expand...
Just giving a synopsis relative to the cause. I think I admitted the condition isn't to where BYU can claim any measure of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I said, comparatively, BYU fares particularly well against the eventual Belt Champion (CFP, in other words). A result of having defeated Washington St., previously (a Holiday Bowl pairing). Washington St. themselves, although NOT in that season, also having claimed a Belt, but leading into. Utah having challenged, but losing to Washington St. Pullman, WA lends credence to BYU having beaten Washington St. Utah, obviously standing in place of the Cougars. And lastly, Brigham Young had they played Nebraska, would have cleared the last hurdle. But admittedly, STILL not a Belt. But a person, in that circumstance would be comfortable giving Brigham Young benefit of the doubt, I think, despite the measure to which Nebraska dominated U.C.L.A. point being, a Rose by any other name, would still make the same grade as the one U.C.L.A. did. U.C.L.A. is the lynchpin. Admittedly so. No, BYU didn't win a Belt. I know that! I'm saying had BYU beaten Nebraska in the Sugar Bowl, a game they probably qualified for, notwithstanding, they might ALSO have been a legitimate CFP contender. That's all.
 
Preacherman said:
Nope....still lost
Click to expand...
It's as simple as putting the onus on winning the CFP Championship. Meaning that a legitimate title claim includes the Belt. It was never about BYU. I only reference it since that year, probably more than any other proves why a Belt is necessary. BYU didn't win the Belt in 1984. U.C.L.A. did. This isn't that hard to follow. A playoff including BYU, U.C.L.A., Iowa and let's say (for laughs and giggles) Nebraska, would in all likelihood have fallen U.C.L.A.'s way. I try to live in reality. People who try to predict the result in advance are frequently wrong. So I never try to predict the result. U.C.L.A. defeated Brigham Young AND Iowa in 1985. In title games. Nebraska lost to Michigan. Therefore it would seem U.C.L.A., playoff (CFP) claims a championship. But I've said all along the Belt Champion is CFP NC. This isn't rocket science. CFP therefore coincides with the Belt making U.C.L.A. (1984) a national champion. Playoff. Pretty simple. The problem is there wasn't a playoff in 1984. Making it still a problem as far as administration. I said BYU shares the NC with Iowa. That's true. But Florida also claims it. Fairly. By Relative Proficiency.
 
Wunder.Noid said:
I remember when paragraphs (and beer) were important... ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
Sorry. Not meaning to buck a trend here. You guys follow my train of thought. It isn't difficult to do. Playoffs unnecessarily complicate things is what I'm trying to say. Again. Referencing 1984. Brigham Young could have been paired against U.C.L.A. in the Fiesta Bowl. Nobody can say with specificity what might have been, if they had. People can guess. But the only certainty is U.C.L.A. defeated Miami, FL. Making them a legitimate Belt Champion. The following year it was Alabama. There's something (dare I say quaint?) about it. Nobody can say either didn't earn it. Neither are recognized apart from the Belt, which admittedly I'm calling CFP. It ISN'T CFP, but it probably ought to be. Maybe I should leave it alone. But, 2017 is another good example of what I'm talking about. Why not have a Belt Championship? It might have given Pittsburgh another chance. Alabama didn't win a Belt but beat Georgia, in Overtime. Which in a roundabout way secured a Belt. So why not simply include the Belt? I'm not asking for the Moon. Why would admitting Pittsburgh over Miami, FL to the ACC Championship be such a problem?
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
Sorry. Not meaning to buck a trend here. You guys follow my train of thought....
Click to expand...

See, here is where I feel I need a beer or 5 before reading further.

And it's not because I'm particularly fond of beer, or even need beer to function, it's that reading your posts makes one want to visit another realm imo...
 
Wunder.Noid said:
See, here is where I feel I need a beer or 5 before reading further.

And it's not because I'm particularly fond of beer, or even need beer to function, it's that reading your posts makes one want to visit another realm imo...
Click to expand...
I'm trying to make life easier for everyone. Take 1984 and wrap it up in a blanket. There isn't necessarily one way to unwrap it. I've dissected it. The fact it included two teams is rather remarkable. That's what I'm getting at. Of comparable stature. Nobody can dispute a championship that includes both Brigham Young as well as Iowa without being dishonest. Florida actually needs to cheat to take the title away from Brigham Young. That says something and U.C.L.A. is a legitimate Belt Champion. CFP, in effect, if expanded to include them also Nebraska, if we are allowed to dismiss Nebraska after falling to Michigan. The Fiesta Bowl. Iowa defeated Michigan. Brigham Young lost to Ohio St. Florida Citrus Bowl. BYU also defeated Air Force, who otherwise advances to play Penn State. In a national title. But the Belt was exclusive to Alabama. Penn State defeated Alabama. It stands to reason, but for Oklahoma beating them, Penn State claims a national title. That means Brigham Young was instrumental to giving Oklahoma a second chance. That honestly probably couldn't happen if Brigham Young wasn't a legitimate title contender. Bottom line, as I see it, is Brigham Young lost to U.C.L.A. But U.C.L.A. lost to Nebraska. And Nebraska lost to Oklahoma. Oklahoma lost to Kansas. There's no way Oklahoma claims a national championship in 1984. Brigham Young was supposed to play Oklahoma. The title was between them and Florida. Iowa gives BYU enough leverage to hold serve. Both lost to U.C.L.A. Who lost to USC. Who lost to Alabama. In a Belt Championship. Alabama therefore won the Belt.
 
CollegeFBFan2021 said:
I'm trying to make life easier for everyone. Take 1984 and wrap it up in a blanket. There isn't necessarily one way to unwrap it. I've dissected it. The fact it included two teams is rather remarkable. That's what I'm getting at. Of comparable stature. Nobody can dispute a championship that includes both Brigham Young as well as Iowa without being dishonest. Florida actually needs to cheat to take the title away from Brigham Young. That says something and U.C.L.A. is a legitimate Belt Champion. CFP, in effect, if expanded to include them also Nebraska, if we are allowed to dismiss Nebraska after falling to Michigan. The Fiesta Bowl. Iowa defeated Michigan. Brigham Young lost to Ohio St. Florida Citrus Bowl. BYU also defeated Air Force, who otherwise advances to play Penn State. In a national title. But the Belt was exclusive to Alabama. Penn State defeated Alabama. It stands to reason, but for Oklahoma beating them, Penn State claims a national title. That means Brigham Young was instrumental to giving Oklahoma a second chance. That honestly probably couldn't happen if Brigham Young wasn't a legitimate title contender. Bottom line, as I see it, is Brigham Young lost to U.C.L.A. But U.C.L.A. lost to Nebraska. And Nebraska lost to Oklahoma. Oklahoma lost to Kansas. There's no way Oklahoma claims a national championship in 1984. Brigham Young was supposed to play Oklahoma. The title was between them and Florida. Iowa gives BYU enough leverage to hold serve. Both lost to U.C.L.A. Who lost to USC. Who lost to Alabama. In a Belt Championship. Alabama therefore won the Belt.
Click to expand...
jJmiG2h.gif


200.gif
 
RazzlDazzl said:
He created a thread/poll about whether or not he was completely full of shit after I suggested it with my handle in the title.

He didn't fare well and said something to the effect that the voting was rigged.

After that, I pretty much stuck to only reading responses to his posts. No need to re-read the Illiad and Odyssey of 1984 BYU and a horribly contrived college football ranking method.
Click to expand...
What's horribly contrived about it? I said if BYU had simply been paired against Nebraska in the Sugar Bowl (a game BYU was ineligible for) we'd have a consensus national championship. That's a GOOD thing. U.C.L.A. won the Belt (CFP, effectively). How did they do it? By BEATING the consensus National Champion, preceding year. Who, in turn, claimed it from Nebraska, who claimed it from Penn St. Fairly easy to follow. Brigham Young's claim obviously is superfluous. Iowa shares a Natty. Neither lay claim to the Belt. It doesn't get much simpler than that! Utah played Washington St. in Pullman. Lost. Barely. (the point being had it been in SLC, Utah, seems reasonable the result favors Utah). BYU defeated Utah, 24-14 in SLC, UT. Clearly SOS isn't prohibitive. As some are claiming. Washington St defeated BOTH teams (Oregon and Stanford) U.C.L.A. lost to. BOTH Utah and Washington St lost at Tennessee. Utah played Tennessee tough. Tennessee was tough but lost to Maryland. Who beat Miami, FL. Miami, FL was DNC. U.C.L.A. beat Miami, FL. BYU never played Nebraska. Ok? But when they did, BYU won.
 
Wunder.Noid said:
See, here is where I feel I need a beer or 5 before reading further.

And it's not because I'm particularly fond of beer, or even need beer to function, it's that reading your posts makes one want to visit another realm imo...
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be that way. I am arguing in favor of a protocol that gives emphasis to time honored methods. I didn't invent R.P. it was around long before I knew anything about it. The Belt isn't my idea, either. Both are necessary in order to legislate. Florida was the New York Times National Champion. That's a legitimate title claim. I don't work for the New York Times. Never have, never will. But I appreciate their endorsement of relative proficiency. It's coincidental to that particular championship. Similarly possibly accidentally, but nevertheless appropriately, CFP recognizes a Belt Champion. If they didn't, trust me I would know. I'm trying to simply protocol. Alabama won a Belt last season. That's a FACT. They also won New York Times NC. I'm not involved with either event but I can attest to the validity of either one. People want to include more teams. That's not simplification! Tell me I'm wrong. You can't. Furthermore a simple pairing (a la BCS) between Alabama and Ohio St would have sufficiently addressed selection protocol. I'm not making that up. Prioritize the team best suited to the championship seems to work. So all these asswipes calling for an expanded playoff, most notably Mike Leach can kiss my spotted honky backwoods ass!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top