Christopher Lane Foote. The best inside joke?

Wunder.Noid said:
@Tenn"cock doing work. Get double replies... ;) beers
Click to expand...
Just trying to to outline the basis from which representation ought to follow. In 1983 Illinois might have advanced but fir losing to U.C.L.A. in the Rose Bowl. Missouri also defeated Illinois in a preseason pairing. 27-17 it something. Eliminating them. Brigham Young beat Missouri in the Holiday Bowl. They also besr U C.L.A. preliminary to the Rose Bowl. I consider that to be basis through which Brigham Young claims superiority. The only thing standing in their way would gave been Baylor. BYU list to Baylor in their season opening pairing. I think it's pretty clear why BYU was a legitimate title contenderl. But what do I know?
 
TechRaiderRider said:
so what is Coastal Carolina's portion
of the belt ?
Click to expand...
They aren't represented to it. I was simply trying to argue in their behalf particular to rules I'd like to see implemented in the future. It's tough to predict the outcome in advance. But I don't agree that Notre Dame earned the opportunity. Neither am I convinced Coastal Carolina qualified. But a few simple rules would certainly help.
One thing I've sort of initiated on my own is giving teams benefit of the doubt
Last year (2019) multiple teams were in the title hunt. Few lasted. Oklahoma was admitted. I protracted their schedule to include Kansas St. Unfairly.
Kansas St obviously wasn't a title contender. That means neither was Navy. And Oklahoma lost to L.S.U. by a decided margin of victory. They're eliminated. And Kansas St wouldn't have advanced, anyway.
But benefit of the doubt admits Navy, not to the championship, but to the post-season.
It might not make sense except that Oklahoma qualified (was admitted) but lost to Kansas St. Kansas St therefore merited a part of the Championship but for L.S.U. beating Oklahoma in an elimination game.
Two strikes, your out. That's the metric I'm promoting. Simple as that.
Brigham Young lost (last year) to Coastal Carolina. That eliminates Brigham Young.
Unfair? Not at all! One strike didn't eliminate Oklahoma but two strikes obviously should.
Brigham Young isn't a P-5. If they win, they're ahead of Oklahoma. Oklahoma obviously were eliminated fairly early-on.
But if Brigham Young is undefeated, they advance ahead of two loss Oklahoma.
That's fair. As far as Texas A&M and Notre Dame. Neither were eliminated. Neither probably ought to have advanced, however
That's bias, unless someone can prove Notre Dame superiority. Cincinnati lost to Georgia.
That removes them from consideration.
Brigham Young merited consideration but lost to Coastal Carolina. Brigham Young was treated fairly in my estimation.
Coastal Carolina lost to Liberty. They're eliminated. Nobody carries a Belt into 2021 other than Alabama. Making it simpler. And I don't appropriate a Belt Championship. Asking me who has it is redundant. Alabama. And it had nothing whatsoever to do with me. As if I have say over who wins?
 
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...
It is simple. Fair, and easily demonstrable, too. That's the beauty of the Belt. It's easy to follow and should give the desired result. The problem is protocol. Nobody other than myself is following protocol. Pittsburgh won a Belt Championship in 2017. But they also failed to advance. That's problematic. Particularly when a person, such as myself is trying to unify a national championship.
I know how to initiate protocol that selects a legitimate Championship. Fairly, IMO.
I outlined it earlier. Pittsburgh obviously wasn't given fair opportunity to challenge. But they were also 5-7. Unlikely a national champion. Particularly if criteria limits participation to ranking. As it has, traditionally. To begin to year N.Carolina St and Sm Carolina squared off. A game S.Carolina win fairly cinvincungly.
A measure of the Belt, therefore was transferred by virtue of the fact N.Carolina St. retroactively lay claim to the Belt.
(Operating on the assumption Pittsburgh forfeits). Meaning transfer goes from Pittsburgh to N. Carolina St. to S. Carolina.
It goes through several pairings until it lands squarely in Georgia. SEC Champions.
From there it's shared with Oklahoma (Georgia and Oklahoma tied in the Rose Bowl). Following which Georgia lost, in overtime to Alabama. Alabama claims a share of the Belt. Georgia (two losses) is eliminated. And Oklahoma forfeits. If they don't forget, they lay claim to it, too. So it's better for everyone if they forfeit.
Again a retroactive measure of the Belt eventually lands in the hands of Texas Tech.
Who lose to S. Florida. Who has two losses.
Two losses eliminates S. Florida.
The Belt is shared but only one team, Alabama claims the national championship.
 
... waiting on the flow chart.

And to be fair, feel free to add the weights/measurements you use, in a bulleted legend at the bottom of the flow chart.
 
Tenn"cock said:
... waiting on the flow chart.

And to be fair, feel free to add the weights/measurements you use, in a bulleted legend at the bottom of the flow chart.
Click to expand...
I'll save you some time. This isn't about me. If you want to dismiss my theory then that's ok. I never claimed to be an authority about college football. My attempt is to simplify the selection protocol so that anyone can reasonably be chosen within set rules I've already outlined. If you are asking what admitted Brigham Young, in reality they were fortunate beyond measure to be selected.
But they were also qualified. As well as deserving. A better metric might have allowed them to play Oklahoma directly.
That metric actually fell into place later.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
youre doin a good job -
how far back have you traced the belt ?
Click to expand...
Thank you. Actually, as I've stated, it isn't my metric. I believe there is a database of sorts online that includes every Belt Champion. The problem is it isn't exactly the same metric I'm utilizing. It has been extremely difficult for me to isolate the Belt. I gave a few examples as to why it's hard. It isn't rocket science, but it isn't necessarily the simplest method, either. A person told me to diagram every step. That's nearly impossible. But it does seem to yield the desired result. It's still being developed.
I am trying as hard as I can to isolate it.
Assuming I can, there should be one way to select a deserving national champion.
Brigham Young nearly isolated it. I tried to outline the method. Maybe I failed. IDK.
Anyway, it's obvious to me U.C.L.A. was a Belt Champion. It's also obvious to me Brigham Young failed to isolate the Belt.
I explained why. A simple pairing between Brigham Young and U.C.L.A. might have worked. Obviously Brigham Young necessarily would have needed to win.
It isn't obvious to me that they necessarily do. Hence the measure to which they claim being at most 2/3. The remaining 1/3, obviously is claimed by another team. Iowa.
But there is a problem. Iowa didn't beat Nebraska. Nebraska was the third team.
BYU probably ought to have scheduled Nebraska. That might have helped. Nebraska played L.S.U. in the Sugar Bowl.
L.S.U. actually might have been superior to Iowa. 8-3-1 seems superior to 8-4-1.
Meaning Nebraska might have decimated Iowa. Unfortunately we will never know.
Iowa was exceptionally talented, however.
As I assume was L.S.U. Outstanding football teams were there all around the board. People trivialized Brigham Young's opponent, but they were solid. They were arguably the toughest opponent BYU faced.
So many people look at record, as if it says everything about a team. It says something.
It says Michigan was topsy-turvy. But they never really landed, all season long. They had nothing to lose and probably threw all they could at Brigham Young.
I don't want to belabor the point.
A Belt wasn't on the line, therefore the most that can be said is BYU defeated a difficult opponent who wanted to upset the Cougars.
Iowa played a team in Texas I'm guessing were anxious to get back on track. Iowa obviously wasn't a national champion in 1984. I understand that. But they were sufficiently strong to carry BYU's slack.
It's a co-championship. Neither claim it independently of the other team. F.W.I.W.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
so what is Coastal Carolina's portion
of the belt ?
Click to expand...
They aren't included. Assuming they had been admitted to the Championship, they might have challenged Alabama. But when they weren't selected, they received no credit. Meaning they weren't included. It can be confusing, but it's not hard to follow. The reason I thought they might advance is because they were in favorable position. Top twelve teams are frequently admitted. Cincinnati took the G-5 position in the Peach Bowl. Actually it was a long shot for Coastal Carolina. They weren't going to be admitted regardless of what they did. But they took whatever claim Brigham Young had and used it against Liberty. Liberty won. Meaning if there is any carry over, it's held nearly exclusively by the Liberty Flames. But that was based upon the assumption a Kansas St. team that defeated Oklahoma in 2019 was good enough to advance. They weren't. So it's sort of a moot point now. Brigham Young probably had the best chance. But the committee had them ranked lower than I anticipated. F.W.I.W.
 
Big 8 Rules said:
I can only trace back to just above my ass crack. Then I have to stop and use the other hand.
Click to expand...
Does it eventually land on Alabama? Because that's where I'm standing right now. Alabama has full claim upon the Belt. F.W.I.W. And they got there by winning! Meaning there's little to be inferred. A team either measures up or they don't. Little room for error and it might be the toughest title. Which, again is why I'm promoting it as a way to select a deserving national champion. It seems to work properly. Fairly.
 
Preacherman said:
The belt thing, that’s what’s screwing with me.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't upset you. Actually it's fairly simple. Iowa would appear to lay claim to one quarter, moving forward. I know this stuff is really confusing. I apologise, but Alabama last lost to Auburn. That makes it harder to predict, moving forward. Iowa carries a measure of it into 2021. I'm also giving Texas A&M a measure of it, a result of having beaten Florida after losing to Alabama. And I think Georgia should be given recognition, too. After beating Cincinnati. And a case could be made for Old Miss. I would include Oklahoma except for the fact Coastal Carolina merited it more.
 
TechRaiderRider said:
so if the playoff system was abandoned,
could/should there be a mechanism
to allow a non-scheduled school
call for a challenge (game)
to the current belt holder ?
Click to expand...
Like I said the way I would appropriate seedings would depend solely upon results. Georgia seems to have sufficient claim over Cincinnati. Cincinnati obviously lost. That would transfer any claim the BearKats might otherwise have had. Moving forward. Georgia therefore has a measure of the Belt. Many other teams might claim. But I follow protocol. Georgia claims Cincy's share. It's like starting over.
Indiana, I believe, was beaten by Mississippi, fairly soundly. Two losses remove a team from consideration. Mississippi therefore carries any claim Indiana might otherwise have had, moving forward. Iowa, interestingly has a claim, moving on. Even with two losses, they carry a measure into 2021 as does Texas A&M. Alabama obviously, has a share (the CFP Championship). Coastal Carolina would, but for having lost to Liberty who were eliminated by losing to N. Carolina St.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top