"Non-champ / Indie" cfp bylaw

[occupant]

 

[williewilliejuan]

I know obtuse declarations instead of specific argumentation passes in these forums, so I had to reward you with a thumbs up.

You're fucking hilarious. You haven't given one single argument in support of your position and yet you complain about how others support theirs. Others who have actually provided reasoning for their position. It's laughable.

 

[ElTexan]

You're fucking hilarious. You haven't given one single argument in support of your position and yet you complain about how others support theirs. Others who have actually provided reasoning for their position. It's laughable.

I've laid it out explicitly: a team should not be automatically be punished for not achieving a standard it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to achieve without some OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY important reason.

There is no OBVIOUSLY important reason an indie should be punished by having to live under such a tough standard as 'unequivocally better.'

Can you copy and paste that to your fucking forehead so you can stop saying I'm not giving a reason? That would help your dunce ass.

 

[williewilliejuan]

I've laid it out explicitly: a team should not be automatically be punished for not achieving a standard it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to achieve without some OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY important reason.

There is no OBVIOUSLY important reason an indie should be punished by having to live under such a tough standard as 'unequivocally better.'

Can you copy and paste that to your fucking forehead so you can stop saying I'm not giving a reason? That would help your dunce ass.

You still haven't given an argument other than you subjectively find this standard to be unfair. You can hold your breath and kick your feet all you want, but if you think you're actually making an argument other than "I think it's unfair and I don't like it!!!", you're mistaken. Laughably, amusingly mistaken.

 

[ElTexan]

You still haven't given an argument other than you subjectively find this standard to be unfair. You can hold your breath and kick your feet all you want, but if you think you're actually making an argument other than "I think it's unfair and I don't like it!!!", you're mistaken. Laughably, amusingly mistaken.

Would you think a standard of "You must be UNEQUIVOCALLY BETTER than another team if you didn't win the ACC, B12, B10, or SEC" is a fair standard? No, because there's no reason to think a PAC12 Sched is is worse than those. Get it, you dunce?
The Pac12 Champ should just have to be "BETTER", not "UNEQUIVOCALLY BETTER."

Does. That. Sink. In?

In the SAME EXACT WAY, there is no reason to think an Indie Sched is is automatically weaker. So, the standard should be "Better," not "UNEQUIVOCALLY BETTER."

Do. You. Get. It. Dunce?

 

[TigerBait1971]

The way it is written now seems good.

lol

 

[williewilliejuan]

Would you think a standard of "You must be UNEQUIVOCALLY BETTER than another team if you didn't win the ACC, B12, B10, or SEC" is a fair standard? No, because there's no reason to think a PAC12 Sched is is worse than those. Get it, you dunce?
The Pac12 Champ should just have to be "BETTER", not "UNEQUIVOCALLY BETTER."

Does. That. Sink. In?

In the SAME EXACT WAY, there is no reason to think an Indie Sched is is automatically weaker. So, the standard should be "Better," not "UNEQUIVOCALLY BETTER."

Do. You. Get. It. Dunce?

You're an amusing little man. Pray tell, in your mind what is the difference - in reality, not your silly little scenarios that you love so much because they make you feel smarter than empirical evidence would support - between "better" and "unequivocally better"? Because in reality, they all face the same standard.

Coming into the playoff this year, Stanford was arguably better than either Michigan State or Oklahoma. Bowl performance certainly supports that. However, at the time the selection was made, they weren't deemed "better" - unequivocally or otherwise and were excluded.

So tell us, oh King of Pointless Arguments, what's the actual, practical difference?

 

[trojanfan12]

They chose that route. A conference winner has proven their worth by winning their conference. An independent chooses not to subject themselves to that and must prove themselves worthy by being demonstrably better than a conference champion. That's not a punishment. It's a logical measuring stick for the non-retarded.

While I disagree with El Jexan, I also disagree with just dismissing an indie schedule as full of cupcakes just because they aren't in a conference. Notre Dame typically plays one of the more challenging schedules every year, even though, as an indie, they don't have to. Imo, if Notre Dame has finished with only 1 loss, they would have just as compelling an argument as any other 1 loss team. In fact, going into their final game vs. Stanford, their only loss was to Clemson by 2 points.

Texas, @Virginia, Georgia Tech, UMass, @Clemson, Navy, USC, @ Temple, @Pitt, Wake Forest, Boston College (@Fenway Park), @Stanford.

That's as solid a schedule as anyone, imo.

 

[Olyduck]

While I disagree with El Jexan, I also disagree with just dismissing an indie schedule as full of cupcakes just because they aren't in a conference. Notre Dame typically plays one of the more challenging schedules every year, even though, as an indie, they don't have to. Imo, if Notre Dame has finished with only 1 loss, they would have just as compelling an argument as any other 1 loss team. In fact, going into their final game vs. Stanford, their only loss was to Clemson by 2 points.

Texas, @Virginia, Georgia Tech, UMass, @Clemson, Navy, USC, @ Temple, @Pitt, Wake Forest, Boston College (@Fenway Park), @Stanford.

That's as solid a schedule as anyone, imo.

Was it though?

5-7, 4-8, 3-9, 3-9, 3-9, 3-9 is half the schedule. Clemson, and Stanford were their big games, USC and Pitt solid ones. Navy and Temple while solid are from the Non P5 so people are going to look at them as lesser.
compared to Stanford who played Oregon State, Colorado and UCF as their only Non Bowl team.
Alabama had only Charleston southern and ULM not in bowls.
Oklahoma had Kansas and Iowa State not in bowls.
Michgan State had Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland not in bowls and Nebraska 5-7 but bowl winner.

 

[OregonDucks]

You have made a lot of "wtf" threads, but this might be your most "wtf" thread.

 

[trojanfan12]

Was it though?

5-7, 4-8, 3-9, 3-9, 3-9, 3-9 is half the schedule. Clemson, and Stanford were their big games, USC and Pitt solid ones. Navy and Temple while solid are from the Non P5 so people are going to look at them as lesser.
compared to Stanford who played Oregon State, Colorado and UCF as their only Non Bowl team.
Alabama had only Charleston southern and ULM not in bowls.
Oklahoma had Kansas and Iowa State not in bowls.
Michgan State had Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland not in bowls and Nebraska 5-7 but bowl winner.

A team can only schedule the games, they can't control how good those teams actually are. What you don't see are any Charleston Southerns, etc. So they at least attempt a challenging schedule every year.

If USC and Pitt (especially USC) perform to expectations, those games become even bigger.

 

[ElTexan]

You're an amusing little man. Pray tell, in your mind what is the difference - in reality, not your silly little scenarios that you love so much because they make you feel smarter than empirical evidence would support - between "better" and "unequivocally better"? Because in reality, they all face the same standard.

Coming into the playoff this year, Stanford was arguably better than either Michigan State or Oklahoma. Bowl performance certainly supports that. However, at the time the selection was made, they weren't deemed "better" - unequivocally or otherwise and were excluded.

So tell us, oh King of Pointless Arguments, what's the actual, practical difference?

Your cop-out isn't an argument. In law, 'preponderance of evidence' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' are very different standards. It's a cop-out to just state that "well, it's whatever the jury says anyway."

The standards mean something. I have CLEARLY laid out why an Indie should not be held to the MUCH tougher standard. It is ridiculous to hold a team to a tougher standard for not teaching a goal it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to reach.

Use brain. Think betterer. I've laid it out clearly for you.

 

[Olyduck]

Your cop-out isn't an argument. In law, 'preponderance of evidence' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' are very different standards. It's a cop-out to just state that "well, it's whatever the jury says anyway."

The standards mean something. I have CLEARLY laid out why an Indie should not be held to the MUCH tougher standard. It is ridiculous to hold a team to a tougher standard for not teaching a goal it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to reach.

Use brain. Think betterer. I've laid it out clearly for you.

It's not impossible. they just need to join a conference.

 

[ElTexan]

It's not impossible. they just need to join a conference.

It's impossible for an Indie to win a conference. They are not in one. Making standards that are impossible to achieve is idiotic. It's a stupid rule.

 

[williewilliejuan]

While I disagree with El Jexan, I also disagree with just dismissing an indie schedule as full of cupcakes just because they aren't in a conference. Notre Dame typically plays one of the more challenging schedules every year, even though, as an indie, they don't have to. Imo, if Notre Dame has finished with only 1 loss, they would have just as compelling an argument as any other 1 loss team. In fact, going into their final game vs. Stanford, their only loss was to Clemson by 2 points.

Texas, @Virginia, Georgia Tech, UMass, @Clemson, Navy, USC, @ Temple, @Pitt, Wake Forest, Boston College (@Fenway Park), @Stanford.

That's as solid a schedule as anyone, imo.

I don't think they do dismiss indies. At the end of the day, I think the standard is the same for every team. You have to be one of the four best teams. You can demonstrate that by winning a P5 conference or by being better than one of the winners of a P5 conference. The whole issue of better vs. "unequivocally" better is just semantic nonsense.

 

[williewilliejuan]

Your cop-out isn't an argument. In law, 'preponderance of evidence' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' are very different standards. It's a cop-out to just state that "well, it's whatever the jury says anyway."

The standards mean something. I have CLEARLY laid out why an Indie should not be held to the MUCH tougher standard. It is ridiculous to hold a team to a tougher standard for not teaching a goal it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to reach.

Use brain. Think betterer. I've laid it out clearly for you.

Except you haven't. What's the difference between the two standards? Real world, actual difference?

 

[7Samurai13]

I guess el jexan believes that Ohio State should have gone to the playoffs because winning a conference should not be put into consideration by the committee.

 

[ElTexan]

Except you haven't. What's the difference between the two standards? Real world, actual difference?

So, by the same logic, you think Preponderance of Evidence' and 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' are the same standard pragmatically because "juries decide in any event"?

You're THAT stupid, right?

 

[ElTexan]

I guess el jexan believes that Ohio State should have gone to the playoffs because winning a conference should not be put into consideration by the committee.

You're one of the brighter people here. You really can't think that my argument supports anything like that. Please, tell me you're not that dumb.

 

[williewilliejuan]

So, by the same logic, you think Preponderance of Evidence' and 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' are the same standard pragmatically because "juries decide in any event"?

You're THAT stupid, right?

No. In the real world, courtrooms and college championship selections are very different things and attempts to compare the standards required for each are only made by the profoundly stupid.