• Re: It is Not the committees job to pick the 4 best teamsÖ.

    From joe@mich.com@21:1/5 to RSFC Moderator on Sun Dec 3 14:29:07 2023
    On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 06:56:41 -0800 (PST), RSFC Moderator <rsfcmoderator@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 7:06:06?AM UTC-5, mckyj57 wrote:
    On 2023-12-03, michael anderson wrote:
    Never was, and wonít be this year.
    What do they say their mission is?

    For purposes of any four-team playoff, the process will
    inevitably need to select the four best teams from among
    several with legitimate claims to participate.

    And what do they consider?

    Conference championships won, strength of schedule,
    head?to?head competition, comparative outcomes of common
    opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and, other
    relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and
    coaches that may have affected a teamís performance during
    the season or likely will affect its postseason performance

    Somehow, this omits the part about winning games and not losing games.

    FSU won all their games and lost none of their games: they should be in.

    1 Michigan
    2 Washington
    3 FSU
    4 Texas

    If FSU is left out and win their bowl game, give the tournament winner a big fat asterisk. Or, better, don't to that and let FSU play for it.

    schedule counts, for instance anyone can win against an Ivy League schedule

    against ranked teams

    FSU played #13 LSU #15 Louisville SOS #55 according to Yahoo Sports

    Alabama played #1 Georgia #3 Texas #11 Ole Miss #13 LSU #21 Tenn SOS #5

    winning 13 games with FSU's schedule was much easier than with Alabama's

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joe@mich.com@21:1/5 to JGibson on Mon Dec 4 07:15:57 2023
    On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 11:58:13 -0800 (PST), JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 2:29:13?PM UTC-5, j...@mich.com wrote:
    On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 06:56:41 -0800 (PST), RSFC Moderator <rsfcmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 7:06:06?AM UTC-5, mckyj57 wrote:
    On 2023-12-03, michael anderson wrote:
    Never was, and wonít be this year.
    What do they say their mission is?

    For purposes of any four-team playoff, the process will
    inevitably need to select the four best teams from among
    several with legitimate claims to participate.

    And what do they consider?

    Conference championships won, strength of schedule,
    head?to?head competition, comparative outcomes of common
    opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and, other
    relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and
    coaches that may have affected a teamís performance during
    the season or likely will affect its postseason performance

    Somehow, this omits the part about winning games and not losing games.

    FSU won all their games and lost none of their games: they should be in.

    1 Michigan
    2 Washington
    3 FSU
    4 Texas

    If FSU is left out and win their bowl game, give the tournament winner a big fat asterisk. Or, better, don't to that and let FSU play for it.
    schedule counts, for instance anyone can win against an Ivy League schedule >>
    against ranked teams

    FSU played #13 LSU #15 Louisville SOS #55 according to Yahoo Sports

    Alabama played #1 Georgia #3 Texas #11 Ole Miss #13 LSU #21 Tenn SOS #5

    winning 13 games with FSU's schedule was much easier than with Alabama's

    And Alabama didn't win 13 games!

    And FSU would not have with Alabama's schedule either. FSU would have had at least two losses.

    BTW, here is a Bobby Bowden quote about the time he was fleeing in terror from the SEC invitation FSU had waited so long for
    and begging the ACC to take them in.

    "When I think of scheduling I look at boxing. It doesn't matter how many patsies you fight, as long as you win you end up in the championship bout."
    A lot of people seem to have this attitude.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)