🏈 Danny Kanell speaks, Herbie says "Dude, what's happened to you...you're better than this."

TUSKstuff said:
You know @musso for a guy that likes to pick his spots and come on here and give your controversial views, why are you now spending so much time on semantics with me, as if that was ever the point?
Click to expand...

It's not merely semantics. Understanding the terms objective and subjective was central to my point. Otherwise, you can't understand my stance. So clarification was needed.

Play-off eligibility is subjective if it is determined by the fluid opinions of a committee and revealed after the regular season.

Play-off eligibility is objective if it is determined and published for everyone's benefit before the regular season.

My argument is everyone should prefer the latter. The integrity of the game would be improved. And injured players with NFL futures at stake would be better informed about how to finish out their final college season.

TUSKstuff said:
I grew up in an era of football were everything was politics. The BCS was light years ahead of that beauty contest and the playoff is much better than the BCS. Suppose that's as good as it gets?
Click to expand...
No, it's not as good as it gets. I'm showing you a better way. But you're behaving like a child who puts his hands over his ears and says, "La la la I can't hear you ..."
 
musso said:
It's not merely semantics. Understanding the terms objective and subjective was central to my point. Otherwise, you can't understand my stance. So clarification was needed.

Play-off eligibility is subjective if it is determined by the fluid opinions of a committee and revealed after the regular season.

Play-off eligibility is objective if it is determined and published for everyone's benefit before the regular season.

My argument is everyone should prefer the latter. The integrity of the game would be improved. And injured players with NFL futures at stake would be better informed about how to finish out their final college season.


No, it's not as good as it gets. I'm showing you a better way. But you're behaving like a child who puts his hands over his ears and says, "La la la I can't hear you ..."
Click to expand...


But @musso, you weren't trying to correct my definition of "objectivity." You wanted to merely correct some misguided info you had that I used "subjectivity incorrectly.

I'm not saying there isn't a time and place for objective thinking, but it's far from an exact science. You CANNOT take a preconceived mind out of the equation. That's impossible. The human element will eventually show up and pride and prejudice will always control the selection process and "cum" it up. It happens in the "eye test" as well. It's just simpler to follow. Look at the venom being poured out by so-called experts, paid professionals who follow college football every day and they are deaf and blinded by their own selfish rage right now. Everyone has a motive for what they do and you can't separate selfishness and greed from the college football poll. These nitwits would like to take a stick of dynamite to the whole process right now.

We just lived through the nerdiest era of selecting a champion during the BCS/computer fest. And when they gave us the Alabama/LSU matchup, so much for math and the sciences in selecting our participate in a non-biased, fair, and equitable way. No one was buying it because their team wasn't there. So much for our foray into objectivity.
 
TUSKstuff said:
But @musso, you weren't trying to correct my definition of "objectivity." You wanted to merely correct some misguided info you had that I used "subjectivity incorrectly.

I'm not saying there isn't a time and place for objective thinking, but it's far from an exact science. You CANNOT take a preconceived mind out of the equation. That's impossible. The human element will eventually show up and pride and prejudice will always control the selection process and "cum" it up. It happens in the "eye test" as well. It's just simpler to follow. Look at the venom being poured out by so-called experts, paid professionals who follow college football every day and they are deaf and blinded by their own selfish rage right now. Everyone has a motive for what they do and you can't separate selfishness and greed from the college football poll. These nitwits would like to take a stick of dynamite to the whole process right now.

We just lived through the nerdiest era of selecting a champion during the BCS/computer fest. And when they gave us the Alabama/LSU matchup, so much for math and the sciences in selecting our participate in a non-biased, fair, and equitable way. No one was buying it because their team wasn't there. So much for our foray into objectivity.
Click to expand...
Jesus, your rebuttals are like moving targets. You're not responding to what I'm actually saying. It sounds like you're addressing all the media and fan hype that surrounds football. I'm not addressing the media or fans. I'm addressing the role of the play-off committee and proposing the merits of reforming play-off eligibility. That's it.

I'm not pretending that my proposal would eliminate all subjectivity from college football. As long as fans have opinions, they will express their opinions. That's fine. And as long as polls remain a feature of college football, subjectivity will also remain baked into the system. Now of course, I would prefer the total elimination of polls, but I'm not even going there in this thread. I've only put forth a more modest reform.

The BCS computer system, while technically objective, was just as opaque as a secretive committee. Only a few nerds could understand it. And it was only descriptive, not prescriptive. I prefer something prescriptive. For example, something like "if your teams does X, Y, and Z, you are going to the play off." Or "if you team does X, Y, and Z, you are ineligible." Get it? Again, I've mentioned the NFL system several times in this thread, but your rebuttals keep ignoring that. For example, if you win your division, you're in the play off. Or if you win your conference, you're in. Or the top 4 (or 8) teams ranked by the AP after the regular season are in. My simple point is, publish the terms of play-off eligibility beforehand, and just let things happen.

My question to you is, why do you keep opposing my proposal?
 
Another thing. Imagine Auburn. They are the only team to beat Georgia and Bama, losing their RB in the grueling process. Their reward? Well, folks, let's take a took behind door #3 ... why it's a rematch with Georgia in Atlanta!!!! The result? Georgia and Bama go to the play off. That's just messed up. Not that I have any sympathy for Auburn, but what happens to an opponent could also happen to us one day. I've long hated mandatory conference title games, but if we can't get rid of them, then let's follow the Big12 and at least eliminate divisions.
 
musso said:
Jesus, your rebuttals are like moving targets. You're not responding to what I'm actually saying. It sounds like you're addressing all the media and fan hype that surrounds football. I'm not addressing the media or fans. I'm addressing the role of the play-off committee and proposing the merits of reforming play-off eligibility. That's it.

I'm not pretending that my proposal would eliminate all subjectivity from college football. As long as fans have opinions, they will express their opinions. That's fine. And as long as polls remain a feature of college football, subjectivity will also remain baked into the system. Now of course, I would prefer the total elimination of polls, but I'm not even going there in this thread. I've only put forth a more modest reform.

The BCS computer system, while technically objective, was just as opaque as a secretive committee. Only a few nerds could understand it. And it was only descriptive, not prescriptive. I prefer something prescriptive. For example, something like "if your teams does X, Y, and Z, you are going to the play off." Or "if you team does X, Y, and Z, you are ineligible." Get it? Again, I've mentioned the NFL system several times in this thread, but your rebuttals keep ignoring that. For example, if you win your division, you're in the play off. Or if you win your conference, you're in. Or the top 4 (or 8) teams ranked by the AP after the regular season are in. My simple point is, publish the terms of play-off eligibility beforehand, and just let things happen.

My question to you is, why do you keep opposing my proposal?
Click to expand...


The BCS was as "objective" as we have ever gotten from the human form. And we had to listen to their homework every week. That is your pet peeve right, show your work? There were so much public data being spewed out from those computers that we were being asked at times to comprehend metrics that showed how Boise State was really the #1 team in disguise.


I've spoken often on playing more conference games, eliminating FCS teams, Getting rid of the SECCG, cause it's tits on a bull," or at least get rid of divisions so that the 2 top teams meet, making it a much truer playoff game. But ONLY, if it's a level playing field. Meaning, ONLY, if every power 5 conference has to do exactly the same. Then the CCG is a playoff game for the first time.

I don't like the NFL format at all. Too many crappy teams get in with your proposal. I don't want to eliminate the tension and value of the regular season. Right now, most teams get one loss, and after that, you are mostly out of the running. That is some serious playoff attrition and I like it.

And lastly, I know, but I don't think you do, that there are less good teams after pick #4 than you think. When we go to 8 and we will, mainly because now the B1G is in serious melt again, it will become abundantly and painfully clear to all we don't have the equal talent. And when we do go to 8, the SEC will benefit more than most, cause, after all, that's where the talent resides.
 
TUSKstuff said:
The BCS was as "objective" as we have ever gotten from the human form. And we had to listen to their homework every week. That is your pet peeve right, show your work? There were so much public data being spewed out from those computers that we were being asked at times to comprehend metrics that showed how Boise State was really the #1 team in disguise.


I've spoken often on playing more conference games, eliminating FCS teams, Getting rid of the SECCG, cause it's tits on a bull," or at least get rid of divisions so that the 2 top teams meet, making it a much truer playoff game. But ONLY, if it's a level playing field. Meaning, ONLY, if every power 5 conference has to do exactly the same. Then the CCG is a playoff game for the first time.

I don't like the NFL format at all. Too many crappy teams get in with your proposal. I don't want to eliminate the tension and value of the regular season. Right now, most teams get one loss, and after that, you are mostly out of the running. That is some serious playoff attrition and I like it.

And lastly, I know, but I don't think you do, that there are less good teams after pick #4 than you think. When we go to 8 and we will, mainly because now the B1G is in serious melt again, it will become abundantly and painfully clear to all we don't have the equal talent. And when we do go to 8, the SEC will benefit more than most, cause, after all, that's where the talent resides.
Click to expand...

Bama/ the SEC is like an incurable parasite that will only grow stronger the more you try to manipulate the variables to try and eliminate it.
 
TUSKstuff said:
The BCS was as "objective" as we have ever gotten from the human form. And we had to listen to their homework every week. That is your pet peeve right, show your work?
Click to expand...
No, that's not my only pet peeve. I already told you my problem with the BCS. You don't appear to be comprehending my posts.

TUSKstuff said:
I've spoken often on playing more conference games, eliminating FCS teams, Getting rid of the SECCG, cause it's tits on a bull," or at least get rid of divisions so that the 2 top teams meet, making it a much truer playoff game. But ONLY, if it's a level playing field. Meaning, ONLY, if every power 5 conference has to do exactly the same. Then the CCG is a playoff game for the first time.
Click to expand...

:clap:

TUSKstuff said:
I don't like the NFL format at all. Too many crappy teams get in with your proposal. I don't want to eliminate the tension and value of the regular season. Right now, most teams get one loss, and after that, you are mostly out of the running. That is some serious playoff attrition and I like it.

And lastly, I know, but I don't think you do, that there are less good teams after pick #4 than you think. When we go to 8 and we will, mainly because now the B1G is in serious melt again, it will become abundantly and painfully clear to all we don't have the equal talent. And when we do go to 8, the SEC will benefit more than most, cause, after all, that's where the talent resides.
Click to expand...
I was only referring to the objectivity of the NFL's playoff eligibility criteria. I wasn't recommending the same number of playoff participants. Had you read my comments about not preferring to expand beyond 4, you wouldn't have wasted your time with this paragraph.

But do you agree with the objective method of how the NFL decides playoff teams without committees?
 
musso said:
No, that's not my only pet peeve. I already told you my problem with the BCS. You don't appear to be comprehending my posts.



:clap:


I was only referring to the objectivity of the NFL's playoff eligibility criteria. I wasn't recommending the same number of playoff participants. Had you read my comments about not preferring to expand beyond 4, you wouldn't have wasted your time with this paragraph.

But do you agree with the objective method of how the NFL decides playoff teams without committees?
Click to expand...


I heard you and I mentioned that it gets slim pickings after pick #4 to emphasize there is no room for error in our world and certainly that's not the case in the NFL.

Your constant comparison to the NFL is stupefying. Transparency is because they have a division winner and wildcard based on stats and stats alone. You can get into the NFL playoff with an 8-8 record because you won the division and yet in your same conference there can sit an 11-5 team who doesn't get into the playoffs because there wasn't room on the wildcard. And that has happened more than once, ask New England? How much transparency does it take when half the league is getting into the playoffs based on math alone and what is there to emulate in practice for us?

Just doesn't take me long to get back to being subjective with ONLY 4 picks to get it right. If the committee refused to explain themselves at all after their votes each week I'd be OK with that.

Imagine a football world that ESPN can't weekly misinterpret for us?
 
musso said:
Your comprehesion skills are too poor to continue this. The comments in my previous post should have nullified your response. You're not absorbing what I'm saying, and you're also ignoring my questions.

I came across this clip. I totally support Joel Klatt's proposal, beginning at around the 7:30 mark.

Joel Klatt talks Alabama, Clemson, Georgia and Oklahoma in the CFP | THE HERD
Click to expand...


If you had the answer partner, you would have long since broken it down into detail. Now you want Joel Klatt of Fox and B1G butthurt fame to do your arguing for you. You, my friend, are a disappointment.
 
TUSKstuff said:
If you had the answer partner, you would have long since broken it down into detail.
Click to expand...
I never claimed to have the answer. I've only claimed to have a modest proposal for reform. Again, you haven't even comprehended that simple fact.
TUSKstuff said:
Now you want Joel Klatt of Fox and B1G butthurt fame to do your arguing for you. You, my friend, are a disappointment.
Click to expand...
I thought perhaps you're an auditory learner because text clearly isn't working for you. So yes, in order to accommodate your needs, I hoped a 2 minute video excerpt might prove more successful. Yet again, you don't even respond to the content of the video, just like you can't respond to the content of my text. So maybe you're not an auditory learner either. Maybe, my friend, you're just an idiot.
 
musso said:
I never claimed to have the answer. I've only claimed to have a modest proposal for reform. Again, you haven't even comprehended that simple fact.

I thought perhaps you're an auditory learner because text clearly isn't working for you. So yes, in order to accommodate your needs, I hoped a 2 minute video excerpt might prove more successful. Yet again, you don't even respond to the content of the video, just like you can't respond to the content of my text. So maybe you're not an auditory learner either. Maybe, my friend, you're just an idiot.
Click to expand...


I assumed when you got down to praising Joel Klatt you were fresh out of options. For a man that likes to wow us with your deep intellectual concepts all of a sudden you just can't seem to get past the childish name calling.

Bama is a passion over here and you know it. Telling us that you have the same butthurt problems with the committee that a Joe Klatt has said volumes about your motive and genuine interest in the Crimson Tide being in the playoffs to begin with. I'll keep it in mind in future discussions.
 

Similar threads

TerryP
  • Article Article
💬 If you grew up in the '70's you probably possess these traits.
    • Like
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
64Tide
6
S
🏀 Charles Bediako says Alabama 'can win it all' with him back - ESPN
Replies
10
Views
313
mando
mando
S
🏈 College football 2025-26 transfer portal
2 3
Replies
58
Views
6K
Secondand26
Secondand26
S
📡 In the digital age, this nostalgic pastime still has a home — the college football preview magazine - The Athletic
    • Like
Replies
0
Views
668
SEC Sports
S
S
📡 'He wants to be a great': Could Ty Simpson be the quarterback Alabama needs? - Tidesports
    • Like
Replies
0
Views
2K
SEC Sports
S
Back
Top Bottom