Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!dday From: dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: College football playoffs Message-ID: <495@gymble.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 10:39:01 EST Article-I.D.: gymble.495 Posted: Wed Feb 12 10:39:01 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 02:46:17 EST References: <366@drutx.UUCP> <8660@ucla-cs.ARPA> <486@gymble.UUCP> <8747@ucla-cs.ARPA> <492@gymble.UUCP> <8852@ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 27 In article <8852@ucla-cs.ARPA> lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) writes: > I hope you know what you are talking about: >a playoff among the few legitimate contenders cannot produce the best team, >while the winner between #1 Penn St and non-#2 Oklahoma (don't >forget, they lost the tie-breaker to Miami) is the best team. >I just don't follow. You're hopeless, Eddy! I never said that a playoff CAN'T produce the best team, I simply said it won't settle the controversy. Teams left out of a playoff will always complain. You say that Air Force wouldn't have deserved being in a playoff based on regular season records. But their 10-1 record was the same as Oklahoma's, Miami's, and Iowa's. How do you figure? If you're going to bring strength of schedule into the argument, then you can't just pick the four teams with the best records. Under that criterion, 11-0 Penn State didn't belong, 9-1-1 Michigan did. And rating schedule difficulty for the purpose of selecting four playoff teams is a highly subjective exercise. CONTROVERSY WILL ENSUE. And that is my final word on this matter. Fire away. -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154