Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!lor From: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sport.football Subject: Re: College football playoffs Message-ID: <9347@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 15:31:16 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.9347 Posted: Mon Feb 24 15:31:16 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 21:17:04 EST References: <486@gymble.UUCP> <42400016@uokvax.UUCP> Reply-To: lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (Edward Lor) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 116 In article <42400016@uokvax.UUCP> mike@uokvax.UUCP writes: >>A basic requirement for a champion is to win the games that count most. > >That's why my vote went to Miami, Fla (choke choke). This statement seems >to suggest what the playoff system provides. Does this mean that regular >season records are no longer important, but wait, that can't be right >because you said that a 9-3 record wasn't good enough to make the playoffs. >The key to this statement is which games count the most. Which games do count >the most? Wait, when did I say the regular season was not important? The regular season is a mean to sort out the few big men from the men and the boys. A playoff should be a mean to find out the biggest man from the few big men. If we don't have the regular season, how do we find out the best candidates? I am a fan of a playoff among the few elites. This is the only mean to find out the most consistent AND the best money team. I think you've read my exchanges with Dennis Doubleday. >Is it better to lose to a good team or a bad one? This is a tough >question. Losing to a good team suggests that maybe you're not that good, or >that you choke when the heat is on. Losing to a bad team suggests that you >are inconsistent. Oklahoma lost to Miami; Miami lost to Florida. If your theory holds, either: i) Oklahoma is not that good, AND Miami is not that good, or ii) Oklahoma choked when the heat was on, AND Miami choked when the heat is on. But since Oklahoma lost to Miami, who is more "not that good", or who is a bigger "choker" when the heat is on? >>Based on the regular season record, Oklahoma certainly did >>not belong because it lost to Miami at home (this is the >>so-called head-to-head tie-breaker for teams with equal records.) > >This is assuming a two-team playoff which is totally absurd. I absolutely agree. But then why was the game between the #1 Penn St. and non-#2 Oklahoma considered the national championship game? I don't agree on a two-team playoff. But if we are going to choose two teams to decide the national title on the field, one must be Penn St., why did the other slot go to the LOSER of the Miami(10-1)/ Oklahoma(10-1) game? Do you think the bowl system, with so many restrictions, is a fair mean to determine the national title? >Yeah, Oklahoma played such panzies as Minnesota, Texas, Miami, Colorado, >Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and SMU. How they actually allowed themselves to >LOSE one of those games, I'll never know. And how all but one of those teams >made it to bowl games (SMU was on probation) is a mystery to me. Maybe it is. Obviously you have not followed college football that much. More than 1/3 of the Division I-A teams got into bowls last season. That's why 7-4 Colorado, 6-5 Minnesota, and 7-4 Oklahoma State got into bowls. SMU was only a 6-5 team, but had they not been on probation, they might also be able to get into a bowl to boost OU's schedule. >The fact that >three of those teams played on New Years Day must mean that is was a bad year >for College football. Sorry, but I couldn't count three of Minnesota, Texas, Miami, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma St. and SMU playing on January 1. What number system do you use? Anyway, since you bring that up, let's see how those teams which played on New Year's Day (the ten supposedly best teams in the country) fared against each other in the regular season: winning % Miami 1-0 100 Iowa 1-0 100 Tennessee 1-0-1 75 Oklahoma 1-1 50 UCLA 0-0-1 50 Auburn 0-1 0 Michigan 0-1 0 Nebraska 0-1 0 Penn St. 0-0 - Texas A&M 0-0 - Oklahoma played two home games but weren't exactly world-beaters among these ten teams. Don't forget, there was a team which didn't play on Jan. 1 but went 3-0 against these teams (Tennessee, at Miami, and at Auburn). >By the way, the weenie lineup next year includes >UCLA, Minnesota, Texas, and Miami, Fla. :-) Why don't we wait until the fall? Bringing up the 1986 schedule doesn't boost the Sooners' schedule of 1985 (one of our key arguments). >> Before the Orange Bowl, Switzer was asked whether >>Miami deserved to be national champ had it defeated Tennessee. >>He said: "We should be champions if we beat #1 Penn St." >Please do not put quotes around your interpretation of what Barry Switzer >said. His exact words were closer to: >If we beat Penn State, then I feel we're the best team in the country. >I for one feel that there is a HUGE difference between these two statements. The antecedents of these two statements are identical; the conclusions are "We should be champions" and "I feel we're the best team in the country." I don't exactly know what you mean by HUGH difference. Do you try to say that the champion (Oklahoma) is not neccessarily the best team in the country, or vice versa? All along, I have been asking: "Why should the loser of Oklahoma/Miami get the chance to beat Penn State?" -- Eddy Lor ...!(ihnp4,ucbvax)!ucla-cs!lor lor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Computer Science Department, UCLA