Bring Back CLF!!

[donovan]

I wonder if he browses the board to see if anyone is still talking about him.

We should have excluded TCU from the Fantasy Conference game.

For so many reasons.....

[ktffan]

I wonder if he browses the board to see if anyone is still talking about him.

We should have excluded TCU from the Fantasy Conference game.

I can send him this link if you like. He informed me that I got banned from this board at the same time he did. Not sure why he thought that, but I'm not sure why he things anything.

[Cane from the Bend]

`

Why would you continue to subjugate yourself to his miserable ramblings..?

.
.
.

[ktffan]

To give an example of some of his recent stuff, here's one of his gems. It should be noted he was asked to explain something in 4 sentences or less when he uncorked this:

I guess I'm not conveying my ideas in a way that you can relate to. Why Iowa is essential is simple. SOS was insufficient (by itself) to put BYU as a NC. They weren't able to secure it, themselves. And that's a result of their schedule being lax (to the measure required to secure a national title). Same argument applies against UCF. I wasn't comparing BYU to Iowa St. But if you want to know the measure they DO compare is 4-0 favoring Iowa St. (0-4 then). But like I said I'm admitting Iowa. And it's fair to do that to the measure they comply (1/3 of a championship) against 2/3 for Brigham Young. It will make more sense when I give the specfic data, but you have to trust that I'm doing it correctly. In a similar fahsion to Florida (2008) taking 2/3 of the championship to 1/3 for Utah. Similar argument applies in this circumstance.

I'm not saying singularly (BYU/Iowa) either team merits a championship. They don't, but it's worth noting (you can compare it yourself) Iowa was a contributing factor to MIchigan falling short of a national championship in 1985 (In fact the case might be made that the ONLY reason MIchigan wasn't a NC was because of Iowa). Hence the eligibility requirement I'm utilizing here. You might think a similar event would be impossible (and I might agree). But the simple fact is (or at least appears to be) that in FACT it DID happen again. This time with Iowa St playing the part of the co-NC.

You might ask how a 8-4-1 team can EVER claim a championship. Well, the simple answer to that is they can't. But I'm splitting hairs. I'm taking the measure (1/3) to which each team is admitted, including the primary contributor (BYU, UCF) to the measure they're capable of claiming one (2/3) and getting a result, while admittedly unusual and probably not the first thing someone would consider nevertheless seems to adequately address it (the championship). And while it's 2/1 favoring BYU/UCF over Iowa/Iowa St. to make the championship "stick" I'm admitting both to 50%.

Meaning there's a way to include a team, that might not ordinarily apply. It's indeed a crazy circumstance but it happened TWICE in 33 years, and possibly happened earlier but I've yet to discover any evidence of that. (closest I've come is the co-championship between Michigan St and N. Dame), which introduces a redundancy element. Clearly Iowa isn't a NC. Neither for that matter is Iowa St. (at 8-4-1) but they're capable of challenging to a championship and to the measure they're admitted (1/3) they DO. As hard as that might be to follow, that's the protocol I'm applying.

What it DOES is raise the standard (relative proficiency) to where it needs to be to consider EITHER team (BYU/Iowa), (UCF/Iowa St). I believe BYU/Iowa is 96% cumulative (100% relative proficiency says national title). Or deficient by 4%. and I think UCF/Iowa St is about 95% but I'm not sure about that one because I've yet to take that one and sort it out, but it's 96% for BYU/Iowa and it stands to reason a UCF/Iowa St would be approximately the same so 95% is probably a pretty close approximation.

Which in EITHER circumstance says "co-champion". A team finishing third. UF in 1984, and Alabama in 2017. That are recognized as national titleists.
I think if you susped disbelief and "roll with it" you will see I'm right about it. It isn't to "punish" Alabama, not in the slightest, if anything I'm rewarding Alabama for having beaten Clemson (eliminating them) and recognizing them (ex-post-facto) as a national champion for 2016. Exclusively. Fairly. Clemson therefore "forfeits" the 2016 national championship (largely a result of having lost the "rubber" match, the third pairing, to Alabama). It's an unusual circumstance, but I think there's evidence Alabama wasn't a NC. That's again NOT picking on Alabama. I think UCF/Iowa St deserved it. Similar to how BYU/Iowa deserved 1984, with Florida finishing third.

I remember when asked (queried) about how a hypothetical pairing between Alabama and UCF might play out, Nick Saban was dismissive, but there was an Alabama player (not sure who) to his credit, acknowledged it was anything but a foregone conclusion Alabama would win. But he did suggest if they did play that Alabama would play their hardest to beat UCF. As I'm sure if UF played BYU that would likely be the case. And depending on how you want to approach it, if you don't include Iowa St, then it's Alabama's championship to lose (as it would be for Florida, if Iowa is excluded), but that's the beauty. I think in either circumstance there's sufficient basis for inclusion. Weird? Yes, but not necessarily unfair. Why should it bother anyone that there might be a way to select a co-championship? I think in a way, it's a beautiful compromise. People can't tear BYU apart if they're sharing a championship with Iowa. Similarly if UCF is sharing it with Iowa St, there's less chance either team will lose.

It's something nobody's really addressed. Other than I guess 1966, when Notre Dame and MIchigan St were co-champions. But even THEN there were alternatives (I believe that's a year where a title might fall to Alabama).
Are you following? There are ways to include a championship that might not be completely obvious, but nevertheless DO follow a protocol and seem to yield a result that's incontrovertible. It's something I discovered myself.

[Cane from the Bend]

Four sentences or less ...

There was a time, however, that my average post was twice that long.

Though; I think this comment from that post is very telling:

I think if you suspend disbelief and "roll with it" you will see I'm right about it.

Said every single Dictator prior to being place in power.

.
.
.

[donovan]

I think civility is the only requirement. Mr. Billybud is a professional writer that is succinct. I'm garrulous, and there are many in between. I think the moderator has always done well. If Spence says no..there are reasons and I don't suspect it is because of wordiness.