Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2023 2:00:29 GMT -5
Count Jimbo Fisher among those with fiery responses regarding Florida State’s omission from the four-team College Football Playoff. “We’ve taken football and turned it into ice skating,” Fisher told the Tallahassee Democrat Wednesday from his home in Texas. “It’s wrong.” Fisher, the former coach at FSU and Texas A&M, said the Seminoles’ undefeated season at 13-0 earned them the opportunity to compete for a national championship. Instead, the CFP committee selected No. 1 Michigan (13-0, Big Ten champion), No. 2 Washington (13-0, Pac-12 champion), No. 3 Texas (12-1, Big 12 champion) and No. 4 Alabama (12-1, SEC champion). Michigan plays Alabama in the Rose Bowl and Texas meets Washington in the Sugar Bowl Jan. 1. The two winners advance to the national title game Jan. 8. No. 5 FSU will play No. 6 and two-time defending national champion Georgia (12-1) in the Orange Bowl Dec. 30. According to the CFP's stated criteria, it does not award the playoff positions solely based on record. However, Fisher, who led FSU to its last national title and undefeated season in 2013 at 14-0, said teams should be judged by wins and losses and not by opinions. “Football is about what happens between the white lines,” Fisher said, his voice rising. “We’ve set it back because of opinions not based on truth. It’s not ice skating. It’s not (subjective) judgements. “We are messing with the game.” The CFP committee’s decision to exclude FSU from the playoffs continues to draw criticism nearly two weeks since the selection show. Tuesday, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody announced an antitrust investigation into CFP. FSU coach Mike Norvell said following the selection show Dec. 3 he was "disgusted and infuriated" with the Seminoles becoming the first unbeaten Power 5 conference winner to ever miss out on the playoff. Fisher, who coached FSU from 2010 to 2017 and was fired by A&M last month after six seasons at the SEC school, credited Norvell and FSU for overcoming every challenge they faced this season. The team, however, was ultimately judged by the CFP committee by an untimely run of injuries at the quarterback position. "Florida State is a different team than it was the first 11 weeks," CFP selection committee chairman Boo Corrigan told ESPN. "As you look at who they are as a team right now, without Jordan Travis, without the offensive dynamic he brings, they are a different team and the committee voted Alabama four and Florida State five." Fisher bristled at looking ahead to potential games. “You don’t know what’s going to happen on the field,” Fisher said. “That's what sports is all about (competing). You saw what was being pushed (narrative) at the end of the year. It’s wrong.” This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Jimbo Fisher on FSU's CFP snub: 'We've taken football and turned it into ice skating' www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/jimbo-fisher-on-fsu-s-cfp-snub-we-ve-taken-football-and-turned-it-into-ice-skating/ar-AA1lsa0Z?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=19416389bfc641bb85746e0fc22f12ea&ei=47
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Dec 14, 2023 3:23:41 GMT -5
He’s nit wrong.
Allowing Bama in the playoffs was the biggest “fuck off” to a sport in the history of competition.
Unless you wanted “the 4 best teams”..... in which a UT vs Bama rematch is more than likely.
But in the tradition and cliche’ of CFB Bama was suppose to be gone..... FSU in.
|
|
|
Post by geauxtigerfan on Dec 14, 2023 11:26:42 GMT -5
But remember Bama is Bama.
I forgotten how many nattys that Bama has. Somewhere in the hundreds, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by theswan on Dec 14, 2023 11:44:11 GMT -5
I think this is a pretty dumb take by Ol' Jimbo. I think the product that is college football was better before the playoffs. I don't remember anyone thinking that the game was more like ice skating, then.
It's funny that anyone thinks this years unfortunate situation is what's destroying CFB. LOL. Not NIL, transfer portal, kids opting out of bowl games, soulless mega-conferences.
|
|
|
Post by bilogle on Dec 14, 2023 11:45:48 GMT -5
But remember Bama is Bama. I forgotten how many nattys that Bama has. Somewhere in the hundreds, isn't it? somewhere around 2.5 times the number of years they have actually played football... close to 300, I think...
|
|
|
Post by theswan on Dec 14, 2023 12:26:20 GMT -5
But remember Bama is Bama. I forgotten how many nattys that Bama has. Somewhere in the hundreds, isn't it? somewhere around 2.5 times the number of years they have actually played football... close to 300, I think... Eighty sem' of em
|
|
|
Post by theswan on Dec 14, 2023 12:31:04 GMT -5
Off topic, but I would like to ask a question I've wondered about for awhile now. Why doesn't Ohio State get flak for claiming natty's in the poll era when they weren't voted #1 by either poll? Bama claims '41. I 100% agree we shouldn't. Ohio State claims two('61 and '70) where they weren't number 1 in either poll.
I feel like I know the answer, but would like some feedback
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Dec 14, 2023 13:39:21 GMT -5
Off topic, but I would like to ask a question I've wondered about for awhile now. Why doesn't Ohio State get flak for claiming natty's in the poll era when they weren't voted #1 by either poll? Bama claims '41. I 100% agree we shouldn't. Ohio State claims two('61 and '70) where they weren't number 1 in either poll. 4 I feel like I know the answer, but would like some feedback I have always wondered why great programs, whose record needs no embellishing, insists on doing it. I think that people frequently raise it because of that 1941 year when the AP ranked them 20th. I am guessing that Ohio State claims 1970 because they were undefeated before losing the Rose Bowl. Texas was also undefeated but lost the Cotton Bowl. Nebraska won in the AP Poll. One thing on the polls is the quirky nature of them. In 1964 Alabama was national champ in both polls. But the Tide lost to Texas in the Orange Bowl. Well, neither poll counted bowl games which were considered nothing more than a reward for a great season. The very next year, the AP changed the rules to allow for the bowl game. Entering the bowls, Michigan State, Arkansas, Nebraska and Alabama were the top 4. UCLA beat Michigan State, LSU beat Arkansas and Bama hammered Nebraska so the Tide and Sparty shared the title. Move the clock forward to 1973. Alabama was number 1 going into the Sugar Bowl against Notre Dame. The Irish won a 24-23 thriller. Notre Dame got the AP Championship, but Bama retained the Coaches championship because they still had not counted bowl games. The following year the coaches bowl changed to include the bowl games. In those cases Bama happened to be wearing the 4 leaf clover. Tide followers would say they got robbed in 66 when they destroyed Nebraska in the Sugar Bowl and Notre Dame and Michigan State played that infamous 10-10 tie and Sparty could not go to the Rose Bowl because of that ridiculous Big Ten rule that forbade a team from going 2 years in a row. Notre Dame was not going to bowls then. The Irish won the title in both polls. Georgia claims the 1942 title even though Ohio State finished first in the AP. That poll was obviously conducted before the bowl games. Ohio State finished 9-1 and Georgia won the Rose Bowl over UCLA and finished 11-1. The other rating systems at the time like Houlgate and Billingsly included the bowl games and declared UGA the champion. There have been several other years where some obscure publication claimed UGA as number one, but thankfully the University does not claim them, nor does it fly a banner in the stadium indicating it (i.e., 1968)
|
|
|
Post by theswan on Dec 14, 2023 14:02:43 GMT -5
Off topic, but I would like to ask a question I've wondered about for awhile now. Why doesn't Ohio State get flak for claiming natty's in the poll era when they weren't voted #1 by either poll? Bama claims '41. I 100% agree we shouldn't. Ohio State claims two('61 and '70) where they weren't number 1 in either poll. 4 I feel like I know the answer, but would like some feedback I have always wondered why great programs, whose record needs no embellishing, insists on doing it. I think that people frequently raise it because of that 1941 year when the AP ranked them 20th. I am guessing that Ohio State claims 1970 because they were undefeated before losing the Rose Bowl. Texas was also undefeated but lost the Cotton Bowl. Nebraska won in the AP Poll. One thing on the polls is the quirky nature of them. In 1964 Alabama was national champ in both polls. But the Tide lost to Texas in the Orange Bowl. Well, neither poll counted bowl games which were considered nothing more than a reward for a great season. The very next year, the AP changed the rules to allow for the bowl game. Entering the bowls, Michigan State, Arkansas, Nebraska and Alabama were the top 4. UCLA beat Michigan State, LSU beat Arkansas and Bama hammered Nebraska so the Tide and Sparty shared the title. Move the clock forward to 1973. Alabama was number 1 going into the Sugar Bowl against Notre Dame. The Irish won a 24-23 thriller. Notre Dame got the AP Championship, but Bama retained the Coaches championship because they still had not counted bowl games. The following year the coaches bowl changed to include the bowl games. In those cases Bama happened to be wearing the 4 leaf clover. Tide followers would say they got robbed in 66 when they destroyed Nebraska in the Sugar Bowl and Notre Dame and Michigan State played that infamous 10-10 tie and Sparty could not go to the Rose Bowl because of that ridiculous Big Ten rule that forbade a team from going 2 years in a row. Notre Dame was not going to bowls then. The Irish won the title in both polls. Georgia claims the 1942 title even though Ohio State finished first in the AP. That poll was obviously conducted before the bowl games. Ohio State finished 9-1 and Georgia won the Rose Bowl over UCLA and finished 11-1. The other rating systems at the time like Houlgate and Billingsly included the bowl games and declared UGA the champion. There have been several other years where some obscure publication claimed UGA as number one, but thankfully the University does not claim them, nor does it fly a banner in the stadium indicating it (i.e., 1968) Ohio State still didn't win either poll in those years. It's the same thing ×2. As far as Bama getting Natty's in '64, and '73, I think that's irrelevant. I'm talking specifically about claiming national titles in the poll era, when yiu weren't crowned champion by either poll. But, that brings another question, considering no one ever complains about Tennessee, Oklahoma, Michigan State, and all of the others who lost their bowl game after being crowned champ. You only hear about Bama. And yes, '73 was a weak Natty. The AP didn't crown champions until after bowl games at that point, so there was a lot more at stake than simply playing an exhibition game. Blame the UPI for that. You could throw '45, '75, and '77 in with '66. Although, undefeated Rose Bowl Champ or not, no one was getting ranked over an undefeated Army or Navy in '45
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Dec 14, 2023 14:37:23 GMT -5
Nobody complains about those other teams because of recency bias. None of them has come as close to Alabama in winning, particularly in recent history. Not even sure I ever hear anyone talking about how many they have won other than Bama and Ohio State. Oklahoma hasn't won in 23 years and Michigan has won one since the 50s. Miami talks about the U all the time, but outside a 15 year stretch, they are a below average program...and nothing since 2002 and that Ohio State game. Bama has been the very dominant team over the past 15 years and lets face it, the loudest of the fan base ain't exactly modest. One only has to listen to one afternoon of Finebaum to have that made perfectly clear.
How many titles has Tennessee won? I thought around 4 but maybe it is more. I know Georgia Tech constantly reminded Georgia that they have 4 while we were those 40 years in the wilderness. Now, we don't hear that much any more.
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Dec 14, 2023 14:49:01 GMT -5
Nobody complains about those other teams because of recency bias. None of them has come as close to Alabama in winning, particularly in recent history. Not even sure I ever hear anyone talking about how many they have won other than Bama and Ohio State. Oklahoma hasn't won in 23 years and Michigan has won one since the 50s. Miami talks about the U all the time, but outside a 15 year stretch, they are a below average program...and nothing since 2002 and that Ohio State game. Bama has been the very dominant team over the past 15 years and lets face it, the loudest of the fan base ain't exactly modest. One only has to listen to one afternoon of Finebaum to have that made perfectly clear. How many titles has Tennessee won? I thought around 4 but maybe it is more. I know Georgia Tech constantly reminded Georgia that they have 4 while we were those 40 years in the wilderness. Now, we don't hear that much any more. We sure hear a lot on this board about wins by the Bulldogs that happened 100 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Dec 14, 2023 14:52:14 GMT -5
Florida is a bit like Miami except a bit longer if not quite as many Nattys. 1990-2009 and before and after, better than Vandy.
|
|
|
Post by theswan on Dec 14, 2023 15:35:59 GMT -5
Florida is a bit like Miami except a bit longer if not quite as many Nattys. 1990-2009 and before and after, better than Vandy. Going into 1990, Florida was probably at best, 7th all-time of the then 10 team league. Even though, Kentucky and Miss. State did at least have an SEC title to their name. Only Florida and Vandy had not won an SEC Championship at that point. Even GT, and Tulane had won some. Of course, Florida would have had 2 in '84, and '85 if not for vacating '84, and not being eligible for '85. Still, they had an amazing 20 year run, and are a top 15 program all time.
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Dec 14, 2023 18:10:29 GMT -5
ITs always been figure skating.......
I mean literally all FBS G5 teams get a 'degree of difficulty" mark discounted...... FSU got told they were not "pretty enough"..... just like Auburn in 2004.....
Texas was left out in 2008 after beating OU..... I ean teams get left out and or snubbed completely all the time.... Its always been bulllshit.
And the biggest joke of it all has been the SEC love. $ or 5 teams sitting thee with 1 loss.... while the SEC gets an "auto-in" every year becuase the judges like their style.
Its really easy to sit back and say "look at us, we are always in the title game!!! we win more than anyone!!!"....... when other are denied the CHANCE to do so.... If you were left out, guess what, you couldn't win those games..... like every other snubbed conference.
|
|
|
Post by NCBulldawg on Dec 14, 2023 18:37:26 GMT -5
ITs always been figure skating....... I mean literally all FBS G5 teams get a 'degree of difficulty" mark discounted...... FSU got told they were not "pretty enough"..... just like Auburn in 2004..... Texas was left out in 2008 after beating OU..... I ean teams get left out and or snubbed completely all the time.... Its always been bulllshit. And the biggest joke of it all has been the SEC love. $ or 5 teams sitting thee with 1 loss.... while the SEC gets an "auto-in" every year becuase the judges like their style. Its really easy to sit back and say "look at us, we are always in the title game!!! we win more than anyone!!!"....... when other are denied the CHANCE to do so.... If you were left out, guess what, you couldn't win those games..... like every other snubbed conference. I don’t know the answer yet, but I am curious how often an SEC team lost compared to how many times they played for a NC when “gifted” the opportunity over a more deserving team in the Playoff era. If the SEC wasn’t a solid choice for such representation, then I will assume the results will skew towards the teams that weren’t a lucky SEC team and that they won those Championships. Or, is this rant more about SEC during the BCS era when computers and what not were making choices? Because if the results show SEC winning most of these “blessed” opportunities when they were not so deserving of the then, well…let’s see what those results say.
|
|
Smog
Gladiator
Posts: 124
|
Post by Smog on Dec 31, 2023 11:39:58 GMT -5
Unfortunately, it's always been ice skating for these reasons for all but a handful of teams.
|
|
Vespula
Senator
"Panzerkönigin"
Posts: 3,816
|
Post by Vespula on Dec 31, 2023 12:59:20 GMT -5
Unfortunately, it's always been ice skating for these reasons for all but a handful of teams. One of the greatest weaknesses of computer based rankings is (of course) human bias. Every one of the rankings I know of is statistics based, and that limits one to game results within in the database e.g. (PF1-PA2)+(PA1-PA2) summed over the current games played and divided by that number of games. It is accurate within conferences, but can be wildly inaccurate without a significant number of out-of-conference games. Such a basis of assessment presumes mechanical consistency and assumes statistical invariation within the boundaries of the statistical average. In fact, intangibles such as talent, ability, physical health of players, the impact factor of each player, psychological motivation or emotions, weather, and other variables are determinants in the overall outcome. While the weakness of the statistical methodology is assumption of mechanical repetitiveness, a truly strong model will use mechanical algorithms based on very large differential equations of a tremendous number of weighted variables for each player on a team and the measured effectiveness of coaches, medical staff, effects of weather conditions, etc. AND game outcomes versus each opposing team's resultant evaluation to achieve a highly accurate measure of overall team quality. Ironically, while the statistical approach assumes mechanical repetitiveness and reproducible results, it will be the mechanical approach of applying AI that will give us exact answers in the near future. To put it simply, the current models could give us absurd results. As an example, suppose Brown beat all of its opponents by an average score of 72 - 6 over the season. Alabama, by contrast beat all of its opponents by an average score of 35-14. Using the current model, Brown should be eligible for the CFP. Using AI with all variables input (and maybe AI would find new ones as well), Brown would almost certainly be eliminated immediately from consideration, and Alabama would be paired against a logical opponent in a final ranking group. I doubt that the human assumption factor will be eliminated right away, but there can be little doubt that the AI results will be run against the human input results, and people and their presumptions will be removed from the selections in very short order. (The same thing will eventually happen with referees, umpires, and human sports management as well. We simply won't be able to keep up. Did you enjoy any of your time as top of the food chain? You are being replaced even now. )
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Jan 1, 2024 10:33:53 GMT -5
Unfortunately, it's always been ice skating for these reasons for all but a handful of teams. One of the greatest weaknesses of computer based rankings is (of course) human bias. Every one of the rankings I know of is statistics based, and that limits one to game results within in the database e.g. (PF1-PA2)+(PA1-PA2) summed over the current games played and divided by that number of games. It is accurate within conferences, but can be wildly inaccurate without a significant number of out-of-conference games. Such a basis of assessment presumes mechanical consistency and assumes statistical invariation within the boundaries of the statistical average. In fact, intangibles such as talent, ability, physical health of players, the impact factor of each player, psychological motivation or emotions, weather, and other variables are determinants in the overall outcome. While the weakness of the statistical methodology is assumption of mechanical repetitiveness, a truly strong model will use mechanical algorithms based on very large differential equations of a tremendous number of weighted variables for each player on a team and the measured effectiveness of coaches, medical staff, effects of weather conditions, etc. AND game outcomes versus each opposing team's resultant evaluation to achieve a highly accurate measure of overall team quality. Ironically, while the statistical approach assumes mechanical repetitiveness and reproducible results, it will be the mechanical approach of applying AI that will give us exact answers in the near future. To put it simply, the current models could give us absurd results. As an example, suppose Brown beat all of its opponents by an average score of 72 - 6 over the season. Alabama, by contrast beat all of its opponents by an average score of 35-14. Using the current model, Brown should be eligible for the CFP. Using AI with all variables input (and maybe AI would find new ones as well), Brown would almost certainly be eliminated immediately from consideration, and Alabama would be paired against a logical opponent in a final ranking group. I doubt that the human assumption factor will be eliminated right away, but there can be little doubt that the AI results will be run against the human input results, and people and their presumptions will be removed from the selections in very short order. (The same thing will eventually happen with referees, umpires, and human sports management as well. We simply won't be able to keep up. Did you enjoy any of your time as top of the food chain? You are being replaced even now. ) Regardless the data source of the rankings, using rankings to factor into the determination of a champion at all is the biggest flaw in tbe sport. No other team sport does it besides some of theOlympic sports that rate a performance. Some may say it’s unique, I just think it’s idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Jan 1, 2024 11:06:14 GMT -5
I agree. But what other option is there? You have 133 teams and even if you just count 65 power 5 teams, no other professional sports league in the world has that many participants.
I don't believe there is a perfect answer. There are trade offs for every option out there.
|
|