Coach Saban Addressed UCF's "National Championship"

colbysullivan · May 18, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
but you're okay with a one-loss team or even a two-loss Ohio State getting into the playoffs ahead of UNDEFEATED UCF??

(I'm just trying to draw out what you're saying here and follow it - because it's right here that CFB fans become illogical).

Who was more deserving of the playoff? Two-loss Ohio State or undefeated UCF?

If you don't say UCF then your entire "the regular season matters" argument falls to the wayside. I don't disagree with you that two-loss Ohio St would be more deserving (which I assume is your position), but you can't then say you don't want two-loss national champions, either.

Besides, we've already had a two-loss champion in CFB (2007 LSU).

We've also had teams with a loss and a tie (1965 Alabama, 1990 Colorado).

It’s not just about the overall record, there are many factors. UCF’s schedule was hot garbage and had no business being in the discussion. They didn’t even play a full schedule. Granted that isn’t their fault but it still happened.

If we start allowing 8 or more teams in the playoff then a lot of teams will get mulligans for losing games. At some point, losses have to matter.

The LSU title in 2007 took an extraordinary set of circumstances. I’m fine with that being the exception. I just don’t want 2-loss champions to be the norm. I also don’t want teams that play laughable schedules to get a shot. They didn’t earn it.

BamaInBham · May 18, 2018

81usaf92 said:
Here is what I find funny. A lot on here are saying Alabama deserved the 4th spot and how good this plus 1 system is, but if we rewind to championship week threads we get posts like these
https://www.tidefans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292756&highlight=peach+bowl
https://www.tidefans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292749&highlight=peach+bowl

This is an intresting one that is coming from someone that is defending the playoff now. Not an eeyore or down in the dumps like the above, but its intresting who said it.

Then for a non eeyore or defeatist post that I find intresting

FWIW these (with the exception of the last two) were just the worst of the worst I was willing to go through, but there are more out there. I just think its funny at how us winning the CFPNCG last year has changed many of these shared opinions amongst Alabama fans

Just because some fans posted something on the board does not mean that everyone on the board agreed, whether they expressed their opinion or not. I don't think anyone here considers this board to be monolithic in its opinion. Thus, you would have to identify the individual posters to see if there was inconsistency. Also, people legitimately change their opinion. Yes, sometimes it's because of hypocrisy, but sometimes it's after genuine reflection. As well, when something actually happens, the way we view it is different than when we were anticipating it happening. IMO, it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt. I know I appreciate it.

81usaf92 · May 18, 2018

BamaInBham said:
2) Where did I say that the Giants had it easier? I did indicate that their record was not as good, and while that did not prove that they were not the more deserving or better team, it is more likely that they were not. But I stated I do not begrudge the Giants their championship. They won it by the agreed upon rules, thus the NY Giants are the champs and the once 18-0 Patriots are not.

.

This is what you said:

The 12-6 2007 NY Giants are the legitimate NFL champions because they played by the established rules and won. But I would prefer that the system would have rewarded the 18-0 NE Patriots, but too bad for me, that's not the NFL system. Does that mean that NE was definitely the better team or even deserved it more? No. But it is much more likely so.

But you are choosing to play the dodge game by ignoring that the Pats got 2 HOME GAMES in a stadium that they rarely lose at. In Brady's career I can only name 2 games that they lost in the playoffs in Foxboro. More or less they were rewarded for having a 16-0 season. The Giants had to travel to Tampa Bay, travel to Dallas, and travel to Green Bay. The Giants were punished while the Pats were rewarded for their regular season.

Your follow up post is looking like you believe the Pats should be rewarded for reaching the SB 18-0. If you are seriously arguing this point then you are arguing UCF should be rewarded for being the only undefeated team last year. The 2007 Pats are recognized for their accomplishments but Lombardi rests elsewhere. Just like it did in college in 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016.

colbysullivan · May 18, 2018

B1GTide said:
We will have to continue to disagree about this. If/When the AP poll votes someone else #1 after the playoffs have been played, they will be a legit national champion. Why? Because too large a percentage of the sports community sees a field of 4 to be too small, and because the AP has been doing this for a very long time.

Alabama proudly displays the AP championship trophies from the BCS and CFP eras. Why? Because it still matters.

Should the Colley Matrix matter? Of course not. But it still exists, and it declared UCF to be national champions. It would have been nice to see UCF ignore that, but they chose not to do so.

Only the recognized system at the time should be used. In the poll era, all kinds of different media voted for national champions so we had tons of shared titles. It sucked but that was the system in place.

Now we have the playoffs and that is all that matters. The AP and USA Today polls (and any others) mean nothing. If you don’t make the playoffs, you have no claim.

81usaf92 · May 18, 2018

BamaInBham said:
Just because some fans posted something on the board does not mean that everyone on the board agreed, whether they expressed their opinion or not. I don't think anyone here considers this board to be monolithic in its opinion. Thus, you would have to identify the individual posters to see if there was inconsistency. Also, people legitimately change their opinion. Yes, sometimes it's because of hypocrisy, but sometimes it's after genuine reflection. As well, when something actually happens, the way we view it is different than when we were anticipating it happening. IMO, it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt. I know I appreciate it.

Not in this case. Some of the ones I posted were the ones that were in the " Just wait until Bama is left out" , the Jalen Haters, and the "Everybody is catching up to us" eeyore crowds, but the majority were the normal folks posting the anti-playoff and Bama doesn't deserve to here stuff. Yeah did some go a little too colorful with their critiques? Yeah and I'm was willing to grant a little leeway with it coming right after the iron bowl, but this discussion really started after the LSU game, and got louder after MSU game. So Bama fans were already prepping themselves with this reality of losing to either Auburn and UGA and being possibly left out, and it stems from the idea of the CFP was designed to spread the wealth instead of find the 4 best and deserving teams. But as the saying goes, "Winning cures everything" and a lot more folks are on board with the CFP because we weren't out in the cold and we won the CFPNG. Had we lost to Clemson or were left out entirely then I suspect this is the conversation we are having over and over until the Louisville kickoff.

BamaInBham · May 18, 2018

81usaf92 said:
This is what you said:

But you are choosing to play the dodge game by ignoring that the Pats got 2 HOME GAMES in a stadium that they rarely lose at. In Brady's career I can only name 2 games that they lost in the playoffs in Foxboro. More or less they were rewarded for having a 16-0 season. The Giants had to travel to Tampa Bay, travel to Dallas, and travel to Green Bay. The Giants were punished while the Pats were rewarded for their regular season.

Your follow up post is looking like you believe the Pats should be rewarded for reaching the SB 18-0. If you are seriously arguing this point then you are arguing UCF should be rewarded for being the only undefeated team last year. The 2007 Pats are recognized for their accomplishments but Lombardi rests elsewhere. Just like it did in college in 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016.

Again, I don't know what to say. How many times do I have to say that the Giants are and deserve to be the NFL champs in 2007? Surely, you are not saying that it is wrong for someone to prefer a system that puts more emphasis on the regular season? It's just an opinion, not a statement of what is right or wrong, nor am I saying that those who win according to the rules of the current system are illegitimate champs.

81usaf92 · May 18, 2018

BamaInBham said:
Again, I don't know what to say. How many times do I have to say that the Giants are and deserve to be the NFL champs in 2007?.

Then stop trying to say that the Pats weren't rewarded for their regular season when they clearly were

BamaInBham said:
Surely, you are not saying that it is wrong for someone to prefer a system that puts more emphasis on the regular season? .

No I'm just saying bring a better argument. You cant say it doesn't matter and use the Patriots in that case. The Pats were rewarded in that case. If anything your argument should be that the Giants were punished for playing in the toughest division that year and had to go on the road to TB who had 1 less win than them. The issue with most college- only fans who try to bash the NFL is that they make these blanket statements and don't bother doing research to back up your opinion. Because if you did then you would realize that in 2007 the Pats had every advantage in the playoffs while the Giants had none. But yet you are arguing in favor of the Pats. I just cant see how anybody thinks that the Pats weren't rewarded for their regular season

Sure there are issues with the NFL playoffs but so rarely is the champion ever disputed compared to NCAA. I think that may be the point. College lives off of controversy while the NFL lives off of certainty. If you don't have a good enough record to make #5 and #6 in the NFL then you have no dog, but in college there is no set metric because its a committee that makes a gameshow out of who is in, and they give no clear indication of who is in unless its blatantly obvious.

selmaborntidefan · May 18, 2018

Let me deal with another contention that seems to be endemic to CFB fans, and it's part of why I find a number of discussions with them almost completely futile.

"The best team doesn't always win in (name the sport)."

True.

But the best team doesn't always win in CFB, either, so why even bring up this argument?

And btw, I stand corrected as there's nothing NEW about 9-7 teams in the NFL playoffs.

1978 - 8-7-1 Minnesota, 9-7 Atlanta, 9-7 Philly
1979 - 9-7 Rams led the Steelers in the fourth qtr of the Super Bowl
1980 - 9-7 Vikings
1981 - 9-7 Bucs, 9-7 Giants
1982 - strike, teams with losing records make post-season for money reasons
1983 - four of the ten playoff teams are 9-7
1984 - Steelers (made AFC title game) and Giants are 9-7
1985 - 8-8 Browns actually lead Miami, 21-3, in third qtr of divisional playoff
1987 - strike season, only 15 games, an 8-7 team makes the NFC title game and nearly wins
1988 - Seattle
1989 - FOUR of the five AFC playoff teams have records of 9-6-1 or worse
1990 - Bengals, Oilers, and 8-8 Saints
1991 - Jets 8-8, Raiders 9-7
1992 - 9-7 Redskins
1993 - 12 playoff teams and four have 9-7 records
1994 - see 1993
1995 - see 1993
1996 - 3 of 12 are 9-7 teams
1997 - three 9-7 playoff teams
1998 - two 9-7 teams
1999 - two 9-7 and two 8-8 teams in playoffs
2000 - three 10-6 teams but ZERO 9-7 teams
2001 - 9-7 Tampa (who must have been pretty good as they won the SB the next year)
2002 - 9-6-1 Atlanta and 9-7 Cleveland and NY Jets
2004 - one 9-7 and two 8-8
2006 - three 9-7 and one 8-8
2007 - two 9-7 teams and four 10-6 teams
2008 - one 8-8, one 9-7, one 9-6-1
2009 - two 9-7
2010 - one 7-9 team but seven with 11-5 or better
2011 - two 9-7 and one 8-8
2013 - 9-7 San Diego and 8-7-1 Green Bay
2014 - 7-8-1 Carolina, nobody else below 10-6
2015 - Texans and Redskins
2016 - Lions and Texans
2017 - Titans and Bills

Years with zero 9-7 teams? 1986, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2012

So even when we only had TEN playoff teams, you had at least one 9-7 every year. Only the Rams came close to tipping the applecart.

But does anyone really think the best team actually wins in college football.

Does anyone REALLY think BYU was the best in 1984?

What about Notre Dame in 1977? (At least 1966 is defensible in that they did tie another great team and went unbeaten otherwise and DID play the toughest schedule of the three teams)

Georgia won the 1980 title, but they weren't the best team that year. Their opponents had an overall record of 45-75-1. They played TWO TEAMS in consecutive weeks with winning records and those were the only two winning teams they played save Notre Dame.

They should have lost both of them, needing a fumble by George Rogers and the infamous 93-yard catch and run to Lindsey Scott. And even in the Notre Dame game, they got the winning TD because the Irish fumbled a kickoff and UGA got it at the Irish one-yard line to start a drive. Buck Belue only completed ONE pass all day long.

Georgia won the title but they weren't even the best team in the SEC that year. We would have beaten them and MSU that year would have given them a fight. Pitt would have beaten them as well.

Best team doesn't always win.

RollTide_HTTR · May 18, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
Let me deal with another contention that seems to be endemic to CFB fans, and it's part of why I find a number of discussions with them almost completely futile.

"The best team doesn't always win in (name the sport)."

I also don't really believe that is the point of many postseasons anyway. Its mostly impossible in football because the reality is that you would need to play a series of games between 2 teams to even really know who is the best.

selmaborntidefan · May 18, 2018

RollTide_HTTR said:
I also don't really believe that is the point of many postseasons anyway. Its mostly impossible in football because the reality is that you would need to play a series of games between 2 teams to even really know who is the best.

As critical as I am of the way the NFL permits losing records to at least potentially make it, it's RARE the best team doesn't win or at least play for it.

Be honest......how many times do you look at the NFL champion and say, "That team isn't even close to being the best"? Almost always, the best or second best wins. I've been watching Super Bowls since 1979. Let me think for a second.........

here are the only champions I'd say were not either the best or second best in a particular season.

1987 - Washington Redskins (however, that was a strike year so it can't be used for real data; some strike teams went 3-0 with replacement players)
1990 - NY Giants (true, they weren't the BEST team, San Fran was when Montana was healthy. But they lost a narrow MNF game to SF in November and beat them on the last play in the NFC title game where they actually outplayed them with a second-string QB). The gap among the top four - SF, NYG, Buffalo, and Chicago - was quite narrow.

Everyone picks on the 2000 Ravens, but they DID have the SECOND-BEST record in the NFL behind Tennessee, who was in the same division. If they had beaten the Titans in October when they lost, 14-6, Baltimore would have had the best record in the NFL and home field advantage. So you CAN make an argument they were the best.

2005 - Pittsburgh Steelers (but they were a good team)
2006 - Indy Colts (again...maybe......they were 12-4, fourth-best record in the NFL; they were decent)
2007 - NY Giants (not the best or second best but certainly a top four squad)
2010 - Green Bay was probably not 1 or 2, but they were a very good team that lost by close margins every time they didn't win
2011 - NY Giants
2012 - Baltimore (Pats, Broncos and Falcons probably all better)

So we had a short period of time where we could argue the best team didn't win but on the whole, either the best or second best almost always does.

81usaf92 · May 18, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
As critical as I am of the way the NFL permits losing records to at least potentially make it, it's RARE the best team doesn't win or at least play for it.

Be honest......how many times do you look at the NFL champion and say, "That team isn't even close to being the best"? Almost always, the best or second best wins. I've been watching Super Bowls since 1979. Let me think for a second.........

here are the only champions I'd say were not either the best or second best in a particular season.

1987 - Washington Redskins (however, that was a strike year so it can't be used for real data; some strike teams went 3-0 with replacement players)
1990 - NY Giants (true, they weren't the BEST team, San Fran was when Montana was healthy. But they lost a narrow MNF game to SF in November and beat them on the last play in the NFC title game where they actually outplayed them with a second-string QB). The gap among the top four - SF, NYG, Buffalo, and Chicago - was quite narrow.

Everyone picks on the 2000 Ravens, but they DID have the SECOND-BEST record in the NFL behind Tennessee, who was in the same division. If they had beaten the Titans in October when they lost, 14-6, Baltimore would have had the best record in the NFL and home field advantage. So you CAN make an argument they were the best.

2005 - Pittsburgh Steelers (but they were a good team)
2006 - Indy Colts (again...maybe......they were 12-4, fourth-best record in the NFL; they were decent)
2007 - NY Giants (not the best or second best but certainly a top four squad)
2010 - Green Bay was probably not 1 or 2, but they were a very good team that lost by close margins every time they didn't win
2011 - NY Giants
2012 - Baltimore (Pats, Broncos and Falcons probably all better)

So we had a short period of time where we could argue the best team didn't win but on the whole, either the best or second best almost always does.

My gripe with the 06 Colts is how everyone gives Brady crap about winning off John Cena off the mat moments and Vinatari FGs but Manning that year almost exclusively lived off of it. He was 3 TDs 7 ints in 4 games in that playoffs. Yeah he had a great duel with Brady in the AFCCG with Brady that everyone is quick to point out, but no one wants to refrence the horrendous KC and Bal games in which Vinitari scored 9 fgs combined. Or that he faced Rex Grossman in a rain fest in which they competed for the worst qbr in a super bowl.

The 2012 Ravens I have issue with because it was an act of God in 3 straight games. First you had a lucky hail mary by Flacco to get into a 2 OT snooze fest against Manning, Then you had a cross wind that blew in Brady's face for 3 quarters but not Flacco, and then you had the SB that everyone remembers for the wrong reasons. The Ravens were a good team but not one that any sane person would've said was going to win it all when the bracket was made.

The others on the list are legit. Noone wanted to play 2005 Pittsburgh or 2010 Green Bay at the end of the year, and when they snuck in everyone knew they were going to be tough to beat

BamaInBham · May 18, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
Let me deal with another contention that seems to be endemic to CFB fans, and it's part of why I find a number of discussions with them almost completely futile.

"The best team doesn't always win in (name the sport)."

True.

But the best team doesn't always win in CFB, either, so why even bring up this argument?

And btw, I stand corrected as there's nothing NEW about 9-7 teams in the NFL playoffs.

1978 - 8-7-1 Minnesota, 9-7 Atlanta, 9-7 Philly
1979 - 9-7 Rams led the Steelers in the fourth qtr of the Super Bowl
1980 - 9-7 Vikings
1981 - 9-7 Bucs, 9-7 Giants
1982 - strike, teams with losing records make post-season for money reasons
1983 - four of the ten playoff teams are 9-7
1984 - Steelers (made AFC title game) and Giants are 9-7
1985 - 8-8 Browns actually lead Miami, 21-3, in third qtr of divisional playoff
1987 - strike season, only 15 games, an 8-7 team makes the NFC title game and nearly wins
1988 - Seattle
1989 - FOUR of the five AFC playoff teams have records of 9-6-1 or worse
1990 - Bengals, Oilers, and 8-8 Saints
1991 - Jets 8-8, Raiders 9-7
1992 - 9-7 Redskins
1993 - 12 playoff teams and four have 9-7 records
1994 - see 1993
1995 - see 1993
1996 - 3 of 12 are 9-7 teams
1997 - three 9-7 playoff teams
1998 - two 9-7 teams
1999 - two 9-7 and two 8-8 teams in playoffs
2000 - three 10-6 teams but ZERO 9-7 teams
2001 - 9-7 Tampa (who must have been pretty good as they won the SB the next year)
2002 - 9-6-1 Atlanta and 9-7 Cleveland and NY Jets
2004 - one 9-7 and two 8-8
2006 - three 9-7 and one 8-8
2007 - two 9-7 teams and four 10-6 teams
2008 - one 8-8, one 9-7, one 9-6-1
2009 - two 9-7
2010 - one 7-9 team but seven with 11-5 or better
2011 - two 9-7 and one 8-8
2013 - 9-7 San Diego and 8-7-1 Green Bay
2014 - 7-8-1 Carolina, nobody else below 10-6
2015 - Texans and Redskins
2016 - Lions and Texans
2017 - Titans and Bills

Years with zero 9-7 teams? 1986, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2012

So even when we only had TEN playoff teams, you had at least one 9-7 every year. Only the Rams came close to tipping the applecart.

But does anyone really think the best team actually wins in college football.

Does anyone REALLY think BYU was the best in 1984?

What about Notre Dame in 1977? (At least 1966 is defensible in that they did tie another great team and went unbeaten otherwise and DID play the toughest schedule of the three teams)

Georgia won the 1980 title, but they weren't the best team that year. Their opponents had an overall record of 45-75-1. They played TWO TEAMS in consecutive weeks with winning records and those were the only two winning teams they played save Notre Dame.

They should have lost both of them, needing a fumble by George Rogers and the infamous 93-yard catch and run to Lindsey Scott. And even in the Notre Dame game, they got the winning TD because the Irish fumbled a kickoff and UGA got it at the Irish one-yard line to start a drive. Buck Belue only completed ONE pass all day long.

Georgia won the title but they weren't even the best team in the SEC that year. We would have beaten them and MSU that year would have given them a fight. Pitt would have beaten them as well.

Best team doesn't always win.

This has been addressed numerous times in this and other related threads. All you can do is take your best shot at choosing a champion, then go with it. And everyone should recognize it. That's the reason I usually ignore those who say Bama wasn't the best team in any particular Bama NC year. It's frequently true that a case be made for another team. Just as there are years where a case can be made for Bama in some of their non NC years. In fact, we still have problems even determining if we are choosing the most deserving team vs the best team. IMO, it is usually a mix of the two.

RollTide_HTTR · May 18, 2018

selmaborntidefan said:
As critical as I am of the way the NFL permits losing records to at least potentially make it, it's RARE the best team doesn't win or at least play for it.

Be honest......how many times do you look at the NFL champion and say, "That team isn't even close to being the best"? Almost always, the best or second best wins. I've been watching Super Bowls since 1979. Let me think for a second.........

here are the only champions I'd say were not either the best or second best in a particular season.

1987 - Washington Redskins (however, that was a strike year so it can't be used for real data; some strike teams went 3-0 with replacement players)
1990 - NY Giants (true, they weren't the BEST team, San Fran was when Montana was healthy. But they lost a narrow MNF game to SF in November and beat them on the last play in the NFC title game where they actually outplayed them with a second-string QB). The gap among the top four - SF, NYG, Buffalo, and Chicago - was quite narrow.

Everyone picks on the 2000 Ravens, but they DID have the SECOND-BEST record in the NFL behind Tennessee, who was in the same division. If they had beaten the Titans in October when they lost, 14-6, Baltimore would have had the best record in the NFL and home field advantage. So you CAN make an argument they were the best.

2005 - Pittsburgh Steelers (but they were a good team)
2006 - Indy Colts (again...maybe......they were 12-4, fourth-best record in the NFL; they were decent)
2007 - NY Giants (not the best or second best but certainly a top four squad)
2010 - Green Bay was probably not 1 or 2, but they were a very good team that lost by close margins every time they didn't win
2011 - NY Giants
2012 - Baltimore (Pats, Broncos and Falcons probably all better)

So we had a short period of time where we could argue the best team didn't win but on the whole, either the best or second best almost always does.

Not saying the best team never wins. Just saying that's not necessarily the purpose of the playoffs.

BamaInBham · May 18, 2018

81usaf92 said:
Then stop trying to say that the Pats weren't rewarded for their regular season when they clearly were

No I'm just saying bring a better argument. You cant say it doesn't matter and use the Patriots in that case. The Pats were rewarded in that case. If anything your argument should be that the Giants were punished for playing in the toughest division that year and had to go on the road to TB who had 1 less win than them. The issue with most college- only fans who try to bash the NFL is that they make these blanket statements and don't bother doing research to back up your opinion. Because if you did then you would realize that in 2007 the Pats had every advantage in the playoffs while the Giants had none. But yet you are arguing in favor of the Pats. I just cant see how anybody thinks that the Pats weren't rewarded for their regular season

Sure there are issues with the NFL playoffs but so rarely is the champion ever disputed compared to NCAA. I think that may be the point. College lives off of controversy while the NFL lives off of certainty. If you don't have a good enough record to make #5 and #6 in the NFL then you have no dog, but in college there is no set metric because its a committee that makes a gameshow out of who is in, and they give no clear indication of who is in unless its blatantly obvious.

Then stop trying to say that the Pats weren't rewarded for their regular season when they clearly were

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I don't believe you are purposely contorting what I say, I just believe you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to my post. You almost never understand what I'm saying.

No I'm just saying bring a better argument. You cant say it doesn't matter and use the Patriots in that case. The Pats were rewarded in that case. If anything your argument should be that the Giants were punished for playing in the toughest division that year and had to go on the road to TB who had 1 less win than them. The issue with most college- only fans who try to bash the NFL is that they make these blanket statements and don't bother doing research to back up your opinion. Because if you did then you would realize that in 2007 the Pats had every advantage in the playoffs while the Giants had none. But yet you are arguing in favor of the Pats. I just cant see how anybody thinks that the Pats weren't rewarded for their regular season

I was not using NE to make an argument that they deserved it more, or that they got no advantage. I never said anything like that. What I said was that I preferred that that more emphasis was not put on the reg season. I.e., something like the old NFL where you had the West vs East and that was it. I would add maybe one more level and that would be it. I never bashed the NFL and stated numerous times that NY deserved the championship based on the current rules.

Yeah, no one can complain about being left out of the NFL playoffs because almost 40% make the playoffs. I've stated before that IMO, the CFP Committee has done a very good job. I like the current college setup. The NFL setup is OK, though I would prefer only 4 or at most 8 teams make it. But college and the NFL are 2 different animals.

81usaf92 · May 19, 2018

BamaInBham said:
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that. I don't believe you are purposely contorting what I say, I just believe you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to my post. You almost never understand what I'm saying.

I was not using NE to make an argument that they deserved it more, or that they got no advantage. I never said anything like that. What I said was that I preferred that that more emphasis was not put on the reg season. I.e., something like the old NFL where you had the West vs East and that was it. I would add maybe one more level and that would be it. I never bashed the NFL and stated numerous times that NY deserved the championship based on the current rules.

Yeah, no one can complain about being left out of the NFL playoffs because almost 40% make the playoffs. I've stated before that IMO, the CFP Committee has done a very good job. I like the current college setup. The NFL setup is OK, though I would prefer only 4 or at most 8 teams make it. But college and the NFL are 2 different animals.

I swear you just try to continuously move the goalposts when someone calls you out on some of your more ludicrous points. You clearly said that you wanted a system that rewarded the 2007 Patriots and I’ve clearly pointed out that it did reward them, and you’ve yet to provide a single result of why it didn’t. All you did is dodge and move the goalposts to make it seem that you are just on another plane of reality and understanding than all of us.

So for either the billionth time finally address the point that I’m holding you to which is “ the Patriots weren’t rewarded in the 2007 season for the regular season” without the snide remarks attached or just move on because this is just you arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

BamaInBham · May 19, 2018

81usaf92 said:
I swear you just try to continuously move the goalposts when someone calls you out on some of your more ludicrous points. You clearly said that you wanted a system that rewarded the 2007 Patriots and I’ve clearly pointed out that it did reward them, and you’ve yet to provide a single result of why it didn’t. All you did is dodge and move the goalposts to make it seem that you are just on another plane of reality and understanding than all of us.

So for either the billionth time finally address the point that I’m holding you to which is “ the Patriots weren’t rewarded in the 2007 season for the regular season” without the snide remarks attached or just move on because this is just you arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

You continuously misjudge my motives and misunderstand what I say. There is little civility left, so I don't see any reason to continue our "conversation".

81usaf92 · May 19, 2018

BamaInBham said:
You continuously misjudge my motives and misunderstand what I say. There is little civility left, so I don't see any reason to continue our "conversation".

Maybe instead of making snide remarks you give actual facts to support your argument and there might be “civility” in a conversation.

But anyways. Peace

TIDE-HSV · May 20, 2018

81usaf92 said:
Maybe instead of making snide remarks you give actual facts to support your argument and there might be “civility” in a conversation.

But anyways. Peace

I would suggest that the two of you take this to PMs, if you want to continue. Otherwise, the general interest level isn't very high...

Coach Saban Addressed UCF's "National Championship"

Hall of Fame

All-American

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

All-American

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

TideFans Legend

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

TideFans Legend

All-American

TideFans Legend

Senior Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!