College Football Playoff

[banker6796]

This is year 6 of the current system meaning that 24 teams have made the playoff.

Clemson - 5
Alabama - 5
Oklahoma - 4
Ohio State -3
LSU
Georgia
Oregon
Washington
Michigan State
FSU
Norte Dame

There have been 17 games so far. Number of wins.

Clemson - 6
Alabama - 6
Ohio State - 2
LSU
Oregon
Georgia

So, in six years only 6 different teams have won a playoff game and only 11 teams have made the playoffs and that field has narrowed since the beginning. Only 8 different teams have made it in the last 4 years.

The question becomes, does the CFP reflect dynasties or is it possibly building them? If you're a top player and want to play for a championship your obvious college choices are clear when 4 teams account for 17 of the 24 selections so far and 3 account for 14 of the 17 wins.

 

[riflearm2]

Clemson - 5
Alabama - 5
Oklahoma - 4
Ohio State -3
LSU
Georgia
Oregon
Washington
Michigan State
FSU
Norte Dame

The question becomes, does the CFP reflect dynasties or is it possibly building them?

Your theory is that the CFP is possibly building dynasties? Let's look at the programs you have listed that could be considered dynasties based on your numbers and which of them have allegedly benefited from this belief that the CFP is building dynasties:

Alabama: immediately before the CFP, they had won three of the previous five national championships. It doesn't look like they needed the CFP to be successful.

Ohio State: In the 12 previous seasons before the CFP, they won 10+ games in 10 of those 12 seasons which included multiple national championship game appearances. It doesn't look like they needed the CFP to be successful.

Oklahoma: In the 14 previous seasons before the CFP, they won 10+ games in 12 of those 14 seasons which included multiple national championship game appearances. It doesn't look like they needed the CFP to be successful.

Clemson: In the three seasons preceding the CFP, Clemson won 10+ games each of those years under their new head coach (who has since continued to build the program). I'm guessing the CFP wasn't much of a help in helping them reach 10+ wins for three straight seasons before the system ever existed, especially considering they had a new coach who was the reason for that turnaround (since Clemson hadn't had 10 wins in a season in over 20 years prior to his arrival).

For your other programs (LSU, Georgia, Notre Dame, FSU, Oregon) . . . I won't take the time to look, but something tells me that they were some of the top programs in college football for the 20 years prior to the CFP, so I'm guessing they didn't need the system to help jumpstart their programs.

 

[herdfan429]

All it’s doing is growing the divide between The haves and have nots

 

[i am herdman]

This is year 6 of the current system meaning that 24 teams have made the playoff.

Clemson - 5
Alabama - 5
Oklahoma - 4
Ohio State -3
LSU
Georgia
Oregon
Washington
Michigan State
FSU
Norte Dame

There have been 17 games so far. Number of wins.

Clemson - 6
Alabama - 6
Ohio State - 2
LSU
Oregon
Georgia

So, in six years only 6 different teams have won a playoff game and only 11 teams have made the playoffs and that field has narrowed since the beginning. Only 8 different teams have made it in the last 4 years.

The question becomes, does the CFP reflect dynasties or is it possibly building them? If you're a top player and want to play for a championship your obvious college choices are clear when 4 teams account for 17 of the 24 selections so far and 3 account for 14 of the 17 wins.

Go back 30 years or 50 and the results are probably the same. Alabama, Ohio State, etc. have always been good

 

[banker6796]

I asked a question, didn't draw a conclusion. However, if you look at the BCS end of season rankings (before bowl games) for the six years before the playoff:

Alabama - 5
TCU - 2
Auburn - 2
Florida - 2
Texas - 2
Stanford - 2
Oregon - 2
FSU
Norte Dame
LSU
Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
Michigan State
Cincinnati

Seems like much more diversity of teams being ranked in the top 4.

 

[GreenDuke]

A small number of teams have always dominated the top, the names change somewhat over time. Teams like Marshall are no farther away from the top tier, they have never been remotely close. This goes not just for football but for almost every other sport.

 

[i am herdman]

Go back to the 1950s just after ww2. I bet the the number of teams that have won national champions or mythical national championships are few. Then the service academies became less relevant in terms of being at the top.

 

[riflearm2]

Seems like much more diversity of teams being ranked in the top 4.

There’s a logical reason that is partly the case.
The CFP takes the top four teams based on a large body of work (sample) of 12-13 games. If #4 loses to #1 by 3 points, does that mean they should be leapfrogged in the final rankings by a #7 team who beats a #8 team by 1 point? Most likely not.

The CFP takes teams that we widely accepted as the top 4 teams and matches them together. Outside if blowouts, any of those teams losing to each other isn’t necessarily a reflection that the losing team isn’t one of the top 4 teams.

Now, compare that to the BCS bowls. They would frequently have teams ranked in the 10s and 20s competing in them. Due to the mismatches that system would produce, it would allow for more leapfrogging depending on how games turned out. If a #15 team beat a #4 team, should that #4 team not drop just like a #4 team in the CFP that loses a close game to a #1 team shouldn’t drop? Of course not.

The systems are very different designs. The CFP has already ranked the top 4 teams based on a larger body of work, so outside or blowouts, the losers of those games aren’t and shouldn’t drop much.

 

[banker6796]

That doesn't make sense. The BCS also ranked teams based on their full body of work, it was just done to a large extent by computers instead of a committee. In the above post I only listed teams that finished the regular season in the top 4 of the BCS poll. It had nothing to do with the bowl games, so not sure why you even went down that path. The BCS was just set up so #1 played #2, all the other bowls just went by traditional conference tie ins.

The committee takes the teams that they perceive to be the best 4 teams adjusted for the politics that occurs in the room and the biases inherent in each member on the committee.

 

[riflearm2]

That doesn't make sense. The BCS also ranked teams based on their full body of work, it was just done to a large extent by computers instead of a committee. In the above post I only listed teams that finished the regular season in the top 4 of the BCS poll. It had nothing to do with the bowl games, so not sure why you even went down that path. The BCS was just set up so #1 played #2, all the other bowls just went by traditional conference tie ins.

The committee takes the teams that they perceive to be the best 4 teams adjusted for the politics that occurs in the room and the biases inherent in each member on the committee.

It makes absolute sense.

The BCS had their games being automatic filled slots. It didn’t matter if the Big East champion was ranked 5th or 25th. They would get one of the coveted bowls. That means there was a wide gap between teams playing each other. By having a wide gap, it allowed for a team ranked 20th to bear a team ranked 5th, which would lead to a big jump in the final rankings for the #20 team and a big fall in the final rankings for the #5 team.

In the CFP system, the games are only between the top four teams. The most movement a team could have ascending is 3 spots. Losing to any one of those four great teams is not going to result in a huge drop unless it’s an utter blowout. In other words, the old system allowed for far greater disparities between matchups and included teams from a much wider talent/ranking gap, so movement was more possible.

Now, for your claim that those numbers were before the BCS bowls . . .

You argued that the BCS system resulted in more teams being ranked in the final four before the bowls compared to the same period of years (six years) that the CFP has been around.

However, based on your own numbers, the BCS has 14 teams ranked at least once in the final four over a six year span while the CFP has only had 11 teams ranked at least once in the final four in its six years of existence.

In other words, your argument is based on 11 vs. 14, and you used that small margin over six years to make a conclusion on your theory. You’d be just as successful (read: not successful at all) arguing your earlier theory that Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, Oklahoma, Oregon, Notre Dame, etc. are successful because the CFP builds dynasties.

I appreciate the curiosity and the discussion, but your theory is not only absent of support with facts, but facts actually disprove it.

 

[banker6796]

14 versus 11 is a 27.3% increase. Also, as earlier pointed out, 4 teams in the CFP era have taken 17 of 24 spots, that's 71%. The top 4 in the last 6 years of the BCS took 11 of 24 spots, that's 46%, a significant difference.

My theory is that in the BCS era they were only really concerned with the top 2 from a marketing standpoint and were more objective. With the CFP format they took the computers out of the equation in order to be able to better manipulate the top 4 to meet marketing objectives.

 

[ohio herd]

good discussion guys. It does seem that the big dogs have more or less remained the same over a long period of time. However, the window does seem to be narrowing some. The playoff; by most peoples estimation, is an improvement over the old way of trying to pick the 2 best teams. Can you imagine this year having to figure out which 2 of the 3 undefeated teams would play? The team left out would be screaming not fair! I think the next 3-4 years will shed more light on your thoughts Banker. Will an old blue blood like USC ever rise back up? Will Texas or Michigan overcome Ohio State or Oklahoma? Can Fl State play at a high level again? If none of these scenarios develop then it could end up as you indicate that even fewer and fewer teams dominate. Just my view from where I sit.

 

[riflearm2]

14 versus 11 is a 27.3% increase.
.

And going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase. Is it statistically relevant and indicative of something major by having just one more? No. Likewise, the difference between 11 and 14 in the scope of this discussion proves absolutely nothing.

The top 4 in the last 6 years of the BCS took 11 of 24 spots, that's 46%, a significant difference.
.

And that was before Alabama had fully started their reign (missing it by a year or two), before Clemson started their reign, etc. That accounts for anywhere from 5-7 fewer slots and makes the numbers almost identical.

And before you claim it is some sort of way the CFP is helping to build reigns, there are far stronger influences on that . . . Saban taking over at Alabama and Dabo taking over at Clemson. Those reigns have absolutely nothing to do with the CFP system and everything to do with those two coaches.

My theory is that in the BCS era they were only really concerned with the top 2 from a marketing standpoint and were more objective. With the CFP format they took the computers out of the equation in order to be able to better manipulate the top 4 to meet marketing objectives.

Uh, yeah. I was surprised that I had to acknowledge such a common sense aspect the first time in this thread, and I am more surprised I have to go over this again.

The BCS would routinely have teams ranked in the 10s and 20s in their BCS bowls. It was due to the automatic slots to conference champions. On the other hand, the CFP only includes the top four teams. So again, a #4 losing to a #1 is not going to result in the same ranking changes that a #18 beating a #6 team will do (which could happen in the BCS bowl system).

It wasn't that the BCS was "only really concerned with the top 2," but rather, the way the system was set up allowed for teams far outside of the top 4 (or 8) getting into the bowls due to automatic slots.

None of that has any impact on helping teams become dynasties. A far bigger influence is that schools 20 years ago used to always give coaches 4-5 years to build a program. Now, schools are canning guys after two years, thus unplugging a program and forcing them into another rebuilding mode. A far bigger influence in the very slight disparity in numbers is Saban and Dabo taking over programs.

 

[i am herdman]

Clemson timed in perfectly. Hired the next generational coach and has caught Florida State in a downward spiral. Florida State in my opinion is the only team in the ACc that can truly match Clemson. Miami will never be the Jimmy Johnson Miami again. No other ACC team can come close to watching Clemson.

 

[The Real SamC]

The traditional bowl system was superior to the BcS, the BcS was superior to the current playoffs, and the current playoffs will be superior to the coming 8, then 12, then 16 team playoffs. Other bowls, and the regular season, lose more of their meaning every year.

 

[muthed]

And going from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase. Is it statistically relevant and indicative of something major by having just one more? No. Likewise, the difference between 11 and 14 in the scope of this discussion proves absolutely nothing.



And that was before Alabama had fully started their reign (missing it by a year or two), before Clemson started their reign, etc. That accounts for anywhere from 5-7 fewer slots and makes the numbers almost identical.

And before you claim it is some sort of way the CFP is helping to build reigns, there are far stronger influences on that . . . Saban taking over at Alabama and Dabo taking over at Clemson. Those reigns have absolutely nothing to do with the CFP system and everything to do with those two coaches.



Uh, yeah. I was surprised I had to acknowledge some a common sense aspect the first time in this thread, and I am more surprised I have to go over this again.

The BCS would routinely have teams ranked in the 10s and 20s in their BCS bowls. It was due to the automatic slots to conference champions. On the other hand, the CFP only includes the top four teams. So again, a #4 losing to a #1 is not going to result in the same ranking changes that a #18 beating a #6 team will do (which could happen in the BCS bowl system).

It wasn't that the BCS was "only really concerned with the top 2," but rather, the way the system was set up allowed for teams far outside of the top 4 (or 8) getting into the bowls due to automatic slots.

None of that has any impact on helping teams become dynasties. A far bigger influence is that schools 20 years ago used to always give coaches 4-5 years to build a program. Now, schools are canning guys after two years, thus unplugging a program and forcing them into another rebuilding mode. A far bigger influence in the very slight disparity in numbers is Saban and Dabo taking over programs.

"Now schools are canning coaches after 2 years." EXCEPT AT MARSHALL.

 

[banker6796]

Alabama made the top 4 in 5 of the last 6 BCS polls and have made it in 5 of the first 6 CFP polls. Please explain your comment about them taking extra spots now.

Let me ask you this, who do you think makes the playoffs next year?

 

[sistersville]

And to think that Marshall was an OT loss to Western Kentucky from making one of the first NY-6 bowls. Until the system changes, which will only be made worse when they start paying players within the next 5 years, Marshall will be stuck in a crappy Conference tied into crappy bowls.

 

[riflearm2]

Alabama made the top 4 in 5 of the last 6 BCS polls and have made it in 5 of the first 6 CFP polls. Please explain your comment about them taking extra spots now.

Yeah, that was my point with my earlier comment:
And that was before Alabama had fully started their reign (missing it by a year or two), before Clemson started their reign, etc. That accounts for anywhere from 5-7 fewer slots and makes the numbers almost identical.

Please note the emboldened area where I acknowledge the "year or two" that Alabama hadn't yet started their reign.

Further, note that I also included Clemson in that comment. In other words, Alabama and Clemson were included. My argument that Clemson's success was the result of Dabo and not the CFP. So if Clemson were to make the BCS just four of the six years, that would fulfill the "5-7" slots (when added with the 1 from Alabama not started rolling yet).

Let me ask you this, who do you think makes the playoffs next year?

That depends on if people like Lawrence, Fromm, etc. leave.

 

[ggmike1992]

Clemson timed in perfectly. Hired the next generational coach and has caught Florida State in a downward spiral. Florida State in my opinion is the only team in the ACc that can truly match Clemson. Miami will never be the Jimmy Johnson Miami again. No other ACC team can come close to watching Clemson.

We are years away from catching up to the likes of Clemson.

 

[banker6796]

Lawrence can't leave, he's a sophomore.

Your explanation is still comical and a poor attempt to,maintain your streak of never admitting you messed up. Alabama took the exact same number of spots in each six year period, therefore you are then saying that Clemson is the only reason. If you believed they were the only reason, why did you even mention Alabama? You know, it's okay to say you messed up. People will actually think better of you for being truthful.

 

[herdfan429]

We are NEVER catching up to the likes of Clemson.

Fixed it for you

 

[riflearm2]

Your explanation is still comical and a poor attempt to,maintain your streak of never admitting you messed up. Alabama took the exact same number of spots in each six year period, therefore you are then saying that Clemson is the only reason. If you believed they were the only reason, why did you even mention Alabama? You know, it's okay to say you messed up. People will actually think better of you for being truthful.

I can't dumb this down any more for you:

Your argument was that the BCS had many more teams in their top four than the CFP, and that was a result of the CFP helping create dynasties. My argument was that the discrepancy had far more to do with Alabama and Clemson's coaches turning those programs around and making them into dynasties before the CFP.

Clemson hadn't even started their dynasty yet, because Dabo was only a few years into his tenure. Clemson on its own now has five appearances. That automatically proves my 5-7 disparity comment. In other words, your argument has already been destroyed.

Now, you're trying to argue that since Alabama was only in BCS bowls five times in the last six years, and since they have only been in the CFL five of six years, there is no disparity regarding Alabama. But the discussion isn't how many times each program has been in either. The argument was that Alabama wasn't in their prime yet in Saban's earlier years, including the first of the last six years of the BCS, which means his dynasty hadn't started. Had the BCS been during Alabama's best collection of seasons (2013 to 2018), Alabama would have been in all six years. In other words, the CFP has absolutely nothing to do with building dynasties.

The thing is, you don't have the mental capacity to realize what you're trying to now argue is destroying your own theory. Let's dumb it down again:

Banker: "The CFP is set up to build dynasties. The proof of that is that there are fewer different schools involved in the first six years of the CFP's top four teams than in the last six years of the BCS' top four teams."

Banker: "Alabama was in the CFP top four teams five of the first six years."

Banker: "Alabama was in the BCS top four teams five of the last six years."

So tell us all again how the CFP builds dynasties and prove that with Alabama considering they were in the top four teams just as frequently in the BCS as they have been in the CFP.

DOH!

 

[banker6796]

If you go all the way back and read what I typed, not what you have inferred, you will see that I never drew a conclusion in my OP, I just posted info for discussion. I even followed up with a post that said specifically that I was drawing no conclusions

All I have done is present information concerning the participation of various teams in the last 6 years of the BCS and first six years of the CFP. You are the one who has interjected meaningless discussion about a #20 playing a #8 in the Rose Bowl or some such chit.

You don't believe the CFP committee has anything to do with the narrowing of the field in the playoffs versus what the polls and computers gave us in the BCS and you are entitled to that opinion, but that's all it is, your opinion.

 

[19MU88]

Lawrence can't leave, he's a sophomore.

Your explanation is still comical and a poor attempt to,maintain your streak of never admitting you messed up. Alabama took the exact same number of spots in each six year period, therefore you are then saying that Clemson is the only reason. If you believed they were the only reason, why did you even mention Alabama? You know, it's okay to say you messed up. People will actually think better of you for being truthful.

that admission and being truthful would certainly be refreshing.

 

[i am herdman]

Alabama made the top 4 in 5 of the last 6 BCS polls and have made it in 5 of the first 6 CFP polls. Please explain your comment about them taking extra spots now.

Let me ask you this, who do you think makes the playoffs next year?

I think Alabama is really, really good. That's why.

 

[i am herdman]

We are years away from catching up to the likes of Clemson.

We need a time machine to go back to 1999.

 

[The Real SamC]

Are we talking about MU or FSU in terms of catching up to Clemson?

As to FSU, sure they will. Unrealistic delusional fans ran off a fine coach and then they made the classic bad coaching hire. Any program is only one unrealistic delusional fan caused classic bad coaching hire from having a bad run. Texas (Strong), Notre Dame (Davie, et al), Alabama (Shula), Auburn (Tuberville), USC (Lame), happens all over. MU did it with Suntan Man. The difference is that once destroyed, the road back is much longer and harder for MU than for a blue blood.

FSU, with the right coach, and I’m not sure this new guy is it (see how AAC success translates to the big time at Nebraska, Virginia Tech, etc) has all the resources to be right back on top of the ACC as soon as it flushes out Taggart’s players.

As to MU, THIS is the problem with these “playoffs”. MU is not supposed to be in competition with Clemson on a year in year out basis. MU is trying to be a solid G5 program, provide good entertainment for its fans, and go to a bowl game, which is almost always going to be a very minor bowl game. And, at only a slightly higher level, the same can be said about maybe 80% of I-A. What is the best WVU is ever going to do? Citrus Bowl? UK? Gator Bowl? Virginia Tech? Maybe the Orange Bowl? Maybe? How long before the fan bases turn as they realize that there are only 10-15 teams that will EVER make the “playoffs”?

 

[ggmike1992]

Fixed it for you

We lived thru the Jeff Bowden era and lived to score another title. We will get thru this next phase eventually.

 

[ggmike1992]

We need a time machine to go back to 1999.

Might as well go back to 1989 and right some wrongs

 

[BleedsGreen33]

This is year 6 of the current system meaning that 24 teams have made the playoff.

Clemson - 5
Alabama - 5
Oklahoma - 4
Ohio State -3
LSU
Georgia
Oregon
Washington
Michigan State
FSU
Norte Dame

There have been 17 games so far. Number of wins.

Clemson - 6
Alabama - 6
Ohio State - 2
LSU
Oregon
Georgia

So, in six years only 6 different teams have won a playoff game and only 11 teams have made the playoffs and that field has narrowed since the beginning. Only 8 different teams have made it in the last 4 years.

The question becomes, does the CFP reflect dynasties or is it possibly building them? If you're a top player and want to play for a championship your obvious college choices are clear when 4 teams account for 17 of the 24 selections so far and 3 account for 14 of the 17 wins.

This system was always designed to just serve the top teams in college football. The ultimate goal was 4 conference with 16 teams. I never thought I'd say this, but the BCS was a more fair system. With this "playoff" you won't have another G5 Boise, Utah, or TCU. There will be no outsider team ever make it to the #1 or #2 spots. The committee will protect against that.

To your original questions it's building dynasties because it's ensuring certain teams get there every season. The only way to ensure fairness and parody a traditional playoff like every other level of football must be implemented where all conference champs have a bid.

 

[BleedsGreen33]

Go back to the 1950s just after ww2. I bet the the number of teams that have won national champions or mythical national championships are few. Then the service academies became less relevant in terms of being at the top.

You are correct. a Majority of the championships awarded have gone to about 15 different schools with most of them going to about half of that number. The system is set up to restrict access and growth of any program not deemed a blue blood program. Utah and TCU are perfect examples of what happens when teams are finally given the same access.

 

[GreenDuke]

I think it’s really cathartic many MU fans have come to realize how college football ranking works. When it was the AP voting only a few were in contention, now it’s a committee and still it’s just a few.

 

[riflearm2]

If you go all the way back and read what I typed, not what you have inferred, you will see that I never drew a conclusion in my OP, I just posted info for discussion. I even followed up with a post that said specifically that I was drawing no conclusions

That's not the truth. You didn't just "post info for discussion." You actively argued against logic and commonly known facts by college football fans that easily disproves your theory. You can say "I'm not making any conclusion" as much as you want, but when you introduce such a bogus theory and then argue in support of it/argue against logic disproving it, you are opening yourself up for criticism of your stance . . . even if you claim it isn't your stance.

You are the one who has interjected meaningless discussion about a #20 playing a #8 in the Rose Bowl or some such chit.

It is meaningless only to simple minds who can't understand the significance of it.

I will once again try dumbing it down:

The BCS would routinely put teams like you mentioned (#8 vs. #20) in their bowls. When two teams with such wide disparities in rankings play each other, there is a chance for significant movement in rankings, especially if the lower ranked team wins.

In the CFP, the games are only between the top four teams. Regardless of which team wins - the lower or higher ranked - there isn't going to be significant movement in rankings among those teams.

So what does that mean? It means that the BCS allowed for greater movement as a result of bowl games compared with the CFP. Greater movement means an extra game for a team to jump up or down, thus minimizing the same teams being near the top of the standings. Now, one may think this supports your argument in that having an extra game with more ranking movement reduces chances at dynasties, right? Well, not based on what the statistics you presented shows. The numbers of teams are very similar (11 teams making the playoffs vs. what would have been 14). Taking into consideration the Clemson/Alabama dynasties which have absolutely nothing to do with the CFP system actually flips those numbers.

You don't believe the CFP committee has anything to do with the narrowing of the field in the playoffs versus what the polls and computers gave us in the BCS and you are entitled to that opinion, but that's all it is, your opinion.

It's no more of an opinion than believing that we aren't all just characters in a computer game being operated by a giant who has the planet sitting on the ring finger on his left hand. There are simply no facts to support the belief you're trying to present. In fact, logic and facts show the complete opposite of what you're attempting to present.

 

[riflearm2]

FSU, with the right coach, and I’m not sure this new guy is it (see how AAC success translates to the big time at Nebraska, Virginia Tech, etc)

You're clueless. And like always, your obsession with the AAC shows you to be the fool:

Fuente's record at Memphis: 26-23
VA Tech's record the previous four years BEFORE Fuente: 29-23
VA Tech's record for Fuente's first four years: 33-20

Fuente has been more successful at VA Tech than he was at Memphis. VA Tech has been far more successful in Fuente's first four years than it was under the previous coach's last four years.

 

[banker6796]

You're clueless. And like always, your obsession with the AAC shows you to be the fool:

Fuente's record at Memphis: 26-23
VA Tech's record the previous four years BEFORE Fuente: 29-23
VA Tech's record for Fuente's first four years: 33-20

Fuente has been more successful at VA Tech than he was at Memphis. VA Tech has been far more successful in Fuente's first four years than it was under the previous coach's last four years.

Wait, 14 to 11 is insignificant but 33 to 29 is far more? Do you even see and process your own BS?

Also, the BCS didn't put anybody in any bowl except 1vs 2 in the "national championship game". Don't know why you are saying they did.

 

[GoHerdMarshallYes]

We need a time machine to go back to 1999.

If the CFP format had existed in 1999 and lets say MU achieved the same ranking they did, who would they have played?

 

[ohio herd]

You're clueless. And like always, your obsession with the AAC shows you to be the fool:

Fuente's record at Memphis: 26-23
VA Tech's record the previous four years BEFORE Fuente: 29-23
VA Tech's record for Fuente's first four years: 33-20

Fuente has been more successful at VA Tech than he was at Memphis. VA Tech has been far more successful in Fuente's first four years than it was under the previous coach's last four years.

Rifle I would argue he did a bang up job at Memphis and was way better than his record. As you know, he took over a program with only a few good seasons over a period of about 30 years. I agree with you , he will do a good job at Va Tech. if he doesn't do so long term I will be surprised.

 

[riflearm2]

Wait, 14 to 11 is insignificant but 33 to 29 is far more? Do you even see and process your own BS?
.

You're looking at two different things, and more, you're using something I didn't mention. "14 and 11" is referring to the number of teams in the BCS/CFP. That's entirely different than your use of "33 to 29."

Let me continue dumbing this down:

If somebody gets a pay raise from $11 to $14, would you consider that a substantial raise? I would. Why? Because even though the number three isn't significant, it would give the employee an extra $500+ per month. And when somebody was only making $1800/month, and extra $500 is a huge increase for them.

If somebody eats 33 M&Ms compared to their previous 29 M&Ms, are they eating a significantly more M&Ms? No. There really isn't much difference between 33 and 29 M&Ms.

So how is a difference of three (the difference between 11 and 14) significant, but the difference of four (the difference between 33 M&Ms and 29 M&Ms) isn't significant?

Well, it's because you need a little critical thinking, and you've failed miserably at that.

Even worse with your attempt is the introduction of "33 to 29." I compared what Fuente did at Tech compared with Beamer's last four years. Beamer didn't have his team ranked in the final top 25 in any of his final four years. Based on how the voting turns out, Fuente could have three of his first four teams at Tech be ranked in the top 25.

That's doing far better than what Beamer did in his final four years.

Also, the BCS didn't put anybody in any bowl except 1vs 2 in the "national championship game". Don't know why you are saying they did.

I'm not sure if you are really this clueless or if you are trying to argue semantics. Either way, you're wrong. The BCS system, which included the BCS, included multiple bowl games with automatic slots. The BCS was a significant part in all of those bowl match-ups based on conference affiliation and automatic slots.

Hell, I'm not 100% positive about this, but I believe the CFP is even owned by the BCS still under a legal entity named "BCS" or something similar.

 

[riflearm2]

Rifle I would argue he did a bang up job at Memphis and was way better than his record.

I agree. He took a dead program and gave them life in his last two years there. That's a good job. It was good enough to earn him a P5 job.

He may have done a better job at Memphis, but he's been more successful at Virginia Tech.