Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: Mythical playoff bids Author: An Observer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:18:58 12/27/24 Fri In reply to: Ivy Inquisitor 's message, "Mythical playoff bids" on 01:43:02 12/27/24 Fri PQ: Fine work. Thank you for going back over the records to compile your thoughts. Regarding the debate between "better or more deserving," my bias is always to go with more deserving. That's why we have a regular season. That's why we play the games. Is there any question that Alabama is a better football team than Vanderbilt or Oklahoma? Well, there's a bit of a question, but not much. If Alabama, Vanderbilt and Oklahoma each had a two-game round robin regular season, Alabama finished 0-2. The Crimson Tide are the best team according to the eye test, but they lost both games. That's why we play the games. The results of the games must matter. The CFP Committee of course is charged with selecting previously the four "best" teams and now the twelve (including the AQ's). That's a mistake, but I'm not in charge, as much as I should be. Similarly, the Ivy League should never use a subjective committee to send our "best" representative to the FCS playoffs. It will rarely be a problem. The overwhelming majority of shared championships are shared by only two teams. No problem there. A three-team tri-championship is an anomaly, recency bias excepted. We'll have some logical tie-breakers to deal with this unusual outcome. Go Green of course is rooting for a four-team quad-championship, as long as Dartmouth is included. I hope that, when the League comes up with its long list of tie-breaking criteria, it will follow the example of the NCAA in one small respect. As you may recall, when there are insufficient bowl-eligible teams to fill all the Duke's Mayo or Poulon Weedeater Bowl slots, the NCAA makes eligible the 5-7 team(s) which have the highest Academic Progress Rating. I hope that, at the very bottom of the list of Ivy League football tie-breakers, will appear some academic criterion, such as APR or US News ranking. Let's give a nod to the fact that, unlike the rest of big-time football, we are still first and foremost, academic institutions. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: Mythical playoff bids Author: M3 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:53:22 12/27/24 Fri Outstanding job Thanks [ Post a Reply to This Message ]