Jump to content

hpslugga

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3286
  • Joined

Posts posted by hpslugga

  1. 11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    We went from 2 to 4 after OKST was excluded by the narrowest of margins in favor of a crappy SEC rematch.  I agree, a G-5 exclusion won't move the needle.  A more likely change agent would be if three P-5 conferences are excluded if the SEC gets two teams, Notre Dame goes undefeated, and the PAC, Big XII, BIG, and ACC have only one bid between them.

    The most likely would be for all 5 of the P5 champions to finish the CCG's with identical records because at this point, the qualities of those teams would be so close together that it'd be patently dishonest to say that one absolutely knows how to rank them and that they therefore absolutely know which one of the five to leave out.

  2. 11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Plus they played Fresno and the Utah and Nevada schools in conf.  The MW was as good as or better than the Big East back then.  Certainly better than the AAC is today.

    -Boise moved to the MWC when the Big East was about to fold (2011)

    -Nevada's entire history of non-doormat status can be summed up with two words: Colin Kaepernick. If you look at the years where he wasn't their QB, they weren't all that great. In fact, aside from that awesome 2010 season they had, they lost at least 5 games a year both before (aside 2005 when they went 9-3) and since. They're 36-46 since moving to the MW. I don't know why you felt the need to add them.

    -The same is pretty much true, albeit slightly better, of Fresno State when their QB wasn't a Carr. 45-39 since moving to the MWC.

    -As to Utah, Boise never played them in conference play. They moved to the Mountain West in the same season that Utah started playing in the PAC 12. They've only played each other 7 times and the last was a bowl game 8 years ago.

    • Like 1
  3. 11 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    They consistently play GT.  

    No they don't. Those two teams have played each other a grand total of 3 times. In fact, they haven't played them in almost 20 years.

  4. 1 minute ago, rickyspub said:

    It isn't a fraud if you didn't play a schedule that was of similar quality to that of the other teams trying to make the playoffs. If a G5 team wants to be part of a playoff they either need to drop down to FCS or vote to move with the other G5 to a new division. Simple as that. 

    Conceptually, yes, it's a fraud. It perpetuates this idea that college football needs to be a sport that uses stupid horseshit like "the eye test" a polls conducted by bad comedy writers as a formula for determining a champion. And again, it's not just UCF. The same thing happened to Auburn in the BCS days, and precious little has been done to remedy that. All they really have now is the BCS +1; let's not kid ourselves. Again, that's why I'm definitely in favor of the G5 being carved out in order to prevent such shenanigans from ever taking place...ever.

  5. 6 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

    Exactly. UCF has to play by the same rules everyone else plays by. Their schedule should never allow them to get near the Top 4. Shut up, cash your checks, and be happy with your conference titles and exhibition wins. If we ever went to 8, then I supposed the rules would guarantee them a spot, though I don't think they deserve one no matter their record.

    And if that really is the case, I'd definitely be in favor of splitting FBS (again) so as to remove the possibility of an undefeated team from being snubbed in the way that they (and many others) have. The mere thought of going undefeated in the regular season plus your CCG and not even being close to making it to the national playoff is a flat out fraud, and if creating a new division is what it's going to take to prevent such a fraud, I'm in favor of it 100%. 

  6. 19 minutes ago, Mileslong said:

    I don’t have time to read all that

    That’s all I needed to know. 

    20 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

     UCF controls what division they play in. If they want to compete for national titles then they need to move down to a lower level.

    That’s not realistic. You know that. In fact there’s only been one team in FBS history since the Division 1 split in the late 1970s that voluntarily moved down, and that was Idaho this past year. There’s more to consider than just winning national titles when it comes to the classification question.

  7. 3 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

    UFC has had 2 P5 scheduled for OOC for the last several seasons. They have even had decent teams like Stanford and Michigan. So scheduling a Top 20-level team isn't out of the question. Their second P5 has generally been a middling team. They also always have a G5 and an FCS OOC. Without UCF publicly negotiating with Top 20 teams, it is hard to say what the reality is. I am guessing they aren't even trying to get 4 high quality P5 games. They get 2 and then schedule a complete patsy and a G5 and then expect everyone to act like they are playing a comparable schedule to a team like Texas.

    Who does Texas play OOC? The only thing that really separates them from the UCF’s of the world is their conference schedule. Whatever control UCF has over its OOC, they have that much less over conference.

  8. 23 hours ago, Mileslong said:

    Look I realize how far out you have to schedule teams and that doesn’t guarantee a certain team will be at the same level in five years, I’m pretty sure everyone knows that.

    I don't think you do. You paid your lip service to acknowledging that reality, but then continued on with your little screed about how they needed to schedule better. It's like you're saying "I realize it's that it's impossible to gauge how good teams will be by the time you've scheduled them, but the burden is on them to be able to predict it." This is just a lot of nonsense.

    23 hours ago, Mileslong said:

    But guess what, you can still schedule perennial good teams just like Texas does and Texas continuously has one of the toughest schedules in the country.

    Just stop. That's flatly misleading and you know that full well. Texas commands that type of freedom to schedule anyone. The UCF's of the world do not. Those Boise State vs. Virginia Tech are few and far between for reasons already explained to you: they do not benefit the P5 team in the equation at all and there's definitely a risk at losing. Fuck, Michigan lost to the FCS national champion in 2007 and the only reason that stands out to anyone is precisely that: Appalachian State won. Had Michigan won that game, most (if not all) of us would have forgotten that game was even played. 

    If you stand to gain nothing and lose everything, what any competent AD will do is say "I'm gonna schedule South Dakota State instead," which is why those bullshit scrimmage matchups are far more common. And in the rare event there is some sort of big time matchup in OOC scheduling, it's either a traditional rivalry game (Florida vs. Florida State) or some other contest between two P5 teams (Texas vs. USC). A P5 vs. very good G5 matchup is about as frequent as a Halley's Comet sighting. UCF can call and propose these games all they want, but that doesn't mean the P5 AD's have to accept them, which is why they currently do not.

    23 hours ago, Mileslong said:

    You act like it’s impossible for them to schedule a hard non conference game.

    It's not impossible, but it's damned difficult and when you're dealing with a concept like 3-4 OOC games, the difference between the two is a flea's hop. The record speaks for itself. You're not gonna find a whole lot of games like Boise State vs. Georgia in reviewing the regular seasons of the last 20 years, especially not in the last 10. You knew that.

    23 hours ago, Mileslong said:

    That’s a cop out.

    Reality isn't a cop out. That's just you using false bravado to justify an untenable position. You knew that. What is a cop out is you using the scheduling excuse because even if they had 3 Top 10 teams on their schedule, you'd just argue something else. You'd probably say that their conference is the shits or something else to that effect. That's the one thing we can count on when examining arguments from people who take these ridiculously dogmatic status quo positions: it's always going to be about something.

    22 hours ago, Mileslong said:

    Follow TCU’s lead and play anyone, start beating them, then you will earn you way into a top conference and can play for it all or at least be considered for the playoff when you run the table. They don’t have to make all non conf big schools but at least a couple.

    As has already been explained to you, TCU did not "earn their way into a top conference." They backdoor'ed into it. They happened to be close by geographically and had a modicum of success during the time where the Big 12 lost 4 teams in a span of two seasons. They needed two teams to stop the bleeding. Why else do you think they reached all the way to fucking West Virginia, of all places? WVU has no prior connection to any of the Big 12's teams. At least for TCU you could say they used to be in a conference with 3 of the still existing charter members. As to why they didn't pick Rice or Houston, that's simply a choice between the DFW TV market and the Houston TV market. They chose DFW, and I can understand that because the headquarter being in freaking Irving creates a home bias for that question.

    Conferences don't hand out merit-based awards out of some sense of altruism. They do what's most beneficial to them. In the case of Utah and CU, the PAC 12 wanted a CCG and had to add two teams...so they added two teams. If conferences really had the kinds of altruistic tendencies that you seem to think, and if they were 100% merit-based as you seem to think, Boise State would have been invited to the PAC 12 instead of Colorado, a team that had accomplished jack shit in the past decade before being invited. From 2002-2009, Boise was 94-11, had a 4-4 bowl record and won 2 BCS Bowls to cap 2 perfect seasons. Colorado was 45-56, had only 3 winning seasons, won no conference titles, appeared in only 4 bowls and was 1-3 in those games.

    And now you're reading that and you're gonna feel compelled to say "they're a traditional power!" Resist that urge and understand that Colorado is there for exactly 2 reasons: 

    1. The PAC 10 wanted to become the PAC 12 and have a CCG
    2. The PAC 10 wanted to add the Denver TV market.

    Seriously, that's it.

    Back to TCU/UCF, you're being dishonest and deceptive by pretending that the Big 12 was looking to expand and chose TCU based solely on their resume. That's not what happened. If A&M, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado had stayed and never declared intentions to leave, that pickup never takes place even though the Big 12 would have been well within their right to do so. And that's especially a dishonest comparison because there is no parallel situation with UCF.

    Tell us, which conference on the East Coast is hemorrhaging 1/3rd of its teams and is at a point where they're so desperate that they'd even been willing to talk to Central Florida? Go ahead. We'll wait.

    The fact is it doesn't matter how many games in a row UCF wins, they're never going to be invited to the ACC/SEC because

    -This is only their 40th season playing football (and they've only been a D1A/FBS team since 1996)
    -The SEC already has a Florida TV market
    -The ACC has two Florida TV markets.
    -Both conferences are already stable 
    -Both conferences have more than enough teams to justify 2 divisions and a championship game

    There's seriously no benefit for either conference to add them, even if it really is true that their team is all it's cracked up to be.

    21 hours ago, Mileslong said:

    If they were a losing football team that never won anything they wouldn’t have been invited regardless.

    You don't know that. The Big 12 was going to offer someone and they were going to offer someone close by. I suppose if TCU was a lesser team at the time that it'd be a crap shoot between them, SMU, UH and Rice, but that's about it. It certainly didn't help the others that TCU was winning; that's certainly true. But this black and white portrait you're painting isn't very useful.

    • Like 2
  9. 48 minutes ago, Mileslong said:

    We don’t seem to have s problem doing it, and schools like Louisiana Tech, UTEP, Troy and UNLV do it all the time. Rice has done it for years. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to schedule a school that will most likely be ranked in top 25 year in year out.

    Totally ignoring the fact that, on average, those schedules are made well enough in advance to where you won't be facing the current players on the team at the time of scheduling them, of those teams you listed, how many of them have even mildly threatened going undefeated for multiple seasons?

    It's those kinds of teams the P5's tend to avoid. I could count the number of big time matchups Boise State has had going back to 2003 on one hand and have superfluous fingers. I could do the same for Utah in its pre-PAC 12 days. Teams like LaTech and UTEP have no difficulty getting scheduled because the Top 25 teams that do so see them as an easy win. When Bill Snyder was asked back in 1998 or 1999 what his logic is in non-conference scheduling, he simply said "AWCBBF." When asked what that meant, he elaborated "anyone we can beat by 50." UCF isn't one of those teams that you listed, which constitute damn near the bottom of the barrel. Yeah Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State et al probably would beat them the majority of the time if they each played them 10 times, but a lot of those would be hard-earned victories and UCF is good enough to pull upsets on them. They don't want that. They want to beat the opponent by 50, easily establish the run, have a few lights out defensive series, and empty the bench. 

    EDIT: And to the person who said that Texas would cruise past UCF, you're out of your fucking mind. Texas had to play fucking Tulsa and Baylor close. That's not to denigrate Texas in any way, but the fact is that Texas isn't a world beater. Watching them play, even when they win, is like pulling teeth. They're a grind-it-out team because they don't have dominant players across the board and that significantly lessens the margin for error every week that they play.

  10. 44 minutes ago, SurlyORama said:

    Not quite as easy as calling "Ranked-Teams-R-Us" before the season and scheduling a game. And good luck getting a name school (one highly likely to be ranked when the time comes) to add them to their non-conference schedule at this point.

    Beat me to it. There’s no benefit for a P5 team to schedule them and they’ll kindly avoid it if offered.

  11. 13 minutes ago, Landomatic said:

    Exactly.  Win your conference or go undefeated eliminates 99% of the legitimate bitching.  Playoff based on merit not number of teams.

    Again, what you're pushing for isn't realistic for reasons Huck already mentioned. It's far more realistic to:

    1) Sever the G5 from FBS and reclassify them between P5 and FCS

    2) Re-align the remaining conferences after the Big 12 inevitably dies (4x16 or 8x8, however you want)

    3) Allow the CCG's to serve as the de facto 1st round.

    With that, you're using a formula to allow the playoff to be based on merit AND number of teams.

  12. What was also particularly maddening in that game was the Stoops brothers profusely blitzing both A gaps over and over. I mean I get that Major was a diminutive QB and this was back when we were under center a lot, but...seriously, could they not think of anything else to do with that group?

  13. Just now, Landomatic said:

    As opposed to what we have now?  There might still be some bitching, but not nearly as much as now.

    I don't say what I said to defend the current system. The current system is a joke. Having said that, you'd have even less legitimate bitching if it's based on CC's. 

    "Wah wah wah we didn't get into the playoff"

    "Shoulda won your conference."

    Seriously, that discussion terminates there because anything beyond it is garbled verbal effluvia.

  14. 4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

    That shit right there’s funny no matter what you think about fucked up politics. 

    Looks like Al Sharpton and Vanna White produced offspring.

  15. 8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    That's funny, cause all of my comments about the subject matter were pretty much me pointing out accepted facts taken from historical record of the experts opinions of RE LEE. Nothing emotional in any of that.  

    You on the other hand have posted a completely emotion filled little rant that's nothing but a personal attack, based on your obvious lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

    And again for the record calling RE Lee a great general or leader, isn't a racist statement, except to people who are triggered by anything that doesn't fit their little pre conceived view of the world, like you for example. 

    I wasn't even talking about anything that anyone said about Robert Lee. You're projecting again, and you're very bad at it. Pre-conceived view of the world? You're just winging it at this point...well actually, at all points. I have no further use of this pointless back and forth.

  16. 1 minute ago, NowThis said:

    to have Kushner lead this farcical process is so insulting to the Palestinians.  Too many Jews representing the US delegation, need to mix in at least one Arab Muslim American for some balance. What a sick joke when the JK has financial interests in WB settlements. 

    Again, this is just another "wouldn't you know who won the pony?" situation that is commonplace with this abject failure of an administration.

  17. 12 minutes ago, NowThis said:

    thread needs a bump. 

    apparently settlers killed a Palestinian woman by throwing a rock through her windshield 

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-said-killed-in-west-bank-crash-caused-by-settler-stone-throwing/

    A Palestinian woman was killed in a car crash late Friday in the northern West Bank after a group of Jewish settlers threw rocks at the vehicle she was riding in, a rights group and Palestinian media said. Police announced Saturday morning that they have opened an investigation into the incident.

    According to Yesh Din, which documents alleged Israeli rights abuses in the West Bank, the stone-throwing at the Tapuah Junction caused 47-year-old Aisha Muhammad Talal Rabi’s husband to lose control of the car.

    The mother-of-two’s cousin Isam Rabi said her husband spotted a small group of settlers close to the scene.

    No story that includes West Bank settlers can surprise any more.

  18. 1 minute ago, Nivek said:


    It hasn’t worked yet, but it’s cause we’ve been too soft on them. This time it will really work! /GOP

    If you always do what you always did, then you'll always get what you always got/Dutch Mantell. 

  19. 2 minutes ago, yaqdum said:

    the first time a supposedly unseeded team wins it all will be delicious just for the opportunity to watch the experts piss all over themselves trying to explain that what we just saw we didn't really see.

    Well what they'd do is simply hope like hell that some #1-type team wins the next year and they'll say not a word about the previous year as if to pretend it just didn't happen at all. Their method in dealing with that reality is basically the way you defeat Freddy Kruger. 

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...