Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2285
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TXSooner518

  1. 6 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

    In 2018, OU barely edged Georgia.  11-2 Georgia finished ahead of 12-1 Ohio State that year.  Do I think OU might finish behind 11-2 Georgia AND 12-1 Ohio State in 2018 without a CCG?  Absolutely.  OU got one more good win (avenged its only loss) and closed the door on the argument to jump them.

    In 2019, same situation.  Nobody really looked the part for the 4 seed that year.  UGA had better wins than OU that year.  If OU doesn't pick up a 12th win over a Top 10 Baylor, does the committee argue "why should we punish UGA for playing LSU?"  I think so.  Why wouldn't they?

    Can't get a top 4 seed and bye if you aren't a conf champ, so non-champ UGA would be ineligible both years. 

    And you just keep missing the negative freeroll point. OU had a top 4 seed and bye locked in 2015. So who cares if they could have kept the 3 over Sparty?  Prob not, because again you are damaging your best win.  Beating a 10-2 team once looks better than beating a 10-3 team twice. Playing OSU or TCU again can only risk the bye that is a lock going into the game. TCU also had a bid locked that year and playing OU again can only risk it. 

    Maybe this is the disconnect, but the stats firm was looking at a 4 team playoff, not this 12 team model. I think the CCG (while still stupid and redundant after a round robin) is MUCH less detrimental in a 4 team playoff than in a 12 team playoff. B12 can reasonably get 2 teams in a 12 teamer but not in a 4 teamer. Also the fact that the 4 byes MUST be conf champs means the B12 champ can't get edged for byes by SEC runner-up, despite you keeping on saying that could happen. The 1 seed in B12 CCG is very likely to be one of the 4 best champs and the 2 seed winning is much less likely to be one of the 4 best champs. So the B12 will often risk the bye and/or second bid, with no upside. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  2. 26 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

    You're making an argument that human nature isn't human nature.  The committee has to choose between teams with similar records.  The committee is comprised of people with rooting interests that are not Big 12 rooting interests.  If 12-1 Ohio State is pitted against 11-1 OU, Ohio State is going to win that comparison in all years where OU didn't beat Ohio State on the field in the regular season.  The "data point" argument is why Notre Dame is not going to complain about never getting a bye week.

    Give people an easy reason not to choose you, then they'll take that reason.  If the Big 12 opts out of a CCG, it will piss off everyone else who wants to play one and they'll go out of their way to try to punish the Big 12 for not playing one.  

    The year OU made the playoff without a CCG, Stanford had 2 losses.  OU finished behind everyone with 1 loss or less - including a pretty meh Michigan State team.  OU arguably gets edged out for the 4 seed in both 2018 and 2019 without the CCG.  

    Stop being dense. I've literally shown you empirically that the CCG will hurt much more often than it helps.

    For 2015: For one, you're flat wrong. 11-1 OU finished ahead of 12-1 Iowa. BUT BUT BUT THE DATA POINTS. 

    For two, OU being behind Sparty has nothing to do with 13 vs 12 games. Sparty's last 3 games were winning at the Shoe against #3 tOSU, who many thought was the best team that year, beating Penn St by 39, and then beating undefeated #4 Iowa on a neutral field. OU's loss was worse, getting dominated by a very bad Texas team, whereas Sparty lost at Nebraska who went to a bowl game that year, and Sparty led that game 39-26 with 2:00 to go and the winning TD was controversial.

    In the final poll Sparty had wins over #5, #7, #14, and #15, with 3 of the 4 wins away from home. OU had wins over #11, 16, 17, and 23.  And guess what?  Playing and winning the CCG would just knock OU's best win down from #11, so then the 3 best wins between the two teams are all Sparty. I"m sure that would move OU ahead of them though to beat TCU again. 

    Without a CCG in 2019, who edges OU? There were only 3 one loss conf champs other than OU. Literally a 0% chance they get edged for the 4. Only way they lose it is to lpay the worthless CCG. You are saying something "arguably" happens that has a 0% shot.  In 2018, 12-1 tOSU was behind 11-2 UGA because of how shitty tOSU's loss was, but they are somehow gonna be ahead of 11-1 OU.  11-1 OU was ahead of 11-1 tOSU going into the CCG week. I doubt beating trash Northwestern moves the needle, again given that they stayed behind UGA despite UGA losing the CCG. 

  3. 7 conference games really opens to the door to dramatically unbalanced schedules. A team going 6-1 when they got Kansas and Tech going to the CCG over a team going 5-2 when they got OU and Texas is a pretty lame outcome, esp if they didn't play each other.

    Imagine a #1 OU going 12-0 and 7-0 in conf with a 31-30 win over Texas.  Texas goes 11-1, 6-1 with only that loss, dominant in all other games.  Iowa State goes 8-4, but is 7-0 in conf and doesn't play either OU or Texas. ISU then goes to CCG over Texas. Texas could be #2 in country but wouldn't be able to win the conf title or get a bye. 

    It's just pointless and stupid, not to mention trying to fill 5 OOC games every year isn't going to work when every other conf is playing conf games those weeks. Derp.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. I do think there are legit engagement issues and having more teams, players, and regions involved in the playoff race and playoff itself has great potential to really pump up interest in the sport. Cincy had a fun season last year. The excitement of them hosting Georgia in a playoff game would have really increased that to the next level and given them even more of a foundation to continue to build upon. A team like Iowa State that maybe can't get past an Oklahoma has a chance to really keep building recruiting momentum. If they hadn't had a B12 title game last year, ISU probably gets a first round bye in the new model, and if the majority get their way, would be hosting a national quarterfinal at Jack Trice. That would be MASSSSSIVE for that program.

    I think you will find that there are many more games that are nationally interesting in the new model, and by definition, many of those games will not be SEC-centric, so everyone tired of that should be excited. 

    Moving at least 4 massive postseason games (and hopefully at least eight) to campus environments will also create some really fresh, fun, exciting matchups. 

    I would have said I was opposed to 12 a year ago, but I think going "top 6 champs" was a really really sharp move, and creating three "tiers" of playoff spots ensures no one is in "meaningless games" down the stretch and resting players. 

    • Hook 'Em 3

  5. No. No one cares about number of games and didn’t then. Notre Dame made the playoffs a couple years back with 12 games. Ohio State made it this year with six. No one gives a fuck. Never did. I explained it already and laid out how devastating the CCG will be to the B12 once the 12 team model kicks in.

    Also the literal year after the “13th data point” convo, OU made the playoffs having played 12 games and with a loss to a team with a losing record. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT 12 v 13 GAMES.
  6. The "data points" stopped being a thing once the Big 12 started playing a CCG.  It would become a thing again if we stopped playing one.  Don't kid yourself.  

    No. No one cares about number of games and didn’t then. Notre Dame made the playoffs a couple years back with 12 games. Ohio State made it this year with six. No one gives a fuck. Never did. I explained it already and laid out how devastating the CCG will be to the B12 once the 12 team model kicks in.
  7. What about before the game came back, how would that have impacted things?

    2016: OU was 7 and OSU was 12 in the final CFP. All that can happen is OSU gets pushed out.

    2015: OU was 4 and TCU 11. Exact same as 2013. They both are in with no game, with OU a bye. Game MUST cost OU the bye or TCU the bid. 

    2014: BU 5, TCU 6, KSU 11. Game is basically only a potential harm, winner likely still not getting a bye, loser dropping out of a home game in Round 1. 

    2013: No CFP rankings but using coaches - BU 5, OU 10. Baylor would have a bye with no game, b/c Aub and Bama both above them and can't both get bye. Game risks Baylor's bye and OU's bid, with no upside, just like the 2015 and 2017 games. How many of these negative freeroll games do you need to see to realize how shitty this game is for having multiple top 12 teams?

    2012: GOOD NEWS HERE IS ANOTHER.  KSU 6, OU 11.  KSU would also have a bye here, because of 3 SEC teams above them. KSU bye or OU bid will go out the window with again no upside.

    2011: AND ANOTHER. OSU 3, KSU 10.  

    So in the 10 seasons of full round robin, 6 of them would be GUARANTEED to either cost a bye or bid to a B12 team. COOL.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 16 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

    First time a Big 12 team misses a bye game due to not having a 13th data point... there'd be an argument to bring back the CCG.

    The conference will usually put two teams into a twelve team field with our current format.  We would have had two last year (ISU) and the year before (Baylor).  Texas makes it in in 2018 under our existing format, too - if they don't let Maryland hang an L on them to start the year.

    Stop with the data points. There is nothing about data points. They mentioned "the 13th data point" one time for Ohio State, b/c their 13th game they beat Wisky about 379-0 and so that boosted them. There is nothing magical about 13 games, it was just that their 13th game was super impressive. Not that they played 13.

    2017 - going into B12 title game, OU is 3 and TCU is 11. With no game, OU gets a bye and TCU gets in. As played, OU keeps a bye and TCU falls out. A TCU win just keeps them in the field, maaaaaaaybe a home Round 1 game, and costs OU the bye.  Result: Negative Freeroll.

    2018 - going into the game, OU is 5 and Texas is 14. OU ended up with a bye, Texas could have gotten a berth with a win that would have then cost OU the bye. Result: Even

    2019 - OU and Baylor both look pretty locked here either way. Result: Even

    2020 - OU and ISU are both safely in with no game. A loss likely moves OU out of the field. Also, ISU earned the title on the field, and would have lost a program-definining bye and top 4 seed due to losing this game. Again: Negative Freeroll.

    So 2018 is the only game that could have earned the conf another bid, but at the cost of a top 4 seed. 2017 would have cost the conference a bid and 2020 could have with an OU loss. 

    Also of the 4 years, only 2 years get 2 teams in with the game, 3 years get 2 teams in without. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. Really really loved this. Visually stunning, lots of funny moments, both Emmas were just tremendous, awesome soundtrack. My group of 5 ranged in age from 67 to 11 and we all absolutely loved it.

  10. No. The round robin is the best way to actually determine a champion. I have zero interest in your plan of "hey, let's play 7 conf games" and play 5 shit OOC games so everything is boring and trash. 

    • Hook 'Em 8
    • Like 1
  11. replace it with a Week 0 neutral site game between the previous year's B12 and SEC champs then. Or just accept that it will likely be a net negative on playoff berths and positioning, while also being absolutely superfluous in a round robin setup, I suppose.

  12. yeah I don't mind the seating. haven't had a middle seat ever b/c I check in at 24h. I also have the SWA credit card, so have 4 upgrades to use for times when I'm not checking a bag for example and would really prefer being off early.

    It would adjust the calculus some if they started charging for bags, but for AA to be paying $100 round trip for bags is a pretty deep hole to start in. Also more nonstop flights on SWA IME. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  13. B12 should DEFINITELY kill the CCG, and adopt a plan of designating a single champion for purposes of the top 4 seeds/byes. Take advantage of the full round robin, and like you said, MUCH better chance of getting your second team in. Going to be VERY rare that the B12 champ isn't a top 6 champ, since without a conf champ game with divisions, you eliminate a fluke champ. So the champ will virtually always be in, the second team just avoids an extra L by killing the CCG. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  14. I can even see the shortstack nit lady limping QQ to “make sure no A or K comes first”. So I don’t think we have pure nuts. I don’t think we are really worried about getting outdrawn I don’t think either described player doesn’t this with a straight draw. I’m specifically worried that BTN has QQ.

    I think you are more than 90% to get a seat as described going into the hand and if you call and win you are 100%. You can fold everything for certain then.

  15. Yes, both had me covered. I heard the all in call at the next table and paused, but then decided even if no one there busted I have to fold.

    I puke fold. BB folds AQo face up. BTN shows QJo. So I was like a 99% favorite

    It took us another 45 mins, but I eventually knocked out the lady who was BB and will play the Main Event in two weeks

    Lol wow at BTN. I HAZ TOPPEST PAIR. GLGL!
  16. Fold everywhere but JFC brutal.

    Edit to add: this is assuming she has us covered and that when you said dealer on other table announces all in you mean a called allin not just someone moved all in. If someone moved allin I would tank til the other players act there.

  17. 38 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    I guess 12 would work as long as they change second round games to home fields of the top 4 seeds. Most of them will be 80K-100k+ stadiums. Makes a ton of sense. So of course they are going to fuck it all up.

    If you look at the retrospective brackets with this model, it does look really good. Bill Connelly has an excellent one up where he looks at the % chances various teams make the semis, etc. The 5-12 teams aren't all total fodder, there are a lot of solid teams that either got a bad break (really good McCaffery-led Stanford that lost a 9am body clock game week 1; dominant tOSU team that dropped a rainy slog to Sparty) or turned it on late (for example lots of people mentioned OU playing hot at the end of the year last year). Adding home atmosphere to those games will be must-watch. 

    Houston at Georgia in an opening round game, to pick a rando example, is sooooooo much more exciting to me as a fan than Houston vs Georgia in a random Peach or Fiesta Bowl that ultimately means nothing.

    Adding home field to the quarters so you get top 8 teams playing each other on campus is so sexy, they simply must get it done. The traveling is just stupid otherwise. Everyone is all-in for Penn State at Alabama. Penn State vs Bama in the natty QF in Glendale is gonna be held in front of 30k people, 20k+ being corporate jabronis who got tickets b/c of affiliation with Capital One or whatever the fuck.  Bama fans as a 1 seed aren't paying thousands to travel to a fucking QF game, and will be presuming they will be in the SF or natty and will prep for that. 

  18. 37 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    Why would that even be a thing anyway?

    It would allow bowl games to have better teams in them. If the next 5 best non-playoff bowls can't take playoff losers, then those games get teams ranked 13-22. If they can, they get teams ranked 5-18.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    All should be neutral, especially given rankings are based on subjectivity of a committee 

    No. The subjectivity of the committee slightly edging things is drastically outweighed by the prospect of eight CFP games coming from actual college stadiums on college campuses. I say 8 b/c I presume no way the semis or finals are neutral. Put the quarters on campuses and this is a solid plan. 

    It maximizes meaning of conf titles and reg season: Can't get a bye without winning a conference title. Can't get a home quarter unless you are a Top 4 team. Still a benefit for fighting for a Top 8 spot if you aren't Top 4, b/c you get a home game. 

    Brings more passion and excitement to the playoffs with home crowds/atmosphere. I would be MUCH more inclined to travel to an Oklahoma at Georgia quarterfinal than Oklahoma vs Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl quarterfinal. Who is traveling to neutral QF games? The top teams are saving trips and $$ for SF and finals. The lesser teams not paying to go watch a QF vs Bama in an NFL stadium. Similarly, I'm much more inclined to watch those games on TV if there is home atmosphere and college pageantry.

     

    • Hook 'Em 4
  20. Right, I think the bye hate is overblown. I actually really like the 10-team model above. Only change I would make is to have the 7-10 and 8-9 play-in games as a neutral site doubleheader. Then you have 8/9 winner at 1, 7/10 winner at 2, 6 at 3, 5 at 4.  That way, instead of the cut line for byes being among the top 2 or 4, you're really giving the bottom 4 a play-in opportunity.  If 7 hosts 10 and 8 hosts 9, seems unfair that those teams get the revenue/benefits of a home playoff game but 5 and 6 don't. 

    Same basic model as the B12 hoops tourney. 

    Also can have some good marketing around "Top Ten" or whatever. I would go auto-bids for P5 champs and top G5 champ, 4 at-large. Could have a clause where if the second highest G5 champ is within X spots of the top one, they both get bids, to keep it from being a thing where #11 Houston goes to playoffs and #12 Marshall goes to the Aunt Fran's Dildo Emporium Bowl in Poughkeepsie.  

  21. They definitely need to either kill the conference tie-ins for bowls or rotate them more often. So often bowl matchups feel so stale because the same teams end up in same bowls in same matchups (or similar, etc).  Plus give the fans more variety in looking at making bowl trips. 

  22. 12 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

    No OOC games.

    All conferences are 10 teams and play a 9 game conference schedule.

    A seeded 64-team tournament.

    The 2 championship game teams end up playing 15 games. Everyone else plays less.

    I legit don't understand this mentality. You want Texas' schedule to be the exact same 9 teams for the next 50 years? How fucking BORING. Those games also mean less than nothing since Texas is obv in the tournament every year. Also how do you seed teams when they all play in isolated pods with no crossover games?

    Any playoff system should include:

    1) Potential for at-large bids. If conference champions and only conference champs get in, OOC games become meaningless.

    2) Incentive to get top seeds. This can be byes, home games, or some combination of both. A playoff of 8+ teams with all games at neutral sites totally diminishes the achievements of the very top teams.

    3) If auto-bids, conferences need better ways to determine champions. I prefer pod scheduling and/or elimination of title games. It's going to be stupid and annoying when 11-1 Team A plays 11-1 Team B in the conf title game and wins, and now 11-1 Team C, who Team B beat to earn the title game bid, gets the at-large bid over Team B. I don't want a super rigid rule that only teams in the conf title game can go, b/c maybe Team C beat Team A, then if B wins title game, C should go over A, not A just b/c they were in the title game. I doubt title games are going anywhere, so pod scheduling can mitigate at least some of this.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...