Jump to content

TXSooner518

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2429
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TXSooner518

  1. 3 minutes ago, sidis said:

    i don't see a scenario in which florida goes to the sugar.  if lsu and georgia win out regular, the winner goes to the playoff.  the loser either goes to the sugar if bama backs into the playoff or if not, bama likely goes.  i think the only way fla goes is if auburn beats both georgia and alabama but even then, not sure because uga is still the east rep since fla has two conf losses.  i suppose if uga loses to both auburn and tamu, then fla would get in and then they lose to lsu.  but even then, it would require bama backing in.  bit of a longshot scenario.

     

    12 minutes ago, C-Man said:

    What is that scenario? Unless Bama somehow worms into the playoff, aren't they a stone-cold lock for the Sugar Bowl?

    Don't get me wrong, it isn't likely, it was more for illustrative purposes. And I'm not rock-solid sure what the Sugar Bowl selection process for the SEC team is (I know the B12 champ goes if they don't go to playoff, and if B12 champ goes to playoff, B12 title game loser must go to Sugar, no options). And yeah, it would involve Alabama worming into the playoff lol. Georgia loses to Auburn and Aggy, LSU over UF in SEC title game, 2 loss conference champs elsewhere, or a 12-1 B12 champ Baylor. 

    7 minutes ago, sidis said:

    re: ou, they lost to a very mediocre kstate team and needed a no-call pass interference to beat iowa state at home.  their current most quality win is texas who is mediocre.  they screwed the pooch by going chickenshit with the ooc schedule.  baylor will not result in a big boost.

    now, my take on georgia is almost the same.  they have 1.25 quality wins between florida and notre but their loss to south carolina is worse than losing to kstate imo.  but uga will take care of itself in the sec ccg.  i suspect they could lose to auburn this weekend (a game i am going to).

    bama has no quality wins (yet) either with their best being tamu by a long shot.  their one loss is to the second best team in the country though, not shitty ass south carolina or mediocre kstate. 

    dude, penn state isn't that good.  no way.  they're done either way after next week's matchup with ohio state anyway.  utah's loss is about like ou's.  usc isn't great but they aren't south carolina shitty either.  if they win out and beat oregon, they deserve the nod over ou imo but no way they will beat out tide in that vote.  oregon is the interesting one.  heartbreaker against auburn opening week.  they get credit from me for playing a real non-conf game.  they haven't crushed teams they should have though.  they're a bit of an odd team.  bama-auburn outcome will be directly compared despite being 14 weeks apart.  i predict the playoff will be:

    lsu, ohio state, clemson with oregon/utah winner, ou, and bama all throwing their respective shit fits as to why they belong there.  because the college football gods hate me, it will somehow work out that ou makes it in.  but they aren't in a strong position to make that argument against those other teams.

    Not really fair to say OU went chickenshit on the OOC. They played a team that has been a top G5 team, and a road game against a P5 team that's been bowl-eligible 6 of the last 7 seasons and is solid traditional team. They can't control that they both are quite a bit below average this year. That said, they have the schedule they have, and you can ding them for it, but can't really call it chickenshit. I mean, would scheduling @Minnesota have actually been any more "gutsy" than @UCLA?  

    I also would say both KSU and Texas are above "mediocre" and KSU is better than USC, come on. What do you think would give Utah a better resume than OU if both win out? OU would likely have 4 ranked wins, with Utah having 1, with OU having a solid chance at their loss being ranked, and Utah's unranked.

    Have fun at UGA-Auburn!

     

     

     

  2. FPI has Florida's defensive efficiency at 11. Huck's Adjusted Stats has it at 12. Both metrics and Sagarin have UF as a top 12 team overall. 

    For Kentucky, they absolutely will make a bowl. And they do have 3 gimme games, I don't think Louisville, while obv not elite, counts as a gimme game, they are still in the top third of a "P5" conference. Unless you meant Arkansas, so yeah, ha. Regardless, I will bet you significant cash they make a bowl. They have a better chance of winning out than of losing 2 of their last 3. 

    EDIT: A scenario exists where Florida plays Baylor in the Sugar Bowl this year. What do you think the line on that game would be? You happily taking Baylor?

  3. 4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    You guy must vastly overrate Florida.  Tell me which B12 teams they would beat?  Would they beat Washington? Would they beat Iowa or Wisconsin? 

    I mean they've struggled against some pretty terrible teams like Miami, UK, and SCe.

    I don't generally like this phrasing "would beat."  I think Florida would be a dog to OU, equal to Baylor, slight favorite over Texas, KSU, OSU, ISU, solid favorite over Tech and TCU, big favorite over WVU and KU.

    I would pick Florida over Washington on a neutral field, and think they are probably better than Iowa and worse than Wisky.

    I don't think Miami, UK and USCe are quite as bad as you think. I also think a team like Florida (strong D, mediocre O) will have struggle games more often, because the games are lower scoring. I think Baylor is a really good analogue for Florida.

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, JBJ said:

    All those teams except Minnesota would be favored.

    Georgia lost to a team that won't make a bowl, and every single one of those teams has a win better than UF (well, Penn St might not in Iowa.)

    Nah, several of those teams wouldn't be favored over UGA on a neutral field. Also, Utah and Oregon DEFINITELY don't have a better win than UF, and OU arguably doesn't. 

    1 hour ago, Bill Lumbergh said:
    2 hours ago, markstanco said:
    Which team is better?

    If anyone asked you prior to the Penn State game, would you have said Minnesota was better?

    Minnesota isn't better. PSU threw 3 red zone picks. Minnesota won the game, which is awesome for them, and it counts in the standings. If they can back it up with 4 more, they will and should be in the playoffs. If Minnesota-Penn State happens in the B1G title game, PSU will be favored again. 

    The last hand of poker I played, if you asked me prior to the hand which is better AQ or A9, I would have said AQ. My AQ lost. I still say AQ is better than A9. If a team is expected to beat another 60% of the time, the fact that the other team won doesn't mean the 60% figure was incorrect.

    • Like 1
  5. 11 hours ago, Jhawk said:

    I wouldn’t be against reasonable action. But I’m not putting money on bama in straight up. There are assumptions that bama wins out among other things. DM me some thoughts and let’s talk it through. If we can think of something that gets us to week 13 where the be is off or in the committees hands then I’m in. Not that I’m surly elite but I’m always down for some fun. 

    Here is my proposal, posting it here in case any of the other SEC conspiracy caterwaulers want in:

    If Alabama finishes 11-1 and is not the SEC West representative in the SEC Championship Game:

    • I win the bet if Alabama does not make the playoffs
    • You win the bet if Alabama makes the playoffs and at least one undefeated or 1-loss P5 conference champion does not make the playoffs
    • No action if Alabama makes the playoffs but no undefeated or 1-loss P5 conference champion misses the playoffs

    Obviously no action if Alabama loses another game, or if LSU somehow drops 2 and Bama sneaks into the SEC title game.

  6. 17 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

    Will this be the second LSU v Bama "Game of the Century" that was completely pointless?

    No, Bama is toast barring 2 loss champions elsewhere.

  7. UMass is in the FCS.  They actually play it out on the field in their league. take notes...
    You know it’s an idiotic example...


    Speaking of idiotic, you’re wrong. UMass is FBS not FCS. Good try though!

    The new poll is 100% an insurance policy. 
    Lsu and Georgia with Georgia win - LSU and Georgia in
    lsu and Georgia with Georgia loss - bama and LSU in. 
    Georgia out and LSU win over whoever, LSU and bama in. 
    Only way we don’t get 2 SEC teams is if one of bama or LSU doesn’t take care of business before the CCG. 


    Will you be the first to wager with me? I have all the SECSPN types squawking that Bama will get in but I have money that says Bama isn’t in over any 0 or 1 loss conf champ.
  8. I guess it has more to do when you lose and not “body of work”. If it’s body of work then bama should be #4 over Georgia.


    What is Bamas body of work? UGA beat ND and UF.

    It’s about what I expected except I don’t get the Utah love. They have less ranked wins and more losses than Minnesota. Also don’t get Utah over PSU or really OU.
  9. 27 minutes ago, Iceman said:

    Because we all nailed the Final Four in our March Madness brackets  last season, right?

    Play it out on the field.  Fuck the eye test. You can't tell shit by looking.

    Alabama hasn't played UMass this season. Do you know which team is better?

  10. Just now, Beau Vine said:

    You should also be prepared for their entire argument being, "Yeah, but if you miss that 2-pointer, the game is over.  Kicking the extra point keeps you in the game."  They'll repeat that over and over and then eventually resort to "I know what I'm talking about because I ACTUALLY PLAYED FOOTBALL."

    Ha yep. EXTEND THE GAME!  Better to have a 20% chance to win later than a 40% chance to win but find out immediately you lost! Also prepare for lots of talk of "keep it a one-possession game" except that until you attempt the 2pc, you don't actually know if it's a 1 or 2 possession game. It is obvious that more knowledge is better than less, except EXTEND THE GAME.

    • Like 1
  11. Appreciate the fair and reasoned responses. I do still object to that many teams outside of the top 10 freerolling a spot, even though they haven't won as many, historically speaking. Hopefully if it comes to pass, proposals of modified scheduling and 1 vs 2 CCGs will prevail, which eliminates a huge chunk of the problem, and makes the CCGs as play-in games much more exciting.

  12. People just can't grasp the concept of actually being able to WIN THE GAME IN REGULATION having value.  BUT WHAT IF YOU LOSE. Also for some reason BUT WHAT IF YOU MISS only applies to the 2pc, but not the XP, which is now missed on a reasonable basis. So infuriating that people who make a living talking sports can't grasp it. 

    You can pick one of two games:
    1) we flip a coin and if it is heads I pay you $100 and if it's tails you pay me $90

    2) we roll a die. If it is 1 or 2 I pay you $80, if it is 3 or 4 no one pays anything, if it is 5 or 6 you pay me $100

    Coaches literally choose game 1 because they get paid half the time instead of 1/3 of the time.

    • Like 1
  13. 1/3 of the non-SEC conference title game winners weren't top 10, so you can't say it is a once a decade thing. The last few years haven't been as bad. Do 2000-2014 next and let me know.

    Also, having the locked G5 spot really exacerbates the difference between 1 and 2, when often the margin is razor-thin. Look at the difference in playing #20 Boise or #7 Miss State in 2014 or #18 Houston or #7 tOSU (who was quite possibly the best team in the country, losing only 1 game, which they never trailed until 0:00 on the clock in a monsoon) in 2015, or Western Michigan or an OU team that was red hot and playing as well as anyone at the end of the year in 2016. Just too giant a difference in the 7 and 8 seeds in those seasons.

    I would be fine saying if the G5 champ is top 12 they get a spot, so UCF would have been in the last two seasons.

  14. 36 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

    He only took into consideration winning and losing and not being fired or ridiculed for being perceived to be a moron. Remember perception is reality regardless of what the truth really is in any scenario. That is why coaches don't do it. We have are own dumb ass going for it 4th because the numbers say so. Yet we don't buy his numbers.

    Most of Herman's go/no go decisions are good, though he does punt on 4th and shortish from opp territory too much, it's just that many of the playcalls have been beyond silly. 

  15. 1 hour ago, utee94 said:

    Sure there is-- they won their conference.  If conferences don't like the idea of sending a 7-6 team to the CFP as their representative, then they should change the way they determine their champions.  But I'm completely in favor of letting the conferences determine their champions however they see fit.

    With an 8-team playoff, a hypothetical 7-6 Miami is going to have to play its way though undefeated LSU, 1-loss Oklahoma, and undefeated Ohio State, in order to win the national championship.  At that point, they will have earned it on the field. I understand the people that are worried about seeing a 10-6 national champ, I just don't share their concerns.  First, I think it's unlikely to happen.  Beyond that, even if it did, that team would have earned it and I'd be ok with that.  If the "real" good teams wanted to stop it from happening, they should have defeated the 7-6 interloper in any of their 3 attempts to do so.

    I don't object specifically to the 10-6 national champion, I just object as a fan who wants the best and most entertaining product on the field. I'm pretty cool with the "best" team from each P5 conference getting in, though imagining the ACC without Clemson is a scary thought as far as eating up a playoff spot. It's just that most conferences aren't designed to send their "best" team. There have been a few articles lately about the bigger conferences abandoning divisions, going to pods, and making their title games 1 vs. 2. That would ease my concerns.

    14 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

    The last P5 champion with fewer than 10/11 wins was...

    Pac: 1999 UCLA (8 wins)/2018 Washington (before that, 2009 Oregon - no CCG)

    Big 12: 1996 Texas (8 wins)/2016 OU (No CCG, before that, 2001 Colorado *vomit*)

    Big 10: 2012 Wisconsin (8 wins, hung 70 on corn aggy lol; 12-0 Ohio State ineligible, before that 2004 Michigan)

    ACC: 2008 VT (9 wins)/2011 Clemson

    SEC: 2001 LSU (9 wins)

    TL/DR: 2/3 of teams in conference title games aren't ranked in the top 10, so it isn't a fake scenario. 9 times in 30 ACC, B1G and PAC title games, almost 1/3, NEITHER team has even been in the top 10. OOOH PLAY IN GAME.

    The data:

    2003 KSU is a better example of a meh champ than 2001 CU. CU was 10-2, while KSU had 3 losses in the reg season, including to Marshall.

    One thing you're missing is that many of these conferences only recently started doing championship games, which opens the door to bullshit champions like 2012 Wisconsin, which was 4-4 in conference, 7-5 in regular season.

    Rankings in the ACC title game since 2005 with winner bolded:

    22 vs. 5
    16 vs. 23
    6 vs. 12
    25 vs. 18
    12 vs. 25
    12 vs. 20
    5 vs. 21
    13 vs. NR
    1 vs. 20
    2 vs. 12
    1 vs. 8
    3 vs. 19
    1 vs. 7
    2 vs. NR

    Obviously since 2014, there has been an elite team which has saved the bacon by going unbeaten, but I count 3 of the 14 games which aren't silly as a play-in game, and this year will be 3 of 15 as it will again be top 4 vs NR. Six times in an eight year span, the ACC would have sent a team into the playoffs that wasn't in the top 10, and 5 of 14 games have neither team in the top 10.

    The B12 has only had two winners of its title game not be in the top 10 - Texas in 97 and KSU in 2003. However, in 12 of the 17 years, one of the teams wasn't in the top 10.

    The PAC has had two straight title games with neither team in the top 10 and a non-top 10 team has been in the game 6 of the 8 years. 2 non top-10 winners.

    The B1G has had a title game with neither team in the top 10 in 2 of the 8 title games so far, and a non-top 10 team in 4 of the 8 years. 2 non-top 10 winners.

    The SEC has never had a title game with neither team in the top 10, and a non-top 10 team has been in it 17 of the 27 years, though the non-top 10 team only has won 2.

    So total there have been 13 teams win a P5 title game without being a top 10 team. Not counting SEC, that's 11 out of 47 years, so about a 1 in 4 chance of a non-SEC P5 champ being outside the top 10, so we could estimate that roughly every season we have a non-top 10 team in the playoffs, with some seasons obviously having none and some having 2. 

    A non-top 10 team would be playing for a playoff spot in 13/18 ACC title games, 12/17 B12, 6/8 PAC, 4/8 B1G and 17/27 SEC.  So 52 out of 78 teams (67%) in these "play in" games aren't top 10 teams. 

    Also, when the top 5 team loses to the trash team, that top 5 team now eats an at-large, so you end up with actual top 10 teams being left out of wild-card battles. It becomes worse if we lock in a G5 spot, rather than have it qualification based. 

  16. 12 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    I’d employ analytics in most situations. Starting in the first quarter. I’d let situations dictate whether or not to employ such statistical plays. In that situation that late in the game, take the damn near sure thing, make it a 7 point game, and save, likely, one of your better 2-point conversion plays for later. 

    I also don’t like going for 2 if Carolina were to score again in the 4th (assuming the score were 24-23 at that point). Nor do I like ISU going for 2 against OU. Yes, I know - on the road, but in both situations the Panthers and Cyclones would’ve had all the momentum. I would’ve played for OT at that point. 

    If you’re in a shootout with OU, or Rodgers, in Norman or Green Bay, you absolutely go for 2. 

    I mean, the OU-ISU game was 42-41 at that point in Norman. Also, you think the team with "momentum" wins more often in OT, but in fact it is the better team that wins. I will bet you a lot of money that if you compare the WP of "team that scored last to force OT" vs "team that was favored to win", "team that was favored to win" will be higher.

    9 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    I’m a numbers guy and don’t claim to be an expert in football. I’ve coached a lot and can manage a game/clock, and clearly this is my personal opinion. 

    If I were Rivera, my thoughts would be: I’m 50/50 on any 2-point attempt, I’m 100% on any XP, and if I tie this game, I have a better shot than the Packers in OT because I have all momentum.  

    You aren't 100% on an XP. In the NFL, XPs are 93% now after the change. This was in wind and snow, so less than that. Also, if the Panthers are actually 50/50 to hit a 2pc, and more than 50/50 to win in OT then going for 2 is even better than Bob posted, especially since they are more like 90% to make an XP, meaning more like 81% to hit them both. 

    8 hours ago, blacklab said:

    YES!

    Another one I learned in Madden was when down 10 kick a FG as soon as you're in range and go for the onsides. A few NFL and college teams have done it and the announcers were like "WTF ARE THEY DOING"

    This was better before they ruined onside kicks, but yeah. Teams always burn the entire clock to get the TD. They need to allow you the option of kicking off or taking it 4th and 15 from your own 35. 

    8 hours ago, orangecat92 said:

    I agree with this.  The thing about the Iowa state game was I think sooners were totally surprised, but I think the refs stopped the game, after the TD, to give OU time to recover, and take a breath.  OUs defense had been on the field quite a bit.  I think the interception thrown by OU was done pretty early in the drive.  If the refs had not stopped the game, would OU coach have been smart enough to call timeout to give his team time to recover?  

    I especially like the part about telling the offense you have confidence they will get the two yards.  As the underdog, I think the object should be to end the game in regulation.  Why give the favorite another chance with the game tied?  Make them uncomfortable.

    It was actually great for ISU that they stopped to review. The play clock was running down and ISU was unprepared to run a play and were about to get a delay of game, so they would have had to run the play from the 7. If there was less time left, Riley def should have taken a timeout if ISU wasn't going to get a DOG, but with 30 seconds left, I'm OK saving the 3 timeouts to maximize the chance of answering with a GWFG.

    1 hour ago, NowThis said:

    have to consider game conditions. Suppose Hurts had a twisted ankle and the OU kicker can't make anything greater than 30?

    Sure, but neither of those was the case. The point is, you should default to going for 2 when you score a TD in the 4th when down 14, and only kick if there's a specific reason to, instead of the opposite. It's a closer decision when scoring a TD down 1, and you should rely more exclusively on the game. Momentum is a consideration, but drastically behind things like which team is better, which team is home, critical injuries, red zone offense/defense proficiencies, kicker strength/weakness, etc.

    • Like 1
  17. If we go to 8 with autobids, I would want the first round at campus sites, and would prefer strongly either divisions are done away with, or there is a minimum qualification. No reason why a team like Miami this year or other random 6-6 teams that have made conference title games should have a playoff spot. 

  18. So MP says he raise-folded KK with 11 big blinds??? Lol gtfo. Were y’all on the bubble and mincash is a million dollars?

    With both players so short I actually don’t like a 3bet small. Depending on villains and my image I would either just jam or flat and check-jam 95% of flops. We are so shallow we aren’t folding flops and we turn our hand faceup when we 3b small this shallow.

  19. You want calls so it can’t be too much. For that purpose, it was fine. I’m probably going 4k. They should call 2800 to win 12k


    But you can’t vary your raise size based on your hand, esp in a “regular group” tourney. We need to also be able to squeeze here sometimes IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...