AP Top 25

[Iceman 2646]

9 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Why you vote the way you do is your own business. The committee is there, presumbably, to normalize for the inconsistencies among the various conferences. 

What year have you disagreed with their final four?

Every.

4 teams is not a true PO scenario  to at least eight, if not 16.   The committee has repeatedly proven the regular season doesn’t necessarily matter when it comes to wins and losses, so why not expand the playoffs? 

 

[TXSooner518 2432]

“Committee has proven wins and losses don’t matter by never in 5 years selecting a team with more than 1 loss”. Ok sure cool.

[LTbear 4161]

I've always maintained that the best setup is 8 teams - all 5 P5 champs, 3 at large and stipulations where a G5 with a certain record/ AP ranking gets in. 

Auto-bids to the conference champs immediately bring the college football world back to a regional one, where the conversation all year is about the conference title races, rather than ESPN talking about playoffs and how a 2 loss Aggy could make it in September. 

3 at large accommodates every "best" team who may have slipped and didn't qualify for their conference title game, like Bama a couple years ago.

Giving auto-bids to the conference champs automatically makes interest go up national wide, and incentivizes better OOC scheduling. If conf titles get you a bid teams are more likely to schedule great OOC matchups because a loss doesn't disqualify them, a win helps them should the need to make an argument for an at large spot, and the game generates boatloads of money either way.

Anyways, that's what I think.

Edited November 12, 2019 by LTbear

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

13 hours ago, El Diablo said:

It kind of begs the question, what do people want to see? A tournament of champions or the 4 best teams. 

And this is what keeps us debating the rankings. I honestly see both sides of the argument. 

[Boogaloo 268]

100% in my mind the problem is the preseason rankings that start the year out. Teams get such a boost from a perception of how they should be based on the previous year and their general reputation. 

Shouldn't be any rankings until at least three or four weeks into the season, see how the teams actually perform , and it would stop a lot of the cupcake scheduling, quality wins should mean somthing. 

rant over

[Bevo14 8275]

14 hours ago, El Diablo said:

It kind of begs the question, what do people want to see? A tournament of champions or the 4 best teams. 

A tournament of champions. What's the point of playing a conference schedule if it doesn't establish the pecking order within that conference? If LSU wins the conference, we don't need to see how Bama compares to other teams. On the other hand, there is no actual basis to establish who the better team is between two teams that don't even play common opponents.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Bevo14

[TXSooner518 2432]

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. 

[El Diablo 4232]

51 minutes ago, Bevo14 said:

A tournament of champions. What's the point of playing a conference schedule if it doesn't establish the pecking order within that conference? If LSU wins the conference, we don't need to see how Bama compares to other teams. On the other hand, there is no actual basis to establish who the better team is between two teams that don't even play common opponents.

My problem with this is that it gives us games like the 2015 Rose Bowl. Everybody knew that FSU sucked and had looked like dogshit all year yet we were forced to watch them get ass raped by Oregon as a semi-final to the Big Game.  I don't know what the BCS calculus came up with for that year to be honest but I'd like to hope it didn't include FSU. Maybe it did.

[utee94 15746]

36 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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. 

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.

One of the many reasons college football is more interesting than the professional game, is that it isn't so homogenous and sanitized.  Conferences are different sizes.  They schedule differently.  Teams run more varied styles of offenses and defenses which makes the matchups more important.  I like that, and I don't want to homogenize the sport and turn it into NFL Lite.

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.

 

 

[gmr548 16529]

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)

 

P5 champs with

 

The "WhAt AbOuT 6-6 ChAmPs" argument is fucking dumb and not based in reality.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[TXSooner518 2432]

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. 

[notre dame joe 173]

2 hours ago, Bevo14 said:

A tournament of champions. What's the point of playing a conference schedule if it doesn't establish the pecking order within that conference? If LSU wins the conference, we don't need to see how Bama compares to other teams. On the other hand, there is no actual basis to establish who the better team is between two teams that don't even play common opponents.

Conf championship games are played between the best team and the luckiest team that drew an easy cross-division schedule.  Effectively that game was moved so they could play Coastal Carolina instead of each other during the season.  But they generate a lot of money by playing it in Dec and branding it as a CHAMPIONSHIP.

[gmr548 16529]

Deleted double post

 

 

 

[gmr548 16529]

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. 

Top tier teams almost never lose those games, though. Sure, could happen. Nothing's perfect. Should we be structuring a post season system to avoid a once in a ~10 year occurrence, or should we be trying to correct an essentially annual problem? Which of the below is totally egregious?

 

2014

1 Bama vs 20 Boise

2 Oregon vs 7 Miss State

3 FSU vs 6 TCU

4 Ohio State vs 5 Baylor

 

2015

1 Clem vs 18 Houston

2 Bama vs 7 Ohio St

3 Mich St vs 6 Stanford

4 OU vs 5 Iowa

 

2016

1 Bama vs 15 Western MI

2 Clem vs 7 OU

3 Ohio St vs 6 Michigan (lol)

4 Washington vs 5 Pedo St

 

2017

1 Clem vs 12 UCF

2 OU vs 8 USC

3 UGA vs 6 Wisconsin

4 Bama vs 5 Ohio St

 

2018

1 Bama vs 9 Washington

2 Clem vs 8 UCF

3 ND vs 6 Ohio St

4 OU vs 5 UGA

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[TXSooner518 2432]

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.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

33 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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.

Those concerns will never be completely alleviated, but I think getting rid of divisions and letting conferences send the two highest ranked teams would solve a lot of the problems. I haven't checked, but I'm sure Clemson and FSU had a few years where the ACC would have looked a lot better. 

My question is, with the 8 team set up posted above, how much different would the final result look? I know we can't tell for sure, but I think in most cases it would end up exactly the same as it has with the 4 team playoff. 

[gmr548 16529]

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.

The B12 champion has entered bowl season ranked outside the top 10 once, in 1996.

The Pac has had that happen once in the same time frame: 1999.

ACC: 5 times between 2006-11, also 2002.

Secsecsec: Once, 2001.

Big Ten: 2000, 2004. 2012 is a complete fluke bc of the NCAA issues, but I'll count it bc 2010 is borderline - looks like Wisconsin went to the Rose Bowl because they were higher ranked despite having the same record as MSU and losing to them.

The true moral of the story here is that the ACC blows and probably should be considered a G5(6?).

That said, over 22 years, 12 of the 110 (11 percent) of P5 champs that would have gotten auto bids were ranked outside the top 10 entering bowls. 12 years out of the last 22 would have had one, which is propped up by what I'd be willing to bet is a historocal outlier of suck by the ACC champions, as well as the 2012 fluke Wisconsin title. That still leaves room for 1 or 2 of the best at large bids possible, depending on how the G5 thing is managed. Second or third best at large team loses out on a bid? Try winning your conference next time.

I feel like that's a clearly superior situation to the current system, but ultimately that's subjective. What isn't subjective is that P5 autobids are not going to throw a bunch of garbage 7 win regular season teams into the playoff, which is a common, and stupid, argument.





Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[TXSooner518 2432]

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.

[Funk Doctor Spock 11944]

22 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Suppose 'i started shitting bars of gold and Emily Ratajkowski wants to be my sex slave......

Tell me more about shitting bars of gold. I would like to learn this skill

[Iceman 2646]

3 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Those concerns will never be completely alleviated, but I think getting rid of divisions and letting conferences send the two highest ranked teams would solve a lot of the problems. I haven't checked, but I'm sure Clemson and FSU had a few years where the ACC would have looked a lot better. 

My question is, with the 8 team set up posted above, how much different would the final result look? I know we can't tell for sure, but I think in most cases it would end up exactly the same as it has with the 4 team playoff. 

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.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Iceman

[TXSooner518 2432]

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?

[Shaggy3.0 1695]

Bama getting into the playoff would send the message that quality of losses and the entirely subjective "eye test" are more important than quality of wins, conference division titles and conference championships. 

It’s the same bullshit every year. Who has the “best loss” or the “worst win”. Do conference championships matter? Blah blah blah CONTROVERSY!!!! Not griping at you, just pointing out the annual college football narrative stupidity.

Best loss and worst win is pure faggotry.
Do conference championships matter? More ass fuckery with that one. Of course they do media ass clowns—thats why champions receive trophies and rings.

College football is the only major sport that allows mental midgets to decide champions. Fucking stupid.

[Iceman 2646]

28 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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

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...

Edited November 12, 2019 by Iceman

[hookem48 4632]

On 11/11/2019 at 4:38 PM, Thetexashammer said:

Suppose 'i started shitting bars of gold and Emily Ratajkowski wants to be my sex slave......

a new reality show? 

[Zavala 1384]

Lulz Finnanbum just said the committees integrity is in balance and also said they need to take into consideration Tuas injury.

You can lose your only big game and just blame it on injury, not even play in your conference championship, then coast into the playoffs. Only if you are Alabama.

It's the Alabama invitational.

[Zavala 1384]

1 hour ago, Shaggy3.0 said:

 

 

It’s the same bullshit every year. Who has the “best loss” or the “worst win”. Do conference championships matter? Blah blah blah CONTROVERSY!!!! Not griping at you, just pointing out the annual college football narrative stupidity.

Best loss and worst win is pure faggotry.
Do conference championships matter? More ass fuckery with that one. Of course they do media ass clowns—thats why champions receive trophies and rings.

College football is the only major sport that allows mental midgets to decide champions. Fucking stupid.

 

 

 

The mental midgets are just stooges for the fat cats though. The committee is just a layer of "high integrity individuals" that protects who the big $ want in the CFP. It's all bullshit. 

Good thing we're Texas though, or else we would be getting fucked like the rest of this pathetic conference we are in (besides blowU). It's pretty funny watching Baylor though. 

Remember, blow U needs to beat these rapists. Nobody from the rig12 is gonna sniff the playoff.

[LTtxfan 49003]

4 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Lulz Finnanbum just said the committees integrity is in balance and also said they need to take into consideration Tuas injury.

You can lose your only big game and just blame it on injury, not even play in your conference championship, then coast into the playoffs. Only if you are Alabama.

It's the Alabama invitational.

Better for Bama to miss the SEC Championship game so Bama is more healthy for the playoffs...

Geez this CFP system SUCKS!!!!

[hookem48 4632]

I like having the best teams there and that usually means Bama but their defense is not good this year, too many injuries. 

[ruitxn 295]

Personally I like the discussion of a conference champ, eight team scenario.  Big 12 refs would REALLY like this too since it gives them real power in determining who gets to the playoff every year.  No sweat for us horns fans though.....really?

Edited November 13, 2019 by ruitxn

[hookem48 4632]

Georgia lost to South Carolina at home, that should get you kicked out of the playoffs. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

2 minutes ago, hookem48 said:

Georgia lost to South Carolina at home, that should get you kicked out of the playoffs. 

Yeah and that season defining squeaker win at home against Notre Dame is looking worse and worse every week. They're gonna go beat LSU and really turn this shit up to max volume. 

[hookem48 4632]

1 minute ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Yeah and that season defining squeaker win at home against Notre Dame is looking worse and worse every week. They're gonna go beat LSU and really turn this shit up to max volume. 

so Georgia, LSU, Clemson, OSU?  

[texaslong 678]

Didn’t see Georgia at 4 coming. They almost got three SEC teams into the top 4. What was the committees reasoning for putting Georgia at 4?

[Doc Sam Beckett 5784]

2 minutes ago, hookem48 said:

so Georgia, LSU, Clemson, OSU?  

What if Oregon and Oklahoma win out? Gonna leave out two conference champs with one loss to give LSU a mulligan? 

[hookem48 4632]

Just now, Doc Sam Beckett said:

What if Oregon and Oklahoma win out? Gonna leave out two conference champs with one loss to give LSU a mulligan? 

oh there's no doubt unless Georgia just stomps the shit out of LSU, I mean they just won the lastest game of the century.

[Jhawk 1075]

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. 

[TXSooner518 2432]

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.

[Valmy77 13121]

18 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

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.

 

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

[TXSooner518 2432]

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.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Oklahoma is getting into the playoffs. They always do, by hook or crook, they slide in to get the shit kicked out of them. 

[LTtxfan 49003]

42 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

No, Bama is toast barring 2 loss champions elsewhere.

 

Probably need Jawja to win out to keep Bama out of the playoffs...

 

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

16 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Oklahoma is getting into the playoffs. They always do, by hook or crook, they slide in to get the shit kicked out of them. 

Lol.  Don’t be aggy.  They wouldn’t get in if you guys weren’t an also ran for the better part of two decades.  
 

Although... There was one year you can bitch about...Can still see that asshole Switzer smiling.  
 

Ribbing aside, OU and Bama are out this year.  

[gmr548 16529]

Honestly that ranking looks okay as a snapshot in time. I'd probably swap Oregon and UGA and bump OU up a few spots but no major gripes. That poll tells me Oregon and OU are positioned to move up the rankings if they take care of business.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Iceman 2646]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

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



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.

 

I wouldn’t begin to wager on what politics and influences drive the committee’s selection

 

Sorry about the misnomer on UMass. They play like a middling FCS team.  Point still stands. You think it’s clever to throw them out there as a viable candidate to counter the expansion POV. You can fuck right off for completely ignoring the point that any of the top 16 teams could have a substantial chance at winning against another. Sorry that offends your sensibilities. 
 

There is no viable reason for not expanding the PO’s and/ or dissolving the committee other than the ‘haves’ wanting to maintain control.  Standardizing the schedule isn’t hard either- play 9 conference games, 2 P5 games, one on the road, and a 12th game cupcake.  Everyone P5 Conference plays a CCG. 
 

too easy, I know...

Edited November 13, 2019 by Iceman

[TXSooner518 2432]

 
Probably need Jawja to win out to keep Bama out of the playoffs...

Put money on it then.

[Jhawk 1075]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

 

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



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.

 

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. 

[Zavala 1384]

31 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol.  Don’t be aggy.  They wouldn’t get in if you guys weren’t an also ran for the better part of two decades.  
 

Although... There was one year you can bitch about...Can still see that asshole Switzer smiling.  
 

Ribbing aside, OU and Bama are out this year.  

Lulz Bama just has to cruise through Auburn and they are in. LSU beats Jawgia and they take their place. Nobody is jumping Bama.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

8 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Lulz Bama just has to cruise through Auburn and they are in. LSU beats Jawgia and they take their place. Nobody is jumping Bama.

Happy to bet on that.  How much?  Bet is that someone jumps Bama.  Easy 

[Treefidy 1463]

B1G has 6 ranked

SECx3 has 5

B12 has 5

AAC has 3

PAC 2

ACC Clemson  

dome and Boise 

Lesson?  PAC sucks.  ACC is even worse, but they have Clemson.  AAC is their contemporary  

but PAC has a better history along with blue blood in some of their veins and they desperately need a pity fuck to keep them engaged.   Looks like B12 drew the short straw   

 

[Goodman 3273]

2 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

 

Probably need Jawja to win out to keep Bama out of the playoffs...

 

Do these fucks know that Georgia lost at home, to Coach Boom?