Left Behind: A Quick Dose Of Post Big 12 Reality

[Texas Wahoo 3389]

44 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Desmond is a massive part of our problem.  Or he's at least a symptom of it.  A lot of people have a negative opinion of the Big 12 BECAUSE of shit like this.  Notice how when people talk about TCU in 2022, they never say a fucking word about their convincing win over the Big 10 champion.  It's just all "Georgia beat them lifeless".

I don't think anyone expects to be put on the SEC's level, just knock this kind of shit off.

If we give Howard the benefit of the doubt (which is probably not earned), maybe he was suggesting that he thought it was a mistake because no one thought ASU was going to be any good coming in to the year (which is true).  But it certainly seems like he was just saying "Who gives a shit about the Big 12 (except BYU and CU maybe)."

[Evil Bill Obrien 3256]

32 minutes ago, MoJames said:

 

Wish I was better at photoshop, would make a Hindenburg crashing with either Pistol Pete or Mike Gundy's face on it and send it to a few Okie State friends...

[thunderlounge 7813]

7 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

"Who gives a shit about the Big 12 (except BYU and CU maybe)."

 

fify

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Wish I was better at photoshop, would make a Hindenburg crashing with either Pistol Pete or Mike Gundy's face on it and send it to a few Okie State friends...

 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

37 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

If we give Howard the benefit of the doubt (which is probably not earned), maybe he was suggesting that he thought it was a mistake because no one thought ASU was going to be any good coming in to the year (which is true).  But it certainly seems like he was just saying "Who gives a shit about the Big 12 (except BYU and CU maybe)."

Right.  And they don't act that way towards leagues/schools that objectively have fewer people giving a shit about them.

I understand why posters on this board hate the Big 12.  I don't understand why people in the CFB media apparatus do.  It's always unpredictable, it's always entertaining, and generally shows off a lot of what people like about college football.  Just without blue bloods.  Which, while certainly a reason to pay it less, doesn't feel like a good reason to be so blatantly hostile and dismissive.

[Skipper44 4]

34 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

 

fify

 

 

ESPN and national media care about Deion, not CU

[TKthunder2 4985]

7 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Right.  And they don't act that way towards leagues/schools that objectively have fewer people giving a shit about them.

I understand why posters on this board hate the Big 12.  I don't understand why people in the CFB media apparatus do.  It's always unpredictable, it's always entertaining, and generally shows off a lot of what people like about college football.  Just without blue bloods.  Which, while certainly a reason to pay it less, doesn't feel like a good reason to be so blatantly hostile and dismissive.

Serious answer is that parity sucks. You need a few good teams to be contenders each year. Utah, Okie State, and TCU being down hurts the perception of the conference nationally and people immediately said “damn the Big 12 fucking sucks this year” and tuned out. You can have a few surprise teams but when 3 of your top 4 teams were picked to be 3 of the worst 4 in the league during preseason it’s not going to be a positive and gives the impression that all the teams sucks and these are just the ones that are getting lucky.

[campcrunk 2434]

On 11/12/2024 at 7:40 PM, B00M said:

If you ask Kurt herbstreet im sure Texas is at fault [BYU cheer coach Jocelyn Allan]

 

RULES MOTHERFUCKERS

 

Private Insta account, unfortunately

Edited Tuesday at 06:34 AM by campcrunk

[Deej 76750]

13 hours ago, 'stache said:

TNT definitely better than ESPN+ (or cw, lol). Not a fan if any of the go exclusively to Max, just another service to buy, but whatever, this is the new world, better than nothing. It's clear that Disney was going to win that lawsuit, this was a way to save attorneys fees and maintain friendships with competitors it seems.

"The Big 12: It's better than nothing"

That's the perfect motto for them.

[closetojumping 62510]

15 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Right.  And they don't act that way towards leagues/schools that objectively have fewer people giving a shit about them.

I understand why posters on this board hate the Big 12.  I don't understand why people in the CFB media apparatus do.  It's always unpredictable, it's always entertaining, and generally shows off a lot of what people like about college football.  Just without blue bloods.  Which, while certainly a reason to pay it less, doesn't feel like a good reason to be so blatantly hostile and dismissive.

Maybe Desmond Howard is an avid reader of this board and he enjoys trolling the Big 12 in order to watch you guys shit yourselves in victimhood whenever the CFB media realizes that they forgot that you were there? 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

8 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Serious answer is that parity sucks. You need a few good teams to be contenders each year. Utah, Okie State, and TCU being down hurts the perception of the conference nationally and people immediately said “damn the Big 12 fucking sucks this year” and tuned out. You can have a few surprise teams but when 3 of your top 4 teams were picked to be 3 of the worst 4 in the league during preseason it’s not going to be a positive and gives the impression that all the teams sucks and these are just the ones that are getting lucky.

That's definitely part of what's happening, but the 4 teams tied for first place went 11-1 in the non-conference and had a 3-1 record vs the other power conferences.  Including BYU's win on the road over a team they're ranked behind despite having the same record.  All of that just gets conveniently forgotten.

It's an arbitrary fatwa, and I think you guys get that.  It's part of what drove you out of the league in the end.  When the major mouthpieces scream "YOU SUCK" for a decade, people believe it regardless of how true it actually is.

53 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Maybe Desmond Howard is an avid reader of this board and he enjoys trolling the Big 12 in order to watch you guys shit yourselves in victimhood whenever the CFB media realizes that they forgot that you were there? 

Makes about as much sense as his actual behavior.

[statsman 5450]

The best thing the B12 has going for it is a media contract that goes through 2031. Absent Colorado, the numbers are not good. 
 
If a G5 conference champ is ever seeded higher than the B12 champ, the conference’s rep will take a hit difficult to recover from. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:35 PM by statsman

['stache 21789]

At this point I want to see CU win the conference. Never been a Prime hater and it’s good for ratings. Won’t cheer against my own squad next Friday but it won’t matter since they’ll win by 40 either way.

[Pescado_Rojo 19412]

9 hours ago, campcrunk said:

RULES MOTHERFUCKERS

 

Private Insta account, unfortunately

would soak. 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

23 minutes ago, 'stache said:

At this point I want to see CU win the conference. Never been a Prime hater and it’s good for ratings. Won’t cheer against my own squad next Friday but it won’t matter since they’ll win by 40 either way.

It wouldn't break my heart if they won out.  Obviously I want us to win out and play for the CCG, but that feels prime for committee fuckery.  If we ended up 11-2 or 10-3 I'd be ecstatic regardless of whether or not we got into the conference championship.

That Tech game was an all-time fuck up, and a classic example of why Matt Campbell is never coaching at a blue blood program.

I think Colorado could beat about half of the SEC and Big 10 teams they might face.

Edited Tuesday at 03:57 PM by Al_4_ISU

[statsman 5450]

24 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

 

I think Colorado could beat about half of the SEC and Big 10 teams they might face.

Well, they played and lost to a 2-5 B1G team, so … maybe?

Sagarin has CU at 13. That puts them lower than four B1G teams and six SEC teams. 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

Well, they played and lost to a 2-5 B1G team, so … maybe?

Sagarin has CU at 13. That puts them lower than four B1G teams and six SEC teams. 

That was early in the season, and I'm told that doesn't count when it's Notre Dame losing to NIU.  Or Tennessee losing to Arkansas (who lost to the lost place Big 12 team).  Or Ole Miss losing to Kentucky.

All extremely similar losses to CU losing at Nebraska.

Edited Tuesday at 04:26 PM by Al_4_ISU

[PvilleStang 2875]

19 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I understand why posters on this board hate the Big 12.  I don't understand why people in the CFB media apparatus do.  It's always unpredictable, it's always entertaining, and generally shows off a lot of what people like about college football.  Just without blue bloods.  Which, while certainly a reason to pay it less, doesn't feel like a good reason to be so blatantly hostile and dismissive.

You could replace the Big 12 with MWC, AAC, etc.  Without the big names, it's just a bunch of scrappy teams that get 50K seats filled up on a given Saturday playing to get their game on a tier 3 streaming platform.  It's a fun Saturday when you're from Stephenville to go check out the Tarleton State home game and pound a few beers pre-game, but it's not something that the region or nation follows.

[Huckleberry 32845]

15 minutes ago, PvilleStang said:

You could replace the Big 12 with MWC, AAC, etc.  Without the big names, it's just a bunch of scrappy teams that get 50K seats filled up on a given Saturday playing to get their game on a tier 3 streaming platform.  It's a fun Saturday when you're from Stephenville to go check out the Tarleton State home game and pound a few beers pre-game, but it's not something that the region or nation follows.

Lol that you think the MWC and AAC pull attendance numbers like the legacy Big 12 teams. 

AAC is averaging 24k with ECU leading at just under 38k

MWC is averaging 25k with Fresno State leading at 40k

Big 12 is averaging 48k. Legacy Big 12 programs (were there before Texas and OU announced their departure) are averaging 50k with Baylor the lowest at 43k. Literally the worst legacy Big 12 team has a bigger following than the best from the conference you named.*

The Big 12 is averaging a higher attendance than the ACC.

SEC - 80,168

Big Ten - 65,725

Big 12 - 48,205

ACC - 46,031

Independent - 38,549

Pac-12 - 29,455

Mountain West - 24,962

American - 24,323

Sun Belt - 21,833

C-USA - 15,471

MAC - 14,865

* - need to correct this, I forgot about Kansas, they're at 36k

Edited Tuesday at 05:00 PM by Huckleberry

[Hurtlocker 2212]

20 minutes ago, PvilleStang said:

You could replace the Big 12 with MWC, AAC, etc.  Without the big names, it's just a bunch of scrappy teams that get 50K seats filled up on a given Saturday playing to get their game on a tier 3 streaming platform.  It's a fun Saturday when you're from Stephenville to go check out the Tarleton State home game and pound a few beers pre-game, but it's not something that the region or nation follows.

You literally made his point for him with bad math.

[closetojumping 62510]

Does anyone know what is going on with Chris Klieman personally? I've seen mentions of something troubling on Twitter, but I haven't heard much anywhere else. 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

Just now, closetojumping said:

Does anyone know what is going on with Chris Klieman personally? I've seen mentions of something troubling on Twitter, but I haven't heard much anywhere else. 

I heard last summer that he was seriously contemplating retirement.  Perhaps he's already made that decision assuming that he'd go out on a better note, and is just struggling with that.

I've seen the vague Twitter posts too but not sure to take it as anything more than speculation.

[thunderlounge 7813]

According to this, it’s not retirement:

https://amp.kansas.com/sports/college/big-12/kansas-state/article295752524.html

 

Quote

The past few weeks have been hard on Kansas State football coach Chris Klieman, but that doesn’t mean he is ready to hang up his headset.

On Monday, a reporter asked Klieman if there was any truth to the rumor that he may consider retiring soon.

His answer was not ambiguous.

“I don’t know where you got that from,” Klieman said. “I haven’t said that to anybody.”

K-State athletic director Gene Taylor chimed in a few seconds later and said he would be annoyed if Klieman chose to retire. Then Klieman joked about how much trouble he would be in for retiring without first discussing the possibility with his wife, who is currently out of town.

Bottom line: Klieman is still committed to his job at the age of 57.

Some may have read too much into Klieman’s somber news conference after the conclusion of a 24-14 loss against Arizona State on Saturday at Bill Snyder Family Stadium. Klieman got emotional in front of cameras and fought back tears as he talked about how much he was hurting for his players as the Wildcats dropped to 7-3 on the season with a 5-3 mark in Big 12 play.

Complicating matters is the fact that he has been dealing with personal issues away from football that have weighed heavily on his mind. It has been difficult for him to focus on football.

Add on the fact that he suffered from dizziness on the sideline during a gameearlier this season, and it’s easy to see how some fans jumped to incorrect conclusions about Klieman’s future.

But he was in a much better mood on Monday. He said he was eager to lead K-State back onto the field when it hosts Cincinnati on senior day in Manhattan. 

Things are also improving with his life away from football.

“Probably the biggest struggle for me right now is not having family around,” Klieman said. “The people, the guys upstairs and the guys downstairs, everybody in this building has gone out of their way to help the situation that we’re going through. All the wives have been really helpful in the situation we’re going through. 

“It (stinks). I’ll just be honest with you, it does. But when you’re surrounded by people that care and are surrounded by people that love (my wife) and I, it makes it easier. It’s not easy, but it makes it easier. Some positive things are starting to flip for us, and we’re going to kind of pray on that and realize that there are some positive things moving forward.”

For now, it seems, retirement is a long way off.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

Uhh, that sounds like a divorce.  I realize he mentions his wife, but that doesn't sound great.

Edited Tuesday at 06:59 PM by Al_4_ISU

[closetojumping 62510]

55 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

According to this, it’s not retirement:

https://amp.kansas.com/sports/college/big-12/kansas-state/article295752524.html

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Uhh, that sounds like a divorce.  I realize he mentions his wife, but that doesn't sound great.

Yeah, that is some weird sidetalk about whatever is going on. Either the wife left him or there's some issue with a kid and she's gone with the kid for treatment of some sort. 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

5 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

 

Yeah, that is some weird sidetalk about whatever is going on. Either the wife left him or there's some issue with a kid and she's gone with the kid for treatment of some sort. 

I just read through some KSU boards, and I've changed my guess to something like this.

Knowing absolutely nothing, my guess is some kind of severe mental health crisis for one of his kids.  Which makes you sick as a parent.  I hate KSU, but Kleiman has always struck me as a solid guy and I wouldn't wish that kind of experience on very many people.

[bad_teammate 13185]

With his situation and the Venables situation it puts things into perspective. First is that, of course, OU sucks. Second is that there are a lot of good humans in this sport doing the best they can.

 

[HookEm 2463]

It would be interesting if the Big-12 and the ACC could combine their best 16 teams.  By shedding the dead weight, all of the games would get a lot more interesting and "SEC like".  I would actually say that this conference would be more interesting on average than the Big 10, who is still weighted down with crap teams like Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers, etc. 

Miami vs. Utah or Clemson vs. Okie State would be much more compelling than Wisconsin vs. Rutgers or UCLA vs. Indiana.  This would also position the conference as a legitimate 3rd conference if there is an eventual breakaway from the NCAA.  

These schools will never do this because they aren't proactive. 

Here is a shot at it using 5-year attendance, which is a nice proxy for how good the team is over an extended period. It is also a good indicator for how interesting the teams are, both regionally and nationally.  Since this is a pipe dream, go ahead and throw in Notre Dame.  You get:

• Clemson - 80.5K
• Notre Dame - 76.1K
• Florida St - 65.4K
• Virginia Tech - 61.7K
• NC State - 56.1K
• BYU - 59.0K
• Iowa St - 58.8K
• Texas Tech - 54.6K
• Oklahoma St - 54.0K
• West Virginia - 52.9K
• Miami - 52.5K
• Utah - 49.8K
• K-State - 49.6K
• North Carolina - 48.0K
• Colorado - 47.6K
• Louisville - 47.5K

As a bonus, all of the schools would have 5+ schools within 800 miles of each other. 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

15 minutes ago, HookEm said:

It would be interesting if the Big-12 and the ACC could combine their best 16 teams.  By shedding the dead weight, all of the games would get a lot more interesting and "SEC like".  I would actually say that this conference would be more interesting on average than the Big 10, who is still weighted down with crap teams like Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers, etc. 

Miami vs. Utah or Clemson vs. Okie State would be much more compelling than Wisconsin vs. Rutgers or UCLA vs. Indiana.  This would also position the conference as a legitimate 3rd conference if there is an eventual breakaway from the NCAA.  

These schools will never do this because they aren't proactive. 

Here is a shot at it using 5-year attendance, which is a nice proxy for how good the team is over an extended period. It is also a good indicator for how interesting the teams are, both regionally and nationally.  Since this is a pipe dream, go ahead and throw in Notre Dame.  You get:

• Clemson - 80.5K
• Notre Dame - 76.1K
• Florida St - 65.4K
• Virginia Tech - 61.7K
• NC State - 56.1K
• BYU - 59.0K
• Iowa St - 58.8K
• Texas Tech - 54.6K
• Oklahoma St - 54.0K
• West Virginia - 52.9K
• Miami - 52.5K
• Utah - 49.8K
• K-State - 49.6K
• North Carolina - 48.0K
• Colorado - 47.6K
• Louisville - 47.5K

As a bonus, all of the schools would have 5+ schools within 800 miles of each other. 

That would be an entertaining football product for sure.  Basketball would take a hit.

[TKthunder2 4985]

53 minutes ago, HookEm said:

It would be interesting if the Big-12 and the ACC could combine their best 16 teams.  By shedding the dead weight, all of the games would get a lot more interesting and "SEC like".  I would actually say that this conference would be more interesting on average than the Big 10, who is still weighted down with crap teams like Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers, etc. 

Miami vs. Utah or Clemson vs. Okie State would be much more compelling than Wisconsin vs. Rutgers or UCLA vs. Indiana.  This would also position the conference as a legitimate 3rd conference if there is an eventual breakaway from the NCAA.  

These schools will never do this because they aren't proactive. 

Here is a shot at it using 5-year attendance, which is a nice proxy for how good the team is over an extended period. It is also a good indicator for how interesting the teams are, both regionally and nationally.  Since this is a pipe dream, go ahead and throw in Notre Dame.  You get:

• Clemson - 80.5K
• Notre Dame - 76.1K
• Florida St - 65.4K
• Virginia Tech - 61.7K
• NC State - 56.1K
• BYU - 59.0K
• Iowa St - 58.8K
• Texas Tech - 54.6K
• Oklahoma St - 54.0K
• West Virginia - 52.9K
• Miami - 52.5K
• Utah - 49.8K
• K-State - 49.6K
• North Carolina - 48.0K
• Colorado - 47.6K
• Louisville - 47.5K

As a bonus, all of the schools would have 5+ schools within 800 miles of each other. 

lol at including Notre Dame

[Crockett 490]

Still pissed about how we lost on Saturday, but we still control our destiny. This brought a little perspective and made me laugh.

 

[statsman 5450]

It’s very interesting that the CFP committee ranked the top G5 school (Bouse) ahead of the top B12 school (BYU). I know that the committee uses early rankings to make points and doesn’t at all feel obligated to maintain a logic consistently through the final rankings, but it’s still very telling about what it thinks of “conferences of equals”. 

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

33 minutes ago, statsman said:

It’s very interesting that the CFP committee ranked the top G5 school (Bouse) ahead of the top B12 school (BYU). I know that the committee uses early rankings to make points and doesn’t at all feel obligated to maintain a logic consistently through the final rankings, but it’s still very telling about what it thinks of “conferences of equals”. 

Anyone with a brain can see the Big 12 is a much tougher conference than the MWC.  The committee is more interested in pushing their biases.  Boise has been the loveable underdog for 20 years and with their "giant slayer" reputation are guaranteed national eyeballs.  No way in hell Tulane would get that kind of treatment.  And after the conference title games, Boise will be behind the Big 12 champ as that team will likely play 1-2 more ranked teams in the next couple of weeks and Boise won't.

This is a brand exercise.  Why is SMU 5 spots behind Miami with the same record?  Why are talking heads saying Indiana has to keep it close in Columbus to get in, while no one questions Texas's place and Indiana and Texas each have the exact same best win, and Indiana's loss would at least be on the road in a top 5 toughest place to play?  Starting in the first year of the 4 team playoff they've consistently shifted the goal posts in order to put together the best TV product (eyeballs that is - not necessarily entertainment value).  It's not even a conspiratorial idea at this point.  

['stache 21789]

I think it’s more recency bias. BYU lost to KU so they got dropped. I think one of BYU or CU will win out and move up above Boise. Both would have to start losing to stay behind imo. The committees job is to cause discussion with stuff like this but to get it close to right at the end, at least financially. ESPN has too much invested in the new Big 12 to let them go full surly "BiG 12 iS ThE SaMe aS MwC."

Edited 23 hours ago by 'stache

[Frank Drebin 5654]

I guess I just fail to care about team #13 getting a playoff snub, even if it is us.  12 teams make it.  If you're not one of them, you should have done better.

If Texas does not make it, that means we lost to a fairly average Aggie team (or Kentucky) in addition to Georgia at home.  I am not going to cry about it.  We have plenty of margin for error, even with a schedule that turned out to be a lot easier than expected.

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think it’s more recency bias. BYU lost to KU so they got dropped. I think one of BYU or CU will win out and move up above Boise. Both would have to start losing to stay behind imo. The committees job is to cause discussion with stuff like this but to get it close to right at the end, at least financially. ESPN has too much invested in the new Big 12 to let them go full surly "BiG 12 iS ThE SaMe aS MwC."

I agree with this as well.  It just annoys me that they're doing this at all.

['stache 21789]

Just now, Frank Drebin said:

I guess I just fail to care about team #13 getting a playoff snub, even if it is us.  12 teams make it.  If you're not one of them, you should have done better.

If Texas does not make it, that means we lost to a fairly average Aggie team (or Kentucky) in addition to Georgia at home.  I am not going to cry about it.  We have plenty of margin for error, even with a schedule that turned out to be a lot easier than expected.

Wouldn't you have to lose both to be out? Seems a two loss SEC team is a lock, especially with UT's brand and assuming the losses are UGA and aggy.

[boilerhorn 1371]

19 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Anyone with a brain can see the Big 12 is a much tougher conference than the MWC.  The committee is more interested in pushing their biases.  Boise has been the loveable underdog for 20 years and with their "giant slayer" reputation are guaranteed national eyeballs.  No way in hell Tulane would get that kind of treatment.  And after the conference title games, Boise will be behind the Big 12 champ as that team will likely play 1-2 more ranked teams in the next couple of weeks and Boise won't.

This is a brand exercise.  Why is SMU 5 spots behind Miami with the same record?  Why are talking heads saying Indiana has to keep it close in Columbus to get in, while no one questions Texas's place and Indiana and Texas each have the exact same best win, and Indiana's loss would at least be on the road in a top 5 toughest place to play?  Starting in the first year of the 4 team playoff they've consistently shifted the goal posts in order to put together the best TV product (eyeballs that is - not necessarily entertainment value).  It's not even a conspiratorial idea at this point.  

Boise also has one of the most interesting and entertaining players in all of college football - Ashton Jeanty.

The only CFP ranking that matters is the last one.  These are for entertainment purposes - and all of the analysis and 2nd guessing is good for the sport.  All publicity is good (well, except the news that Bama LB who sent a sordid message to DeBoer's daughter).

[Frank Drebin 5654]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Wouldn't you have to lose both to be out? Seems a two loss SEC team is a lock, especially with UT's brand and assuming the losses are UGA and aggy.

I think it is 50-50 whether we get in with a loss to A&M.

[statsman 5450]

1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

I think it is 50-50 whether we get in with a loss to A&M.

ESPN calculator monte-carlos these scenarios and has Texas probably (74%) getting in at 10-2. It relies on the scenarios where extra spots open up (ND loses, ACC and B12 only get one in), I assume. 

['stache 21789]

I hadn't considered that ND is taking a spot. ACC and XII are definitely only getting one spot each this year.

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

10 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Boise also has one of the most interesting and entertaining players in all of college football - Ashton Jeanty.

The only CFP ranking that matters is the last one.  These are for entertainment purposes - and all of the analysis and 2nd guessing is good for the sport.  All publicity is good (well, except the news that Bama LB who sent a sordid message to DeBoer's daughter).

That's a great point as well.  A Boise team without that star power is getting less consideration with the same record.

[statsman 5450]

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/cfbplayoffpredictor2024/2024-college-football-allstate-playoff-bracket-predictor
 
Odds of BYU making the CFP if it wins out the regular season, but loses the conference CG: 34%
Same for SMU: 17%
Miami: 32%

What this means? Upsets have an impact, some upsets will happen. There will be a little chaos. 

Edited 23 hours ago by statsman

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

9 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I think it is 50-50 whether we get in with a loss to A&M.

I think you're in regardless with your brand power and the SEC sticker to boot.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

It’s very interesting that the CFP committee ranked the top G5 school (Bouse) ahead of the top B12 school (BYU). I know that the committee uses early rankings to make points and doesn’t at all feel obligated to maintain a logic consistently through the final rankings, but it’s still very telling about what it thinks of “conferences of equals”. 

My favorite was that Arkansas was both a key win and a terrible loss depending on your orange.    Take that Vols.

They really need to go back to computers, there is a lot of really blatant bias showing up, like Notre Dame's loss to NIU never happening any longer.

[Huckleberry 32845]

8 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why are talking heads saying Indiana has to keep it close in Columbus to get in, while no one questions Texas's place and Indiana and Texas each have the exact same best win, and Indiana's loss would at least be on the road in a top 5 toughest place to play?

Not sure what rock you've been living under but that is wildly inaccurate. And besides, your Indiana/Texas comparison is missing a whole lot of other key points like Texas having throttled Michigan while Indiana struggled and Texas having a schedule 40-50 spots tougher overall. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

37 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why are talking heads saying Indiana has to keep it close in Columbus to get in, while no one questions Texas's place and Indiana and Texas each have the exact same best win, and Indiana's loss would at least be on the road in a top 5 toughest place to play?  Starting in the first year of the 4 team playoff they've consistently shifted the goal posts in order to put together the best TV product (eyeballs that is - not necessarily entertainment value).  It's not even a conspiratorial idea at this point.  

Because, at its heart, what the committee judges is recruiting rankings.   They expect the best athletes on the field will win out, so they'll always favor a team with a few losses and a higher recruiting ranking and brand, than a team that is just well coached and doing well.    Indiana isn't cute any more with their 1 and 2 star kids transferred from JMU.   The moment they lose they'll be seen as "the luck is over" and will be ranked back where they believe their talent should lie based off their athletes.  This is why Miami is still at 6 and BYU is out of the top ten.   Miami SHOULD be better, which is why they're ranked higher.

[Frank Drebin 5654]

10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think you're in regardless with your brand power and the SEC sticker to boot.

Maybe.  I think it might be dicey.   But what do I know?  I won't cry about it.  It's why I love the 12-team playoff.  Our actual good teams that previously won't make it -- like 2004 and especially 2008 -- are guaranteed a shot.  If this team loses to A&M and as a result we do not make it, I am just not sure I can be that upset or call it a snub.  Texas needs to take care of business.  And should be able to beat an A&M team that is nothing special on either side of the ball.

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

18 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Not sure what rock you've been living under but that is wildly inaccurate. And besides, your Indiana/Texas comparison is missing a whole lot of other key points like Texas having throttled Michigan while Indiana struggled and Texas having a schedule 40-50 spots tougher overall. 

I don't listen to a ton of national shows other than Split Zone Duo and Solid Verbal, but I haven't heard much Texas questioning there.  And I don't think Texas should be in question at this point either, by the way.  A 1 loss SEC team has done enough in any year, IMO.

I'm just using it as a data point to highlight the bias being shown Indiana.  If Indiana were Michigan there would be no "do they deserve to be in?" discussions.

Edited 22 hours ago by Al_4_ISU

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

15 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Because, at its heart, what the committee judges is recruiting rankings.   They expect the best athletes on the field will win out, so they'll always favor a team with a few losses and a higher recruiting ranking and brand, than a team that is just well coached and doing well.    Indiana isn't cute any more with their 1 and 2 star kids transferred from JMU.   The moment they lose they'll be seen as "the luck is over" and will be ranked back where they believe their talent should lie based off their athletes.  This is why Miami is still at 6 and BYU is out of the top ten.   Miami SHOULD be better, which is why they're ranked higher.

And I hate this shit.  It's like when they say "well, so and so would be favored by X points right now".  Upsets happen every single week. I don't give a flying fuck what the point spread says.

[Chewbacca 7766]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Anyone with a brain can see the Big 12 is a much tougher conference than the MWC.  The committee is more interested in pushing their biases.  Boise has been the loveable underdog for 20 years and with their "giant slayer" reputation are guaranteed national eyeballs.  No way in hell Tulane would get that kind of treatment.  And after the conference title games, Boise will be behind the Big 12 champ as that team will likely play 1-2 more ranked teams in the next couple of weeks and Boise won't.

This is a brand exercise.  Why is SMU 5 spots behind Miami with the same record?  Why are talking heads saying Indiana has to keep it close in Columbus to get in, while no one questions Texas's place and Indiana and Texas each have the exact same best win, and Indiana's loss would at least be on the road in a top 5 toughest place to play?  Starting in the first year of the 4 team playoff they've consistently shifted the goal posts in order to put together the best TV product (eyeballs that is - not necessarily entertainment value).  It's not even a conspiratorial idea at this point.  

Yeah, the MWC is absolute dogshit.  CSU is currently undefeated in conference play at 5-0.  They lost to UT and CU by a combined score of 80-9.