Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Snaggletiger on January 03, 2018, 02:48:59 PM
-
I normally keep a radio on in the office and in the car, mostly tuned to sports talk stations during the week days. Today has been unique in that I've heard 3 different sports talk hosts/guests just ripping Nick Saban a new one. Seems that playing back to back weeks in the playoffs ruffled his back hair and his complaint about it has prompted some particularly scathing vitriol from the talking heads.
Just heard Chuck Oliver bring it up. He used it as an indictment of coaches in general but really singled out Saban by saying anytime he tells you it's about the kids, he really means it's about him. He said stop complaining when Georgia (Fuck Georgia!) had a far worse travel schedule than you did and they have to play in the same game. He brought up Saban complaining about the hurry-up offenses and how it's detrimental to the players. Then he starts changing his offense to run a faster pace and more plays. Basically called him a hippo-krit.
But the kicker was this morning. On the Dan Libtard show, Stugotz absolutely went off. ESPN's Marty Smith was in the Bama football lounge and had a bunch of players there. Stugotz told him to text the names of the players there with him and indicated they had the Libtard show on in the lounge. Stugotz started calling out the names. Hey Calvin Ridley, you think Nick Saban cares about you? Think again. He may have you fooled but it's all about Nick Saban. Hey Bo Scarbrough, Saban doesn't give a damn about you. He's making millions off you and your teammates. He says it's all about the players. No, it's all about him.
He went on and on and was yelling while Libtard was laughing his ass off. Are people growing tired of his shit? Remember, if you don't even win your conference, you shouldn't be in the playoffs.
-
If true, it's about fucking time.
-
I hate georgia. I do.
But they actually got to the seccg. They actually won the seccg. They beat their 3 hated rivals like a drum.
And beat their classic rival the second time around.
Bama did NONE of the above.
And georgia got the reward of having to travel to another coast 3 time zones away and play probably the hottest and most dangerous team in the country. While bammer got to sit home basically and play a flawed team they were extremely familiar with that was a shell of itself at the qb position.
Give me a fuckin break.
-
Oh, and...hey Saban! :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu:
-
I normally keep a radio on in the office and in the car, mostly tuned to sports talk stations during the week days. Today has been unique in that I've heard 3 different sports talk hosts/guests just ripping Nick Saban a new one. Seems that playing back to back weeks in the playoffs ruffled his back hair and his complaint about it has prompted some particularly scathing vitriol from the talking heads.
Just heard Chuck Oliver bring it up. He used it as an indictment of coaches in general but really singled out Saban by saying anytime he tells you it's about the kids, he really means it's about him. He said stop complaining when Georgia (Fuck Georgia!) had a far worse travel schedule than you did and they have to play in the same game. He brought up Saban complaining about the hurry-up offenses and how it's detrimental to the players. Then he starts changing his offense to run a faster pace and more plays. Basically called him a hippo-krit.
But the kicker was this morning. On the Dan Libtard show, Stugotz absolutely went off. ESPN's Marty Smith was in the Bama football lounge and had a bunch of players there. Stugotz told him to text the names of the players there with him and indicated they had the Libtard show on in the lounge. Stugotz started calling out the names. Hey Calvin Ridley, you think Nick Saban cares about you? Think again. He may have you fooled but it's all about Nick Saban. Hey Bo Scarbrough, Saban doesn't give a damn about you. He's making millions off you and your teammates. He says it's all about the players. No, it's all about him.
He went on and on and was yelling while Libtard was laughing his ass off. Are people growing tired of his shit? Remember, if you don't even win your conference, you shouldn't be in the playoffs.
If you live in Alabama and don't have Saban fatigue, you're a bammer, or not paying attention. The college football world has bammer fatigue and they should. This shit has gotten old...but here's the thing...nobody can stop them. Yeah, we beat them, but they are in, and we're not. Saban didn't take a quarter of the season to figure out his team's personality on offense like Gus, or blow a 3 TD lead against a mediocre LSU squad. As an Auburn fan I despise Saban. Without the orange and blue glasses, I can fully appreciate how he coaches and maintains a program. Saban cares for his players in the way many coaches do...he provides them with solid environment and a chance to succeed at this level and the next. He does all he can for those that will do for themselves and the team.
-
When Saban was making his comments about the scheduling, he also brought up Georgia's situation. They obviously have it worse than Alabama. They were in a 12 round heavyweight fight with Oklahoma on the other side of the country. Now they have to come back to Athens, and then leave again Friday. That leaves you with a solid 2 days of practice at home. In this case, I think it is a clear disadvantage to Georgia. As an Alabama fan, I'll take it. And Saban certainly isn't advocating solely on Georgia's behalf. But it's not very fair to Georgia, and I think that it is a perfect illustration of a flaw that they should probably fix.
Who here thinks Georgia's situation is fair?
-
Fuck Georgia!
-
The first playoff game should be played on Christmas day!
That would give saban time to rest...
-
When Saban was making his comments about the scheduling, he also brought up Georgia's situation. They obviously have it worse than Alabama. They were in a 12 round heavyweight fight with Oklahoma on the other side of the country. Now they have to come back to Athens, and then leave again Friday. That leaves you with a solid 2 days of practice at home. In this case, I think it is a clear disadvantage to Georgia. As an Alabama fan, I'll take it. And Saban certainly isn't advocating solely on Georgia's behalf. But it's not very fair to Georgia, and I think that it is a perfect illustration of a flaw that they should probably fix.
Who here thinks Georgia's situation is fair?
Yet the complaints are coming out of t town. Not Athens. Just sayin.
-
When Saban was making his comments about the scheduling, he also brought up Georgia's situation. They obviously have it worse than Alabama. They were in a 12 round heavyweight fight with Oklahoma on the other side of the country. Now they have to come back to Athens, and then leave again Friday. That leaves you with a solid 2 days of practice at home. In this case, I think it is a clear disadvantage to Georgia. As an Alabama fan, I'll take it. And Saban certainly isn't advocating solely on Georgia's behalf. But it's not very fair to Georgia, and I think that it is a perfect illustration of a flaw that they should probably fix.
Who here thinks Georgia's situation is fair?
Go. Away. Bammer. Troll.
-
Yet the complaints are coming out of t town. Not Athens. Just sayin.
And Saban can complain, yet nobody calls him a whiner.
-
And Saban can complain, yet nobody calls him a whiner.
Nick Saban will always complain. The trophy won't be big enough. Or too big. Or too heavy. :rolleyes:
-
Yet the complaints are coming out of t town. Not Athens. Just sayin.
He was asked a question. He answered. I don't know if anyone has asked Smart. Saban is an asshole, but he's right about this one. If you think it doesn't create a disadvantage for UGA, I can't help you. Like I said, of course he's not advocating for UGA. But I think that he sees the clear disadvantage they are at and looking ahead, knows Alabama could also be in that situation at some point in the future.
-
He was asked a question. He answered. I don't know if anyone has asked Smart. Saban is an asshole, but he's right about this one. If you think it doesn't create a disadvantage for UGA, I can't help you. Like I said, of course he's not advocating for UGA. But I think that he sees the clear disadvantage they are at and looking ahead, knows Alabama could also be in that situation at some point in the future.
If uga don't want the disadvantage, they should have lost!
-
Go. Away. Bammer. Troll.
Not trolling at all. It's a valid point. If literally any coach on the planet made the same point, I would agree with it. Saban is an asshole, and sometimes his rants are off point, but he's right on this one.
-
Worse than playing in a slop fest against your biggest rival and then having to turn around a week later and play your second biggest rival essentially in their backyard? Fuck off.
-
Worse than playing in a slop fest against your biggest rival and then having to turn around a week later and play your second biggest rival essentially in their backyard? Fuck off.
They're both bad situations. I don't disagree that the SECCG is a bad setup too. I just don't think that there is anything you can do about that. Personally, in the playoff era, I think that the SECCG puts the SEC at a disadvantage. The past two years, there has been a team make it into the playoffs that wasn't a conference champion. Last year, tOSU got waxed. This year, Alabama beat the #1 team convincingly. If there were no SECCG this year, in theory, AU would have been in. The committee has shown that under the right circumstances, being a conference champion is not necessary. So, why continue to have it?
With the playoffs, there is some wiggle room for scheduling. A few extra days for the championship game is doable.
-
They're both bad situations. I don't disagree that the SECCG is a bad setup too. I just don't think that there is anything you can do about that. Personally, in the playoff era, I think that the SECCG puts the SEC at a disadvantage. The past two years, there has been a team make it into the playoffs that wasn't a conference champion. Last year, tOSU got waxed. This year, Alabama beat the #1 team convincingly. If there were no SECCG this year, in theory, AU would have been in. The committee has shown that under the right circumstances, being a conference champion is not necessary. So, why continue to have it?
With the playoffs, there is some wiggle room for scheduling. A few extra days for the championship game is doable.
The NFL would like a word.
-
Honestly, he whines about everything. I have never seen someone complain so much about their job.
Complains about early signing, fast offenses, scheduling. Give me a fucking break.
He complains more than Prowler, about Trump. The guy is a smarmy asshole!
-
So, why continue to have it?
Smartest thing you have ever said on here. Get rid of the conference championship game. I say play 12 games with two off weekends- 9 in conference games, 1 OOC Power 5 School and 2 whomever.
Take the championship to 8 games: 5 Power 5 Championship winners and 3 at large. Get rid of the rest of the bowl games or at least 80% of them.
-
The NFL would like a word.
That's the NFL. I could sit here all day and explain all the reasons that the NFL is different than college ball, but I'm sure you're an intelligent person and can figure that out for yourself. In a nutshell, those are guys that are paid and have nothing else to do other than football, not teenagers in college.
-
When Saban was making his comments about the scheduling, he also brought up Georgia's situation. They obviously have it worse than Alabama. They were in a 12 round heavyweight fight with Oklahoma on the other side of the country. Now they have to come back to Athens, and then leave again Friday. That leaves you with a solid 2 days of practice at home. In this case, I think it is a clear disadvantage to Georgia. As an Alabama fan, I'll take it. And Saban certainly isn't advocating solely on Georgia's behalf. But it's not very fair to Georgia, and I think that it is a perfect illustration of a flaw that they should probably fix.
Who here thinks Georgia's situation is fair?
fuck you
-
That's the NFL. I could sit here all day and explain all the reasons that the NFL is different than college ball, but I'm sure you're an intelligent person and can figure that out for yourself. In a nutshell, those are guys that are paid and have nothing else to do other than football, not teenagers in college.
If you think college players are just "teenagers in college" you are in for an awakening, sir. Like I posted earlier. Saban's always gonna complain. About everything. Rinse. Repeat.
-
Smartest thing you have ever said on here. Get rid of the conference championship game. I say play 12 games with two off weekends- 9 in conference games, 1 OOC Power 5 School and 2 whomever.
Take the championship to 8 games: 5 Power 5 Championship winners and 3 at large. Get rid of the rest of the bowl games or at least 80% of them.
Pfffffft....get that well thought out, perfectly sensible plan out of here. It has no place in the real world.
As for the other bowl games, I honestly don't mind the 400+ meaningless bowl games played every year. Admittedly, this was the first year I really didn't pay much attention to them, but I love having the option any time of turning on some free foosballz. Plus, I think most of the players would love the chance to travel and play an extra game. More exposure too.
-
Smartest thing you have ever said on here. Get rid of the conference championship game. I say play 12 games with two off weekends- 9 in conference games, 1 OOC Power 5 School and 2 whomever.
Take the championship to 8 games: 5 Power 5 Championship winners and 3 at large. Get rid of the rest of the bowl games or at least 80% of them.
When you say "5 championship winners", do you mean the declared champions, not from a game?
Your words, they confuse.
-
As for the other bowl games, I honestly don't mind the 400+ meaningless bowl games played every year. Admittedly, this was the first year I really didn't pay much attention to them, but I love having the option any time of turning on some free foosballz. Plus, I think most of the players would love the chance to travel and play an extra game. More exposure too.
Foosballz is great, but personally, I'm a quality over quantity type of guy. I watched bits and pieces of 2 or 3 lower tier bowl games. But I watched all of the big boys play. 99% of the time, there just isn't much entertainment value in watching two 6-6 teams play terrible ball. Sometimes you get a few unicorns, but for the most part, it's just meh. I'm sure that you're right, and most players do love the opportunity and exposure - especially the seniors. And I can get behind it from that standpoint. But man, some of those teams just have no business playing in a bowl game. Especially some with interim coaches.
-
I'm not tired of Saban.
-
If you think college players are just "teenagers in college" you are in for an awakening, sir. Like I posted earlier. Saban's always gonna complain. About everything. Rinse. Repeat.
I know, but I think you get where I'm coming from on that.
Yeah, Saban complains, and he's an asshole sometimes. But he's right on this subject.
-
Smartest thing you have ever said on here. Get rid of the conference championship game. I say play 12 games with two off weekends- 9 in conference games, 1 OOC Power 5 School and 2 whomever.
Take the championship to 8 games: 5 Power 5 Championship winners and 3 at large. Get rid of the rest of the bowl games or at least 80% of them.
:blink:
-
I know, but I think you get where I'm coming from on that.
Yeah, Saban complains, and he's an asshole sometimes. But he's right on this subject.
Shut the fuck up.
-
Shut the fuck up.
See, you are my friend and we agree. At least on something.
-
4 regional conferences.
16 teams in each conference.
64 top teams based upon different formulas to determine the top teams.
10 regular season games within your conference. No conference championships. After 10 regular season games that rotate regardless of traditional rivals, the top 4 teams are taken from each conference and placed in a 4 week 16 team playoff. Winner takes all. The team from each conference that makes it the deepest into the playoffs is considered the conference champion.
If you commit any NCAA violations you are removed from major conference division and moved to minor conference division. At that time, the best teams from the minor divisions are allowed to moved into those conferences. After your probation you may begin working your way back to the top of the minor division in hopes of jumping back into major divisions.
ALL problems solved. ALL problems stay solved.
-
4 regional conferences.
16 teams in each conference.
64 top teams based upon different formulas to determine the top teams.
10 regular season games within your conference. No conference championships. After 10 regular season games that rotate regardless of traditional rivals, the top 4 teams are taken from each conference and placed in a 4 week 16 team playoff. Winner takes all. The team from each conference that makes it the deepest into the playoffs is considered the conference champion.
If you commit any NCAA violations you are removed from major conference division and moved to minor conference division. At that time, the best teams from the minor divisions are allowed to moved into those conferences. After your probation you may begin working your way back to the top of the minor division in hopes of jumping back into major divisions.
ALL problems solved. ALL problems stay solved.
Soccer sucks!
-
He was asked a question. He answered. I don't know if anyone has asked Smart. Saban is an asshole, but he's right about this one. If you think it doesn't create a disadvantage for UGA, I can't help you. Like I said, of course he's not advocating for UGA. But I think that he sees the clear disadvantage they are at and looking ahead, knows Alabama could also be in that situation at some point in the future.
you are assuming he is speaking on uga's behalf and genuinely. Dude is speaking on HIS behalf. Im surprised an "allegation" about Roquan Smith hasn't arrived on Al.com yet.
-
4 regional conferences.
16 teams in each conference.
64 top teams based upon different formulas to determine the top teams.
10 regular season games within your conference. No conference championships. After 10 regular season games that rotate regardless of traditional rivals, the top 4 teams are taken from each conference and placed in a 4 week 16 team playoff. Winner takes all. The team from each conference that makes it the deepest into the playoffs is considered the conference champion.
If you commit any NCAA violations you are removed from major conference division and moved to minor conference division. At that time, the best teams from the minor divisions are allowed to moved into those conferences. After your probation you may begin working your way back to the top of the minor division in hopes of jumping back into major divisions.
ALL problems solved. ALL problems stay solved.
or how bout the power 5 champs and 3 wildcards.
-
you are assuming he is speaking on uga's behalf and genuinely. Dude is speaking on HIS behalf. Im surprised an "allegation" about Roquan Smith hasn't arrived on Al.com yet.
As I said earlier, I agree, he's not being an advocate on UGA's behalf. I think that he sees the clear disadvantage and knows this scenario in the future could put him at a disadvantage at some point, so he's using what's happening now to illustrate his point. The fact that he's trying to help himself out in the future doesn't make his point wrong, though.
-
or how bout the power 5 champs and 3 wildcards.
3 wild cards would create speculation. Top 4 from each conference would more times than not sort itself out. Regular season counts.
-
Soccer sucks!
You take that back right now or there will be a stern and tersely worded rebuttal coming your way.
-
This just the start of Stugotz rant. At the end here where he calls out Minkah Fitzpatrick is when he started rolling.
https://youtu.be/gyknTvmcsKo
-
Take the regular season back to 11 games. 8 conference games, one Power 5 OOC and 2 trusty servant Patsy's. Then take the winners of all 5 conference championship games and tell them to fuck off, because bammer gonna get in and win it all anyway.
-
This just the start of Stugotz rant. At the end here where he calls out Minkah Fitzpatrick is when he started rolling.
https://youtu.be/gyknTvmcsKo
He just sounds like a whiner. One of the legions of talking heads with SEC fatigue, taking it out on bammer and Saban.
-
I think we should just crown Alabama as permanent champions and the rest of the schools play for second place every year in a playoff.
-
I think we should just crown Alabama as permanent champions and the rest of the schools play for second place every year in a playoff.
We are all winners.
I like it.
-
We are all winners.
I like it.
Somebody is not listening. bammer the only winners...even they old coarch said he ain't nothin' but a drunk cheater winner.
-
When you say "5 championship winners", do you mean the declared champions, not from a game?
Your words, they confuse.
Correct..the champions of the power 5 teams. If there are no divisions there should be one standing at the top.
In this situation, Auburn would have been the winner. Let the committee decide who's more deserving of an at-large bama or UGA.
-
:blink:
I should have wrote conference winners my bad
-
or how bout the power 5 champs and 3 wildcards.
Even 5 + 1 wildcard with byes to the top 2 would be great.
And in that scenario in 2018, I STILL would have left Bama out for UCF. Ohio State also would have got the shot they deserved far more than Bama. Bama would be next in line for the wildcard probably in my world, although Wisconsin, Penn State, Notre Dame would have had decent arguments.
Big Ten got royally fucked this year at Bama's behest.
-
Correct..the champions of the power 5 teams. If there are no divisions there should be one standing at the top.
In this situation, Auburn would have been the winner. Let the committee decide who's more deserving of an at-large bama or UGA.
As much as I'd love to Marty McFly back to nix the SEC Championship and the resulting shitty Peach Bowl outcome, I think championships are useful and serve their purpose. It's really the fairest way to determine. It's the first game of the playoffs. And the only way mathematically you could have each team in a 14+ team conference crown a winner in a fair way given that each team meeting up has played 100% of the teams in the conference combined (all of the west for the west team and all of the east for the east team) before facing off against eachother. That part ain't broke.
-
As much as I'd love to Marty McFly back to nix the SEC Championship and the resulting shitty Peach Bowl outcome, I think championships are useful and serve their purpose. It's really the fairest way to determine. It's the first game of the playoffs. And the only way mathematically you could have each team in a 14+ team conference crown a winner in a fair way given that each team meeting up has played 100% of the teams in the conference combined (all of the west for the west team and all of the east for the east team) before facing off against eachother. That part ain't broke.
But it is broke. My point wasn't about getting Auburn into the playoffs. It was about the fact that everyone in the playoffs played an extra game except one. That is a flawed system.
-
In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS. A committee is always going to be subject to bias in some form or fashion.
Hell you can still keep the committee but make them a part of the equation, use the BCS computers, SOS and the BCS calculation that it spit out take the top 8 teams and then just let them fight it out.
-
But it is broke. My point wasn't about getting Auburn into the playoffs. It was about the fact that everyone in the playoffs played an extra game except one. That is a flawed system.
That should be counted against them. Ohio State should be in before them. UCF also had to play and win their conference.
Conceivably, the 6th team COULD get in without playing the extra game, but in my scenario #1 & #2 get a bye while they play the #3 team.
-
In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS. A committee is always going to be subject to bias in some form or fashion.
Hell you can still keep the committee but make them a part of the equation, use the BCS computers, SOS and the BCS calculation that it spit out take the top 8 teams and then just let them fight it out.
Yeah, the idea that "We can have a playoff, but then it has to be 100% subjective and we just will have to put whoever in we damn well feel like" is a false choice that was sold to the fans. We were so desperate to get some form of playoff, most of us didn't complain much. But I agree we definitely should go back to the BCS system of ranking.
-
In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS. A committee is always going to be subject to bias in some form or fashion.
Hell you can still keep the committee but make them a part of the equation, use the BCS computers, SOS and the BCS calculation that it spit out take the top 8 teams and then just let them fight it out.
My thought exactly. The BCS ranking system seemed to get it right and was consistent. Just leave that in place to select the 4 or 6 or 8 or what the hell ever.
-
In all honesty, I never understood why we got rid of the BCS.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
BCS was too straightforward. With the committee's ability to completely reshuffle the deck every week, they created a mountain of content for sports talking heads/networks.
-
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
BCS was too straightforward. With the committee's ability to completely reshuffle the deck every week, they created a mountain of content for sports talking heads/networks.
I get that it's all about money. I was just talking figuratively.
However the money that would be made with more teams in the playoffs, it surprises me that they don't do it.
-
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
BCS was too straightforward. With the committee's ability to completely reshuffle the deck every week, they created a mountain of content for sports talking heads/networks.
I 100% agree, but I don't understand why.
Why is it less exciting for viewers to wait to see what computers OBJECTIVELY determined to be the rankings rather than what a tiny group of clearly biased individuals with obvious conflicts of interests decide to radically shift to week-to-week practically on their whims?
Why is it not more exciting to see what the computers spit out based on constantly tweaked and perfected algorithms AVERAGED against what the subjective sports writers have to say? To me that's more interesting, not only because it's more scientific, but also more democratic (much more BCS voters than Playoff Committee voters), AND to me, it makes what the talking heads on ESPN are yapping about far, far more significant since their opinions are actually a factor in the matter.
-
Even in the BCS era, the talking heads were making their predictions and having whole shows on it. While you could break down what all went into the BCS system, you still had to predict the outcome at the end of the day. But the system was consistent and always seemed to get it mostly right. Basically, what we've done is gone back to the way college football used to be. While there is a 4 team playoff, it still comes back to opinions. The eye test. That method has royally screwed many a team over the years, including our beloved Tigers.
Plus, my counselor says a slight increase in my medication should finally get my 1983 rage issues and nervous tic under complete control.
-
I 100% agree, but I don't understand why.
Why is it less exciting for viewers to wait to see what computers OBJECTIVELY determined to be the rankings rather than what a tiny group of clearly biased individuals with obvious conflicts of interests decide to radically shift to week-to-week practically on their whims?
Why is it not more exciting to see what the computers spit out based on constantly tweaked and perfected algorithms AVERAGED against what the subjective sports writers have to say? To me that's more interesting, not only because it's more scientific, but also more democratic (much more BCS voters than Playoff Committee voters), AND to me, it makes what the talking heads on ESPN are yapping about far, far more significant since their opinions are actually a factor in the matter.
With the cold hard numbers, the only ones arguing the placement are the fans of teams with no hope of overcoming the 6 formulas or whatnot.
The current system, with no definitive standard, is much more debateable.
I agree that it makes no logical sense if you want to accurately pick the champ. I don't think the PTB give half a hairy shit about that. They want money and exclusivity. The addition of extra playoff spots means splitting that big ole pie up a few more ways. You can bet that Orange/Rose/Fiesta and Sugar held their noses when adding Cotton and Peach. They will certainly balk at any suggestion that the Poulon Weedeater bowl be mentioned in the same breath as the Grandaddy of Them All. Or that those rubes get a share of their playoff money.
-
Plus, my counselor says a slight increase in my medication should finally get my 1983 rage issues and nervous tic under complete control.
More alcohol is not going to do you already damaged liver any favors. You need a better therapist.
As for who should get in all that...there's a problem if you make it automatic for conference champs. Say we get a year when Texas A&M goes 12-0 and wins the West and Tennessee wins the East with an 8-4 record. By some stroke of the Jimbo, UT returns a pick six in the closing minutes and wins the SEC CG. Now we have a 9-4 team in a field of 12-1, 13-0 playoff teams. You just handed someone an easier game in the first round.
Side note, that's exactly what happened this year. When Bama was lined up against Clemson, it gave them the best chance to make it to a "historic sixth appearance in the BCS/CFP era" title game because they knew the opponent so well. At least Georgia (I hate a Dawg!) had to go out west and solve the riddle of Baker Mayfield.
Is it wrong to root for a meteor shower in Atlanta Monday?
-
I've always said keep the BCS formula with the 4 team playoff but I thought everyone was against the BCS because it put Bama in 2011 against LSU?
-
I've always said keep the BCS formula with the 4 team playoff but I thought everyone was against the BCS because it put Bama in 2011 against LSU?
That was the beginning of the end for the BCS. Just like this year is now the beginning of the end for the 4 team format. The other Power 5 can't stand to see an all SEC title game again.
-
I've always said keep the BCS formula with the 4 team playoff but I thought everyone was against the BCS because it put Bama in 2011 against LSU?
The BCS didn't do that. The lack of a playoff did.
-
The BCS didn't do that. The lack of a playoff did.
Even with a playoff Bama would have at least been in the playoff with a chance to play for the title because of the BCS formula.
Fuck y'all, I like my idea better. It doesn't give a shit about bitter rivalries. You might play each other, you might not. And it keeps people from cheating. Or at least being severely punished for cheating.
-
Even with a playoff Bama would have at least been in the playoff with a chance to play for the title because of the BCS formula.
IF they made the playoff that year (and I'd argue that four out of five conference champions would be more deserving than a team that couldn't even make it to compete for their own conference championship, same as this year), I'd have less grievance than I did saying that no other team from any other conference even deserved a CHANCE.
-
IF they made the playoff that year (and I'd argue that four out of five conference champions would be more deserving than a team that couldn't even make it to compete for their own conference championship, same as this year), I'd have less grievance than I did saying that no other team from any other conference even deserved a CHANCE.
#micdrop
-
As for who should get in all that...there's a problem if you make it automatic for conference champs. Say we get a year when Texas A&M goes 12-0 and wins the West and Tennessee wins the East with an 8-4 record. By some stroke of the Jimbo, UT returns a pick six in the closing minutes and wins the SEC CG. Now we have a 9-4 team in a field of 12-1, 13-0 playoff teams. You just handed someone an easier game in the first round.
So win and you are in is only for losers? ROH TAHD!
-
IF they made the playoff that year (and I'd argue that four out of five conference champions would be more deserving than a team that couldn't even make it to compete for their own conference championship, same as this year), I'd have less grievance than I did saying that no other team from any other conference even deserved a CHANCE.
So then no to the BCS formula. Which is exactly what I just said.
-
So then no to the BCS formula. Which is exactly what I just said.
Actually, that isn't what he said.
-
Actually, that isn't what he said.
What did he say?
-
What did he say?
4+7*2 = 83
-
4+7*2 = 83
Now see? If people would just keep things simple like this, the whole playoff thing would work itself out.
-
Actually, that isn't what he said.
Regardless of whether or not Bama backed into the championship in 11 (which they did) the BCS formula had them at #2. In the same style playoff system we have now using the BCS formula, they still would have been in over some conference champions. Everyone hated it, death to the BCS.
Now, Bama backed their way in again. Death to the playoff committee, BCS was better. For all I know BCS formula would have had them in again. The BCS obviously didn't give a shit about conference champs then, why do y'all think it would be a better system now?
-
I was told there would be no math
-
Regardless of whether or not Bama backed into the championship in 11 (which they did) the BCS formula had them at #2. In the same style playoff system we have now using the BCS formula, they still would have been in over some conference champions. Everyone hated it, death to the BCS.
Now, Bama backed their way in again. Death to the playoff committee, BCS was better. For all I know BCS formula would have had them in again. The BCS obviously didn't give a shit about conference champs then, why do y'all think it would be a better system now?
And that's the way it should be under the BCS and the current committee system we have. Someone earlier gave the hypothetical, but very real possibility of a team going 12-0 in the West, and then getting edged out by an 8-4 team in the SECCG. Should the entire body of work be looked at or should the committee say, "Well, you lost. You're out."?
Anywell, I've been a proponent of an 8 team (Please, no more) playoff since forevah!
-
Regardless of whether or not Bama backed into the championship in 11 (which they did) the BCS formula had them at #2. In the same style playoff system we have now using the BCS formula, they still would have been in over some conference champions. Everyone hated it, death to the BCS.
Now, Bama backed their way in again. Death to the playoff committee, BCS was better. For all I know BCS formula would have had them in again. The BCS obviously didn't give a shit about conference champs then, why do y'all think it would be a better system now?
But what he is saying is that while we don't like it, bama at least had to play a legit team before they made it to the championship. If you had the BCS formula with a playoff yes they got in with both scenarios, but at least we'd have less grievance.
I'm upset bama got in this year, but at the same time I'm not sure who should have gone over them. Ohio State wasn't deserving, Wisconsin I feel bad for, but win your game and you are in. Much like us had we won we were in.
I think that UCF deserves a shot, but not over a 1 loss bama, thats part of the reason I think the playoffs should be expanded. I think UCF would have given bama abetter game than Clemson did.
-
And that's the way it should be under the BCS and the current committee system we have. Someone earlier gave the hypothetical, but very real possibility of a team going 12-0 in the West, and then getting edged out by an 8-4 team in the SECCG. Should the entire body of work be looked at or should the committee say, "Well, you lost. You're out."?
Anywell, I've been a proponent of an 8 team (Please, no more) playoff since forevah!
That's why I say get rid of the conference championships
-
That's why I say get rid of the conference championships
That's not what he said. Wait....what?
As much as I think college football has operated under such an unfair system, with the exception of the BCS, I have to admit that this is part of the allure. College football is the only sport on earth (Probably, I haven't checked the interwebz) where the teams playing for the championship are determined strictly by opinion. It was that way before the BCS through the polls, and it's basically the same now with a committee deciding who has the most eye candy.
While college basketball has a committee that picks some at-large teams for the tourney, (Same with baseball and softball) the first deciding factor is win and you're in. But totally based on opinion with football. But the reality is that as unfair as that concept may be, every fan, sports media outlet, talking head etc. debates it and talks about it year round.
-
I think that UCF deserves a shot, but not over a 1 loss bama, thats part of the reason I think the playoffs should be expanded. I think UCF would have given bama abetter game than Clemson did.
Anytime anyone goes undefeated, that's quite a feat. You have to give credit where it is due in that regard. However, I would also argue that Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama could all more than likely go undefeated against UCF's schedule. Had they played Georgia, or FSU, or Oklahoma, or Penn State, or Wisconsin, etc during the regular season, would they be undefeated? I don't know. I get it; all you can do is play who is on the schedule. But the best team they beat was a #20 Memphis in the AAC conference championship game in double overtime. There is always room for argument, but personally, I don't think they deserved a playoff spot.
-
But what he is saying is that while we don't like it, bama at least had to play a legit team before they made it to the championship. If you had the BCS formula with a playoff yes they got in with both scenarios, but at least we'd have less grievance.
I'm upset bama got in this year, but at the same time I'm not sure who should have gone over them. Ohio State wasn't deserving, Wisconsin I feel bad for, but win your game and you are in. Much like us had we won we were in.
I think that UCF deserves a shot, but not over a 1 loss bama, thats part of the reason I think the playoffs should be expanded. I think UCF would have given bama abetter game than Clemson did.
I agree we need more teams in playoffs. And less conference championships. 4 conferences, 16 teams each. Top 4 make it from each conference. No rankings, just win your damn ball games.
-
Anytime anyone goes undefeated, that's quite a feat. You have to give credit where it is due in that regard. However, I would also argue that Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama could all more than likely go undefeated against UCF's schedule. Had they played Georgia, or FSU, or Oklahoma, or Penn State, or Wisconsin, etc during the regular season, would they be undefeated? I don't know. I get it; all you can do is play who is on the schedule. But the best team they beat was a #20 Memphis in the AAC conference championship game in double overtime. There is always room for argument, but personally, I don't think they deserved a playoff spot.
Shut the fuck up.
Also, UCF had as many quality wins as Bama did this year both before the New Years Six bowl and today.
-
I'm upset bama got in this year, but at the same time I'm not sure who should have gone over them. Ohio State wasn't deserving, Wisconsin I feel bad for, but win your game and you are in. Much like us had we won we were in.
I hear a lot of people say that, but why?
Every team that ended up getting in had a loss. Clemson's was Syracuse. That's a bad loss and they were #1. Oklahoma lost to Iowa State. That's a bad loss. Georgia's only quality win really was Notre Dame. The only other ranked opponent they beat was Mississippi State. Bama's best wins were State, LSU (who lost to Notre Dame in the bowl), & I guess FSU who ended up terrible and barely eligible to play in their shitty bowl against Southern Miss.
Ohio State, yeah, had a bad loss against Iowa, but their other loss was to Oklahoma. Then they won their conference against Wisconsin who otherwise was undefeated, which absolutely should count more than sitting at home. What if Wisconsin instead dropped a game earlier in the season to Penn State and missed the championship entirely? Would they still be less deserving than Bama then?
Ohio State + Wisconsin + Penn State were arguably at least as strong of a top of the conference as Bama + Georgia + Auburn, IMO. After Wisconsin won their, in my opinion, tougher conference, they slaughtered the Pac 10 champion USC in their bowl game, validating why no one really made any kind of argument that any of the Pac 10 should have been represented this year. And the Big 10 went 7-1 in their bowl season, including wins from all three of the teams previously mentioned. SEC had a 4-5 losing record.
I'm just sayin', conference championships are supposed to matter, and in my opinion, they should. Ohio State got robbed.
Why should they matter? Because they are defacto a fair and equitable playoff in and of themselves, where the champion fairly "won".
-
More alcohol is not going to do you already damaged liver any favors. You need a better therapist.
As for who should get in all that...there's a problem if you make it automatic for conference champs. Say we get a year when Texas A&M goes 12-0 and wins the West and Tennessee wins the East with an 8-4 record. By some stroke of the Jimbo, UT returns a pick six in the closing minutes and wins the SEC CG. Now we have a 9-4 team in a field of 12-1, 13-0 playoff teams. You just handed someone an easier game in the first round.
Side note, that's exactly what happened this year. When Bama was lined up against Clemson, it gave them the best chance to make it to a "historic sixth appearance in the BCS/CFP era" title game because they knew the opponent so well. At least Georgia (I hate a Dawg!) had to go out west and solve the riddle of Baker Mayfield.
Is it wrong to root for a meteor shower in Atlanta Monday?
Tennessee getting in for winning the SEC-CG on a last minute pick six would bother me a metric ton less than Bama being picked “just cause Bamaâ€
Truth told I’d embrace it.
-
Tennessee getting in for winning the SEC-CG on a last minute pick six would bother me a metric ton less than Bama being picked “just cause Bamaâ€
Truth told I’d embrace it.
Exactly. I understand the mentality of "I don't PERCEIVE them to be the toughest team possible to put in the playoff", but I don't think that's the best and fairest way to choose a champion. If you win your conference, I don't care how you do it, you proved on the field you were the superior team when it mattered, as UGA proved against us this year, unfortunately.
-
Exactly. I understand the mentality of "I don't PERCEIVE them to be the toughest team possible to put in the playoff", but I don't think that's the best and fairest way to choose a champion. If you win your conference, I don't care how you do it, you proved on the field you were the superior team when it mattered, as UGA proved against us this year, unfortunately.
Yep. It’s either a playoff and conference titles trump not being in the conference title game or it’s just a popularity contest and the title games should be abolished. Having the opportunity to be “national champion†without even winning your division, much less the conference is outrageous. No other team would get that preferential treatment other than Bama. If our only loss was to UA and they’d lost to Georgia in the SEC CG do you think we’d have gotten a playoff sniff?
For us, the title game was a disqualifier. Without title games it would have been us, Clemson, Okie and Wisconsin.
If you have a chance to play in the title game I’d say just decline the invite to play in the title game since it can only hurt you.
-
If you have a chance to play in the title game I’d say just decline the invite to play in the title game since it can only hurt you.
I get what you are saying but it isn't entirely true. It helped UGA.
-
Exactly. I understand the mentality of "I don't PERCEIVE them to be the toughest team possible to put in the playoff", but I don't think that's the best and fairest way to choose a champion. If you win your conference, I don't care how you do it, you proved on the field you were the superior team when it mattered, as UGA proved against us this year, unfortunately.
The hypothetical was, what if an 8-4 Tennessee team has everything go their way on that particular day and they squeak out a win against a 12-0 team? By your scenario, the previous 12 games mean nothing. And as far as Georgia proving it....which game did they prove it in? Oh, and Fuck Georgia!
-
The hypothetical was, what if an 8-4 Tennessee team has everything go their way on that particular day and they squeak out a win against a 12-0 team? By your scenario, the previous 12 games mean nothing. And as far as Georgia proving it....which game did they prove it in? Oh, and Fuck Georgia!
If that 8-4 Tennessee team had the best record in their division, the previous 12 games absolutely meant something. It's how they were able to get there.
You're too married to this subjective idea of the "best" team to see why merit should be more important and is actually more fair and equitable.
-
If that 8-4 Tennessee team had the best record in their division, the previous 12 games absolutely meant something. It's how they were able to get there.
You're too married to this subjective idea of the "best" team to see why merit should be more important and is actually more fair and equitable.
This is not who I thought he was married to.
Maybe I’ve been trying to hide things all of this time for no reason.
-
Shut the fuck up.
Also, UCF had as many quality wins as Bama did this year both before the New Years Six bowl and today.
UCF had a weaker strength of schedule than Alabama. You can argue that all you want, but you would be wrong. Obviously they're a good team. There's no arguing that. I simply believe that had they played an SEC schedule, they wouldn't have been undefeated. While they beat Auburn, I don't believe that they are really the better team of the two. Just because you play a weak schedule, or maybe you have some losses but won the championship game in your conference, doesn't mean you automatically belong in the playoffs in my opinion. Why do the games before that not count?
-
I get what you are saying but it isn't entirely true. It helped UGA.
Only because they weren't in without it. Auburn was.
So fuck Georgia.
-
If that 8-4 Tennessee team had the best record in their division, the previous 12 games absolutely meant something. It's how they were able to get there.
You're too married to this subjective idea of the "best" team to see why merit should be more important and is actually more fair and equitable.
So, if nobody in that division were above .500 and they finished 8-4, is your argument the same?
-
So, if nobody in that division were above .500 and they finished 8-4, is your argument the same?
Would mean that division has string parity.
-
Would mean that division has string parity.
Would mean you and me need to do a bong hit or two to hash this theory out. :thumsup:
-
Would mean that division has string parity.
I’ve got a string thong.
How silly of me, you’ve seen it numerous times.
-
*Strong parity
Autocorrect is an asshole.
-
*Strong parity
Autocorrect is an asshole.
My previous post stands.
-
*Strong parity
Autocorrect is an asshole.
You were thinking about my thong, weren’t you?
-
I'm with Snags on the 12-0 thing vs 8-4 anyone can rise up on a particular day and beat anyone else, sometimes you just have a bad game.
What if I said Auburn were to go 12-0 in the SEC and an 8-4 team got into the playoffs because they beat us in the title game your head would explode....my head would explode. Everyone is upset because it's bama. I'm upset because it's bama and it is bullshit and fucked up. But call a spade a spade. This really wasn't surprising Ohio State got in last year after Penn State won the Conf. Championship. There is no argument to decided if Wisconsin is more deserving, or Ohio State than bama.
You guys don't realize that it has always been a popularity contest.
-
It's always been a popularity contest. And it's why D1 football has often crowned a team when another (or several) were just as deserving. But whatever. Going to see The Disaster Artist tonight and ignore all forms of information about this game.
-
I still haven't gotten past last year.
We lost to the worst Georgia team I've seen in fifty years. FIFTY!
And they beat us again and made it to the NCG. Sickening.
-
I still haven't gotten past last year.
We lost to the worst Georgia team I've seen in fifty years. FIFTY!
And they beat us again and made it to the NCG. Sickening.
Macho Grande is hard for all of us.
-
Macho Grande is hard for all of us.
I'll never get over Macho Grande
-
Listen Betty, don't start up with your white zone shit again.
-
I'm with Snags on the 12-0 thing vs 8-4 anyone can rise up on a particular day and beat anyone else, sometimes you just have a bad game.
What if I said Auburn were to go 12-0 in the SEC and an 8-4 team got into the playoffs because they beat us in the title game your head would explode....my head would explode. Everyone is upset because it's bama. I'm upset because it's bama and it is bullshit and fucked up. But call a spade a spade. This really wasn't surprising Ohio State got in last year after Penn State won the Conf. Championship. There is no argument to decided if Wisconsin is more deserving, or Ohio State than bama.
You guys don't realize that it has always been a popularity contest.
I honestly don't see why "winning your conference means you're the best team in the conference" or "if you're not the best team in your conference, then you're not the best team in the country", in isolation or combined, are controversial statements.
I realize it has always been a popularity contest. I'm saying it shouldn't be. That was the stated goal of moving to a playoff, but then they got MORE subjective in placing the teams instead of less.
It works in the NFL and it works in NCAA basketball, and baseball and everything else, but for some reason everyone's stuck on this idea of "No, no, it has to be who we feeeeeel is the better team, not who actually proves it on the field". It's bullshit, always has been, and continues to be.
It was bullshit Ohio State got in over Penn State last year, and it's bullshit Ohio State got left out this year. Has nothing to do with whether or not I like the school, obviously, since from year to year the same team both was the fuck-er and the fuck-ee. Not sure what "There is no argument to decided if Wisconsin is more deserving, or Ohio State than bama" means, but if you're saying there's no valid argument that Ohio State deserves it more than Bama, I disagree and it is that they W-O-N--T-H-E-I-R--C-O-N-F-E-R-E-N-C-E.
-
I honestly don't see why "winning your conference means you're the best team in the conference" or "if you're not the best team in your conference, then you're not the best team in the country", in isolation or combined, are controversial statements.
I realize it has always been a popularity contest. I'm saying it shouldn't be. That was the stated goal of moving to a playoff, but then they got MORE subjective in placing the two teams instead of less.
It works in the NFL and it works in NCAA basketball, and baseball and everything else, but for some reason everyone's stuck on this idea of "No, no, it has to be who we feeeeeel is the better team, not who actually proves it on the field". It's bullshit, always has been, and continues to be.
It was bullshit Ohio State got in over Penn State last year, and it's bullshit Ohio State got left out this year. Has nothing to do with whether or not I like the school, obviously, since from year to year the same team both was the fuck-er and the fuck-ee. Not sure what "There is no argument to decided if Wisconsin is more deserving, or Ohio State than bama" means, but if you're saying there's no valid argument that Ohio State deserves it more than Bama, I disagree and it is that they W-O-N--T-H-E-I-R--C-O-N-F-E-R-E-N-C-E.
How does Ohio state winning that shit conference have anything to do with who did or didn't win the sec? I don't care what that Conf did during bowl season. Bowls are such a crap shoot now.
We know good and well bama would have most likely beat every team in that conference during the season. They certainly would not have gotten skull fucked by Iowa and Oklahoma. Put Ohio state in the sec west and you most likely aren't even discussing them.
Lot of teams win conferences. Very different conferences. Why do we act like conference winners are all equal? It's not apples to apples. Yes NCAA BB does it and so does the NFL but they also have at large/wildcard entries to eliminate all doubt hence the "power 5 winners plus 3 wild cards" 8 team idea I tend to side with.
Winning the Conf is one aspect. It isn't the end all be all. Sorry but the eye test and quality matter. In this instance getting skull fucked twice during the regular season trumps them winning the conference.
-
How does Ohio state winning that shit conference have anything to do with who did or didn't win the sec? I don't care what that Conf did during bowl season. Bowls are such a crap shoot now.
We know good and well bama would have most likely beat every team in that conference during the season. They certainly would not have gotten skull fucked by Iowa and Oklahoma. Put Ohio state in the sec west and you most likely aren't even discussing them.
Lot of teams win conferences. Very different conferences. Why do we act like conference winners are all equal? It's not apples to apples. Yes NCAA BB does it and so does the NFL but they also have at large/wildcard entries to eliminate all doubt hence the "power 5 winners plus 3 wild cards" 8 team idea I tend to side with.
Winning the Conf is one aspect. It isn't the end all be all. Sorry but the eye test and quality matter. In this instance getting skull fucked twice during the regular season trumps them winning the conference.
All of this, every word of it, is subjective. You feeeeel like Ohio State wouldn't be able to beat Bama head-to-head. You feeeeel like they would have lost half their games in the SEC. You feeeeel like the Big 10 is a "shit conference".
What is objective FACT is that they won their conference. And that their conference dominated bowl season, even if you don't feeeeel like that should count for anything.
I also like how out of one corner of y'all's mouths, "Hey, everybody has bad days, even if they did beat Bama on the field, doesn't mean Bama's not better. If an 8-4 team from the east beats a 12-0 team from the west, doesn't mean they're better, they just had a better day." but at the same time that logic simply CANNOT be applied to Ohio State's bad Iowa loss. But it's fine for Oklahoma vs. Iowa State and Clemson vs. Syracuse and for that matter Georgia & Bama vs. us.
-
All of this, every word of it, is subjective. You feeeeel like Ohio State wouldn't be able to beat Bama head-to-head. You feeeeel like they would have lost half their games in the SEC. You feeeeel like the Big 10 is a "shit conference".
What is objective FACT is that they won their conference. And that their conference dominated bowl season, even if you don't feeeeel like that should count for anything.
I also like how out of one corner of y'all's mouths, "Hey, everybody has bad days, even if they did beat Bama on the field, doesn't mean Bama's not better. If an 8-4 team from the east beats a 12-0 team from the west, doesn't mean they're better, they just had a better day." but at the same time that logic simply CANNOT be applied to Ohio State's bad Iowa loss. But it's fine for Oklahoma vs. Iowa State and Clemson vs. Syracuse and for that matter Georgia & Bama vs. us.
I feel like you are preaching to the choir. I mean I get all of that... the system is fucked up.
But you are telling me that you fully support a team that goes 8-4 and wins the SEC championship should be in over a 12-0 team from the opposite division? I don't... that is all I'm saying.
Again I just think they need to do away with the championship games because they don't mean anything.
-
All of this, every word of it, is subjective. You feeeeel like Ohio State wouldn't be able to beat Bama head-to-head. You feeeeel like they would have lost half their games in the SEC. You feeeeel like the Big 10 is a "shit conference".
Subjectivity is what you get when you leave it to a bunch of people with biases and agendas. Even if they have neither, you're still leaving it to a room full of people. I said when the CFP model was introduced that it would solve nothing, and would only increase the instances of non conference champions and rematches in the playoffs. I don't know why everyone is surprised that we are worse off than we were with the BCS model. Everyone threw the baby out with the bathwater because they were so upset about The Rematch. In reality, the BCS simply needed to be supplemented, not replaced.
What is objective FACT is that they won their conference. And that their conference dominated bowl season, even if you don't feeeeel like that should count for anything.
I don't think that anyone disagrees that conference championships should mean something. They just shouldn't mean everything. They should be part of the whole body of work. tOSU is a good example. Yes, they won their conference. But they also got hammered by 31 points to an unranked Iowa team. Why doesn't that mean anything? They also had a loss to Oklahoma. That stings quite a bit less than the Iowa loss, but that's two losses nonetheless.
I also like how out of one corner of y'all's mouths, "Hey, everybody has bad days, even if they did beat Bama on the field, doesn't mean Bama's not better. If an 8-4 team from the east beats a 12-0 team from the west, doesn't mean they're better, they just had a better day." but at the same time that logic simply CANNOT be applied to Ohio State's bad Iowa loss. But it's fine for Oklahoma vs. Iowa State and Clemson vs. Syracuse and for that matter Georgia & Bama vs. us.
In a previous example, Snags gave a scenario of an 8-4 team getting a last second pick 6 in the conference championship game versus a 12-0 team. I would say a scenario like that qualifies as a bad day for the 12-0 team. Getting curb stomped by 31 points is getting curb stomped by 31 points. Oklahoma gave up the go ahead TD with 2 minutes left in the game to Iowa State. That's a bad day. And that was in week 5, which gave other teams plenty of time to lose, and for OU to move up. Clemson somewhat gets a pass as well, because you and I both know the only reason they lost (by 3 points) was because their starting QB got knocked out of the game in the first half.
Whether we like it or not, the earlier you lose, the better off you are if you're going to lose one. And as long as you have a room full of people deciding things, you're going to have subjectivity. The irony here is that if there had not been a SECCG, Auburn would have been in, and Alabama would have been out. Again, at this point, I think the SECCG is pointless.
-
I feel like you are preaching to the choir. I mean I get all of that... the system is fucked up.
But you are telling me that you fully support a team that goes 8-4 and wins the SEC championship should be in over a 12-0 team from the opposite division? I don't... that is all I'm saying.
Again I just think they need to do away with the championship games because they don't mean anything.
Yes. I believe you should win it on the field.
When I was coaching high school football we were 8-3 and played an 11-0 team. Some things went our way. We played the best game we played all year. And we knocked them off.
Guess we should have apologized and just let that other team advance.
-
All of this, every word of it, is subjective. You feeeeel like Ohio State wouldn't be able to beat Bama head-to-head. You feeeeel like they would have lost half their games in the SEC. You feeeeel like the Big 10 is a "shit conference".
What is objective FACT is that they won their conference. And that their conference dominated bowl season, even if you don't feeeeel like that should count for anything.
I also like how out of one corner of y'all's mouths, "Hey, everybody has bad days, even if they did beat Bama on the field, doesn't mean Bama's not better. If an 8-4 team from the east beats a 12-0 team from the west, doesn't mean they're better, they just had a better day." but at the same time that logic simply CANNOT be applied to Ohio State's bad Iowa loss. But it's fine for Oklahoma vs. Iowa State and Clemson vs. Syracuse and for that matter Georgia & Bama vs. us.
At the end of the day everything is a feeling. You FEEL they are better due to the conf win. I FEEL they aren't. Its what the hell a poll is. Its what this committee is. Its what the NCAA BB committee is. I get you don't like it, but that FEELING...that eye test is the root of it all. The only sports that don't have that are pro leagues where playoffs are determined. We either fully have to go to that style or there will always be a human eye test element.
-
I'm trying to tone down the profanity this year. But...
FUCK feelings. FUCK a committee. FUCK subjectivity.
The way it works in high school, in D2, in the NFL, in MLB, NHL, NBA.... You win your conference or division to make the playoffs or you win enough to make a wildcard. Then you handle it between the lines.
AHSAA football takes the top four teams in each Region and has a 64-team 'tournament. I've coached in a post-season where we went in as the top seed in the division and one where we went in as the number four -- barely scraped in. The season we won our division we played the fourth seed from another division. They had a losing record going in and we played half ass. Nearly lost. Made the semis the year we went in as a four seed. That's just the nature of it. The winner is the real champion, not some political appointee.
What college football does is utter horse shit.
Should the Giants give back their Super Bowl trophy? The Giants were 9-7 in 2011 and barely made the playoffs winning a loser-stays-home game on the last day of the season. They went 1-5 between November 13 and December 18. NY had the exact same record 9-7 in 2012 and didn't make the post-season.
They made the SuperBowl and beat the Patriots. Were they the "best team" that season? Did they pass the "eye test?" They probably should have been disqualified for that awful 49-29 loss to the New Orleans Saints. Or maybe because they lost twice to the 5-11 Redskins.
I don't want ANYBODY deciding who wins the league, wins the NC or earns the wildcard berths. The ONLY way to do it is to take the winners of the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, and ACC and add in the conference winner with the best record from the AA, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt and MA combined. That gets you six. The final two wildcard teams are the conference runner-ups with the best record from the first five.
Or something like that.
-
I'm trying to tone down the profanity this year. But...
FUCK feelings. FUCK a committee. FUCK subjectivity.
The way it works in high school, in D2, in the NFL, in MLB, NHL, NBA.... You win your conference or division to make the playoffs or you win enough to make a wildcard. Then you handle it between the lines.
AHSAA football takes the top four teams in each Region and has a 64-team 'tournament. I've coached in a post-season where we went in as the top seed in the division and one where we went in as the number four -- barely scraped in. The season we won our division we played the fourth seed from another division. They had a losing record going in and we played half ass. Nearly lost. Made the semis the year we went in as a four seed. That's just the nature of it. The winner is the real champion, not some political appointee.
What college football does is utter horse shit.
Should the Giants give back their Super Bowl trophy? The Giants were 9-7 in 2011 and barely made the playoffs winning a loser-stays-home game on the last day of the season. They went 1-5 between November 13 and December 18. NY had the exact same record 9-7 in 2012 and didn't make the post-season.
They made the SuperBowl and beat the Patriots. Were they the "best team" that season? Did they pass the "eye test?" They probably should have been disqualified for that awful 49-29 loss to the New Orleans Saints. Or maybe because they lost twice to the 5-11 Redskins.
I don't want ANYBODY deciding who wins the league, wins the NC or earns the wildcard berths. The ONLY way to do it is to take the winners of the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, and ACC and add in the conference winner with the best record from the AA, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt and MA combined. That gets you six. The final two wildcard teams are the conference runner-ups with the best record from the first five.
Or something like that.
^this^
-
^this^
Its like we added a LIKE button for only the smart people...
-
Its like we added a LIKE button for only the smart people...
The button triggers him to remember the election where his candidates lost.
-
Its like we added a LIKE button for only the smart people...
^^This.
-
I'm trying to tone down the profanity this year. But...
FUCK feelings. FUCK a committee. FUCK subjectivity.
The way it works in high school, in D2, in the NFL, in MLB, NHL, NBA.... You win your conference or division to make the playoffs or you win enough to make a wildcard. Then you handle it between the lines.
AHSAA football takes the top four teams in each Region and has a 64-team 'tournament. I've coached in a post-season where we went in as the top seed in the division and one where we went in as the number four -- barely scraped in. The season we won our division we played the fourth seed from another division. They had a losing record going in and we played half ass. Nearly lost. Made the semis the year we went in as a four seed. That's just the nature of it. The winner is the real champion, not some political appointee.
What college football does is utter horse shit.
Should the Giants give back their Super Bowl trophy? The Giants were 9-7 in 2011 and barely made the playoffs winning a loser-stays-home game on the last day of the season. They went 1-5 between November 13 and December 18. NY had the exact same record 9-7 in 2012 and didn't make the post-season.
They made the SuperBowl and beat the Patriots. Were they the "best team" that season? Did they pass the "eye test?" They probably should have been disqualified for that awful 49-29 loss to the New Orleans Saints. Or maybe because they lost twice to the 5-11 Redskins.
I don't want ANYBODY deciding who wins the league, wins the NC or earns the wildcard berths. The ONLY way to do it is to take the winners of the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, and ACC and add in the conference winner with the best record from the AA, CUSA, Mountain West, Sunbelt and MA combined. That gets you six. The final two wildcard teams are the conference runner-ups with the best record from the first five.
Or something like that.
It's like I say it, everyone disagrees, then you say it but angrier and get 5+ likes. I'm doing it wrong. But yes, exactly that.
-
It's like I say it, everyone disagrees, then you say it but angrier and get 5+ likes. I'm doing it wrong. But yes, exactly that.
I could get you 5 Likes in no time. But you are going to have to show me a lot more in your posting ability. And stop hanging out with Wes.
That isn’t going to get you anywhere , son.
-
Fuck Saban
Fuck Smart
Fuck bammer
Fuck Georgia
Who's next?
-
Fuck Saban
Fuck Smart
Fuck bammer
Fuck Georgia
Who's next?
Dan Mullen I think.
-
Mods, please remove the LIKE button and raise the warn meter of some of these disrespectful posters!
-
It's like I say it, everyone disagrees, then you say it but angrier and get 5+ likes. I'm doing it wrong. But yes, exactly that.
I don't think anybody disagreed with you.
And we're not comparing likes. I'm just more likeable. In fact, I'm darn near lovable. No reflection on you.