BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
Funny how they all seem to forget that salient point...
CFP Bracket…
- Thread starter Sangria Wine
- Start date
HG73
Active Member
Don't forget the 8 game schedule.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
What does ESPN/ABC/Disney care? They own their media rights, thus they control the money. SEC doesn't do a damned thing except what ESPN tells them to do.
NewFrogFan
Full Member
This has to change.
So Alabama (or Ole Miss/South Carolina) being in and SMU out, and Boise not getting a first round bye would be less laughable?
I'm really struggling with this "the committee is in the pocket of the SEC and blue bloods" thing. I'm convinced an outcome doesn't exist in which people don't [ hundin] and complain. They made several seeding decisions that went against that narrative today, and people still can't accept it.
You guys are something else. How would you have ranked the teams, BrewingFrog? Let's see it. 1-12.
BrewingFrog
Was I supposed to type something here?
SMU in over Bama is a no-brainer. ESPN schmoes get three full weeks of arguments on their "talk shows" and reap the benefits of Media Controversy. It's a win-win!
The issue to me is the teams selected by ESPN to have first round home games: All Big Programs. All with giant stadiums. All with essentially sacrificial lambs for the colorful and picturesque Media slaughter that first weekend. Then, ESPN gets to trumpet how "successful" the first round games were, and how "the Committee got it right" as nauseam...
It makes even Old Cynical Me want to puke. I hate ESPN.
The issue to me is the teams selected by ESPN to have first round home games: All Big Programs. All with giant stadiums. All with essentially sacrificial lambs for the colorful and picturesque Media slaughter that first weekend. Then, ESPN gets to trumpet how "successful" the first round games were, and how "the Committee got it right" as nauseam...
It makes even Old Cynical Me want to puke. I hate ESPN.
lol.
How would you have ranked them? You’ll have to get pretty creative to give SMU and Indiana first round home games.
For gods sake, Boise and ASU got 1st round byes.
The Bad Guy
Active Member
I hate SMU but I feel like they were being treated like TCU in 2014. I don't want to see blue bloods get the win over that last spot.
Georgia was firing on all cylinders that night, they would have blown out a lot of good teams.
Mean Purple
Active Member
They won’t go to an even set. Same reason they would not go to 8. They want to protect some folks with a bye.
Ohio State had em beat 9 days earlier until the very end.
PineyWoodsFrog
Active Member
I particularly am not a fan of people sitting a hotel conference room and deciding who should play in the playoffs. I saw in year 1 how much of a mess this was always going to be, whether it was 4 teams, 8 teams, 12 teams, etc.
That being said, I'm glad to see the committee favor SMU over Alabama. I'm so sick of the SEC bias. I understand the talent level of the conference and how tough the conference is (mainly at the top and not necessarily as a whole), but they shouldn't get a pass for 3 losses, 2 of them which came to teams with a combined record of 12-12, just because they play a tough schedule. If you can beat Georgia and LSU, you should be able to beat Vandy and OU. You shouldn't get excused for those losses just bcuz of the conference you play in. The 4th best team in the SEC sat at home, not playing in their conference champ. game, and watched the 2nd best team in the ACC lost on a last-second field goal. There was no way they should have been in over SMU based on that, in my opinion. One of the main things I've hated about the committee over the years is that equal weight has not been applied to the teams you lose to vs. the teams you beat and I think who you lose to (Ohio State 2014) should matter just as much as who you beat. I'm glad to see the committee not give in to the pressure of "SEC" and hypothetical "who would in.
That being said, I'm glad to see the committee favor SMU over Alabama. I'm so sick of the SEC bias. I understand the talent level of the conference and how tough the conference is (mainly at the top and not necessarily as a whole), but they shouldn't get a pass for 3 losses, 2 of them which came to teams with a combined record of 12-12, just because they play a tough schedule. If you can beat Georgia and LSU, you should be able to beat Vandy and OU. You shouldn't get excused for those losses just bcuz of the conference you play in. The 4th best team in the SEC sat at home, not playing in their conference champ. game, and watched the 2nd best team in the ACC lost on a last-second field goal. There was no way they should have been in over SMU based on that, in my opinion. One of the main things I've hated about the committee over the years is that equal weight has not been applied to the teams you lose to vs. the teams you beat and I think who you lose to (Ohio State 2014) should matter just as much as who you beat. I'm glad to see the committee not give in to the pressure of "SEC" and hypothetical "who would in.
cdsfrog
Active Member
yep their defense was not elite, our offense just was awful and we no answer for Bowers. We played like we knew we had no chance. Entire team in all phases did very poorly.
cdsfrog
Active Member
Getting whipped 35-13 or something similar like ND vs Bama would be fine. We played our worst game all year. And it basically discredited decades of hard work to repair our program from the joke it was until the mid 90s.
TooColdU
Active Member
TooColdU
Active Member
5-seed with 0 ranked wins. Smh. And Nobody even questioned their position.
Before Wex swoopes in, yes I do think Bama had a legitimate argument over SMU with regards to ranked wins...but that's not the only factor that should go into it
Mean Purple
Active Member
So they have the ND coach on. His camera is using some filter and he looks like a computer animation.
I'm gonna disagree with you here a bit (imagine that, lol) but I think who you've beaten should carry a little more weight. Just because all the teams in the playoffs are good, you should at least have proven that you can beat good teams. There are situations where really good teams come out totally flat and not ready to play against somebody they should absolutely beat handily and get knocked off. Should they get penalized for that? Absolutely...and they do. But I thinking proving you can beat very good teams is more indicative of how "good" a team is if that makes sense.
In other words, I'll turn it around on you. If SMU can't beat Clemson or BYU, why should we expect SMU to be able to beat playoff teams? SMU hasn't beaten a team that is remotely close to playoff team caliber.
I'm just swooping in to say that according to some people's logic, Texas had four wins over ranked teams, all on the road or at neutral sites. And SMU lost to an unranked team.
LOL. Yeah, I think that's ridiculous too.
bmoney214
OUCH!!!
I was thinking the same thing looking at his hair, that had to be some kind of filter. His hairline was perfectly straight. Didn't look natural at all.
