Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    10770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

15276 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. according to the above the cops gave her phone and keys to a random "friend" of hers to do god knows what with.
  2. You managed to find someone worse than my next guess
  3. It wouldn't surprise me, but at the same time, how the fuck could detectives just accept a bunch of potential co-conspirators' stories at face value without some kind of independent proof that no foul play was involved? There's more on reddit: If any of this is true that's some incredibly shoddy police work and they have every right to be incensed
  4. APD is pretty bad at investigating foul play
  5. If Florida is Rosie O'Donnell who the hell is Florida State?
  6. I thought for sure the Boerne landfill was going to turn something up
  7. It's not do or die but there are still playoff stakes. Byes, home field, all of which could be highly consequential depending on who you're playing and who you get to avoid. It might seem unfair, but as I've been saying about the CFP committee, if the question is "who is the best" why should evidence that comes from a conference championship game be ignored? For example, what happens if Virginia beats Duke in a very unimpressive way, and their best guys all get injured in the process. In that case, why should Virginia get an automatic qualification? When the dust settles, maybe the five "best" conference champions are from the SEC, B1G, Big XII, and two G5 conferences. Virginia could cry "that's not fair, we would have been better off if we didn't play in the conference championship game" And the correct response to Virginia would be, the committee's job isn't to reward teams for winning, it's to select the "best" teams to ensure that the CFP has the best participants and is as competitive as possible. If Virginia shows us that it is not one of the five "best" conference champions and that it is not one of the seven "best" at large teams, I don't particularly care or have much sympathy for the fact that we wouldn't have known about Virginia's lack of merit if it hadn't been for that last game against Duke. The committee knows now, and its job is to select the "best" and not the most "deserving." On the flip side, I believe we exposed Texas A&M, and they might actually be benefiting from avoiding another chance to be exposed. Is anyone crying, "that's not fair, Texas A&M would have a lower seed if they had to face Alabama in Atlanta" or anything along those lines? The same can be said about Oregon and Ole Miss. The correct response is that the committee's job isn't to punish teams for failing to qualify for a conference championship game; it's to select the "best" teams to ensure that the CFP has the best participants and is as competitive as possible. Texas A&M showed us that it is one of the seven "best" at large teams. We can speculate that some team it hasn't played yet is likely to have exposed them as frauds, but that kind of speculation is no substitute for evidence. Right now the best evidence that Texas A&M is a fraud came from Notre Dame (got unlucky and lost at home), South Carolina (self explanatory), and Texas (27-17). These kinds of speculative arguments can be made in favor of and against basically any team in the field. If you are selecting the "best" then you ask who is playing the best football right now and who is likely to play that level of football in the playoffs. That is why Texas A&M should go down in the rankings (it's also "fair" because they just lost), it is why Ole Miss should also go down (Kiffin gone, so while it might not feel "fair" it would be a logical conclusion that they won't be able to play as well), and it is why Oklahoma's narrow win over LSU should give the committee strong reason to reconsider if it really is a top ten team. All I ask for is a fair process for determining who the best teams are, even if that fair process leads to outcomes that feel unfair because they punish teams for making (and losing) CCGs or for having their coaches poached away. It is more important that the best teams be selected than it is for the most deserving teams or the teams with the best records not to be excluded.
  8. But is that actually a good way to choose the best at large teams? By simply ignoring recent evidence that the losing team might not actually be any good?
  9. To be fair: making the IST, having the record they have, and doing it without their top players for most of the season, is still exceeding expectations by a lot. He's by no means a perfect coach, but he's doing something right. It's just frustrating to know how much better they would be if they could fix these fixable things.
  10. This is kind of what Ohio State, Oregon, and Tennessee benefited from last season. It's unavoidable. CCG is high risk and high reward. If you're from a good conference, most of the time you should be good enough that even if you lose you won't drop out of the playoff. However, if you underperform in such a game while being a bubble team? Why should the committee ignore that? Surely there is precedent in the men's basketball tourney where a bubble team shits the bed in their conference tourney and gets left out for that reason. It makes less sense to ignore on-field evidence of a team's quality than it would to "punish" a team who makes a CCG for demonstrating that they are not one of the ten/twelve/whatever "best" at large teams.
  11. But it's still possible for, say, Indiana to lose so badly that it can't be called a top four team anymore and to lose the bye for that reason. As long as that's true, then you can be "punished" for something that happens in a CCG, and I have no problem with that.
  12. In theory the committee's rankings are supposed to be blind to the qualification consequences. If you lose big and can fall out of the top four, it should also be possible to lose big and fall out of the top ten.
×
×
  • Create New...