Jump to content

derpyhorndog

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by derpyhorndog

  1. 2 minutes ago, Huskyfan1997 said:

    Question: If UT is not able to bully around the offensive line of UW and Dillon Johnson runs for 100+ yards, what percentage chance do you give UT of winning?

    Only reason I'm asking is because I just rewatched the Michigan State game and Chris Simms said MSU told him going into that game that they felt they could bully us on the lines.  That is a recurring theme amongst all our opponents, no matter how bad they are (and MSU was awful).  They all think they will push around our lines.  35-0, Penix with 375 yards passing and 4 TD ... at halftime vs a Power 5 school.  MSU had to be one of the worst teams around and even they thought they could beat us in the trenches.  UW/Pac-12 line play must have the worst reputation nationwide.  

    Please don't take this a trash talking.  Just genuinely curious as to how big that assumption is to your confidence level in winning the game.  There is no doubt that it is very possible that UT could bully us in the trenches.  

    IMHO, if we don't get relatively consistent pressure, we're fucked. Defer to you as to whether that qualifies as "bullying."

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:


    Why is everyone so preoccupied with Oregon?

    At best, we are currently viewed as a toss up with them in the eyes of the committee. If they add a win against Washington, that will clearly put them ahead. If they don’t, then they’ll fall out of the picture. Just seems like wasted energy worrying about them.

    If Ducks and Tide both win next week, our resume will remain objectively better than the Ducks’ going into selection. With one lone exception, the “eye test,” which we also have another opportunity to bridge the gap on next week. 

    Directly to your question, we’re preoccupied because we’re fucking running out of clear options (e.g., FSU loss), and this is one of the few even remotely left on the table. And because we’re discussing theoreticals are discussed for entertainment…one of the primary purposes of sports message boards. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  3. 3 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

    How? Get beat twice by the same team? Most of the shows I’ve watched today admitted that path would work. It’s hard to justify putting in a two loss team. Especially when there are only four spots. I get the argument you are making but if it shakes out as FSU undefeated, Georgia undefeated and Michigan undefeated and Washington undefeated. We don’t get in. Obviously we need FSU to also lose and I think that’s it combined with Huskies winning out. Would leave Oregon and Ohio state out in the cold and we win out and snake that last spot. 

    I hope for your sake you’ve been drinking tonight. Wash/Oregon are fighting over one seat in tbh CFP. Deduce the rest.  

  4. Just now, Coelenterate Fuccboi said:

    Ducks are already ahead. The committee has made up their mind up to this point. If Texas and Oregon both win, it just solidifies their ranking because they beat an undefeated team and Texas beat…. OSU.

    They were ahead based on eye test. You’re ignoring the consequences of this week. We just got “eye test points” by beating down Tech, as well as “common opponent points.” Their Utah win has also lost all of its luster. While no certainty they make the right call, this all very much sets up the committee to reevaluate and put us in front of Oregon in this week’s rankings. 

    • Like 1
  5. Hopefully this is clarified in the final language of the “restatement of intent,” but I read some ambiguity in the following language of McMurphy’s tweet: “if multiple Big 12 teams are tied & 1 team holds wins vs. other teams in tiebreaker, then that team wins tiebreaker”


    Everyone in this thread seems to be assuming that is making the changes to avoid the illogical OSU leave-out in the three way tie scenario with OU and KSU. That is, the bolded language above would be more clearly stated as “vs. all other teams in tiebreaker, after accounting for (excluding) any team in tiebreaker that was selected for the CCG under earlier application of the tiebreaker rules.” Also meaning that, in the four-way-tie scenario with UT, OSU, OU and KSU, the first team would still be selected by the Step 2 rule (since UT has not played OSU), and Step 1 would kick in afterwards to determine the second team only if UT were the somehow the first team selected — since only then would one team (OSU) have played every team then remaining in tiebreak.    

    The ambiguity I see in the McMurphy language is that it could be read to mean that the Step 1 rule applies if any tiebreaker team holds wins over other teams (but not necessarily all other teams) in tiebreaker. If that’s the case, I would read it to mean Step 1 would apply from the jump even in the four-way-tie scenario with UT, OSU, OU and KSU. That is, in Step 1, OSU is the first team selected since it is the only one that survives H2H knockouts: UT is knocked out by OU, and OU/KSU are knocked out by OSU. Then the second team is selected out of UT, OU and KSU by running it back to the top — in Step 1 this round, since OU and KSU didn’t play one another, the only team knocked out is UT (by OU). So OU and KSU then go on to determine their tiebreak under Step 2. 

    Welcome anyone sanity checking me on that ambiguity/read. And to be clear, I doubt that’s where this should or will land. It would be illogical if the intent of the “restatement of intent” is to have H2Hs play out that way. Not to mention the fact that it would indisputably be a drastic change to the rules amounting to “Step 1 always applies, even if just partially.” But at this point nothing the B12 does surprises me. 

  6. Michigan is not fighting this to such an absurdly aggressive degree because they care about the suspension. It’s a nothingburger.

    They’re fighting it as a shot across the bow at the NCAA. UM knows the NCAA has the dirt (and may soon find more) to bring down the hammer, and they‘re trying to send the message: “if we move hell and earth to fight a B10 suspension, imagine what we would do to fight real punishment.”

    They know the NCAA shits down its leg at the thought of being drug into federal court for a case that would scrutinize the scope/power of the NCAA’s authority. 

×
×
  • Create New...