Jump to content

SwanderedTalent

Full Members
  • Posts

    6,421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SwanderedTalent

  1. 3 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

    Not just football, but of any of the major sports, pro or college.

    Counterpoint from others:  "OMG!  Expanding to 12, or Gaia forbid, 16 teams, just increases the risk that a stadium full of players and fans will be hit by a meteor.  Too much risk!"

     

    derp

  2. 54 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

    Maybe and maybe not, but all the bullshit that happened surrounding the bonfire game makes me apathetic about him.  

    I remember him referring to us as "t.u." one year when Bonfire was televised, maybe 92 or 93. I think he's a pretty typical Aggie, not in the ten percent of "Ah'd turn down chemotherapy if it came from a t.u. hospital!" type, but just generally a yokel dipshit. 

    All of which is beside the point of, it's pretty fucking aggy to talk shit to a cancer patient over his college allegiance. Who cares where he worked and what college team he continued to support after getting stankrammed by Mack Brown? I mean, I guess I'd see the irony if he were a former governor who'd vetoed funding for the hospital he ended up getting treated at, that sort of thing, but I doubt Slocum ever knew much about the University of Texas beyond "that's the only game these dipshits care about, I better win that 'n."

    • Hook 'Em 3
  3. 15 hours ago, utee94 said:

    All of this is also true of a 12-team field.

     

    Maybe. The perfect and entirely unrealistic solution would be to just let one person (me) pick the field every year and let that person (me) shape it depending on the year. So in 2005, we skip the playoff and go right to Texas-USC. In 2008, it's eight teams. 

    If you have to have a set number, four isn't enough. Just from personal experience, the cutoff between "qualified to compete" and "a total also ran" doesn't feel like it happens at 4/5. Sixteen (or, God forbid, more) is too many. The only problem I have with eight is that it doesn't give us enough headroom to get G5 represented (that's not much of a concern for me, personally, but other people seem to care that Central Florida et al not get left out). I'd be OK with 8. 

  4. 15 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

    So a 16-team playoff would make it the most exclusive playoff in the fucking sport, being surpassed by no league in that regard, and by that standard, you conclude it's...too inclusive? 

    yes, and if you go back and read my post without thinking "ooh I gotta play Smart Boy and disagree with this!" and leaping to write your response, the explanation of "why" is clearly stated.

    it is an opinion based on personal preference, it won't change

  5. 19 minutes ago, Randolph Duke said:

    I will bet money that if someone asked RC what his thoughts were at this exact moment, he would probably say:

    "Ah hope people that fuck their seckertaries don't go to hell"

  6. 3 hours ago, Big Frog II said:

    I really don't understand why 16 is unwieldy. 

    Unwieldy is not the right word for it, but college football has traditionally been a sport that tries to use the regular season to determine the top teams, and then in a completely illogical but occasionally lovable way, use the post-season to try to pick the best from those teams.

    Under that system, a lot of deserving teams got left out of proper consideration over the years, but we never had an 8-3 team invited to play for the national championship. 

    That's the problem with the 16-team field. It's too inclusive. If the pre-BCS was too random, and the BCS and four-team playoff excluded too many teams from consideration, a 16-team field (FUCK FCS/I-AA) includes too many teams who over the course of a dozen games already showed they weren't national championship caliber.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. 3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

     

    Limited upside guy IMO. likely would not have seen the field much with Omeire, Moore, Whittington, Worthy, Washington, and Dixon.

    yeah as soon as I saw this bumped, I knew what the news was

    wasn't everyone else expecting him to transfer? because from the start he seemed like a contributor level player at best and there was a disconnect between attitude and aptitude 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  8. 16 minutes ago, Harrison Bergeron said:

    The fun of college football is the history and regional rivalries. I'm sure Big 10 fans get really worked up playing Maryland just as the bubba's spend all year thinking about beating Misery. Kansas-Missouri literally the bloodiest rivalry in the country. 

    Bingo. For financial competition reasons, small geographically coherent conferences don't work within today's CFB model. But sharing a conference with a bunch of schools in your geographic footprint is a lot more interesting than playing schools 1500 miles away as a "conference" game.

    /enough realignment talk

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. On 6/18/2021 at 6:50 PM, Hurtlocker said:

    It came from this, someone went through to figure out top six champions, who got the bye, and who would have been in based off final week CFP rankings:

    so this is cool, but I am not sure I buy the premise that these rankings would have been the same had they been selecting for 12 instead of 4. It's a lot easier to tell Shithead State "aw, rats, you just missed it, you were fifth!" when it doesn't matter. When it means Shithead State gets to host a first round game in a 40,000 seat stadium in Bumfuck, Mississippi, it's a different question. 

    In the same way, it's a lot easier to say "we consider all comers, look who finished 10th and 11th!" when only four get in than it is to actually give those two shitbird programs spots in the playoff instead of a three-loss Michigan or USC team. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  10. On 6/20/2021 at 5:51 PM, Harrison Bergeron said:

    I would just re-jigger back to pre-2010

    the conference alignments weren't perfect in 2010 but they were certainly better

    Agreed w/whoever said a round-robin within a numerically logical conference size, applied across multiple conferences, makes the most sense. I said that in (sigh) the realignment thread too. 

  11. This could cross post on the Unpopular Opinions thread, but I'm one of three people on the Internet who loved Brent Musberger. Loved loved loved him. He called some of the biggest games I watched growing up and I always liked the way he set the stage for things. He never sounded bored setting up games that were likely blowouts so his energy when those games turned out to be huge thrilling upsets didn't feel faked. E.g., the 1996 Big 12 Championship Game. I get he's not most people's cup of tea. And that he's retired.

    Jackson was obviously in a league of his own.

    Nessler to me was way better 15 years ago. I think Sean McDonough has surpassed him. 

    Fowler is the fucking worst. He sounds like an announcer in a football movie, like he's scripted and played by someone who knows football announcing by watching tapes of announcers, not growing up with the sport. 

    Of all time, I agree w Augustus that Franklin and Gottfried were special. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  12. Shrug. I didn't think Tom Herman would lose his first game against Maryland, but there we found ourselves. 

    It's not unusual to get uneven results in year one after a regime change-- when it's a linear handoff a la Urban Meyer to Ryan Day or Bob Stoops to Lincoln Riley, that's one thing, but when you're making wholesale changes the way Sarkisian's staff surely is, improvement doesn't always manifest in the W-L record in year one. Even when it does, it can be uneven-- Stoops at OU, Tressel at Ohio State, Saban at Bama, etc. 

    7-5 wouldn't surprise me in the least. I'd be more surprised by 10-2. I think the most likely outcome is to walk away somewhat frustrated thinking the jury's still out on Sarkisian. I feel like we'll know conclusively during Year 2 if he's going to make it, unless Year 1 is some kind of insane outlier either way.

  13. Klatt is currently the best analyst. I thought Chris Spielman was extremely good at the same kind of analysis-- things like an OL tipping a play with his feet, or the why of when a specific approach is or isn't working. Any idiot can watch a team complete a dozen crossing patterns in a row and say "Ohio State continues to work the crossing patterns, Michigan has to do a better job of stopping them!" It takes a competent analyst to explain that, because Michigan is NOT telling its DBs "just run behind the receiver and let him catch the ball and then chase him til he gets tired", something they ARE telling them isn't working, and WHY it isn't working. What is it, and why is it. Klatt and Spielman are about the only two I can recall saying anything in the booth that a coaching staff would be interested in hearing. 

    Herbstreit is probably the worst. He is one hundred percent, literally one hundred percent, jargon without analysis. High-pointing the ball, athletes in space, hog mollies dominating on the offensive line, big hole in the A-gap, 11 personnel, it's entirely jargon to cover up the lack of insight. Which makes sense; Herbstreit played in a prehistoric Ohio State offense and took his last snap almost thirty years ago. His experience as a player doesn't shed any light on why 2021 football tactics work or don't work beyond the most basic stuff a la "that was a good block" and I guess he doesn't really work at learning it well enough to explain it.

    Gary Danielson is a fucking clown and almost unlistenable if the game affects the SEC's post-season outlook, because whatever the fuck it is, he will find a way to try to rhetorically turn it to the conference's advantage. It's rare to see a football play with perfect blocking, a perfect read by the QB, and a perfect throw to a receiver who ran a perfect route only to have it broken up by the perfect defensive technique of the DB, unless you're watching an SEC game on CBS and Danielson is on the call. The SEC is just that good, you see. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  14. and I wouldn't trade the other four decades for the 2000s, specifically 2005, which is the kind of magical season absolutely zero Aggies have any understanding of

    a magical season for A&M was "we beat Alabama and finished 2nd in our division!"

    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. 57 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

     

    fun facts, in the 1980s, Texas finished in the Top 5 twice (1981 and 1983). A&M, 0 times

    in the 1990s, Texas won its conference as many times as A&M did

    in the 2010s, Texas won more NY6 bowls (1 to 0) than A&M

    the fucking 2020s aren't over yet

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...