bullet
-
Posts
3184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by bullet
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rickylovesweed said:
So let me get this right?
Bama would jump from #8 over #4 Florida State after they beat a top 15 team? That would be so fucking stupid.
Well in 2014, TCU fell from #3 to #6 after winning a game 55-3.
- 2
-
17 minutes ago, TxTower said:
My prediction -
1. Michigan
2. Washington
3. Texas
4. Alabama
Those are the best four teams period.Well I would put UGA in and UW out for best 4, but I'm 100% sure Washington will be in the top 4 in the CFP rankings and 95% sure UGA will not be in the top 4.
- 1
-
19 minutes ago, Big Frog II said:
1. Michigan
2. Washington
3. Texas
$. FSU
I think this will be it. They will want Michigan to get the easiest opponent.
-
MWC/OSU/WSU scheduling agreement is official. They are apparently also discussing other sports. Washington St. will play 8 games against MWC schools next year, more than any MWC member!
Its a one year deal for now.
-
2 hours ago, chemHORN said:
The same can be said for the PAC12 in my opinion. A few were ranked high to start the season. Nobody in the Pac 12 played anybody in OOC play and they won all of them giving way more of them lofty rankings than deserved. (Oregon Beat Tech by 1 score and probably should've lost that game). Then they just played each other with those lofty rankings and made it look like they were good. I said it earlier in this thread but I think we will find out in the playoff that the Pac12 were frauds this year.
Edit: Utah barely slid by a bad Baylor team too.
Well they beat teams like TCU, Baylor, Wisconsin, etc. that weren't nearly as good as they were expected to be. Not sure Oregon's win over Tech isn't their best ooc win.
-
3 hours ago, Codaxx said:
Didnt Florida beat an undefeated FSU team to a win title in a rematch game, where FSU had to play their back-up QB.. Thinking maybe in the 90s?
You aren't from around here, are you? It was called Roll left.
-
34 minutes ago, MuellerHorn said:
My disagreement rests with the Oregon argument. I understand an undefeated UW is a 100% lock over Texas; but how is Oregon, as Pac-12 champion, not a lock over Texas? They've already been ranked ahead of Texas week after week and their title game win would be drastically better than Texas'.
I guess he argues that 1 in a million chance is better than 0 in a million. Its kind of irrelevant.
- 1
-
5 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:
RC is not on the committee
Jesus just use the Intergoogles
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/selectioncommittee/roster
I did. My mistake was that I used Wikipedia which listed him even though his term is expired.
-
Committee paid off ESPN with a play-in game on Friday night.
-
Someone mentioned the committee:
Big 10 3 members
ACC 2
SEC 1
Pac 12 1
Big 12 1
MWC 1
AAC 1
Other 2 (Journalist and Virginia Union)
RC Slocum-interim AD at ASU, Aggie coach, not sure where you slot him. Half SEC, half Pac 12?
-
8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:
ohio state is out after next week no need to discuss them, really because if we win they can't make it.
Even Herbstreit said the only way they get in is if FSU and Texas both lose.
-
7 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:
I guess resume does not matter Rece addressed all the numbers in which Texas is better and the response was we look at everything. What of everything when it comes to numbers is Oregon better?
Icandoanything.gif
Oregon played a lot of weak teams and beat them by big margins.
- 1
-
13 minutes ago, dcar00 said:
Bo Nix and they think the Pac 12 is some juggernaut. need to look at the committee makeup
There has traditionally been a lot of people with Pac and Big 10 ties. And UW and OR are future Big 10 schools.
-
21 minutes ago, WBT said:
Ohio st loses their 1 game season and sits at 6. Cool cool.
We'll pass them with a win. They are not an issue. Oregon is.
- 2
-
26 minutes ago, ITHorn said:
I have a feeling we may be in for some good news here.. no logic just vibes
Bad vibes Committee loves Oregon. Or they have just decided to put the Pac 12 in during their final year. UW-OR winner is in the playoffs. So that game doesn't matter to us, no matter how big a win we get on Saturday. We need Iowa or Louisville to win. We should stay ahead of Alabama if they win, but that's not certain.
-
1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:
Yeah they should call themselves the Wildcats, Cougars, Bears, Bulldogs or Tigers. We could always use more of those in FBS football.
Well if they changed to the Owls, they might have a shot at the AAC!
BTW, CUSA made the announcement official. Delaware joins in 2025.
- 1
-
Pac 2 not going away just yet. OSU/WSU about to finalize a scheduling alliance with the MWC, paying them $14 million to drop to 7 conference games and schedule one with OSU/WSU. Because they keep existing ooc games, Washington St. will play 8 MWC games next year while MWC members will only play 7!
Seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to pretend to be in a power conference. They should have been talking to people instead of suing. Don't think anyone would begrudge them power CFP money for 2 years. And at least from public statements, it seems like the dispute with the 10 Pac is current year revenues, which the WSU president previously said HAD to be distributed ratably.
-
-
2 minutes ago, Texasborn91 said:
Injuries are part of it. Nobody gives 2 Fucks about that.
Except of course the committee talks about how it is a factor, whether you do or not.
Just now, Dahobbs said:Again, if you look at the SOS, TCU's was in the 50s (Sagarin). The other champs that made it in were all in the 20s or higher. That's a pretty justifiable reason when comparing teams with the same record and each conference champs. Who cares what the polls had? Who cares what the playoff ratings were the week before? Why should those things matter?
So the playoff ratings should be random from week to week?
-
Just now, Dahobbs said:
I don't think you're reading your own post. Those records suggest that the seeding has been accurate. The overall winning percentage follows the seeding.
Again, what decisions from the committee can't be justified?
I guess you don't do math. The #1 has only won 3 out of 9 years and those were overwhelming teams. The #4 has won 2 out of 9. Seeding has been pretty poor. When Alvarez and Osborne were on the committee, #1 seed never won.
-
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:
TCU was almost certainly kept out in 2014 because of SOS. It had by the lowest of the conference champs.
They were kept out because Ohio St. had name brand and Wisconsin forgot to show up for the Big 10 ccg. TCU was sitting in 3rd, won 55-3 over Iowa St. and got jumped by both FSU and Ohio St.
-
8 minutes ago, dcar00 said:
yeah, I know all the excuses. the score is the score. They didn't roll a 6-5 Tech team.
Take the top 3 receivers off any other team and see what happens.
-
2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:
I'm not sure how to do it easily but it would be interesting to see how SOS looked for these teams and the 2 or 3 below them.
the committee does value conf championships because coaches value a trophy, they value losses/wins because each game is like a little trophy.
what they have proven time and time again they don't value is SOS(computers) because coaches love to say you can only play who is on the schedule. AD's on the committee don't punish cheesy OOC because they want to schedule auto wins.
Their reasoning varies week to week. You can't justify some of their decisions. Maybe they just outsource their decisions to 247. Who has the best recruiting class, tempered by the number of wins and losses.
The #1 team is only 10-6 and that's just because UGA, LSU and Alabama have been so dominant lately. #1 was 3-5 in the first 5 years. They've only won 3 of the 9 years. LSU in 2019 was the first #1 seed to win.
#2 started better, winning 3 of the first 5, but overall they are just 7-6.
#3 is 6-8 with Georgia being the only one who won it all.
#4 has won twice. They are 4-7 and have lost the last 5 years in the first round. Of course OU skews the stats. #4s other than OU are 4-4.
- 1
-
4 minutes ago, dcar00 said:
Georgia had a chance to roll Tech and couldn't do it.
Refs called 3 UGA TDs back and overruled a catch that would have lead to a 4th. There were a couple of replays that overturned really bad calls. Lead ref seemed really upset that those got overruled. Georgia had a starting OL and their top 3 receivers out. Kirby was just trying to stay healthy. Play calling was very vanilla. He wasn't going to show Alabama anything. It was still a 15 point lead until Tech scored with about 5 minutes left to make it 8.
THE College Football Playoff Rankings Thread [MICH,WASH,TEX,ALA]
in Football
Posted
Alabama was just hungrier.
And it was only 27-24. UGA did have their top 2 receivers (and difference makers) limping on the field and their #3 receiver out as well as a starting offensive lineman. But UGA knows they are out. Kirby is just doing his coach speak.
Its a game of inches. UGA had a FG bounce off an upright. UGA had a hand on a fumble, but Alabama managed to get in a grab it, leading to an Alabama FG. Alabama got credit for a catch that wasn't on a 4th and 4 that lead to an Alabama TD.
If any of those 3 close things go the other way, its OT or UGA wins. I do think Kirby's offensive play calling after the first drive (where they walked down the field) was pretty weak. Alabama has been burned on deep balls this season and UGA almost never tried, despite two Alabama corners being out.