Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 12/3/2025 at 4:12 AM, Wulaw Horn said:

I was off by 1 game in a thread full of people saying we were going 5-7 or 6-6. I was way closer to what actually happened than most in that thread if you read through it. If Florida loss wouldn’t have happened I’d have been Nostradamus and not Nostradumbass. 1 game. Not really all that far off. Really, we needed up in the place I thought we would either a team that was pretty clearly a top 5 or so type team and arch being a stud and the team being fine- it just fucking took sark 6 weeks longer to get there than I thought it would- and the Florida loss happened. I even conceded in the moment that we were probably going to be dogs to and lose to Georgia. 
 

So you were basically a Florida loss away from being correct?

  • Haha 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, BillyGoatHill said:

If only some common sense was applied by the committee.....(but Nebraska and Arky folks are waaaay too stupid)

Worth a watch.

 

 

Just expand to 16 teams. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Codaxx said:

He is your typical big Qb with a huge arm. Best HS year was 63% comp, 22 Tds, and 9 ints. He was never very accurrate or showed good decision making. 

He's not good, but commenting on his HS career isn't really fair given the way California shut down sports during COVID. 

Posted
40 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Just expand to 16 teams. 

That won’t do anything but push the problem farther back in the standings.

So instead of arguing if a 3 loss team is deserving of a spot in a 12 team field, the argument will be if a 4 loss team is deserving of a spot in a 16 team field. 
 

and before anyone says “a 4 loss team has no right to argue for inclusion in a playoff for a national championship” a lot of folks said the same thing when it was a 4 team playoff when teams ranked 5-8 were complaining.

seriously, would a 4 loss Texas team this year (with losses to, say tOSU, Florida, Georgia and either ou or A&M) be deserving of a 16th spot over 3 loss Michigan, USC, Arizona, Houston, or Georgia Tech? What if the 4 were tOSU, UGA, ou and A&M?

idk the answer but I do know we’d have all of these same arguments just with one extra L in everyone’s loss column. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, UTexasFight said:

That won’t do anything but push the problem farther back in the standings.

So instead of arguing if a 3 loss team is deserving of a spot in a 12 team field, the argument will be if a 4 loss team is deserving of a spot in a 16 team field. 
 

and before anyone says “a 4 loss team has no right to argue for inclusion in a playoff for a national championship” a lot of folks said the same thing when it was a 4 team playoff when teams ranked 5-8 were complaining.

seriously, would a 4 loss Texas team this year (with losses to, say tOSU, Florida, Georgia and either ou or A&M) be deserving of a 16th spot over 3 loss Michigan, USC, Arizona, Houston, or Georgia Tech? What if the 4 were tOSU, UGA, ou and A&M?

idk the answer but I do know we’d have all of these same arguments just with one extra L in everyone’s loss column. 

youre right GIF


In other words moving to 16 without actually changing how the committee, bids, and selection works just leads to more of the same . there is a bit of transparency and structural problems here at play that needs to be resolved, or you know maybe its the point 

Edited by BigHornedLurker
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BillyGoatHill said:

If only some common sense was applied by the committee.....(but Nebraska and Arky folks are waaaay too stupid)

Worth a watch.

 

 

This is stupid no matter how many times posted.

Posted
1 minute ago, BigHornedLurker said:

youre right GIF


In other words moving to 16 without actually changing how the committee, bids, and selection works just leads to more of the same . there is a bit of transparency and structural problems here at play that needs to be resolved, or you know maybe its the point 

The committee needs to be stat nerds who can actually interpret the data. It’s a bunch of crusty old fucks or entrenched ADs with agendas.

Id rather have 12 MBAs arguing over SOS, SOR, game control, etc. 

Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

The committee needs to be stat nerds who can actually interpret the data. It’s a bunch of crusty old fucks or entrenched ADs with agendas.

Id rather have 12 MBAs arguing over SOS, SOR, game control, etc. 

12 MBAs ? Do you want them to figure out how to make more money, or to get the playoffs fixed :D

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BigHornedLurker said:

12 MBAs ? Do you want them to figure out how to make more money, or to get the playoffs fixed :D

 

12 MBAs would have included Texas bc of the ratings we bring. So…..

Posted
1 hour ago, Goredho said:

So you were basically a Florida loss away from being correct?

Probably 90% of the board had us 10-2 with losses to OSU and UGA.  Leave it to wulaw to make it all about himself.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...