dduukee the biggest/tool loser here is you. You are so pathetic that you have to come to a thread on a gambling forum to antagonize to TRY to get the attention you are lacking in real life. How sick is that? That is called a mental illness so you might want to consider getting treated for it. A simple google search of your area should provide you phone numbers to call to get treatment of your mental illness.
Good luck to you!
SNITCHES end up being bitches, or end up with stitches, and in ditches! #REALITY
0
dduukee the biggest/tool loser here is you. You are so pathetic that you have to come to a thread on a gambling forum to antagonize to TRY to get the attention you are lacking in real life. How sick is that? That is called a mental illness so you might want to consider getting treated for it. A simple google search of your area should provide you phone numbers to call to get treatment of your mental illness.
If the selection criteria is the same, they would pick two more teams from Penn State-Michigan-Oklahoma-possibly USC. Think anyone might feel shafted?
Someones always gonna whine. Hell, 64 teams get in the basketball tourney and theres always teams that get "shafted". If you arent in the top 4, then there isnt any reason to complain. This year I would add USC and Michigan to the mix. Personally I think they are the best options. Penn St cant win 3 games in a row, and OU hasnt played defense since Brian Bosworth era....
Bama/Clemson get byes...
Ohio St plays USC for the right to play Bama
Washington plays Michigan for the right to play Clemson
Sounds like some good football to me.
0
Quote Originally Posted by soonboomer:
If the selection criteria is the same, they would pick two more teams from Penn State-Michigan-Oklahoma-possibly USC. Think anyone might feel shafted?
Someones always gonna whine. Hell, 64 teams get in the basketball tourney and theres always teams that get "shafted". If you arent in the top 4, then there isnt any reason to complain. This year I would add USC and Michigan to the mix. Personally I think they are the best options. Penn St cant win 3 games in a row, and OU hasnt played defense since Brian Bosworth era....
Bama/Clemson get byes...
Ohio St plays USC for the right to play Bama
Washington plays Michigan for the right to play Clemson
Dabo and company must be stockholders in General Mills , and eat Lucky Charms every day...because they are as lucky as any team could get, to win the games that they should have lost, in order to make it into the playoff... but I have a feeling that the luck is running out, and that they won't be so magically delicious....when they square off against Urban and the Buckeyes...
In all honesty, I think Clemson is perhaps the 8th best team, but because they only lost the 1 game....( like Ohio State ) that they deserve to be in
\
While I like to believe Clemson is better than 8th, I can see why others would disagree. They have played just good enough to win too many times this season. i saw all of their games, 2 in person. Still not sure why they can't play a full game at their best ability.
I don't cry and stomp my feet if people think less of my team. It will all come out in the end. if we don't play well enough to win, then we won't. We have the talent to make it happen. Opinions are like...
I do think Tideman's last sentence sums it up as best as it can be under the current system.
Alabama 34
Washington 24
Clemson 37
OSU 24
Clemson 24
Alabama 23
Biased for sure!
0
Quote Originally Posted by tideman:
Dabo and company must be stockholders in General Mills , and eat Lucky Charms every day...because they are as lucky as any team could get, to win the games that they should have lost, in order to make it into the playoff... but I have a feeling that the luck is running out, and that they won't be so magically delicious....when they square off against Urban and the Buckeyes...
In all honesty, I think Clemson is perhaps the 8th best team, but because they only lost the 1 game....( like Ohio State ) that they deserve to be in
\
While I like to believe Clemson is better than 8th, I can see why others would disagree. They have played just good enough to win too many times this season. i saw all of their games, 2 in person. Still not sure why they can't play a full game at their best ability.
I don't cry and stomp my feet if people think less of my team. It will all come out in the end. if we don't play well enough to win, then we won't. We have the talent to make it happen. Opinions are like...
I do think Tideman's last sentence sums it up as best as it can be under the current system.
I will be curious to see if the Kiffin to Houston situation becomes a distraction for Alabama. You know Saban is already fired up thinking about it. To me, this is a little different than when Smart left. I'm sure Saban didn't expect Kiffin to be there forever. However, Saban is a control freak and doesn't like when the timing of things f's with his routine.
0
I will be curious to see if the Kiffin to Houston situation becomes a distraction for Alabama. You know Saban is already fired up thinking about it. To me, this is a little different than when Smart left. I'm sure Saban didn't expect Kiffin to be there forever. However, Saban is a control freak and doesn't like when the timing of things f's with his routine.
Resume is more than SOS.......Many respected handicappers thought TCU was the best team in the country that year.
Your argument makes no sense. USU was the fav in 2014 and they are the fav in 2016... minus Alabama.
My post makes no sense? Let me see if I can translate this drivel. I'm assuming USU is actually Ohio State, and if so, how were they the favorite in 2014 when they were 9 point dog to Alabama and 6 point dog to Oregon? A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cornholio711:
Resume is more than SOS.......Many respected handicappers thought TCU was the best team in the country that year.
Your argument makes no sense. USU was the fav in 2014 and they are the fav in 2016... minus Alabama.
My post makes no sense? Let me see if I can translate this drivel. I'm assuming USU is actually Ohio State, and if so, how were they the favorite in 2014 when they were 9 point dog to Alabama and 6 point dog to Oregon? A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
A lot of great discussion and good points to this thread. I agree with the line of reasoning that we have a football committee to use its judgment to make these decisions among teams with equivalent records that have played equivalent level of competition.
And I am ALL FOR EXPANDING the playoff to a format of 8 or even 12 teams. Why? Seriously, if a committee of supposed experts cannot select truly the best team in the country to earn it on the field among 8 or 12 selections, then those on such a committee shouldn't be on it. Take out the politics and pick your top 12, regardless of record or conference affiliation or geographic location. If they're among the top teams in the country at the end of the year, in the committee's judgment, they're in.
This would address the one thing no system has accurately accounted for up to this point - the reality that how teams are playing at the end of the season often bears little resemblance to how they played 6, 8, 10 weeks prior. Losing a game at home, in mid to late November, in which you are dominated in every phase, carries far more weight than losing or even getting blown out in September on the road, for example. Particularly if a team is playing demonstrably better or worse football in November than it was in September. This is why I'm honestly leary of the Huskies in a 4 team playoff, even though I love Chris Petersen and what he's done at UW.
But making judgements, whether agree or disagree, is why we have a committee. The playoff system needs to expand the number of teams then have the Committee pick the teams based upon those it believes in its judgment are the best teams in the country - at the end of the year. If it does that, I am confident that within those top 8, 12, or even 16 teams, the best one objectively will be among them. Then that team can earn or lose it on the field. And very few other than blatant homers of the first team left out can reasonably argue that the best team did not have the opportunity to win the championship on the field.
Until then there will always be more significant controversy because 4 teams isn't really enough - there is too much parity. But the Committee must be able to exercise judgement rather than simply going by a static, formulaic approach or simply political considerations, of which each are equally flawed.
0
A lot of great discussion and good points to this thread. I agree with the line of reasoning that we have a football committee to use its judgment to make these decisions among teams with equivalent records that have played equivalent level of competition.
And I am ALL FOR EXPANDING the playoff to a format of 8 or even 12 teams. Why? Seriously, if a committee of supposed experts cannot select truly the best team in the country to earn it on the field among 8 or 12 selections, then those on such a committee shouldn't be on it. Take out the politics and pick your top 12, regardless of record or conference affiliation or geographic location. If they're among the top teams in the country at the end of the year, in the committee's judgment, they're in.
This would address the one thing no system has accurately accounted for up to this point - the reality that how teams are playing at the end of the season often bears little resemblance to how they played 6, 8, 10 weeks prior. Losing a game at home, in mid to late November, in which you are dominated in every phase, carries far more weight than losing or even getting blown out in September on the road, for example. Particularly if a team is playing demonstrably better or worse football in November than it was in September. This is why I'm honestly leary of the Huskies in a 4 team playoff, even though I love Chris Petersen and what he's done at UW.
But making judgements, whether agree or disagree, is why we have a committee. The playoff system needs to expand the number of teams then have the Committee pick the teams based upon those it believes in its judgment are the best teams in the country - at the end of the year. If it does that, I am confident that within those top 8, 12, or even 16 teams, the best one objectively will be among them. Then that team can earn or lose it on the field. And very few other than blatant homers of the first team left out can reasonably argue that the best team did not have the opportunity to win the championship on the field.
Until then there will always be more significant controversy because 4 teams isn't really enough - there is too much parity. But the Committee must be able to exercise judgement rather than simply going by a static, formulaic approach or simply political considerations, of which each are equally flawed.
Hot Forum Topics
