Started By
Message
re: CFP Top 10 Overall SOS : Should Miss State be nervous?
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:49 am to DynastyDawg
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:49 am to DynastyDawg
quote:
Good because 9-3 wouldn't sniff the title game in the SEC West either.
I meant that as they could lose again and they wouldn't be in the game, not that it would somehow speak to the power of their division that a 3 loss team doesn't make the game.
0
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:50 am to DMagic
quote:
The committee
Well you said "we", so I was confused.
But I'm not sure how the committee is punishing Baylor for anything other than losing to West Virginia...
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:50 am to stat19
If winning a conference is a requirement, then this weekly polling is BS. Just put the conference champs in
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:50 am to DynastyDawg
quote:
Show me where I got "pissed off". I'm making counterpoints. Is that cool with you, Schedule Genius?
Dead horse, etc. No biggie.
Never claimed to be any sort of genius. Anybody can take numbers, add them together and do an average.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:50 am to SummerOfGeorge
Isn't Oklahoma top 10 in the FPI still? Baylor smoked those clowns.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:50 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Who cares what place ASU, Arizona, Utah are in the South?
I was pointing out the PAC South = SEC East, not PAC South = SEC West but you still went there.
quote:
They could easily go 9-3 and not even go to the title game.
3 losses and I would hope they would not get a title game.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:51 am to DMagic
quote:
Isn't Oklahoma top 10 in the FPI still? Baylor smoked those clowns.
Yep. The ultimate computer tricksters.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:51 am to DynastyDawg
Figure of speech
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:52 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Dead horse, etc. No biggie.
Well when you have three threads on the front page on a regular basis, all about scheduling, it is kind of beating a dead horse.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:52 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
I was pointing out the PAC South = SEC East, not PAC South = SEC West but you still went there.
I don't think the Pac South is as good as the SEC West but I do think it is better than the East.
quote:
3 losses and I would hope they would not get a title game.
I was saying if they lose 3 then the whole schedule is moot because they don't play Oregon again.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:53 am to DynastyDawg
quote:
Well when you have three threads on the front page on a regular basis, all about scheduling, it is kind of beating a dead horse.
I mean, it and "game control" and the main discussion points regarding the playoff right now. Seems like a legitimate discussion to have to look at how all the possible teams in the CFP's schedule line up and how the media will discuss them.
Or we could just start more threads about grinding and Super Bowls and stuff. Either way.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:55 am to SummerOfGeorge
It is a legitimate discussion, but we're having the same one in every thread, so what's the need for the other two?
Posted on 11/20/14 at 11:58 am to DynastyDawg
quote:
It is a legitimate discussion, but we're having the same one in every thread, so what's the need for the other two?
Maybe so, but one led to another.
Again, I'd rather have these discussions than moronic 6th grade troll threads, but to each his own I guess.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:03 pm to deltaland
quote:
The committee isnt there to put teams in whose name is more attractive they are there to put in the 4 most deserving.
What does that even mean?
OSU could say that if they win the B1G, then they should be in no matter what State does because they would be more deserving as conference champs.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:04 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Moronic 6th grade troll threads?
Is this where you tell us you've never started or participated in such things?
Is this where you tell us you've never started or participated in such things?
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:05 pm to DynastyDawg
quote:
Moronic 6th grade troll threads? Is this where you tell us you've never started or participated in such things?
Oh no, I do. But I'd rather do this.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:06 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Your username reminds me of a feminine hygeine product.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:07 pm to Hardy_Har
quote:
Your username reminds me of a feminine hygeine product.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:31 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Lower end matters exactly not at all. Whether you play number 60 or 120, nobody cares and it's the exact same. The committee is looking at top 25 games exclusively it seems, which is good.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:33 pm to skirpnasty
quote:
Lower end matters exactly not at all. Whether you play number 60 or 120, nobody cares and it's the exact same.
I would agree. A top team should have a 0-5% chance of losing a game to a team ranked somewhere below 65 or so.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News