Started By
Message
re: Y’all do know that the 12 team playoff was supposed to start this year, but the ACC voted
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:19 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:19 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The BcS likely puts them at #3. Without "caynt have no playoff without Bama pawwwwl"
You haven't seen simulated BCS rankings that were posted on here? You have the wrong team at #3.
1
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:20 pm to tide06
quote:
You’ve provided no evidence to contradict it.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
quote:
their guidance sheet
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:20 pm to Lg
quote:
simulated BCS rankings
Yes, and they're incorrect.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:21 pm to Lg
quote:
They didn't vote on it.
Correct.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Correct.
The first time it came up for vote. The 2nd time they did vote against it.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:26 pm to Lg
quote:
The 2nd time they did vote against it.
When?
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:31 pm to Lg
quote:
Who suggested that they would be the #12 seed? They would have been in the 12 team playoff, though. Now, they are not in the 4.
The suggestion was they would’ve finish between 5th and 12th. They should be #3 though. You knew what my point was.
Anybody using the argument that they did this to themselves with their vote has no principles.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
LINK
The Alliance popped back onto fans' radar last month when College Football Playoff expansion negotiations collapsed after an 8-3 vote, with the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 later revealed as the only dissenters against a proposed 12-team model. The leagues were portrayed as obstinate toward a more inclusive system many had been clamoring for, and while each maintains that it voted independently because of its distinct concerns, their link through the Alliance made them easy targets.
Article is from May of 2022
The Alliance popped back onto fans' radar last month when College Football Playoff expansion negotiations collapsed after an 8-3 vote, with the ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12 later revealed as the only dissenters against a proposed 12-team model. The leagues were portrayed as obstinate toward a more inclusive system many had been clamoring for, and while each maintains that it voted independently because of its distinct concerns, their link through the Alliance made them easy targets.
Article is from May of 2022
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:52 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
When?
Here's you another one if you need it.
A February vote about expanding the playoff to 12 teams did receive majority support from the board of managers, but the final 8-3 tally failed to meet the requirement of a unanimous vote needed to potentially implement the expansion for the 2024 season.
LINK
Posted on 12/6/23 at 3:59 pm to Lg
quote:
ACC, Big Ten and Pac-12
Oh.
And like we said and agreed, this was because the deal sucked and wasn't changed?
Posted on 12/6/23 at 4:21 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
ACC President 2022 - Opposed to Playoff Expansion
The ACC was “unanimous” in opposition to an expanded playoff.
In other words FSU was opposed to expanding the playoffs in 2022.
It’s common knowledge that Clemson and FSU drove that decision.
quote:
their guidance sheet
-“Injuries and coaching changes that impact competitiveness can be considered”
This post was edited on 12/6/23 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 12/6/23 at 4:44 pm to ugasickem
quote:
FSU voted against itAgainst it right? Or is the narrative going to stay the same? FSU has their arse whipping coming.
Florida State would have been more embarrassed losing to an 8th seed or whoever they would have faced in the 12-team playoff.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 4:47 pm to tide06
quote:
The ACC was “unanimous” in opposition to an expanded playoff.
In other words FSU was opposed to expanding the playoffs in 2022.
Sigh.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said before it sticks...
They weren't opposed to expansion. They were opposed to the bullshite deal.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 4:57 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They weren't opposed to expansion
They voted against the exact same 12 team playoff we have now amongst other proposals because they were throwing a temper tantrum that they thought it would result in more SEC teams getting invites.
Why are you being obstinate about this?
Posted on 12/6/23 at 5:14 pm to tide06
quote:
They voted against the exact same 12 team playoff we have now amongst other proposals because they were throwing a temper tantrum that they thought it would result in more SEC teams getting invites.
No. They didn't like the broadcast rights that were in place. That changed.
This is why the Big Ten has been running revenue circles around the SEC.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 5:18 pm to ugasickem
Another false argument
Posted on 12/6/23 at 5:32 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They were opposed to the bull shite deal.
And you said they never voted on it. So the people who wrote the 2 articles posted above were lying according to you.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 5:57 pm to Lg
quote:
And you said they never voted on it.
I've said repeatedly that they didn't vote against expansion. They opposed what was proposed.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 7:05 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I've said repeatedly that they didn't vote against expansion. They opposed what was proposed
So am I correct in interpreting your meaning to be that the 3 conferences that voted against expanding the playoff were not opposed to expansion per se, but rather the terms of the expansion?
If that’s the case then what changed between their votes against expansion and now, what is so better about the current deal? I am not saying that they did not have bona fide objections, but the timing and the fact that it was the three alliance conferences makes it suspicious.
Secondly, regardless of their motives, their actions prevented a quicker arrival at an expanded playoff. Intentionally or not, they did screw themselves.
Posted on 12/6/23 at 7:12 pm to MondayNightPavs
quote:
If that’s the case then what changed between their votes against expansion and now, what is so better about the current deal?
The original proposal gave eSECpn long-term exclusive rights to ALL playoff games. I believe they now have a two year deal for all but the first round games. Everything else will be negotiated more frequently.
Basically, Sankey was trying to lock that shite down, and they said no.
quote:
Secondly, regardless of their motives, their actions prevented a quicker arrival at an expanded playoff. Intentionally or not, they did screw themselves.
Not really. They should've been #3. Playoff expansion doesn't change that.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News