re: Would you support adding Clemson to the East and FSU to the West?

I'm very bitter that the #1 seed couldn't eek out a mere touchdown vs a team that didn't deserve to be there.

Hopefully if clemson makes it back, they find a way to cross the goal line at least once.

quote:

---

Bama got crushed by Auburn who Clemson crushed.

---

Clemson crushed Auburn? In 2017?

I was wondering how this was going on 8 pages. There it is.

quote:

---

they only scored 6 points

---

And Clemson only scored 14.

They won by 8.

That is not getting crushed.

redneck sidewalk Clemson fan is here to run off at the mouth again.

you went to that cake school in Charleston...why does your life revolve around Clemson football.

i'm not upset about it at all. that game was months ago and I had not expected Clemson to make the playoffs after losing all those players on offense.

you are upset that clemson beat bama in the natty the year before.

says the woman constantly tweeting at me. lol

btw, that guy lost an acting job because of sexual harrasment allegations. kind of sick you are posting gifs featuring him.

#MeToo

quote:

---

Clemson Fan

---

quote:

---

Tillman

---

quote:

---

#MeToo

---

Checks out.

Why is this conversation still going on? The SEC already owns both states mentioned, both fan bases and flagship schools. We don't need the regional based schools. Leave that for the ACC.

quote:

---

My original statement was that since the inception of the playoff, the myth of SEC supremacy has been busted.

---

You really need to study the history of college football. Since the 1950's and the dictatorship of a B1G dictatorship during the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's under Beyer's the NCAA was the major beneficiary of the B1G and PAC. When the CFA formed they were the only 2 conferences in the country (in an age of more conferences) that did not have a single member join the CFA.

It was Oklahoma and Georgia who went to the Supreme Court to allow the individual schools and conferences to control their media rights as under Beyers they were not assured of equal exposure on the national level. The problem was it exposed the B1G and PAC's lack of breadth in college football and the Rose Bowl was just "the Grandaddy" for marketing as other bowls were deciding the MNC and the Rose (and its conferences) were falling in stature.

The first round of realignment was started when the B1G added Penn State (like Michigan State in the 50's) for their winning ways with the intention of Notre Dame to take it to 12. Problem was the Irish told the B1G to f*ck themselves and they were stuck at 11 till the next round while the ACC, SEC, and others expanded with the times. This made the B1G and PAC more irrelevant so they pushed the BCS to deal themselves back in.

Eventually this would further expose the B1G weakness (outside of Southern Cal football is pretty unimportant now in the PAC) and the merged Big 8 and SWC to form the Big 12 moved into second place in the power conference pecking order. This did not sit well with the B1G and knowing they could not break the SEC (ACC and Big East were no threat at the time) they picked off the Big 12 by adding Nebraska while the PAC added Colorado. Would have killed the Big 12 all together if the PAC had gotten their teams and the Big 12 added Missouri and Kansas to their sports portfolio.

Problem was the PAC did not want Baylor and Texas A&M wanted the SEC so the B1G had to attack the ACC (Maryland) and the PAC had to settle for Utah instead of austin. In the meantime the BCS (intended to restore the illusion of B1G power had just the opposite effect as the SEC went on a run not likely to ever be seen again. This culminated with the LSU vs Bama NC game and the B1G had seen enough.

They came up with the playoff not so much to assure fairness but to insure at least 1 B1G school would be in it every year and 1 PAC school would have a better than average probability to get a team in as well. This would promote they brands any the expense of the SEC getting full domination. The ACC benefited as the folks in charge would rather see anybody but Baylor in 1 of the 4 playoff spots.

I will be the first to compliment the ACC from going from the arse end of conferences to a genuine competitor by being smarter and faster than the B1G, PAC, Big 12, and Big East. Big 12 had the shot to rebuild with a 4 school block in the east but waited so long the ACC gobbled up teams that would land them Notre Dame (the real prize here) and up their stock. The B1G was left with Rutgers and the PAC had to settle for Utah. The B1g 12 made the worst picks from all the delays and had to settle for TCU and WVU while never getting back to 12 which had become the minimum for a CCG and an assured spot.

Think this is not the case, just look
CFP Year 1 = B1G + PAC + ACC + SEC
CFP Year 2 = B1G + B12 + ACC + SEC
CFP Year 3 = B1G* + PAC + ACC + SEC
CFP Year 4 = B12 + ACC + SEC + SEC

* B1G argued the CCG's should matter until Ohio State was beneath Penn State and they got the CFP spot that should have gone to the Nitters.

While the BCS dominance became absolute, the CFP has maintained the SEC as the only conference to get 2 team in a given year (much to the angst of the B1G). While the ACC getting a team in is admirable, part of that may be due to nobody wanting a small school in the B12 to get the spot. CFP seems happy to have a B12 rep just as long as that rep is named Texas or Oklahoma. Since the folks have been crapping their bed lately it has given the monopoly to the Sooners.

Outside of Ohio State in the B1G and Southern California in the PAC, when exactly was the last time anybody else from either conference won an undisputed MNC?

In the meantime, the SEC has lost its BCS monopoly but they are still the best CFB conference top to bottom today. You may not believe this as an ACC fan but the facts speak for themselves. If it helps, look at how many schools in each conference can put 75,000 or more in their stadiums. Only the B1G and SEC have more than a couple, and both advertisers and CFP bosses know this.

quote:

---

I wouldn't, I'd be a stupid idiot to even try that, because it wouldn't make sense. My 9 year old daughter wouldn't even try to support

---

If you really believe this, you need to go back to school and take some math classes. If you try and let your daughter believe it you should get her on the math and science train early so she will have a job when she grows up.

The argument is not against using the CFP as a guide, the argument is that not enough CFP's have been played to make them statistically significant. Instead of calling someone an idiot I suggest you make yourself smarter to be better able to discuss this instead of stewing in your myopic ways and flat earth thinking. Farting in your bathtub does not make it a jacuzzi just because you think it does.

quote:

---

In fact, only an abject moron would try to refute an argument specifically about the playoff era by using data from the BCS era.

---

You need to look in the mirror then and figure out who the moron is. Using the CFP for all your data points is a legitimate argument if we had say at least 8 to 12 CFP already in the books. However, at this time it is still too new to use it with exclusive impunity as though it is not a flawed point which it is.

quote:

---

I came off like a troll earlier.

---

You come off as a troll because you call an opponent an idiot instead of acknowledging that you may not know more than you wish to imply. You further your troll image by continuing this behavior while still not presenting an argument as to why you think your point is correct. All the apologies in the world are hollow if you continue to repeat this behavior and expect a different result.