Balu the Bare

Members
  • Content Count

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Balu the Bare

  1. This Lions team is just frustrating to watch. For all of the talent on this team, they miss so many opportunities and make so many mistakes that it's hard to be confident in them going on the road in the playoffs. Even IF they manage to come back in this one.
  2. How am I just seeing this now? If not full, I'd like to give this a shot.
  3. Of course, if the situation is the same. Around me, the issue isn't that tcu/baylor were left out as much as it's that tcu was jumped by two teams after they were beating a team so badly that they were taking knees with significant time left in the fourth quarter to avoid running up the score -one week after- being ranked above an undefeated Florida State team. The question that keeps being asked is, "what changed?" Is Florida State that much better than tcu now that they are conference champions? Is Ohio State? If so, why wouldn't a system where conference champions get an automatic bid make sense? We've already established that conference champs should get in over non or co-champs, if all other things are equal, this year so it's not that much of a stretch plus i think this whole system would benefit from having at least one concrete criteria. Maybe just say that and keep it at 4 teams? I'd still like to know the committee's reason for picking teams as they do. I don't think anyone will be happy until everyone knows exactly what they were looking for and how they arrive at the rankings they do. Florida State beat a 10-2 Georgia Tech team. Ohio State beat a 10-2 Wisconsin team. Baylor beat a 9-2 Kansas State team. TCU beat a 2-9 Iowa State team. Baylor also is the lone TCU loss. Why is Baylor not in? Aside from that, this logic also forgets that no teams not named Florida State fell in the rankings for beating losing teams earlier in the season. Oregon didn't fall from their number two spot after beating 5-7 Oregon State when that same week Florida State beat 6-5 Florida. Why didn't Oregon fall that week if opposing records matter so much? The poster asked what changed between the set of rankings where TCU was 3rd and the one where they were 6th. The other three got big, resume-boosting wins Saturday. TCU didn't (in fact, its best two wins both lost). Ah, well since I was that poster, let me clarify. What changed meaning, "why did a resume boosting win matter one week, but not in other weeks." Rams answered that, the committee starts from scratch each week (I call bs, but i'm not in the room so I can't say for sure).
  4. Of course, if the situation is the same. Around me, the issue isn't that tcu/baylor were left out as much as it's that tcu was jumped by two teams after they were beating a team so badly that they were taking knees with significant time left in the fourth quarter to avoid running up the score -one week after- being ranked above an undefeated Florida State team. The question that keeps being asked is, "what changed?" Is Florida State that much better than tcu now that they are conference champions? Is Ohio State? If so, why wouldn't a system where conference champions get an automatic bid make sense? We've already established that conference champs should get in over non or co-champs, if all other things are equal, this year so it's not that much of a stretch plus i think this whole system would benefit from having at least one concrete criteria. Maybe just say that and keep it at 4 teams? I'd still like to know the committee's reason for picking teams as they do. I don't think anyone will be happy until everyone knows exactly what they were looking for and how they arrive at the rankings they do. Florida State beat a 10-2 Georgia Tech team. Ohio State beat a 10-2 Wisconsin team. Baylor beat a 9-2 Kansas State team. TCU beat a 2-9 Iowa State team. Baylor also is the lone TCU loss. Why is Baylor not in? Aside from that, this logic also forgets that no teams not named Florida State fell in the rankings for beating losing teams earlier in the season. Oregon didn't fall from their number two spot after beating 5-7 Oregon State when that same week Florida State beat 6-5 Florida. Why didn't Oregon fall that week if opposing records matter so much?
  5. Of course, if the situation is the same. Around me, the issue isn't that tcu/baylor were left out as much as it's that tcu was jumped by two teams after they were beating a team so badly that they were taking knees with significant time left in the fourth quarter to avoid running up the score -one week after- being ranked above an undefeated Florida State team. The question that keeps being asked is, "what changed?" Is Florida State that much better than tcu now that they are conference champions? Is Ohio State? If so, why wouldn't a system where conference champions get an automatic bid make sense? We've already established that conference champs should get in over non or co-champs, if all other things are equal, this year so it's not that much of a stretch plus i think this whole system would benefit from having at least one concrete criteria. Maybe just say that and keep it at 4 teams? I'd still like to know the committee's reason for picking teams as they do. I don't think anyone will be happy until everyone knows exactly what they were looking for and how they arrive at the rankings they do.
  6. Does anyone know if UAB will be honoring the full scholarships of the former players that choose to stay and focus on getting a degree?
  7. No surprises here. The question is, who do you get now? http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11968463/brady-hoke-michigan-wolverines-head-coach
  8. Transitive Property: Bowling Green can beat Missouri and be leading the SEC East. ...it makes just as much sense as anything else =P
  9. When do you think Marshall should have known it was going to be good? Perhaps when they won 10 games last year while returning a majority of their best players for this year? Here's a post from April 1 talking about Marshall's ability to do something. We've been hearing about them, what, since week two of the season? You don't just unexpectedly stumble upon "oh, hey, look at that! We have a bunch of really good athletes and really good football players." Give your team a chance. What a failure from the athletic department. That post was in April when the schedules were already set. In fact, the way schedules are usually made, I'm going to assume that this year's schedule was set sometime before the 2013 season. Reason for that line of thinking? There's a website that shows all the teams out of conference schedules until 2017. I don't know when it happened, but Marshall's 2015 out of conference schedule is tentatively set as is most of 2016. Since a lot of teams schedules are set years in advance, I don't think the argument of 'just schedule better that year if you think you're going to be good' applies until schedules are set on a single year basis. FBSschedules.com
  10. I love the irony here. Isn't the "'strength of schedule' kool-aid" the very thing that kept teams like Utah and Boise State far away from the National Title? We've really just traded one popularity contest for another. To me, there's nothing to miss. At least this way we won't get co-champions, right?
  11. I'm aware of how it works, I grew up and still live in a family that's heavily involved in D1 sports. I'm pointing out that it seems fashionable to bash other conferences for having weak schedules on one hand, but on the other excuse the SEC for having weaker out of conference schedules because, well, it's the SEC and it's not their fault that x team is garbage 2 to three years later, and y team is a consistent mid-major program and they run the SEC gauntlet and money, and they're probably still the best in the country anyway because they just look like the best teams, and look how many NFL athletes are on these teams! Every other team in the country seems to have to make their case using on-field performances, or strong strength of schedules, or head to head wins over teams in their own conferences, winning by more than a touchdown, never trailing, never losing, and even if those criteria are met that team isn't playing in the SEC so their resume is suspect. It's an issue I have with college football at this level. It's decided by who looks like the best team that year with other factors seeming to be secondary. At least this year we have essentially a +1 playoff, which is better than the old BCS imo, but it's still a system of ranking teams based on reasons and then using those rankings to determine who has a chance to be champion instead of letting it all be settled on the field with clear criteria for getting that chance.
  12. Well, the fact that the SEC West teams have a total of one loss to any team that's not in the SEC West (and that's last-place Arkansas losing to possibly SEC East champion Georgia). At last count, their record outside the division was 32-1, and that first number has only grown since. You make a good case for why Florida State should be #1 until they lose. *Understand that I don't really disagree with the level of talent in the SEC, I'm just hating the selective use of stats and figures and the reliance of the eyeball test when calling them the best. Yes their record is 32-1 but Ole Miss and Mississippi State this year had a laughable out of conference schedule. For that matter, so did A&M, Arkansas and Alabama does the entire SEC, every goddamn year, with minor exceptions to the UGA-GT and Florida-FSU games. to a lesser extent. So we're talking one win for the SEC West vs top 15 teams outside of the SEC, but we're blasting other conferences and saying they should schedule better OOC teams. By contrast, the Pac12 has two wins vs top 10 teams outside of the Pac12 (one in each division) and Florida State has a win over a top 5 team (over a probably overrated #5 Notre Dame). This year, that "far and away" tag is giving the SEC too much credit. But that's just my opinion. Fixed that for you. I initially read that wrong. I thought you were saying aTm, Arkansas and Alabama played heavy OOC games. I looked, between the 3 teams, they played West Virginia and Texas Tech that were worth taking note of. The rest are filled D-II/FCS schools... not even mid-majors. Exactly my point. Maybe in past years we could make that far and away claim, but this year, not so much.
  13. Well, the fact that the SEC West teams have a total of one loss to any team that's not in the SEC West (and that's last-place Arkansas losing to possibly SEC East champion Georgia). At last count, their record outside the division was 32-1, and that first number has only grown since. You make a good case for why Florida State should be #1 until they lose. *Understand that I don't really disagree with the level of talent in the SEC, I'm just hating the selective use of stats and figures and the reliance of the eyeball test when calling them the best. Yes their record is 32-1 but Ole Miss and Mississippi State this year had a laughable out of conference schedule. For that matter, so did A&M, Arkansas and Alabama to a lesser extent. So we're talking one win for the SEC West vs top 15 teams outside of the SEC, but we're blasting other conferences and saying they should schedule better OOC teams. By contrast, the Pac12 has two wins vs top 10 teams outside of the Pac12 (one in each division) and Florida State has a win over a top 5 team (over a probably overrated #5 Notre Dame). This year, that "far and away" tag is giving the SEC too much credit. But that's just my opinion.
  14. Based on watching the games. You watch those games and those teams and you can tell the quality of competition. You don't need a mathematic formula or a poll or even head to head. I watch the games and I see that the SEC and specifically the West is the best in college football. Since it sounds like you disagree, who do you think is the best? Personally, I think top to bottom the Pac 12 has more quality, but at the top, the SEC is better. If your basis is simply watching two different teams play two different games, you can do little more than assume that the SEC West is the best and no sport can be decided by assumption. My assumption is that the best in the country to this point has been maybe Alabama or Oregon, but since they haven't met on the field -and may never- I can't be sure of that. I also think Ohio State is a good team, Arizona State is a good team, Florida State is due for a loss but you have to admire the way they keep winning, and I do not believe in Michigan State's offense against great-elite defenses. I don't see Mississippi State winning out, the SEC East may spoil everything especially if it's Mizzou, but that's looking like a long shot. I have no idea. If I had to make a top 5 I'd probably say FSU until they actually lose, Mississippi State, Oregon, TCU, Ohio State. But that's for now. There are still a few games left.
  15. I'm not even disagreeing with this statement, but I thought the whole point of a committee was to have them actually review tape and more accurately forecast where teams are ranked than the BCS did. So far, in three weeks it seems like it's a case of "what have you done for me lately?" Somebody mentioned the case for Marshall. If you're going to discount Marshall for having a terribly easy schedule and remaining undefeated, then surely you could apply the same standard to Texas A&M? The Aggies have been terrible this year against any halfway decent team (see: Arkansas overtime) yet they cling to a Top 25 ranking with 3 losses. Sure, they've played some stronger teams, but they've also collapsed under that competition. Ah yes, but you forget that A&M is in the SEC and the SEC is the best conference in the land without question so they will all be ranked if they manage to have a winning record (with apologies to Missouri). My issue with this current system has been something that I've heard very little about recently, and that's Mississippi State's out-of-conference schedule. I only bring it up because it seems to be the main talking point when it comes to putting teams ahead of one or two loss SEC teams. I mean sure, other people might be impressed with wins over the likes of Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, and Tennessee Martin, but I'd say those four together are not as impressive as Clemson, Oklahoma State, and Notre Dame with the Citadel being the only real "cupcake" on Florida State's schedule. . It's all very well having a go at Mississippi State's non-conf schedule compared to Florida State's, but that ignores the fact that in their actual conference schedule FSU play the kinda ho-hum ACC whereas MSU have to play not just the SEC, but the SEC West, which all sarcastic disparaging aside is far and away the strongest division in the country. There's my rub. Based on what is the SEC West the best division in the country? Outside of the SEC West, there are only two wins vs. top 25 teams in the country and those two are Wisconsin(@LSU) and Kansas St (Auburn). This season has all the makings of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The SEC West is far and away the strongest division because you say so, but this year, who have the top teams in west beaten of worth besides themselves?
  16. I'm not even disagreeing with this statement, but I thought the whole point of a committee was to have them actually review tape and more accurately forecast where teams are ranked than the BCS did. So far, in three weeks it seems like it's a case of "what have you done for me lately?" Somebody mentioned the case for Marshall. If you're going to discount Marshall for having a terribly easy schedule and remaining undefeated, then surely you could apply the same standard to Texas A&M? The Aggies have been terrible this year against any halfway decent team (see: Arkansas overtime) yet they cling to a Top 25 ranking with 3 losses. Sure, they've played some stronger teams, but they've also collapsed under that competition. Ah yes, but you forget that A&M is in the SEC and the SEC is the best conference in the land without question so they will all be ranked if they manage to have a winning record (with apologies to Missouri). My issue with this current system has been something that I've heard very little about recently, and that's Mississippi State's out-of-conference schedule. I only bring it up because it seems to be the main talking point when it comes to putting teams ahead of one or two loss SEC teams. I mean sure, other people might be impressed with wins over the likes of Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, and Tennessee Martin, but I'd say those four together are not as impressive as Clemson, Oklahoma State, and Notre Dame with the Citadel being the only real "cupcake" on Florida State's schedule. The things I've heard on the radio as to why FSU had been #2 before dropping to #3 is that the wins don't really matter because they don't pass the "eyeball test." I have a hard time wrapping my head around this concept. To me, the "eyeball test" should never be factored in when determining what teams are better than others. But then, I also don't think you can determine who a champion could be by putting it all on paper. I say conference champions should be the only qualified candidates to get into a four team playoff, but then you couldn't justify getting two (or more) SEC teams in and you can't have such a dominant conference have it's best teams get snubbed in favor of lesser conference teams who have lost games to sub-SEC competition. Having said all of that...Hello Everyone.