SMU
- Thread starter edub72
- Start date
SMU played and lost. What I said was a team that didn’t play can’t jump a team that didn’t play. Atleast that’s what warde Manuel said. In other words. Indiana is locked into the playoff because of that
No, you're right. But I don't think the committee or its president or whatever, made a point of saying that. Probably because something like that would go without saying. It would be so egregious to suddenly vault Bama over IU for no apparent reason, that it would never even come up. So the only viable target for the commit to sacrifice, and get rid of, is SMU. Or maybe he did explicitly speak to that. I mainly remember him saying or it transpiring that he said CCG losers would not be punished.
Which is completely inapplicable to his proposition that SMU bumps IU out of the playoff.
I think the committee really wanted Bama in. But after last night smu loss being so close there really is no more justification to keep Bama in now. Just my opinion
Though I wouldn’t put it past the committee to come up with some new metric of evaluation over night to push Bama back in.
Though I wouldn’t put it past the committee to come up with some new metric of evaluation over night to push Bama back in.
IU is getting in, thats guaranteed. With the way they played, SMU deserves to be in over AL. However Im not sure this is going to happen. That committee wants AL in and it would be a damn shame if they let them in with 3 losses. This committee is all over the fricking place. WTF knows what they will do. My take is they will let AL in and screw over SMU, hope Im wrong.
Bama has no business in this tournament with three losses, unless they were in their conference title game. That didn't happen.
He specifically spoke this by talking about “data points.” Warde said teams that don’t play this weekend have no more “data points” therefore, cannot jump each other.
He said their position can only move when compared against those that played this weekend, for example, Bama cannot jump IU.
I don't know why it's guaranteed that IU is getting in. I don't believe the committee spoke directly to the impossibility of that scenario. Only that SMU wouldn't drop. Or rather, that CCG losers in general wouldn't drop. I think that's all they said. I don't think, as with this scenario, that two teams neither of which played in a CCG couldn't suddenly switch places on the whim or caprice, or whatever, the arbitrary judgement of the committee. And SMU was above IU. So why would IU jump them? If they were to jump SMU and stay in the field, it couldn't be a greater illustration of the absurdity and the unfairness and the advantage of not playing in a CCG. Every bit as much as if Bama did. Maybe even more so given how similar their profiles. So I would assert that SMU would have the exact claim over both of those teams. And we're talking about the committee, they're going to act arbitrarily, nothing they do is justified. And SMU is the team on everyone's lips right now. Nobody wants to screw them over. So why couldn't they just dump IU? They're nothing in the sport of CFB. There'd be no reason to protect them.
I am willing right now to place a $1000 bet on IU making the playoffs. If they don't make it you pay me $500. U in?
Agree, but the bias towards AL is real. Wouldn't shock me one bit if the committee brings up some BS argument to get AL in.
No, I'm definitely not in. Why would I ever do something like that? What's wrong with you? In any case, I think my argument, as far as being rational and reasonable and whatnot, is basically unassailable. While you have made no argument, other than daring me to bet you $1000, and I only have to pay 500 on my end, so you're giving me odds. That's how confident you are, based on nothing of substance other than, presumably, your complete faith in the committee's total lack of integrity, and they're willingness to just do whatever the F they feel like. And since that's true, why couldn't they just drop IU? But for some reason that strikes a nerve with you. And you immediately escalate to a 1000 dollar wager.
Oh he did? Well I missed that. I guess that stands it to reason that that would be brought up. And the committee chair or mouthpiece would have to say something, and sort of commit himself to some principle, that ideally the committee would like the freedom to violate at their discretion and just put in whoever they want to put in. But in the case of two teams who haven't played in a CCG it really seems totally unacceptable. Whereas with SMU, even though that would be, I would say without any honest consideration at all, even more unacceptable, the notion that because SMU was forced against their will, by unavoidable circumstance, to subject themselves to another game and the corresponding 'data point', which of course they could lose, against a good opponent, that gives the committee some conceivable space by which to dump someone, and shoehorn Bama into the field. Which is all they want, and the result is simply being reverse engineered. And maybe they don't care about IU, but they don't care about SMU either. They're both just nuisances, as non powerhouse programs that managed to force their way into the top 12. So SMU it is. That's really the only viable option, and still keep whatever thin shred of legitimacy they're currently clinging to.
The officiating was terrible and seemed to favor Clemson, but I don't believe SMU beat the team they are neck and neck with .....Bama
