Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

0 (0%)

No

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: October 22, 2020, 02:05:59 PM

[Espnthree]

At issue in college football is just how teams are getting such an edge.  Is Bama guilty of something ?

Coach sold soul to devil.

Then Dabo did too since he is emulating Nick any way he can. He dumped a veteran QB for a freshman. His staff is loaded with coaches rooted in Alabama training, and he just recruited the number one HS quarterback in the state of Alabama. One other area he is working on is lobbying players to foregoi the NFL draft as sophomores and juniors. Only 38 per cent of Alabama players leave early(tOSU figure, for comparison is 59). We’ll see if Dabo can compete in keeping players.

[whiskeypriest]

True interesting fact: 7 of 9 first round games have been decided by 17 points or more. I think it will soon be 8 of 10.

Another reason we don’t need more than 4 teams.

So you do not think the performance of OLotPT does not make a decent argument for including Georgia?

Of course not.

I seem to remember you mentioning something about the Big getting both Michigan and OSU in earlier this year.  Have you forgotten that?

There was a chance of that.  But the teams aren’t picked until all the games are played.
Regardless, that speculation has no connection to the expansion talk regarding the number
of playoff teams.

Wrong. It has everything to do with it. Your lack of vision again.

My speculation on 2  conference teams making the playoff was limited to a field of four.

Not in the context of Steve's question. If I understood it correctly.

Apples and Oranges.
Georgia, as the Committee took great pains to explain, was left out because it did not win a championship. The fact that Oklahoma and Georgia were considered practically equal in performance forced the Committee to use CGs as the tiebreaker.

Not apples and oranges in the context of the question.

Now, as to your recent comment above concerning Oklahoma, Georgia and the CG guideline.

That could lead one to realize that the committee's rules may not be entirely conducive to their stated goal of putting the four best teams in the lineup.

I don't think there is a problem with the rules. The committee does a.great job with the information availae.to them. Human perception is not something you can fix with rules.

[whiskeypriest]

At issue in college football is just how teams are getting such an edge.  Is Bama guilty of something ?

Coach sold soul to devil.

Then Dabo did too since he is emulating Nick any way he can. He dumped a veteran QB for a freshman. His staff is loaded with coaches rooted in Alabama training, and he just recruited the number one HS quarterback in the state of Alabama. One other area he is working on is lobbying players to foregoi the NFL draft as sophomores and juniors. Only 38 per cent of Alabama players leave early(tOSU figure, for comparison is 59). We’ll see if Dabo can compete in keeping players.

ClemSIN cheats by pumping up their players.with PEDs. So far, only 3.have been caught but SWINEy is.dirty into it.

[TrojanHorse]

I suppose it's possible that Dabo has sold his soul to the Devil, but I don't think Saban has.  Saban is the devil incarnate.

[jbottle]

Well, the fake butt-cut horns on his otherwise male pattern baldness head are a dead giveaway that he possesses the power of darkness.

His hair is emblematic of not a single known medical procedure, hair fix, wig district innovation, or plug and play procedure known in the material world.

But if some tobacco drooling good old boy told me that was just a “Tuscaloosa Elmer’s son...” I would stand to be fucking corrected wouldn’t I??

Dabo is pure as the driven snow, cherchez le C.H.U.D. motherfuckers...

And Sa(b?)(a?)n is beneath reproach.

As far as CLEMs ALA connection to ALA but not the underworld, I have no comment.

[Espnthree]

As far as CLEMs ALA connection to ALA but not the underworld, I have no comment.

That Dabo would use Saban and his program as a model to improve Clemson is pretty darn smart.
And it seems to be working.

[jbottle]

No, it has nothing to do with Little Nicky...

Frank Howard went to ALA

Danny played/coached at ALA

Dabo played/coached at ALA

Gene Stallings is his guy.

The connection is strange but it’s not what you think it is...

CLEM recruits itself, go to a game if you have never been...

Real nice day to be had...

Trying to match statistics with success parallels is a logical fallacy...

If you keep people, yes, you succeed.

We don’t have rocket science at CLEM, but that ain’t it...

Dabo doesn’t have time to study Nick Sat@n, fuck, they got the job at the same time...

[CaptainCargo]

True interesting fact: 7 of 9 first round games have been decided by 17 points or more. I think it will soon be 8 of 10.

Another reason we don’t need more than 4 teams.

So you do not think the performance of OLotPT does not make a decent argument for including Georgia?

Of course not.

I seem to remember you mentioning something about the Big getting both Michigan and OSU in earlier this year.  Have you forgotten that?

There was a chance of that.  But the teams aren’t picked until all the games are played.
Regardless, that speculation has no connection to the expansion talk regarding the number
of playoff teams.

Wrong. It has everything to do with it. Your lack of vision again.

My speculation on 2  conference teams making the playoff was limited to a field of four.

Not in the context of Steve's question. If I understood it correctly.

Apples and Oranges.
Georgia, as the Committee took great pains to explain, was left out because it did not win a championship. The fact that Oklahoma and Georgia were considered practically equal in performance forced the Committee to use CGs as the tiebreaker.

Not apples and oranges in the context of the question.

Whiskeypriest’s question was a response to my statement that the playoff should be limited to four teams. I restated that position. If you saw another context feel free to change the subject.

Now, as to your recent comment above concerning Oklahoma, Georgia and the CG guideline.

That could lead one to realize that the committee's rules may not be entirely conducive to their stated goal of putting the four best teams in the lineup.

They haven’t failed yet.

If that's your opinion you are certainly welcome to it. If you think Georgia couldn't of given Clemson a better game then in my opinion you're off your nut. 

[Espnthree]

True interesting fact: 7 of 9 first round games have been decided by 17 points or more. I think it will soon be 8 of 10.

Another reason we don’t need more than 4 teams.

So you do not think the performance of OLotPT does not make a decent argument for including Georgia?

Of course not.

I seem to remember you mentioning something about the Big getting both Michigan and OSU in earlier this year.  Have you forgotten that?

There was a chance of that.  But the teams aren’t picked until all the games are played.
Regardless, that speculation has no connection to the expansion talk regarding the number
of playoff teams.

Wrong. It has everything to do with it. Your lack of vision again.

My speculation on 2  conference teams making the playoff was limited to a field of four.

Not in the context of Steve's question. If I understood it correctly.

Apples and Oranges.
Georgia, as the Committee took great pains to explain, was left out because it did not win a championship. The fact that Oklahoma and Georgia were considered practically equal in performance forced the Committee to use CGs as the tiebreaker.

Not apples and oranges in the context of the question.

Whiskeypriest’s question was a response to my statement that the playoff should be limited to four teams. I restated that position. If you saw another context feel free to change the subject.

Now, as to your recent comment above concerning Oklahoma, Georgia and the CG guideline.

That could lead one to realize that the committee's rules may not be entirely conducive to their stated goal of putting the four best teams in the lineup.

They haven’t failed yet.

If that's your opinion you are certainly welcome to it. If you think Georgia couldn't of given Clemson a better game then in my opinion you're off your nut.

That was not the question I was asked.
But if you ask it your way my answer is it is irrelevant.
Moreover it is pointless since Georgia would have been seeded fourth and played Alabama.

[CaptainCargo]

At issue in college football is just how teams are getting such an edge.  Is Bama guilty of something ?

Coach sold soul to devil.

Then Dabo did too since he is emulating Nick any way he can. He dumped a veteran QB for a freshman. His staff is loaded with coaches rooted in Alabama training, and he just recruited the number one HS quarterback in the state of Alabama. One other area he is working on is lobbying players to foregoi the NFL draft as sophomores and juniors. Only 38 per cent of Alabama players leave early(tOSU figure, for comparison is 59). We’ll see if Dabo can compete in keeping players.

Not all of Dado's guys are of the four and five star brand like most of Saban's. He does a great job of 'picking' talent. Anchrum for example was an undersized underweight 3 star from Ga. Falcinelli was also just a three star out of Md. Joeseph a 3 star out of SC. The point being that Dabo and Co recognizes talent that others may otherwise miss.

[CaptainCargo]

True interesting fact: 7 of 9 first round games have been decided by 17 points or more. I think it will soon be 8 of 10.

Another reason we don’t need more than 4 teams.

So you do not think the performance of OLotPT does not make a decent argument for including Georgia?

Of course not.

I seem to remember you mentioning something about the Big getting both Michigan and OSU in earlier this year.  Have you forgotten that?

There was a chance of that.  But the teams aren’t picked until all the games are played.
Regardless, that speculation has no connection to the expansion talk regarding the number
of playoff teams.

Wrong. It has everything to do with it. Your lack of vision again.

My speculation on 2  conference teams making the playoff was limited to a field of four.

Not in the context of Steve's question. If I understood it correctly.

Apples and Oranges.
Georgia, as the Committee took great pains to explain, was left out because it did not win a championship. The fact that Oklahoma and Georgia were considered practically equal in performance forced the Committee to use CGs as the tiebreaker.

Not apples and oranges in the context of the question.

Now, as to your recent comment above concerning Oklahoma, Georgia and the CG guideline.

That could lead one to realize that the committee's rules may not be entirely conducive to their stated goal of putting the four best teams in the lineup.

I don't think there is a problem with the rules. The committee does a.great job with the information availae.to them. Human perception is not something you can fix with rules.

I think they are doing a decent job too. We just disagree with the rules thing.

IMO if the stated goal is to get the four best teams then the CG thing seems abortive to that purpose.


Not that it applies in this instance anyways. Because it was undefeated ND that was the somewhat weak link here. They didn't have the offense to hang with Clemson or Alabama. Or probably Georgia either for that matter.

In years gone by you've mentioned the term paper tiger. And I think that applies to ND in this instance.

And no offense to my bro JB, but if the counterproductive GC rule was eliminated, IMHO if Clemson had played Georgia we might, MIGHT I say, be looking at an all SEC final. Then again Clemson may have won that game anyways. They're a great team.

 But I can state will fairly strong firmness and feel you would be inclined to agree that the score would have been nowhere near the points margin that the Clem/ND game was.

[whiskeypriest]

Well, I think tOSU or Georgia could have stood up to ClemSIN better than Our Lady of the Perpetual Tie. But a playoff without an unbeaten major team like OLotPT would lack any claim of legitimacy. For better or worse, playoff teams need to be judged by what the do during the regular season. So, don't play Purdue like you dropped the "State" from your name. Don't hack up a 4th quarter lead against Alabama.

[CaptainCargo]

True interesting fact: 7 of 9 first round games have been decided by 17 points or more. I think it will soon be 8 of 10.

Another reason we don’t need more than 4 teams.

So you do not think the performance of OLotPT does not make a decent argument for including Georgia?

Of course not.

I seem to remember you mentioning something about the Big getting both Michigan and OSU in earlier this year.  Have you forgotten that?

There was a chance of that.  But the teams aren’t picked until all the games are played.
Regardless, that speculation has no connection to the expansion talk regarding the number
of playoff teams.

Wrong. It has everything to do with it. Your lack of vision again.

My speculation on 2  conference teams making the playoff was limited to a field of four.

Not in the context of Steve's question. If I understood it correctly.

Apples and Oranges.
Georgia, as the Committee took great pains to explain, was left out because it did not win a championship. The fact that Oklahoma and Georgia were considered practically equal in performance forced the Committee to use CGs as the tiebreaker.

Not apples and oranges in the context of the question.

Whiskeypriest’s question was a response to my statement that the playoff should be limited to four teams. I restated that position. If you saw another context feel free to change the subject.

Now, as to your recent comment above concerning Oklahoma, Georgia and the CG guideline.

That could lead one to realize that the committee's rules may not be entirely conducive to their stated goal of putting the four best teams in the lineup.

They haven’t failed yet.

If that's your opinion you are certainly welcome to it. If you think Georgia couldn't of given Clemson a better game then in my opinion you're off your nut.

That was not the question I was asked.
But if you ask it your way my answer is it is irrelevant.
Moreover it is pointless since Georgia would have been seeded fourth and played Alabama.

It was the question, you just aren't thinking outside of the box enough to have understood it. That's never been your strongpoint.(Actually I'm not sure if you have a strongpoint. Oh wait you are the king of TV ratings. My bad)

But when you actually are correct I'll give you that and acknowledge it. Georgia would have been seeded fourth. Only due to a flawed ranking system that IMO still needs tweeking.

[CaptainCargo]

Well, I think tOSU or Georgia could have stood up to ClemSIN better than Our Lady of the Perpetual Tie. But a playoff without an unbeaten major team like OLotPT would lack any claim of legitimacy. For better or worse, playoff teams need to be judged by what the do during the regular season. So, don't play Purdue like you dropped the "State" from your name. Don't hack up a 4th quarter lead against Alabama.

Which is why the question you asked James needs IMO to be addressed by the powers that be. Expansion of the playoff. Some are for it and some against. I'd love to know how many of those Committee voters thought, if I do this thing right we leave out ND. Especially after the buttkicking the Wolverines received at the hands of the Buckeyes.

[CaptainCargo]

Well enough of that schlit and on to the CG.

As I watched the Oklahoma/Bama game play out I couldn't help but notice the lack of comparative speed with the Bama defense as a whole and the speed of Murray. That's not saying the Alabama guys are slow, we know they aren't. Just compared to Murray. And I didn't see the usual Tide up front pressure as you could visibly see them making sure(or at least trying to make sure) that he didn't break containment. So the question is will they be as worried about the Clemson QB?