Is SMU's Lawn Artificial?

[NT80]

11 minutes ago, Coffee and TV said:

 

Yeah, I get your point, but that's not how everyone agreed to set it up. The whole setup was "join one of these power 4s, win the title, and you get in." You're in a power conference, there is no such thing as a 'weak' schedule unless you're specifying out of conference. Do I agree SMU missed out on the top teams and had a 'weaker' schedule? Of course, but if they win Saturday you can't not include them for that reason, because that punishes a team who legitimately followed the agreed upon formula for qualifying. WTF is Cal and Stanford doing in the ACC if not to qualify for the playoff. 

LOL.  Ok ACC,  AAC,  ADA, NCAA ...  

[NT80]

13 minutes ago, Coffee and TV said:

I'm actually on board with what you're saying about power conferences being diluted, but we knew this was gonna be the case when the playoff system was setup. SMU had to stab themselves in the foot just to get it in the door, but credit to them they did exactly that and deserve to be in the playoff if they win that diluted ACC. I'd say the same for Central Florida or BYU if they were in this situation. 

The latest CFP version was supposed to be the fix for the "what about Florida State (13-0)?" left out of last year's playoff over Bama?  Iowa State is already challenging $mut's status over themselves.  There will always be controversy about left out teams being better than auto-qualifiers.   

[DentonLurker]

5 minutes ago, NT80 said:

There will always be controversy about left out teams being better than auto-qualifiers.

Agreed! I’m just glad it’s 2-loss and 3-loss teams arguing instead of undefeated teams, so it’s at least better in that regard.

[C Rod]

On 12/4/2024 at 4:15 PM, Cougar King said:

If SMU make a serious playoff run, I already see 394945050234 threads being made. 

I don't know which is more sad, the fact that you're right or the fact that you've spent so much time on this board to know exactly how we'll react. 

Edited Friday at 03:01 AM by C Rod