SMUt getting owned by State

[Meangreen Fight]

21 hours ago, emmitt01 said:

I don’t think even you believe they would have lost the way SMU did.

If everything will go the way you think it will go then why do we play the games or even schedule games with spreads over 14 points?  
 

The underdogs in College Football are in a perpetual no win situation.  Get the upset there in the regular season are a ton of excuses and devaluation of what your program accomplished.  Close loss then the naysayers devalue that also (SMU vs Clemson and the push to shoe in Alabama a team that lost to the Tennessee team that got blown out by Ohio State).  
 

I want teams to prove it on the field.  And since the big brand teams have always been invested in scheduling the easiest path to the post season.  NOT EVEN APPEARING in your conference championship game should be majorly punitive.  So I don’t give a crap what people think Alabama (or anyone else would do).  They lost to Vandy  and a bad OU team.  And they could have scheduled a decent FBS team instead of home scrimmages against Western Kentucky and Mercer.   Or they could kept a SEC conference membership where they play more than half of the teams in the conference in a season.  The worst aspect of boxing that killed it popularity was the ranking organizations a chicken hearted scheduling.  
 

I hate subjectivity in sports that have easy scoring rules.  And putting in a team that didn’t appear in their conference championship game in a better playoff position than a conference champion or championship game loser is 100% based on subjectivity if the teams did not play head to head and have the same win/loss record.  
 

Maybe I will be in the minority of College Football fans over 35.   But I will have no interest in the opening round of CFP if they start routinely subjectively punishing Conference Champions over teams that failed to appear in their conference title game.  
 

Go look at the SEC standings; even arguing Alabama over Ole Miss getting that spot is subjective garbage.  Both are 9-3 overall and 5-3 in SEC play.  But almost universally people are lamenting Alabama not being included.  The stupidity and greed of the SEC had border state rivals in the same conference not play each other this year.  🙄. To me that is the outrage.  Maybe if they had played each other we one of them would be in the playoff and SMU fans couldn’t have had a reasonable protest if that happened. 

[Meangreen Fight]

21 hours ago, L Ron Studdard said:

Straight up got their asses kicked. As everyone knew they would.

All the first round games were basically blowouts.  Who cares what people thought going in EXCEPT Vegas.  
 

Texas -11 vs Clemson

PSU -8.5 vs SMU

Ohio State -7.5 vs Tennessee 

Notre Dame -6.5 vs Indiana

I think Indiana being a long bus ride away from Notre Dame was the only reason the game was more competitive than the others.  And I turned off that game early partly because in the trenches, it didn’t look competitive early on.  Hell I think Army might  have been more competitive than SMU.  But they subjectively chose (before the Army vs Navy game) Conference Championship game loser over Conference Championship game winner and everyone debating Alabama.  🙄. Utter BS.  

[NT93]

36 minutes ago, Meangreen Fight said:

If everything will go the way you think it will go then why do we play the games or even schedule games with spreads over 14 points?  
 

The underdogs in College Football are in a perpetual no win situation.  Get the upset there in the regular season are a ton of excuses and devaluation of what your program accomplished.  Close loss then the naysayers devalue that also (SMU vs Clemson and the push to shoe in Alabama a team that lost to the Tennessee team that got blown out by Ohio State).  
 

I want teams to prove it on the field.  And since the big brand teams have always been invested in scheduling the easiest path to the post season.  NOT EVEN APPEARING in your conference championship game should be majorly punitive.  So I don’t give a crap what people think Alabama (or anyone else would do).  They lost to Vandy  and a bad OU team.  And they could have scheduled a decent FBS team instead of home scrimmages against Western Kentucky and Mercer.   Or they could kept a SEC conference membership where they play more than half of the teams in the conference in a season.  The worst aspect of boxing that killed it popularity was the ranking organizations a chicken hearted scheduling.  
 

I hate subjectivity in sports that have easy scoring rules.  And putting in a team that didn’t appear in their conference championship game in a better playoff position than a conference champion or championship game loser is 100% based on subjectivity if the teams did not play head to head and have the same win/loss record.  
 

Maybe I will be in the minority of College Football fans over 35.   But I will have no interest in the opening round of CFP if they start routinely subjectively punishing Conference Champions over teams that failed to appear in their conference title game.  
 

Go look at the SEC standings; even arguing Alabama over Ole Miss getting that spot is subjective garbage.  Both are 9-3 overall and 5-3 in SEC play.  But almost universally people are lamenting Alabama not being included.  The stupidity and greed of the SEC had border state rivals in the same conference not play each other this year.  🙄. To me that is the outrage.  Maybe if they had played each other we one of them would be in the playoff and SMU fans couldn’t have had a reasonable protest if that happened. 

Preach it!  You need to call in to Paul Finebaum’s show.  I’d love to hear that conversation.

[rcade]

I thought a 12-team playoff would mean less arguments about teams that didn't get in deserving a spot, but I underestimated the ability of Alabama to suck enough to not earn a place in the CFP.

The SEC and Big Ten get way too much presumption every year of being good. It starts with the first preseason poll, when nobody has done anything on the field.