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.

[Aquila_Viridis]

Maybe if “all the billionaires” were to become trillionaires, then smu might win.

[meaniegreenie]

2 hours ago, rcade said:

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.

Like others have said, wait until they break away and have to completely compete solely among 30-40 teams of mostly similar levels.  It's going to take 10-15 years for them to become accepting to 8-4 records as a norm with the occasional 10-2 season, similar to the NFL.

[Aquila_Viridis]

Good point. Looking forward to bama having a Carolina Panthers - type series of seasons.

[DentonStang]

10 hours ago, NT80 said:

Did you make the trip?   

The environment of 100K opposing fans (when you're used to 10K home fans) had to have rattled them.

No, but I'm sure it did. And the cold.   Even PSU's QB did not play well

[DentonStang]

On 12/21/2024 at 7:07 PM, emmitt01 said:

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

Did you believe Alabama would be uncompetitive vs Oklahoma?  What about OSU vs Tennessee?

Did you think TCU would get absolutely nuked by Georgia a few years ago AFTER beating #4. Michigan?

Blowouts happened every year in the then 4 team playoff. They mean little. 

Edited 4 hours ago by DentonStang

[NT80]

4 hours ago, rcade said:

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.

I heard an announcer talk about this very thing.  He said the SEC and Big10 feel they are better than anyone else and play themselves in conference and get losses so their losses shouldn't count as much as everyone else's.  But he argued they were not always better than everyone else, totally as a conference, and the presumption they were was biased in rankings.  

[dodgefan]

19 hours ago, NT80 said:

Did you make the trip?   

The environment of 100K opposing fans (when you're used to 10K home fans) had to have rattled them.

Say you didn't see any SMU crowds this season, without saying you didn't see any SMU home crowds this season. That place was packed and rocking, like nobody could've dreamed.

[emmitt01]

40 minutes ago, dodgefan said:

Say you didn't see any SMU crowds this season, without saying you didn't see any SMU home crowds this season. That place was packed and rocking, like nobody could've dreamed.

Tell me you’ll peddle BS on SMU’s behalf without telling me you’ll peddle BS on SMU’s behalf.  
 

Here is SMU’s attendance claim for this season; one so amazing that they made a nifty graphic for it.  
 

The only issue?  Well, they played 7 home games and the stadium seats 32k…so an average attendance of 32,651 which is standing room only and beyond capacity is a bit difficult to swallow and leads one to believe that only believers in SMU math would buy it.  
 

And save me the “but look at North Texas’ attendance” garbage.  Even someone as committed to being separated from reality as you knows that if North Texas 1) bought their way into the ACC to allow us to fill our stadium with opposing fans, 2) overpaid for players, and 3) had the easiest conference schedule possible to stack wins…Apogee would have been LEGITIMATELY sold out.  
 

And let me save you the trouble of the next silly argument you were just itching to type as a retort…yes, we have far more alumni, but we are not situated DEAD CENTER in a city of 1.3 Million people like SMU has been for decades