U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:12 AM
 
7,906 posts, read 4,885,922 times
Reputation: 4101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Obviously you misunderstood as you are still getting it wrong. Further more, Your original argument consisted of far more than "assigned Auburn to play UCF"(specifically Wisconsin and Penn State claims)

This is the actual Bowl picking order


1. Rose Bowl Big Ten #1 vs. Pac-12 #1
2. Sugar Bowl SEC #1 vs. Big 12 #1
3. Orange Bowl ACC #1 vs. SEC #2, Big Ten #2, or Notre Dame
4. Cotton Bowl at-large or "Group of Five" (committee selection)
5. Fiesta Bowl at-large or "Group of Five" (committee selection)
6. Peach Bowl at-large or "Group of Five" (committee selection)

The Orange Bowl automatically gets the second place ACC team if the first place is in the Playoff.

They also get the highest ranked non champ from the SEC, Big 10, Notre Dame

#6 Wisconsin , #7 Auburn, #14 Notre Dame. So Wisconsin wins that. The only way you can argue against it is if you are trying to claim 3-loss Auburn who lost 28-7 on the same day 1-loss Wisc lost 27-21 was up one spot behind Wisc to create your match up, and im sorry, that just doesnt make sense.

The Orange Bowl does not get to take Ohio State, because the contract specifically says Big 10 #2 .

The Cotton Bowl gets the next selection and unlike the BCS , they get to make both picks at once, and they chose to take the Rose Bowl tie in and have 2 champions. #5 vs #8

That leaves only 2 bowls with the highest ranked teams not having a bowl tie in being #7 Auburn, #8 Penn State, #11 Washington, #12 UCF.

So Auburn and Penn State had a 33% chance of playing each other and didnt because the Committee took geography into consideration.

Like I said, there is no conspiracy theory
You even admit the committee could have matched up Penn State and Auburn.

The committee could have emphasized the quality of the match-up over geography, but chose not to do so.

Thanks, however, for your explanation of the bowl match-up contracts and affiliations!

 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,325 posts, read 11,554,281 times
Reputation: 4319
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
You even admit the committee could have matched up Penn State and Auburn.

The committee could have emphasized the quality of the match-up over geography, but chose not to do so.

Thanks, however, for your explanation of the bowl match-up contracts and affiliations!
1. Part of the obligation of the committee is geography

2. Again, your argument was not simply that the match up could have happened, you clearly stated a conspiracy theory that has been proven wrong. You made the argument that Auburn could have played Wisconsin and Ohio State, which they could not have.

3. How are you making a quality of match up argument ????? both games were 1 score games ?
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:36 AM
 
9,426 posts, read 7,105,331 times
Reputation: 12202
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
Good god; this thread! Nobody actually wants to discuss what happened in the playoff games last night- especially the first game?
The second game was my worst nightmare on multiple levels. First, I think I mentioned this here a few days ago that if Clemson attempted the little dump-off passes that they had been doing the past several games, it wasn't going to end well for them.

I'm not surprised at it being a low scoring game. Take away the turnovers, which were all basically tipped passes and you're at about a 10-6 game.

The second part is probably everyone's worst nightmare.. Now we'll have to listen to the "All SEC" crap for a year or more.
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,044 posts, read 83,705,236 times
Reputation: 41817
I don't really care how they matched up the games, yesterday, for me sucked. We have a family pool, have had for many years: Going into yesterday I was in 2nd place. After yesterday I was tied for 4th place with only 1 win all day. I think I am ready for the end of the season and to return to our regular daily life with our regular programs being on TV late afternoon into the evening. I know I will suffer from football withdrawal fro a few weeks but will now look forward to March madness.
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,269 posts, read 26,269,309 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80s_kid View Post
All SEC, yawn. I'll pass...
Basically. This game will probably have the lowest ratings of any championship game in recent years. It was bad enough with 2 southern schools last year, but at least one of those teams had an exciting offense. Georgia and Alabama bring nothing but boredom to the table.
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,325 posts, read 11,554,281 times
Reputation: 4319
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post

When was the last time that Alabama played a highly ranked non-SEC foe on other than an independent field? Pathetic. The committee should not have rewarded Alabama this year for such chicanery if for no other reason than to improve the quality of college football by forcing the SEC to compete on the road against other Power 5 conferences.

Admittedly, the committee punished Ohio State for its inexplicable loss against Iowa (perhaps not so inexplicable when considering that Barrett was playing with a bad knee that required surgery before the Big Ten championship game; the committee considered Alabama's injured linebackers but not Barrett's knee), but effectively rewarded Alabama for its lack of signature victories based on the final rankings and the lack of any championship.
By your logic, an Alabama Home win vs an 8-5 Michigan team is worth more than a win over an 10-3 USC team at Cowboy Stadium.

Tell me how that logic works ? Especially considering that the playoffs are themselves at neutral fields, not home/away games ?????

Since Nick Saban has been coach they have played #3 FSU, #7 Va Tech,#8 Michigan, #9 Clemson,#20 Wisconsin, #20 USC, #22 FSU in those neutral site games. (im excluding the Home and away with Penn State )

Ohio State in that same time span, has only played Oklahoma(X2),USC(x2) and Miami as a ranked teams

Quote:
If Georgia and especially Alabama lose today, this will have been the committee's worst performance yet.
Why would the #3 and #4 teams losing to the #1 and #2 teams do that in your mind ???????

Even if you thought the committee got Bama and Georgia wrong(but got the order of the top 2 right), it would always be #1 vs #2 in the title game, thats the point of ranking the teams.

Last edited by dsjj251; 01-02-2018 at 09:50 AM..
 
Old 01-02-2018, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
23,325 posts, read 11,554,281 times
Reputation: 4319
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyCrockett View Post
Good god; this thread! Nobody actually wants to discuss what happened in the playoff games last night- especially the first game?
LOL, the theme was the SEC sucks, you cant keep that going if you mention Alabama and Georgia winning.
 
Old 01-02-2018, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,269 posts, read 26,269,309 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18 View Post
The second game was my worst nightmare on multiple levels. First, I think I mentioned this here a few days ago that if Clemson attempted the little dump-off passes that they had been doing the past several games, it wasn't going to end well for them.

I'm not surprised at it being a low scoring game. Take away the turnovers, which were all basically tipped passes and you're at about a 10-6 game.

The second part is probably everyone's worst nightmare.. Now we'll have to listen to the "All SEC" crap for a year or more.
It's clear that Watson made Clemson's--and now Houston's--offensive line look better than it really is.


https://j.gifs.com/L899yj.gif
 
Old 01-02-2018, 10:55 AM
 
3,723 posts, read 3,884,166 times
Reputation: 2779
Ticket prices for the title game are insane right now. I heard that the cheapest seats are going for $1,500 on StubHub. I am sure those will come down as we get closer to the game, but damn that's high. It also helps that both schools are so close so it eliminates the need for flights and rental cars. People can pour that money into their tickets.
 
Old 01-02-2018, 11:38 AM
 
Location: alabama.
2,322 posts, read 1,765,707 times
Reputation: 4700
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Basically. This game will probably have the lowest ratings of any championship game in recent years. It was bad enough with 2 southern schools last year, but at least one of those teams had an exciting offense. Georgia and Alabama bring nothing but boredom to the table.
uhm last years championship game was the MOST watched game all year since the last championship game ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top