GannonFan wrote:
Nah, Oklahoma might have a shot to beat Clemson even though I'm not convinced they play defense in the Big 12. And the Big 12, even without a championship game, kinda played the end of the season like they had one. Pairing up all the top teams to play basically a round robin at the end worked for them - it was like a quasi championship game played over three weeks. Well done on their part.
Forget it 88, he's dug his feet in and will keep offering up qualifiers.
UNI88 wrote:So the winner of Bama/Michigan St plays Clemson?
Nah, Oklahoma might have a shot to beat Clemson even though I'm not convinced they play defense in the Big 12. And the Big 12, even without a championship game, kinda played the end of the season like they had one. Pairing up all the top teams to play basically a round robin at the end worked for them - it was like a quasi championship game played over three weeks. Well done on their part.
You stated ...
GannonFan wrote:I just feel like the 4-8 seeds have already played themselves out of the playoffs by the end of the regular season anyway.
Oklahoma is the 4 seed so they've already played themselves out of the playoffs. If not, is it nuance or backtracking?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
GannonFan wrote:
Nah, Oklahoma might have a shot to beat Clemson even though I'm not convinced they play defense in the Big 12. And the Big 12, even without a championship game, kinda played the end of the season like they had one. Pairing up all the top teams to play basically a round robin at the end worked for them - it was like a quasi championship game played over three weeks. Well done on their part.
You stated ...
GannonFan wrote:I just feel like the 4-8 seeds have already played themselves out of the playoffs by the end of the regular season anyway.
Oklahoma is the 4 seed so they've already played themselves out of the playoffs. If not, is it nuance or backtracking?
It's neither, it's a typo. I'm perfectly fine with the top 4 seeds being in there, as detailed often throughout this thread. Did I miss a punctuation somewhere or perhaps a spelling error too, certainly wouldn't want other flaws like that existing on this message board.
GannonFan wrote:It's neither, it's a typo. I'm perfectly fine with the top 4 seeds being in there, as detailed often throughout this thread.
Most of the time there is no difference between a #4 and #5. Both will be one loss teams from a P5. If you're OK with a 4 you should be OK with a 5, or 6.
GannonFan wrote:It's neither, it's a typo. I'm perfectly fine with the top 4 seeds being in there, as detailed often throughout this thread.
Most of the time there is no difference between a #4 and #5. Both will be one loss teams from a P5. If you're OK with a 4 you should be OK with a 5, or 6.
Nope, I'm only good with 4, sometimes you just have to draw a line. I already said I'd rather leave out a team that could be deserving and would rather cut it short and know that I have 4 deserving teams with no chance of having a team in there that shouldn't be. Following your line of thinking, there's generally only ever a small difference between any teams ranked next to each other. If you're okay with 8, why not 9 since there's generally very little difference between #8 and #9. And if #9 is okay, there's little difference between #9 and #10. I never had you pegged as a pro-24-FCS-Playoffs kind of guy, but I'm seeing now how you could be.
89Hen wrote:
Most of the time there is no difference between a #4 and #5. Both will be one loss teams from a P5. If you're OK with a 4 you should be OK with a 5, or 6.
Nope, I'm only good with 4, sometimes you just have to draw a line. I already said I'd rather leave out a team that could be deserving and would rather cut it short and know that I have 4 deserving teams with no chance of having a team in there that shouldn't be. Following your line of thinking, there's generally only ever a small difference between any teams ranked next to each other. If you're okay with 8, why not 9 since there's generally very little difference between #8 and #9. And if #9 is okay, there's little difference between #9 and #10. I never had you pegged as a pro-24-FCS-Playoffs kind of guy, but I'm seeing now how you could be.
Nice try. Here is the disconnect...
GF wrote:I'd rather leave out a team that could be deserving
I do not agree with that at all, so we are at an impasse. At 8 you aren't leaving out any "deserving" teams, so that's where I am. That's also where we will end up, so I'm not sure why you're being stubborn. You know it will be 8 very soon.
GannonFan wrote:
Nope, I'm only good with 4, sometimes you just have to draw a line. I already said I'd rather leave out a team that could be deserving and would rather cut it short and know that I have 4 deserving teams with no chance of having a team in there that shouldn't be. Following your line of thinking, there's generally only ever a small difference between any teams ranked next to each other. If you're okay with 8, why not 9 since there's generally very little difference between #8 and #9. And if #9 is okay, there's little difference between #9 and #10. I never had you pegged as a pro-24-FCS-Playoffs kind of guy, but I'm seeing now how you could be.
Nice try. Here is the disconnect...
GF wrote:I'd rather leave out a team that could be deserving
I do not agree with that at all, so we are at an impasse. At 8 you aren't leaving out any "deserving" teams, so that's where I am. That's also where we will end up, so I'm not sure why you're being stubborn. You know it will be 8 very soon.
We've been at an impasse for a page or two by now, not sure where you've been. And yes, it comes down to my preference to know that we only have deserving teams in the playoffs, even if that means we leave out someone(s) who could be deserving, and your preference to try to include all the deserving teams, even if that means including a team(s) who is undeserving. And it will be 8, with 5 major conferences it's a certainty that it will be. I just don't think we'll see it until the 2020's decade.
I'll call mine the "Deserve to be there" plan and we'll call your's the "Remember the Pioneer League" plan. Glad we agree to disagree.
GannonFan wrote:it comes down to my preference to know that we only have deserving teams in the playoffs, even if that means we leave out someone(s) who could be deserving, and your preference to try to include all the deserving teams, even if that means including a team(s) who is undeserving. And it will be 8, with 5 major conferences it's a certainty that it will be. I just don't think we'll see it until the 2020's decade.
I'll call mine the "Deserve to be there" plan and we'll call your's the "Remember the Pioneer League" plan. Glad we agree to disagree.
That's OK, I'll call my the "true champion" plan and we'll call your's the "BCS plus two" plan, also known as the "80's called and they want their plan back" plan.
GannonFan wrote:it comes down to my preference to know that we only have deserving teams in the playoffs, even if that means we leave out someone(s) who could be deserving, and your preference to try to include all the deserving teams, even if that means including a team(s) who is undeserving. And it will be 8, with 5 major conferences it's a certainty that it will be. I just don't think we'll see it until the 2020's decade.
I'll call mine the "Deserve to be there" plan and we'll call your's the "Remember the Pioneer League" plan. Glad we agree to disagree.
That's OK, I'll call my the "true champion" plan and we'll call your's the "BCS plus two" plan, also known as the "80's called and they want their plan back" plan.
Sheesh...the holidays have arrived. Some of the Blue Hen family are having one of those "discussions" reserved for the big table.
Why can't we all be nice to each other? Aren't there some Big Sky people to laugh at (oooops, laugh with...be nice this time of year, Santa is watching).
Cluck U wrote:Sheesh...the holidays have arrived. Some of the Blue Hen family are having one of those "discussions" reserved for the big table.
Why can't we all be nice to each other? Aren't there some Big Sky people to laugh at (oooops, laugh with...be nice this time of year, Santa is watching).
Oklahoma is the 4 seed so they've already played themselves out of the playoffs. If not, is it nuance or backtracking?
It's neither, it's a typo. I'm perfectly fine with the top 4 seeds being in there, as detailed often throughout this thread. Did I miss a punctuation somewhere or perhaps a spelling error too, certainly wouldn't want other flaws like that existing on this message board.
You are such a logical perfectionist that I like to give you crap when you make a mistake or I find a hole in your logic. It's all fun.
I'm ok with 8 because I think there will be teams in the 5-8 spots that are playing the best football in the country and is capable of winning it all. What if Ole Miss hadn't lost to Arkansas? Alabama wouldn't have played in and won the SEC Championship. Could you have put them in the 4 team playoff? They'd be one of the top 4 teams in the country but not a conference champ.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
Spandos is also in the 0.1% and I'm sure he feels the same way.
