forums

Rankings…

Advertisement
RVACane said:
At this point, would it be better if they expand the playoffs, even if not like basketball??? They’re going to squeeze all these SEC teams in and then the big will get a good amount in. It would give more teams outside those two conferences a chance.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Then even the smaller bowls go back to meaning something. It will also create more parity as high school players can go more places and still hit the postseason. Do it like FCS
 
ALLoverCANE said:
So you criticize me for a small sample size and then base your entire argument on a handful of examples lmao classic message board argument

Again, the ratings, polls, resume, and (most importantly) Vegas all think the SEC is the best conference. Yes, obviously conference quality matters in this discussion, because good conferences have good teams - like Vanderbilt
Click to expand...

The handful of examples expose the circular reference that everyone in the SEC should be a playoff team.

You didn't address the point, again. Missouri and Vanderbilt aren't good teams "cuz SEC, bro". You have to build your own resume.
 
PennsylvaniaCane said:
Until there is more cross conference play that is meaningful you’d almost have to expand. Instead each of the conferences are expanding and increasing conf schedules.

Get rid of the conference championship games and FCS games. Go with a 32 team playoff.

People will become more and more skeptical over the whole process, especially with everything going on these days (NBA betting scandal). You almost have to go with an expanded playoff and get as many top teams in it you can.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m thinking along these lines - 32 teams would be great with no conference championships or have them if they insist on an additional game. But m this would be better than a limited number of playoff spots that unfairly sees one conference get half the spots with lesser records in some cases annually
 
TaylorWalls said:
The handful of examples expose the circular reference that everyone in the SEC should be a playoff team.

You didn't address the point, again. Missouri and Vanderbilt aren't good teams "cuz SEC, bro". You have to build your own resume.
Click to expand...
They have built resumes (especially Vanderbilt), which you discredited solely based on "SEC bro" cherry-picking

You can transitive property your way to every team being terrible. In the aggregate, the SEC is very good. Teams with good records in the SEC are very good.
 
TwentySix said:
Oregon has zero, and I mean zero, reason for being as high as they are, especially given how they played against Wisconsin.

6-2 FCS team
1-7 Oklahoma State
5-3 Northwestern
1-7 Oregon State
3-4 Penn State (2OT)
10 point home loss to Indiana
4-4 Rutgers
2-6 Wisconsin

Their best win may seriously be Northwestern. The combined record of their FBS wins is 16-31
Click to expand...
Oregon states single win was against my Alma mater. Lafayette college, it is FCS. S school with 1200 male students. We haven't won a national championship since the early 1900s. We were within seven and at half time, and only lost by thirty
 
RVACane said:
Yeah I’m thinking along these lines - 32 teams would be great with no conference championships or have them if they insist on an additional game. But m this would be better than a limited number of playoff spots that unfairly sees one conference get half the spots with lesser records in some cases annually
Click to expand...
Yep the more you increase the less butt hurt over being left out because now you’re getting down to 3 and 4 loss teams. Not leaving out a 1 or 2 loss team.
 
10 is about right. Stanford helped to make it look easy. They better start playing with fire or they’ll be left out of the playoff. With this bunch running the table is a long shot.
 
Advertisement
ALLoverCANE said:
LOL that's your argument? There is just no way to assess conference quality?

BTW, Vegas very clearly agrees the SEC is the best conference, based on the spreads.
Click to expand...
Bro, do you know how Vegas works?
They win when there is even money on both teams. They raise the spread to entice money on the underdog and lower the spread to entice money on the favorite.

Now on the futures to win the NC, they win by getting big money to bet on teams that have big money fans, that will bet on them, regardless of if the team has a legitimate shot.

Let me give you an example.
USC, as of the last futures odds, has the 16th best odds to win the NC. Now, in order for that to happen, they have to not only win out. They have to beat Oregon, whom they have as the 6th best odds to win the Natty, then win every game in the playoffs.

Texas has the 12th best odds to win the NC, despite the fact they are #20 right now and would not even likely make the playoffs, if the season ended today. Texas would have to beat Vanderbilt, UGA and Texas A&M, win out, then win out in the playoffs.

See, the Vegas spreads and odds have nothing to do with “Best Conference”, they are about making money.
 
RF-4CCane said:
Bro, do you know how Vegas works?
They win when there is even money on both teams. They raise the spread to entice money on the underdog and lower the spread to entice money on the favorite.

Now on the futures to win the NC, they win by getting big money to bet on teams that have big money fans, that will bet on them, regardless of if the team has a legitimate shot.

Let me give you an example.
USC, as of the last futures odds, has the 16th best odds to win the NC. Now, in order for that to happen, they have to not only win out. They have to beat Oregon, whom they have as the 6th best odds to win the Natty, then win every game in the playoffs.

Texas has the 12th best odds to win the NC, despite the fact they are #20 right now and would not even likely make the playoffs, if the season ended today. Texas would have to beat Vanderbilt, UGA and Texas A&M, win out, then win out in the playoffs.

See, the Vegas spreads and odds have nothing to do with “Best Conference”, they are about making money.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that's just a basic misunderstanding of markets. Yes, mechanically, you are correct. That's how they set the lines. You can say the exact same thing about evert market on earth, e.g. the stock market, real estate market, etc.

And yet, it's very hard to beat the market. The collective wisdom of the investors in those markets is what makes market signals powerful.

But if you're right...borrow as much money as you possibly can, at any interest rate, and become a full-time gambler.
 
ALLoverCANE said:
I'm sorry, but that's just a basic misunderstanding of markets. Yes, mechanically, you are correct. That's how they set the lines. You can say the exact same thing about evert market on earth, e.g. the stock market, real estate market, etc.

And yet, it's very hard to beat the market. The collective wisdom of the investors in those markets is what makes market signals powerful.

But if you're right...borrow as much money as you possibly can, at any interest rate, and become a full-time gambler.
Click to expand...
I am a disciplined gambler.
I never bet on a team I’m emotional about IE., UM, though I did bet on them for the first time since 1986, on the ND game. Easy money.

I generally don’t bet until the end of regular season, so that I have a large enough data sample.
I stopped betting on bowl games two years ago because opt outs and portal made it too risky.

Now I only bet on playoff games.
I have my own system based on matchups. I don’t give a **** about the spread or who’s favored, I look for matchup mismatches. Then factor in injuries. I will buy down the spread if necessary. I’ll give 6.5 points, never 7.5 points.

I have a 75% success rate the past 10 years, being disciplined, unemotional and data driven.
The emotional and greedy leave room to work the system.

I was also in a 30-35 person pool for 20 years. I won the pool outright 6 times.
 
BigDikDaddyFromCincinnati said:
Respectful question - who are the “championship caliber” teams this year? Indiana so far is the only one I’ve seen, and I’m not really sold on them. Who you got?
Click to expand...
Good question. Parity is certainly the theme of this season and probably the theme moving forward. So I have to look at ceiling. Indiana and OSU (as much as that pains me) have the highest ceiling to me, meaning that their best would beat anyone else's best. Next I have TAMU and Bama. Their best can beat the other two if they don't bring their A game. After that, some really weird things need to happen for the rest of the playoff teams to win a title. It's not impossible, after all, just get to the tournament and see what happens.
 
RF-4CCane said:
I am a disciplined gambler.
I never bet on a team I’m emotional about IE., UM, though I did bet on them for the first time since 1986, on the ND game. Easy money.

I generally don’t bet until the end of regular season, so that I have a large enough data sample.
I stopped betting on bowl games two years ago because opt outs and portal made it too risky.

Now I only bet on playoff games.
I have my own system based on matchups. I don’t give a **** about the spread or who’s favored, I look for matchup mismatches. Then factor in injuries. I will buy down the spread if necessary. I’ll give 6.5 points, never 7.5 points.

I have a 75% success rate the past 10 years, being disciplined, unemotional and data driven.
The emotional and greedy leave room to work the system.

I was also in a 30-35 person pool for 20 years. I won the pool outright 6 times.
Click to expand...
If you beat the spread 75% of the time over a 10 year period you should be worth at least $100M
 
CanefaninBuckeyeland said:
Good question. Parity is certainly the theme of this season and probably the theme moving forward. So I have to look at ceiling. Indiana and OSU (as much as that pains me) have the highest ceiling to me, meaning that their best would beat anyone else's best. Next I have TAMU and Bama. Their best can beat the other two if they don't bring their A game. After that, some really weird things need to happen for the rest of the playoff teams to win a title. It's not impossible, after all, just get to the tournament and see what happens.
Click to expand...
I agree with the teams you named other than Alabama. They got smoked by FSU and got lucky to win yesterday. I like your statement about bringing the A game….sort leads right in to the parity commentary, which is why I started this thread (in part). I think we are a contender (shocker I’m sure!)
 
Advertisement
bacane said:
So, let’s see a breakdown of who played & their records. Important to look inside the numbers.
Click to expand...
Here’s all of their OOC games with their standing in the SEC and their opponent’s standing in their respective conference.

TAMU (1) @ ND (Ind) W (+1)
Bama (1) @ FSU (16) L (-14)
Bama (1) vs Wisconsin (18) W (+24)
Vandy (5) @ VT (9) W (+24)
Texas (6) @ Ohio State (1) L (-7)
Tennessee (7) vs Cuse (14) W (+19)
Mizzou (8) vs Kansas (11) W (+11)
Oklahoma (9) vs Michigan (5) W (+11)
Florida (10) @ Miami (7) L (-19)
LSU (11) @ Clemson (11) W (+7)
Auburn (12) @ Baylor (10) W (+14)
South Carolina (13) vs VT (9) W (+13)
Mississippi State (14) vs Arizona State (6) W (+4)
Arkansas (15) vs ND (Ind) L (-43)

Do with that what you will.
 
ALLoverCANE said:
They have built resumes (especially Vanderbilt), which you discredited solely based on "SEC bro" cherry-picking
Click to expand...

Vanderbilt has wins over LSU (propped up by media because of SEC) and Missouri (propped up by media because of SEC). They also get credit for simply playing Alabama. So this resume they built.......
 
TaylorWalls said:
Vanderbilt has wins over LSU (propped up by media because of SEC) and Missouri (propped up by media because of SEC). They also get credit for simply playing Alabama. So this resume they built.......
Click to expand...
And we have a win vs ND, a 2-loss team propped up by media bc they're ND.

Your argument is based solely on cherry-picking.
 
ALLoverCANE said:
And we have a win vs ND, a 2-loss team propped up by media bc they're ND.

Your argument is based solely on cherry-picking.
Click to expand...
Where did I bring up Miami?

My argument is that the SEC myth is circular, even within the metrics. For example, anyone in the country could have gotten blown out by Texas A&M last night. But LSU gets credit simply for playing an undefeated team. The reality is that LSU has only beaten three sub-.500 P4 teams, a 4-3 G5 team, and an FCS team. So, why are they still #16 in Sagarin? "Good losses".
 
Back
Top