forums

MEGA There’s Still Hope for the ACCCG/CFB Playoffs Mega Merge Thread

USNAVYCANE said:
Steve Sarkisian on SEC This Morning:

"Is this about what your record is at the end, or is this about beating quality teams and showing how good of a team you really are by beating quality teams on the field."

"Or, is it, don't play good teams, put up a bunch of yards, put up a bunch of points, and make it look good. Throw fade route touchdowns with 38 seconds to go when you're ahead 31-7 so that the score looks better. So is the committee really watching the games, or are they just looking at a stat sheet at the end of the game to say 'Oh, well they won by this many points, they must've played really good."
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're holding onto being within one score of OSU and the ONLY team to do that. Meanwhile, they had super narrow wins against some putrid teams. Whatever, I'm glad they're out
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
USNAVYCANE said:
Steve Sarkisian on SEC This Morning:

"Is this about what your record is at the end, or is this about beating quality teams and showing how good of a team you really are by beating quality teams on the field."

"Or, is it, don't play good teams, put up a bunch of yards, put up a bunch of points, and make it look good. Throw fade route touchdowns with 38 seconds to go when you're ahead 31-7 so that the score looks better. So is the committee really watching the games, or are they just looking at a stat sheet at the end of the game to say 'Oh, well they won by this many points, they must've played really good."
Click to expand...
Texas lost to UF...

They're 4-8.

Case closed.
 
Someone post some version of this on X:

Oklahoma beat Alabama. But by every major statistical metric, Alabama is the better team:

• FPI: ALA 6, OU 17

• SP+: ALA 12, OU 13

• Sagarin: ALA 7, OU 13

• SOR: ALA 8, OU 9

Yet Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Alabama because of the head-to-head result, even though OU’s post-game win expectancy was just 4.8%.

So why does head-to-head count for Oklahoma… but not for Miami? Isn’t ALA the "better" team?
 
CanesNation26 said:
Someone post some version of this on X:

Oklahoma beat Alabama. But by every major statistical metric, Alabama is the better team:

• FPI: ALA 6, OU 17

• SP+: ALA 12, OU 13

• Sagarin: ALA 7, OU 13

• SOR: ALA 8, OU 9

Yet Oklahoma is ranked ahead of Alabama because of the head-to-head result, even though OU’s post-game win expectancy was just 4.8%.

So why does head-to-head count for Oklahoma… but not for Miami? Isn’t ALA the "better" team?
Click to expand...
AND Alabama has a significantly worse loss than either of ours and their win is a little better than ours.

It's almost a mirror image yet Alabama is ranked 2 spots behind Oklahoma and we're ranked 3 spots behind ND.
 
USNAVYCANE said:
Steve Sarkisian on SEC This Morning:

"Is this about what your record is at the end, or is this about beating quality teams and showing how good of a team you really are by beating quality teams on the field."

"Or, is it, don't play good teams, put up a bunch of yards, put up a bunch of points, and make it look good. Throw fade route touchdowns with 38 seconds to go when you're ahead 31-7 so that the score looks better. So is the committee really watching the games, or are they just looking at a stat sheet at the end of the game to say 'Oh, well they won by this many points, they must've played really good."
Click to expand...
We would beat Texas by 10+ so f right off with his crap. Don’t lose to sorry *** UF who we beat by 20.
 
I have no earthly idea what's going to happen

the gap is so close that the committee cannot ethically ignore the head to head. I'm sure they'll find a way to


but I do feel more optimistic that we are either IN with ND or OUT with ND (if byu wins)

might take a team like ole miss getting screwed in the process but they either do that and continue the precedent that the committee set with FSU that they could lean on OR they ignore a direct head to head result and seriously put into question the integrity of the entire sport

I think the ole miss thing is easier for them to deflect
 
Advertisement
USNAVYCANE said:
Steve Sarkisian on SEC This Morning:

"Is this about what your record is at the end, or is this about beating quality teams and showing how good of a team you really are by beating quality teams on the field."

"Or, is it, don't play good teams, put up a bunch of yards, put up a bunch of points, and make it look good. Throw fade route touchdowns with 38 seconds to go when you're ahead 31-7 so that the score looks better. So is the committee really watching the games, or are they just looking at a stat sheet at the end of the game to say 'Oh, well they won by this many points, they must've played really good."
Click to expand...
Drinking in the morning again? His body must be 90% alcohol at this point.
 
Sounds like Sitake to Penn St is all but official. Wonder if he coaches BYU this weekend?

Talk about a disaster of a coaching search. PSU was the first to fire their coach and eventually hired a guy that’s a downgrade.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
Sounds like Sitake to Penn St is all but official. Wonder if he coaches BYU this weekend?

Talk about a disaster of a coaching search. PSU was the first to fire their coach and eventually hired a guy that’s a downgrade.
Click to expand...
Well what’s the first thing that comes to everyone’s mind when they hear Penn State? Pedophiles
 
Advertisement
Crimpy said:
You're the one who needs to quit while you're behind. Your very first response to me was, "FSU does NOT have a 'lowered exit fee'. In fact, the exit fee went up for everyone." You said nothing about whether FSU was the only school to benefit from the settlement.

Now, I know you are going to try and play semantic games with the term "exit fee", but you know full well that the overall cost to leave the ACC has gone down, not up. Pre-litigation, the cost to leave was a $130 million exit fee plus the value of the media rights, which we will put at FSU's estimate of about $430 million. That's a total cost of $560 million to depart. Post-litigation, the cost to leave is $165 million, plus NO media rights. You do the math. In addition, the $165 million fee declines by $18 million a year until bottoming out at $75 million in 2030. You can try and be cute and describe the GOR as likely "unenforceable" so you can conveniently keep it out of your pre-litigation equation, but until the lawsuit was filed AND successfully settled, it existed, and it had to be paid.

Now, after I clearly demonstrated that the bottom line cost to a school to leave the ACC has been significantly lowered, you are trying to pretend that your original beef had to do with whether or not FSU alone received the benefit of the reduced exit costs, which I stated in my follow-up post that they did not. Who's the bull****ter again?

As for your snarky dismissal of any notion that Miami could "immediately" avail itself of a lower exit fee, well, ...you're wrong again. As I mentioned, there is now a "limited withdrawal" option for schools where they can remove one sport (which would obviously be football for us), while all other sports would remain in the ACC. If the school chose to do that, it would pay an exit fee of only $75 million and retain its media rights for the departing sport. We could always remove the rest of the sports at a later date, likely 2030-31.

See, if you had simply responded by saying something like, "Actually, the negotiated terms of the lawsuit will apply to all ACC teams, so everyone has a lower exit cost now", everything would have been fine. But you decided you were going to be a smart-aleck and play games over the term "exit fee": "Well, the actual 'exit fee' IS a little bit higher, ... just pay no attention to the fact that the $430 million dollar loss of media revenue doesn't exist anymore (wink, wink!). See what an intellectual I am, everybody?"

You picked this fight, not me.
Click to expand...


Another pathetic response from a butt-hurt soft ***** who is incapable of understanding the English language.

I said "F$U does not have a lowered exit fee". That is true. The verb "have" is phrased in the present tense. As in "FSU does not CURRENTLY have a lowered exit fee", which is 100% truth and has no bearing or impact on the irrelevant point of "whether FSU was the only school to benefit from the settlement".

It's funny that you are using SEMANTIC GAMES in an attempt to accuse someone else of using semantic games.

As for the rest of your garbage, the EXIT FEE has absolutely increased. That's why the ACC amended the Constitution. You can't take a FAILED attempt to imposed a separate "GOR damage" and then claim that it was an exit fee. It was not. For instance, a school could have allowed the ACC to retain broadcast rights and pay nothing. The reality is that the legal "rationale" for the GOR damages was based on the loss of broadcast rights, not the exit from the conference. As such, the ACC was attempting to impose two separate penalties, which the court saw through.

I know, I know, you are making a belated attempt to win the argument by moving the goalposts. Now you want to say the "bottom line cost" to leave the ACC has gone down. But, of course, we were NEVER talking about "bottom line costs". I used the term "exit fee" for a reason. Because it has ALWAYS been defined by the ACC Constitution, even before the invention of any "Grant of Rights". Don't blame me for YOUR MISTAKE. If you wanted to talk about "bottom line costs", you could have said so. But you failed to do so when you yapped about "exit fee".

As for your bull**** paragraph about a "limited withdrawal", I never addressed that point. EVER. I simply continued to mock your ORIGINAL and inaccurate point about FSU HAVING A LOWERED EXIT FEE DUE TO THEIR LITIGATION. I know full well of the existence of "limited withdrawal", which is why I never used words or phrases to that effect, because I wasn't discussing or debating "limited withdrawal". So while you have clearly and belatedly gone out of your way to research a topic you knew nothing about a few days ago, that doesn't mean that you can retroactively claim that this NEW THING is what you meant all along. You're just bull****ting. Again.

It's hilarious how you are now trying to tell me what I "should have said", when you are the dopey know-nothing who was inaccurate and imprecise in all of your prior postings. All the things that you are NOW belatedly saying that you "really meant to say" were things you could have said from the outset. But you didn't. So don't lecture me on what I should have said.

You were wrong. I was right. You could be a man and admit that, but you won't. You're going to keep inventing things you never said, and making up arguments I never made, but it won't change the fact that you are simply humiliated and angry over being corrected by someone who knows far more than you do about this particular subject.
 
Back
Top