(06-08-2012 11:07 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:59 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  They might not get locked out, but it sure doesn't assist. The fact that a 2 loss Oregon team would even be in the same conversation as a 1 loss champion- is extremely telling.

Would be in the conversation? According to who? You? Chip Brown? Orangebloods premium posters? Seriously?

Are you really serious? Oregon definitely would have been in the same conversation.

Going into the last weekend- the computers- which would be very similar to the selection committee in a lot of ways I think- had Oregon and Virginia Tech tied. TIED...

VT beating Clemson would have moved them ahead of Oregon beating UCLA.

Clemson with a loss there would have lost 4 of their final 5 games. In a committee's mind, that wouldn't have helped one iota.. Computers, would have helped some- but UCLA was still the #48 team in the country- 9 conference games plus Houston and Texas doing it.

That made UCLA 6-7

(06-08-2012 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:59 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  They might not get locked out, but it sure doesn't assist. The fact that a 2 loss Oregon team would even be in the same conversation as a 1 loss champion- is extremely telling.

Would be in the conversation? According to who? You? Chip Brown? Orangebloods premium posters? Seriously?

Are you really serious? Oregon definitely would have been in the same conversation.

Going into the last weekend- the computers- which would be very similar to the selection committee in a lot of ways I think- had Oregon and Virginia Tech tied. TIED...

Yes I'm serious. Weren't we assuming that VT would've been a ONE loss team? IF that was the case then NO Oregon wouldn't have been in the discussion.

(06-08-2012 11:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 11:03 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:49 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:31 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Let's go to last year.. Everyone throwing out scenarios...

Wisconsin doesn't lose to Ohio St.
Virginia Tech doesn't lose to Clemson in the ACC title game...

You have-
0 loss LSU- lock in
1 loss Oklahoma St
2 loss Oregon
1 loss Va Tech
1 loss Wisconsin

if it's a committee, does anyone really think Virginia Tech would get in over either Oregon or Wisconsin? VT- with no wins over probably a top 25 team(think that's how far down Clemson would drop- they were #20 entering the ACC title game and by definition would have lost that game)....

It would be a tough call for me. Both conferences have their share of bottom feeders. VT had Duke & BC on their conference schedule. Oregon had Colorado & WSU. Oregon played a better OOC but at the same time got blown out by LSU.

Regardless....I think the ACC's biggest problem is they aren't scheduling good OOC competition. VT played 3 non-AQ's (ECU, ArkSt & Marshall) and an FCS (App St). Oregon played 1 non-AQ (Nev) and an FCS (Mizzou St).

The ACC has an SOS problem that they can fix if they want. At the end of the day it all comes down to winning. I don't believe for a minute than an ACC school gets locked out for being in the ACC, that's ridiculous.

That isn't true at all. There was a hole on VT's schedule created by schools backing out. The Boise game filled one of the years but there wasn't anyone for this year so we played Ark State which didn't turn out to be as bad as expected.

The ACC plays plenty of BCS competition each year.

VT has Pitt and Cincy both this year and Alabama, Wisconsin, and Ohio State coming up on the schedule.

Fair enough. Clearly I don't know all the details, bottom line it would affect end of year SOS in the "new BCS" formula. I think there probably will be stiffer penalties or rule changes for backing out of games for this very reason.

I was making a sweeping statement about the entire ACC, not neccessarily VT. I think it's fair to say the ACC does need to schedule UP overall to keep an SOS element higher.

Winning games should cure most of that. The SEC isn't scheduling tough. They are just winning the games they should. The ACC has enough opportunities to get ahead, they just have to perform.

(06-08-2012 11:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 11:07 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:59 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  They might not get locked out, but it sure doesn't assist. The fact that a 2 loss Oregon team would even be in the same conversation as a 1 loss champion- is extremely telling.

Would be in the conversation? According to who? You? Chip Brown? Orangebloods premium posters? Seriously?

Are you really serious? Oregon definitely would have been in the same conversation.

Going into the last weekend- the computers- which would be very similar to the selection committee in a lot of ways I think- had Oregon and Virginia Tech tied. TIED...

VT beating Clemson would have moved them ahead of Oregon beating UCLA.

Clemson with a loss there would have lost 4 of their final 5 games. In a committee's mind, that wouldn't have helped one iota.. Computers, would have helped some- but UCLA was still the #48 team in the country- 9 conference games plus Houston and Texas doing it.

bull****. You don't know that at all no matter how much you want to force your opinions on everybody else.

Conference Champions format, whether it is top 4 or 3+1, favors realignment stability. Not the other way around.

Chip Brown or whoever else makes this claim is flat out wrong.

Not only is the ACC in favor of conference champs format, they would prefer a 8 team playoff that includes a conference champ format.

(06-08-2012 11:11 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:59 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  They might not get locked out, but it sure doesn't assist. The fact that a 2 loss Oregon team would even be in the same conversation as a 1 loss champion- is extremely telling.

Would be in the conversation? According to who? You? Chip Brown? Orangebloods premium posters? Seriously?

Are you really serious? Oregon definitely would have been in the same conversation.

Going into the last weekend- the computers- which would be very similar to the selection committee in a lot of ways I think- had Oregon and Virginia Tech tied. TIED...

Yes I'm serious. Weren't we assuming that VT would've been a ONE loss team? IF that was the case then NO Oregon wouldn't have been in the discussion.

I think you're wrong. Folks that are on a selection committee would look at things closer than VT 1 loss, Oregon 2 loss, VT automatically better than Oregon...

This is such a non-concern I have no idea why it keeps coming up.

1. The changes this summer don't include anything involving SOS and who makes a hypothetical playoff continues to be the "sexy" pick of pollsters. I continue to believe this will be the case. The individual superpower schools will want to have their 7-8 home games and not get dinged for it.

2. The changes do include SOS changes and all schools, including those in the ACC will have ample time to fill and adjust their 2014 and future schedules accordingly.

(06-08-2012 11:14 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  Conference Champions format, whether it is top 4 or 3+1, favors realignment stability. Not the other way around.

Chip Brown or whoever else makes this claim is flat out wrong.

Not only is the ACC in favor of conference champs format, they would prefer a 8 team playoff that includes a conference champ format.

8 team playoff format isn't happening...... PERIOD....

Conference Champions doesn't help out at all. Folks would be migrating at that point to make sure they were in one of the top 4 conferences to guarantee themselves the best shot possible.

If it's a top 4 only- folks would be a lot more willing to stay the same.

And- a 3+1 would be the worst case.... Because most years, the at large team will be ahead of any 4th champion....

It is highly probable that a committee will produce the exact same results as the polls.

Fact is that VT was #5 and Oregon was #9 in the AP, and in the coaches poll VT was 3 and Oregon was 7 going into the final game of the regular season. It's highly unlikely that VT would have been left out if it was left to a committee.

(06-08-2012 11:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It is highly probable that a committee will produce the exact same results as the polls.

Fact is that VT was #5 and Oregon was #9 in the AP, and in the coaches poll VT was 3 and Oregon was 7 going into the final game of the regular season. It's highly unlikely that VT would have been left out if it was left to a committee.

But, if you rembember- Kirk Herbstreit and all of the ESPN guys were slamming VT saying they had absolutely no business being there, they had done nothing outside of not losing. A committee would be a lot closer to that than the polls.

(06-08-2012 11:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 11:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It is highly probable that a committee will produce the exact same results as the polls.

Fact is that VT was #5 and Oregon was #9 in the AP, and in the coaches poll VT was 3 and Oregon was 7 going into the final game of the regular season. It's highly unlikely that VT would have been left out if it was left to a committee.

But, if you rembember- Kirk Herbstreit and all of the ESPN guys were slamming VT saying they had absolutely no business being there, they had done nothing outside of not losing. A committee would be a lot closer to that than the polls.

You know what a narrative is. If VT had avenged their earlier loss to Clemson in the ACC title game, they'd be in, and the story from ESPN would be "Yes, they lost a game, but came back and won the rematch."

If the committee would have passed on VT, there would be a NEW committee next year.

(06-08-2012 11:07 AM)stever20 Wrote:  ACC's problem isn't that they don't play plenty of BCS competition each year..... The problem is- they don't win. Last year, 8-13 vs AQ's and Notre Dame....

Here's your problem. You relate EVERYTHING back to last year and then make outrageous definitive statements like the above as though the results from last year are the norm.

Now here are the vs BCS and ND stats from

2009:

ACC - 9-11
Big 12 - 4-7
Big 10 - 5-9
PAC - 8-7
SEC - 10-4

2008:

ACC - 15-8
Big 12 - 7-8
Big 10 - 6-7
PAC - 6-8
SEC - 6-9

2007:

ACC - 11-11
Big 12 - 5-6
Big 10 - 9-4
PAC - 6-5
SEC - 7-7

Cumulative for those 3 years:

ACC - 35-30
SEC - 23-20
Big 10 - 20-20
PAC - 20-20
Big 12 - 16-21

Cheers,
Neil

@steve

I never said an eight team playoff was going to happen this time around

I will take any sig bet that if conference champs format is elected, that no ACC teams leave because of it.

Why in the world do you think the PAC, B1G, ACC, and Big East all favor a champions only format?

This theory is so stupid I don't even know why I am arguing about it. Anyone, who thinks it has merit has proven to me they lack credibility in my book.

You can respond to the bet, but I am done wasting time on this debate.

Neil,
Kind of curious why you took out 2010?

Oh, yeah, they went 6-13 vs AQ's plus Notre Dame...

So last 5 years ACC is 49-56 vs AQ's plus ND

And, Big 12 30-28 in that same period...

Ahh.... now I see why you took out the last 2 years...

If anything your numbers are really flawed by the 1 outlier the ACC had- 15-8 in 2008.

Last 3 years now- 23-37 vs AQ's/ND.

(06-08-2012 11:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-08-2012 11:20 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It is highly probable that a committee will produce the exact same results as the polls.

Fact is that VT was #5 and Oregon was #9 in the AP, and in the coaches poll VT was 3 and Oregon was 7 going into the final game of the regular season. It's highly unlikely that VT would have been left out if it was left to a committee.

But, if you rembember- Kirk Herbstreit and all of the ESPN guys were slamming VT saying they had absolutely no business being there, they had done nothing outside of not losing. A committee would be a lot closer to that than the polls.

A committee would have to defend its actions and wouldn't be out to guard ESPN assets. In one BCS show, ESPN explained why Alabama deserved to be in the BCS game over Stanford. They NEVER even mentioned Oklahoma St. I could find a lot of 5th graders to do better than ESPN.

(06-08-2012 11:36 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  @steve

I never said an eight team playoff was going to happen this time around

I will take any sig bet that if conference champs format is elected, that no ACC teams leave because of it.

Why in the world do you think the PAC, B1G, ACC, and Big East all favor a champions only format?

This theory is so stupid I don't even know why I am arguing about it. Anyone, who thinks it has merit has proven to me they lack credibility in my book.

You can respond to the bet, but I am done wasting time on this debate.

If the Big Ten favored champions only, then why did Jim Delaney say what he did about top 4?

And, the reason why the Pac 12 and Big Ten would favor champions only has NOTHING to do with realignment in the least. They're not getting poached....

(06-08-2012 11:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Neil,
Kind of curious why you took out 2010?

It's an ongoing narrative I've had with you for a while now where I have already conceded that for the last 2 years the ACC has sucked but that in the very recent past they haven't.

All one has to do is go back to 2007, 2008, and 2009 to know this and I have demonstrated this to you OVER AND OVER and yet you keep clinging to data from just last year in every single analysis you do.

College football is cyclical. What is so hard to grasp about this concept?

Cheers,
Neil

Don't you know, Commissioners and School Presidents Lie.

e.g FSU & Clemson.