ROLL TIDE!!

[Bill from NYC]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Does Bama get to lose two games and still get a pass to the playoff?  Again? 

 

 

When did this happen?

 

Oh, I forgot.....they lost by 33 points to one of those powerhouse Iowa teams.

[4merper4mer]

16 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

When did this happen?

 

Oh, I forgot.....they lost by 33 points to one of those powerhouse Iowa teams.

They should just change the playoff format to Alabama plus 3.  That's the way the vote goes anyway.  The SEC isn't was it once was and Bama's non-conference schedule is a disgrace.  

 

Citadel.  Is that for real?  Why not schedule St. John Fisher and have Saban claim it as a quality win because of the shared facility with an NFL team?

 

[Bill from NYC]

You think that Alabama is given special consideration? Really? Why would this be so? Because they are such a huge, heavily populated state? Are they a big national draw like Notre Dame? Jealous fans and sportscasters wanted to put OSU in there with 2 losses, one of them a slaughter. The Tide got in (deservedly so) and the rest is history.

 

Might I inquire who your favorite team is?

[4merper4mer]

24 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

You think that Alabama is given special consideration? Really? Why would this be so? Because they are such a huge, heavily populated state? Are they a big national draw like Notre Dame? Jealous fans and sportscasters wanted to put OSU in there with 2 losses, one of them a slaughter. The Tide got in (deservedly so) and the rest is history.

 

Might I inquire who your favorite team is?

I don't really have a favorite team, just root from game to game.  It just seems the rules change from year to year.  One year Saban yammers about two losses being ok and the next year it is no way.

 

Mostly I think they should be honest.  Why give a team the illusion that they are actually a part of the BCS, watch them go undefeated and THEN let them in on the secret?  Just chop 100+ teams out of it since they are not really allowed to participate.  Also, why punish a team for losing its conference championship game just to reward another that didn't even qualify for their's?  

[Bfanlc]

55 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I don't really have a favorite team, just root from game to game.  It just seems the rules change from year to year.  One year Saban yammers about two losses being ok and the next year it is no way.

 

Mostly I think they should be honest.  Why give a team the illusion that they are actually a part of the BCS, watch them go undefeated and THEN let them in on the secret?  Just chop 100+ teams out of it since they are not really allowed to participate.  Also, why punish a team for losing its conference championship game just to reward another that didn't even qualify for their's?  

Alabama hasnt had two losses and played for anything. They've had one loss and played for the NC. Conference championships dont matter and arent a part of the current decision making process. That may just be something you are pushing. The goal of the committee is to get the 4 best teams. And they have done that every year. And since you don't have the balls to name your team we'll just take your posts as trolling. Enjoy Bama winning again this year .Thanks

[Cynical]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

I don't really have a favorite team, just root from game to game.  It just seems the rules change from year to year.  One year Saban yammers about two losses being ok and the next year it is no way.

 

Key word: "seems", interpreted as "I did not like the outcome, so something must be shady."

 

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

Mostly I think they should be honest.  Why give a team the illusion that they are actually a part of the BCS, watch them go undefeated and THEN let them in on the secret?  Just chop 100+ teams out of it since they are not really allowed to participate.  Also, why punish a team for losing its conference championship game just to reward another that didn't even qualify for their's?  

 

The CFB Committee set that precedent when they chose Ohio State over Penn State, feeling tOSU had the better resume.

Now, we can debate whether or not the CFB Committee should even be doing that, but they were consistent when they chose Bama over the Barn.

[row_33]

32 minutes ago, Cynical said:

 

Key word: "seems", interpreted as "I did not like the outcome, so something must be shady."

 

 

The CFB Committee set that precedent when they chose Ohio State over Penn State, feeling tOSU had the better resume.

Now, we can debate whether or not the CFB Committee should even be doing that, but they were consistent when they chose Bama over the Barn.

 

I never really had a beef with picking two teams for the "mythical title" and maybe over 40 years there was one injustice, the more they trumpet a perfect system the more likely some loophole or scenario blows it apart for the 15th time.

 

 

[Cynical]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

They should just change the playoff format to Alabama plus 3.  That's the way the vote goes anyway.  The SEC isn't was it once was and Bama's non-conference schedule is a disgrace.  

 

Citadel.  Is that for real?  Why not schedule St. John Fisher and have Saban claim it as a quality win because of the shared facility with an NFL team?

 

 

I love how these type of arguments are presented. If an SEC team does it, it's disgraceful. Any other P5 team does it, barely a blip on the outrage meter.

 

Hate to break it to you, Alabama and the SEC are not the only schools that play cupcake OOC schedules, unless you think Akron, South Alabama, and Austin Peay (just to name a few) are football powerhouses hiding in the shadows.

 

Do you even know how scheduling even works? Do you honestly think it's Alabama that's afraid of playing a tougher OOC schedule?

Saban has been consistent in saying he wants the team to play against more of the traditional powers.

What makes you think other schools want to play Bama as an OOC opponent?

 

 

[Cynical]

11 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

I never really had a beef with picking two teams for the "mythical title" and maybe over 40 years there was one injustice, the more they trumpet a perfect system the more likely some loophole or scenario blows it apart for the 15th time.

 

 

 

I was against the playoff format from the start. Hated it then, hate it now. Yes, that means Alabama would have never won last year. Doesn't bother me.

 

Here's the irony. For the people who wanted the playoffs because they were tired of the SEC bias, and then clamored to expand it beyond 4 teams, last year had to be shocker.

They finally got their justification for expanding. The 3rd and 4th seed played for the title. Too bad (for them) both teams were from the SEC.

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Cynical said:

 

Key word: "seems", interpreted as "I did not like the outcome, so something must be shady."

 

 

 

What it really means is fact set A was the justification for Bama in year one and the undoing of their rival in year 2.

1 hour ago, Cynical said:

 

I love how these type of arguments are presented. If an SEC team does it, it's disgraceful. Any other P5 team does it, barely a blip on the outrage meter.

 

Hate to break it to you, Alabama and the SEC are not the only schools that play cupcake OOC schedules, unless you think Akron, South Alabama, and Austin Peay (just to name a few) are football powerhouses hiding in the shadows.

 

Do you even know how scheduling even works? Do you honestly think it's Alabama that's afraid of playing a tougher OOC schedule?

Saban has been consistent in saying he wants the team to play against more of the traditional powers.

What makes you think other schools want to play Bama as an OOC opponent?

 

 

How about Boise State or UCF?  Do you think they'd play Bama?  Citadel lol.  

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Cynical said:

 

I was against the playoff format from the start. Hated it then, hate it now. Yes, that means Alabama would have never won last year. Doesn't bother me.

 

Here's the irony. For the people who wanted the playoffs because they were tired of the SEC bias, and then clamored to expand it beyond 4 teams, last year had to be shocker.

They finally got their justification for expanding. The 3rd and 4th seed played for the title. Too bad (for them) both teams were from the SEC.

 

i enjoy the college season, i usually watch Big Ten games as they are the most covered in my area, along with national games

 

used to enjoy a dozen bowl games that were competitive and meant something beyond winning a national title

 

now only 3 bowl games matter and usually they aren't good games

 

 

[Cynical]

53 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

What it really means is fact set A was the justification for Bama in year one and the undoing of their rival in year 2.

 

What are you talking about? Alabama won the SEC conference in 2016, and was ranked #1.

In fact, Alabama had won 3 straight SEC titles prior to last year.

 

53 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

How about Boise State or UCF?  Do you think they'd play Bama?  Citadel lol.  

 

Boise State might not want to unless Bama is willing to cough up a minimum of $1M. That was Boise States demands a few years ago.

UCF. Cannot say for sure, as they are busy playing teams like Florida Atlantic, South Carolina State, Austin Peay, and Florida International.

 

 

1 hour ago, row_33 said:

 

i enjoy the college season, i usually watch Big Ten games as they are the most covered in my area, along with national games

 

used to enjoy a dozen bowl games that were competitive and meant something beyond winning a national title

 

now only 3 bowl games matter and usually they aren't good games

 

 

 

Don't worry. The people who want to expand the playoffs will fix it by including even more lower ranked teams.

If you thought 1 and 2 beating up 3 and 4 was boring, wait till you get to see the sure fire excitement of 1-8 and 2-7.

Then seeing 1 and 2 facing the onslaught by the winners of 3-6 and 4-5.

[Bill from NYC]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

What it really means is fact set A was the justification for Bama in year one and the undoing of their rival in year 2.

How about Boise State or UCF?  Do you think they'd play Bama?  Citadel lol.  

No, but how I wish they would!

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

No, but how I wish they would!

At least you'd like them to prove it on the field, but Saban opts for Citadel.  

 

Do do you think it is fair for UCF to be falsely told they are a BCS team, have the big teams avoid/extort them, go undefeated, then not be included in a playoff?

 

Answer:. It is unfair.  Period.  

 

Now, if you're saying they aren't good enough, that's fine and you might be right.  But the NCAA should not say they are part of the BCS system, because from a practical standpoint, that is a lie.....one of many told by the NCAA.

[Cynical]

32 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

At least you'd like them to prove it on the field, but Saban opts for Citadel.  

 

Saban does not opt for Citadel.  He does not want to play teams like the Citadel. But Saban is not the AD.

I realize people think Saban has full control of the program, but this an area he does not have any control over.

As I said before, from the time Saban became the HC, he has been vocal about wanting more games against the bigger traditional powers.

But if the AD, and more importantly,  the big money boosters/alumni, do not want it, it's not going to happen.

 

32 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

Do do you think it is fair for UCF to be falsely told they are a BCS team, have the big teams avoid/extort them, go undefeated, then not be included in a playoff?

 

Answer:. It is unfair.  Period.  

 

Now, if you're saying they aren't good enough, that's fine and you might be right.  But the NCAA should not say they are part of the BCS system, because from a practical standpoint, that is a lie.....one of many told by the NCAA.

 

Nobody "told" UCF they were FBS (BCS?).

They are FBS because they chose to move up, and they met the NCAA requirements.

Nobody outside the school forced them to move up to FBS.

There are 128 schools playing at the FBS level. Quite frankly, at least 50% have no business being there.

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

At least you'd like them to prove it on the field, but Saban opts for Citadel.  

 

Do do you think it is fair for UCF to be falsely told they are a BCS team, have the big teams avoid/extort them, go undefeated, then not be included in a playoff?

 

Answer:. It is unfair.  Period.  

 

Now, if you're saying they aren't good enough, that's fine and you might be right.  But the NCAA should not say they are part of the BCS system, because from a practical standpoint, that is a lie.....one of many told by the NCAA.

And your comment is also fair! That said, I would absolutely love to see UCF try to stop our offense.

 

I still would also like to know your favorite teams.

 

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Cynical said:

 

Saban does not opt for Citadel.  He does not want to play teams like the Citadel. But Saban is not the AD.

I realize people think Saban has full control of the program, but this an area he does not have any control over.

As I said before, from the time Saban became the HC, he has been vocal about wanting more games against the bigger traditional powers.

But if the AD, and more importantly,  the big money boosters/alumni, do not want it, it's not going to happen.

 

 

Nobody "told" UCF they were FBS (BCS?).

They are FBS because they chose to move up, and they met the NCAA requirements.

Nobody outside the school forced them to move up to FBS.

There are 128 schools playing at the FBS level. Quite frankly, at least 50% have no business being there.

They met the requirements, went undefeated, won their bowl game.  There is literally nothing they could ever do to get in the playoff.  They are banned.  They are not really in the FBS or BCS or whatever.  The illusion that they are their is a lie.

2 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

And your comment is also fair! That said, I would absolutely love to see UCF try to stop our offense.

 

I still would also like to know your favorite teams.

 

I really don't have a favorite team and have no hate for Bama, I just don't like the way they are treated.  I do hate Saban because he is a Dolphin to me.

 

When I watch a game I just root for one of the teams.  It is pretty random.  I'll never root for Penn State because of the disgusting behavior of their fan base prioritizing football over children.  

 

Who do I root for more often than not?  Wisconsin, Texas due to having the coolest color in sports,  Washington, Stanford, Ole Miss, and.......wait for it......Auburn.

 

I like Tre White so much I'm considering LSU.

[row_33]

9 hours ago, Cynical said:

 

What are you talking about? Alabama won the SEC conference in 2016, and was ranked #1.

In fact, Alabama had won 3 straight SEC titles prior to last year.

 

 

Boise State might not want to unless Bama is willing to cough up a minimum of $1M. That was Boise States demands a few years ago.

UCF. Cannot say for sure, as they are busy playing teams like Florida Atlantic, South Carolina State, Austin Peay, and Florida International.

 

 

 

Don't worry. The people who want to expand the playoffs will fix it by including even more lower ranked teams.

If you thought 1 and 2 beating up 3 and 4 was boring, wait till you get to see the sure fire excitement of 1-8 and 2-7.

Then seeing 1 and 2 facing the onslaught by the winners of 3-6 and 4-5.

 

Top teams win 65-0 when they are taking no prisoners against decent teams

 

[Sky Diver]

Great new drone video of campus.

 

 

[Canadian Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

Great new drone video of campus.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for posting.

 

What a beautiful campus