I meant that as a positive. Like "good angle." You're getting overly sensitive and need to learn to let thing roll off you back more.
This season, I agree. In other seasons, West Coast teams don't get that precious TV audience and exactly how fair is it that the SEC and ESPiN are now TV partners? Lol. When "eyeballs" help determine participation or selection, it matters when nobody is watching. Lots of sense has been made but you just don't see it that way. That's a "you" thing. It didn't all come down to the Clemson game. As I mentioned earlier, the irish were exposed against USC. Their schedule overall this year wasn't exactly impressive. Ball State? Wake Forest? Syracuse? So they beat up on some good hoop schools. Even with 4, the committee can't stay consistent year-to-year in what specifically goes in to their decisions. One year, it's eyeball, another year it's the CCG. If it's unclear and changes yearly, then expand to learn more. Bull fucking shit. Sorry, but that is your arrogance. A "good" ball team? WTF...a nice little pat on the back for the Dawgs? Bama got lucky this year. The Bulldogs have led or been tied with Alabama 118 minutes and 54 seconds of 120 minutes and 281 of 290 plays of the past two meetings in the national championship game and SEC title game. "Good" my ass. They were one stupid play call away from keeping your arses out. Nonsense. Saban said he voted not for the teams he THOUGHT should be there, but the teams he figured would get in. The facts are, “Who had the toughest strength of schedule? Georgia. Who had the best offensive efficiency? Georgia. Best defensive efficiency? Georgia. Game control? Georgia. Eyeball test? Georgia." And that's not just compared to the irish. Will Muschamp said he would put UGa in. Saban wouldn't because he's already said he didn't want to play them again. That wasn't just post-game slathering. Everyone, not just coaches, knows that the 4 best teams were not named by the committee and as long as the committee keeps changing their criteria, they never will be. BTW, committee chair admitted there were some members who argued for Georgia. Politics played here because there was pressure to make sure the Power 5 had equal consideration....no more 2 SEC teams. The irish got in because of their history, not their ability or strength of schedule. Ohio St had no business being in. Oklahoma also had no business being there, regardless of record. Bama? Sure. Clemson? Yes. The other 2 spots were debatable but Georgia should have had one of them. Auburn and UGa last season. Hell, ya'll lost to Auburn last season, should NEVER have been in but the committee used the eyeball then, right? But now somehow you want to go on strict record. What other team in the entire country would get in the final 4 after losing that late in the season and not even in the CCG? Jeebus, be honest.
Nov 26th....14-26. Ring a bell? Where were y'all on Dec 2, 2017? Oh, that's right....watching the SECCCG from your couch. Really. On January 7, 2008, LSU became not only the first 2-loss team to play in the NCG but also the first team to win 2 BCS National Championships.
West coast teams get in when they deseve to be in, like Oregon and Washington. Nobody should make the playoffs based solely on which part of the country they are located.If USC was still playing the kind of football they did under Pete Carroll they would have been in a few times no matter how many or how few saw them on TV.
So much I could say here. There are definitely things in play that favor certain regions of the country over the other. As far as USC, I haven't made any argument otherwise. However, even under Pete Carroll USC was punished in a way that other teams have not been. 2003 is a prime example.
It’s got damn statistics people, not frickin democrat spread the wealth. These rankings are faulty yet y’all act like they’re the bible. Somewhere between preseason and playoffs god speaks to the committee to make up for limited sample size and interrelationships? Nope.
Dumbass? Lay off the meth? You're going full taint here making things up that simply are not true. I've not mentioned OSU in this thread until the post you quoted. You're calling me a dumbass when you can't even remember what's in this thread? There's nothing I've stated in this thread that is wrong. I've stated an opinion you don't agree with. To that, there is no doubt. But let's go back to the original question here furd...where were your complaints back when OSU made it in? I was here. They weren't.
