forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, you have chosen to ignore THEIR OWN WORDS and THEIR OWN ACTIONS in creating pools of "otherwise comparable teams".

They do not rank all 25 teams at once. They create groups of teams, and then apply the criteria to each group in turn.

The first tier that the CFP Committee evaluated this year was Michigan/Washington/Texas. They even said so. Once they had THOSE THREE TEAMS, they applied the criteria to rank Michigan 1, Washington 2, and Texas 3.

The second tier was F$U-Alabama. They even said so.

And those tiers were WRONG on their face. Just WRONG. The CFP Committee confessed to putting a 1-loss team (that had the WORST loss in the Top 7, to a 2-loss Oklahoma team ranked #12) on the same level as undefeated Michigan and Washington. That is just wrong. Michigan, Washington, and TEXAS are not "otherwise comparable teams".

You can't look at the evidence and criteria selectively, and cherrypick only the bits that you want to consider to reach your predetermined outcome.
Click to expand...
The criteria were as follows:

  • Conference championships won, = each had a conference championship
  • Strength of schedule, = edge to Alabama in a BIG way
  • Head‐to‐head competition, = no head to head
  • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), = they both played LSU and both won ,and
  • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance. FSU lost their starting QB and in 2 subsequent games averaged less than 225 yards of offense, had a lower than 50% completion percentage in both games, and averaged less than 100 yards passing. Which might be okay if they ran the triple option all season, but no, they averaged 260 yards passing per game in the season and 416 yards overall in offense per game. Fairly obvious their performance on the field was affected without having their starting QB. - Edge Alabama, again in a BIG way
Thems the rules as they say. All teams signed on for them. Is it not fair for FSU? Sure. Did the committee follow its guidelines? Yes. Again, moot point next year and still **** FSU. I hope their fans cried as much about Miami being screwed over in 2000 as you are doing now.
 
CaneinBroward said:
The criteria were as follows:

  • Conference championships won, = each had a conference championship
  • Strength of schedule, = edge to Alabama in a BIG way
  • Head‐to‐head competition, = no head to head
  • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), = they both played LSU and both won ,and
  • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance. FSU lost their starting QB and in 2 subsequent games averaged less than 225 yards of offense, had a lower than 50% completion percentage in both games, and averaged less than 100 yards passing. Which might be okay if they ran the triple option all season, but no, they averaged 260 yards passing per game in the season and 416 yards overall in offense per game. Fairly obvious their performance on the field was affected without having their starting QB. - Edge Alabama, again in a BIG way
Thems the rules as they say. All teams signed on for them. Is it not fair for FSU? Sure. Did the committee follow its guidelines? Yes. Again, moot point next year and still **** FSU. I hope their fans cried as much about Miami being screwed over in 2000 as you are doing now.
Click to expand...


Nice. Now your cut-and-paste omits the language that doesn't help your bogus argument.

Brilliant.

You're a fraud.
 
NJshoreCane said:
“To my knowledge, no other school in the ACC has the funds in place to leave. But I don’t know if that is accurate or not.”
Click to expand...
There’s no way in **** FSU has the $$$ to pay the exit fee. The more I read those tweets, the more I think he’s getting fed info from FSU “insiders.” The same insiders that bat less than .100 at best on a given day.
 
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
The criteria were as follows:

  • Conference championships won, = each had a conference championship
  • Strength of schedule, = edge to Alabama in a BIG way
  • Head‐to‐head competition, = no head to head
  • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), = they both played LSU and both won ,and
  • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance. FSU lost their starting QB and in 2 subsequent games averaged less than 225 yards of offense, had a lower than 50% completion percentage in both games, and averaged less than 100 yards passing. Which might be okay if they ran the triple option all season, but no, they averaged 260 yards passing per game in the season and 416 yards overall in offense per game. Fairly obvious their performance on the field was affected without having their starting QB. - Edge Alabama, again in a BIG way
Thems the rules as they say. All teams signed on for them. Is it not fair for FSU? Sure. Did the committee follow its guidelines? Yes. Again, moot point next year and still **** FSU. I hope their fans cried as much about Miami being screwed over in 2000 as you are doing now.
Click to expand...

The playoff committee also factors in whether teams have a HC who is white and had cornrows. It may seem like an old fashioned rule, but I understand why it's still needed.
 
Liebenator said:
FSU first to hit the exit

Saw this post in the WeZ
Click to expand...
Wake Up Hello GIF by Fun'n'Fab LAB
 
Advertisement
canesmang1 said:
every ACC team should be Looking to leave. There’s no way in **** a team going 13-0 conference champion should not make it. That’s a slap in the face to the conference and its perception no matter how many ACC teams **** on the SEC.

The Acc is dead and also **** the refs
Click to expand...
FSU needed a miss field goal to beat a Clemson team having a down year and beat a Miami team that couldn't get out of its own way by one score. last year's championship game was embarrassing. FSU would get run out of the building by Michigan. They are a shell of their former self without Travis.
 
Serious question, do you really think the Big 10 will get more money per team than they are currently getting from their TV partners by adding FSU? Enough to assist FSU get out of the GOR and large exit fee to get out of the ACC? Would the Big 10 only do this as long as FSU agrees to accept a partial payout deal like Oregon and Washington accepted earlier this year?
 
I’m telling you man, unless we are working in silence we will be left behind initially. Crazy to think one of these two main conferences wouldn’t want the Miami market. If I’m the BIG, Miami is on line 1
 
5Rings&an Asterisk said:
FSU needed a miss field goal to beat a Clemson team having a down year and beat a Miami team that couldn't get out of its own way by one score. last year's championship game was embarrassing. FSU would get run out of the building by Michigan. They are a shell of their former self without Travis.
Click to expand...
It’s not about Fsu
 
Advertisement
Invalid Username said:
I’m telling you man, unless we are working in silence we will be left behind initially. Crazy to think one of these two main conferences wouldn’t want the Miami market. If I’m the BIG, Miami is on line 1
Click to expand...
Everyone I have spoken to has said Miami is going to be left out, at least initially, and are between 5-8 on the list of schools to leave the conference. This is national media, ADs, other administrative positions in the SEC and B1G. Clemson really isn’t as high demand as people assume either.

I’m leaving the door open for working in silence. More so than I was 6 months ago. That’s how Miami operates in everything so no one is going to have a read on it
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Nice. Now your cut-and-paste omits the language that doesn't help your bogus argument.

Brilliant.

You're a fraud.
Click to expand...

You're both right in a regard @TheOriginalCane and @CaneinBroward

@CaneinBroward is correct that the committee acted within the bounds of their charter even as it relates to injury

@TheOriginalCane is right that the committee acted in ways it never has with the motivation of slurping the SEC

The piece you guys are missing is that the committee's charter is F****d.

They've been given too much unilateral discretion to ignore results on the field i.e. Alabama losing and FSU running the table. That mission or principles statement has clearly been crafted in such a way that they reserve the right to ***** over a team when it's NOT warranted.

They need to blow up the entire criteria
 
jed2410 said:
You're both right in a regard @TheOriginalCane and @CaneinBroward

@CaneinBroward is correct that the committee acted within the bounds of their charter even as it relates to injury

@TheOriginalCane is right that the committee acted in ways it never has with the motivation of slurping the SEC

The piece you guys are missing is that the committee's charter is F****d.

They've been given too much unilateral discretion to ignore results on the field i.e. Alabama losing and FSU running the table. That mission or principles statement has clearly been crafted in such a way that they reserve the right to ***** over a team when it's NOT warranted.

They need to blow up the entire criteria
Click to expand...

Perfectly said, & they r inconsistent w said principles.
 
Advertisement
jed2410 said:
You're both right in a regard @TheOriginalCane and @CaneinBroward

@CaneinBroward is correct that the committee acted within the bounds of their charter even as it relates to injury

@TheOriginalCane is right that the committee acted in ways it never has with the motivation of slurping the SEC

The piece you guys are missing is that the committee's charter is F****d.

They've been given too much unilateral discretion to ignore results on the field i.e. Alabama losing and FSU running the table. That mission or principles statement has clearly been crafted in such a way that they reserve the right to ***** over a team when it's NOT warranted.

They need to blow up the entire criteria
Click to expand...


I appreciate your moderate approach. It's refreshing.

Still...Broward is wrong. Dead wrong.

I'll make it even clearer. There is a reason for the "otherwise comparable teams" language. It cannot be ignored.

For instance...even though there were FOUR teams with one loss apiece (and 3 of the 4 losses were to teams in the Top 7), they were not all placed on the same level. All 4 teams were not deemed "otherwise comparable".

The same is true as you go down the rest of the Top 25. Teams play only 12 or 13 games. So there are groupings that make teams "otherwise comparable", such as conference champions or W-L record. You cannot possibly apply 6 or 8 or 10 criteria across all 25 teams simultaneously. You group the teams into tiers and then decide which "tiebreaker" criteria, so to speak, can help you to rank the teams within each tier.

Also, there is this wave of magical thinking, that presumes that the CFP Committee "outcome" is some reflection of the "best" teams, without any regard for how they actually accomplished the ranking. The CFP Committee explained it, they put Michigan, Washington, and Texas into the same tier (incorrectly) and ranked them, then they put F$U and Alabama into the same tier (incorrectly) and ranked them. Georgia and Ohio Taint were in the third tier among the Top 7 teams. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. We don't need to speculate.

The CFP, the BCS, the AP, the USA Today...none of the various ranking systems goes into each week anew, ripping up everything that went before, and voting solely on THAT WEEK. It's just insane. THAT is not the "charter" of the CFP. It's not. The season matters. ALL OF IT. Which is why a game on SEPTEMBER 9TH determined the ranking between 3rd and 4th. By the ridiculous standards of "hottest team today", then F$U should have played for the national championship in 1989.

The real stupidity of all of this is the cart-before-the-horse ignorance of "oh, but F$U would lose to any team in the Final Four". But that's why the games are played. A week before Alabama knocked off a team with a 29-game winning streak, they should have lost to a 6-6 Auburn team. None of this is predictable, none of this is written in stone.

Except for this, which was written in stone prior to December 2023: if you go undefeated in a Power 5 conference, you should have the chance to play for a national championship.

I don't care what Alabama has done lately, they lost by 10 to Texas at home and that's why a "somewhat weaker" undefeated P5 team should edge them out. It's been the law of the land for decades. Sorry, you've had some good wins, but "every game matters" and you ****ed up in September.

Otherwise. Comparable. Teams.

Not a de novo re-rank each week. Otherwise comparable teams. Three undefeated P5 conference champions, one spot up for debate.

What happened in prior years is unimportant, whether good (but but but SEC has won so many titles) or bad (but but but TCU 2022).

What happened THIS YEAR is what matters. ALL of this year. Not just the good parts you put in your scrapbook.
 
Last edited:
JayCane20 said:
Everyone I have spoken to has said Miami is going to be left out, at least initially, and are between 5-8 on the list of schools to leave the conference. This is national media, ADs, other administrative positions in the SEC and B1G. Clemson really isn’t as high demand as people assume either.

I’m leaving the door open for working in silence. More so than I was 6 months ago. That’s how Miami operates in everything so no one is going to have a read on it
Click to expand...
And who is 1-4 to the people youve talked to?
I'm guessing nd, FSU, UNC, and ...?
ND staying independent.
FSU and UNC likely can go to either conference.
Clemson almost certainly sec only and Miami Big10 only.

Like if these people have UVA above Miami or Clemson, they simply aren't looking at this from a football and money perspective. Fox/ESPn are really in control anyways, not these ADs.
 
Last edited:
FL Cane said:
There’s no way in **** FSU has the $$$ to pay the exit fee. The more I read those tweets, the more I think he’s getting fed info from FSU “insiders.” The same insiders that bat less than .100 at best on a given day.
Click to expand...
FSU did take action to have funds available to pay the exit fee ... that is a deal they structured via an investment banking firm and I believe it was structured as a long term loan ... for the $100-120M exit fee. There was also a comment that the media partner "would assist" to some degree if FSU opted for the B10.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top