GVerrilli92's picture


Columbus, Ohio (via Sanford, NC)

Member since 29 November 2013 | Blog


  • NFL TEAM: Panthers
  • NHL TEAM: I don't see what all the fuss is aboot, eh?
  • MLB TEAM: The Redlegs

Recent Activity

Comment 19 hours ago
Great points all, Navy. And while I usually share similar opinions to yours, I somewhat disagree here. Call me nihilistic, but this sport we know and love, at its core is just entertainment. I just don't know what ratings for a USC-Bama rematch would be with that narrative going in. Too many people, especially on the east coast, would assume that game to be a forgone conclusion and not tune in. The mystery of Washington is peculiar and there has been a lot of talk about that being the type of team that could challenge Bama. For people who don't follow all of CFB that closely, the Huskies vs. the Tide is more intriguing.
Comment 22 hours ago

I don't know, his tweet didn't come off as misleading to me - but by all means, f*ck Michigan.

Surprised Jim hasn't bought a 30-minute, daily time slot on ABC to inform the world that Peppers was named 1st team offense and defense. Baker is a better LB, Hooker is a better Safety, and Samuel is twice the offensive threat that Peppers is.

Congrats Jim, you managed to cram 3 scholarships into 1.

How'd that work out for you?
Comment 04 Dec 2016

My ideal scenario:

Greg Stud goes and gets a well deserved P5 head coaching gig, Ed Warriner moves back to O-line coach, and we bring in a new young hot-shot OC that chooses his pick of the litter at QB. Urban will always have his say in how the offense is run and how the QBs are prepared, but there is no denying the drop-off in passing production post-Tom Herman. We need an innovative young guy to come in and provide direction and QB development within the offense.

If the new OC develops more towards a pro-style shotgun set, then Joe Burrow/Emory Jones will be the benefactor. If it's an option guy, then Tate will probably get the nod. Either way, change in the offensive staff may not determine who the QB is after JT, but after that who knows?

Comment 02 Dec 2016

Yep. Wisconsin wins and we are in. Any more chaos could mean too much of a good thing.

If all of the overdogs lose (Bama, Clemson, Washington) and Wisconsin wins, any number of things could happen. This includes the possibility of Ohio State moving to #1 and TTUN sliding into #4, which equals rematch.

If all of the overdogs lose and Penn State wins, (I'll preface by saying I don't smoke crack) we could honest to God see 3 B1G teams in the playoff. That would require the committee prioritizing regional over national ratings and blatantly admitting that the B1G was the best conference this year. Think about that for a second. Bama slides to #2, OSU to #1, and TTUN would either be jumped by PSU or stay ahead of them - rounding out the top 4 in either order.

Even if only Washington loses and Wisconsin wins (Clemson and Bama both win), then I think TTUN would slide into the #4 spot and face off with Bama.

We really just want a Badger win.

Comment 28 Nov 2016

I don't think that it's so much the angle of the shot, but the timing of the shot.

After JT dives forward (and the tip of the ball reaches the 15), he collides with Alexander at an awkward angle - which bounces him straight back. The commentary was extremely clear in that his forward progress was a subjective call. Also, unlike most plays, the still photo of when he is first considered "down" is not where he had previously made it to.

TTUN fans are using the still photo of when he was first considered "down" to say that he didn't reach the line to gain. When clearly if you rewind that shot a split second, he made it before being bounced backward and hitting the ground.

But hey, the reality that is their team of 44 seniors losing to a team of 43 freshman must be tough to deal with.

Comment 16 Nov 2016

I'm not saying it's that black and white, just that if you're talking about comparable teams and resumes - the tie break should usually go to whoever won their conference. I don't believe in blanket protocol either, I'm just saying that conference titles have been established as the most important criteria to the committee.

Are there circumstances where a team could be so visibly deserving of being in the playoff without a conference title? Yes. We're about to find out if this is the first year that one of those teams is chosen. It hasn't happened before though mainly out of coincidence - you couldn't really argue with who the committee chose the last 2 years and they just so happened to be conference champs. This year, no matter who is chosen, there will be an unhappy fanbase. When it's this close, the more competitive teams should be chosen - in which case Ohio State would be in. But we have no idea how the committee is going to prioritize the criteria because a year like this hasn't happened since the birth of the playoff.

Comment 16 Nov 2016

Conference championships have been a massive part of college football forever, I don't think the committee wants to devalue that accomplishment. Not to mention there's something to be said about winning all of your games or winning against your division - at some point that has to be rewarded. If Penn State wins the B1G, I think you have to put them in because of how strong the conference is. If Wisconsin wins (after Ohio State proves it's a better team than TTUN), then I think their lack of a resume would hurt them and Ohio State may get in.

Comment 15 Nov 2016

That makes no sense to me.

Conference championships being necessary and the need for a committee aren't mutually exclusive factors. Conference championships could very well be mandatory and we'd still need a committee - 5 conferences and 4 spots.

And the fact that there is no previously established precedent could mean that this is the year they establish it. The whole system is very new. There will be years in the future where it's even harder to decide the final 4 than this. The committee may establish the precedent that conference championships are mandatory to make their own jobs easier moving forward, then let the respective conferences figure out the appropriate way to make sure their best teams are being represented in the title games.

Comment 13 Nov 2016
Thank you Silver. It's not that I want to be unhappy and for tOSU to not get in. I'm just in complete awe of the mindset that just because we're #2 right now that we win and we're in. Then those are going to be the same people that throw an absolute bitch fit when we don't get in, kick and scream that we had the toughest SOS, and make our fan base look insane. I'm trying to be a realist and am reacting to the eventual outcome of this scenario. Do I still have hope? Of course I do. But am I gonna be completely shocked when the final 4 teams are Bama, Clemson, Washington and PSU/Wisconsin? Nope.
Comment 13 Nov 2016
The details you added to my hypothetical scenario were all to be assumed. I'm in total agreement with you that our SOS is better, our team is better, and we would be more competitive in the semi-finals. I'm not trying to argue whether or not PSU is a better or more deserving team to be in the playoff. They aren't better nor are they more deserving, but if they go on to win the conference title they will not be held out of the playoff. That is the reality that TTUN has created for us.
Comment 13 Nov 2016
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. SOS is a secondary criteria which they use to compare conference champions. Whether or not your team is a conference champion has been established as the end all be all. It's not the fact that the conference title game would give us a stronger schedule, it's that winning it would make us champions. TCU was bumped from #3 to #6 in 2014 after not playing a conference title game. In that case, a co-conference champion was excluded from the playoff. If Washington, Clemson, Bama, Oklahoma and PSU win out the committee would have to put us in over 2 conference champions. It doesn't matter how strong our schedule was, you can't put a team that didn't win its conference in over two teams that did with equal or fewer losses. The committee has shown that its rankings are fluid, they aren't afraid to bump a team 5 spots either way on any given week. Furthermore the final ranking is much different in that 5 teams will be in a league of consideration all on their own. Ohio State will not be in that league.
Comment 13 Nov 2016

You only begin to compare resumes if all teams considered are conference champions. The committee has told us so far that conference champions are in a tier by themselves.

Imagine if the scenario was flipped. If Ohio State were a two-loss B1G champion, would we not collectively shit ourselves if a 1-loss PSU that we had beaten made it into the playoffs over us? Take off the scarlet shades, think about it. We would lose our minds regardless of who they had beaten.

Comment 13 Nov 2016

I wouldn't disagree with this logic at all, but it's the only logic we as Buckeye fans have to cling to. It's an entirely different story whether or not "capable of beating Alabama" is a criteria prioritized by the committee.

In its infancy, the committee should be looking to create a pattern of consistency. I believe deep down that this team has legitimate national championship potential, but we could fall victim to them trying to set precedence favoring conference titles.

Comment 13 Nov 2016

In the SEC, that alone would be enough to get us in.

I'm not saying that I don't think we deserve to be there or that we wouldn't be able to win it all if we did get there. I'm just reacting to all of the comments that work to the effect of us still completely controlling our destiny. We do not control our destiny - at all. We need PSU to lose, and if they don't we need the committee to make a very challenging and controversial decision.

Comment 13 Nov 2016

How can you say that with any confidence? This has never happened before so we have no idea how the committee truly values conference champions. The last two years the top 4 have conveniently been champions of their conference. And to the point below, yeah, I'm a little angry. We lost a game that was the tail end of consecutive night games on the road against opponents who had bye weeks before facing us - but the chances of us making the playoff were just slashed.

How can you say definitively that 2-loss conference champ PSU with head-to-head victory << 1-loss Ohio State that didn't win its conference?

I'm not just going to wait until the selection committee chooses Wisconsin or PSU over us because they're setting precedent of conference championships being the most valuable criteria to be shocked/mad. I'm pissed right now because I whole-heartedly believe that if we don't beat Sparty and TTUN by a combined 120 or PSU doesn't lose we do not get in. 

Comment 13 Nov 2016

I'm thinking that me and you are on more of the same page than most everybody else here Linga. It's hard to imagine that our playoff hopes were just dashed after a 2nd straight 62-3 win, but they freaking were.

The fat lady hasn't sang yet, but the next song on the playlist is Don't Stop Believing - and you know fat ladies love some Journey.