Here's an idea: don't rape women. Then everyone's happy.
Correct. However they deal with perception of who people think will win and are willing to risk their own money to say so. Most importantly, people that bet to make or support a living wait until the end to place their bets. This movement suggests that people who bet for a living think Clemson is the better play here, continuing to bet on Clemson until they would win the game. These professionals aren't 100% accurate, but they are better than you and me and they feel strongly that Clemson to win is a good use of their money. These guys are basically analysts that back up their picks with their money.
Fyi. Additional discussion here:
not a good omen though.
I guess I'm of a different mindset.
Doesn't bode well for us. If you believe that professionals wait until the end to place their bets, this is saying that the sharps and pro money is taking Clemson, and taking them basically to win.
Keep in mind that Vegas takes 10%. They still make their profit within 10% of a 50/50 balance. Hence why the Bama spread moved and the buckeye one did not.
I can make that happen. I'll take cash. Let me know when you're ready.
Pretty big stretch but I guess I can see that.
De La Salle?
Are you serious Clark? If you knew him, you'd know better.
1. Washington had one less than other B1G programs not in the playoff.
2. Rematch in 4 team playoff is far more difficult I agree
1./3. You originally lobbied for conference champs, but now the questions you've raised can be easily answered with "because they did or did not win their respective conference."
So #1 is the only team that gets another conference champ at #5 in the first round? Lol. Nope.
1. Those teams had at least 12 chances to make their own case. Nonetheless, we can't be the only team in the country to have fluky losses. The fact of the matter here is that when you lose a game, you also lose control of your own destiny. Those are the rules at the beginning at the season and they don't change during the season or on a per team basis. FWIW, if the playoffs expand, my opinion is that conference championship games would disappear.
2. Regardless of how many other top teams one team has played, the point is about rematches. No one wants those other than the losing side. Do you want to play Michigan again?
3. One loss didn't end anything for anyone. The second loss did. Regarding a second loss, see point 1 of this post.
I disagree and look at this year to make my points.
Regarding your 1, OSU was not given this opportunity despite the fact that they tied to win their division.
2. If you look at teams 5-8 this year, OSU played all of them this year. I would argue giving these teams a rematch devalues the regular season outcome.
3. OSU is at 3 because they played and beat OU and OU is out because of this. If you let OU in, not only have you devalued a regular season game, but you've removed the incentive given to the winner of the game to schedule this. With 9 conference games, my guess is most ADs would not schedule home and home with marquee names, but would instead take the easy W and the revenue.
I'm not sure, but think it's worth noting that they were in the finals last year.
Quit your day job
Did you read the article before you did this? He specifically says in the article that they did not have a worthy contender this year. Smh.
Pumped. Love this matchup. We've played under our potential all season. 2 games to fire.
Sure. But be honest about some games we played then too, they could have gone either way
I think that's one of the most interesting things about this debate. Will the committee ignore a loss in favor of a head-to-head matchup and a conference championship?
But then you'd be ignoring a head to head match up that actually happened.
Im not just around to play counterpoint. In fact, I though we were a slam dunk before PSU won. I didn't see PSU winning because I don't think they're great. However, they won and in doing so, made a strong case for their inclusion - the strongest point being that they beat us. But their case is t without weakness. They do have 2 losses. I am just a bit amused that the points in favor of PSU and UW are the same things we argued a few years ago and beyond in our own favor. Can't have it both ways.
I don't disagree but you're now looking at records not schedule.
The win over OU is one of our biggest strengths. That and the committees comments and rankings as of last week make up our advantages.
Not sure if you have to go down that road when OSU and PSU actually played each other. That's the biggest complication in the debate.
I guess I could flip the argument to please show me the conference championships OSU has won this season. PSU has 1. OSU has 0.
I think UW is in unless the committee wants to piss off the entire west coast. Pac12 is weak, but it's not UWs fault. I think we've used that argument as well. Only way I think the committee really gets it wrong is if they leave UW out. Should be bama, Clemson, UW, OSU/PSU as the 4, not in ranked order.
I'm curious if the sos difference between OSU and PSU now that PSU played and beat wisc is as large as some think it is.
I have a hard time seeing the PAC 12 conference champ, with a similar record as other conference champs and playoff teams, getting left out.
We can harp on our resume all we want, but penn state has a pretty good resume too. I think the final spot is between OSU and PSU. Now the committee must set the precedent for the future comparing overall records, head to head, in conference play and conference titles, and out of conference/early season performance.