fear_the_nut70's picture


Member since 30 July 2012 | Blog

Recent Activity

Comment 09 Dec 2017

LIke all things, patriotism itself is not the problem, it’s when it gets misused (like religion).  Too often people use it in a “my country right or wrong” which can be very dangerous.  As others have said, and whether  you personally like it or not, two of the greatest values of this country are the right to a voice and to protest.  When “patriotism” is used to stifle this, it is being misused. I am aware of the no politics rule on this site, hopefully this does not run afoul of that rule.

Comment 06 Dec 2017

The Committee’s job is to pick who they think are the 4 best.  The language “clear cut choice,” whatever that means (sounds subjective) is not part of the selection criteria.  This process will always be subject to criticism, but at the very least the objective has to be clear—try to select the best 4.  This devolves to a complete shit show (insert jokes here) if you say, “there is no clear fourth team, so let’s just throw in a team we don’t think is the fourth best because (word your reasoning here  how you’d like).”  For me, if Alabama and UCF played, I would expect Alabama to win that game, which ultimately is how you decide this when you narrows it down to two teams.  Agree to disagree

Comment 05 Dec 2017

While this is interesting and creative, UGA is a 1 loss conference champ.  Ohio State, a 2 loss conference champ.  So you can't with a straight face suggest that OSU gets in ahead of UGA.  The Bama case was interesting because you are dealing with a 1 loss non-champ and a 2 loss conference champ (who has a better SOS), and one has to decide the weight to give to these 3 variables (champ/non champ, 1 versus 2 loss, overall SOS).  I think the Committee has been very clear in the first four years that they would prefer not to put in 2 loss teams.  Your argument makes a discussion as to whether UGA or Alabama should be ranked 3rd plausible, though obviously that is meaningless to Ohio State.

Comment 05 Dec 2017

But the Buckeyes wouldn't get eye balls to TV sets?  The playoffs are better off from a ratings perspective with 3 teams from the south essentially and no team from the mid-west? (and the winners of two conferences left out)?  This is the part of this argument I don't get and why I refuse to acknowledge this nonsense.  But please, feel free to explain it to me...

Comment 05 Dec 2017

Nutty, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think they said Bama had the better resume, they said they were one of the four best.  At some point we are dancing in circles because whether you are one of the 4 best has to have something to do with what happened on the field, but all of this brings me back to a 31 point loss to Iowa.  Bama's loss was by fewer points to a much better Auburn team (or so I think they think) and of course they had one less loss. I really think people are undervaluing the damage that second loss does to your chances.

Comment 05 Dec 2017

Very good post, so I would like to keep the conversation going.

Those trying to compare this to OSU 2015 are doing it by looking only at OSU in a vacuum, which is not how any of us think the committee works or should work.  That year, all of the teams picked were 1 loss conference winners to include the team that beat us, so please tell me who Ohio State should have been put in over even if you think they were one of the four best?  This year, we both agree we only had 3 qualified teams, so I don't see the situation as comparable at all (no one is suggesting that resume doesn't matter at all). 

I do not like that the SEC refuses to play 9 IC games or that they engage in Chicken Shit Saturday, but two things here: 1) the committee is NOT in the business of sending messages; 2) Alabama did schedule Florida State, and many had them picked to be in the final 4 before the season started.  It all went south when they lost their starting QB, but Bama still had to deal with them at 100%, at least for part of the game.  I know it is only a win over a so-so 6-6 team, but they did schedule a traditional power.

OSU had the better wins, no question about it.  They also had worse losses (plural).  There will always be a debate about what value should be placed on these things as compared to each other, but we have only once seen a 2 loss team play for the title (and many, myself included) call bullshit on letting a 2 loss LSU team play for the title when they lost to two four loss teams.  Losing games in CFB does matter.

As I wrote yesterday, there are two paths to the playoffs for blue blood programs.  1) schedule soft OOC, but you better win all but one game (and if you don't win your conference, you will need help); 2) schedule some challenge in your OOC schedule, but if you lose that game, you better win the rest of the games, to include the ones you are supposed to.  Had we not scheduled Oklahoma, as things worked out, the last two years would have netted 1 playoff birth and one narrow miss (they would just have been swapped).  But as everyone knows, beat Iowa, and we go 2 for 2.  Not only did we not beat them, we got destroyed.  Case closed.

Finally, as for the inconsistent statements by our friends on the committee, the committee should keep their mouth shut (and I don't watch these any more for just this very reason).  What makes sense to me is that they were setting this up so that if we dominated Wisconsin, we probably get the fourth slot.  Since the belief was that UW wasn't really that good, another narrow victory on top of two 15 point or better losses meant that Bama snuck in with a shitty resume.  People who keep arguing Bama didn't deserve it do so by ignoring the devastating blemishes on the 2017 Buckeye resume.

Comment 05 Dec 2017

According to one site, they had the # 61 schedule.  If the complaint is that Alabama didn't beat anyone, how can you back UCF with a straight face?  Memphis is pretty good, but UCF gave up 55 to them.  Trust me, I get the underdog story, but they aren't one of the 4 best teams in the country (that is not the same thing as saying they couldn't win a 4 team tournament).

Comment 05 Dec 2017

The only thing I would say is that historically the qualifier has been teams that have had few losses.  Only once since 1997 has a team with 2 losses been allowed to play for a title.  We can have a conversation in earnest about how this rewards gaming the system, like say scheduling Mercer in November, but historically speaking, an emphasis has been placed on not losing games.  That is your qualifier. 

Comment 05 Dec 2017

"It seems its modus operandi is to select its four "best" teams and make up the justification ad hoc."

Here is the reality that some either don't want to admit or they simply haven't thought of it this way: there are only 3 qualified teams this year (OU, UGA, and Clemson) and all of the discussion centered around was which unqualified fourth team would be allowed to play for a title: the one that gamed the schedule and lost to the only good team they played or the team with 2 losses that got boat raced by a 7-5 team.

We now have 4 years of playoff data, and one can only argue with a straight face that we needed 4 teams once, the first year (both because Ohio State was clearly worthy and FSU was not, at least if you believe looking at the results of the semis justifies this).  The next two years we had two obvious teams (Alabama and Clemson) and two blow out semis (two teams that arguably didn't belong), and this year, we are forcing a clearly undeserving team into the mix so we can fill out a bracket.

And what is even more amazing to me is that for some, the argument will continue to focus on adding more undeserving teams into the mix.  What has me bitter is that I won't get what I really want, and it's not a mythical title, but a Rose Bowl featuring Ohio State and U.S.C.

Comment 04 Dec 2017

Here is what is on our resume: we lost to a 7-5 team by 31.  If you have been following CFB for a while, then you know losses actually matter.  We gambled by doing a home and home with Oklahoma and here is what is interesting--take them off and play some other P5 also ran, and we probably make the playoffs once (this year) and just miss it once (last year) in that 2 year span.  We will never know this for sure, but I am reasonably certain if we beat Iowa OR pummel Wisconsin, we probably get the nod, but it wasn't meant to me (and yes JT haters will blame him, but playing less than 6 days after surgery is a kind of heroic that "ma meatloaf" guy dishing veiled hot takes from his lofty basement perch on the internet can't begin to grasp).  If you think you are going to make some point by denying yourself what could be two great bowl games, then go ahead, but we didn't get screwed and the CFB world will continue to spin without your support.  It takes a lot to go right to win it all, and not showing up for what should have been a pretty easy win (Purdue beat them for Christ's sake) isn't going to get it done.   It's time collectively to move on, and be satisfied with "just" a 12 win season, win over TTUN, conference championship, and the defeat of a long time nemesis and P12 champs (or what I now refer to as the Sun Belt 2 because of their mickey mouse TV Network).  Still a good time to be a Buckeye fan.

p.s. my gift to some is that I am not going to go through the trail of tears above and respond via my typical shotgun fashion.  I am over it and looking forward to taking down the Trojans.

Comment 03 Dec 2017

This is good comedy.  The last 3 week’s, it was run the damn ball.  Last I saw Dobbins had 154.  Now it’s McLauren should have gotten more throws.  Fans can’t resist just saying we should have done something other than what we did—meanwhile, we beat an undefeated Wisconsin and won the conference.  You even have proof the Terrry was open a bunch and we just didn’t throw to him?  If so, post it here.  I am calling you out on the bullshit.

Comment 03 Dec 2017

Committee gave us the benefit of the doubt twice already including last year.  We lost to Iowa by 31.  Apparently that hasn’t sunk in yet.  Blaming Smith is beyond asinine.  People need to stop looking for a scapegoat.  As many have said, you want to be pretty much a lock, schedule OOC well, win your conference, lose 1 game or less.  Don’t do these things, and you are counting on the grace of the committee to bail you out. 

Comment 03 Dec 2017

You should have found one thing offensive: he actually said they scheduled Mercer because they couldnt find anyone else to play them.  That is a straight up lie and we all know it as dozens of schools of better ilk would either jump at a chance to play Bama to up their resume or would do it to take the payday.  What probably makes it tricky to some degree is their insistence on scheduling an extra bye in November.  But you know what, if the Committee never holds them accountable keep doing it.  But that doesn’t mean Satan needs to come on tv and lie to us like we are all imbeciles.  

Comment 03 Dec 2017

I appreciate this discussion, and truth is, this season probably didn’t suck for you until this morning.  But other seasons that won’t be the case when it becomes apparent earlier that a good season is still possible but not a championship one..  I think it is too bad because this looks like a great matchup and we owe them, but to each their own.  The reason I took the shot is because you suggested you would only watch it if Haskins starts.  That calls your fan card into question (and contradicts your not wanting to watch a meaningless game as we still can’t win a title if Haskins starts).

Comment 03 Dec 2017

Each iteration has made it a little worse for me because it devalues the regular season some.  I was fine with old AP Poll days because I valued beating our rival, winning the conference, and playing in the Rose Bowl.  Title will always be mythical since there are so many teams all playing radically different schedules, and thus, I never obsessed over it.  Now a days it seems like people need that title so they can beat their chest and claim their team is the best, no matter how far fetched it is.  Oh well, live long enough and you realize the masses with their bad ideas ruin everything.