PonyFans.com

it's clearer than ever. beat clemson

Dukie wrote:

highlander wrote:I didn't realize the committee was comprised of ADs.

Like the NCAA MBB D1 Committee, it's broader than that. And I'll add to my previous statement about UVa AD Carla Williams to say that Jim Grobe should stick up for the ACC as well, and it will be hard to talk about Nevada being a weak win for SMU with Chris Ault sitting in the room.

Thanks for the info. Don't you think Nevada IS a weak win? Granted, we are a much different team now that we were in Week 0, and we did win the game in spite of ourselves. But still, how do you argue that Nevada was not a weak win?

Edit: I guess you can say they were competitive in most of their losses. Also, I really don't think our narrow win in week 0 is really weighing on our chances of getting in.

Everyone has a weak win on their schedule. South Alabama, Coastal Carolina, Mercer. And of course ND has a weak loss against Northern Illinois.

highlander wrote:Ohio St loses at home to an unranked Michigan team, in the last week of the season, and they only drop 4 spots (2 to 6).

This has all the elements that you normally look for in a big drop in the rankings:
- home loss to an unranked team
- last week of the season
- the team has a strong incentive to win: conf championship game appearance

To be fair, Ohio State had a one point loss @ # 1 Oregon and suffered a 3 point loss at home to their rival Michigan, the defending National Champ trying to salvage what has been a miserable season by their standards. Ohio State won @ Penn State, the Nittany Lions only loss this season as they prepare to play Oregon in the Big 10 Championship. OSU also hammered previously undefeated Indiana leaving little doubt in my mind they are probably the 2nd best Big 10 team so I don't have any problem with their being ranked ahead of us, despite their 2 losses.

Notre Dame is the program that benefits from "brand bias" the most. Their "best win" was probably a 7 point win in South Bend against Louisville. In my opinion, their 1st game of the season loss at home to 7-5 Northern Illinois is worse than our 1st game comeback win @ 3-10 Nevada,

Just can't dwell on rankings because we all know brand bias exists. Our guys control their own fate and can make a big statement in Charlotte saturday night. Go Ponies!!!

highlander wrote:

Dukie wrote:

highlander wrote:I didn't realize the committee was comprised of ADs.

Like the NCAA MBB D1 Committee, it's broader than that. And I'll add to my previous statement about UVa AD Carla Williams to say that Jim Grobe should stick up for the ACC as well, and it will be hard to talk about Nevada being a weak win for SMU with Chris Ault sitting in the room.

Thanks for the info. Don't you think Nevada IS a weak win? Granted, we are a much different team now that we were in Week 0, and we did win the game in spite of ourselves. But still, how do you argue that Nevada was not a weak win?

Edit: I guess you can say they were competitive in most of their losses. Also, I really don't think our narrow win in week 0 is really weighing on our chances of getting in.

Yes, Nevada is a weak win. EastStang is correct that everyone has at least one of those. And Williams/Grobe, never mind Ault, better be ready to defend/explain it.

At what point does Disney tell the committee what the matchups need to be, my bad, I mean share their thoughts with the committee?

Did you read this interesting take on what we should do.
https://athlonsports.com/college-footba ... nship-game

Hate that we're in a situation, other than winning. No team should be penalized for making it to the Conf. Championship.

numero_uno wrote:Did you read this interesting take on what we should do.
https://athlonsports.com/college-footba ... nship-game

Hate that we're in a situation, other than winning. No team should be penalized for making it to the Conf. Championship.

Interesting take for sure but it's a conference revenue issue as well. Not sure how much they bring in but conference championship games are money. Of course the loser of the Big 10 and SEC Championship games will not be affected but you had to know when the CFP was expanded there would still be debates about whether the Top 12 teams actually got in. Just like March Madness where expansion to 68 teams didn't do anything to calm the outrage of so many programs. Going to 12 is better and all of the debating just adds to the excitement as far as I'm concerned.

Half a dozen dudes take 10 seconds to say 'yeah, that's an interesting idea' and the article makes it sound like it's an organized insurrection. Nobody is backing out of anything, but the committee would like a lot easier going forward if they stand buy what they've said they were going to do, which is not drop a team for losing their CCG.

Of course, WE could make it easier on everybody by leaving no doubt on Saturday....

Charleston Pony wrote:

numero_uno wrote:Did you read this interesting take on what we should do.
https://athlonsports.com/college-footba ... nship-game

Hate that we're in a situation, other than winning. No team should be penalized for making it to the Conf. Championship.

Interesting take for sure but it's a conference revenue issue as well. Not sure how much they bring in but conference championship games are money. Of course the loser of the Big 10 and SEC Championship games will not be affected but you had to know when the CFP was expanded there would still be debates about whether the Top 12 teams actually got in. Just like March Madness where expansion to 68 teams didn't do anything to calm the outrage of so many programs. Going to 12 is better and all of the debating just adds to the excitement as far as I'm concerned.

looks like lot of chatter on ACC Championship game ,
In expanded CFP era, are conference title games on their way out? 'How this plays out could shape that'
https://sports.yahoo.com/in-expanded-cf ... 57981.html
even rhett weighed in

I remember hearing this kind of talk 20 years ago with UT in the Big 12. UT was in the same position that SMU finds itself in today: a CCG can only hurt you or do nothing -- it cannot help you.

One problem is we now have these massive conferences with 16 - 18 teams, but we're still playing only 8 conference games. So strength of schedule can vary greatly, common opponents can be few and far between, and you can go for several years without playing a particular team in your conference (we don't play UNC until 2028!).

A good solution to this problem might be to expand the college football season to 14 games and add 2 more conference games, and just do away with the CCG. Of course there will still be some teams who won't play the eventual champion and they will gripe about it, but at least the body of work will be bigger and there will be more common opponents. This would also have the added benefit of more money for the schools and the conference, but I know that's hardly worth mentioning.

You know this idea has a weird merit. But let's add a little more gasoline. We will opt out of the Championship unless Clemson drops their lawsuit against the ACC with prejudice. The Conference will lose a ton of money from ESPN if we do that and Clemson would get blamed. Or better yet, we opt out unless we get our TV rights back.

highlander wrote:I remember hearing this kind of talk 20 years ago with UT in the Big 12. UT was in the same position that SMU finds itself in today: a CCG can only hurt you or do nothing -- it cannot help you.

One problem is we now have these massive conferences with 16 - 18 teams, but we're still playing only 8 conference games. So strength of schedule can vary greatly, common opponents can be few and far between, and you can go for several years without playing a particular team in your conference (we don't play UNC until 2028!).

A good solution to this problem might be to expand the college football season to 14 games and add 2 more conference games, and just do away with the CCG. Of course there will still be some teams who won't play the eventual champion and they will gripe about it, but at least the body of work will be bigger and there will be more common opponents. This would also have the added benefit of more money for the schools and the conference, but I know that's hardly worth mentioning.

It’s different though. If SMU weren’t playing in a CCG we’d be locked in as a last-four seed playing a first-round road game. Win Saturday, and we’re the 3 seed with a bye into a neutral-site QF.