CubColtPacer

Although even the Miami one doesn't make complete sense because if Alabama didn't drop whatsoever even after getting destroyed and they were a coin flip with ND the previous week, then why did BYU drop to give Miami the chance to pull up next to ND? That is pretty inconsistent.

Notre Dame being out isn't the problem. The process is. Two weeks ago, they were ahead of Alabama. Since then, Alabama barely beat Auburn and then got destroyed by Georgia. And yet that was when they moved ahead? And then Miami moving ahead when both teams were already finished with their season. Both those teams you can make good arguments for being ahead. And the Miami case you can understand the process a little bit with the BYU loss. The Alabama one makes no sense.

So if they stick to their criteria and don't care about rematches like they say they don't, we'll have a rematch of Ole Miss-Tulane which Ole Miss won 45-10 at home. We should also have Oregon-James Madison. Indiana will be 1. I'm guessing it will be Georgia 2, Ohio State 3, Texas Tech 4. And then I have no idea what they'll do at the back end. Based on what they've said before, Bama should be behind ND, ND should be behind Miami, but I don't necessarily think that they would always have Bama behind Miami. I'm going to say ND and Miami get in, not sure which order.

Current fanduel odds late 3rd quarter of the SEC title game (these have been bouncing around like crazy the last couple quarters): Notre Dame: -1200 yes, +680 no Alabama: -300 yes, +235 no Miami: +146 yes, -180 no James Madison: +152 yes, -168 no Texas: +3000 yes Duke: +5500 yes So mainly status quo. Alabama's odds have slipped by a decent bit since the start of the game but people still think that Miami is the one left out, while Notre Dame's odds have just climbed to a huge number since the start of the day.

I'm watching Alabama down at halftime and thinking this. The conference championship argument is kind of like the Texas argument when playing at Ohio State. It's fine to say that people are overrating a loss and that a loss in those circumstances should only count a little. But they have to count some. In Alabama's case, where the margin between them and ND was so close in the room the past few weeks, to where Alabama's close win over Auburn was the thing that put them ahead by a hair, any kind of loss should put them behind ND. Miami is a different argument, although I would say Alabama should likely fall behind them too, especially if the loss doesn't end up being one where Alabama is driving for the win at the end. You only have 12-13 data points. Each one has to matter, even though these tough games should have way more upside than downside.

So with BYU officially out, the Notre Dame/Miami discourse will hit peak levels. We will see if Alabama joins that discussion soon. With Oregon sitting at 5, I don't see any way that either Ohio State or Indiana doesn't get a bye. I'm sure there will be a small push if Indiana gets destroyed, but even then I don't see them slipping past Oregon. It will be interesting to see what happens to Alabama/Georgia's ranking with an Alabama win. I can't imagine Alabama jumping 5 spots unless they have just an utterly dominant game, and even then I have to squint. I would think you would have three Big 10 teams get byes at that point. And then the Duke situation tonight is a fun little subplot, definitely rooting for them.

I think if Indiana loses the Big 10 Title Game and Georgia wins the SEC title game they'll give Georgia the second spot. But it depends a lot on the style points of each game as well. I don't think Ohio State will likely fall further than 2 at this point. I agree that Texas Tech deserves respect. I think they are likely 4, but they do have an argument for higher.

I get that. I just picked this week out because it (other than conference championship week) is literally the best for your side of the argument. The beauty of the playoff on the regular season is most valuable between mid-October to mid-November, when you have a ton of 1-2 loss major conference teams who are fighting to stay alive in the race (in the SEC there were 10 of them in the middle of the season). Texas A&M I left out because of the game's relevance for Texas. Georgia with a loss yesterday and another loss in the SEC title game would be pretty rocky for the playoff, so that's why I left that game out. But yeah, we can definitely agree to disagree. I think it just depends if you like to have 20 games over the course of a season that have a ton of stakes, or 100 games that have high stakes but not as high as the 20. I prefer the chaos. And I can always get the tons of stakes games back in the actual playoff.

Byes I do think are an important consideration, but let's put that aside for now. This week and conference championship week would be the key weeks for games mattering in the old system and not mattering now. This year, Ohio State/Michigan, Indiana/Purdue, and Ole Miss/Mississippi State are games that didn't matter for either team other than seeding. Oklahoma/LSU, Notre Dame/Stanford, Alabama/Auburn, BYU/USF, Miami/Pitt, Virginia, SMU, Tulane, James Madison, even the Duke game all matter because of the new system when they wouldn't have in the old system. So even in this week, more games matter by a good margin. And if you back up three weeks to a month, there are 0 games that didn't matter whatsoever (because even an undefeated team could lose 2-3 games straight and lose their spot) and way more teams that were alive if they could win out.

I fully understand the loss of the tension of a team losing a game and how transformative that was for their whole season. But I know for me, I've watched way more regular season college football the last two seasons than I had in a long time. And that's because so many more games matter. I think the gains have outweighed the losses, even if you are just thinking about the regular season.

Agreed on soccer's Alabama/Texas analysis. To add one thing, Alabama only had one more significant scare against a mediocre/bad team (comeback against South Carolina). Texas had two of those in a row with the Kentucky/Mississippi State games both going into OT. The first thing I thought of after the game last night was the byes. If Texas A&M had won, the byes were pretty straightfoward. The three undefeated teams would almost certainly get byes even if they lost their conference title game, and the only question would be if Georgia would hold off Texas Tech but that seemed likely as well. But now it's a little bit of chaos. Does 1 loss Texas A&M deserve a bye without appearing in the conference championship? Does Georgia potentially lose the bye by losing in the conference championship? You can see scenarios where Texas Tech, Oregon, and Ole Miss all be talked about in terms of getting those last two byes now.

It is strange. I am not sure Michigan is the best example of that though. Because I think they really need the conference title game to get in. The combination of multiple close wins against bad teams, both losses not being particularly competitive, and no notable win besides Ohio State would be a problem. I think there's a chance they get in as an at-large, but it's more like 20/80 rather than 60/40. So I think they would want to go to the conference title game.

I love complicated playoff scenarios and decision trees. And even with that, the ACC scenarios make my brain hurt. The important takeaways are 1) The one team that could get an at-large bid (Miami) is also the least likely of the 5-6 teams to make the ACC title game. 2) Duke is somehow still in it. If they won the ACC title, I would bet they would still sneak into the playoff, but they have 5 losses so it could easily be argued that two minor conference teams should get in and for them to be left out.

I think 5 possibly yes. I don't see a 6th possibility anymore, at least over Notre Dame in the standings. And since I don't see anybody else having enough on their schedule to prove enough to pass Notre Dame, ND should be in with 2 more wins. It would help if they were convincing wins like today was. The only other one I see as a possibility of passing ND would be BYU. The committee has ranked Miami too far down that I can't see them passing ND at this point if both win out.

It is curious. I'd have to really dig into why. The interesting thing is that the composite of the computers show similarly, although they have Texas down with Miami. But yeah, whether you have a 1-2 spot difference or a 6 spot, all those teams would currently be in the same tier IMO. Notre Dame and Miami both have @Pitt games left, so that should be a nice late season comparison for the committee. https://masseyratings.com/ranks

Indiana can probably take a loss at this point to someone unexpected and lose in the Big 10 Title Game if they qualify and still make the playoff. Notre Dame is getting the things they need right now to potentially make the playoff. They needed Texas A&M and Miami to keep winning, they have to keep winning themselves, they needed a conference to have a bid less than expected (in this case the Big 10 looking like they will only get 3 teams in), and then USC's win over Michigan likely gives them another ranked team to face next week. Check/check/check/check. But they likely will need many of those things to continue. And who knows how many or who of the SEC will make it.

I honestly don't remember that time. My impression was always the mid afternoon window used to be the biggest. But the Big 10 tended to put several of their bad games on in the early window, so that might have influenced perceptions.

It seems almost certain at this point. It's rough. And so much of the Pacers roster is there because their skillsets work well with how Haliburton plays.

That was rough. Great defense by OKC. Some Pacers players going cold. And really poor officiating last night. I certainly hope this is the last Scott Foster game. And yup, in 4 minutes the Pacers went from IMO 80-85 percent to win the title to 75 percent to lose. I think one of the three games remaining will be an OKC blowout, so the Pacers need to win the other two, and that's a hard recipe. This team doesn't ever lay down and die though, so I think they will make it interesting.

Sometimes I wish I was a sports better. The Pacers are 14-5 in the playoffs so far. They've been favored in 6 of those 19 games. This is going to be the second series they aren't going to be favored in a single game in. And while I get some of it, some of it doesn't make sense. OKC was favored by 5.5 last night. They won one road game in the playoffs by 6 points, that was the game in Memphis where Ja Morant got hurt. Other than that they have won by 5 or less or lost every other road game. The Pacers meanwhile have been a very good home team both in the regular season and the playoffs. I completely, 100% get why OKC is seen as the better team. The analytics are clear. But with their home/road splits, last night's game should have been seen as a complete tossup.

And Minnesota is still the smallest second round favorite, despite being the only favorite who isn't down in their series. Crazy start to the second round.

I mostly like the gambling aspects (Note: I never have gambled on sports myself). I like it because it has caused the analysis to be more precise. Before, it was a lot the favorite is going to win and the star player is going to play well. I especially like it before a season because it gives a reason for people to talk about every team in the league and exactly how good they think they are going to be. But 1) I'm a probability thinker, which a good chunk of people aren't and 2) that's not factoring in the lure of actual gambling.

This is a good point. Basketball is more complicated than ever and so harder for a casual fan to drop in and see what's going on. Defensive schemes in particular have become more and more complex and more oriented on each member of the team doing their part. So there are way less 1 on 1 battles than 20-30 years ago, which of course is way easier to focus on and sink your teeth into.

I get everything you are saying. And in what I'm going to say next, I'm not trying to get you to like the current version. But when I read what you wrote, it reminds me of when people say, baseball is just strikeouts and home runs, it's so boring. Where are hit and runs, double switches, bunts, productive outs, etc? Or when people say that it's an abomination that people line up in shotgun on 3rd and 2. Or go for 4th down constantly instead of taking the points. Or that people can't get hit over the middle anymore. Most major sports have changed drastically over the last 30 years as teams figure out what's best to win. Centers shooting 3's for example is a huge advantage in basketball. Not for the points themselves, but because drawing the opponent's big out of the lane is such a huge advantage to get layups. So it just kind of depends on what drew you to the sport in the first place, and whether you have kept up with it through the changes to whether you like what each sport has changed into. But it isn't just an NBA issue, and it isn't because they just chuck low percentage shots because they always have done that. Now, did I support baseball's rule changes to try to bring some of the older stuff back into the game? Yes. Would I support some of that in basketball? If it isn't too drastic, probably yes. It's fun to have the greatest variety of styles possible.

And they used to hoist a bunch of shots from 17-21 feet, and they didn't shoot very well from those either. The main difference is because they moved back 5 feet, we track those shots in the box score now. Here's the FG% of an average team over the last 7 decades: 24-25: .467 14-15: .449 04-05: .447 94-95: .466 84-85: .491 74-75: .457 64-65: .426