soccer10k
-
Posts
25,950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by soccer10k
-
Indiana was only 11-1 because they didn’t play in a conf title game like Penn St, Texas and SMU had to. So prior to that there were 5.
-
The gambling site I use put out over under win totals and the White Sox is 50.5. I did a bit of googling and found a few in the 58-61 range in years past (the 2019 Orioles coming off a 115 loss season were still at 58). But it’s pretty crazy the over under has the Sox going 51-111 this year.
-
Juventus is undefeated this season. Juventus is in 6th place and 9 points back of 1st. The reason? They've tied 10 of the 16 games this year. I sent that to my brother earlier and he wondered if any team has gone through a season undefeated and not won the league. It's happened a few times but only once in one of the big 5 leagues. In 1978-79 Serie A, Perugia went 11-19-0 and finished in 2nd, 3 points back of top. But that's not what's notable. Here's the league table: So every team tied at least 10 of their 30 games. Only 2 teams scored 40 goals and only 6 teams even got to 30, which is 1 per game. So 10 of the 16 teams didn't even average a goal per game. In England that year, only 10 of 22 teams tied over 1/3 of their games and only 1 team averaged less than 1 goal per game. In Germany, only 8 of 18 teams tied 1/3 of their games (I included the 5 teams that tied 11 of 34 games) and no teams averaged less than a goal per game. In Spain, only 4 of 18 tied 1/3 of their games and 2 averaged less than a goal per game. Wikipedia has the full H2H matrix and there are a lot of 0-0 draws on there.
-
Only if you ignore the fact that Lamar and Allen provide value while running the ball. Lamar has a better QB rating, QBR, fewer picks, more total yards (pass and rush) and 1 more TD. Burrow with a narrow lead in comp%. Burrow is better than Allen in QB rating, total yards, comp% and has 1 more TD. Allen has a better QBR and fewer picks. Both Lamar and Allen have better yards per attempt and fewer sacks. I’d also argue Allen has the worst weapons around him (no Ja’Marr Chase or Derrick Henry). Burrow is really good, but if he had the same numbers and the Bengals 9-5 like the Ravens, he’d still be third behind those two guys.
-
Voter fatigue and the fact that he’s had poor results in the playoffs will cause some voters to not vote for him. It’s a dumb reason but we’ve seen it happen many times before.
-
I’m more on board with not necessarily playing yourself out of the playoff with a loss in the conference championship game except under more extreme circumstances. SMU loses by 21+ and is completely overmatched? Then that should matter. SMU loses by 3 and you don’t want to punish them? That’s understandable. I disagree but I get it. Bama had their chance but lost to Vandy and Oklahoma. Ole Miss lost to Florida and Kentucky. SMU didint blow a game to a crappy team. Personally I’d put Ole Miss in but that’s not a huge deal Penn St being ranked above Ohio State bugs me a whole lot more though. By Sagarin, OSU played 5 of the top 25 teams, including all 5 other Big 10 teams in the top-25. Penn St played 1 (give them 2 if you want to include #26 USC). There just isn’t a good argument to have Penn St above OSU besides “well they lost 1 less game during the regular season” which isn’t a good argument at all.
-
Texas over Clemson, OSU over Tennesseee, Penn St over SMU, Notre Dame over Indiana Texas over ASU, Oregon over OSU, Penn St over Boise, Georgia over Notre Dame Oregon over Texas, Georgia over PSU Georgia over Oregon
-
And they also went to Penn St and beat them and beat Indiana by 23. Penn St’a best win was at home against No 20 Illinois. I know you can just say, like you did, that OSU shouldn’t have lost to Michigan. And that’s fair. But these conference title games can’t mean nothing when it comes to seeding, besides who gets a bye or not.
-
Committee clearly making a prescient that a team shouldn’t be punished for losing a conference title game, which I 100% disagree with. Not saying a team has to be punished necessarily though. Like if you replaced any of Penn St’s wins with at Oregon, are they in the title game still? Probably not. So you’re putting OSU behind them because their game against Oregon was in the regular season and ignoring that it was a closer game and on the road.
-
If you want to argue against Indiana, I’ve got no problem with that. One small difference between the two is SMU had 4 games decided by 10 or less whereas Indiana only had 1.
-
Good point, the ACC teams don't play FCS teams. Oh wait. SMU played Houston Christian Syracuse played Holy Cross Miami played Florida A&M Clemson played The Citadel (on Nov 23) And I know the Big 10 plays 9 conference games but that didn't stop Oregon from playing Idaho and Indiana from playing Western Illinois. That being said, yes, the ACC and SEC should be scheduling 9 conference games like the Big 10 and Big 12 do. It obviously wouldn't eliminate the problem of scheduling luck (case in point, Indiana this year) but it would help a little.
-
Without doing a ton of research, I think I'd go: 1. Oregon 2. Georgia 3. Boise St. 4. Arizona St. 5. Ohio St. 6. Texas 7. Penn St. 8. Notre Dame 9. Tennessee 10. Indiana 11. Ole Miss 12. Clemson If I'm going to ding Texas or Penn St for having a soft schedule, I have to do the same to Notre Dame. And Notre Dame is the only one of the three that lost to Northern Illinois. I know the committee had Bama over Ole Miss last week so Ole Miss has no chance of getting in. But I'd still put Ole Miss in front.
-
And this would be the wrong takeaway. The problem with these 16-18 team conferences is that the schedules are so imbalanced. In the regular season, SMU didn't play Clemson, Miami or Syracuse, who were the other three ranked teams in the ACC. In the SEC, 6 teams besides Bama are ranked and Bama played 4 of them. Would SMU have been 11-1 before today if they played two of those three ranked teams? Maybe. But I've got no problem penalizing a team for losing their conference if they might have only made the conference title game because they got the benefit of schedule luck. And if you want to ding Texas for this exact thing, that's totally fair too. They played Georgia but missed the other five ranked SEC teams. Not saying Texas should be out but the schedule matters more now than it did before.
-
Except the schedules aren't the same. SMU played 2 ranked teams and lost to both. Alabama had two bad losses that SMU didn't have (completely fair criticism!) but they also beat Georgia, South Carolina and MIssouri, who are all ranked.
-
Georgia gets more yards on one drive with the backup than they had the entire first half.
-
This Georgia-Texas game is thrilling. 6-3 at the half.
-
And a PAC 12 team winning the Big 12 (Arizona St).
-
Semi-bold predation: Spurs will have a new manager in the 25-26 season.
-
And this is where the eye test/margin of victory matters. If Indiana had lost by 10 points or less to OSU, made the Big 10 title game and did the same against Oregon, okay, I think that would at least somewhat prove they were legit. I didn't realize how many good teams Texas missed either. Didn't play Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Ole Miss, LSU or Missouri. Of their 8 conference games, 6 were against the bottom 7 teams in the SEC. I mean, they brought back a ton of talent and made the 4-team playoff last year so I'm pretty sure they're good. But if we're evaluating based on who you beat this year, that resume isn't great.
-
There will be imbalanced schedules every year just because of how many teams are in each conference. I’m sure there will be some years where the top teams in each conference have relatively similar strengths of schedule. But I bet most years, at least one conference will have a team in the title game that got there in part because of a soft schedule. And I know that happened in the old system (often the Big 10 West) but the difference is before if the underdog pulled off the upset, they were virtually guaranteed a playoff spot like they are now.
-
If teams played a similar/the same schedule (like if everyone played every other team in their conference) I would lean towards it not mattering much and not punishing a losing team. But I think in this case it should become a data point. SMU, as you mentioned, hasn’t beaten a team that’s currently ranked. Didn’t play Clemson, Miami or Syracuse during the regular season. So if they lose to Clemson, they wouldn’t have a bad loss but they wouldn’t have a good win either. Would they be 11-1 if they had played all three of those ranked teams? Maybe. Indiana would have been in a similar boat. If they had made the title game and gotten handled by Oregon, I would have been fine leaving them out. A team shouldn’t avoid punishment for a championship game loss if they potentially only made the championship game in the first place because they had a lucky schedule draw.
-
So we’ve basically got the field, outside of the 1-bid leagues like the Big 12 and Group of 5. Bama is in unless Clemson beats SMU. And even then they probably get in over SMU.
-
Ugh we’re stuck with this idiot as commissioner for at least 4 more years too.
-
You mean you didn't like them just barreling straight ahead on 3rd and 4th and goal from the 1 in a jumbo formation so Texas would know exactly what was coming?
-
Miami has 35 points and over 500 yards of offense, including 349 passing yards with 9.7 yards per attempt. They're down 42-35 and they have 4th and goal from the 9 with 3:42 left. Critstobal decides to kick the FG which means rather than having to score a TD, Miami now still has to score a TD. Plus it cost them 16 yards of field position (assuming an incomplete pass) since on the kickoff, Syracuse fair caught it so the ball was at the 25 rather than the 9. Auburn also had a weird decision right before the half earlier. They're down 14-3, 4th and goal from the 2. They run the offense out there to ... draw the defense offside? They ended up not snapping the ball, taking the 5 yard penalty and kicked the FG. I don't know why they didn't just send the FG unit out there and let the clock run out anyway. I wouldn't think moving forward 1 yard would convince them to then go for it. It's not like they could get a 1st down. I mean, they should have just gone for the TD in the first place but doing what they did was strange.
