Baylor has hired a PR firm to advocate its case for a playoff spot.

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
63,082
Reaction score
20,785
Points
113
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 

I'm hoping that KSU beats them convincingly.
 

they've gone far since our trip to waco in 2000. hoping we don't need a pr team in 2019 when we're considered for the playoff
 

This new "playoff" format will prove to be more controversial, political,
and problematic that the former method of "determining" a national champion.
 

I think at the end of the day, there will be a BIT more satisfaction knowing that four get in versus two.

But yes, now there will be the "5th team deserved a shot" argument versus the "3rd team" in years past.
 


Amateurish move by the folks at Baylor. ... talk about putting the cart before the horse. Very cheeseball.

Like nsmike said, hope they get waxed by K-State. The two programs I least want to see in the CFP are Baylor (because of its horrific non-conference schedule, and now this) and Florida State (obvious reasons). I'll settle for one of them going down this week.
 

From Pat Forde...good first impression for the PR firm...

The conference has created its share of controversy this week. Baylor hired a PR firm to help plead its case to the media – one of the PR reps reached out to The Dash via email asking if there was interest in interviewing Baylor athletic director “Ian McCall.” Perhaps Baylor could have hired a firm more familiar with the school, or at least one who knows that the AD’s last name is McCaw, not McCall. And then there was the report that the Big 12 will not name a long champion in event of a tie at the top of the standings – it will have co-champions. This from the league that spent all season running ads touting it as the home of “one true champion.”
 


Eventual some sportswriter will pick-up on this poetically ironic twist:

After getting embarrassed at home against Minnesota in 2000, Baylor cancelled its return trip. And they never again scheduled a substantial non-conference opponent. They clearly changed their philosophy on scheduling because of that game. TCU's position in the CFP is credited, in no small part, to its non-conference win over a Big Ten team.... Minnesota.

This is about a long-time big conference team taking it easy wherever possible, while its cross-stare rival has been struggling for a place in the spotlight. We shall see whose philosophy the committee endorses.
 



BarnBoy said:
I think at the end of the day, there will be a BIT more satisfaction knowing that four get in versus two.

But yes, now there will be the "5th team deserved a shot" argument versus the "3rd team" in years past.
Click to expand...

I would like an 8-team playoff. Five conference champions and 3 at-large teams.

Of course, at-large team #4 would complain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
I would like an 8-team playoff. Five conference champions and 3 at-large teams.

Of course, at-large team #4 would complain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would like the same.

I would also like to see, in a 4 team tournament - that you must win your conference to get in the playoff. Let's see how this will play out in comparison to the actual 4 teams that are selected.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
I would like an 8-team playoff. Five conference champions and 3 at-large teams.

Of course, at-large team #4 would complain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But I'm much happier telling at-large #4 "if you wanted in you should have won your damn conference" then I am arbitrarily telling one of the conference champs "well, you won your conference, but I don't think that is as impressive as winning any of the other major conferences".
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
I would like an 8-team playoff. Five conference champions and 3 at-large teams.

Of course, at-large team #4 would complain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

People always want whatever playoff would have been ideal for what just happened. So this year its an 8-team playoff.
Yet, 8 is impossible right now. Because the 3 "at-large" spots would create a HUGE punishment for playing in a CCG (without winning it).

Think about it... who are the 3 "at large" this year if its 8?
 



Goldmember said:
People always want whatever playoff would have been ideal for what just happened. So this year its an 8-team playoff.
Yet, 8 is impossible right now. Because the 3 "at-large" spots would create a HUGE punishment for playing in a CCG (without winning it).

Think about it... who are the 3 "at large" this year if its 8?
Click to expand...

TCU/Baylor
Mississippi St
If Wisconsin beats OSU in a close game, I would give the 3rd spot to a 2-loss OSU; if it's a rout, Georgia?
 


Ski U Mah Gopher said:
TCU/Baylor
Mississippi St
If Wisconsin beats OSU in a close game, I would give the 3rd spot to a 2-loss OSU; if it's a rout, Georgia?
Click to expand...

If TCU and Baylor had to play each other again next week on a neutral field, would you still put the loser of that game in? if your answer is anything less than a emphatic "YES" you know you have created a system that rewards teams for NOT playing in CCGs and conferences for NOT having them.
 

8 team playoff is the only way to go unless we get to 4 super conferences. The 5 power five conference champs go which takes away the political part of it. Everyone starts out the year with the same opportunity to go. It's simple, win your conference and you are in. The other 3 at large bids will be for the top non-power 5 champ and 2 other deserving teams. If you are either not your conference champ, and not at least the obvious 2nd/3rd best at large team then you simply don't have a legitimate claim to a national championship. It is as fair as its gonna get.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom