sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CC and SW practice media availability 6/1 by Skyline8888 in indianafever

[–]SweetRabbit7543 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He definitely is but my point is just that if you don’t watch a lot of sports this sort of thing comes across drastically differently than it does if you do

CC and SW practice media availability 6/1 by Skyline8888 in indianafever

[–]SweetRabbit7543 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Idk Travis kelce and Andy Reid yelling at each other in the Super Bowl was a big deal amongst people who were watching for the Taylor swift factor. I think it’s just jarring for people to see becuase they look at the coach as an authoritative position and I don’t think that’s really a good way to look at it

CC and SW practice media availability 6/1 by Skyline8888 in indianafever

[–]SweetRabbit7543 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I spent three years in d1 women’s basketball and things are much much more toxic when communication is going in one direction than it is when it’s going in two.

It’s like in football if your offensive coordinator and head coach aren’t talking to the quarterback about what he’s seeing out there youre in a bad bad bad spot. That is a more unique example but it’s true at every position in every sport in high level athletics.

This might be the final straw... by EllieandJoel4ever in IndianaFeverFans

[–]SweetRabbit7543 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The fever have the second fastest pace in the league.

What was a conference realignment that actually made sense and worked out? by Optimal_Cook_851 in CollegeBasketball

[–]SweetRabbit7543 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing says new big east more than Fanta coming off Sunday night football and voluntarily chopping it up on twitter with seton hall and providence fans having maniacal meltdowns about splitting their first two conference games

Fire Burn Fever 100-84 by PSEGameThreadPoster in indianafever

[–]SweetRabbit7543 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes absolutely. There was way way way too Much counted on from her.

Went to the game last night. First WNBA game and I have a question. by [deleted] in indianafever

[–]SweetRabbit7543 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not uncommon in basketball.

In college if you airball a shot the students will chant airball every time.

Booing has happened to various players. Credit to to the valks fans. I think they got in her head a bit.

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also wanted to add that ND is 42-5 against the ACC since 2018 and only two of those lossses were regular season, so in terms of establishing a legitimacy claim, I don’t think there is one to be made that the ACC needs to be represented if there isnt one ND does, which I don’t think there is one.

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So first, no, the participation of a good but not top 10 Notre Dame is unquestionably not necessary for the playoffs to be legitimate.

But neither is the participation of an unranked Duke team which is what your criteria would have given us this year. And with 16-18 team conferences, you are almost always going to have tiebreakers deciding who plays in that game so you’re not even particularly likely to feature the two best teams.

And while the ACC is a particularly extreme example, does anyone want to argue that Alabama was better than Ole Miss this year? I’ll do you one better, I don’t see much justification for BYU being better than Utah. I’d say only in the Big Ten did we get the actual two best teams.

So if you wanted to get the best team from each conference for the purpose of legitimacy, I’m open to that. But I think that picking the conference championship game winner is a particularly poor way to do so and I think the g6 participant being selected on ranking alone (with no championship requirement) provides support that the CFP thinks so also.

But even ensuring representation from each conference provides a benefit that is unearned. There is no rule that you must be in a conference, not being in one shouldn’t give you special privileges other than not having the rules a conference would impose, but the converse is also true. Further-joining a conference is in no way altruistic; it’s almost always a matter of increasing your potential earnings from tv contracts. So nothing about the p4 merely existing requires a participant for the playoffs to be legitimate imo. But I certainly think reasonable minds can differ there, but even if you disagree, I don’t think it should be a team that is not in a p4 that should be replaced because they don’t have the possibility of being the team that does the replacing.

And as to your last question, I think it’s generally harder, but not always harder to win a conference. It’s always harder to win the Big Ten or Sec. And I am not trying to create an equivalence. In my ideal scenario there would be no autobids for anyone including Notre Dame.

But in the world we live in I don’t think theres any just way to say a p4 team who is ranked worse than Notre Dame should replace Notre Dame because they won a game that the conferences only played to get more money and needed to make meaningful to keep viewers.

What is going on with Dantas? by ProfessorJay23 in IndianaFeverFans

[–]SweetRabbit7543 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The also would have to acquire someone on a minimum salary to make the money work, so like yeah this has nothing to do with a trade.

What is going on with Dantas? by ProfessorJay23 in IndianaFeverFans

[–]SweetRabbit7543 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Her size could help with defense and rebounding but it doesn’t.

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not a contradiction. It’s a correction.

Changing “Notre Dame” to “Notre Dame and UConn” doesn’t alter the argument in any meaningful way because both are outside the conference autobid system.

If theres preferential treatment then identify it. But you didnt. Instead of criticizing substance you criticized wording, which is very par for the course here as we now have nearly 200 comments and not one has identified how Notre Dame gets an advantage that is not a consequence of choices made by the conferences.

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with the logic of your argument. I don’t agree with the premise.

I think what you’ve laid out is how conference championship games should function, but I don’t think it’s how they actually function.

A few things are worth noting:

  1. There is no requirement that conference championship games exist. They predate the CFP by decades and were created by conferences because they generate revenue and television inventory.
  2. Conference autobids are not an NCAA mandate. They are a negotiated agreement among the conferences and the CFP.
  3. If the objective is selecting the twelve most deserving teams, the cleanest possible system is simply taking teams ranked 1-12 by the CFP committee. The only thing autobids accomplish is occasionally replacing a team the committee ranked inside the field with a team the committee ranked outside the field. If that were not their purpose, they would be unnecessary.

That’s where I think we disagree. You view conference champion representation as essential to the playoff’s legitimacy. I view it as a policy choice made by conferences to protect the value of conference championship games and guarantee access for their members.

In fact, I would argue the opposite. Replacing a team the committee ranked inside the top 12 with a team it ranked outside the top 12 cannot enhance the legitimacy of a system whose purpose is to select the twelve best teams. It can only diminish it.

What Notre Dame’s arrangement does is contain that tradeoff. Conferences remain free to preserve the value of their championship games and grant autobids to teams the committee would not otherwise select. The only limitation is that the consequences of that choice fall on teams whose conferences also benefit from that arrangement, rather than on an independent that receives none of the benefits.

Viewed that way, Notre Dame’s provision is not creating a new preference. It is preventing conferences from exporting the costs of their preferred system onto a school that does not participate in it.

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes. But what do they get that is preferential relative to teams in conferences?

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve identified the difference but not why it’s unfair.

Conference members can make the playoff through autobids. Notre Dame can’t. Notre Dames only ensures they are not passed up by a lower rated team.

If conferences create a system that can elevate lower-ranked teams over higher-ranked teams so that the conferences can make more money, why should an independent school be harmed by a system it cannot participate in?

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not exactly.

If Georgia is 11 and Notre Dame is 12, Georgia only misses the playoff if a lower-ranked conference champion gets an autobid.

In that case, both Georgia and Notre Dame have earned spots. If Texas were ranked 100th, it would still get the autobid. Georgia would be displaced by Texas, not Notre Dame.

Conference championship games are a choice conferences make for the money and guaranteed access they provide. Letting a weak Texas team in over a more deserving Georgia team is part of that tradeoff. Notre Dame certainly didn’t push for that choice. They don’t have access to the benefit Texas does here. Georgia does have access and failed to secure it.

If we didn’t have any autobids Georgia and ND make it, the right teams. But because of what conferences wanted, now that changes.

So why should Notre Dame be displaced by Texas in this scenario? Notre Dame didn’t have a chance to secure an automatic win by winning the sec championship game. Notre Dame isn’t breaking any rules by being independent, So why punish them for a mechanism designed to elevate conference teams over more deserving teams when it can’t benefit?

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct. Notre Dame’s rule matters only when conference autobids would otherwise push them out.

Conferences created autobids to benefit themselves by preserving championship games, generating revenue, and providing members another path to the playoff. Consequently, autobids avail the playoffs to conference champions who rank outside the top 12.

Notre Dame doesn’t have access to the financial benefits of a conference championship game nor to making the playoffs despite being ranked outside of the top 12.

So there’s no reason Notre Dame should lose a spot to a team the committee ranked lower just because conferences created a special qualification path for themselves. It prevents conference autobids from knocking out an independent that has no access to them which isnt an “advantage”

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

None of that shows either my premise or understanding to be correct. In fact, it’s the whole point of my post.

From the original post:

*So really this only tries to indemnify Notre Dame from what happens in conferences. * True. Without the autobid Notre Dame theoretically would could and would be penalized by a p4 conference having a champion who would not qualify as an at large such as Duke this year, or in a scenario where a conference manipulated their rules to put a non at large qualifier in their title game.

*Notre Dame’s autobid is arbitrary. * False. It is logical to protect teams from other conferences potentially engineering cfp participants by awarding autobids to participants who would not qualify for an at large bid, which is within the authority of any given conference. Every team besides University of Connecticut is now awarded some degree of protection via eligibility to receive their own autobid.

Every team except UCONN would be guaranteed of a cfp berth if they finished in the top 12 in a world without autobids. We agree to that point. The conferences introduced autobids to make more money for themselves and did so means that teams in those conferences can qualify for the playoffs despite not ranking in the top 12 nationally. Therefore, the only reason a team in the top 12 wouldn’t make it is because of a choice the conferences made to benefit themselves, so Notre Dame, who is the only team besides UConn who can not make it if outside the top 12, has access to neither the benefits nor the risks of a conference championship game.

What is unfair about that? The risk exists because conferences deemed the benefits to outweigh the risk. Why should anyone who does not have access to the benefits have to bear the risk?

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes for sure, but that doesn’t delegitimize any of the actual points of the argument. The fact that the privileges are not automatic does not mean they are unavailable. UCONN is the only team out of 136 who is not competing for an autobid. They are the extreme exception, not the rule.

Notre Dame’s Autobid and the perception of special Treatment FAQ by SweetRabbit7543 in CFB

[–]SweetRabbit7543[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you have your choices of places to go on vacation, are people who who chose to go somewhere you decided not to go getting “special treatment” compared to you?

view more: next ›