Stever, you really like changing history. Or just jot admitting when wrong. It is right there for you, with the dates, that matches exactly what I said. Meanwhile there is nothing, zero, to show that your claim of a game that happened six months after the fact, was THE deciding factor of something already happening. You either refuse to admit when wrong, or like to play an utter moron on the net. I will let you decide.

And no, no one is "ignoring" ratings. You are trying to change reality (if ND had been 11-1), but then only wan to change said reality in one way, to prove your point, and then fail to acknowledge how changing it I other ways can make the point moot, OR more importantly, failing to realize that changing a teams' record in the past, changes many other parts, for example in this case potentially giving one of the teams who did get in the playoffs an extra loss (or in this case their only loss), or giving them a win again a conference champion, and how that may affect things. You just refuse to see hwo the world is interconnected, yet you use this hypothetical in your own mind, as "proof" of something that A is not wholly true, and B the parties involved keep telling you they could not care less about.

not a damn thing was set on Jan 10, 2012. All that was set in the original thing was that resistance might be crumbling in the Big 10/Pac 12. Not a damn thing happened in August of 2011. NOTHING.

It wasn't announced until June 2012. or about 6 months after the title game. The SEC game absolutely galvanized folks into knowing they had to do something.

(07-18-2016 11:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  not a damn thing was set on Jan 10, 2012. All that was set in the original thing was that resistance might be crumbling in the Big 10/Pac 12. Not a damn thing happened in August of 2011. NOTHING.

As I said before, I didn't show you an article that gave a date it happened: I showed you an article, DATED six months before the game, that backed up what was stated. So unless you have something that shows the SB articles are lies, then one would have to be "delusional" to believe the articles written were reading the future, and these things didn't actually happen. Despite what you think, there is actual tangible proof of you being full of ****. So unless you can prove those articles to be false, and that instead nothing happened until January, and after the SEC BCS title game, it all of a sudden put a playoff was proposed, considered, formatted, and finalized in sixth months (perhaps the stupidest thing you have suggested on this forum considering there are documented links that the playoff was being formulated months before, and that the recommendation was being made the same time that game was being played) consider yourself proven delusional. Proof it was a lie, or STHU. Again. Simple as that. There is no in-between.
Game over.

The article said that resistance might be crumbling. NOTHING of substance had started really until January.

Here is an article from January 10,2012...
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/10/...e-20120111

look at the byline:
Commissioners gather in New Orleans for first of meetings that could reshape college football's postseason. The spectrum ranges from little change to a play for a 16-team playoff.

And yes- things did come together pretty quickly when you think about it.

Do you have proof the SB Nation article is a lie? Aside from that, my original statement, that you said was delusion, is dead on balls accurate, which makes yours not. So submit proof, or your statement is nothing more than speculation at best (for something already near done), to an outright lie at worst, when you called me delusion for reporting what is an undeniable fact. So prove it wrong, or drop it, and admit you were wrong... again. You should probably admit the same to TerryD

You are full of ****. Your article isn't dead on balls accurate.
Is the Rose Bowl hosting a title game every 5 years? no
Is the Rose Bowl not hosting semifinals ever? no
was only 1 bowl added to the old BCS? no

wow- some dead on balls accurate article. your article is the one that was speculation......

Your article was complete speculation. I have given you your ******* proof..... The first meeting about it wasn't until January(in a article that I provided).

(07-18-2016 09:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 09:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Actual example. I keep hearing "if." Actual example was asked for, and you keep changing the subject to hypotheticals.

Anything else about the playoffs, where you called me delusional?

there was no actual example last year only because Notre Dame crapped the bed.

Not sure that losing 38-36 on the last play of the game, on the road versus the Rose Bowl winning PAC 12 champion constitutes "crapping the bed", but to each his own.

(07-18-2016 03:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 09:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 09:30 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Actual example. I keep hearing "if." Actual example was asked for, and you keep changing the subject to hypotheticals.

Anything else about the playoffs, where you called me delusional?

there was no actual example last year only because Notre Dame crapped the bed.

Not sure that losing 38-36 on the last play of the game, on the road versus the Rose Bowl winning PAC 12 champion constitutes "crapping the bed", but to each his own.

The point is the only reason why there was no actual example last year was because Notre Dame lost to Stanford.

(07-18-2016 02:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You are full of ****. Your article isn't dead on balls accurate.
Is the Rose Bowl hosting a title game every 5 years? no
Is the Rose Bowl not hosting semifinals ever? no
was only 1 bowl added to the old BCS? no[/quote[

What does that matter. You made that statement, not me. I said the Rose Bowl instigated the playoff talk as a remedy to not take a G5 team again. The Big Ten and Pac 12 were the ones talking about the playoffs. Do you need a slide rule to figure this out?

[quote='stever20' pid='13394354' dateline='1468871009']
wow- some dead on balls accurate article. your article is the one that was speculation......

No, it is full of statements backing up my quote you called "delusional"

(07-18-2016 02:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Your article was complete speculation. I have given you your ******* proof..... The first meeting about it wasn't until January(in a article that I provided).

Actually what you gave confirmed my post. And unsurprisingly confirmed nothing about the SEC BCS title game leading to such an event, much less in a manner that anyone who believes otherwise is delusional. And it shows you have an utter inability to admit when wrong, and are possibly quite stupid. Well not possibly... And prone to cursing when proven to be so. Probably both. I am done here. I have proved my point. You proved nothign other than you are my *****...

Terry (#168),

That's you saying that. You don't get to speak for all of Notre Dame alumni, fans, admin or the school itself. You are just you.

Let's see what the rest of ND folk, include those who make the decisions, have to say when/if Notre Dame only loses 1 regular season game and gets left out of the playoff.

your post was bs. The Rose Bowl didn't instigate anything. Everyone in the fall of 2011 was starting to think about what to do with the BCS in 2013 expiring. Not a thing was settled in January of 2012. NOTHING. If you are so clueless that you think the SEC getting 2 teams in the BCS didn't hasten things considerably, than I don't know what to say... You haven't proved anything. If the article said in January 10 2012 that they were having the first meeting about figuring out what to do- than how can it already have been a done deal? dumb.