@TomSummar Yes, we ended support of the app as Tapatalk has not updated to stay current with our forum software, xenforo.
I would message tapatalk and encourage them to update their app.
There are 0 top 4 seeds in the Semifinal, a complete and overwhelming validation of the expansion to 12 teams. Have to wonder who in the last decade might have won a Championship if given a chance.
Absolutely. FPI is all about pushing a narrative and is worthless. The BCS was a better and more accurate measurement than the playoff committee too. #BringBackTheBCS
Has ESPN’s FPI put in an algorithmic “glass ceiling” for Big12 teams? 🤔
Even factoring in the Big12’s strong bowl season, not a single one has made the FPI top 20, while the ACC (who had an abysmal post-season) still has FOUR teams in their top 15, including unranked 9-4 Louisville all the way up at #12 🤣
FPI has TEN SEC teams above the Big12’s top team, #21 ASU 🤷♂️, this is despite the Devils taking the former FPI #1 Texas to OT (& dominating them on the stat sheet)
How did FPI deal with that CFP result? Texas dropped 1 spot to #2 & ASU went up one whole
spot to #21
7-6 USC is #18, higher than any Big12 school…🤦♂️
BYU finished 11-2 and got stiff-armed by the CFP committee & media talking heads by not even being “in the conversation” for the last at-large spot. BYU was #32 in FPI before blowing out the Buffs and FINALLY breaking into the top 25, at #25 🤷♂️
Biased systems like ESPN’s FPI help give “cover” to the CFP committee to downgrade Big12 teams like BYU & have to be eliminated or fixed… with the new algorithms being made completely transparent
FPI can no longer be taken seriously, yet it is currently the framework from which ESPN &
the CFP committee derive their Strength of Schedule and Strength of Record rankings that they quote in their CFP selections shows
FIX THIS NOW!
The answer is clear. 1 team deemed a Major Brand from a MAJOR CONFERENCE! The other predicted last in a P4 not named @SEC or @bigten until our sport removes the veil of impropriety CFB’s integrity will continue being questioned. It’s a problem. As much as I 💜it. It’s an issue.
Scott Van Pelt: “I don’t care who it is. That’s targeting 100 times out of 100. It wasn’t [called] in this case.”
Dusty Dvoracek: “I thought it was targeting in the moment. I picked up the phone, made a few phone calls. I talked to Bill Lemonnier, who I think is one of the absolute best, works for us at ESPN/ABC as a rules expert, and he said verbatim: ‘It’s a defenseless player, there was an upwards thrust indicator, forceable contact to the head or neck area. It’s targeting.’”
I have watched every college football game that matters — and tons that don’t — for the entire targeting era. How is this not targeting? Legit would love to hear this explained. It’s textbook.