ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football Big XII is run by gerrymandering fools (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=288866)

Eleazar 12-02-2014 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 11162646)
Exactly. It's like the 2011 season where LSU went 13-0 and beat Alabama (in their house no less). SEC champ. But Alabama was National champ.


They can't win their league but they are best in the nation. Stupid.
Could that be because LSU and Alabama were 1-2, and were both placed in the national championship game, and Alabama won? :spock:

mikeyis4dcats. 12-02-2014 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist (Post 11162672)
That article from November 9 does not help the Big XII. I think you get it, but your subsequent posts seem to be defending the idea.

Nov 9 article: Big XII would submit Baylor as the champion
Dec 1 article: Big XII will submit co-champions
I am aware they have changed their tune (if the Nov 9 article was accruate). I am also aware this is not the first time the Big 12 has named co-champions.

Prison Bitch 12-02-2014 02:59 PM
Okie State was ahead of Bama in 4/6 computer polls, and in the composite. But we had to endure "eye testers" to give us that re-match. The result? LSU was champ of an 8 state area and Bama was champ of the other 42. Plus Guam and Puerto Rico

Don Corlemahomes 12-02-2014 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats. (Post 11162712)
I am aware they have changed their tune (if the Nov 9 article was accruate). I am also aware this is not the first time the Big 12 has named co-champions.
I don't see how that justifies them doing it this time, especially in the context of the looming playoff selection.

Just answer this: Why don't they give it to Baylor? Baylor won the head-to-head.

KC native 12-02-2014 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist (Post 11162735)
I don't see how that justifies them doing it this time, especially in the context of the looming playoff selection.

Just answer this: Why don't they give it to Baylor? Baylor won the head-to-head.
Because if they just gave it to Baylor then they would be altering their rules.

FFS this isn't hard.

Don Corlemahomes 12-02-2014 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native (Post 11162740)
Because if they just gave it to Baylor then they would be altering their rules.

FFS this isn't hard.
O RLY?

Quote:
Tiebreaker Procedures
Effective June 2014

The following procedure will determine the Big 12 Conference representative to the Sugar Bowl (or alternate College Football Playoff game when the Sugar Bowl is a semifinal) in the event of a first-place or alternate place tie (for the avoidance of doubt, only Conference records will be used throughout the process):
1. If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.
...
3. The highest ranked team in the first College Football Playoff poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative unless the two highest ranked tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the College Football Playoff poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the College Football Playoff.
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArtic...ATCLID=1546006

You are right. Talking out of your ass isn't hard.

KC native 12-02-2014 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist (Post 11162772)
O RLY?



http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArtic...ATCLID=1546006

You are right. Talking out of your ass isn't really that hard.
That's only a tiebreaker for automatic bowl tie-ins. It has no bearing on the conference championship.

This isn't the first time the Big 12 has had this happen.

Next time you should read a little bit before opening your mouth and looking like a jackass.

mikeyis4dcats. 12-02-2014 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist (Post 11162735)
I don't see how that justifies them doing it this time, especially in the context of the looming playoff selection.

Just answer this: Why don't they give it to Baylor? Baylor won the head-to-head.
because they believe having TCU in the playoff consideration in addition to Baylor benefits the conference. Which I think makes sense, as much as it sucks for Baylor (but who gives a **** about Baylor)

Eleazar 12-02-2014 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist (Post 11162735)
I don't see how that justifies them doing it this time, especially in the context of the looming playoff selection.

Just answer this: Why don't they give it to Baylor? Baylor won the head-to-head.
Because their "one true champion" rules allow for co-champions.

KC native 12-02-2014 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise (Post 11162782)
Because their "one true champion" rules allow for co-champions.
One true champion is an advertising slogan, not a rule.

Don Corlemahomes 12-02-2014 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native (Post 11162775)
That's only a tiebreaker for automatic bowl tie-ins. It has no bearing on the conference championship.

This isn't the first time the Big 12 has had this happen.

Next time you should read a little bit before opening your mouth and looking like a jackass.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The point is not that they want to honor two conference champions. Nobody gives a shit if they make TCU feel all warm inside. The point is how they present them to the committee because the committee has said it will favorably consider conference champions.

And, the Big XII explicitly addressed this in June 2014 for this very reason.

Quote:
If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative [to the Sugar Bowl (or alternate College Football Playoff game when the Sugar Bowl is a semifinal)]
They are presenting them as 'co-champions' to the committee despite having procedures in place to present just one.

Why are you purposely being obtuse?

Dr. Gigglepants 12-02-2014 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC native (Post 11162787)
One true champion is an advertising slogan, not a rule.
Big 12 slogan next year: Welcome to the Big 12, where the points are made up and the results don't matter.
Posted via Mobile Device

KC native 12-02-2014 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist (Post 11162791)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The point is not that they want to honor two conference champions. Nobody gives a shit if they make TCU feel all warm inside. The point is how they present them to the committee because the committee has said it will favorably consider conference champions.

And, the Big XII explicitly addressed this in June 2014 for this very reason.



They are presenting them as 'co-champions' to the committee despite having procedures in place to present just one.

Why are you purposely being obtuse?
You are stupid.

They are co-champions because they have identical conference records (which is how the rules are written). The tiebreaker only applies to their automatic bowl tie-ins. The playoff is not an auto tie-in. If TCU and Baylor are left out of the playoff, then Baylor gets the auto-bid and TCU would get an at-large bid from whatever bowl.

What part of that isn't clear to you?

Don Corlemahomes 12-02-2014 03:46 PM
Acting like "representative" and "champion" are two separate things is total ****ing bullshit. In every practical sense, its the same damn thing.

KC native 12-02-2014 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist (Post 11162801)
Acting like "representative" and "champion" are two separate things is total ****ing bullshit. In every practical sense, its the same damn thing.
In the Big 12's case, it isn't.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55 PM.
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.