BIG 10 THERAPY THREAD

[The Authority]

Clearly, it means the Michigan St couldn't beat Vandy. Because did you know that tSEC has 7 teams ranked in the top 15? Vandy is part of team sec, so they are good and MSU is part of team B1G and they are not good.

I think it also means that Clemson is awesome.

 

[ericd7633]

What factors? You didn't mention any.

It should be pretty obvious to figure it out.

 

[Red_Alert]

So, back to the obvious question. Is the assumption Nebraska goes undefeated?

:bites tongue to keep from lol:

That's a wussy distraction and you are better than that kiddy pool shit

I'll answer it the same way I've already answered it for you multiple times.

I don't know. By your own words the conference is "weak". Logic would say any descent team would have a chance to win it.

If Nebraska or Penn St beats Michigan St, will Oregon's win over Michigan St be greater than theirs solely because Oregon is in the PAC?

LOL @ you.

 

[WhiteMamba]

You people are hopeless.

Keep living in make believe world where the teams that reside in the 2014 b1g are still relevant.

 

[LawDawg]

Record and conference championships are the primary factors. If there are two teams that are equal in those, they will default to the other factors. SOS is a factor for a P-5 to override a mid major.

You just keep making this shit up. There are no rules for the committee that I know of. As in hoops, we'll get an idea of what they will look for over the years, but right you have no fucking idea and you keep pulling this out of your ass as if you are talking facts. Show me your source for the fact that SOS is only for mid major comparisons. I'll be waiting.

 

[Red_Alert]

You continue to act as if you are spouting facts. Neither of us really knows. But, the idea that they won't look at the body of work of each team, and then decide which is more deserving is crazy. As it stands today, running through the B1G undefeated <<<< losing 1 game running through the SEC West. Not sure about the East, or other conferences. But, I believe that is the exact SOS that the committee will be looking at.

Your argument is so shallow ... you act as if the "only include Conf Champs" argument won when in fact it lost. That's why there is a committee. SOS will extend to the quality of the competition you play, and that certainly doesn't look good for the B1G right now with what has to be the worst conference performance against OOC that I've seen in a decade.

Your anger in these posts shows you know I am right. "Deal with it" ... really? At the end of the day, I don't really care ... I am discussing something of interest on a sports board. You are the one all rustled up.

And you are a nutswinger.

Body of work = Don't lose.

 

[The Authority]

It should be pretty obvious to figure it out.

So go ahead and tell us then.

 

[Tharvot]

This I know. But when determining who played a tougher schedule the computer is a tool to figure it out. If the committee doesn't look at computers they can certainly judge for themselves based on an individual schedule who's is tougher.

SOS will play some sort of factor in it, but its hard to say how much its really going to matter. If you are undefeated and from one of the P5 conferences, you are in. Period. When it comes down to 1-loss teams and if a 1 loss conf champ is better than a 1-loss runner up, thats where you will have debate.

That said, I'm not terribly concerned at all with the non-conference scheduling. Its just week 3. All sorts of weird shit happens every year early in the football season that is forgotten when conference schedules start getting cranked up.

 

[LawDawg]

And you are a nutswinger.

Body of work = Don't lose.

In other words, "I don't have a source, I admit I am just pulling this out of my ass," so I'll insult you and call you a nutswinger.

As to "Body of work = Don't lose" ... explain when 5 CCs, plus ND are undefeated. What do your "rules" say about that, and provide the source. Again, I'll be waiting.

Funny thing, this was just a fun exercise in discussing how something like this would go down before you got your jimmies all rustled up.

 

[romeo212000]

In other words, "I don't have a source, I admit I am just pulling this out of my ass," so I'll insult you and call you a nutswinger.

As to "Body of work = Don't lose" ... explain when 5 CCs, plus ND are undefeated. What do your "rules" say about that, and provide the source. Again, I'll be waiting.

Funny thing, this was just a fun exercise in discussing how something like this would go down before you got your jimmies all rustled up.

Lol at thinking there will be 5 CC's undefeated.

 

[LawDawg]

Lol at thinking there will be 5 CC's undefeated.

LOL at you not understanding what a hypothetical is.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

In other words, "I don't have a source, I admit I am just pulling this out of my ass," so I'll insult you and call you a nutswinger.

As to "Body of work = Don't lose" ... explain when 5 CCs, plus ND are undefeated. What do your "rules" say about that, and provide the source. Again, I'll be waiting.

Funny thing, this was just a fun exercise in discussing how something like this would go down before you got your jimmies all rustled up.

That's not the discussion though. The discussion is an undefeated Big Ten team getting left out for a 1 loss team.

 

[Tharvot]

In other words, "I don't have a source, I admit I am just pulling this out of my ass," so I'll insult you and call you a nutswinger.

As to "Body of work = Don't lose" ... explain when 5 CCs, plus ND are undefeated. What do your "rules" say about that, and provide the source. Again, I'll be waiting.

Funny thing, this was just a fun exercise in discussing how something like this would go down before you got your jimmies all rustled up.

That's a scenario that has never happened in the history of CFB, right? If you go undefeated, you'll likely be among maybe 1 or 2 other undefeated teams, tops. Run the table and you're in.

Now, if all those teams you talked about had 1 loss, you have quite the situation to unfold.

 

[LawDawg]

That's not the discussion though. The discussion is an undefeated Big Ten team getting left out for a 1 loss team.

I agree. But Red-Alert states as fact that if you win you are in and that the committee won't look to subjectively evaluate teams. I was using an extreme example to show that the committee certainly could, and that there were situations that they would have to. I could have just as easily said that you have all one loss teams, which would be closer to reality, but the point I was making would have been the same.

The point I have been making all along is simply that I believe the committee will look at your slate of games, and just because you are undefeated doesn't guarantee you are in. I think my post above showing what a one loss Auburn would have to do to get to that point is persuasive.

Again, if you look at past years, there will be also sorts of Conf Champ permutations, so who the hell knows. I was just kicking around thoughts and some Nebraska fans got their panties in wads.

 

[LawDawg]

That's a scenario that has never happened in the history of CFB, right? If you go undefeated, you'll likely be among maybe 1 or 2 other undefeated teams, tops. Run the table and you're in.

Now, if all those teams you talked about had 1 loss, you have quite the situation to unfold.

Yeah, I agree. I just posted something saying that I could have made my point with a hypo where all CCs and ND were one-loss teams, and that is closer to reality. Again, I was just making a hypo ... I know it never came close to happening.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

I agree. But Red-Alert states as fact that if you win you are in and that the committee won't look to subjectively evaluate teams. I was using an extreme example to show that the committee certainly could, and that there were situations that they would have to. I could have just as easily said that you have all one loss teams, which would be closer to reality, but the point I was making would have been the same.

The point I have been making all along is simply that I believe the committee will look at your slate of games, and just because you are undefeated doesn't guarantee you are in. I think my post above showing what a one loss Auburn would have to do to get to that point is persuasive.

Again, if you look at past years, there will be also sorts of Conf Champ permutations, so who the hell knows. I was just kicking around thoughts and some Nebraska fans got their panties in wads.

His point was not that the committee won't subjectively evaluate the teams, just that if a team has a better record in a P5 conference, perception of said conference won't matter nearly so much.

 

[ericd7633]

So go ahead and tell us then.

I'm good.

 

[The Authority]

I'm good.

that's what I thought.

 

[ericd7633]

that's what I thought.

 

[Red_Alert]

Let me show you the fallacy of you argument ... let's say that all 5 conf champs are undefeated. Now what? They've all done all that they can do. Yet, the committee will have to evaluate which of the 5 don't get in. How do you supposed they will do that? You really don't think they will consider the poor - no, horrible - showing of the B1G OOC? That is the only logical conclusion. And, that being the case, why wouldn't they look at a one-loss Auburn, as an example, who wins all but 1 against KState, UGa, USCe, Bama, LSU, TAMU, Ole Miss (not sold on them), and then the SEC East Champ (probably UGa or USCe again), compared to the slate that Neb will have played, and determine that Auburn is more deserving.

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but they are allowed to actually consider injuries. If they can do that, they can surely look at the slate of games a team plays and determine that a one loss team is more deserving than an undefeated team in a weak conference.

Now you are changing the original subject to all P-5 champs undefeated?

If that were the case then they would have to default to SOS, because win/loss, conference champions, common opponents, and head to head will have already been exhausted.

LOL @ you for changing the criteria.