Mark Dantonio only wants conference champs in play-offs...

[ericd7633]

Why do you keep referring to an anomaly year.

You keep using the same example based on a one year event that will likely never happen again.

That is a failed argument.

Actually it happened in 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, where 2 teams from one conference finished in the top 4 of the final BCS standings. Seems to me it happens more times than not.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Holy smokes.

Y'all are atill at it? Did you guise go to bed last night?

 

[WhiteMamba]

Why do you keep referring to an anomaly year.

You keep using the same example based on a one year event that will likely never happen again.

That is a failed argument.

Actually it happened in 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, where 2 teams from one conference finished in the top 4 of the final BCS standings. Seems to me it happens more times than not.

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yxcqMrAEcpI[/ame]

 

[ericd7633]

Michigan didn't do what it needed to. ITs black and white.

You want all this Grey Bullshit.

Let's put a team in the 4 team playoff that managed to beat ONE ranked team all season.

Let's ignore the fact that Michigan has a better record, beat more ranked teams, beat a top 10 ND team OOC, and played a much tougher schedule.

I don't see how that's gray.

 

[dennis580]

Using CC as a criteria Every team goes into the season knowing what they have to do. Win your conference. = Less guess work.

Except that is not true because of there are independents who are not part of a conference.

 

[The Authority]

Actually it happened in 2000, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, where 2 teams from one conference finished in the top 4 of the final BCS standings. Seems to me it happens more times than not.

Seems like you changed what you were referring to.

You were talking about a team with several losses being a conference champ.

 

[The Authority]

Except that is not true because of there are independents who are not part of a conference.

If they don't want to join a conference then they know what they have to do too. Win all their games.

 

[gpm1976]

Let's put a team in the 4 team playoff that managed to beat ONE ranked team all season.

That basically happened last year and FSU went on to beat Auburn for the NC.

 

[dennis580]

I don't even mind a conference champ with multiple losses *if* that conference played a tough ooc and dominated it.

Conference champs or bust for me. Its a joke otherwise based on nothing but peoples opinions.

I do mind. I don't want to see a 2 loss team in the playoffs unless there is no good 1 loss alternatives.

 

[The Authority]

Let's put a team in the 4 team playoff that managed to beat ONE ranked team all season.

Let's ignore the fact that Michigan has a better record, beat more ranked teams, beat a top 10 ND team OOC, and played a much tougher schedule.

I don't see how that's gray.

Because you are rewarding teams for losing. You just rewarded Michigan for losing to Ohio state.

Lets not forget there wasn't a Big 10 CCG that year.

 

[The Authority]

That basically happened last year and FSU went on to beat Auburn for the NC.

 

[The Authority]

I do mind. I don't want to see a 2 loss team in the playoffs unless there is no good 1 loss alternatives.

And I don't want to see teams rewarded for losing their divisions or conferences and have the teams that do win the division / conference penalized.

 

[ericd7633]

Seems like you changed what you were referring to.

You were talking about a team with several losses being a conference champ.

You said it was an anomaly that rarely happens when the 4 best conference winners weren't the 4 best/most deserving teams in the country. I looked it up and that wasn't the case.

Hell in 2008 alone the SEC and Big 12 occupied the top 4 spots.

 

[gpm1976]

And I don't want to see teams rewarded for losing their divisions or conferences and have the teams that do win the division / conference penalized.

Correct! If you can't even win your conf division, then you have zero business being in a playoff for the NC.

 

[gpm1976]

You said it was an anomaly that rarely happens when the 4 best conference winners weren't the 4 best/most deserving teams in the country. I looked it up and that wasn't the case.

Hell in 2008 alone the SEC and Big 12 occupied the top 4 spots.

Then take the best SEC team and the best B12 team and open the other two spots for someone else.

 

[bamabear82]

And I don't want to see teams rewarded for losing their divisions or conferences and have the teams that do win the division / conference penalized.

If we end up with a conference champ losing 2-4 games, there's no way they deserve to be there if there's other teams with less losses that played decent schedules whether they won their conference or not. I don't want to see mediocre teams rewarded just because they play in a shitty conference and obviously better teams penalized for playing in a much tougher conference.

 

[ericd7633]

Because you are rewarding teams for losing. You just rewarded Michigan for losing to Ohio state.

Lets not forget there wasn't a Big 10 CCG that year.

Wake Forest and OU both lost TWICE that season. Aren't you rewarding them? And you're rewarding Wake Forest for losing to a team that finished unranked?

And I'm not rewarding Michigan for losing to Ohio State, I'm rewarding them because it's clear they have a better resume than both Wake and OU based on the entire season.

 

[ericd7633]

That basically happened last year and FSU went on to beat Auburn for the NC.

Yeah they also had zero losses, not 2. Big difference.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

You said it was an anomaly that rarely happens when the 4 best conference winners weren't the 4 best/most deserving teams in the country. I looked it up and that wasn't the case.

Hell in 2008 alone the SEC and Big 12 occupied the top 4 spots.

Ok so you're talking about the polls/BCS. Rankings that are based on the strength of a team's schedule...which are determined by rankings. You guys realize that it is one big circle, right?

 

[The Authority]

You said it was an anomaly that rarely happens when the 4 best conference winners weren't the 4 best/most deserving teams in the country. I looked it up and that wasn't the case.

Hell in 2008 alone the SEC and Big 12 occupied the top 4 spots.

That is not what I said. You kept using Wisconsin winning the B1G in 2012 as an example and I said that was an anomaly.