Alabama has played UT-Chattanooga 3 times since 2008

[bamafan4evr12]

Thank you for admitting half your conference sucks. Best conference my ass.

Just the east sucks ass. But Bama is so good when you average it out, the SEC is the best









Just kidding, no one can make up for that garbage

 

[ralphiewvu]

If you thought the sentence "The measuring stick should be how teams play against mid majors?" was what I was talking about, then you are so far off the concept it's not worth the time explaining.

And even though I have no idea where you got that it was a discussion about "strength of schedule" or even "conference strength", I dont' know how in the world you think the 2 wouldn't be related to start with.

I think I'd be better off trying to teach my dog physics, and she died a month ago.

We are discussing how Alabama has played a D-1AA opponent more times then a conference opponent. You bring up the idea that playing a 9 game conference schedule regionalizes a teams schedule. We disagree and then you say how you can gain more info from playing some patsy mid major then playing a conference foe because it tells which could conference is better. Way to switch from strength of schedule to conference strength.

Maybe you should join your dog in the corpse line.

 

[ralphiewvu]

The transitive property would be cherry picking the matchups.

Bullshit, in my scenario the transitive property says WVU is better then bama.

 

[4down20]

We are discussing how Alabama has played a D-1AA opponent more times then a conference opponent. You bring up the idea that playing a 9 game conference schedule regionalizes a teams schedule. We disagree and then you say how you can gain more info from playing some patsy mid major then playing a conference foe because it tells which could conference is better. Way to switch from strength of schedule to conference strength.

Maybe you should join your dog in the corpse line.

Bullshit, in my scenario the transitive property says WVU is better then bama.

So mad.

 

[ralphiewvu]

So mad.

Ahh back to the gif game. I guess I'd play that game too if I had nothing else to say.

 

[4down20]

Ahh back to the gif game. I guess I'd play that game too if I had nothing else to say.

Other people had no trouble understanding what I wrote, so I'm pretty sure it's a you thing.

It's not my responsibility to keep responding because you are too ignorant to understand. You are free to go back and try again.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Other people had no trouble understanding what I wrote, so I'm pretty sure it's a you thing.

It's not my responsibility to keep responding because you are too ignorant to understand. You are free to go back and try again.

Ohh another gif, how sweet.

Other people, what other people??

"It's not your responsibility to keep responding" yet you continue too. Maybe you just shouldn't respond.

Don't get mad at me for calling you out on switching topics when your bs was made light of.

 

[4down20]

Ohh another gif, how sweet.

Other people, what other people??

"It's not your responsibility to keep responding" yet you continue too. Maybe you just shouldn't respond.

Don't get mad at me for calling you out on switching topics when your bs was made light of.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Translation: I can't deny anything he is saying so I'll continue to post gifs and and say I don't need to respond all the while responding.

BRAVO

 

[belcherboy]

14, 15, or even 16 team conferences would be fine......

..... as long as we get rid of divisions.

In a division-less system each team in the conference can choose to play one or two annually protected conference opponents, and rotate the others. This way, a team would be able to play everybody within the conference at least every other year.

The two best teams at the end of the regular season then play each other in the CCG. For the perennial top teams in the conference, simply reserve Thanksgiving week for a high profile out-of-conference match-up in order to avoid having the top conference teams play each other two consecutive weeks.... Florida & Florida State already do this, as sometimes does Notre Dame & USC, and Georgia vs Georgia Tech..... let's also have Texas vs Texas A&M every Thanksgiving week, as well as Nebraska vs Oklahoma, and Pitt vs West Virginia, South Carolina vs Clemson, etc.

I'd hate this scenario...especially if Michigan and Ohio State had to play each other back to back games (same goes with Alabama and Auburn). The only way I'd want to see them play each other twice in a season is if they played in a playoff game.

 

[4down20]

Translation: I can't deny anything he is saying so I'll continue to post gifs and and say I don't need to respond all the while responding.

BRAVO

 

[4down20]

I'd hate this scenario...especially if Michigan and Ohio State had to play each other back to back games (same goes with Alabama and Auburn). The only way I'd want to see them play each other twice in a season is if they played in a playoff game.

A scenario where Michigan finishes top 2 in the conference?

Seems unlikely.

 

[belcherboy]

A scenario where Michigan finishes top 2 in the conference?

Seems unlikely.

It's DEFINITELY been that way for a decade now! I think the last time this scenario would have played out was 2006 (#1 OSU vs #2 Michigan). Hopefully a decade of Ohio State tanking can begin soon...but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

 

[7Samurai13]

I'd hate this scenario...especially if Michigan and Ohio State had to play each other back to back games (same goes with Alabama and Auburn). The only way I'd want to see them play each other twice in a season is if they played in a playoff game.

Thankfully conferences needs to think what is best for everyone not just one or two teams. You can that happen now in the Big10 where cross division games can be repeated in the conference championship game. We have seen it in the first two years of the Big10. If Michigan or Ohio State is so worried about back to back games, then move when you play, otherwise sick it up for the betterment of the conference.

 

[7Samurai13]

It's DEFINITELY been that way for a decade now! I think the last time this scenario would have played out was 2006 (#1 OSU vs #2 Michigan). Hopefully a decade of Ohio State tanking can begin soon...but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Who knows how they would do tie breakers but it would have been either Wisconsin or Michigan playing Ohio State in the CCG as both teams were 7-1 with Wisconsin already losing once to Michigan.

 

[belcherboy]

Thankfully conferences needs to think what is best for everyone not just one or two teams. You can that happen now in the Big10 where cross division games can be repeated in the conference championship game. We have seen it in the first two years of the Big10. If Michigan or Ohio State is so worried about back to back games, then move when you play, otherwise sick it up for the betterment of the conference.

Obviously conferences will do what is best for themselves, but IMO it may cost the conference A LOT of money if UM and OSU were to be the two top teams in the B1G and meet in the CCG. If Michigan and Ohio State got to the end of the season game with both of them undefeated in conference, the first game would not matter (in terms of conference champs). It would be a waste of a game. The only thing a loss in that game would hurt, is the team's ranking. Also, the B1G has gotten 2 playoff teams a few times already. There is no way that the NCAA wants to see a potential for a 3 game series between Michigan and Ohio State...all of which happening within a 4-5 week stretch. So, IMO, the B1G would likely lose their chance at having 2 playoff teams (and the large payout that brings) if Michigan and Ohio State were determined to be the top 2 teams in the B1G conference.

IMO, all combining the whole conference would do is make the NCAA more like the NFL. No one really cares about in conference rivalries. It's the overall record that matters. You could lose to games to your closest rival in conference, and still win the conference. In the B1G (and college in general), you likely get one shot at your biggest rival each season. I think that is big part of the mystic of college football IMO.

With programs like MSU sinking quickly, and not knowing whether PSU is returning to elite status, it is likely that Michigan and Ohio State will easily be the top two teams in the B1G over much of the next few years (just going by recruiting). I think having them play twice many seasons will hurt the conference...especially when it comes to playoffs.

Just my two cents. I like it as it is and if they add another two teams, just restructure it again...but leave Michigan and Ohio State on the same side.

 

[belcherboy]

Who knows how they would do tie breakers but it would have been either Wisconsin or Michigan playing Ohio State in the CCG as both teams were 7-1 with Wisconsin already losing once to Michigan.

But the tie breaker between two teams is always going to be head to head. I mean, when is that not the case? If the B1G had gotten rid of divisions in 2006, and had a CCG, Michigan and OSU would have been in that game.

 

[7Samurai13]

Obviously conferences will do what is best for themselves, but IMO it may cost the conference A LOT of money if UM and OSU were to be the two top teams in the B1G and meet in the CCG. If Michigan and Ohio State got to the end of the season game with both of them undefeated in conference, the first game would not matter (in terms of conference champs). It would be a waste of a game. The only thing a loss in that game would hurt, is the team's ranking. Also, the B1G has gotten 2 playoff teams a few times already. There is no way that the NCAA wants to see a potential for a 3 game series between Michigan and Ohio State...all of which happening within a 4-5 week stretch. So, IMO, the B1G would likely lose their chance at having 2 playoff teams (and the large payout that brings) if Michigan and Ohio State were determined to be the top 2 teams in the B1G conference.

IMO, all combining the whole conference would do is make the NCAA more like the NFL. No one really cares about in conference rivalries. It's the overall record that matters. You could lose to games to your closest rival in conference, and still win the conference. In the B1G (and college in general), you likely get one shot at your biggest rival each season. I think that is big part of the mystic of college football IMO.

With programs like MSU sinking quickly, and not knowing whether PSU is returning to elite status, it is likely that Michigan and Ohio State will easily be the top two teams in the B1G over much of the next few years (just going by recruiting). I think having them play twice many seasons will hurt the conference...especially when it comes to playoffs.

Just my two cents. I like it as it is and if they add another two teams, just restructure it again...but leave Michigan and Ohio State on the same side.

Michigan hasn't been in the top 2 in the division for 6 years, a little soon to assume they are a top two in the conference now. Again, repmatch games are going to happen and the conference needs to do what's best for everyone not just think about OSU and Michigan and everyone else can fuck off.

 

[7Samurai13]

But the tie breaker between two teams is always going to be head to head. I mean, when is that not the case? If the B1G had gotten rid of divisions in 2006, and had a CCG, Michigan and OSU would have been in that game.

2010

 

[belcherboy]

Michigan hasn't been in the top 2 in the division for 6 years, a little soon to assume they are a top two in the conference now. Again, repmatch games are going to happen and the conference needs to do what's best for everyone not just think about OSU and Michigan and everyone else can fuck off.

Ha ha...like I said before, it's been 10 years since the scenario about Michigan and Ohio State happened, so I do realize it is presumptuous to assume they will be top two next season, but according to recruiting rankings, I'd bet that Vegas has it pretty highly likely to happen in the next 2-3 seasons. Anything can happen, but I wouldn't bet against it.

The best thing for the conference is whatever makes the most money. There can be rematches, but the teams that are more likely to get favorable treatment from the B1G when it comes to playoffs are going to be Michigan and Ohio State. They just are ratings juggernauts right now. So having them play back to back games would be a horrible idea, if you can keep it from happening. I'm not sure why you think getting rid of divisions would help the conference more than having divisions, but I contend that the potential of having your two biggest teams play twice in a season is not good (outside of playoffs)...if you can avoid it. They can avoid it, and should IMO. Let them play a second time in the playoffs, if they have to meet again. Playing twice in a season BEFORE the playoffs would hurt the B1G's chances of getting two playoff teams IMO...and the playoffs is a HUGE payday for the conference (especially when having two teams doubles your chances of getting into the national title game)