THE PAC 12 THREAD v.5

[WizardHawk]

The reason I say it's wonky and where people get hung up is, consider the following:
Utah, USC, and Colorado all finish with the same conference record and went 1-1 against each other.
Utah finished 4-1 in division and the other two finished 3-2. You would think that means Utah goes on, but that is false. This tiebreaker doesn't care who is better, just who is worst. With the bottom two tied on that tier it again goes to the next one down. There is no method of breaking a multi team tie where one team is better than the other two and moves on. It is entirely about getting to two teams and then looking at what they did against each other.

This is why people get hung up and stuck trying to figure out these scenarios.

 

[WizardHawk]

Similar thing happened to the Seahawks a couple of years ago in playoff seeding. They had lost to Dallas, but ended up in a 3 way tie with them and I believe GB. Seattle ended up getting the higher seed than Dallas despite having lost to them because of one of these multi team tiebreaker scenarios.

It is very much still possible to move on past Utah having lost to them and being tied as long as someone else is as well.

 

[Vitamike]

2 things that are not always equivalent = illegal hits and illegal hits called.

Potential targeting calls are always reviewed, and if they were indeed deemed as illegal hits, than the player would have been ejected from the next game. Since the Bruins' defender, and all Bruins players were eligible for the next game, confirms there were no illegal hits in the Stanford game.

So sorry you have this ideal that if a player gets injured during a football game that it must be illegal. And that's gotta be the case, because you obviously aren't willing to accept the immediate and eventual calls that were determined by review of those two plays.

congrats on sending our guys to the sideline, maybe next time put a little more effort into winning a game

Most CFB fans, myself included, never want to see any player sent to the sidelines, but this is football man, injuries happen, often it has little to do with dirty play.

As a matter of fact, both of those plays that Stanford fan wants to put into question in that contest, were actually good plays, and when you look at them, considering the outcome of each of those plays, most can see that those plays had everything to do with effort at winning the game and little to do with targeting.

Here is a doozy I read in Social Media regarding those two plays....

On both of Goodman's pass breakup tackles, he not only led with his helmet--he was the second tackler...on Schultz's "incompletion" and on Owusu's "fumble". Since Goodman's helmet banged the ball off of Schultz's face guard, it was the ball that prevented the helmet to face guard contact, unlike in Owusu's case. But in both situations, the receiver was in the grasp, and that "cleanup" intent by Goodman was avoidable, intentional, and against an effectively defenseless receiver.

So basically Stanford fan wants the defender to merely 'cleanup' the tackle. Come on man, on those two plays, the Bruins defender forced an incomplete and a turnover. On the first pass breakup, the WR left his feet to go up high to catch the ball, the UCLA defender put his shoulder on the ball to knock the ball free for the incompletion. Good defensive play that is in line with an effort to win the game.

Obviously the defender is leading with his shoulder to disengage the ball and after the initial hit on the ball, the WR's face mask hits the back of the defenders helmet due to the tackler from behind. This is not leading with the crown of the helmet, and it is certainly not targeting or an illegal hit.

On the other play in question, the WR takes several steps after the catch, and runs diagonal for 2 yards. This no longer makes the WR a defenseless receiver, it makes him a runner.

Do we, or even you, want see all helmet to helmet contact called on runners? Good Lord help us!

If he was not ruled a runner, than instant replay would not have confirmed a fumble call on the field.

So once again the UCLA defender makes a great play and forces a fumble on the play.

In my book that makes two for two in making an outstanding effort at winning the game.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Five bold Pac-12 predictions for the second half of the season
Five bold PAC-12 predictions for the second half of the season

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Colorado putting that new mojo to work. Nice gets by McIntyre's staff.

Who was it in here that thought Colorado and Utah didn't belong in the PAC? Boy that guy likes eating crow.

 

[WizardHawk]

Who was it in here that thought Colorado and Utah didn't belong in the PAC? Boy that guy likes eating crow.

Same guy who's team lost to Colorado at home.



And that was some epic interwebz of his after that loss.

 

[stanford the manford]

Potential targeting calls are always reviewed, and if they were indeed deemed as illegal hits, than the player would have been ejected from the next game. Since the Bruins' defender, and all Bruins players were eligible for the next game, confirms there were no illegal hits in the Stanford game.

So sorry you have this ideal that if a player gets injured during a football game that it must be illegal. And that's gotta be the case, because you obviously aren't willing to accept the immediate and eventual calls that were determined by review of those two plays.

Most CFB fans, myself included, never want to see any player sent to the sidelines, but this is football man, injuries happen, often it has little to do with dirty play.

As a matter of fact, both of those plays that Stanford fan wants to put into question in that contest, were actually good plays, and when you look at them, considering the outcome, most can see that those plays had everything to do with effort at winning the game and little to do with targeting.

Here is a doozy I read in Social Media regarding those two plays....

So basically Stanford fan wants the defender to merely 'cleanup' the tackle. Come on man, on those two plays, the Bruins defender forced an incomplete and a turnover. On the first pass breakup, the WR left his feet to go up high to catch the ball, the UCLA defender put his shoulder on the ball to knock the ball free for the incompletion. Good defensive play that is in line with an effort to win the game.

Obviously the defender is leading with his shoulder to disengage the ball and after the initial hit on the ball, the WR's face mask hits the back of the defenders helmet due to the tackler from behind. This is not leading with the crown of the helmet, and it is certainly not targeting or an illegal hit.

On the other play in question, the WR takes several steps after the catch, and runs diagonal for 2 yards. This no longer makes the WR a defenseless receiver, it makes him a runner.

Do we, or even you, want see all helmet to helmet contact called on runners? Good Lord help us!

If he was not ruled a runner, than instant replay would not have confirmed a fumble call on the field.

So once again the UCLA defender makes a great play and forces a fumble on the play.

In my book that makes two for two in making an outstanding effort at winning the game.

well... it's great you are proud of your team's play. goodman's got his timing down perfectly to impart maximum injury within the rules, well done. personally glad owusu's concussion wasn't worse.

looking forward to next year's match-up.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The reason I say it's wonky and where people get hung up is, consider the following:
Utah, USC, and Colorado all finish with the same conference record and went 1-1 against each other.
Utah finished 4-1 in division and the other two finished 3-2. You would think that means Utah goes on, but that is false. This tiebreaker doesn't care who is better, just who is worst. With the bottom two tied on that tier it again goes to the next one down. There is no method of breaking a multi team tie where one team is better than the other two and moves on. It is entirely about getting to two teams and then looking at what they did against each other.

This is why people get hung up and stuck trying to figure out these scenarios.

So basically in that situation. USC would benefit because of Utah being the worst .And holding a tie breaker over Colorado comparing 2 teams rather than 3? That is an odd way to break a three way tie breaker

 

[WizardHawk]

So basically in that situation. USC would benefit because of Utah being the worst .And holding a tie breaker over Colorado comparing 2 teams rather than 3? That is an odd way to break a three way tie breaker

Again, the ONLY goal of a multi team tiebreaker is to eliminate the LOWEST. You can be lower than Utah in any one category, but you can't be lower than both them AND colorado in the same one. It keeps going down the line until one team is worse than the other two in a category and then the last two are evaluated based on their head to head match.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Again, the ONLY goal of a multi team tiebreaker is to eliminate the LOWEST. You can be lower than Utah in any one category, but you can't be lower than both them AND colorado in the same one. It keeps going down the line until one team is worse than the other two in a category and then the last two are evaluated based on their head to head match.

Yeah the term wonky works for me

 

[Vitamike]

well... it's great you are proud of your team's play. goodman's got his timing down perfectly to impart maximum injury within the rules, well done.

I don't think the intent was to hurt the player, maybe you do.

If the player is not injured without penalty, than it's just a couple of good play, no?

If you can agree to that, then what are you really implying, that penalties should be evaluated on the severity of a given injury?

personally glad owusu's concussion wasn't worse.

Well 'personally', who wasn't? I've already stated as much.

For goodness sakes, just quite associating injury with intent or fandom, there was no targeting, and there are no correlations that can be made outside of playing, as you put it, with 'an effort into winning the game'.

looking forward to next year's match-up.

Well if that don't beat all!

In context of your post, don't you think that sounds a bit vengeful?

It certainly does to me, I guess you can only admonish 'imparting maximum injury' as you put it, when it's another team doing the imparting.

What a hypocritical stance, and don't try ducking from it now .

I am all but too certain on what you are implying.

Stay classy newb!

 

[mcnabb7542]

Similar thing happened to the Seahawks a couple of years ago in playoff seeding. They had lost to Dallas, but ended up in a 3 way tie with them and I believe GB. Seattle ended up getting the higher seed than Dallas despite having lost to them because of one of these multi team tiebreaker scenarios.

It is very much still possible to move on past Utah having lost to them and being tied as long as someone else is as well.

Stopped read once you referenced the "Hawks"!




I believe that was the "magical comeback" where some mental midget started a thread on the Hoop and jinxed the Packers, and cost me money!

 

[WizardHawk]

Stopped read once you referenced the "Hawks"!




I believe that was the "magical comeback" where some mental midget started a thread on the Hoop and jinxed the Packers, and cost me money!

A thread that will live on in infamy.

That's another thread we should probably bump for the Rivals folks to get a laugh out of. Good example of why it's probably best to wait for the final gun before running your mouth on the internet. I think she posted like twice ever after that?

Good time man, good times.

 

[stanford the manford]

I don't think the intent was to hurt the player, maybe you do.

If the player is not injured without penalty, than it's just a couple of good play, no?

If you can agree to that, then what are you really implying, that penalties should be evaluated on the severity of a given injury?

>> sorry i do not agree. goodman came in, lowered his head, and went helmet to helmet. he didn't lower it the extra few inches to be 'leading with the crown' but the result was the same. a violent helmet to helmet hit. there was no attempt at a tackle, there was no attempt at striping the ball. you only do that to separate the target's head from his body, and it worked. he's played enough football to know that going in like can and will cause injury. so it's not a penalty - i see no other intent other than tackle by knockout. no need to reply, i know you disagree

Well 'personally', who wasn't? I've already stated as much.

>> an so did i, hence 'personally'. given his brother's issues with concussions it was especially impactful to see francis go down.

For goodness sakes, just quite associating injury with intent or fandom, there was no targeting, and there are no correlations that can be made outside of playing, as you put it, with 'an effort into winning the game'.

Well if that don't beat all!

In context of your post, don't you think that sounds a bit vengeful?

>> not at all and sorry if it came off that way. fan intensity for opponents start at USC, then N.D., Cal, and Oregon. UCLA is a team we respect but not one that has inspired a great deal of emotion. '16 was a very intense game and it'll make for a great atmosphere in P.A.

It certainly does to me, I guess you can only admonish 'imparting maximum injury' as you put it, when it's another team doing the imparting.

What a hypocritical stance, and don't try ducking from it now .

I am all but too certain on what you are implying.

>> then you'd be wrong, cute emoticons and all

Stay classy newb!

>> posted on many boards in the past and never had any issue with other posters (although a herd of 'bama fans proved to be trying). i like this board, its format, and categories. not wild about the mobile implementation. i plan to stay and post. i also plan to state my opinion, thanks for your well wishes...

 

[RegentDenali]

could always go watch Umass at Hawaii. probably late enough to not miss any other games and tix probably go for like $10

Mahalos.
My younger brother and friends go to UH games. I'm going to try to join them if a game is happening while there for sure. Lots of work to do but Rolovich has them playing better ball this year.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

This is why people get hung up and stuck trying to figure out these scenarios.

21-20 by the Lake...Beaverz.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

feel like an avi bet...but I need some massive points. Whose a playa @ -40 Huskies? Home +40 play here.

 

[WizardHawk]

21-20 by the Lake...Beaverz.

Gotta love the dedication, but you might want to drop the medication.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Gotta love the dedication, but you might want to drop the medication.

ROCK FUCKIN SOLID MY BRUDDA!


Poetic and short and right and it's 4:20 somewhere.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

21-20 by the Lake...Beaverz.

Washington: 42 | Oregon State: 17