THE PAC12 THREAD v.4

[Olyduck]

Some say there is a better QB down there in Colorado than in Eugene this year. Perhaps in early October we can all see for ourselves.

You saying this doesn't hold a lot of water. Both Steele and Athlon still have Oregon QB ranked higher the colorado.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

You saying this doesn't hold a lot of water. Both Steele and Athlon still have Oregon QB ranked higher the colorado.

So your reply is an attempt to discredit my statement then? If your going to do that then have the bravado to post/link what these two other sites have to say. I am curious to know which Duck QBs are ranked higher than Sefo Liufau.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't feel the impact is the same. with the divisions split it feels like the focus of Cal and Stanford has shifted more towards competing with competing and keeping up with Oregon, They may still play but the rivalries have shifted and lost some meaning while other rivalries are forming

I think your correct on losing some of the impact when talking about what a loss could cost a team. For example, if USC were to lose to Stanford, it doesn't necessarily impact them as far as winning the conference. As long as they take care of business in the South, they would still be in the CCG. In the round robin format or if Stanford was in the South, that loss would have a much bigger impact.

As far as the rivalry and still getting to play each other every year, the impact is minimal.

 

[Olyduck]

So your reply is an attempt to discredit my statement then? If your going to do that then have the bravado to post/link what these two other sites have to say. I am curious to know which Duck QBs are ranked higher than Sefo Liufau.

Sorry how do you link a page in their magazines?

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Sorry how do you link a page in their magazines?

Scan copy the magazine page to a new file in your puter, cut-n-paste your appropriate info to here and finish your breakfast of crow-n-egg.

Jeez...kids these days.

 

[trojanfan12]

I see you...kick a guy and his team in the nutz when their down, new coach and re-building. Never saw me in here hog-tying the Trojans when Carroll went AWOL or Bush was flush with cash. Fine TF, take your shots. We''ll see you boyz next year as always.

Gotta do something to keep yer Beavs from breaking my heart on those Thursday night games.

 

[WizardHawk]

Btw, if UCLA plays Oregon and lost, even if USC doesn't play Oregon USC would still have to beat UCLA.

Otherwise it's the same record for both and UCLA wins the head to head tie breaker.

So having to beat a different quality team in your conference while not playing one of the top is the same as another team that played both?

I can understand why you would defend the current model though. SEC is the worst at not facing every team in their conference.

It's a joke.

 

[Olyduck]

Scan copy the magazine page to a new file in your puter, cut-n-paste your appropriate info to here and finish your breakfast of crow-n-egg.

Jeez...kids these days.

No scanner and honestly just dont care enough. its in print and while i dont always agree with with them I would still take their opinion over most. Their ranking of the QBs at both are quite different Oregon ranked 3(S) and 4(A) vs Colorado at 7 by both.

 

[4down20]

So having to beat a different quality team in your conference while not playing one of the top is the same as another team that played both?

I can understand why you would defend the current model though. SEC is the worst at not facing every team in their conference.

It's a joke.

Not sure what you are talking about. UCLA would still have a chance against USC because the 2 of them will have to play each other.

There is no scenario in which what you are talking about happens because USC and UCLA play each other, so it doesn't matter if 1 of them plays Oregon.

Your example as a reminder:

Let's say UCLA played Oregon during the regular season and lost but USC didn't play they them and ended up one game better in the standings. USC goes on and UCLA is penalized in an unfair way.

Ok, so lets say the are the differences.

UCLA loses to Oregon. UCLA has 1 conference loss as a result.

You are assuming UCLA as a result can have 1 extra loss over USC, but that's not the case because UCLA and USC play each other.

So, if UCLA beats USC when they play, both UCLA and USC have 1 conference loss. UCLA won the head to head, thus UCLA moves on, not USC.

If USC beats UCLA when they play, then UCLA ends up with 2 losses rather than 1, and USC moves on.

There is no scenario where UCLA gets screwed.

 

[WizardHawk]

Not sure what you are talking about. UCLA would still have a chance against USC because the 2 of them will have to play each other.

There is no scenario in which what you are talking about happens because USC and UCLA play each other, so it doesn't matter if 1 of them plays Oregon.

Your example as a reminder:



Ok, so lets say the are the differences.

UCLA loses to Oregon. UCLA has 1 conference loss as a result.

You are assuming UCLA as a result can have 1 extra loss over USC, but that's not the case because UCLA and USC play each other.

So, if UCLA beats USC when they play, both UCLA and USC have 1 conference loss. UCLA won the head to head, thus UCLA moves on, not USC.

If USC beats UCLA when they play, then UCLA ends up with 2 losses rather than 1, and USC moves on.

There is no scenario where UCLA gets screwed.

Is math not strong down there or what?

Yes, no shit USC and UCLA play each other no matter what. Wasn't part of the equation. The point was ONE of them plays Oregon and the other doesn't. ONE has to play BOTH Oregon AND their counterpart, while the other ONLY plays their counterpart. IT'S NOT EQUAL. One has an easier path to the south title, CCG, and undefeated record because they play an easier conference schedule.

This really isn't that hard.

Play EVERY DAMNED TEAM in your conference, or dump the idea of conferences.

 

[GeekSportsFan]

As a Direct TV subscriber, I sure hope the merger with AT&T will mean Direct TV picks up the PAC12 Network. Everthing I'm hearing points in that direction, but no timetable has been set on new talks and USC's home opener against Arkansas State will be on the PAC12 Network in about six weeks. Hurry up and get this thing done!

 

[4down20]

Is math not strong down there or what?

Yes, no shit USC and UCLA play each other no matter what. Wasn't part of the equation. The point was ONE of them plays Oregon and the other doesn't. ONE has to play BOTH Oregon AND their counterpart, while the other ONLY plays their counterpart. IT'S NOT EQUAL. One has an easier path to the south title, CCG, and undefeated record because they play an easier conference schedule.

This really isn't that hard.

Play EVERY DAMNED TEAM in your conference, or dump the idea of conferences.

In your own example the only game that matters is the head to head with USC and UCLA. The winner of that game goes on to the championship regardless of what the outcome is of the UCLA vs Oregon game.

But hey, my conference has only had the format for 23 years, what the hell do I know about it right?

 

[WizardHawk]

In your own example the only game that matters is the head to head with USC and UCLA. The winner of that game goes on to the championship regardless of what the outcome is of the UCLA vs Oregon game.

But hey, my conference has only had the format for 23 years, what the hell do I know about it right?

So we are again left with you believing that both teams have the same difficulty of reaching a championship when one just plays the other while the other plays both their counterpart and the strongest team from the other division.

Again, no surprise a card carrying member of team SEC feels that way.

 

[4down20]

So we are again left with you believing that both teams have the same difficulty of reaching a championship when one just plays the other while the other plays both their counterpart and the strongest team from the other division.

Again, no surprise a card carrying member of team SEC feels that way.

You just don't want to admit the outcome of the other game doesn't matter when it comes to which team will go to the championship game.

Alabama plays Georgia and Tennessee next year from the East. If Alabama loses 1 of those games, it'll have no effect on if Alabama wins the west or not. Most likely, we'd end up playing that team again in the SECCG.

If Alabama loses both, well who cares anymore because we didn't deserve it anyway.

Les Miles cries about having to play Florida every year if that makes you feel better. Nobody else in the SEC cares though.

 

[WizardHawk]

You just don't want to admit that in my scenario one team has a MUCH easier path to a conference championship because they avoid one of the tougher teams to play in our conference while the other doesn't. And while it's true the one that doesn't could still face them in the CCG, the other would have to have faced them twice. A much tougher thing to do.

Again, no one here questions why you feel the way you do. Have to defend the idiotic practice of playing imbalanced schedules to get your champion and justify it any way you can. No, we really do understand your position.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

There is no scenario where UCLA gets screwed.

11/07 when they also lose on the road. Their screwed.

 

[4down20]

You just don't want to admit that in my scenario one team has a MUCH easier path to a conference championship because they avoid one of the tougher teams to play in our conference while the other doesn't. And while it's true the one that doesn't could still face them in the CCG, the other would have to have faced them twice. A much tougher thing to do.

You aren't even smart enough to point out where the actual problems with imbalance exist with conferences that don't round robin. I've tried to help you multiple times now, but no - your stubborn ass will sit here and argue a wrong position to the death, with lame ass shit like below.

So let me spell it out for you real easy. The imbalance doesn't come because 1 team has to play Oregon and the other doesn't, which you think is sooo "MUCH" harder. The actual imbalance in conferences with divisions comes because the divisions themselves aren't balanced. So a SEC west team actually does have a MUCH harder path to the championship game than a SEC East team. And a Pac12 South team actually does have a harder path to the championship game than a Pac12 North team.

But by all means, keep harping on that 1 game which has no real effect and doesn't really mean that much while trying to pretend I'm ignorant because "Team SEC".

Again, no one here questions why you feel the way you do. Have to defend the idiotic practice of playing imbalanced schedules to get your champion and justify it any way you can. No, we really do understand your position.

The format for deciding conference champions actually affects Alabama.

 

[WizardHawk]

You aren't even smart enough to point out where the actual problems with imbalance exist with conferences that don't round robin. I've tried to help you multiple times now, but no - your stubborn ass will sit here and argue a wrong position to the death, with lame ass shit like below.

So let me spell it out for you real easy. The imbalance doesn't come because 1 team has to play Oregon and the other doesn't, which you think is sooo "MUCH" harder. The actual imbalance in conferences with divisions comes because the divisions themselves aren't balanced. So a SEC west team actually does have a MUCH harder path to the championship game than a SEC East team. And a Pac12 South team actually does have a harder path to the championship game than a Pac12 North team.

But by all means, keep harping on that 1 game which has no real effect and doesn't really mean that much while trying to pretend I'm ignorant because "Team SEC".



The format for deciding conference champions actually affects Alabama.

Right, because somewhere I said ONLY that scenario was wrong with imbalanced schedules.

You again try and change the conversation because the one at hand isn't working well for you. Kind of what you do isn't it? So how close are we to you threatening to quit the site for good or calling my wife a one legged hooker? 3 more exchanges? 4 maybe?

 

[4down20]

Right, because somewhere I said ONLY that scenario was wrong with imbalanced schedules.

You picked the example, not me. And then rather admit your example was poor, you defended it rather than bringing up the actual good example.

You again try and change the conversation because the one at hand isn't working well for you. Kind of what you do isn't it? So how close are we to you threatening to quit the site for good or calling my wife a one legged hooker? 3 more exchanges? 4 maybe?

^butthurt

 

[WizardHawk]

You picked the example, not me. And then rather admit your example was poor, you defended it rather than bringing up the actual good example.



^butthurt

You have yet to prove it was poor.

One team plays one tough opponent, the other plays two. Which has the tougher road to a conference title?

You can't defend your position to you run around in circles. Typical 420 BS.