THE PAC12 THREAD v.4

[TheRobotDevil]

No idea. We're gonna be running on fumes for sure. In Rich Rod I trust!

No bye week is bad enough that final stretch is going to be a bitch for zona. I thought oregon/UCLA back to back toward the end was bad. You guys got shafted with your schedule

 

[WizardHawk]

Neither Oregon or Oregon St is on the road to the CCG. They aren't in the same division. Unless a team loses 2 games to the north division, then only the division games are going to count. In the event a team does lose 2 games to non-division opponents, it really doesn't matter too much at that point anyway.

The division games they play are all the same. So if UCLA loses another division game, then they've lost the head to head to that team as well, and they've lost 2 games total which again means it doesn't really too much at that point anyway.

Wrong.

Again.

Pac-12 Football Championship Game tiebreaker explanation | Pac-12

The Pac uses CONFERENCE PERCENTAGE as it's ranking within each division. It is NOT division record. This is a common mistake and one I've already pointed out to you. Whether it's dumb or not is a matter for debate, but the fact is every game in conference counts the same toward your ranking in each division.

If you'd just get this, then we could move on to something else.

That Oregon game is every bit as important as ASU or UA in their schedule.

 

[4down20]

Bullshit.

You didn't have anyone telling you anything. Didn't happen. How do I know? Well, because the things you are saying are entirely wrong. You are fishing for shit and coming up empty.

And you are going to sit here and tell everyone you haven't said you were going to quit this site at least a dozen times? Really? Even that 'source' of yours would verify that. Pretty sure there were many in the Pac thread alone.

Kind of some new low territory, even for you.

There are others who knew all about the whole thing as it was happening. Like I say, it's the reason why I didn't post on this forum at all last season.

And I'll let you pick my avatar for 1 year if you can find me doing that even twice in a serious manner. I have done so a total of 2 times. 1 time when I was upset over a mod trolling as I took this site more seriously at the time, and once a few weeks ago as a joke to someone.

Hell, if the avatar isn't enough incentive for you, I'll gladly take a 1 year ban as well, and then come back and you can decide my avatar for a year after that.

 

[4down20]

Wrong.

Again.

Pac-12 Football Championship Game tiebreaker explanation | Pac-12

The Pac uses CONFERENCE PERCENTAGE as it's ranking within each division. It is NOT division record. This is a common mistake and one I've already pointed out to you. Whether it's dumb or not is a matter for debate, but the fact is every game in conference counts the same toward your ranking in each division.

If you'd just get this, then we could move on to something else.

That Oregon game is every bit as important as ASU or UA in their schedule.

It's the same format the SEC uses. It's not a set rule that the divisions games are the only ones that count, it's just the way it actually works in practice because you play all the teams in your division and have the head to head tie breaker.

The simple fact of the matter is it's impossible for you to lose a single game to another division, win all the games of your own division and not make it to the championship game. Not because of any specific rules that specify it, but because that's what actually happens in practice.

It takes 2 losses before it's possible. It's not possible with only 1.

 

[WizardHawk]

And that brings us right back to which team has the tougher road to the CCG, which is the one that has the most dangerous teams to face over their full conference slate. Since all of the south teams play each other, the only deviation is their games against the north and one of those top two expected to fight it out plays a more difficult one.

It is very possible the south winner could have 2 losses and still win the conference. They are all expected to beat each other up. Having Oregon leaves less margin of error on who else you can lose to and still get there.

There is zero debate on that. So why continue to fight it?

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Well you obviously have missed his tirades where he threatens the site. And who can forget where he attacked a posters handicapped wife calling her a hooker.

The "late great" Olympic Oscar?

420 is allrite in my book, bit quirky, but who aint?

 

[4down20]

And that brings us right back to which team has the tougher road to the CCG, which is the one that has the most dangerous teams to face over their full conference slate. Since all of the south teams play each other, the only deviation is their games against the north and one of those top two expected to fight it out plays a more difficult one.

It is very possible the south winner could have 2 losses and still win the conference. They are all expected to beat each other up. Having Oregon leaves less margin of error on who else you can lose to and still get there.

There is zero debate on that. So why continue to fight it?

Yes, it's a harder overall SoS to play Oregon instead of Oregon St. But it's not actually on the road to the conference championship because it's not the same division. It's not an "OOC" game, but it is an "OOD" game.

2 win conference champions is possible. LSU did so in 2007. However, they didn't get screwed in the process because of their out of division games, and neither did the other teams. They lost to Kentucky - East team. And then they lost to Arkansas, who had 2 losses in division, as well as a loss to Kentucky and Tennessee as well.

Losing multiple games and winning your division comes as a result of losing the easier games that don't have direct implications, not from losing the tougher games where it would have an impact. The tougher game winners would be the ones who moved on usually in those cases. For example, in 2011 Oklahoma St lost to crappy Iowa St, but still won it's conference because Iowa St wasn't even remotely in it. But Alabama lost to LSU and that was a tougher game that did matter.

You aren't going to get teams with 2 losses to better teams and then have them get screwed over when it comes tot he championship game. The better team they lost to will be there.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

The "late great" Olympic Oscar?

420 is allrite in my book, bit quirky, but who aint?

How do you know if you're quirky

 

[WizardHawk]

I give up. We are just going around in circles and you keep proving my point while denying it.

USC having a tougher SoS does, by definition, give them the tougher road to the CCG and yet you will say that, and then spin it to say it doesn't matter and never happens. You've proven my point enough even if you keep trying to say it really means something else.

Imbalanced conference play is dumb. Playing everyone in your conference is the closest thing to parity you can have. No other formula is even close. Yes, it's still not perfect as you flip flop home and away and can catch a slightly better road with who you have at home vs others in the conference, but while less than perfect it is still better than having imbalanced divisions.

As for how many times you threatened to quit, if someone can tell me how to search for posts by thread as easily as the old site I'd be happy to take that on. I won't find all of them as I recall seeing it at least once in the PF and sifting through thousands of your posts there to find one would be pointless. But more than one? Sure. No problem.

 

[nddulac]

I would have preferred stanford and cal south and utah and colorado north. But the north would lose A lot of strength. I still think the south is deeper

I don't think the Pac-12 North would accept having no California schools in their division. As it is, I remember a Washington fan (not from this board) being pissed that the Huskies got to travel to Southern California so infrequently. He figured the losses in recruiting opportunities would be large.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I give up. We are just going around in circles and you keep proving my point while denying it.

USC having a tougher SoS does, by definition, give them the tougher road to the CCG and yet you will say that, and then spin it to say it doesn't matter and never happens. You've proven my point enough even if you keep trying to say it really means something else.

Imbalanced conference play is dumb. Playing everyone in your conference is the closest thing to parity you can have. No other formula is even close. Yes, it's still not perfect as you flip flop home and away and can catch a slightly better road with who you have at home vs others in the conference, but while less than perfect it is still better than having imbalanced divisions.

As for how many times you threatened to quit, if someone can tell me how to search for posts by thread as easily as the old site I'd be happy to take that on. I won't find all of them as I recall seeing it at least once in the PF and sifting through thousands of your posts there to find one would be pointless. But more than one? Sure. No problem.

That lack of a bye week and tail end of the season for Arizona may push my opinion to the Wildcats having the toughest path to A CCG.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

How do you know if you're quirky

Anything over 70K in posts delivered here...j/k

quirky aint a bad thing, it's just what one does with the humility afterwards that defines it. Those that can't usually end up in a dumpster somewhere instead.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Anything over 70K in posts delivered here...j/k

quirky aint a bad thing, it's just what one does with the humility afterwards that defines it. Those that can't usually end up in a dumpster somewhere instead.

I've been called quirky or eccentric from time to time Gotta have fun tho right? humblety is a good thing keeps you humble.

 

[WizardHawk]

That wasn't the point clark. In fact this whole thing came about because Scott talked about him not seeing the conference expand again so the topic turned to that. I acknowledge I'm just an old school fan that doesn't much like change and never wanted us to go to 12 to begin with, but I understood why it happened. Now I think there are less valid reasons to need a CCG and if they get to an 8 game playoff it's entirely irrelevant to me (having 12 so we qualify for a CCG that is). Every team has different paths to get there. All of the teams in the south have a tougher road than the north given the disparity between both divisions this year and really all but Colorado are in play in the south.

I'd just rather either see 14 regular season games with 11 conference games, or go back to a 10 team conference so you see every team every year. Personal preference.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

2

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?

How did you come to that number "23", you only have 10 fingers and 10 toes, how did you do that ?

 

[Olyduck]

one thing about the imbalanced divisions is that it is cyclical. right now the South in the Pac and west in the SEC are the top divisions. it wasnt that long ago the North was stronger than the south. the power in the Pac tends to fluctuate more than other conferences.
Around 2012 the 2 divisions of the SEC were a lot closer to even than a huge separation. The East had its up years where they were the better division. Florida, Georgia and SC and sometimes Tennessee back in the day.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

That wasn't the point clark. In fact this whole thing came about because Scott talked about him not seeing the conference expand again so the topic turned to that. I acknowledge I'm just an old school fan that doesn't much like change and never wanted us to go to 12 to begin with, but I understood why it happened. Now I think there are less valid reasons to need a CCG and if they get to an 8 game playoff it's entirely irrelevant to me (having 12 so we qualify for a CCG that is). Every team has different paths to get there. All of the teams in the south have a tougher road than the north given the disparity between both divisions this year and really all but Colorado are in play in the south.

I'd just rather either see 14 regular season games with 11 conference games, or go back to a 10 team conference so you see every team every year. Personal preference.

I know but i prefer not to focus on a select group of teams. If the argument is to be made it should be thorough imo. The south is a rough trip and wide open. I think the north will be picking up too tho. I can't generalize the division by select teams under any terms. I also like the playoff system as is. I don't like the concept of an 8 team playoff. If it came to it i would be more in favor of super conferences

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

oscars wife had one leg huh? Learn something new everyday.

Damn It!!

 

[UtahUte]

Go Utes!

 

[4down20]

2


How did you come to that number "23", you only have 10 fingers and 10 toes, how did you do that ?

I have friends who went to Stanford. They are a smart and generous people and gladly helped me.