Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Our? Ducks' Rose Bowl Odds Have Been Updated
Comments
-
Just loving how absolutely shattered duck fans are
At least UW didn't get their rightful shot at the title. Place would probably look like Jonestown -
No, that’s what clown memes are for.haie said:
deflectMikeSeaver said:haie said:
World's biggest Utah and ASU fan admits that he doesn't like divisions because it eliminated his team several times when Orygun was at the top.MikeSeaver said:
You didn’t play Utah. How is this an argument about UO and Stanford who played each other each season?haie said:
PTSD from getting whacked by Stanford in your glory years most likely effects your opinion on this.MikeSeaver said:
I think that maybe you’re thinking that way because it would benefit your school, this year.dnc said:
I'm not frustrated. This is my third time saying we should select CCG participants the same way we always have. You said they've never been selected based on rankings. I agreed with you. The way they've always been selected has been the right way and would once again provide the best matchup and most deserving teams.MikeSeaver said:
Don’t get frustrated.dnc said:
DISAGREE.MikeSeaver said:
Right but you wrote “yeah but still” like those were all legitimate points. The only factual bullet in that post was the rankings which don’t set conference champ games, anywhere.dnc said:
I didn't say anything about rankings.MikeSeaver said:
In what CCG game do rankings matter?dnc said:
You're right. We should go with what has settled the CCG participants.MikeSeaver said:
The only fact in that post is you’re ranked higher. Something that has never settled the CCG participants, But still…GreenRiverGatorz said:
Yeah but stillRaceBannon said:
UW won the North on a tie breakerMikeSeaver said:
North division crown? Man you guys LOVE making up titles for yourselves.RaceBannon said:
2nd north division crown in 3 yearsMikeSeaver said:A back door Rose Bowl loss as non conference champs who didn’t play in the CCG is gonna be special.
Probably your 5th best season in the last 30 years.
Why some fucking mountain west piece of shit team is playing USC is baffling
The reason is tie breakers. Like when you went to the Rose Bowl after the 2000 season because Oregon lost a non conf game.
How would you have done it? Just beat Oregon, nothing else matters?
UW has a better record than Utah
UW is ranked higher than Utah
Gosh what would I do?
Case closed. End of discussion. Nuff said.
Are you all on crack? (Crack Cocaine)
I said select the participants with the criteria they've always been selected by.
Hope that helps.
There aren’t divisions anymore. I would have thought you’d want the teams with the best records to be in the championship game but you want it handicapped based on location?
I'm sorry you're having a hard time following the thread.
Good luck the rest of the way.
You still haven't said why you should be in the CCG over Utah.
When they announced the change did you say “no way, I don’t want the teams with the two best records facing off in the title game. I want one from the top part of the map and one from the bottom?”
You can’t read. Must have gotten your doctorate from UO.
deflect
deflect
You just can’t read information and decipher it. Which community college did you go to before attending the UofO? -
Similar to the old BCS, I wouldn't mind a tiebreaker outside of head to head that relied on a weighted ranking score. The OOC tiebreak that beat you guys in 2000 is on the right track, but I fear it would only encourage shittier scheduling since everyone is a pussy these days.MikeSeaver said:
It wouldn’t change the clusters as it would still be unbalanced.Doogles said:
This is the problem. The change in selection isn't a bad idea, as it usually will produce the two best teams at the end, but you need to change the scheduling to reflect that.dnc said:Semantic volleyball aside if you're playing schedules based on divisions you should select champion representatives based on said divisions.
Having divisional round robins and missing two of the other side almost guarantees a clusterfuck more often than not with the common opponent tiebreak.
For instance Oregon was knocked out of the 2000 season Rose Bowl and conf championship because they lost an OOC game to Wisconsin. I know a lot of you were out there lobbying on behalf of Oregon saying “IT SHOULD BE HEAD TO HEAD!” And “THEY’RE BETTER THAN US.” But sometimes it just doesn’t work out in your favor.
I'm with you, at the end of the day, a 3-way tie for 2nd place you can only point the finger at yourself for not ensuring the opportunity. Still shuffling the schedules would have helped with the new format change. UW not playing SC or Utah sorta makes it feel a little empty. -
deflect
deflect
deflect
Pretty cool to get our 2nd die hard Ute and our 2nd die hard Doovil on the board from a single poster! -
I don’t know if there’s a great way to do it. It usually is going to work out. Sometimes you get the short end.Doogles said:
Similar to the old BCS, I wouldn't mind a tiebreaker outside of head to head that relied on a weighted ranking score. The OOC tiebreak that beat you guys in 2000 is on the right track, but I fear it would only encourage shittier scheduling since everyone is a pussy these days.MikeSeaver said:
It wouldn’t change the clusters as it would still be unbalanced.Doogles said:
This is the problem. The change in selection isn't a bad idea, as it usually will produce the two best teams at the end, but you need to change the scheduling to reflect that.dnc said:Semantic volleyball aside if you're playing schedules based on divisions you should select champion representatives based on said divisions.
Having divisional round robins and missing two of the other side almost guarantees a clusterfuck more often than not with the common opponent tiebreak.
For instance Oregon was knocked out of the 2000 season Rose Bowl and conf championship because they lost an OOC game to Wisconsin. I know a lot of you were out there lobbying on behalf of Oregon saying “IT SHOULD BE HEAD TO HEAD!” And “THEY’RE BETTER THAN US.” But sometimes it just doesn’t work out in your favor.
I'm with you, at the end of the day, a 3-way tie for 2nd place you can only point the finger at yourself for not ensuring the opportunity. Still shuffling the schedules would have helped with the new format change. UW not playing SC or Utah sorta makes it feel a little empty. -
Deflect? I don’t have a dog in the fight. None of you have answered the apparently simple question to the travesty of why you should be in over Utah.haie said:deflect
deflect
deflect
Pretty cool to get our 2nd die hard Ute and our 2nd die hard Doovil on the board from a single poster!
“Because I think so” isn’t an answer. -
I answeredMikeSeaver said:
Deflect? I don’t have a dog in the fight. None of you have answered the apparently simple question to the travesty of why you should be in over Utah.haie said:deflect
deflect
deflect
Pretty cool to get our 2nd die hard Ute and our 2nd die hard Doovil on the board from a single poster!
“Because I think so” isn’t an answer.
Correctly
So did @dnc
You're too busted up right now. Heal up and try it again -
It's been laid out why removing divisions was a bad idea. I guess your Lane brain can't follow so I'll just let you continue spamming the board trying to pretend like UW isn't going to live rent free in your head for the next year.MikeSeaver said:
Deflect? I don’t have a dog in the fight. None of you have answered the apparently simple question to the travesty of why you should be in over Utah.haie said:deflect
deflect
deflect
Pretty cool to get our 2nd die hard Ute and our 2nd die hard Doovil on the board from a single poster!
“Because I think so” isn’t an answer. -
Lane brain? Did you go to UO?haie said:
It's been laid out why removing divisions was a bad idea. I guess your Lane brain can't follow so I'll just let you continue spamming the board trying to pretend like UW isn't going to live rent free in your head for the next year.MikeSeaver said:
Deflect? I don’t have a dog in the fight. None of you have answered the apparently simple question to the travesty of why you should be in over Utah.haie said:deflect
deflect
deflect
Pretty cool to get our 2nd die hard Ute and our 2nd die hard Doovil on the board from a single poster!
“Because I think so” isn’t an answer.
I’ll barely think about Oregon after a few weeks from now. I’m not tormented by college football year round like some of you. -
Another post full of fluff.RaceBannon said:
I answeredMikeSeaver said:
Deflect? I don’t have a dog in the fight. None of you have answered the apparently simple question to the travesty of why you should be in over Utah.haie said:deflect
deflect
deflect
Pretty cool to get our 2nd die hard Ute and our 2nd die hard Doovil on the board from a single poster!
“Because I think so” isn’t an answer.
Correctly
So did @dnc
You're too busted up right now. Heal up and try it again
Say the exact reason UW should be in over Utah and stop being flippant.
If it’s rankings again, don’t bother.
