Pat Haden on playoff selection committee? WHAT THE FLYIN FUCK?

puppylove_sugarsteel

He's been an AD for a only a few years. Who's dick he suck to get that gig. Conference Commissioners would be a pure unbiased committee source. This 4-team playoff is a fuckshow already. Makes obama's minoritycare look seamless. I'd Hate to be UCLA at 12-1. Better be some fucking transparency! !!

PostGameOrangeSlices

For once, I actually agree with you on something related to football.

Swaye

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

He's been an AD for a only a few years. Who's dick he suck to get that gig. Conference Commissioners would be a pure unbiased committee source. This 4-team playoff is a fuckshow already. Makes obama's minoritycare look seamless. I'd Hate to be UCLA at 12-1. Better be some fucking transparency! !!

I like that you said "minoritycare," even though that was racist.

greenblood

Commissioners only. I agree

TierbsHsotBoobs

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

greenblood

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

TierbsHsotBoobs

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

greenblood

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

TierbsHsotBoobs

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.

By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.

Scoreboard.

greenblood

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.

By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.

Scoreboard.

I agree there.

Pac 12 might be a bad example because with a 9 game conference schedule with 12 teams, you almost always have head to head. But lets say in the SEC you have 14 teams with only 8 conference games, that could be where the problems lie. But I guess, that is their problem. But you see where I am getting at?

TierbsHsotBoobs

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.

By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.

Scoreboard.

I agree there.

Pac 12 might be a bad example because with a 9 game conference schedule with 12 teams, you almost always have head to head. But lets say in the SEC you have 14 teams with only 8 conference games, that could be where the problems lie. But I guess, that is their problem. But you see where I am getting at?

I see the problem.

The same problem exists in basketball. It's not perfect, but it beats the shit out of the BCS.

LIFPO.

[Deleted User]

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.

By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.

Scoreboard.

I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.

TierbsHsotBoobs

He_Needs_More_Time said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.

By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.

Scoreboard.

I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.

So you think beating Tennessee Tech is better than losing at Notre Dame?

Thanks for visiting the bored, Mr. Woodward.

[Deleted User]

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.

By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.

Scoreboard.

I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.

So you think beating Tennessee Tech is better than losing at Notre Dame?

Thanks for visiting the bored, Mr. Woodward.

Who finished the year ranked higher? Also Oregon's only lost was to a top 10 team. Stanford had they just lost to ND I would have said deserved it but they also lost to an unranked 7-6 team.

So in your world should Oregon been to the Rose Bowl in 2000 over UW?

TierbsHsotBoobs

He_Needs_More_Time said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

greenblood said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

They have ADs on the basketball committee now.

Shut the fuck up.

When you have 68 teams, it makes you look like a fuck head if you complain that you were #69. However, when you are only selecting 4 teams, bias needs to be more controlled.

There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.

What about Oregon/Stanford last year, and replace Haden with Oregon's AD (wouldn't be Stanford's, he could give two shits about sports)

Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.

By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.

Scoreboard.

I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.

So you think beating Tennessee Tech is better than losing at Notre Dame?

Thanks for visiting the bored, Mr. Woodward.

Who finished the year ranked higher? Also Oregon's only lost was to a top 10 team. Stanford had they just lost to ND I would have said deserved it but they also lost to an unranked 7-6 team.

So in your world should Oregon been to the Rose Bowl in 2000 over UW?

Stanford won the two way tie between them and Oregon for the Pac-12 North title because they beat Oregon head to head in Eugene.

That trumps the fucktarded loss Stanford had at UW.

Washington won the three way tiebreaker in 2000, that's why they went to the Rose Bowl. Note that in the current system, UW would have still won the tiebreaker.

I tend to pick conference champions over runners-up. I like it when regular season games between teams matter and I hate rewarding teams for shit OOC scheduling.

IrishDawg22

Steele is becoming one of my favorite posters around here.

greenblood

IrishDawg22 said:

Steele is becoming one of my favorite posters around here.

He's the definition of a mixed bag. You reach in the bag, and you either get a chocolate or a turd.

[Deleted User]

greenblood said:

IrishDawg22 said:

Steele is becoming one of my favorite posters around here.

He's the definition of a mixed bag. You reach in the bag, and you either get a chocolate or a turd.

He's a Sark poster. Sometimes you get game day champions, sometimes you get 2012 apple cup.

[Deleted User]

So in 1984 you think USC > UW?

He'll Bama won the natty in 2011 without winning a conference title.

I want the 4 best teams and Oregon last year was one of the 4 best.

PostGameOrangeSlices

He_Needs_More_Time said:

I want the 4 best teams and Oregon last year was one of the 4 best.

A 4 team playoff is only slightly less rigged than the current BCS system. 16 team playoff or GTFO. It's not gonna interfere with classwork...these guys aint come to play school

TierbsHsotBoobs

He_Needs_More_Time said:

So in 1984 you think USC > UW?

He'll Bama won the natty in 2011 without winning a conference title.

I want the 4 best teams and Oregon last year was one of the 4 best.

My four team playoff field last year would have been this:

1. ND
2. Bama
3. Stanford
4. Florida

11-1 SEC division runnerup > 11-1 Pac-12 division runnerup