Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Pat Haden on playoff selection committee? WHAT THE FLYIN FUCK?
puppylove_sugarsteel
Member Posts: 9,133
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! !!
Comments
-
For once, I actually agree with you on something related to football.
-
I like that you said "minoritycare," even though that was racist.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! !!
-
Commissioners only. I agree
-
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up. -
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up. -
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up. -
Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.greenblood said:
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up.
By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.
Scoreboard. -
I agree there.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.greenblood said:
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up.
By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.
Scoreboard.
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.greenblood said:
I agree there.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.greenblood said:
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up.
By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.
Scoreboard.
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?
The same problem exists in basketball. It's not perfect, but it beats the shit out of the BCS.
LIFPO. -
I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.greenblood said:
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up.
By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.
Scoreboard. -
So you think beating Tennessee Tech is better than losing at Notre Dame?He_Needs_More_Time said:
I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.greenblood said:
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up.
By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.
Scoreboard.
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think beating Tennessee Tech is better than losing at Notre Dame?He_Needs_More_Time said:
I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.greenblood said:
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up.
By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.
Scoreboard.
Thanks for visiting the bored, Mr. Woodward.
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.He_Needs_More_Time said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you think beating Tennessee Tech is better than losing at Notre Dame?He_Needs_More_Time said:
I disagree. Stanford had 2 losses, Oregon only had the one. I think in that scenario you'd have to go with Oregon.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Oregon's AD would be asked to leave the room when Oregon was discussed, just like they do in basketball.greenblood said:
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 said:
There's going to be a large enough cross section to eliminate most bias.greenblood said:
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 said:They have ADs on the basketball committee now.
Shut the fuck up.
By the way, Stanford was the EASY choice between those two teams last year.
Scoreboard.
Thanks for visiting the bored, Mr. Woodward.
So in your world should Oregon been to the Rose Bowl in 2000 over UW?
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.
-
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.IrishDawg22 said:Steele is becoming one of my favorite posters around here.
-
He's a Sark poster. Sometimes you get game day champions, sometimes you get 2012 apple cup.greenblood said:
He's the definition of a mixed bag. You reach in the bag, and you either get a chocolate or a turd.IrishDawg22 said:Steele is becoming one of my favorite posters around here.
-
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. -
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 schoolHe_Needs_More_Time said:
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: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.
1. ND
2. Bama
3. Stanford
4. Florida
11-1 SEC division runnerup > 11-1 Pac-12 division runnerup -
I'd want 16 as well to avoid this discussion that we just had. I won't feel bad about leaving teams #17 or #18 out.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
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 schoolHe_Needs_More_Time said:
I want the 4 best teams and Oregon last year was one of the 4 best.
Where last year if Oregon was left out there would have been controversy.
Ultimately the goal is to get the best teams in the tournament. -
Easy solution:
Shitcan the bowls.
Go to a 16-team playoff.
5 big conference champs + 11 at large berths.
Seed it out 1-16.
Higher seed gets home field advantage.
Championship game at a per-determined site.
Tell the other 104 teams if they want to get into the poast season to get better or fuck off. -
A 16 team playoff is 15 games, keep the good bowls and make the seeding a regional thing ( who gives a shit if its not 100% fair) and have them play through the bowls.CheersWestDawg said:Easy solution:
Shitcan the bowls.
Go to a 16-team playoff.
5 big conference champs + 11 at large berths.
Seed it out 1-16.
Higher seed gets home field advantage.
Championship game at a per-determined site.
Tell the other 104 teams if they want to get into the poast season to get better or fuck off.
Win the pac-12, alamo bowl sweet 16 against midmajor/big 12#2, rose elite 8 against big-10/acc, semi, championship.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
