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
HillsboroDuck
Member Posts: 9,186
Comments
-
-
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.
-
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 -
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 even though they beat you.
How would you have done it? Just beat Oregon, nothing else matters? -
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? -
There is no North.RaceBannon 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?
You both lost 2 conference games.
You want them to handicap the system based on the location of the school?
What’s next? Academics? -
Beep, beep, beep, beep.
We didn’t win shit but we BONEM POTD. -
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? -
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? -
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. -
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) -
Utah lost to two good conference foes. uw should be penalized for losing to ASU.MikeSeaver said:
There is no North.RaceBannon 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?
You both lost 2 conference games.
You want them to handicap the system based on the location of the school?
What’s next? Academics? -
Yeah but we're 9-0 at home. That's gotta count for something.46XiJCAB said:
Utah lost to two good conference foes. uw should be penalized for losing to ASU.MikeSeaver said:
There is no North.RaceBannon 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?
You both lost 2 conference games.
You want them to handicap the system based on the location of the school?
What’s next? Academics? -
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. -
You're a little slowMikeSeaver 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) -
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? -
Our dumb AF commissioner changed the rules to avoid this very matchup. Fuck that guy. UW should tell him to have fun watching us in the B1G for that.
-
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. -
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. -
Oh, it’s a conspiracy?haie said:Our dumb AF commissioner changed the rules to avoid this very matchup. Fuck that guy. UW should tell him to have fun watching us in the B1G for that.
-
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. -
The rules changed this year to avoid a team like Utah getting in and get the two best teams in. It backfired. SC v UW is the highest ranked matchup and helps SC for the playoff the way the conference wants.MikeSeaver said:
Oh, it’s a conspiracy?haie said:Our dumb AF commissioner changed the rules to avoid this very matchup. Fuck that guy. UW should tell him to have fun watching us in the B1G for that.
Kalivkafuck is an idiot. You're still even playing everyone in your division every year. -
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 guys should know a thing or two about back door rose bowl lossesMikeSeaver 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. -
How so?CuntWaffle said:
You guys should know a thing or two about back door rose bowl lossesMikeSeaver 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. -
I also would not object to taking the teams with the best records, good point. Either would be fine. Or taking the team with the best ranking. Plenty of good options to arrive at the superior matchup here.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?” -
Semantic volleyball aside if you're playing schedules based on divisions you should select champion representatives based on said divisions.
-
So you think the media should vote on who goes in when we have on field results right in front of us?dnc said:
I also would not object to taking the teams with the best records, good point. Either would be fine. Or taking the team with the best ranking. Plenty of good options to arrive at the superior matchup here.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?” -
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?” -
Hi there.MikeSeaver said:
So you think the media should vote on who goes in when we have on field results right in front of us?dnc said:
I also would not object to taking the teams with the best records, good point. Either would be fine. Or taking the team with the best ranking. Plenty of good options to arrive at the superior matchup here.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?”
No.
