Our? Ducks' Rose Bowl Odds Have Been Updated

haie said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

RaceBannon said:

MikeSeaver said:

RaceBannon said:

MikeSeaver 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.

2nd north division crown in 3 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.

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 won the North on a tie breaker

UW has a better record than Utah

UW is ranked higher than Utah


Gosh what would I do?

Yeah but still

The only fact in that post is you’re ranked higher. Something that has never settled the CCG participants, But still…

You're right. We should go with what has settled the CCG participants.

Case closed. End of discussion. Nuff said.

In what CCG game do rankings matter?

Are you all on crack? (Crack Cocaine)

I didn't say anything about rankings.

I said select the participants with the criteria they've always been selected by.

Hope that helps.

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.

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?

DISAGREE.

I'm sorry you're having a hard time following the thread.

Good luck the rest of the way.

Don’t get frustrated.

You still haven't said why you should be in the CCG over Utah.

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.

I think that maybe you’re thinking that way because it would benefit your school, this year.

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.

You didn’t play Utah. How is this an argument about UO and Stanford who played each other each season?

Ice_Holmvik said:

MikeSeaver said:

CuntWaffle said:

MikeSeaver 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.

You guys should know a thing or two about back door rose bowl losses

How so?

Let me know if you need me to come over and help you post on the internet.

Doogles said:

dnc said:

Semantic volleyball aside if you're playing schedules based on divisions you should select champion representatives based on said divisions.

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.

Having divisional round robins and missing two of the other side almost guarantees a clusterfuck more often than not with the common opponent tiebreak.

It wouldn’t change the clusters as it would still be unbalanced.

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.

haie said:

MikeSeaver said:

haie said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

dnc said:

MikeSeaver said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

RaceBannon said:

MikeSeaver said:

RaceBannon said:

MikeSeaver 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.

2nd north division crown in 3 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.

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 won the North on a tie breaker

UW has a better record than Utah

UW is ranked higher than Utah


Gosh what would I do?

Yeah but still

The only fact in that post is you’re ranked higher. Something that has never settled the CCG participants, But still…

You're right. We should go with what has settled the CCG participants.

Case closed. End of discussion. Nuff said.

In what CCG game do rankings matter?

Are you all on crack? (Crack Cocaine)

I didn't say anything about rankings.

I said select the participants with the criteria they've always been selected by.

Hope that helps.

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.

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?

DISAGREE.

I'm sorry you're having a hard time following the thread.

Good luck the rest of the way.

Don’t get frustrated.

You still haven't said why you should be in the CCG over Utah.

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.

I think that maybe you’re thinking that way because it would benefit your school, this year.

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.

You didn’t play Utah. How is this an argument about UO and Stanford who played each other each season?

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.

You can’t read. Must have gotten your doctorate from UO.