MU ****The official NEW new conference realignment thread.**** - Page 366

**Saul Good** · 01-31-2012, 02:52 PM

the second thread has been pronounced dead.

**The Franchise** · 11-29-2012, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

But it's ok for Oregon to get in when they didn't win their division or conference?

**Saul Good** · 11-29-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

For one thing, because Georgia beat Florida. Georgia also finished ahead of Florida in the division according to the rules of the conference. Florida had their chance to both win the division and beat Georgia on the field, but did neither.

What if Georgia had lost four games in the non-con?

patteeu · 11-29-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

So the plan is to force everyone into 4 different conferences.....correct?

I don't expect that to happen.

patteeu · 11-29-2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

It's a simple concept. At the end of the season and after all conference championship games the top 4 teams in the BCS move on to the 4-team playoff. Brilliant! Anyone who feels a 4-team playoff shouldn't include the top 4 ranked teams either doesn't have a brain or isn't using it.

If the rankings are so definitive, why do we need a playoff or even a national championship game?

ChiefsCountry · 11-29-2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

So the plan is to force everyone into 4 different conferences.....correct?

IMO this would be awesome to see 4 16 team conferences, but the Longhorn Network and the Peacock Network won't allow it.

patteeu · 11-29-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

But it's ok for Oregon to get in when they didn't win their division or conference?

Why would that be OK with me? That couldn't happen if only conference champions were included in the national championship tourney.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 11-29-2012, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

It appears the only people who are for the conf. champ only model are fans of teams who are in weak conferences that wouldn't get in otherwise. They don't care about the 4 best teams playing, just the 4 best teams from separate conferences. Lame.

That pretty much sums it up.

**The Franchise** · 11-29-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

IMO this would be awesome to see 4 16 team conferences, but the Longhorn Network and the Peacock Network won't allow it.

I'd be for it. I've been hoping that ND would join a conference for years now.

patteeu · 11-29-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

What if Georgia had lost four games in the non-con?

Then under my system, they'd have to win their conference championship to have a chance to get into the conference championship. I prefer the idea of a tournament of conference champions because you avoid all of these subjective comparisons.

Jerm · 11-29-2012, 05:43 PM

Do you have to win your division to win the Super Bowl? Should the NCAA tourney be conference champs only?

Totally not on board with the conference champs only stuff...

patteeu · 11-29-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

It appears the only people who are for the conf. champ only model are fans of teams who are in weak conferences that wouldn't get in otherwise. They don't care about the 4 best teams playing, just the 4 best teams from separate conferences. Lame.

My team (Mizzou) has a better chance of getting in under the "SEC is awesome and we'll give their also-rans the benefit of the doubt" system than under the "conference champion" system.

Dr. Gigglepants · 11-29-2012, 05:45 PM

I don't understand why they're even going with the 4 team format, it will just eventually go to 8, which is where it needs to be. 4 auto bids go to the conference champs, 4 at large bids go to 4 highest ranked teams outside of the 4 taken as conference champs. That would require each of the 4 conferences to have a championship game though. It wouldn't be fair to ask one team to play 16 games to win it all, versus another team only having to play 15. 16 sounds like a lot of games to play for college kids when I write that out, but I just don't see how the 4 team format solves the problem of leaving out deserving teams. It's a start because at least it's a playoff, but I want to see all the deserving teams get a shot, 8 teams is plenty to satisfy that IMO.

**Saul Good** · 11-29-2012, 05:45 PM

The biggest flaw in the "only conference champions should be eligible for the NC" argument is that conference championship qualifications aren't designed to crown the best team overall. They are designed to determine what team was the best during conference games only.

It's like saying that only baseball teams that win the most divisional games should be allowed into the playoffs even if another team in the division has more wins overall.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 11-29-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

My team (Mizzou) has a better chance of getting in under the "SEC is awesome and we'll give their also-rans the benefit of the doubt" system than under the "conference champion" system.

Yeah, the loser of the Alabama-Georgia game is an "also-ran".

FFS.

patteeu · 11-29-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerm

Do you have to win your division to win the Super Bowl? Should the NCAA tourney be conference champs only?

Totally not on board with the conference champs only stuff...

If the NFL only had 4 teams in the post season tournament, they should all be division winners, but aside from that poor analogy, you're entitled to your own opinion and IMO your preference is a legitimate one.

01-31-2012, 02:52 PM
Saul Good Quit your bullshit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bored of winning Casino cash: $10052799	**The official NEW new conference realignment thread.** the second thread has been pronounced dead.
Posts: 41,870

11-29-2012, 05:43 PM	#5485
Jerm Mahomes > God Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $4838996	Do you have to win your division to win the Super Bowl? Should the NCAA tourney be conference champs only? Totally not on board with the conference champs only stuff...
Posts: 10,113

11-29-2012, 05:45 PM	#5487
Dr. Gigglepants Veteran Join Date: Apr 2011 Casino cash: $562400	I don't understand why they're even going with the 4 team format, it will just eventually go to 8, which is where it needs to be. 4 auto bids go to the conference champs, 4 at large bids go to 4 highest ranked teams outside of the 4 taken as conference champs. That would require each of the 4 conferences to have a championship game though. It wouldn't be fair to ask one team to play 16 games to win it all, versus another team only having to play 15. 16 sounds like a lot of games to play for college kids when I write that out, but I just don't see how the 4 team format solves the problem of leaving out deserving teams. It's a start because at least it's a playoff, but I want to see all the deserving teams get a shot, 8 teams is plenty to satisfy that IMO.
Posts: 1,387

11-29-2012, 05:45 PM	#5488
Saul Good Quit your bullshit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bored of winning Casino cash: $10052799	The biggest flaw in the "only conference champions should be eligible for the NC" argument is that conference championship qualifications aren't designed to crown the best team overall. They are designed to determine what team was the best during conference games only. It's like saying that only baseball teams that win the most divisional games should be allowed into the playoffs even if another team in the division has more wins overall. __________________ Today is not a good day to be a pussy.
Posts: 41,870