Started By
Message
re: Delany: If you don't win your division, you can't win it all...
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:34 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:34 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Do you have any link or other information to back this up?
no, he watched a youtube video.
0
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:34 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
And what if the #1 team in the country gets left out?
That would rarely, if ever, happen.
Nonetheless, my argument would be that if that team finished #2 or #3 in their own little conference, then they technically could not be the #1 team in the country regardless, and therefore I would have no problem with them missing the 4-team playoff.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:36 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said Wednesday that any new format shouldn't include a team that doesn't win its division.
IMO, it just sounds like he is scared of having two SEC teams in the playoffs.
Yeah, it sucks we got our asses handed to us in the BCSNCG, but the two best teams were playing for the title.
Now, maybe one of the teams didn't show up to play, but that is neither here nor there.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:37 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Exactly, the team might be the NC but the Rose bowl invite/win was not the reason they got the NC, yes if they lost they would not have got the NC. But if they would have won another bowl they could have got the NC
There werent any other bowl games at that time. At least not that anyone cared about. Surely you are better than this NYC
quote:
For example 1927, illinois, the number one team in the country did not go to the rose bowl. The rose bowl was between Stanford, who didnt even have the best record in the conference, and the no. 2 team pitt,
I'm pretty sure that I specifically remember saying, a number of times, that this was not the case every year. Just MOST of them.
There is no use arguing this with you anymore because you have made your mind up and nothing, not even the truth, is gonna change it.
I stand by my statements though.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:38 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
My point that you guys seem to not grasp is the Rose Bowl was not the NC game. It was a bowl to put the Pac(1 of 10 teams) against a team from the East coast.
I am pretty sure I never claimed that it was. I just claimed that those teams claim national championships in years they went to and won the Rose Bowl prior to 1936.
And sportswriters obviously believed the 1926 Rose Bowl was for all the marbles as the headline below shows:
This post was edited on 5/10/12 at 11:39 am
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:40 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
Nonetheless, my argument would be that if that team finished #2 or #3 in their own little conference, then they technically could not be the #1 team in the country regardless, and therefore I would have no problem with them missing the 4-team playoff.
you dont have to win your division in any other sport, but you want to make an exception for collge football?
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:40 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
Nonetheless, my argument would be that if that team finished #2 or #3 in their own little conference, then they technically could not be the #1 team in the country regardless, and therefore I would have no problem with them missing the 4-team playoff.
That's just crazy to me. I don't think it's really all that difficult to understand and accept that a team that wins its conference (or division) is not necessarily the BEST team in that subset. Usually it will be but not always. Georgia was the SEC East division winner last year but I would argue that USCe was a better team - and so would all the polls.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:40 am to ThaKaptin
quote:
There werent any other bowl games at that time. At least not that anyone cared about. Surely you are better than this NYC
okay quote:
I'm pretty sure that I specifically remember saying, a number of times, that this was not the case every year. Just MOST of them.
you did, but I guess you dont see the failed logic in your assumption that the rose bowl decided the NC and this statement.
So you are saying the rose bowl back then determined the NC except in the years it didnt.
That makes total sense now. Can you tell me why it did in some years and not others? you know give some validity to your claims of the Rose Bowl being a NC game
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:41 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
JPLSU1981
Delany: If you don't win your division, you can't win it all...
quote:
And what if the #1 team in the country gets left out?
That would rarely, if ever, happen.
Nonetheless, my argument would be that if that team finished #2 or #3 in their own little conference, then they technically could not be the #1 team in the country regardless, and therefore I would have no problem with them missing the 4-team playoff.
So the St. Louis Cardinals, who finished #2 in an equally small division, can't be the #1 team in the country?
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:42 am to secfan123
quote:
you dont have to win your division in any other sport, but you want to make an exception for collge football?
Oh, I thought in most sports, the winner of their division became an AQ and the rest of the left over spots would be to the best teams not yet in the playoffs?
The only difference I see in this scenario is that there are no left over spots.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:44 am to Indfanfromcol
quote:
The only difference I see in this scenario is that there are no left over spots.
no, the difference you see is your anger that you had to pplay the best team in the country in your bowl game
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:44 am to RollTide1987
quote:
I am pretty sure I never claimed that it was
Many Bama fans use the reasoning that because they won the Rose Bowl, that made them champs. That is not the case, having a better record than everyone else would make you the champ.
quote:
those teams claim national championships in years they went to and won the Rose Bowl prior to 1936.
Not all teams that won the rose bowl prior to then claim a NC because it wasnt a NC game
quote:
And sportswriters obviously believed the 1926 Rose Bowl was for all the marbles as the headline below shows
see my last sentence in the first response in this post. That is why someone would recognize someone as a NC
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:49 am to secfan123
quote:
no, the difference you see is your anger that you had to pplay the best team in the country in your bowl game
I already admitted that the BCSNCG picked the right two teams, and it was proven because they were the only team that could beat LSU, and did.
The fact comes down to it is, there is only 4 spots open. Last year, probably only happens once in a life time. I personally think this would be 100% terrible idea. Conference championship games will mean even more. If you recall, they were talking last year as if UGA won, LSU would still go to the national title.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:49 am to Indfanfromcol
quote:
Indfanfromcol
Delany: If you don't win your division, you can't win it all...
quote:
you dont have to win your division in any other sport, but you want to make an exception for collge football?
Oh, I thought in most sports, the winner of their division became an AQ and the rest of the left over spots would be to the best teams not yet in the playoffs?
The only difference I see in this scenario is that there are no left over spots.
In other sports, all division winners get in. Delaney is already conceding that we will omit those conference winners that are not the highest four ranked or are not ranked in the top 6 overall. Since Delaney is already agreeing to use polls and computers to arbitrarily decide who gets in and who gets out, there's no reason not to use those same computers and polls to decide the top four teams in the country should go to the playoffs. There's no reason to artificially prop up a #6 team that won a weaker conference.
Would my scenario of a #1 ranked team being left out rarely happen? Sure. A team that doesn't win its division winning the BCS would rarely happen also, wouldn't it?
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:50 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
having a better record than everyone else would make you the champ.
signed,
Boise State
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:51 am to JPLSU1981
quote:A four team playoff should "attempt" to pit the 4 best teams in the country in that playoff. If 2 of the 4 "best" teams are from the same conference then obviously, they both can't win said conference but still deserve to be in the playoff. And that's all I am going to say about that.
If you don't win your division, you can't win it all...
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:51 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
The Rose Bowl was not the National Championship game, sometimes or all the time, no matter how much you want to believe. The game might have contained a national champion, but the Rose Bowl itself was not the deciding factor that made it so
Papers named the winning team NC's at that time. Major newspaper clippings have been posted on here time and again. I don't know why it's so important to you to try to devalue Bama's accomplishments 90 years ago, but whatever.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:51 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Not all teams that won the rose bowl prior to then claim a NC because it wasnt a NC game
I didn't say "all teams." I believe I listed only a few who use their Rose Bowl win that year as an excuse to claim a national championship.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:52 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
So the St. Louis Cardinals, who finished #2 in an equally small division, can't be the #1 team in the country?
FWIW I'm a Cardinals fan but I hate the playoffs today compared to when i was a kid and only two teams from each league made the playoffs.
Baseball has this really really long regular season and then you get to the postseason and there's barely any advantage to having been the best team for 162 games.
Posted on 5/10/12 at 11:52 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
you did, but I guess you dont see the failed logic in your assumption that the rose bowl decided the NC and this statement.
So you are saying the rose bowl back then determined the NC except in the years it didnt. That makes total sense now.
Can you tell me why it did in some years and not others? you know give some validity to your claims of the Rose Bowl being a NC game
I never said that it was the "national championship game" I said that it decided the national championship more often than it didnt because the 2 best teams in the country were USUALLY playing in it.
I'm sorry that you are upset by the fact that the Rose Bowl, more often than not, included what the general opinion was to be the 2 best teams in the country. But it is true. And when those 2 teams played, it wouldnt have mattered if the games was called the Rose Bowl or the "I Have a fricking Headache From Arguing With a fricking Barner Bowl", the fact that the 2 teams playing in it were considered the 2 best teams in the country pretty much made it the national championship game that year.
Just like in 1992, the Sugar Bowl was the National Championship game. Not because it was the actual National Championship game but because it was billed as such because it had the 2 best teams in the conference facing off in it. That was before the system guaranteed the #1 and #2 would play every year. It just ended up working out that way.
How is this concept hard for you to grasp?
Page 8 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News