Started By
Message
re: LSU should cheer for Kentucky (3-Way Tie Breaker)
Posted on 10/24/23 at 7:49 am to GusAU
Posted on 10/24/23 at 7:49 am to GusAU
quote:
If two teams' non-divisional opponents have the same cumulative record, then the two-team tiebreaker procedures apply
This is literally part of the listed tie breaker rules.
How hard is this to understand?
1
Posted on 10/24/23 at 7:58 am to skrayper
quote:
This is literally part of the listed tie breaker rules. How hard is this to understand?
This is where this thread becomes fun.
I will again post the FIRST part of the tiebreaker you are referencing…which you conveniently left out in the post I’m responding to:
quote:
(Note: If one of the procedures results in one team being eliminated and two remaining, the two-team tiebreaker procedure as stated in No. 1 above will be used):
The tiebreaker you keep referencing eliminates TWO teams, not ONE.
I must now ask you:
HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?
Posted on 10/24/23 at 8:30 am to GusAU
Just curious why this thread came to a complete halt.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 8:51 am to skrayper
Or, lsu should root for Missouri and UF (gross) and for everyone else to lose.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 9:41 am to skrayper
There won't be a need for a tiebreaker, winner of LSU/Bama is gonna win the West...
Posted on 10/24/23 at 10:08 am to GusAU
Because I got to work dumbass
Posted on 10/24/23 at 10:37 am to skrayper
quote:I can safely guess that you are NOT an English teacher.
Because I got to work dumbass
And what a great response from a loser with over 29,000 posts.
So, did your workday end at 9 am or are you now posting on your employer’s dime?
I started out this thread by trying to be civil, but you decided to throw civility out the window.
Ok dumbass, why is the quoted statement your only response?
Did you finally realize the flaw in your logic and just refuse to be adult enough to admit you misinterpreted the tiebreakers (as I tried to give you credit for)?
Or are you still going all-in on your complete lack of common sense reading comprehension?
My money is on the latter…
Posted on 10/24/23 at 10:44 am to skrayper
Never count on UK football to deliver you any kind of happiness. This is the way.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 10:48 am to ForeverLSU5
quote:
There won't be a need for a tiebreaker, winner of LSU/Bama is gonna win the West...
Well, yes, basically. I don't see Ole Miss beating Georgia right now, even without Bowers.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 10:52 am to GusAU
I'd agree with you if the language of the rules specifically eliminated both teams. All it says is "two teams" and not "top two teams".
This implies, at least to me, that the goal is to narrow down the list more cleanly so that the record of cross-divisional opponents does not become the ONLY factor in a three-way tie between 1-loss teams (as any scenario with 3 1-loss teams will, invariably, end up being settled by G).
I admit you could be correct; however, I don't think that's the intent of the rules. I cannot fathom an intentional scenario where the lone decider was determined by, say, Florida beating Kentucky leads to LSU getting in over everyone else.
That being said? You're probably right in the context that I am likely giving the same people who oversee SEC officiating way too much credit here.
This implies, at least to me, that the goal is to narrow down the list more cleanly so that the record of cross-divisional opponents does not become the ONLY factor in a three-way tie between 1-loss teams (as any scenario with 3 1-loss teams will, invariably, end up being settled by G).
I admit you could be correct; however, I don't think that's the intent of the rules. I cannot fathom an intentional scenario where the lone decider was determined by, say, Florida beating Kentucky leads to LSU getting in over everyone else.
That being said? You're probably right in the context that I am likely giving the same people who oversee SEC officiating way too much credit here.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 10:58 am to skrayper
I'm gonna sit in my garage and watch game/drink beer, college athletics is all jacked up now with NIL, don't really care who wins.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:01 am to Bandit1980
quote:
I'm gonna sit in my garage and watch game/drink beer, college athletics is all jacked up now with NIL, don't really care who wins.
Well, you're not wrong. I'm not a huge fan of it... couple the NIL with the transfer portal and it's worse than NFL free agency.
I get players wanting to transfer - I missed Hurts, but completely understood it was best for him - when it's in their best interest for playing time. Sadly now, though, it's mostly to work out a better deal (or at least feels that way).
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:01 am to skrayper
quote:I am 100% correct and it was definitely the intention of the rules.
I admit you could be correct; however, I don't think that's the intent of the rules
You keep acting like a 3+ team tiebreaker becomes a “survivor contest” where each tiebreaker just eliminates one team at most. That would ridiculously absurd.
It would be criminal if LSU outright won the non-division tiebreaker, but then lost the overall tiebreaker to a team that it defeated in the tiebreaker being discussed.
I can’t imagine why any logical person would see it any other way.
But, then again, we are talking about you….
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:09 am to GusAU
quote:
You keep acting like a 3+ team tiebreaker becomes a “survivor contest” where each tiebreaker just eliminates one team at most. That would ridiculously absurd.
It would be criminal if LSU outright won the non-division tiebreaker, but then lost the overall tiebreaker to a team that it defeated in the tiebreaker being discussed.
You're saying that it would be criminal if LSU lost the tie-breaker to a team that beat them on the field?
How is narrowing down the field to where the final tie-breaker ended up being actual on the field results "criminal"?
Why do you hate the idea of head-to-head play playing any role in this determination? It's a weird spot to draw a line in the sand.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:11 am to GusAU
And this entire thread is based on the presumption that LSU beats Bama in Tuscaloosa.
I have a feeling that this 'what if' scenario system will be greatly missed next year when the divisions go away.
I have a feeling that this 'what if' scenario system will be greatly missed next year when the divisions go away.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:18 am to Chip82
quote:
And this entire thread is based on the presumption that LSU beats Bama in Tuscaloosa.
There have been plenty of years where I would have presumed Alabama would win (and wrong on a couple of those for certain).
This year I hold no such confidence. I think this game will be good, but not decided either way until late in the game.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:26 am to skrayper
Unless I'm missing something, I thought tie-breakers applied to ANY ranking.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:28 am to skrayper
The only reason one should root against 10rc is their very existence.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:34 am to Chip82
quote:
I have a feeling that this 'what if' scenario system will be greatly missed next year when the divisions go away.
I have a feeling that tie-breakers will be used MORE with non-division.
Posted on 10/24/23 at 11:37 am to skrayper
quote:Yes, it would.
You're saying that it would be criminal if LSU lost the tie-breaker to a team that beat them on the field?
Using your logic, LSU would never win the tiebreaker over OM because they lost the head-to-head, Bama would never win the tiebreaker over LSU because they lost the head-to-head and OM would never win the tiebreaker over Bama because they lost the head-to-head.
What should be done in that case? I guess they would have to resolve it with a 3-team tiebreaker.
Oh wait, that just puts us right back to where we started.
I have to ask this question:
Why would any tiebreakers go beyond head-to-head if Bama beats LSU? They they would win the head-to-head tiebreaker over LSU and OM even if they still ended up in a 3-way tie…the chances of which are minuscule or less at that point.
So your example used here is flawed, as usual.
quote:Please provide a link where I ever stated or even insinuated that?
Why do you hate the idea of head-to-head play playing any role in this determination?
Since you won’t be able to provide that, let’s move on to another idiotic part of your post…
quote:Why do you keep insisting that tiebreakers be survivor contests?
How is narrowing down the field to where the final tie-breaker ended up being actual on the field results "criminal"?
It is truly baffling how you can be either so unintelligent or so obtuse.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News