NCAA Football 2014 season
- Thread starter Ramy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 101K
I think the AP poll (the non lemmings) got it right. Baylor at #4 who beat TCU. That's a better quality win than any of the Buckees wins.
The AP poll was coming out after the week 2 saturday games long before the committee did every week on Sunday immediately after the saturday games and before the committee ever started this year. If anything the committee based their rankings off of it and made boneheaded adjustments .It was not a lemming poll and it did not wait for the committee on tuesdays. http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll/2014/9Beleive what you will, and insult people as you always do.
But, the AP & Coaches followed the CFP rankings a week behind, every single time. They were taking their cues perfectly. The only reason they followed by a week, is they came out Sunday as opposed to the CFP on Tuesday.
As for being an ACC homer, if you hadn't just started trolling the sports forum this year, you'd know that I favor the SEC in most of my posts, just ask those who've been here a while.
I root for Ga Tech because I went there, but rarely defend the ACC as a whole. I grew up rooting for UGA and thus have more SEC homerism. But don't let that get in the way of a good troll
Ohio St., TCU, and Baylor all three lost 1 game, therefore giving them equal grounds.
All 3 are in conferences that fought against an 8 team playoff, as well as a 4 team one up til they got left out the last 2 years. I have no sympathy for anyone of them being left out again, since they're the ones that fought against an 8-team playoff. You reap what you sow.
The idiots on the committee are the ones that f##ked it up. They knew they were going to have to use the head to head and never should have had TCU ahead of Baylor until/and/or/if Baylor stumbled and lost again. All the geniuses blaming Bowlsby and the Big 12, just tell me what your commissioner and conference would have done. You can't play favorites and not push your highest ranked team.
Personally, I wouldn't have named "co champs" while "one true champion" commercials were running. Honestly I'm not sure how co champs works with one loss each between them, and for one the loss was to the other.
Seems like the tie goes to the winner of the head to head. I'd imagine that's in there somewhere. If not, it should be.
They played a hand.
It did not pan out. It could have gotten them two in.
Its not all on them though, I never thought TCU should have been above Baylor.
I'd have been fine with Baylor in the top four. I never was with TCU.
Seems like the tie goes to the winner of the head to head. I'd imagine that's in there somewhere. If not, it should be.
They played a hand.
It did not pan out. It could have gotten them two in.
Its not all on them though, I never thought TCU should have been above Baylor.
I'd have been fine with Baylor in the top four. I never was with TCU.
It's in the bylaws as co-champs, always has been, just like last year. Head to head is only used to determine bowl position. Who knows why it wasn't changed last year to account for the playoff selection process, but it wasn't.
Then to tout the method as yielding a "one true champion" is just stupid IMO.
In any case I expect they get a championship game sooner rather than later and that will help them in cases like this.
In any case I expect they get a championship game sooner rather than later and that will help them in cases like this.
Back when the SEC had 10 teams, they would have shared championships. Same with the ACC at 9 and the Big Ten at 10.
Head to head did determine Sugar/Citrus/Rose Bowl team though.
Head to head did determine Sugar/Citrus/Rose Bowl team though.
I dont remember the bylaws that far back and surely there were co champions. I'd imagine head to head would have come into play directly if the situation arose. May not have . Don't know if it was ever an issue.
In any case, none took the stance of ONE true champion while leaving a way for there to be co champs. That imo was very short sighted if you are going to tout that.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf...uld-have-voted-tcu-over-baylor-185924897.html
Its probably best to drop it..... lol. This is becoming comical almost.
I can't imagine Sliver continuing this, or any other conference commissioner outside of the pac (whatever) for that matter.
Its probably best to drop it..... lol. This is becoming comical almost.
I can't imagine Sliver continuing this, or any other conference commissioner outside of the pac (whatever) for that matter.
So tiebreaker of sorts was in place for the system being used at the time.
Here apparently not.
Yep.
I was thinking the same. Slive would have not part of it. He would make sure his conference would at least have a chance to be represented.
Same thing if the 2 top teams didn't play each other during the season.
The SEC actually had several years with 2 or 3 co-champs. Was fairly common back in the pre-championship game days.
Though if memory serves me, the tie breaker wasn't ever rankings, but was record against common opponents. Ranking inly became a tie breaker of last resort in the BCS days for determining who went to the Championship game.
edit: Looked it up, the tie breaker of last resort, prior to the BCS, for the Sugar Bowl berth was the last appearance rule. The team which had the longest Sugar Bowl drought got the berth. First tie breaker was head to head followed by record against common opponents.
Yep. Your right. Last appearance was in play. I could have sworn the highest ranked team came in play somewhere when tied. Maybe bowl pecking order?
Looking back there haven't been as many ties before champ game as I thought. Bama, Auburn and Tennessee tied in '89.
Looking back there haven't been as many ties before champ game as I thought. Bama, Auburn and Tennessee tied in '89.
Baylor isn't in the top 4 simply due to ratings. That is the only reason. Money. OSU has a much bigger fan base.
