lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Oct 15, 2011 8:59pm
LJ;934940 wrote:That's actually retarded. Why have divisions then? It's not like say the Ravens go undefeated in the AFC North but lose 2 AFC games and therefore can't win the Division.
BTW link?
Uhm you do know that division champion is based on overall record right? The Raiders went 6-0 in the AFC West last year but the Chiefs won the division.
The divisions are used to divide the teams for scheduling purposes and for tiebreaking purposes among others.
How did you not know that?
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Oct 15, 2011 9:00pm
LJ;934940 wrote:That's actually retarded. Why have divisions then? It's not like say the Ravens go undefeated in the AFC North but lose 2 AFC games and therefore can't win the Division.
BTW link?
Why play games with the other division if they don't count for anything?
Benny The Jet
Posts: 2,987
Oct 15, 2011 9:01pm
A little late to the party...but I REALLY hope this was sarcasm. Guy was abused badly last week and hasn't look very good most of the seasonstroups;934808 wrote:Travis ****ing Howard.......dude is a baller
Mulva
Posts: 13,650
Oct 15, 2011 9:02pm
To be able to have a conference championship game. Conference championship games = more money.LJ;934940 wrote:That's actually retarded. Why have divisions then?
Division records only come into play in tiebreaker scenarios. Thank god the Big 10 wasn't actually that dumb.
So, to sum up, a 2-conference loss Ohio State team would not make the B1G championship game over a 1-conference loss Wisconsin team, because that would be the dumbest thing in the history of college football.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:02pm
I do know that, that wasn;t the example I was trying to make. That was an atrocity though.lhslep134;934944 wrote:Uhm you do know that division champion is based on overall record right? The Raiders went 6-0 in the AFC West last year but the Chiefs won the division.
The divisions are used to divide the teams for scheduling purposes and for tiebreaking purposes among others.
How did you not know that?
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Oct 15, 2011 9:02pm
What's retarded is thinking that conference games don't count in division standings.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:03pm
$$karen lotz;934947 wrote:Why play games with the other division if they don't count for anything?
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:04pm
karen lotz;934958 wrote:What's retarded is thinking that conference games don't count in division standings.
fail of the week in fact
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Oct 15, 2011 9:05pm
Well, OSU won't beat Wiscy, so it won't matter.derek bomar;934925 wrote:what? if we beat wiscy and win out, we're in the game... no?
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Oct 15, 2011 9:05pm
+1 wtf was LJ thinking?karen lotz;934958 wrote:What's retarded is thinking that conference games don't count in division standings.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:06pm
I mean, this is the fact of the matter anywayWebFire;934966 wrote:Well, OSU won't beat Wiscy, so it won't matter.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:07pm
Thinking logically that division games should make up the division standings and conference games should only be used in tiebreakers.lhslep134;934967 wrote:+1 wtf was LJ thinking?
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Oct 15, 2011 9:09pm
LJ;934969 wrote:Thinking logically that division games should make up the division standings and conference games should only be used in tiebreakers.
That system doesn't exist in either the major NCAA conferences or NFL.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Oct 15, 2011 9:11pm
Hard to believe OSU pulled this out today -- but God was helping us with the wind and having Zooker on the opposite sideline. :laugh:
By the way, that's the first time OSU has won a game with one pass completion since Oregon in 1961. Someone on another site said the offense set back college football 70 years; they were a little generous, since it was actually 50.
By the way, that's the first time OSU has won a game with one pass completion since Oregon in 1961. Someone on another site said the offense set back college football 70 years; they were a little generous, since it was actually 50.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:12pm
It did in the case of the Eagles over the Giants last yearlhslep134;934972 wrote:That system doesn't exist in either the major NCAA conferences or NFL.
karen lotz
Posts: 22,284
Oct 15, 2011 9:14pm
How are baseball standings figured? Or basketball? Or any other sport?
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:15pm
I honestly do not follow baseball, NBA, Hockey etc.karen lotz;934982 wrote:How are baseball standings figured? Or basketball? Or any other sport?
Which is why you never see me post in those threads except "I went to the game WEEE"
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Oct 15, 2011 9:23pm
Dude you're wrong. No it didn't. It served as the tiebreaker because the overall records of the 2 teams were the same. You talk about logic, then give an example showing that division records decide the standings like 5 posts after I showed you that that logic is false because the Raiders went 6-0 in the division but didn't win because their overall record was worse.LJ;934978 wrote:It did in the case of the Eagles over the Giants last year
Let me show you another example since you're not getting this.
NFC West.
1. Seattle 7-9 overall 4-2 division
2. St. Louis 7-9 overall 3-3 division
3. SF 6-10 overall 4-2 division
If the division record decided standings, SF would have finished 2nd not 3rd.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:25pm
The Giants had a better overall Conference record and the same overall record. My example was that's like saying the Ravens go undefeated in the AFC N but lose 2 AFC games and can't win the AFC N.lhslep134;934997 wrote:Dude you're wrong. No it didn't. It served as the tiebreaker because the overall records of the 2 teams were the same. You talk about logic, then give an example showing that division records decide the standings like 5 posts after I showed you that that logic is false because the Raiders went 6-0 in the division but didn't win because their overall record was worse.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Oct 15, 2011 9:28pm
BTW, I already admitted I was wrong
"fail of the week in fact "
"fail of the week in fact "
V
vball10set
Posts: 24,795
Oct 15, 2011 10:00pm
Buckeyes won, Toledo Rockets won, tsun lost, and the Detroit Tigers are getting waxed...nice!!!!
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Oct 16, 2011 12:44am
well I stand corrected... I guess I thought it would make sense to only have division games determine who went to the title game. IMADUMMY
imex99
Posts: 4,927
Oct 16, 2011 8:14am
derek bomar;935143 wrote:well I stand corrected... I guess I thought it would make sense to only have division games determine who went to the title game. IMADUMMY
Many were confused... Long discussions on talk radio.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Oct 16, 2011 11:32am
Daniel "Boom" Herron proved why he was #1 on the depth chart. I know a lot of posters who continually cast him off as ineffective, slow and unable to hit the hole, you guys look stupid today 
as his presence was felt early and often. He was particularly good considering we had absolutely zero ability to pass and was the focus of the "gameplan" if you can call it that.
as his presence was felt early and often. He was particularly good considering we had absolutely zero ability to pass and was the focus of the "gameplan" if you can call it that.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Oct 16, 2011 4:29pm
Ron Zook is the worst game coach ever.