(09-02-2020 10:20 AM)TTT Wrote:  "Inferior" has nothing to do with it. Here's how you sum this all up:

Winning 7 conference games is harder than winning 6 conference games. That's why LT would get the nod in this extremely rare season/situation. Just let it go man.

You know what? Ok. We’ll deal with that. Just tell us NOW that we’re dealing with that. That’s my issue. And tell us publicly. Put it out there so it doesn’t seem like the conf offices are in storage units with pressboard desks and they keep getting blindsided by things any fan with an IQ > 50 can see is probable if not likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-02-2020 08:31 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:22 AM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:53 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:39 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)TTT Wrote:  The winning % tiebreaker rule rewards the team that played more conference games over a head to head. This makes sense. A team that plays 7 conference games has an easier path to have a better winning % vs a team that played 8 conference games...

So why didn't CUSA schedule UAB w/ a second conference game...did the mathmatics not add up? Didn't they mention something about playing 2 conferece games?

This make zero sense to me. Reward a team that is 7-1 that lost to the 6-1 team, because the 13th team in the conference opted out.

Head to head matters to me a whole lot more than record if unequal games are played.

Also, I don’t care about wins in this scenario, just losses.

That's not how it works. It's about the # of conference wins....not # of conference losses or head to head (at least at first). LT has a tougher path to the conf. championship game than UAB because they have to play more games than UAB does. That's why total conference winning % is one tier hiegher than the head to head tie breaker.

What's a shame is that the conference couldn't figure a way to work it out where everyone played an equal number of conference games.

If Tech loses to UAB and each team has one loss, why on earth would you send the inferior team on the field to the championship game?

This makes no sense.

Head to head is all that matters in this scenario.

"Inferior?"

The team with more wins is inferior?

I think there is a decent argument to be made for head-to-head in many cases. But it isn't always the best way to judge a football team (except for bragging rights).

I do think there needs to be a clearly stated and consistent policy going into the season so there are no surprises. Even if we don't like the method they choose, we need to know what it is.

So prove it in the field.
Beating someone on the field is a whole lot better way than saying well “you did play more games due to circumstances beyond your rivals control, so let’s forgive that 34-10 drubbing you took. Congrats champ.”

In any two team scenario, the team that wins on the field should get the nod.

(09-02-2020 02:22 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:31 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:22 AM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:53 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:39 PM)Tintin Wrote:  This make zero sense to me. Reward a team that is 7-1 that lost to the 6-1 team, because the 13th team in the conference opted out.

Head to head matters to me a whole lot more than record if unequal games are played.

Also, I don’t care about wins in this scenario, just losses.

That's not how it works. It's about the # of conference wins....not # of conference losses or head to head (at least at first). LT has a tougher path to the conf. championship game than UAB because they have to play more games than UAB does. That's why total conference winning % is one tier hiegher than the head to head tie breaker.

What's a shame is that the conference couldn't figure a way to work it out where everyone played an equal number of conference games.

If Tech loses to UAB and each team has one loss, why on earth would you send the inferior team on the field to the championship game?

This makes no sense.

Head to head is all that matters in this scenario.

"Inferior?"

The team with more wins is inferior?

I think there is a decent argument to be made for head-to-head in many cases. But it isn't always the best way to judge a football team (except for bragging rights).

I do think there needs to be a clearly stated and consistent policy going into the season so there are no surprises. Even if we don't like the method they choose, we need to know what it is.

So prove it in the field.
Beating someone on the field is a whole lot better way than saying well “you did play more games due to circumstances beyond your rivals control, so let’s forgive that 34-10 drubbing you took. Congrats champ.”

In any two team scenario, the team that wins on the field should get the nod.

They had a chance to prove it on the field vs WKU and they failed (under this hypothetical).

Logic says the head to head winner wins the division, not the best win %. The schools had no control over ODU bailing and the conference failing to adjust schedules to account for a missing conference game for 8 of the 13 participating teams. What the teams can control is who wins on the field .

I think the West Champion wants to play the undefeated team - ODU.



J/K

(09-02-2020 02:24 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 02:22 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:31 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:22 AM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:53 PM)TTT Wrote:  That's not how it works. It's about the # of conference wins....not # of conference losses or head to head (at least at first). LT has a tougher path to the conf. championship game than UAB because they have to play more games than UAB does. That's why total conference winning % is one tier hiegher than the head to head tie breaker.

What's a shame is that the conference couldn't figure a way to work it out where everyone played an equal number of conference games.

If Tech loses to UAB and each team has one loss, why on earth would you send the inferior team on the field to the championship game?

This makes no sense.

Head to head is all that matters in this scenario.

"Inferior?"

The team with more wins is inferior?

I think there is a decent argument to be made for head-to-head in many cases. But it isn't always the best way to judge a football team (except for bragging rights).

I do think there needs to be a clearly stated and consistent policy going into the season so there are no surprises. Even if we don't like the method they choose, we need to know what it is.

So prove it in the field.
Beating someone on the field is a whole lot better way than saying well “you did play more games due to circumstances beyond your rivals control, so let’s forgive that 34-10 drubbing you took. Congrats champ.”

In any two team scenario, the team that wins on the field should get the nod.

They had a chance to prove it on the field vs WKU and they failed (under this hypothetical).

Yeah...but so did, hypothetically, La Tech. To a West Division team and the one the debate, hypothetically, revolves around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They should just count an equivalent OOC game as a conference game for the 2 west teams. Was a road game for UAB, so count @USA or @Miami.

Home game for UTSA so count Memphis or Army.

@USA for UAB and Army for UTSA would be the most obvious equivalent choices going off of last year's results.

Then again I sort of doubt we end the year with our current amount of games. Someone is going to end up cancelling another game at some point most likely.

I'm amused this thread, like a direct link to Judy's jeep hasn't been posted.....

seems pretty simple that would've occured by now.....oh wellzy.....still laughing....

(09-02-2020 05:18 PM)ShrackUAB Wrote:  They should just count an equivalent OOC game as a conference game for the 2 west teams. Was a road game for UAB, so count @USA or @Miami.

Home game for UTSA so count Memphis or Army.

@USA for UAB and Army for UTSA would be the most obvious equivalent choices going off of last year's results.

Then again I sort of doubt we end the year with our current amount of games. Someone is going to end up cancelling another game at some point most likely.

I, I think I’ve written too many times, agree with your solution. It seems painfully obvious. But maybe that last factor is holding them back from announcing anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-01-2020 12:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:33 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:19 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:01 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(08-31-2020 05:45 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  YG is correct.

Tiebreaker #1 is highest winning percentage within conference play. #2 is head to head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference..._procedure

That would make YG wrong, because LaTech would have a higher winning percentage. If so, sucks for UAB, since ODU was an almost certain W for them.

Both teams will have 1 conference loss and that makes it a tie. Winning % only comes into play in a tie breaker. Then it's division winning % so who ever won head to head will take the west...

which really doesnt matter other than getting that team a 2nd place finish.

That's not what the Wiki link you provided says.

Two-team tie-breaker procedure
Highest regular season winning percentage based on overall Conference USA play.
If tied, head to head between tied teams.
If still tied, team with highest CFP ranking.

I didnt provide any link. But those of you that believe the conference is going to have a unbalanced conference schedule and then award the West to a school that was 1/2 game up in the standings because of that extra game....

well I dont think the conference is that stupid. More than likely the ODU game will count as a forfeit since they refused to play the game. Isnt that what usually happens when one team refuses to take the field? Or the conference will go by the loss side.

Thunderstuck provided the link, saying it proved you right, but it actually contradicted you. Anyone thinking they know what C-USA will do is mentally deranged.

(09-01-2020 07:11 PM)blazr Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:53 PM)TTT Wrote:  What's a shame is that the conference couldn't figure a way to work it out where everyone played an equal number of conference games.

This.

We have a game @South Alabama, just say that counts as a conf game for UAB and go from there. What I’m afraid is more likely is CUSA won’t even realize there’s an issue until the last week of the season and patches together some screwed up solution that pisses everyone off. Or they just piss off UAB in saying, “Oh, that game at Miami 12 weeks ago? We’re counting that as a conference game now.” so we have no chance to prepare or know where we stand.

Yep. The last thing out of the Conference Office about this was that East teams would play 7 conference games and East teams would play 8 conference games. Oblivious to the fact that two West teams had ODU on their schedule.

(09-02-2020 08:22 AM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:53 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:39 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)TTT Wrote:  The winning % tiebreaker rule rewards the team that played more conference games over a head to head. This makes sense. A team that plays 7 conference games has an easier path to have a better winning % vs a team that played 8 conference games...

So why didn't CUSA schedule UAB w/ a second conference game...did the mathmatics not add up? Didn't they mention something about playing 2 conferece games?

This make zero sense to me. Reward a team that is 7-1 that lost to the 6-1 team, because the 13th team in the conference opted out.

Head to head matters to me a whole lot more than record if unequal games are played.

Also, I don’t care about wins in this scenario, just losses.

That's not how it works. It's about the # of conference wins....not # of conference losses or head to head (at least at first). LT has a tougher path to the conf. championship game than UAB because they have to play more games than UAB does. That's why total conference winning % is one tier hiegher than the head to head tie breaker.

What's a shame is that the conference couldn't figure a way to work it out where everyone played an equal number of conference games.

If Tech loses to UAB and each team has one loss, why on earth would you send the inferior team on the field to the championship game?

This makes no sense.

Head to head is all that matters in this scenario.

And if UAB's loss was to a team inferior to LaTech, how does that fit into your narrative?

Someone, I think RileLives, posted the best solution... only division games count

(09-05-2020 08:43 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:22 AM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:53 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:39 PM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 11:16 AM)TTT Wrote:  The winning % tiebreaker rule rewards the team that played more conference games over a head to head. This makes sense. A team that plays 7 conference games has an easier path to have a better winning % vs a team that played 8 conference games...

So why didn't CUSA schedule UAB w/ a second conference game...did the mathmatics not add up? Didn't they mention something about playing 2 conferece games?

This make zero sense to me. Reward a team that is 7-1 that lost to the 6-1 team, because the 13th team in the conference opted out.

Head to head matters to me a whole lot more than record if unequal games are played.

Also, I don’t care about wins in this scenario, just losses.

That's not how it works. It's about the # of conference wins....not # of conference losses or head to head (at least at first). LT has a tougher path to the conf. championship game than UAB because they have to play more games than UAB does. That's why total conference winning % is one tier hiegher than the head to head tie breaker.

What's a shame is that the conference couldn't figure a way to work it out where everyone played an equal number of conference games.

If Tech loses to UAB and each team has one loss, why on earth would you send the inferior team on the field to the championship game?

This makes no sense.

Head to head is all that matters in this scenario.

And if UAB's loss was to a team inferior to LaTech, how does that fit into your narrative?

then UAB lost the head to head advantage to La Tech. that was his point. i dont agree with it but that was his point. id push the championship game back a week and have UAB USTA play a second game

(08-31-2020 03:55 PM)blazr Wrote:  Hell yeah, I’m going to keep beating this horse cause it ain’t dead yet...and we just know Judy’s not going to realize there’s even an issue until the last games of the season...

La Tech loses 1 Conf game to UAB. UAB loses 1 Conf game to WKU:

Final CUSA West standings:
La Tech: 7-1 (with loss to UAB; has 8 Conf games)
UAB: 6-1 (with only loss to WKU; only has 7 Conf games after ODU bailed)

Everyone else in West has at least 2 losses. Who goes to Champ Game as West rep?

LT... 7-1 > 6-1.

Too easy.

(09-05-2020 10:31 AM)UAB Schnauzer Wrote:  

(09-05-2020 08:43 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(09-02-2020 08:22 AM)Tintin Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:53 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(09-01-2020 04:39 PM)Tintin Wrote:  This make zero sense to me. Reward a team that is 7-1 that lost to the 6-1 team, because the 13th team in the conference opted out.

Head to head matters to me a whole lot more than record if unequal games are played.

Also, I don’t care about wins in this scenario, just losses.

That's not how it works. It's about the # of conference wins....not # of conference losses or head to head (at least at first). LT has a tougher path to the conf. championship game than UAB because they have to play more games than UAB does. That's why total conference winning % is one tier hiegher than the head to head tie breaker.

What's a shame is that the conference couldn't figure a way to work it out where everyone played an equal number of conference games.

If Tech loses to UAB and each team has one loss, why on earth would you send the inferior team on the field to the championship game?

This makes no sense.

Head to head is all that matters in this scenario.

And if UAB's loss was to a team inferior to LaTech, how does that fit into your narrative?

then UAB lost the head to head advantage to La Tech. that was his point. i dont agree with it but that was his point. id push the championship game back a week and have UAB USTA play a second game

Huh? No. If they both have one loss and UAB beat LaTech was the question. He said LaTech was inferior because they lost to UAB. My point was, if UAB lost to an inferior team than LaTech and both have one loss then LaTech has a better percentage AND a better loss.