(12-01-2013 08:32 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 08:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 05:04 PM)Herdfan1972 Wrote:  And if Doc did lobby, he was doing it to help his team.

Any action is justified, as long as it helps the team win? Sounds like the definition of cheating.

If he did lobby, good for him. That's the system we're stuck in. It's not like he did something against the rules during a game. Cheating is breaking the rules. This is simply about who gets to host the game.

To each their own. Seems sleazy to me, and sleazier to justify it by saying he did it to help the team. JMHO.

(12-01-2013 08:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 08:32 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 08:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 05:04 PM)Herdfan1972 Wrote:  And if Doc did lobby, he was doing it to help his team.

Any action is justified, as long as it helps the team win? Sounds like the definition of cheating.

If he did lobby, good for him. That's the system we're stuck in. It's not like he did something against the rules during a game. Cheating is breaking the rules. This is simply about who gets to host the game.

To each their own. Seems sleazy to me, and sleazier to justify it by saying he did it to help the team. JMHO.

But you said it sounded like cheating. Now you're backpedaling and calling it sleazy. Cheating implies breaking a rule, which would be a matter of fact. The standard for sleazy could be different for everybody here.

Haven't seen it mentioned here, but Marshall's 3rd leading rusher has been suspended:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ng-arrest/

Rice HOSTS Marshall at HRS...too bad, a drive to WV would have been easier for me but GO OWLS!
http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-fo...13aac.html

(12-01-2013 08:50 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 08:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 08:32 PM)Baconator Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 08:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 05:04 PM)Herdfan1972 Wrote:  And if Doc did lobby, he was doing it to help his team.

Any action is justified, as long as it helps the team win? Sounds like the definition of cheating.

If he did lobby, good for him. That's the system we're stuck in. It's not like he did something against the rules during a game. Cheating is breaking the rules. This is simply about who gets to host the game.

To each their own. Seems sleazy to me, and sleazier to justify it by saying he did it to help the team. JMHO.

But you said it sounded like cheating. Now you're backpedaling and calling it sleazy. Cheating implies breaking a rule, which would be a matter of fact. The standard for sleazy could be different for everybody here.

Sounds like the kind of nit-picking used to justify ...well, just about anything one wants to justify.

Question: You are playing poker. The player next to you holds his cards in such a way that you can see them. Should you tell him to protect his hand? Should you keep quiet and use the knowledge of his hand not only against him but also against the other players? The rules state each player is responsible for protecting his own hand.

And whatever course of action you choose, should you be able to justify it by saying it is for the kids?

some guidelines for proper behavior are codified as laws, and others are not codified. They might be called morals, or gentlemanly behavior, or common decency. Just because something is not illegal does not mean it is a proper course of action.

If you think of illegal as a subset of sleazy, maybe you will understand better the point I was trying to make.

IAC, just an opinion. Even though if he tried it, it failed, I think that if such an effort was made, it was sleazy. A personal opinion, and perhaps one in the minority.

Opening line has Marshall as 4.5 favorites..

(12-01-2013 09:15 PM)johncatworth Wrote:  Rice HOSTS Marshall at HRS...too bad, a drive to WV would have been easier for me but GO OWLS!
http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-fo...13aac.html

So exactly, how did we get this so wrong all day long???

(12-03-2013 12:59 AM)RiceDad Wrote:  

(12-01-2013 09:15 PM)johncatworth Wrote:  Rice HOSTS Marshall at HRS...too bad, a drive to WV would have been easier for me but GO OWLS!
http://www.conferenceusa.com/sports/m-fo...13aac.html

So exactly, how did we get this so wrong all day long???

It's complicated. But, don't worry, Marshall fans will spend an additional 2 1/2 days getting it wrong.

The simple explanation is that ADs circa 2005 saw a number that they could use and say, hey, here's something ready-made that we can use as a tie-breaker, without thinking through the implications.

Let's see a raise of hands for how many of those ADs are still around to explain what it was they wanted? At most, I'd expect one, but likely none...

(12-03-2013 01:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  The simple explanation is that ADs circa 2005 saw a number that they could use and say, hey, here's something ready-made that we can use as a tie-breaker, without thinking through the implications.

Even when the 2008 Big 12 South race clearly demonstrated the potential for fiasco.

(12-03-2013 10:12 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 01:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  The simple explanation is that ADs circa 2005 saw a number that they could use and say, hey, here's something ready-made that we can use as a tie-breaker, without thinking through the implications.

Even when the 2008 Big 12 South race clearly demonstrated the potential for fiasco.

Yes, but at least there the teams were actually all ranked so there was no last minute scramble to devise a formula to count past 25.

(12-03-2013 10:17 AM)texd Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 10:12 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 01:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  The simple explanation is that ADs circa 2005 saw a number that they could use and say, hey, here's something ready-made that we can use as a tie-breaker, without thinking through the implications.

Even when the 2008 Big 12 South race clearly demonstrated the potential for fiasco.

Yes, but at least there the teams were actually all ranked so there was no last minute scramble to devise a formula to count past 25.

Not to mention that conferences like the Big 12 have a fixed championship site, so it removes that aspect of the issues... the participants in the championship game won't be the one that continues to have a complaint. In that scenario, head-to-head would've been one of the tie-breakers as well, so they'd have gone further down the list...

(12-03-2013 10:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Not to mention that conferences like the Big 12 have a fixed championship site, so it removes that aspect of the issues... the participants in the championship game won't be the one that continues to have a complaint. In that scenario, head-to-head would've been one of the tie-breakers as well, so they'd have gone further down the list...

Big 12 no longer has a fixed site (due to not having a championship game), and the fixed site proved to be a bad idea through the years wrt attendance. As a result, PAC-12 -- when expanding and adding a championship -- adopted a system similar to Conference USA:

Quote:The Pac-12 Championship Game Host will be determined by the record in all games played within the conference.

In the event of a tie, the following procedures will be applied to determine the Pac-12 Championship Game host:

Head-to-head, if applicable.

Highest BCS Ranking following the last weekend of Pac-12 regular-season games.

Record against the next highest-placed common opponent in the conference (based on record in all games played within the conference), proceeding through the conference.

Record in common conference games.

Coin toss

Big 10 also added a championship game, however, is at a fixed location (Indianapolis). Though they may be more compact than the former Big XII and the current PAC 12. They definitely have more transportation options. And given their attendance so far (64k in 2011; 42k in 2012), I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to host sites.

Rice finally gets a shot out on ESPN.com.

While it isn't a big article, Maisel points out how well the academic institutions did this year, and highlights the fact that we haven't won an outright conference championship since just before Bailiff was born.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...api_public

(12-03-2013 10:58 AM)texd Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 10:29 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Not to mention that conferences like the Big 12 have a fixed championship site, so it removes that aspect of the issues... the participants in the championship game won't be the one that continues to have a complaint. In that scenario, head-to-head would've been one of the tie-breakers as well, so they'd have gone further down the list...

Big 12 no longer has a fixed site (due to not having a championship game), and the fixed site proved to be a bad idea through the years wrt attendance. As a result, PAC-12 -- when expanding and adding a championship -- adopted a system similar to Conference USA:

Quote:The Pac-12 Championship Game Host will be determined by the record in all games played within the conference.

In the event of a tie, the following procedures will be applied to determine the Pac-12 Championship Game host:

Head-to-head, if applicable.

Highest BCS Ranking following the last weekend of Pac-12 regular-season games.

Record against the next highest-placed common opponent in the conference (based on record in all games played within the conference), proceeding through the conference.

Record in common conference games.

Coin toss

Big 10 also added a championship game, however, is at a fixed location (Indianapolis). Though they may be more compact than the former Big XII and the current PAC 12. They definitely have more transportation options. And given their attendance so far (64k in 2011; 42k in 2012), I wouldn't be surprised to see them go to host sites.

Alright, if all you're going to dispassionately point out the factual errors in my posts, then I'm done with this thread!

(12-03-2013 02:04 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 10:58 AM)texd Wrote:  Big 12 no longer has a fixed site (due to not having a championship game), and the fixed site proved to be a bad idea through the years wrt attendance. As a result, PAC-12 -- when expanding and adding a championship -- adopted a system similar to Conference USA . . .

Alright, if all you're going to dispassionately point out the factual errors in my posts, then I'm done with this thread!

I was curious about it as a result of the TG thread when I saw that the PAC 12 game is being played in Sun Devil Stadium. I attended an Oklahoma v. Colorado Big XII championship game in 2002 at Reliant. Ticket prices were high ($65 for nosebleed) and they show 63,000+ attendance, but the game was MAYBE half full. Tickets went on sale early in the season and everyone had expected Texas to play in the game. In the end, it was the two teams farthest from Houston and the resale market was flooded such that nosebleed tickets were almost worthless. I think I got $5 for the extra I had.

Once inside, they strictly enforced assigned seating, thus the lower levels which appear more on TV were as equally empty as the upper. SI described it as "A disappointing announced crowd of 63,332 . . . [but] appeared far less than its 69,500 capacity."

I hope you know I was kidding, as well. I hadn't considered that they weren't capacity crowds.

I know. I was just relaying my personal experience at the game.