header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down
Author

Topic: Best team that didn't win anything important

 (Read 3831 times)

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12361
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2020, 11:01:24 AM »
That 1998 K-State team is the poster child for losing a bowl game out of disinterest. 

They were expected to win their conference and be in the #1 bowl, and the bowl committees just assumed they'd win it and had already invited other teams to the #2 and #3 most prominent bowls in the B12. So K-State went from the presumptive conference champion to playing in the #4 bowl for their conference against "lowly" Purdue. 

Purdue had a chip on their shoulder; K-State didn't. I find it hard to believe that didn't affect the outcome of the game. 
Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2020, 11:32:31 AM »
2007 uga could be on the list. early season inexplicable loss to usce, then mid season loss to #12 tennessee. kept them out of the seccg and thus bcs picture. finished #2.
07 usc (pac version) could also be on list, but they were co-conf champs.
Logged

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7909
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2020, 11:32:44 AM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on June 15, 2020, 12:30:49 AM
I don't think winning your division matters.  All it means is that you lost your CG.  It's like winning your heat in the 100m dash and finishing 4th in the final.  Who cares?
So here's where it gets reductive to a degree. We've said at different points it sometimes does or doesn't, and we've said that winning a prestigious bowl game doesn't matter.

I wouldn't strongly push back, but perhaps gently. If we're arguing about best teams that didn't outright win a conference title or make the playoff, it's a much smaller circle and kind of a different beast. 

(It's also not really like winning a heat. Because there are multiple heats and multiple qualifiers come from each heat. Plus heats are treated with only moderate seriousness, whereas 2/3rds of the regular season are not)
Logged

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #59 on: June 15, 2020, 11:36:33 AM »
also 08 texas. 3 way tie with tt and ou, ou gets bigxiicg bid.
Logged

bayareabadger

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 7909
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2020, 11:44:50 AM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on June 15, 2020, 12:36:32 AM
B1G and PAC fans can help me with this - pre-CG era, if your team was technically conference co-champs, but didn't go to the Rose Bowl, did you consider yourselves champs? 

I wouldn't.
I think yes, but the level of mention was sometimes up for debate. 

The last year of the Big 10 pre-CG, three teams split the title. All were 11-1. OSU probably had the strongest team, but the worst case in the tiebreaker. MSU had the best tiebreaker (1-0), but didn't even make the NY6. I think in that case, everyone claiming it is fine. 

The head-to-head ones are more tricky. I know Cal has a technical Pac-12 title in 2007, but they lost head-to-head to USC, lost two conference games and got mushed in their opener. In an unscientific way, I'd say if you're 7-1 or 8-1 in conference, lost the one game to a team you tied with, could go either way. IF you've got two losses and the head-to-head, ehhhh.
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12361
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #61 on: June 15, 2020, 11:53:52 AM »
Quote from: bayareabadger on June 15, 2020, 11:44:50 AM
The head-to-head ones are more tricky. I know Cal has a technical Pac-12 title in 2007, but they lost head-to-head to USC, lost two conference games and got mushed in their opener. In an unscientific way, I'd say if you're 7-1 or 8-1 in conference, lost the one game to a team you tied with, could go either way. IF you've got two losses and the head-to-head, ehhhh.
Out of curiosity, how would you handle 2000?

Purdue, Michigan, and Northwestern all finished 6-2. Purdue had H2H over both teams, so although we talk about "last team in Rose Bowl" as a tiebreaker at that time, it never came down to it. 

I think you can make the argument that Purdue has a legitimate claim to call themselves Big Ten champs, because not only did they tie for the championship, they won H2H tiebreakers.

But what do you do with those years for Michigan and Northwestern? Do you consider their claims to also call themselves Big Ten Champs legit?

Northwestern had H2H over Michigan, but an additional loss to Iowa. Michigan, finishing 6-2, obviously their only losses were Purdue and Northwestern.
Logged

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25647
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #62 on: June 15, 2020, 12:10:18 PM »
Quote from: bwarbiany on June 15, 2020, 11:53:52 AM
Out of curiosity, how would you handle 2000?

Purdue, Michigan, and Northwestern all finished 6-2. Purdue had H2H over both teams, so although we talk about "last team in Rose Bowl" as a tiebreaker at that time, it never came down to it.

I think you can make the argument that Purdue has a legitimate claim to call themselves Big Ten champs, because not only did they tie for the championship, they won H2H tiebreakers.

But what do you do with those years for Michigan and Northwestern? Do you consider their claims to also call themselves Big Ten Champs legit?

Northwestern had H2H over Michigan, but an additional loss to Iowa. Michigan, finishing 6-2, obviously their only losses were Purdue and Northwestern.
The official Big Ten record book lists them all, so that's that. Page 107.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/bigten.org/documents/2019/7/30/2019_BIG_TEN_FOOTBALL_MEDIA_GUIDE.pdf

Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18963
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #63 on: June 15, 2020, 12:11:40 PM »
Yeah, I guess I was imagining 2 teams tied, with one having beaten the other.  All of the other possibilities are so messy.

If I tie for the conference championship and lost to the other team I'm tied with, I don't consider myself champion of anything.

The Big Ten's rule of no repeats was really dumb.
Logged
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12361
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #64 on: June 15, 2020, 12:14:27 PM »
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 72413
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #65 on: June 15, 2020, 12:27:38 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on June 15, 2020, 12:11:40 PM

The Big Ten's rule of no repeats was really dumb.
The SEC had the same rule, but the repeat team would still go to the Orange or Cotton Bowl, so it wasn't a big deal.
Logged

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25647
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #66 on: June 15, 2020, 12:32:36 PM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on June 15, 2020, 12:11:40 PM
Yeah, I guess I was imagining 2 teams tied, with one having beaten the other.  All of the other possibilities are so messy.

If I tie for the conference championship and lost to the other team I'm tied with, I don't consider myself champion of anything.

The Big Ten's rule of no repeats was really dumb.
It was in place because for many years, the only bowl game the Big Ten was tied to was the Rose. None of the other teams went to bowl games.
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25647
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #67 on: June 15, 2020, 12:33:21 PM »
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12361
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #68 on: June 15, 2020, 12:43:42 PM »
Quote from: 847badgerfan on June 15, 2020, 12:33:21 PM
I'll stick with the official records. Everything else is subjective.
Exactly. The question about how fans subjectively felt about shared titles. 

Unless your argument is that the fans should feel exactly how the Big Ten tells them to feel, the record book is irrelevant. 
Logged

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25647
  • Liked:
Re: Best team that didn't win anything important
« Reply #69 on: June 15, 2020, 12:48:46 PM »
I will stick with the record book. For me as a fan, it doesn't much matter, as UW went to the Rose Bowl after each co-championship.
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Hidden Safe

Custom Mahogany Shadow Box