Big Ten states Wisconsin at least co-champion of West

Donate To GopherHole




You guys still haven't really explained why it makes sense to look at conference record for division champs but not conference champs. You are simply arguing that it is what it is, so don't question it.

Some of you just don't like to think hard, I get it. Talking about you, Selection and Scools.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
You guys still haven't really explained why it makes sense to look at conference record for division champs but not conference champs. You are simply arguing that it is what it is, so don't question it.

Some of you just don't like to think hard, I get it. Talking about you, Selection and Scools.
Click to expand...

Your tagline is perfect.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
You guys still haven't really explained why it makes sense to look at conference record for division champs but not conference champs.
Click to expand...

Yes we have. It has already been explained in my previous post. Tie breakers don't decide which team wins a division or conference championship. Tie breakers only decide which team moves on in the post season after regular season games are done. Minnesota and Wisconsin tie for the Western Division Championship. Because of the tie breaker the Gophers move on to play OSU for the Big 10 Championship. The will play that game until their is a winner and loser on the field.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
You guys still haven't really explained why it makes sense to look at conference record for division champs but not conference champs. You are simply arguing that it is what it is, so don't question it.

Some of you just don't like to think hard, I get it. Talking about you, Selection and Scools.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't take thinking hard to figure it out but I suspect you know that.

Imagine the real issue for you is the "co-division" champs. If Minnesota beats Wisconsin you see that term as another way for the powers that be to give the Gophers the shaft.
 

I think you're missing my point. I am arguing against the concept of co-championships. I don't like the concept, especially when there is a head to head result. The tiebreaker should appoint a champion. And I do realize this goes against historical precedence.

No, it's not that important. Just another dumb thing to argue about here. For me, it beats the inane strength of schedule, good loss, bad loss, nonsense that goes into the CFP.
 

There is no such thing as a "co-Champion" if one goes to the play-off (B1G Championship) and one doesn't. Just doesn't make sense at nearly any definition.
 

Champions are signified by record alone. Tie breakers are for advancement.
 



If we beat Wisconsin we are in The Big 10 Championship against TOSU. And if we beat them in Indy we are The Big 10 Champion. Its simply, Just Win Baby.
 

SelectionSunday said:
It's completely accurate. Nothing wrong with the release. Both the Gophers and MSU can earn a share of a division title, the difference is the Gophers would win the head to head tiebreaker vs. Bucky while Sparty can't win it with OSU.
Click to expand...

Why crown anybody a co-champion before a game where one team needs to win to become a co-champion. This is a BS play by an interested party in the home office.
 

I can see I'm not really getting my point across to most of you. It's fine, never mind.

Let's resume talking about who should be in the College Football Beauty Contest Top 4 based on garbage after garbage data point creating error upon error.
 


Wisconsin is one game up. Yes, by definition they already are a champion of the West. It is not palliative.
 

This is such a minor PC that it doesn't even have referees.
 

Math is Hard


I'm flummoxed by replies like this. Clearly the conference wins would be equal...we're altogether on this? Good. The philosophical divide is whether there should be such a thing as co-champions when, in reality, there is only one champion.

My original question was trying to illustrate/ apply the rigid logic of people like TAW and apply it to the BT championship game to demonstrate the faulty thought process. I have failed.

Co-championships for everyone!
 

Dean S said:
Wisconsin is one game up. Yes, by definition they already are a champion of the West. It is not palliative.
Click to expand...
They are one game up with one game to play. We beat them and we are going to Indy. They can call themselves anything they want.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Math is Hard


I'm flummoxed by replies like this. Clearly the conference wins would be equal...we're altogether on this? Good. The philosophical divide is whether there should be such a thing as co-champions when, in reality, there is only one champion.

My original question was trying to illustrate/ apply the rigid logic of people like TAW and apply it to the BT championship game to demonstrate the faulty thought process. I have failed.

Co-championships for everyone!
Click to expand...

No, you are saying that you disagree with the agreed-upon procedures of the Big Ten Conference. You can disagree all you want, but your disagreement doesn't make it so. It is as Maxy said "Champions are signified by record alone. Tie breakers are for advancement." If teams have the same record, they are co-champions.

Not that anyone wants to be a co-champion, but those are the rules. Stomping your feet and saying "It isn't fair" doesn't make it change.
 

The Gophers were Big Ten co-champions in 1900, 1903, 1904, 1906, 1910, 1915, 1927, 1933, 1935, 1960 and 1967. You may wish that there be only a sole champion, but that doesn't make it reality.
 

Just a reminder 1967 which we claim as our last big 10 championship. It was a three way tie Minnesota,Purdue and Indiana. Indiana went to the Rose even though we beat them. They got to go only because they had never been there.
 

It sucks to have to share the championship with Wisconsin, but they deserve to be at least co-champs if we beat them. They beat Illinois and we couldn't.
 

MNfootballfan said:
I don't understand how anyone doesn't think Wisconsin isn't at least co-champs in the west. If you have the same record as the team that wins it, you are co-champs.
Click to expand...

Only in college. No professional sport thinks that way.

Do they split the trophy in two if there is a co champion?
 

Clearly Queen did not have american collegiate sports in mind. Someone ought to re-write it. We should probably clarify the name of the forum.

No Time for Losers, For We are the Co-Champions.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Jmd4OLzhQw0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Pompous Elitist: "Maybe I'm getting my panties in a bunch over nothing but this type of press release reeks of favoritism. It just rankles my hide. I for one will not consider the Badgers co-champs if we defeat them. Where am I wrong? Semantics?"

- Yep.
- Believe what you want.
- Plenty of people have showed that you are wrong. You haven't acknowledged it but you are a self-proclaimed pompous elitist. Though more likely it's a horrible attempt at satire.
- Go to bed, sleep well, the Gophers are playing for a shot at the Big Ten Championship Saturday.
 

You know, you guys are right. Nothing should ever change. We should have stuck with the old ways, because the old-timers in the 1890s and 1900s had it figured. Forget the BCS, 4 team CFB playoff, 8 team CFB payoff especially would be horrible. Makes no sense to designate a champion in college sports. We're all winners.

On a more serious note, it would be interesting to go back and determine the tiebreakers on all the co-championships.
 

What would this thread look like if we were in uw's position? Oh, it wouldn't exist and we'd be pumped to be co-champions lol.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom