Big Ten COVID rule. If team can’t play due to COVID, it’s a forfeit. L.

Donate To GopherHole
bleedsmaroonandgold said:
As a sports fan, I found that to be an incredible offensive decision. It was a stupid rule in the first place. I thought it should be a total wins threshold instead of a total games played threshold. Why set up a scheme where a team could be one loss short of qualifying for the championship? But, it was the rule that the season was played under. Changing the rules for qualifying for a championship after one team has already qualified because you wish it were a different team is asinine.
Click to expand...

The Big Ten leadership cabal did not distinguish itself in any way last season.
 

Didn’t Wisconsin duck us when they were within threshold so that we had to play them later short handed?
 

PoockItInfor6 said:
Didn’t Wisconsin duck us when they were within threshold so that we had to play them later short handed?
Click to expand...
I don't know of any solid info on what anyone's given numbers really were ... ever.

I really doubt Wisc would skip out on the game / risk ending that series streak.
 

noamfromm said:
Bleedsmaroons scenario that I responded to was about a team that won the SEC with 2 losses, one coming via forfeit. Secondarily I disagree with you that a team that didn't win it's conference isn't worthy of consideration. Alabama won the national title in this scenario a few years ago.
Click to expand...
And they shouldn’t have.
College football has never been about the “best team” until the CFP. Before the CFP it was clearly about the “best season.”

Georgia won the SEC and then had to replay against a team that wasn’t good enough to win the SEC West. Not fair to Georgia to have to win the conference twice.

Alabama has the most talent this year and might win the playoff even if they go 9-3 this year. Should they be in if they go 9-3?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Yep. The Big Ten folded on their minimum 6 game rule for championship eligibility as soon as it became apparent that would impede Ohio State’s chances of getting to the CFP.
Click to expand...
The big ten folded on that rule when they realized that an unbeaten team would be left out in favor of a team that they beat.
 



Some guy said:
The big ten folded on that rule when they realized that an unbeaten team would be left out in favor of a team that they beat.
Click to expand...
I’m not my sure why you feel the need to defend the lack of foresight that led to the rule in the first place. Is there precedent for changing eligibility rules in the middle of a season based on “events”?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I’m not my sure why you feel the need to defend the lack of foresight that led to the rule in the first place. Is there precedent for changing eligibility rules in the middle of a season based on “events”?
Click to expand...
Not defending what led to the rule in the first place. Am defending them fixing an obvious mistake. The only way people think Indiana should’ve gone to the big ten title game instead of Ohio state is if you want: 1) to spite Ohio state because OHIO STATE
2) you think you should never change course just on principal

nobody thinks Indiana should’ve gone for the following reasons:
Indiana was a better football team
Ohio state would’ve lost 2 of the following 3 (or more) games to send Indiana to the game - Michigan, Maryland, Illinois


if Ohio state would’ve just decided to forfeit the Michigan game before Michigan canceled on them…they would be 5-1 in conference and be eligible for the title game
 

Some guy said:
Not defending what led to the rule in the first place. Am defending them fixing an obvious mistake. The only way people think Indiana should’ve gone to the big ten title game instead of Ohio state is if you want: 1) to spite Ohio state because OHIO STATE
2) you think you should never change course just on principal

nobody thinks Indiana should’ve gone for the following reasons:
Indiana was a better football team
Ohio state would’ve lost 2 of the following 3 (or more) games to send Indiana to the game - Michigan, Maryland, Illinois


if Ohio state would’ve just decided to forfeit the Michigan game before Michigan canceled on them…they would be 5-1 in conference and be eligible for the title game
Click to expand...
I certainly think after a team has clinched a spot under the rules that the season was under, my principals say that that team has earned a spot and it is absurd to change the rules. Especially when the situation that unfolded was an obvious possibility when the rules were set.

I also sincerely doubt that, if roles were reversed, the B1G would have changed the rules to let Indiana in over OSU.
 



Fleckoff said:
No, if anything we were too short handed to play, we cold barely field a team vs Purdue and we didn't have enough to play NW either
Click to expand...
It was their game against Nebby where they elected not to play despite being within the league parameters.
 

PoockItInfor6 said:
It was their game against Nebby where they elected not to play despite being within the league parameters.
Click to expand...
They were missing like 12, whereas we played like 30 people short for our last 2 games is my recollection.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Is there precedent for changing eligibility rules in the middle of a season based on “events”?
Click to expand...
When the events are unprecedented in the last 100 years?

Is there precedent for essentially an unprecedented event? Answer, from a first grader: No.
 

Some guy said:
And they shouldn’t have.
College football has never been about the “best team” until the CFP. Before the CFP it was clearly about the “best season.”

Georgia won the SEC and then had to replay against a team that wasn’t good enough to win the SEC West. Not fair to Georgia to have to win the conference twice.

Alabama has the most talent this year and might win the playoff even if they go 9-3 this year. Should they be in if they go 9-3?
Click to expand...
I think that is fair to differentiate between best team and best season as they may be mutually exclusive. Yet I don't know how to appropriately respond to your point about what college football was or is about -- can you expand on your thoughts on how season vs team changes the ethos of cfb?

Secondly, Georgia had a rematch against Auburn in the SEC title game -- they never played Alabama before losing to them in the national title game. If we are going to talk about fairness whats the point of Auburn having to rematch Georgia in the SEC title game -- not fair to make them beat them twice.

Regardless, no I do not think that Alabama goes 9-3 they should or could make the playoff (unless those were 3 forfeit loses). I agree that I don't want to make entry into the playoff dependent solely upon talent. You must have your talent win games in order to make the playoff -- but with that said '17 Alabama lost 1 game and Georgia lost 1 game . . . why does Georgia winning their division and Alabama tying for their division mean that Alabama should be excluded from a 4 team playoff?
 



I think that is fair to differentiate between best team and best season as they may be mutually exclusive. Yet I don't know how to appropriately respond to your point about what college football was or is about -- can you expand on your thoughts on how season vs team changes the ethos of cfb?
noamfromm said:
Secondly, Georgia had a rematch against Auburn in the SEC title game -- they never played Alabama before losing to them in the national title game. If we are going to talk about fairness whats the point of Auburn having to rematch Georgia in the SEC title game -- not fair to make them beat them twice.

Regardless, no I do not think that Alabama goes 9-3 they should or could make the playoff (unless those were 3 forfeit loses). I agree that I don't want to make entry into the playoff dependent solely upon talent. You must have your talent win games in order to make the playoff -- but with that said '17 Alabama lost 1 game and Georgia lost 1 game . . . why does Georgia winning their division and Alabama tying for their division mean that Alabama should be excluded from a 4 team playoff?
Click to expand...
2017 auburn should’ve gone to the playoff before 2017 Alabama

They were punished for losing to Clemson in the non conference.

Finished with the same number of regular season wins as Alabama, ranked wins, and a head to head win.


in a level of football with 130 team, only 12 games per team, and 10 leagues…there aren’t enough games to objectively pick the top 4. It is pure subjective. Not enough data. Therefore, if the goal is to attempt to find the best team. All teams who didn’t win their league should be ineligible for playoff because the little data we do have already says they aren’t the best team.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I certainly think after a team has clinched a spot under the rules that the season was under, my principals say that that team has earned a spot and it is absurd to change the rules. Especially when the situation that unfolded was an obvious possibility when the rules were set.

I also sincerely doubt that, if roles were reversed, the B1G would have changed the rules to let Indiana in over OSU.
Click to expand...
1) Indiana hadn’t clinched a spot. If enough games would’ve been canceled the threshold would’ve been lowered to 5 games for eligibility. Technically that could’ve still happened. PLUS the big ten changed the rule on Dec 9 and Ohio state didn’t become “ineligible” by the old rule until dec 12

2) you can claim the conference would screw over Indiana if vice Versa but that is nothing but conjecture and speculation. You’re welcome to believe that.
 

Some guy said:
Not defending what led to the rule in the first place. Am defending them fixing an obvious mistake. The only way people think Indiana should’ve gone to the big ten title game instead of Ohio state is if you want: 1) to spite Ohio state because OHIO STATE
2) you think you should never change course just on principal

nobody thinks Indiana should’ve gone for the following reasons:
Indiana was a better football team
Ohio state would’ve lost 2 of the following 3 (or more) games to send Indiana to the game - Michigan, Maryland, Illinois


if Ohio state would’ve just decided to forfeit the Michigan game before Michigan canceled on them…they would be 5-1 in conference and be eligible for the title game
Click to expand...

Nobody at the league office recognized the error until months later at the eleventh hour. This, after half the season was cancelled.

How many self-induced wounds are allowed?
 

Some guy said:
1) Indiana hadn’t clinched a spot.

2) you can claim the conference would screw over Indiana if vice Versa but that is nothing but conjecture and speculation. You’re welcome to believe that.
Click to expand...
Most of us believe that, I have zero doubt. Targeting also doesn’t apply, if it leads to a go-ahead pick six in Columbus. Rules, they’re nice to have, sometimes.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Most of us believe that, I have zero doubt. Targeting also doesn’t apply, if it leads to a go-ahead pick six in Columbus. Rules, they’re nice to have, sometimes.
Click to expand...
So you actually believe in an active pro Ohio state conspiracy? Lol
 

Some guy said:
So you actually believe in an active pro Ohio state conspiracy? Lol
Click to expand...

Do I believe the rule changes and interpretations favor certain teams, coaches, players at times including the late season decision to do away with the arbitrary and ill-considered,and self-imposed(!) 6 game rule? You bet. Absolutely this was done to benefit the conference bottom line and chances in the CFP. I don’t consider it a conspiracy, it’s just business. Whether it is shady, cynical or not is in the eye of the beholder.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Do I believe the rule changes and interpretations favor certain teams, coaches, players at times including the late season decision to do away with the arbitrary and ill-considered,and self-imposed(!) 6 game rule? You bet. Absolutely this was done to benefit the conference bottom line and chances in the CFP. I don’t consider it a conspiracy, it’s just business. Whether it is shady, cynical or not is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
If you think Ohio state gets fewer penalties to help the bottom line, that is the definition of a conspiracy

which you implied in the post I responded to
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I certainly think after a team has clinched a spot under the rules that the season was under, my principals say that that team has earned a spot and it is absurd to change the rules. Especially when the situation that unfolded was an obvious possibility when the rules were set.

I also sincerely doubt that, if roles were reversed, the B1G would have changed the rules to let Indiana in over OSU.
Click to expand...
If Indiana has beaten OSU on the field, was in line for the playoff and one game short of the threshold they would have changed the rule. The B1G wants teams in the playoff, not just tOSU in the playoff.
 

Some guy said:
If you think Ohio state gets fewer penalties to help the bottom line, that is the definition of a conspiracy

which you implied in the post I responded to
Click to expand...

It was an obvious error. Whether you believe it’s a conspiracy is your problem.

This is a wierd hill to die on. Do you really believe the Big Ten has demonstrated good judgment the last year plus? Can you foresee a scenario where - if the rules are the same as last season which I’m not privy to - the Big Ten will once again create an unfortunate situation necessitating further rule “ adjustments”?

This could be moot if they do away with mandatory testing, contract tracing, lengthy quarantines. Let us hope.
 

noamfromm said:
If Indiana has beaten OSU on the field, was in line for the playoff and one game short of the threshold they would have changed the rule. The B1G wants teams in the playoff, not just tOSU in the playoff.
Click to expand...

I believe the argument is whether the rule was properly conceived of in the first place.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I believe the argument is whether the rule was properly conceived of in the first place.
Click to expand...
In regards to that argument I do believe that it was a poorly designed rule because the goal was to get a team in the playoff and, as evidenced, in order to do that the rule need to be changed. Regardless I was replying to bleedsmaroon's doubt that "f roles were reversed, the B1G would have changed the rules to let Indiana in over OSU."
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It was an obvious error. Whether you believe it’s a conspiracy is your problem.

This is a wierd hill to die on. Do you really believe the Big Ten has demonstrated good judgment the last year plus? Can you foresee a scenario where - if the rules are the same as last season which I’m not privy to - the Big Ten will once again create an unfortunate situation necessitating further rule “ adjustments”?

This could be moot if they do away with mandatory testing, contract tracing, lengthy quarantines. Let us hope.
Click to expand...
You are not even worth talking to if you think there is an active pro Ohio state officiating conspiracy in the big ten.
Do you also believe aliens built the pyramids? Free Masons run society? Etc

no, the big ten has done a horrible job in the last year. The big ten putting Ohio state with no losses and a win over Indiana Over Indiana is not one of the bad things they’ve done.
 

Some guy said:
You are not even worth talking to if you think there is an active pro Ohio state officiating conspiracy in the big ten.
Do you also believe aliens built the pyramids? Free Masons run society? Etc

no, the big ten has done a horrible job in the last year. The big ten putting Ohio state with no losses and a win over Indiana Over Indiana is not one of the bad things they’ve done.
Click to expand...

Disregarding the ridiculous and childish opening paragraph why, in your opinion, was the rule instituted in the first place, and repealed in December? If the rule was unnecessary, arbitrary, and pointless why was it implemented? Go ahead.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Disregarding the ridiculous and childish opening paragraph why, in your opinion, was the rule instituted in the first place, and repealed in December? If the rule was unnecessary, arbitrary, and pointless why was it implemented? Go ahead.
Click to expand...
It was implemented because the big ten was caught flat footed and came up with the policy too fast and didn’t think through all the permutations of what could happen.
It was repealed because it was short sighted.


all they would’ve needed to do to fix the rule would’ve been to add the following to it:
If a team is ineligible because of not enough games played, they can become eligible by crediting them enough losses until they regain eligibility. If they still lead the division they can go.


Do you actually believe that referees call penalties on some teams and not others intentionally?
Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter?
 



Some guy said:
It was implemented because the big ten was caught flat footed and came up with the policy too fast and didn’t think through all the permutations of what could happen.
It was repealed because it was short sighted.
Click to expand...
Was it really that bad, when they had no idea which teams would miss which games?

It's just an example of "having something in place is almost always better than having nothing in place". I love that, because it makes Pompous Sophistry's blood boil. :)

As you said, literally if Ohio State would've chosen to forfeit the game to Michigan, then suddenly they would've been eligible for the title game at 5-1, instead of 5-0. Having beaten Indiana head-to-head, it would've been absolutely foolish to keep it in place.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom