|
Replies: 11
| visibility 2,226
|
Legend [16207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13076
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Kind of weird how that "division co-champion" stuff works.
Nov 20, 2016, 8:18 PM
|
|
Seems like head-to-head ought to be the tie breaker. I know a few years ago we were co-champs with FSU even though they beat us. I don't think we should have been called co-champs after having lost to FSU that year.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
If you don't play for the title, you ain't co'-champ
Nov 20, 2016, 8:23 PM
|
|
of anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Kind of weird how that "division co-champion" stuff works.
Nov 20, 2016, 8:29 PM
|
|
Yeah, I sort of cringe each time they mention us as 5 time champs for that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [285]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 459
Joined: 12/31/05
|
Not at all; we lost to Pitt
Nov 20, 2016, 8:50 PM
|
|
Both teams have the same conference record. If FSU was mad years ago or we're mad now, win on the field and don't give up the rights.
Either way, playing in the title game matters the most. Whine if you want and call it a participation trophy, but to me, both teams earned to be acknowledged for great seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Head-to-head breaks the "tie" ... there is no "Co-champion"***
Nov 21, 2016, 7:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81889]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47113
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Uhh...check out the 2012 season, and the fact we have a
Nov 21, 2016, 8:03 AM
|
|
banner in our stadium saying we were 2012 co-division champions despite our loss to FSU...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4378]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 4849
Joined: 5/22/15
|
Re: Uhh...check out the 2012 season, and the fact we have a
Nov 21, 2016, 8:09 AM
|
|
And that's dumb. Fsu beat us that year, so they won the acc atlantic. Being named co champion is just cootish, it's something those morons would brag about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I realize it's a "thing", I just don't care.
Nov 21, 2016, 11:13 AM
[ in reply to Uhh...check out the 2012 season, and the fact we have a ] |
|
I understand that it is a thing, but it sort of makes my point even more valid.
"Participation Trophy" level stuff. That's a very apt analogy. We should take it down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65375]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33233
Joined: 12/3/03
|
Re: Uhh...check out the 2012 season, and the fact we have a
Nov 21, 2016, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to Uhh...check out the 2012 season, and the fact we have a ] |
|
And a trophy in the trophy case as Atlantic Division Co-Champions. I don't like it either. If you didn't get to play for the league title, you didn't win the division in my book, so no trophy. Only the SEC should give out participation trophies, because, you know, UsUk, Vandy, and Kentucky have to have some reason to keep playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 623
Joined: 1/11/04
|
A shame or sham not same with NC last year both 14-1 :)***
Nov 21, 2016, 8:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
"Co-National Champs" ? ... Hmmmm. Hard to say no if ...
Nov 21, 2016, 1:14 PM
|
|
... if we support this ACC Atlantic Co-Champ business. Forget that pesky head-to-head result. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2418]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6496
Joined: 11/17/12
|
Re: Kind of weird how that "division co-champion" stuff works.
Nov 21, 2016, 8:45 AM
|
|
It is a little weird but it is what it is. ACC says you have the same record, you can claim part of the division title... but head to head gets you to the ACC title game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 2,226
|
|
|
50
