Who's got the asterisk?

#3
#3
Technically it is correct. If we beat Kentucky, we would split the SEC East, but would go to the Championship based on the tiebreaker.
 
#4
#4
If we beat kentucky, that would make us the Eastern Division champions not Georgia.
 
#5
#5
Jonesey said:
Technically it is correct. If we beat Kentucky, we would split the SEC East, but would go to the Championship based on the tiebreaker.
Click to expand...

Nope. The eastern division champion will play in the SECCG.
 
#6
#6
VolNBama is right, really, this is pretty unbelievable to be posted on the "official" site. Somewhere else I read a thread wondering if we will have to not only beat KY, but the refs as well. I dismissed the whole "conspiracy" idea at the time, but now I am beginning to wonder myself!
 
#8
#8
Jonesey said:
Yes, but it will be a split championship based on SEC records. We own the tiebreaker to represent the East if we win.
Click to expand...

agreed but to put the asterisk there is fishy.......nobody ever reads the fine print....................
 
#9
#9
Jonesey said:
Yes, but it will be a split championship based on SEC records. We own the tiebreaker to represent the East if we win.
Click to expand...

So a team could share a divisonal title, but win the conference championship??? I guess all we can do is beat UK. Ga Tech will upset UGA GO VOLS:rock2:
 
#10
#10
Jonesey said:
Technically it is correct. If we beat Kentucky, we would split the SEC East, but would go to the Championship based on the tiebreaker.
Click to expand...
No it's not correct. It says an asterisk indicates the SEC East Champion. If we beat Kentucky Saturday, Tennessee is the Eastern Conference Champs. End of story.
 
#12
#12
hmanvolfan said:
No it's not correct. It says an asterisk indicates the SEC East Champion. If we beat Kentucky Saturday, Tennessee is the Eastern Conference Champs. End of story.
Click to expand...

It's just like when us, Florida, and UGA tied for the East a few years ago. We were all considered SEC East champs, but Florida represented the East based on tiebreakers.
 
#13
#13
Jonesey said:
It's just like when us, Florida, and UGA tied for the East a few years ago. We were all considered SEC East champs, but Florida represented the East based on tiebreakers.
Click to expand...
That's true, with the exception that was a three way tie with each team having beat one of the other two teams and losing to one of the other two teams. This year it's two teams tied with the head to head breaker being the determiner. That three way thing ended up being the team that was highest ranked getting the nod. :blink: Plus the main point remains that the SEC site already gave the asterisk to Georgia which is just plain wrong at this point in time.
 
#14
#14
hmanvolfan said:
That's true, with the exception that was a three way tie with each team having beat one of the other two teams and losing to one of the other two teams. This year it's two teams tied with the head to head breaker being the determiner. That three way thing ended up being the team that was highest ranked getting the nod. :blink: Plus the main point remains that the SEC site already gave the asterisk to Georgia which is just plain wrong at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Well, they have clinched at least a share, so IMO that would make them SEC East Champs wether we tie them or not.
 
#15
#15
Jonesey said:
Well, they have clinched at least a share, so IMO that would make them SEC East Champs wether we tie them or not.
Click to expand...
I'll put it this way, if we beat Kentucky Saturday Georgia will not be playing in the SEC title game.
 
#17
#17
I am completely confused as to why UGA would be the winners of the SEC east but not be the representatives in the SECCG. What am I missing? I could understand a three-way tie of SEC east champions...and only one representative in the SECCG. I could also understand (obviously) not declaring an SEC east champion until the UK-UT game is decided. However, I don't understand how that asterisk is already placed.
 
#18
#18
Jonesey said:
It's just like when us, Florida, and UGA tied for the East a few years ago. We were all considered SEC East champs, but Florida represented the East based on tiebreakers.
Click to expand...

Actually it was in 2003 when UT, Georgia and Florida were tied in the SEC East. All had one loss to an East division team and and one loss to a West division team, so none of the tiebreakers worked. But in one of most screwball solution orcastrated by outgoing Georgia AD Vince Dooley, they decided to use the BCS standing which at that time was only to determine the one and two teams. Even though Tennessee was ranked ahead of both Georgia and Florida in the AP and USA Today-ESPN poll by a considerable distance, they got the bid because in the BCS they were six and we were seven. At that time the BCS used a oddball computer poll that always underranked us.

I have always thought that this was an injustice to the Vols and blame Mike Hamilton, who was in his first year as AD and got hoodwinked by Dooley. Remember, Georgia had been to the championship the year before. Plus, the the Big Ten had just recently settled a similar tiebreak by dissallowing the last team that went to the Rose Bowl to return, when the head to head didn't solve the issue.

P.S. Ole Miss also tied in the West with LSU with one loss. I don't see an asterick by them.
 
#19
#19
rockydoc said:
Actually it was in 2003 when UT, Georgia and Florida were tied in the SEC East. All had one loss to an East division team and and one loss to a West division team, so none of the tiebreakers worked. But in one of most screwball solution orcastrated by outgoing Georgia AD Vince Dooley, they decided to use the BCS standing which at that time was only to determine the one and two teams. Even though Tennessee was ranked ahead of both Georgia and Florida in the AP and USA Today-ESPN poll by a considerable distance, they got the bid because in the BCS they were six and we were seven. At that time the BCS used a oddball computer poll that always underranked us.

I have always thought that this was an injustice to the Vols and blame Mike Hamilton, who was in his first year as AD and got hoodwinked by Dooley. Remember, Georgia had been to the championship the year before. Plus, the the Big Ten had just recently settled a similar tiebreak by dissallowing the last team that went to the Rose Bowl to return, when the head to head didn't solve the issue.

P.S. Ole Miss also tied in the West with LSU with one loss. I don't see an asterick by them.
Click to expand...

Oh....is there point an east vs. west loss for UT vs. GA? If so...then I don't get the inconsistency....
 
#20
#20
rockydoc said:
Actually it was in 2003 when UT, Georgia and Florida were tied in the SEC East. All had one loss to an East division team and and one loss to a West division team, so none of the tiebreakers worked. But in one of most screwball solution orcastrated by outgoing Georgia AD Vince Dooley, they decided to use the BCS standing which at that time was only to determine the one and two teams. Even though Tennessee was ranked ahead of both Georgia and Florida in the AP and USA Today-ESPN poll by a considerable distance, they got the bid because in the BCS they were six and we were seven. At that time the BCS used a oddball computer poll that always underranked us.

I have always thought that this was an injustice to the Vols and blame Mike Hamilton, who was in his first year as AD and got hoodwinked by Dooley. Remember, Georgia had been to the championship the year before. Plus, the the Big Ten had just recently settled a similar tiebreak by dissallowing the last team that went to the Rose Bowl to return, when the head to head didn't solve the issue.

P.S. Ole Miss also tied in the West with LSU with one loss. I don't see an asterick by them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that should have been another notch in the University's belt!
 
#21
#21
TennTradition said:
Oh....is there point an east vs. west loss for UT vs. GA? If so...then I don't get the inconsistency....
Click to expand...

In deciding the teams for the SEC championship the first thing is conference records. The second tiebreaker is head-to-head records (this is easly if only two teams tie for the division lead since all East teams play each other once). The tricky part is when three teams tie with the same number of losses, as in 2003 and head to head doesn't work since that year We beat Florida, Florida beat Georgia and Georgia beat us. Then the third tie breaker is who has the most losses in their own division.....but in 2003 that didn't work because we lost to Auburn, Florida to Ole Miss and Georgia to LSU. So they had to hastily come up with another remedy, which was IMO unfair and would have been vetoed by Dickey or Woodruff, previous AD's.
 
#22
#22
rockydoc said:
In deciding the teams for the SEC championship the first thing is conference records. The second tiebreaker is head-to-head records (this is easly if only two teams tie for the division lead since all East teams play each other once). The tricky part is when three teams tie with the same number of losses, as in 2003 and head to head doesn't work since that year We beat Florida, Florida beat Georgia and Georgia beat us. Then the third tie breaker is who has the most losses in their own division.....but in 2003 that didn't work because we lost to Auburn, Florida to Ole Miss and Georgia to LSU. So they had to hastily come up with another remedy, which was IMO unfair and would have been vetoed by Dickey or Woodruff, previous AD's.
Click to expand...

Gotcha on the 2003 reference.....I thought a similar point was being made to this year...which didn't make sense with (currently) two conference losses and the head to head win going to UT. I don't understand where that asterisk comes from.
 
#23
#23
jlaw008 said:
Yeah, that should have been another notch in the University's belt!
Click to expand...
You are correct. Just look at the times we tied or won the SEC East in the past ten years! (and look at pitiful Bama who still think they are God's gift to college football).

PS Had we went to the SEC championship in 2003, I have no doubt we would have repaid LSU for 2001. We may get that privilidge yet.......four years later!!
 
#25
#25
rockydoc said:
You are correct. Just look at the times we tied or won the SEC East in the past ten years! (and look at pitiful Bama who still think they are God's gift to college football).

PS Had we went to the SEC championship in 2003, I have no doubt we would have repaid LSU for 2001. We may get that privilidge yet.......four years later!!
Click to expand...

I can't wait, I think about it all day every day!!!:dance2:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top