Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Bell Tolls for Thee" data-source="post: 132418982" data-attributes="member: 1812660">I'm saying when wins and losses on the field clearly demarcates which teams did better, sharing the title is an arbitrary participation trophy.&nbsp; If 2 teams have the same conference record at the end of the year and one team swept the other in the regular season or won the series 2-1, would they be co-champions?&nbsp; Big 12 may say so, but it would again be an arbitrary distinction.&nbsp; I'd say the same had WVU won one at Texas and OSU swept OU that it's ******** for OSU to be &quot;co-champion&quot; in that case since WVU won 2 of 3 vs OSU in the regular season.Also the fact that had that latter scenario taken place with just WVU and OSU as sharing the title while WVU holding the tie breaker feels much better than the current scenario shows the arbitrary distinction of this co-champion title.&nbsp; Technically the title doesn't distinguish between the 2 outcomes despite one being clearly better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Bell Tolls for Thee, post: 132418982, member: 1812660"] I'm saying when wins and losses on the field clearly demarcates which teams did better, sharing the title is an arbitrary participation trophy. If 2 teams have the same conference record at the end of the year and one team swept the other in the regular season or won the series 2-1, would they be co-champions? Big 12 may say so, but it would again be an arbitrary distinction. I'd say the same had WVU won one at Texas and OSU swept OU that it's ******** for OSU to be "co-champion" in that case since WVU won 2 of 3 vs OSU in the regular season. Also the fact that had that latter scenario taken place with just WVU and OSU as sharing the title while WVU holding the tie breaker feels much better than the current scenario shows the arbitrary distinction of this co-champion title. Technically the title doesn't distinguish between the 2 outcomes despite one being clearly better. [/QUOTE]

Name