[SeattleTree]

[quote author=SeattleTree link=topic=13294.msg136240#msg136240 date=1445540255]
I've already explained why I want Low APR U to win tonight and why I think it helps Stanford's chances of making the playoff.  The ONLY way Stanford makes the playoff is if they win out, which by default means winning the division and winning the conference championship game.  I think even if Stanford does win out there's a chance they don't make the playoff.  I think the committee factors in how the team is playing to end the season, so three impressive wins (over a highly ranked Low APR U, highly ranked the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends and a highly ranked Utah) would seem to give Stanford the best chance to close on a high note and impress the committee.  That's why I'll be cheering for each of those three teams to win out until Stanford plays (and hopefully beats) them.  Shoot for the stars, wim.  Shoot for the stars.

Look, you keep on repeating "shoot for the stars," but it doesn't make any sense.

Let's take Ohio State, the example of a team leaping past its one-loss rivals. It beat 4-8 Indiana by 15 in its second-to-last regular season game, 5-7 Michigan by 14 in its last regular season game, and then demolished #13 Wisconsin in its conference championship game.

TCU beat three scrubs consecutively.

Baylor beat 4-8 Texas Tech, 7-6 Oklahoma State, and then #9 Kansas State in its last game.

If you can find a "shoot for the stars" pattern in here, congratulations. What's my interpretation? Committee decisions are random. Trying to figure out what does or doesn't influence committee decisions is similar to divining the status of Soviet apparatchiks from parade photos. Embrace whatever eases your path to victory.
[/quote]

I agree with your last paragraph.  But we all try to find patterns.  I've found mine and it's different from yours.  So please stop saying mine makes sense when yours doesn't.  Mine makes sense to me and I'll be cheering for a Cal victory.  Yours makes sense to you and you'll be cheering for UCLA.  Fair enough?

[SeattleTree]

[quote author=SeattleTree link=topic=13294.msg136240#msg136240 date=1445540255]
I've already explained why I want Low APR U to win tonight and why I think it helps Stanford's chances of making the playoff.  The ONLY way Stanford makes the playoff is if they win out, which by default means winning the division and winning the conference championship game.  I think even if Stanford does win out there's a chance they don't make the playoff.  I think the committee factors in how the team is playing to end the season, so three impressive wins (over a highly ranked Low APR U, highly ranked the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends and a highly ranked Utah) would seem to give Stanford the best chance to close on a high note and impress the committee.  That's why I'll be cheering for each of those three teams to win out until Stanford plays (and hopefully beats) them.  Shoot for the stars, wim.  Shoot for the stars.

Look, you keep on repeating "shoot for the stars," but it doesn't make any sense.

Let's take Ohio State, the example of a team leaping past its one-loss rivals. It beat 4-8 Indiana by 15 in its second-to-last regular season game, 5-7 Michigan by 14 in its last regular season game, and then demolished #13 Wisconsin in its conference championship game.

TCU beat three scrubs consecutively.

Baylor beat 4-8 Texas Tech, 7-6 Oklahoma State, and then #9 Kansas State in its last game.

If you can find a "shoot for the stars" pattern in here, congratulations. What's my interpretation? Committee decisions are random. Trying to figure out what does or doesn't influence committee decisions is similar to divining the status of Soviet apparatchiks from parade photos. Embrace whatever eases your path to victory.
[/quote]

I agree with your last paragraph.  But we all try to find patterns.  I've found mine and it's different from yours.  So please stop saying mine makes sense when yours doesn't.  Mine makes sense to me and I'll be cheering for a Cal victory.  Yours makes sense to you and you'll be cheering for UCLA.  Fair enough?