The Pac-12 Thread....

Eirespal, already have a set. Charles Bronson flicks are cool!

We old farts are stuck in our ways, for sure, yet, wise enough to know change is inevitable, for better or worse....

That's why "plus one or none". That way the least damage is done to the game and hopefully the whole process will be slowed enough that I will be long gone before it runs the full "march madness" mentality.

"Oh no, we won't go that far".....probably not, the real reason is that it isn't needed. By you. At least for now.

The dirty little secret, and I've followed this debate for a long time, is it's the fans of those teams that can't quite get to the NCG without divine interevention who are really pushing this. It has nothing to do with "coaches deciding" or anyone else. They know that ultimately, it's win-loss and SOS that decides it. Not "bias". They are fully aware that if those two criteria are in, you will probably make it.

But in the name of money, those same schools have joined bigger, tougher conferences and the downside is they have even a harder pull to make it to a NCG. 

All they care about is their school. Nothing else. The rest is slick talking points. The only way that can reasonably be done is a playoff.

A playoff is the only way. To heck with the bigger picture, to heck with any damage that will occur when logically presented in debate. Just "bull-rush" it through. Anyone or anything hurt by this move can go on the IR List.

Trouble is, then the next level of schools who can't quite get there realize that if the playoff is expanded, then they too have a chance. 

And so on.

Everyone seems to have a different comfort level as to the size of a playoff. You can take it to the bank it will go past you comfort level sooner or later. 

Oh, by the way, my Charles Bronson tapes are wearing out. I have a deal for you, you'll love. I found a set of Beavis and Butthead tapes I'll swap with you for the your Charles Bronson tapes. Really good shape, I don't watch em.......

Another solution would be just to do an 11 game season then and instead of paying some little sister of the poor to come have a glorified scrimmages play FBS school's in the OOC schedule and do home and home's. I don't see how it would be so hard for the NCAA and conference commisioners to come together and decide this year each Pac-12 school will get one Big 12, B1G and SEC school or something along those lines. Reward a good previous season by whichever team by setting them up with Big East and ACC teams, make teams like us, who are rarely in contention get to play mid to upper tier schools from bigger conference instead of having them chicken out and buy out the contract (talking to you tOSU, Auburn and Notre Dame) what makes more revenue, a crappy team getting an extra game with an empty house win against a FCS school or a full house with a loss against a bigger program? 

Communist!

Oh, by the way, my Charles Bronson tapes are wearing out. I have a deal for you, you'll love. I found a set of Beavis and Butthead tapes I'll swap with you for the your Charles Bronson tapes. Really good shape, I don't watch em.......

Tempting, but I've both accepted change, and adapted to it. I will stream them straight to my phone in digital quality. Thank's though.

Eirespal, good point. I suppose I'm more selective on what "change" to accept. I prefer evaluating and modifying the changes when possible than rubber stamping them.

Adapting is not negotiable, not much alternative.

The dirty little secret, and I've followed this debate for a long time, is it's the fans of those teams that can't quite get to the NCG without divine interevention who are really pushing this. It has nothing to do with "coaches deciding" or anyone else. They know that ultimately, it's win-loss and SOS that decides it. Not "bias". They are fully aware that if those two criteria are in, you will probably make it.

OHHHHH Soooo close.

Where you are absolutely right is in that it is those fans whose teams need divine intervention to win a National Championship that are really pushing this, and that's because devine intervention is so hard to get for heathen schools.

What has it required to win a championship in the past 30 years?

1. Conference affiliation. You simply can't wear the champions jacket if you aren't a member of the club. There is too much money at stake and reputations to keep to allow outsiders in. Exception- BYU 1984.

2. Name recognition. Even if you belong to the right conference you must have a solid reputation, or else no voter will stake their reputation on placing you high enough in the pre-season polls to get a sniff at a title. Exception- Perhaps Auburn 2010..but they made their climb based upon the names of those they played.

3. History. If a team hasn't done well over a span of years, let alone decades any success on the field must be an aboration. One and dones will not do. Exception- Colorado 1990 Although truly not a one and done, just about the only champion that doesn't have a stake in multiple titles over the span of the last 30 years.

4. Money. Teams do not compete for championships unless they are in the top 20 in athlectic budget. Exception- Miami & FSU. The only two title holders that weren't in the top 25 for athletic budget. Note: Only legitimate funds are accounted for. Ahem.

5. Fan Base. While voting is the means by which the FBS world rotates, perception is reality. The teams with the largest fan bases (and relatively -large media support) create the buzz, and therefore the perception of greatness. Exception- Not sure there is one. Perhaps Georgia Tech 1990, but it's hard to claim a smaller fan base when you are located in Atlanta. Bobby Dodd only held 46k in 1990.

Those coaches who vote will always trend towards those teams that meet this criteria, consciously or not. Any effort to take these choices away is good for the other 100 schools that are trying to compete.

Eirespal, yep, so close........

OK, no bad news for the Pac-12 today, as usual. The rest of the conferences seem to have more trouble than we do....oh well.

Seeing the playoff advocates have been thoroughly out debated with precision-like accuracy, we can return to the Pac and it's rapid progress to the top and maintain that level of competition, both in-conference and against the lesser conferences out there.(the B1G is tied to the Pac for both's advantage and is not included with the "lessers")

I see Saban is against conference champions only for a playoff format, not surprising, considering last year's results.

Penn's new HC would like to see a "big opening game" every year, largely for the Alum, he said like an Alabama or USC. He did say not next year, but down the road when the program is back to battery. That would include Oregon and Stanford i would expect.
 Can you see an Alabama accepting that kind of game? Ever? I can't...

I always loved huge gsmes right from the start of the season. Yet the down side can't be ignored. Oregon's loss to LSU had a huge affect on the rest of their season. So I ask you, is it worth it?

USC has traditionally accepted those kind of challenges, used the schedules as a recruiting tool,(successfully) and benefitted from it. Yet, right now, with 10 less schollies to offer, USC has cut back from those tougher OOC games. Can't blame them really.

The Pac-12 also has been among the best in OOC games scheduled. Does that continue  as the conference gets stronger and stronger? Do we take the same road as the SEC in the long run? Slightly watered down? Which way do we go with OOC games.

The Pac-12-B1G agreement says it could even get tougher. Help or hurt?

Trucker,

Clearly, in todays market the watered down OOC has an advantage.  But, look what it cost.  I prefer seeing USC play tOSU in the 2nd week of the season.

If one does not play a BCS team in OOC, then that game should not count, unless they lose, and then they should be subjected to ridicule the entire season.

And, yes, I know the Oregon OOC schedule this year is the dregs, but that is the exception as of late and not the golden rule of the SEC.

EverybodyDuck, taking LSU last season in a (one and done?) offsets this years OOC schedule in my book. A wash, basically.

The thing I loved about Pete Carroll most was his keeping it a game. Fun. A why not mentality. Not boot camp. Hard yes, but fun.

He'd play anyone anywhere, pretty much.

The biggest advantage to a tough OOC schedule is the alum/fan pride it creates. Sure, there's a cost. If there wasn't, it wouldn't mean much would it?

trucker,

     I think that the B1G/PAC agreement will be good for both conferences. First there is the fact that it always means at least one BCS opponent in the OOC which helps overall SOS. I hope that as the PAC gets stronger, that it doesn't go the "SEC way". I like that the conference as a whole tends to schedule tougher OOC games. I understand why the SEC does it and it works for them, but if I were a fan of an SEC team, I wouldn't like it. I loved Pete's "Whatever Dude, tell us where to be and we'll show up and play" attitude and I hope that the "downturn" in competition for the last couple of seasons is merely because of the sanctions and not a new trend.

     Even though I think they may have overscheduled a bit and it may have had something to do with losing the NCG, if I were an LSU fan, I would have loved what they did last season. A big, must-see game nearly every week. What more could a cfb fan ask for?

TJ, LSU overbooked? Hmm. I think LSU books and offers to book games very, very wisely. For example the Oreon game, at home,(one and done?) against a highly ranked, yet slow starting Oregon.

Maybe they wore down as the season progressed, or more likely, the others improved enough to catch up with LSU. I do believe, thae the LSU-Oregon game would have been much closer in Oregon and later in the season. That's just me though. Not really sure.

Without doubt, LSU does a better job than Bama in their OOC games. If that is a contributing factor to their NCG loss, I don't know.

But, like you, Id rather have LSUs schedule than the Tide's and to hell with the consequences.LOL 

I always loved huge gsmes right from the start of the season. Yet the down side can't be ignored. Oregon's loss to LSU had a huge affect on the rest of their season. So I ask you, is it worth it?

How about OR St's ooc 2 yr's ago. TCU at JerryWorld, back home for a Louisville team ( that went to a bowl and won it ), then off to Boise to play BSU on the smurf-turf. The Beavers lost too many key players to injuries and finished the season just 1 win short of going to a bowl game. If I remember right, only 2 of the original starters played in every game. The coaches were scrambling to fill positions where players were injured and mostly played true freshmen all over both sides of the ball. That was also Ryan Katz's first (and only) year as starting QB. He also played hurt and got benched last year in favor of Mannion who went 3-9 against a much easier schedule while putting up fantasy stats. Katz led the Beavs to a win over USC ( always tough ) while Mannion didn't have USC on the schedule since we expanded and don't play everyone in conference now.

Web,

I agree the Beaver OOC schedule a couple of years back was a mans task, no doubt about it.

It's one thing to argue that quality competition hurts a team's title shot, but there should never be an argument that weaker teams are scheduled to avoid injury (or that injuries occurred due to tougher schedules).
Of all the factors involved in injury (shoe type, tape/brace, playing surface, previous injury, inadequate rehab, aerobic fitness level, body size, limb dominance, flexibility, limb girth, muscle strength, imbalance and recognition time, postular stability, weather and skill level- competition level is so far down the list that it's not even one of the researched studies done.
Injuries are going to happen, regardless of who you play. They will happen earlier in the year more often than not due to conditioning, skill level, preperation and dehydration.
I'd worry more about playing undersized teams who rely on going low for blocking and tackling than the best teams in the nation. See Air Force for example...those dirty little %#*#s.

NativeWebfoot, A perfect example! Obviously, the fans/alum love tough OOC schedules.

I admit, I understand the reasoning of soft OOC games that the SEC schedules. Don't agree with it, but I see why they do it.

What's a bit confusing is why one year a fairly tough schedule, the next soft. Travel costs? Fluke? In Oregon St.'s case, it wasn't like they were competing for the NCG and needed the poll recognition.

Seeing they don't count for conference rankings,(a brilliant move), why not touger schedules?

Am I missing something here?

Trucker, OR St had been going to bowl games and winning them. The prev. season, OR St was tied with Oregon going into the Civil War game with the winner going to the Rose Bowl. It was a better game IMHO than any of the Bowl games that year. It was looking like whoever had the ball last might win it. The Beavs just needed to get the ball back once more late in the 4th, but Masoli and Blount converted a few 4th down plays to keep the ball, so Oregon won and went to the Rose. OR St was poised for another run the next season so during the summer, coach Riley had the chance to play TCU if he could find a different opponent for E Washington (was scheduled as our 1st ooc game). It happened, and with a new starting QB (Katz), it was going to be tough. James Rodgers took a cheap helmet to the back of his head while down, giving him a concussion in the Boise St game and had to leave the game. He couldn't play again until the AZ game and was hit with another cheap shot in the back of the knees at the back of the endzone after he caught a pass and ran it in for a TD. He was out until getting a med-redshirt to play this last season. He was only one of the key players injured that season, and the Beavs finished with only 5 wins, and not going to a Bowl game for the 1st time since coach Riley's 1st yr.

NativeWebfoot, another beautiful day in paradise. I get your post, but I still don't get the criteria for booking those games, at least if the national rankings aren't relevant for a particular team. Did you feel the Beavers had a chance for a BCS bid that season if all went well? That would explain it.

I honestly believe the Beavers had a legit chance of making the Rose Bowl or possibly NCG if Katz had a season of experience and the team hadn't suffered so many injuries. If the Beavs had played E washington instead of TCU, they'd have been in a bowl game. There was also the game at UW that went to OT. UW jumped out to a 21-0 lead in the 1st half. OR St shut them down and came back to tie it up. Instead of going the safe route, the Beavs went for a 2pt conv. to win and IMO, tried the wrong play (pass through the crowded middle to the TE) and lost. It's all water under the bridge now and the team without the Rodgers brothers has to find a new identity. With coach Riley and his staff, I don't think the Beavers will be down for long and could play spoiler this year for teams that don't see them as a threat. 

If one does not play a BCS team in OOC, then that game should not count, unless they lose, and then they should be subjected to ridicule the entire season.

So what does that mean for the Pac 12, which plays most of its' games against the highest quality non-AQ conferences the WAC and MWC? I'd definitely want a win over BYU, Nevada, BSU, TCU or Utah to be counted on my resume. Of course, BSU, Utah and TCU will be moving up in the college football world but surely other teams will fill the ranks.

They just need to calculate SOS differently giving more weight to OOC games and have wins be given a little less weight. Reward a closer OOC loss against a top team more than a blowout win over a nobody.

I'm no mathematician or rocket scientist...but I believe strongly that if we can land on the moon, we can figure out a formula to pit the best teams who faced the toughest roads against each other in a playoff. Or maybe not. Maybe college football is tougher than figuring out the intricacies of our universe..

JD NELSON, Trouble is the vast majority of colleges would belly-ache if the SOS was toughened. Most play weaker schedules, if for no other reason than there aren't enough good schools for everybody to book with.

"it's not fair". Ultimately the real reason for a playoff push to begin with.

Big difference between the "laws of the universe" and the "rules" of the NCAA. The former make sense, the latter don't. The universe doesn't change how it does business merely because humans figure it out. Just change the rules of CFB and watch  everyone change how they do business....

Yep, college football is tougher.....LMAO