The Pac-12 Thread....

wazzufan31, Then I miss your point here. I totally agree there are too many variables in CFB to ever have an actual champion. It can't be done.

Which is my main point there has never been a true national champion and there never will be as long as there are 12-14 game seasons with 120 plus team vying for a playoff. I am not too great at math but what does that mean a champion is determined by 4% of the teams? In college baseball and basketball there are preliminary tournaments that lead to the actual tournament to determine a champion because of so many teams.

The support that Everybody Duck and lend to the plus one, where that "extra game" is played after the bowl games is soley due to that format not damaging the bowl games.

But a plus one does damage the bowls. SC has a knack for doing this in the Pete Carroll era by overlooking an opponent. If the plus one is determined by the 2 highest ranked teams after the bowls then the Rose Bowl could become when one team is overlooking the other to the championship game, or if it is this stupid 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 then the Rose Bowl tradition is shot. Great tradition> broken system, kind of like a pipe leak, instead of just installing a new pipe they try to duct tape the leaks then another spouts then they tape that.

I thought you were referring to the polls when you complained about the human element.

I am refering to the human element of the polls because they are fun for fans to rush to the newspaper, the internet or television to see where teams are in the polls...but as a Coug being on both sides of the fence by the media not actually watching the Cougs we have gotten screwed by losses and then the media not watching us we have benefitting because we were 3-3 but all 3 losses were to top 15 teams but our 3 wins were against the little sisters of the poor yet were still ranked...shocker we finished 5-7 that season. Or in 02, OSU crushed us (granted we suspended our all american DT, WR and started center) but we made it up to number 3 and had we won the apple cup and Ohio State lost to Michigan we would have played Miami in the title game...that shows voters brains. My last rant about the polls and the BCS is this year, Alabama lost on his home turf in a boring ass game to LSU, Okie State lost on the road to an average Iowa State team when there informed prior to the game of the death of whatever that tradegy was (not familiar because I don't really care about the Cowboys) yep that variable got taken into account.

The Rose Bowl is special with extra meaning to the B1G and the Pac, to these two conferences, it's trash talk and a reward for the conference champions. It doesn't matter if it isn't the "top teams" now and it wouldn't matter playoffs or not. The Rose Bowl last year was cool, between Oregon and Wisconson. They were also rans, nationally. It got a better rating than the NCG.

Brings me back to the point of that is the way it should be, it should not turn into a semi final, I was there in 03 and even though we got blown out by Oklahoma I still enjoyed the loss because of the tradition. Turn that into a semi final game then it would just be a heartbreaking loss is a dump of a stadium where I'd rather get drunk instead of enjoy what the Rose Bowl brings.

It's the Rose Bowl, if the rest of the country wants to call it the semi or quarter final game on top of "Rose Bowl", they can call it what they want. The TV screen will say "Rose Bowl".

See rest of replies. Yes the tv screen says Rose Bowl, but it does everytime someone plays UCLA. Granted the bowl game will never become as dull as attending a Bruin home game.

Bottem line if there is an inevitablity to a playoff, the plus one does the least damage, that's the reason for the statement "plus one or dump it".

If there is a plus one, then there is no slogan, dump it. I will contradict myself with saying I am fine with breaking tradition and turning the Rose Bowl into a semi final game if it were a 16 team playoff where it is earned to play in the hallowed Rose Bowl, not because some goofs vote on it. None of us on this board have ever covered college football, but the funny thing is, because we do not cover college football or are not in the some school's AD department, we watch more college football and actually have more knowledge on who belongs where in the polls.

The preference is no playoff at all and dump the BCS, go back to bowl games that are limited, mean something for those teams that merit it and leave the discussion of who's best to the off-season trash talkers.

That's when our game was the best and  a playoff fixes nothing!! Plus one? The least damage, end of story.

Wazzu,

For clarity of my position, and I think you know this, but I'll repeat it anyway in the event I have forgotten:

I want to return to the Bowl system pre-BCS.

I want all Bowl games completed by Jan. 2nd.

I would allow all teams, bowl bound or not, to practice in the month of December.

I want USC credited with one loss to Oregon at the beginning of evey season.

I want Oregon credited with 17 points every season to begin any game with either of the Washington schools.

Okay, the USC and Washington things are last minute whims, but the others truly represent my preference.

EverybodyDuck, Christmas list or bucket?

Trucker,

As you get older, the two list tend to overlap a bit.

Gawd, I hate the idea of playoffs ruining the greatness of College Football.

Why can't everyone accept that Oregon is the Greatest Team of All Time and Always will be? 

Why can't everyone accept that Oregon is the second Greatest Team of All Time after USC and Always will be? 

Fixed it for ya!!

You're welcome!!

Why can't everyone accept that Oregon is the second Greatest Team of All Time after USC and Always will be? 

Why cant everyone accept that Oregon is the third greatest team of all time after USC is the second greatest team. And Utah will always be the greatest team of all time. Now that sounds alot better.

See, that is exactly what I am talking about.  It is Trojans and Utes inability to accept The reality that exist and want to try and create some sort of playoff to claim someone is greater than Oregon. 

It is not going to happen because you will never have a system that can refute the truism of Oregons All Time Greatness.

GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Duck l' orange is pretty great!!

It is not going to happen because you will never have a system that can refute the truism of Oregons All Time Greatness.


It is a great system, but when did they start using it when Kelly took over. Utah ran the spread optiion since 2004 so it's not like it's a new wondeful system. Hell Utah had two undefeated seasons running it. So truism of Oregons all time greatness is rather mute. As for the uniforms, I think Oregon should go back to wearing the little duckling on thier helmet that was cute. GO UTES!!!!!!!!!

Oregon should go back to wearing the little duckling on thier helmet that was cute

Utah lost 5 football games in the PAC-12.  Has the worst basketball and baseball team in the league.  Why did we let this little brother join again?

Good people, great state.

Utah lost 5 football games in the PAC-12.  Has the worst basketball and baseball team in the league.  Why did we let this little brother join again?

Wow...look at you go with the Utah smack. Nice job big brother. Before you start ragging on Utah sports too much you might want to take a look at the conference as a whole and compare what everyone else has done with more recources.

Yes, Utah lost 5 conference games....yet they had the 3rd most wins of any of the bowl teams the conference fielded...and they were one of two that won their bowls. Yeah...a discrace to the conference.

Yes, Utah basketball sucks, but they started recruiting for the 2012 season in April after all previous players transferred out of the program except for 4 (1 was injured all year and one was kicked off the team leaving 2). So for a team to win three games in this conference with community college recruits and six months to prepare I'd say not too bad. They also finished ahead of USC and cannot possibly be the only team that made the conference look bad this year. They also bring a National Championship with them that most Pac 12 teams can't claim.

I don't know what this thing called Baseball is. My guess is Oregon must be having a good year or else  you wouldn't have brought it up. If you want to dive into small sports though may I suggest Gymnastics where the Red Rocks of Utah are smoking hot, unbelievably talented and are ALWAYS top 10 in the nation.

The Utes may be a "little brother" and may not have had the success of others in 2012, but perhaps you can give these little guys a few years with the money and name recognition the conference provides before passing too much judgement on them.

Utah,

The Duck is just playing with you. Pulling your chain so to speak.

Utah is an outstanding Institution, any educated individual from any PAC 12 school recognizes that.

Welcome to the Conference, you are a quality addition.  If you weren't, you wouldn't be here.  Yeah, the PAC has it like that!

Eirespal,

     Consider Quack busting on Utah to be an official welcome to the conference. You're not officially a member until the trash talk starts. Considering that no one really smacktalks UCLA anymore, maybe we're really the PAC-11??

TJ, no one to trash talk UCLA football to. You said you had a few Bruin fan "friends", tell em to check out the thread. We won't dump on them for the first week or two, that way they won't blame you......

I realize this, but when a punch is thrown I'll start swinging.

As far as your recent topic of debate let me add my two cents.

First, a "playoff" is a move in the right direction as long as it is structured correctly. I would like to see ONLY conference champions involved. Actually, I'd like to see ONLY conference champions involved that just won an actual Conference championship game. If you are going to go all "equitable" all eligible candidates entering the bid for the top four should have to go the same route. Independants and small conferences be damned.

I would provide a provision much like the BCS -non AQ provision that says teams that were not conference champions are eligible if there are not four Champions in the top ten rankings.

As far as the Rose Bowl, I would like to see it stay true to tradition and stay out of this 4 team mix. If a Pac/BiG team make the field of four, then the Rose Bowl would then take the next possible team from those conferences that meets the old BCS type of requirements. If there is no such team that is worthy of an invite then the Bowl committee can search elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the first round games should be played in home stadiums based upon rankings and the championship game should rotate between host cities that bid for it.

Since polls will still be involved, take the 1/2 of each conference coaches (just like it is now) and give them a vote, but make it the bottom half of those conference from the previous year's standings. That way the odds of having any of the top 20 coaches voting will be substantially reduced.

Lastly, there has to be a lifetime ban on Craig James, Beano Cook, Lou Holtz and any ex-SEC head coach who tries to commentate or even speak about an official NCAA football team or event.

Eirespal,

The ultimate flaw in your playoff proposal is team selection.  If you have polls, then consensus Champions is the only possible result.  We have that now.

Just say NO to playoffs.  Conference Champions play Conference Champions in the Bowl Exhibition Games to conclude the season.

If you feel the need and desire to prove yourself on the National level......Then, schedule REAL OOC games, after all, we pay REAL money to watch these roadkills.

Seriously, why ruin a sport trying to prove a point you can't prove?

Not everyone can buy a baseball program like Nike U can, I give props to Oregon for having the most instant success in college baseball history but come on seriously? I love College football but the Pac12 Network is really going to help west coast baseball instead of seeing dull SEC baseball on ESPN all the time you get to see where the real talent is.

wazzufan31, maybe that's what your guys need to do. Go get Starbuck's. They've got the coin to donate. Say 25 cents per expresso?

E.D.,

I have yet to see a system that doesn't have a problem with team selection. With nearly 130 teams playing 12 game seasons the best anyone can ever hope for is a poll of some kind. I just say we try to keep the voting out of the contestants hands as much as possible and limit the number of candidates. By using only conference champs (plus an allowance if there aren't 4 champs in the top 6 like Delany's pushing for) the number of teams in the poll is limited and the margin for error is at least minimized.

I don't like the phrase consensus champions because it insinuates that there was some kind of general agreement by a majority. That's not what we have now. What we have now is a "game" that may or may not involve the two best teams as voted on by coaches, other biased polls, and computers. I wonder if a "majority" would not have voted in Oklahoma St last year?

The old bowl system is pointless. There might be traditionalists who find value in an exhibition game, but this is 2012. I demand immediate satisfaction. I want a champion, even if it is an SEC team.

As far as OOC scheduling, I would hope that in the coming years there are three things that happen to motivate better scheduling.

1.  Conference deals like the Pac/BiG agreement.
2.  Money. With the amount of money networks are throwing at "pre-season" game it should be a motivator.
3.  If conference champions only become eligible for the playoffs, I hope it places more of a premium on preparing for a conference season by playing big names and less of a deterrent because a loss ends a season. I would hope voters also place emphasis on these games(win or lose) because it improves SOS.

It's not a perfect system, but with some tweaks it can make a terrible system slightly horrible.

Ute,

I don't care much for immediate gratification, it takes too long.  And, it in no way should serve as a basis for your "fools errand" trying to crown a Champion.

Competition is getting watered down is this BCS era.  Look at the OOC schedules of every major University, it is laughable.  If you play competitive games you are punished, not rewarded.  For example, if Oregon would have opened last season playing loserU instead of LSU, they would have played in the NCG.

This is a game, this is entertainment, only "johnnylunchbucket" needs it to have a #1 deeper meaning to fulfill a void in their life.

Goodness, I just want to watch good football games between the better teams in the Country, call me crazy.

The Bowl system is not pointless, it is designed to pit winning teams against each other for a final exhibition game.  Again, prove your worth during a season, not after it.

 

ED,

If wanting a national champion is a fools errand then I am a fool. I don't want a "coaches champion". I don't want an "AP champion". I definitely don't want a "BCS champion". I want the teams who outright win a division to play for a conference championship. If they win a conference championship then they should be eligible to play for a national championship.

If it's going to take baby steps to get there then I am fine with taking the "best" of the champions and putting them in a small playoff. Hopefully it's just another step in the evolution to get where it needs to be.

I don't know what to say to you traditionalists. I know there's no arguing with you (especially Trucker). Might as well try to dissuade you in your values, politics and religion while I'm at it. Traditions are ingrained. Perhaps I can just offer you a screaming deal on my VHS collection of Charles Bronson flicks instead.

Perhaps I can just offer you a screaming deal on my VHS collection of Charles Bronson flicks instead.

Got Mr. Majestyk in there?

Seriously though, I understand where trucker and other "traditionalists" are coming from. In my heart, I am also a "traditionalist". I miss the old days of setting up 3 t.v.s in the living room and my dad and I and friends spending New Years Day watching all of the big bowl games and feasting all day. Not to mention arguing over who should be #1.

Where I differ from the other traditionalists is that I have accepted the inevitability of a playoff and am more interested in making sure that they get the best format for one.

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.......

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?