The Pac-12 Thread....

What' s up with a 12 year schedule announcement by the SEC? What possible relevance has it? with the playoff fight/negotiations grid-locked one would think this is a waste of time/money.


When you look at the simplicity of a four team playoff what would happen if this was an eight or sixteen team ? Is it possible this playoff odesn't happen? Where the sides blame each other for the "failure"?


What conference would benefit most from a status quo?  The SEC due to the poll bias and recent dominance? The Pac-B1G due to the Rose bowl issues?


Trying to figure these guys out is like trying to guess what congress is going to do in a "midnight session". 

I used to be a big Rivals radio contributor back in the day. Just re-upped my sirius on-line and have been listening to the college channel. Needless to say it completely panders to the SEC and the rest getting lip-service when the SEC news is thoroughly spent.


I asked them what was up with the "Champions" name for their bowl, the answer was due to SEC dominance, the name was valid. I suggested the "oil" bowl.LOL  


These guys really do think it's the SEC vs the barren waste land. It's passed being just trash talk, they actually believe it......             

I don't understand the SEC schedule at all. Talk all you want about the merits of an 8 game conference schedule versus 9, or the importance of keeping rivals, but taking 12 years before every team comes to your stadium is rediculous. I can picture Alabama fans telling their kids about the time Florida came to town. What benefit comes from this? Or from making LSU play Florida every year while other western teams get Tenn or Kentucky? Is that rivalry so big it trumps possibly winning your division or conference due to an unbalanced load?

trucker, the whole SEC schedule thing goes back to what we talked about earlier with Slive's utter jealousy and envy of the B1G and the Scott run Pac-12. Our 2 conferences have been the innovators of college football. Remember all the other commisioners had to beg the Big 10 and Pac-12 to start the BCS. Now the 2 conferences have the most lucrative television contracts. He is so obsessed with becoming top dog he pulls a stunt like this.

A. it is pointless because you cannot schedule 12 years out because of unforseen circumstances. Such as how they had to rearrange their schedules when Hurricane Katrina hit, a OOC game falls through and they don't want to schedule another FCS school.

B. If this plus one happens, it will only be a contract for what, a few years. If they implement a 4 team playoff and it is monetarily successful then they have opened pandora's box and it will eventual expand to 8 and possibly to 16. At minimum if an 8 team playoff happens schedules will have to be adjusted because all of the commisioners have acknowledged they do not want to run into the NFL's territory of playoffs, which an 8 team playoff would if the first games were on January 1st.

C. Expansion. If these superconferences are going to go down how is this schedule going to work with 2 more teams in it? Who says he is going to stop at 16 if the ACC and Big East collapse as AQ football conferences. It seems he is trying to align himself with the Big 12 but I can't imagine him just saying hey, we are at 16 so we will let the B1G and Big 12 snag up the rest of the schools such as UNC, Duke, Miami.

Point is, college football is changing at a record pace right now, so to try to set something in stone when we are right on the cusp of rapid change makes zero sense besides trying to get people to say, "we should copy what the SEC does" instead of him following the lead of other conferences, coming up with ideas then having them shot down. Sometimes in the desperation for power people make moves that will cause much more headache down the road.

Wazz,

Oregon does not have a gimmick offense.  They have an effective offense.  In time, and perhaps with your new coach, you will learn that the objective of the offense is to advance the football.

Gimmick-In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use.

While Oregons offense is unique (although less and less so each season as more teams go to a similar style) and it does stand out, I woulndt say any part of it is of little relevance or use.

lets not for get that the forward pass was once a gimmick in football
the bunt was once a gimmick in baseball
the alley oop was once a gimmick in basketball.
the Fosbury flop was once a gimmick in the highjump.

Yeah so going back a couple pages to the who will be the bottom of the divisions and I said Oregon State and colorado, I got the Lindy's preview magazine this week and they said the same thing. Just sayin.

Just saw an blog where an early commit to Auburn is suddenly a hot item, Trey Johnson. Currently, USC, ND and Penn State are scrambling to get this kid to de-commit to Auburn.


This one makes me squirm a bit. Trying to flip kids who have committed is like getting someone to break a promise. a poor example, IMO.


Should there be a rule by the NCAA that once someone commits verbally, he can't be approached by any other schools? If he changes his mind, that 's OK, otherwise hands off. Apparently, some of these students commit early just to avoid the recruiting process. Now that verbal is ignored.


It's "shark-like" to say the least and I wouldn't be the least bit upset to see it gone.


Thoughts?           

I agree. I think that trying to "flip" a kid is wrong. Once he commits, let him be. If he decides to de-commit or ends up not academically eligible or something, then by all means recruit away. But once he commits, respect his decision. Just make one final call to let him know you're still interested if he has a change of heart and then leave him alone.

As you said, some of these kids commit early because they don't want to go through all of that.

TF12, as usual, you've stated it better than I could. That looks like an easy and workable solution to "flipping kids.


This fight between the conference champ crowd and the top four polled crowd is starting to look like a Dem-Rep scrap. They'd better watch out.
Is it possible this doesn't get resolved ?


The Texas AD is gettin a bit cocky considering he was just looking at moving out of the conference. He may have the Big-12 jumping through hoops. Not gonna happen nation-wide......        

True or false, Oregon's offense was a gimmick when you stuck WR's at QB? I am not saying it is now because there are varieties of it. Just referring to Oregon recruiting 2 4 star recruits to a "gimmick" offense, just as Mike Leach's offense is a gimmick offense with his tackles lining up basically in the slot. Gimmick is not a bad thing. The alley oop was as stated, was the alley oop exciting and unstoppable when it first arrived in the ABA?

And the bunt was never a gimmick in baseball, it was an essential tool in the 1880's because scoring was rare due to the fact that people were not use to seeing something coming that fast with spin outside of bullet being shot at them during the Civil War...and not many people caught those bullets. Though the rebels might have and started a tradition of not having front teeth that lives on in the south in today's world haha

Not to mention there was no "foul" bunts. Any bunt in any direction was a legal play, players were so good at the "bunt hit" that it was decided to introduce the concept of "fair" and "foul" in a bunt.....

Harrington, Fife, Clemens, Dixon, Leaf, Roper, Masoli, Thomas which one was the WR??


The bunt was popularized as something of a tricky hit therefore a gimmick.  slap hitters in softball too were once thought of as gimmicky hits but now very normal part of the game.

The bunt was popularized as something of a tricky hit therefore a gimmick.  slap hitters in softball too were once thought of as gimmicky hits but now very normal part of the game.

Along those lines the Screen Pass was a gimmicky play in its day.  How many people especially White people thought the Alley Oop in BBall was gimmicky 

I STILL think laptops are gimmicks.....

Forget the screen pass, the forward pass was a gimmick at first too

A quiet few days on the Pac-12 front. Still content with no news is good news. Another weekend is upon us...7 days closer....


I'm officially supporting the LA Kings in their push for Lord Stanley's cup. It would be their first...


Is it a safe bet we have the most effective commissioner in CFB?


Still beating the bushes for a Bruins fan, Buffalo input and more than YamD to rep Arizona....


Go cut the grass and barbeque a steak or two this weekend.


To those easterners who call us tree huggers, lest you forget...we have the trees....this where the tree cutters hang out too.....               

  

Yeah trucker but Im all focused on Track, Softball and Baseball and reading my college football magazines

Who plans to purchase the Pac-12 network coverage? Is there anything about price, number of games, etc?


I definitely want the football coverage, but I'm less enthusiastic about having to buy it all. Is that the likely scenario? If it's a monthly fee, i suppose it wouldn't be a huge price to purchase for the 4 months og the regular football season....  

nw...the only concern would be price. If it's reasonable I'm in for sure. I think there are going to be some really wild games and a number of teams showing improvement over last year.

Yeah, I'm with Yam. Reasonably priced and I'm in too.

The thing that interests me the most is that there will be a bunch of teams stacked behind the top tier and they will have a great deal to say about who wins it.

Depends on how they package it.  I live in Olympia Washington and somehow get the Big 10 network with Comcast or Xfinity or whatever they call it

Who plans to purchase the Pac-12 network coverage? Is there anything about price, number of games, etc?

The PAC 12 Network will show 35 PAC 12 football games this year. They actually have first pick of games for two weeks, and second pick 5 weeks, so there will be some good match-ups on the network. If you live in the PAC 12 area, and have cable service through Comcast, Cox, Time Warner or Bright House Cable, you will receive the regional PAC 12 Network channel on basic cable. If you want the National PAC 12 channel, or live out of the PAC 12 area, you have to buy a sports package to get the national channel. There still isn't a contract signed with Direct TV or Dish yet, nor with FIOS or AT&T U-Verse. Usually these things go down to the wire.

I already have the sports package, so I'll get both the regional and national channels. The sports tier on Time-Warner is $5 per month when purchased a la carte. I don't know about the other cable companies and what they charge. Direct TV charges about $15 per month for their sports package. I am guessing they will have the network, because they pretty much have every sports channel. I don't think Dish will.

4SoCalFan, cool. thanks for the info. i'm stuck with Direct TV. I'll probably go with the single channel if it's availiable that way.

Sorry trucker I was talking to Obs about the Oregon Golf in the final 4. which was in response to Oregon Baseball in regionals, softball in the womens college world series and track women going in as a favorite after winning indoor national and mens being highly ranked. 

Good Afternoon 12 PAC, here in B1G country the BTN comes with cables basic cost, not sure about sattelites. Hope your weekends are going well. Also some of the football and basketball replays they use as filler are pretty cool. I had the same concerns as you last year, now I wouldn't want to give it up'

wmich, thanks for the imput. That helps. Basic cable would be cool. I'm betting that won't last long for either of us. sooner or later, we're gonna have to cough up for it....

I have directv and get the BTN, I would think that the PAC-12 network would be part of whatever package I'm paying for that allows me to get BTN.

The guy Oregon had playing QB that started the whole gimmick era, Dennis Dixon, you know, the guy that had no arm and rely on the alley oop and screen pass for a completion?

Unless you are saying that baseball was a gimmick it makes zero sense since bunting was the most effective way of getting a hit. Now saying an over the fence homerun was a gimmick then yes, I will agree because only 3 teams had fences in 1890's, so getting players that can hit it over the fence was a gimmick, much like getting quarterbacks who can run fast but can't play in the NFL...much like Oregon.