The Pac-12 Thread....

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?

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 

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

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.


 So they could change who schedules the games instead of the schools themselves. right? that could change. I think and it's a step closer on getting teams to have a tougher schedule. Let the NCAA do the scheduling. Or is this stuff I'm smoking to strong. 
 

utah ute's, hmm. On the surface of it, it seems not a bad idea at all. The downside? Would you like an organization like the NCAA running your school's scheduling? With their track record, I'd be a bit nervous..

Now throw in the needs of each school's financial distribution. Title nine, etc. Definitely not what the NCAA would have as a priority.  Utah schedules as best they can for their circumstances, as the other schools do. None of which are the same.

Dare I say the BCS is better equipped? They can at least, modify the scheduling via poll.

Bottem line there isn't more top schools with 2-3 OOC games to book with or without NCAA intervention, I 'd guess.

I like an older idea where the OOC games rotate conference-wise every year with the top finishers play the top of the other conference, so on, down the line. This would give even the weaker conferences a crack at the big guys in their turn and pretty well assure no conference would dominate the top slots, playoffs or not, year after year.

It could actually cancel a lot of playff arguments by itself....

utah ute's, hmm. On the surface of it, it seems not a bad idea at all. The downside? Would you like an organization like the NCAA running your school's scheduling? With their track record, I'd be a bit nervous..

I havent seen what the NCAA has done to other sports to make a judgment against what they have done. Maybe you have, I just want to take some control away from the coaches, and AD's.


Now throw in the needs of each school's financial distribution. Title nine, etc. Definitely not what the NCAA would have as a priority.  Utah schedules as best they can for their circumstances, as the other schools do. None of which are the same.

I didn't think this would affect the money distribution for the schools. I mean if your going to bring another tougher school in to play you. PAY EM. plane and simple.  Am i understanding you right here? 

Dare I say the BCS is better equipped? They can at least, modify the scheduling via poll. 

 I hate this idea. The BCS can't have any part of this in my eyes. And no polls can be involved until the end of regular season. 


Bottem line there isn't more top schools with 2-3 OOC games to book with or without NCAA intervention, I 'd guess.

I like an older idea where the OOC games rotate conference-wise every year with the top finishers play the top of the other conference, so on, down the line. This would give even the weaker conferences a crack at the big guys in their turn and pretty well assure no conference would dominate the top slots, playoffs or not, year after year.

So the winner of the winner of the PAC12 South plays the winner of the SEC East. the following year. I like that alot.                           

It could actually cancel a lot of playff arguments by itself....

 I hate this idea. The BCS can't have any part of this in my eyes. And no polls can be involved until the end of regular season.

The BCS idea itself isn't the problem. The BCS is actually a great idea and is going to be the future of college football. The problem lies with the formula used for the BCS and the snails pace at which we can make changes.

Seems like they just threw out a formula and said "lets see how this works". They then wait for the formula to royally screw up and they make miniscule changes. Screws up again, they repeat. What we need is a formula that is absolutely picked apart every single year to find problems. It shouldn't be changed every year, that wouldn't be good. But it needs to be reexamined every season to see if changes are necessary.

I like an older idea where the OOC games rotate conference-wise every year with the top finishers play the top of the other conference, so on, down the line. This would give even the weaker conferences a crack at the big guys in their turn and pretty well assure no conference would dominate the top slots, playoffs or not, year after year.

Awesome idea. Only downfall is that is if it wants to work the way it sounds like it's intended, all conferences would need to be the same size. At least it seems that way with my myopic 3 minute analysis of what I read, haha. Feel free to set me straight.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

I'm just a CFB fan, I don't know squat. lol.

If the conferences aren't even in size, I didn't think about that, off the top, I'd say let the bottem feeders of the larger conferences play who they want with their OOC games. If they don't like it, get better....

There's a balance point between "proving" yourself and  a" free ride". Where that lies, is the toughie.

I lean in the direction of the big boys, who have paid their dues over the decades. I am willing to cede that I'm in the minority on this one. 

My biggest concern is once the playoff door is opened, even the useless "crack" of 4 teams/plus one, it won't be closed again and eventually what we have is harmed beyond repair. 

If I had my druthers, I'd cancel the NCG and BCS, go back to pure bowl system and perhaps introduce one more bowl after the others are done.

Call it The Challenge Bowl.  Rotating locations where two schools who want to face off with each other can have at it.  Make it restricted to bowl winners, perhaps. Nothing to do with "polls". Just top schools with a show-down at OK Corrall that have a mind to. Nothing mandatory. No trophy, just braggin rights. 

I know, I'm just an old geezer....  

If I had my druthers, I'd cancel the NCG and BCS, go back to pure bowl system and perhaps introduce one more bowl after the others are done.

Call it The Challenge Bowl.  Rotating locations where two schools who want to face off with each other can have at it.  Make it restricted to bowl winners, perhaps. Nothing to do with "polls". Just top schools with a show-down at OK Corrall that have a mind to. Nothing mandatory. No trophy, just braggin rights.

That's the first time I heard something along those lines and it seems interesting. It's almost like "funsies" with nothing on the line other than pride and passion for the game. 
I'd go! 

If I had my druthers, I'd cancel the NCG and BCS, go back to pure bowl system and perhaps introduce one more bowl after the others are done.

Call it The Challenge Bowl.  Rotating locations where two schools who want to face off with each other can have at it.  Make it restricted to bowl winners, perhaps. Nothing to do with "polls". Just top schools with a show-down at OK Corrall that have a mind to. Nothing mandatory. No trophy, just braggin rights.

I'd go in a heartbeat.