July 27, 2007
Pac10: We will not support a BCS playoff
Pac10 Commissioner Tom Hansen has an answer for his BCS colleagues supporting a "plus-one" playoff: never.
According to The Sporting News, the Pac10 will leave the BCS if a playoff or plus-one format is instituted.
"Our presidents have no interest whatsoever in a plus-one model -- none," Hansen says. "It's a little annoying that my colleagues continue to float this idea as though it has merit. If they continue to push it, and try to push us into a corner ... "Will the Pac-10 walk away from the BCS?
"Yes, no question."
....
"What's the difference between what we use now and the plus-one? Nothing," Hansen says. "You're still relying on (the BCS points system) to determine who plays in the game after all the other bowls. What if three teams are close to each other after all the bowl games? Which two play in the (plus-one) game?"
Hansen went on to say that "many" in the Pac10 and the Rose Bowl committee want to do away with the BCS completely and return the game to the traditional Big10-Pac10 matchup... BCS be damned.
It's yet to be seen where the Big10 would bed down if forced to choose between the Rose and a thorny BCS, but it's pretty clear that the Pac10 intends to take it's ball and go elsewhere if the BCS insists on a playoff format.
Comments:
Jon said:
posted on July 27, 2007 5:29 PM — 68.84.19.20 — link — abuse?
Plus one isn't "the solution" but it is better than the current system.
If Pac10 is against the plus one, I can see why.
If Pac10 is against a playoff system..well...
So long... I wish you well.. And the door will be open when you find out financial losses and competitive irrelevancy outweigh the shortsighted administration of the Irrelevant-10.
/Gatorhippy is right and has been right for the past years on the topic.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on July 27, 2007 5:51 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
So I have a question... IF the Pac-10 leaves the BCS, and one of their teams (USC) goes undefeated, what will happen? Will the team still play for the NC? Can they still play in the Rose Bowl since that's a BCS game? What's the ramifications of this decision?
BlueGold95 said:
posted on July 27, 2007 6:41 PM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
It sounds to me like both the Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl would leave the BCS, so a better question (Seminole_Nation) might be who the Pac-10 team's opponent would be.
I've always respected the Pac-10 for having each of its teams play all of the others in a season, and I think that they're taking a principled stand here, too. I personally favor a playoff, and another iteration of bowl alliances would not be a playoff.
Zac said:
posted on July 27, 2007 7:51 PM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
"Pac10 Commissioner Tom Hansen has an answer…" The real truth here is, Tom Hansen has no imagination. "It's a little annoying that my colleagues continue to float this idea as though it has merit." Why is it this idea has no merit, Mr. Hansen, because you said so? Who wants to bet Mr. Hansen wouldn't have found it so annoying had a 4 game play-off or +1 system been in place last year, where USC might have been back in it?
College football is changing and evolving day by day, let alone year by year. I certainly agree; change for change sake lacks wisdom. But, saying an idea has no merit, and is a little annoyed with his colleagues (Notice colleagues is plural. Are you in the minority, Mr. Hansen, but in the driver's seat to nix this, none the less?) because they're willing to consider something people have been debating over for years, also lacks wisdom. My opinion, your colleagues may well get annoyed with you Mr. Hansen and send you packing, if you don't learn to evolve with the game. That doesn't mean there will or should be a play-off system. It only means you should find a way to be more open minded. Just a thought.
BlueGold95 said:
posted on July 27, 2007 8:57 PM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
Pete #8 -- Huh? Say what? How on earth do you figure a playoff would be a bad thing for the Pac-10? USC tends to win the conference every year lately and, with the exception of an exciting loss to Texas, they've done extremely well against the rest of the country. Ask ND. Or Michigan. Or the SEC (Auburn and Arkansas). Or Nebraska or VA Tech. So the Trojans would likely represent the Pac-10 in a playoff, and do just fine. I think you could be right that the Pac-10 is not as strong, top to bottom, as other conferences, but a playoff would not "blow their cover."
Zac, I'm not sure that "imagination" is what's needed here. Imagination, maybe in the Madison Avenue sense, is what brought us the Bowl Alliance and all of its constant tweaking. I'm with the Pac-10 commish on this one, and I hope that he holds out for something better than annual tweaks. Namely, a playoff a la CUTotalTiger's suggestion.
hrposon said:
posted on July 27, 2007 9:54 PM — 98.197.149.114 — link — abuse?
Mr. Hansen just confirmed what we always knew, it's all about their lock on the Rose Bowl. They know that when USC is either on probation or playing for the National Championship, maybe one of the mediocre 10 can play in the Granddaddy of them all. Otherwise it's the Poulan Weedeater Bowl.
posted on July 27, 2007 10:06 PM — 70.149.165.209 — link — abuse?TigerEducated said:
Sounds like he's basically laying down the gauntlet...But, it also sounds like the emperor has no clothes...
He's begging to get called out on this...He wants to go Deer Hunter on us, then somebody pry it out of ole' Chrissie Walken's hand and toss it to him...
Huskerpedia said:
posted on July 27, 2007 10:39 PM — 76.192.5.108 — link — abuse?
Bunch of babies.. New times call for new systems... I haven't been a college football fan for that long, but the idea of a playoff makes it interesting.
Zac said:
posted on July 27, 2007 11:29 PM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
BlueGold95, I could agree with you, if I thought the man was truly interested in the possibilities; if he would consider alternatives, ways it can be done, instead of vehemently declaring it can't be done, and he'll have no part of it. He doesn't present to me an individual biding his time for something better to come along; more like someone coasting to retirement. If he's so narrow minded ("Stupid" was a tempting word.) to walk away, if he doesn't get his way, then, I completely agree with Jon, Post 2. See ya later, Tommy; don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
hrposon said:
posted on July 28, 2007 1:40 AM — 98.197.149.114 — link — abuse?
What really frosts Mr. Hansen's tail is that Texas since 2005 has more Rose Bowl wins than Washington State, Oregon, Arizona and Arizona State ever. More wins than Oregon State in 65 years, UCLA in 23 years, Stanford in 35 years and Washington in 15 years. I hope the door doesn't hit him in the ass...
ksuwild said:
posted on July 28, 2007 2:54 AM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
Tom Hansen(Pac 10)& Jim Delany(Big 10)both astound me with there stance against a playoff.
"It's a little annoying that my colleagues continue to float this idea as though it has merit."
Keep smoking that crack pipe Tom, or taking that money under the table.......or taking those crazy pills. Whatever is your fix.
People have been debating about a playoff in college football for years. Hmm.....I wonder why? Maybe because THEY WORK in EVERY sport on EVERY level? Maybe because almost EVERY year there is at least one, if not multiple, legitimate beefs about who is allowed to play for the National Championship?
Tom, Jim, SNAP OUT OF IT!
Not every year is going to go down like it did in 2005. History has taught us(for those of us who are willing to learn from it)that 2005 was the anomoly, NOT the other way around. It's the 750 pound gorilla in the room that Tom Hansen and Jim Delany are ignoring while they have their lunch and laugh about how much money they're making with things the way they are. The gorilla is about to eat you fellas --Pac 10 first-- if they don't bail on this guy.
They kind of remind me of parents who use the "because I told you so" reason for telling their kids to do something. They don't have a good answer when questioned so they get mad and give a cop out "I'm in charge & this is the way it is" kind of answer. SMOKE & MIRRORS with some anger & ignorance is about what you get with these two. Until one of them present some form of an intelligent argument behind their stance against a playoff they need to shove a cork in it, calm down, and go have a good old fashioned Reality Check with the facts. Tom Hansen(& his ignorant & stubborn stance)is jeprodizing his future, as well as the PAC 10's. I personally would like the PAC 10 to be a part of a playoff, and whatever the BCS evolves into, but if their STUPID enough to stand behind this guy then........PEACE OUT, nice to know ya......and don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out.
CommonManCommonSense said:
posted on July 28, 2007 4:00 AM — 68.104.43.164 — link — abuse?
Who the hell does Commissioner Hanson think he is? College football fans have become as big of patsies as anyone buying gas for $3.50 a gallon. It seems like we are willing to let a bunch of over paid executives take away our game without any consideration of who pays thier salaries. The SOB Hanson gets paid for exploiting a bunch of teenage kids, half of whom sustain life altering injuries. He and the (Trojan) horse he rode in on can go straight to hell.
Why aren't college sports about the athletes and the fans anymore? Why aren't the athletes standing up and saying enough is enough. If a playoff system is implemented and the Pac-10 chooses out, I can promise the athletes will speak by attending school that choose to participate in the playoff. Maybe the other schools ought to jump on this chance to rid themselves of the arrogant and pompous Pac-10 and the wine sipping, hair gel applying west coast programs!!
TheTruth said:
posted on July 28, 2007 9:38 AM — 76.20.231.166 — link — abuse?
My question is, how much is USC paying or how much is USC allowing agents to pay the players so that they will stay at USC. Pete Carrol was being interviewed the other day and mentioned that they have 9 running backs, this makes me question why would all of these players stay without play time? Thus brings up the question? How much are the players or their relatives reciving?
The NCAA seems to promote a double standard, sanctioning some programs while remaining silent about others for violations? I don't care either way if the NCAA allows players to get money or not, however to provide a means for one school to break rules and look the other way and then to crack down on schools for the same or similar violations takes away the legimiacy of the NCAA.
This raises the question, is the NCAA on the take?
If they have rules they should be enforced, or eliminate the rule and ensure that bias and or subjectivness taken out of the NCAA. This will provide a better long term solution to the appearance of double standards via the NCAA.
TrojanHorse said:
posted on July 28, 2007 9:41 AM — 75.75.82.146 — link — abuse?
Right or Wrong,
If the P10 and B10 don't play the game, thats 21 (or will it be 22) teams that are not going to be included in the playoff qualifying universe, the rest of the NCAA or BCS can have a full fledged playoff system in CFB and it still will be a MNC.I was reading on the USC sites that it is not just Tom Hansen either.. Delaney is as big a part of this ans TH. Hansen just has a bigger mouth.
I personally would like a full fledged four team playoff where four teams are seeded 1-4 and play it out.. however anything less than that, I'd rather go back to the old system pre BCS, pre Bowl Coalition or Bowl Alliance..
I guess non P10 and non B10 fans don't realize how fun the RB is with the winners of these two conferences playing each other.. sure the other games are fun and I enjoy them and make the most of them.. and yes I'd rather have gone to Phx for the BCS title game last year but once I was at the RB.. it was still incredible as it was tradition at its finest with USC vs UM
BlueGold95 said:
posted on July 28, 2007 11:17 AM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
Zac #14, I went and read the source Sporting News piece, and its author opens by describing Hansen as someone "who supports bowl games and opposes a playoff system." From what Kevin had posted on this site, I didn't realize that Hansen opposes playoffs in general. Based on that, I think you're right that he's not trying to force a real playoff. I misunderstood, and I'm disappointed.
I'm still not convinced that a plus-one makes things any better than what we have now. One of my biggest issues with the way the system has evolved is the loss of January 1's status. It used to be that fans could bank on a good game at any time slot, but now if the game isn't worth watching (not that my team would let *that* happen) there are fewer or no alternatives. So I say either get a real playoff system or return to the old bowl set up. If you want to do the old setup with a plus-one a week later, I'd be fine with that.
posted on July 28, 2007 12:36 PM — 152.163.100.136 — link — abuse?
Somebody call this guy's bluff and soon. What is he, a shill for the Rose Bowl? That's what he's trying to protect, not the interests of the Pac-10. Without a tie-in with the BCS, the Rose Bowl wouldn't have jack-crap for meaningful games. They sealed their fate years ago with the mandatory Pac-10, Big-10 lineup. USC was dormant for two decades, and Michigan only raised it's head once during the 1990s. For twenty plus years the Rose Bowl was relegated to second tier status.
Go ahead, Pac-10, and the Rose Bowl. Pull out of the BCS and learn the true meaning of oblivion!
M GO BLUE said:
posted on July 28, 2007 3:18 PM — 216.46.209.108 — link — abuse?
hrposon, So Texas (Vince Young) won a couple Rosebowls........So try it without Vince......You see without Vince Texas could'nt touch Ohio State.......try USC again......this time there would be no Vince Young to take the whole team on his shoulders.
M GO BLUE said:
posted on July 28, 2007 3:21 PM — 216.46.209.108 — link — abuse?
Who would USC play in the Rosebowl ???????
Well duh ........Michigan or Ohio State or Penn State or Wisconsin or Iowa or Michigan state or minnesota or indiana or Purdue or illinois or northwestern.Who cares about the BCS championship ??????
BRING ON THE ROSEBOWL !!!
Trojanjoe said:
posted on July 28, 2007 3:51 PM — 72.234.11.82 — link — abuse?
I bleed Trojan red. I think Hansen is arrogant in that that he acts as if his is the final word, end of discussion. So if the Pac 10 wants to leave the BSC, rather than play in a playoff, let them. See how quickly they become irrelevant in football, and as time goes on, in other sports and acadedamia as well. Then they can strive to become the ivy league of the west coast and field competitive teams in major sports like synchronized swimming, lawn bowling, and curling.
Dman said:
posted on July 28, 2007 5:34 PM — 68.224.30.32 — link — abuse?
Who cares about the BCS. It's all for you wussy boys whose self esteem has been relegated to proving your team and conf is the best. Shut up and take your meds. I couldn't care less about the SEC or any other conf. I'm just glad I don't have to live in those lousy SEC states. Who wants to say you're from Mississippi,Kentucky or Arkansas. Even the others w/ the possible exception of Florida suck. As for the Rose bowl. What a nit wit. Natl champ game or two good teams, this bowl has been the financial and rating king in college football for the last 50 years with no equal. There is not one other bowl game that brings the money in and the t.v. rating and that includes years when the game is only for pride like last years USC/MICH game. The Rose Bowl has never been nor will it ever be irrelavent, BCS or no BCS. I say keep the Auburn's and Arkansas's out of the Rose Bowl, I don't ever want to see the crap out here. Out all you babies.....
cardman steve said:
posted on July 28, 2007 6:13 PM — 74.131.212.190 — link — abuse?
to be honest,i am glad people are revolting on this ideal. let everyone in d1 football be bcs or something and have it. the pudits and lousy voters of the top 25 will mess it up anyway. someone will or sveral teams will get hosed and that,s the bottom line.
hrposon said:
posted on July 28, 2007 6:16 PM — 98.197.149.114 — link — abuse?
M GO BLUE @ 25 - Texas is planning on going back and winning the National Championship game without Vince Young. They did it before and they'll do it again. VY was a one in a billion player and still couldn't win the Heisman. I still wonder how that happened...
BlueGold95 said:
posted on July 28, 2007 6:41 PM — 24.7.238.54 — link — abuse?
((Pete #24, please clarify -- why would it be bad for the rest of the PacTen?))
I have to agree with those saying that the Big Ten, Pac Ten, and Rose Bowl could stand on their own. The non-BCS bowls would still be happy to have teams from those conferences, and the Midwest and West Coast would still watch The Granddaddy of Them All, so I don't see much, if any, revenue lost.
Even a "down" season that ended up with Arizona and Purdue playing in the game (instead of the traditional powers) would presumably feature two good teams with interesting story lines and rabid fans. Traditions, not marketing revenue, are what make college football great.
Regan said:
posted on July 28, 2007 9:03 PM — 75.176.145.199 — link — abuse?
A Plus-One System based on contingent of need at the end of every regular season; tradition intact, Bowls intact, no more whining.
As far as the Pac-10 goes, this looks like a protection clause for the Rose Bowl. The day that the Rose Bowl is seen as a semi-final elimination game, the majesty of the Bowl is really lost.
I could care less for the Big Ten and Pac-10, but I am all for them keeping the Rose Bowl special.
So, I'll be the lone idiot that says kudos to the Pac-10 on this one. I just hope they are playing hardball and are willing to make some compromises when all is said and done.
IP-AFK
Tomcat said:
posted on July 29, 2007 1:43 PM — 70.243.66.148 — link — abuse?
#30 Dman Are you the one taking meds? Take your head out of your A-- and look around.
The Big10/11 vs Pac 10 in the R/B is what yall want because yall are scared of the XII and SEC
#25 M GO BLUE You are obviuosly totally ignorant about the fact that football is a team sport and without outstanding O-Line, receivers, running backs and defense that no team could go on 13-0 and score 652 points in a single season.
Main Topic Pac-10 against playoffs ETC
read post #75 on the Big Ten expansion thread
Its to the Pac-10 and Big 10/11 advantage to keep things as they are and we can all listen to Loyd Carr wine
Hookem-Horns 2-0 in Rose Bowls
Mc Duck said:
posted on July 29, 2007 1:48 PM — 63.230.172.173 — link — abuse?
I don't see why Hansen has his underwear in a bundle about protecting the integrity of the Rose Bowl, when it has already been compromised. Traditionally the Rose Bowl has been played between Pac 10 and Big 10 teams since 1947. In 2002 the "Granddaddy of them All" hosted the BCS Championship game. (Miami beat Nebraska 37-14). The Rose Bowl will continue to host the BCS Championship on a rotating basis with the other major Bowl games. So, on the basis of this, I have a difficult time with Hansen's current stance in opposition to a BCS playoff system. Hansen claims to be speaking on behalf of the presidents of the Pac 10...well, Hansen is not the pope of the Pac 10, and he certainly is not speaking exCathedra in this regard. I think a playoff in Division 1 Football is an idea that is way over due! Get 'er done!
TrojanHorse said:
posted on July 29, 2007 4:56 PM — 75.75.82.146 — link — abuse?
not saying one way or another but you dont' know that Hansen indeed is not speaking for the P10.. he may be just conveying the message of the P10 presidents.. I don't know but its not that far out of this world that he could just be the messanger
Dman said:
posted on July 29, 2007 5:40 PM — 68.224.30.32 — link — abuse?
Tomcat : Yes, you're right. That's it, you fiqured it out. The PAC is afraid of the the SEC,
BIG XII. You've proved it. You are a rocket scientist. My bad !. Dip sh%t, let me point out the facts. College sports are what they are simply because of the PAC-10. The first National T.V. game was between USC/N.D.. The first nationally televised basketball game was the UCLA/HOUSTON game. These two events had more to to with the growth and popularity of both sports and the networks willingness to televise college sports. The foundation and money you see today all started with two teams from the PAC-10. The College World Series and the success of the PAC-10 in Omaha (25 tiltles for PAC-10 teams) have had more to do with the growth at Omaha and the huge television contract than any other conf. Minor sports from Tennis, Golf, Volleyball, and Water Polo all have thier roots in the PAC-10 conferences willingness to support these sports. And let's not forget Women's sports. Virtually every Women's sports in the country and the success of these sports all have thier roots out of the PAC-10. The SEC has come a long way the last 10-15 years with Women's sports but it all rides on the coattails of the PAC's support of Women's athletics the last 40 years. Remember the top three programs with the most team tiltes in NCAA history come from The PAC-10 (1.UCLA, 2.STANFORD, 3.USC). The PAC-10 is, has been and will always be the greatest Athletics conference in the country. When you except things, life gets easier for you and your meds will no longer be required though if you live in one of the Southern States that may not be such a good idea to get off them.Mc Duck said:
posted on July 29, 2007 6:57 PM — 63.230.172.173 — link — abuse?
TrojanHorse (#40) I like your idea (if I understand you correctly) of a 4 team playoff...but would an 8 or even (good grief) 16 team playoff be out of the question? And (just curious) how many National Championships based upon the current BCS system have you been in agreement with? All, most, some, none? Just asking questions. Also, if the Pac 10 would walk away from the BCS, the question is, who would we play in the Rose Bowl? Like Kevin is asking, would the Big 10 want to play us if the Rose Bowl were no longer a possible BCS Championship game?
c-dogg said:
posted on July 29, 2007 6:57 PM — 76.188.187.168 — link — abuse?
Dman is obviously new around here. You shouldn't introduce yourself to fanblogs my talking too much smack. It will come back to haunt you. Take it easy for a couple of weeks then rip em' off. Although we rip each other from time to time, we still have respect for each other's teams. Well...except for Notre Dame. But my point is....chill out and ease into it.
NDAFArly said:
posted on July 29, 2007 8:34 PM — 74.132.156.159 — link — abuse?
C-Dogg, the mere fact htat you mention ND shows that no matter what you have to talk about Notre Dame. Are you aware of Frued's theorys about this? Deep down inside you must wish you were a ND fan, because you always discuss them. Seriously, give it a rest. We all know you hate ND, so put down the hot pocket, get off your mom's computer, and go live a little.
Dman said:
posted on July 29, 2007 9:31 PM — 68.224.30.32 — link — abuse?
Nothing or not new Dogg, been around awhile. The SEC has been preaching the same B.S. for years. It's about time people push back other than than the USC folks. The lack of respect shown to the PAC is incredible, especialy for a conference that has had the unbelievable success that the PAC has had. Pointing out the facts and dising the B.S. doensn't haunt anyone. But thanx anyway for the post.
MrGamecockFan said:
posted on July 29, 2007 10:58 PM — 63.167.255.202 — link — abuse?
Dman...I see that you are an SEC hater, but you desperately need to get your facts straight. We're talking about football here, not track or women's volleyball, or even water polo...FOOTBALL! The SEC has proved time and again that we are one of the best out there. And, before you even talk about the beating USC layed on Arkansas, let me just remind you that early season games are no measure of how good a team is. It matters most how they do down the stretch. Just because the SEC and the other conferences out there are willing to give a shot to two other teams essentially in a four team playoff does not make them weaker conferences. It shows a lack of vision from the Pac 10 and the Big 10. I say let them ride their own coattails right out of the BCS, and when that BCS money disappears, and the recruits begin looking elsewhere because they want to play for a true national champioship, then don't say I didn't warn you. You can even keep your silly Rose Bowl, and play it every year if you like, and continue to claim how great your teams are. Just don't let door hit you in the ass on the way out.
utfanatic said:
posted on July 30, 2007 8:13 AM — 63.240.122.81 — link — abuse?
I can not completely comprehend why anyone would not want to go to a new playoff system, rather than the old BCS system. If BCS were to pick your favorite team, and then put them into bowl game that would face them against a team that you know is not that challenging, would you buy a ticket to go watch them? Take a look at the attendance stats, and look a which games sell out, the big games that really come down to the wire, or the ones that you know will be a complete blow out. My point is, Tournament Bracketing the NCAA football will increase the attendance to the bowl games, and therefore produce more money to the NCAA, and the Sponsers of these bowl games. Would you ever predict that the Liberty bowl, or the Music City bowl would ever host a team with such powerhouse ablity as USC, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, or Florida. These teams would be great to sell out every one of the Bowl games. Take the freaking top 16 teams, and produce a playoff system, that would make everyone happy, and if the 17th rank team complains, give him a bucket to cry in, and tell him there is always next year. It seams that these set into tradition old fogees are afraid of a little change.
gatorstud said:
posted on July 30, 2007 8:16 AM — 69.95.111.248 — link — abuse?
so let us all stand up and thank d-man for ponting out that all college sports were created by the pac-10....and that the world would not turn if not for the pac-10 and blah...blah....blah....and it seems to me that most of the teams in the pac-10 have been riding usc and ucla's coat tails for decades......so please save your pac-10 is the best story for the barber shop and talk about days gone by.....
what a putz.....havn't you learned anything from these posts....it's all about "what r u doing now"....even you said it "the sec has come a long way in the last 10 to 15 years"....so what exactly are you bitchin about.....and why don't you put your favorite team up here so we can dogg on it....or are you just a pac-10 lover.....it really doesn't matter......you crappy rant pretty much sums you up......livin in the past......oh and by the way
"IT'S GREAT TO BE A FLORIDA GATOR"
go gators.....and hokies
Tomcat said:
posted on July 30, 2007 9:36 AM — 70.243.66.148 — link — abuse?
#39 McDuck good post man, we know that Dman is not representive of all Pac-10 fans
#47 Mr.GamecockFan Good post
#48 utfanatic Yes you've got
#41 Dman
1. College football-not bball
2. You are obviuosly prejudice against others perhaps out of some preconceived notion that your conference is in deed inferior, so you feel compeled to some how defend the fact through totally ignorant rants and raves including personal insults. Crawl back under your rock or come out and show your ass again.
The Pac-10 after dropping out of the BCS can host the Rose Bowl and religate its status to that of the toleit bowlHookem-Horns
NCAAfan said:
posted on July 30, 2007 10:02 AM — 209.62.211.220 — link — abuse?
This is a perfect opportunity for USC... Even though not being in favor of a playoff proves that USC doesn't have the marbles to back up their claim to greatness, they can still call themselves "National Champions" each year despite not playing in the BCS Championship game. They did it in '03, why not do it again? 1 Trophy = 1 Title
But really, USC has some of the best athletes and coaches in the game, why not take the opportunity to prove it by going head-to-head with the top teams in the country, winner take all?
FanoftheGame said:
posted on July 30, 2007 11:04 AM — 198.211.223.194 — link — abuse?
#19...The Truth
You might want to consider a name change to something that best suits your posts. I think "Conspiracy Theory" is more applicable.
I'm not a big USC fan, but as with most top programs, I admire what thay have accomplished. I can see that you, however, have a huge dislike for the Trojans and I have no problem with that, but your views seem to be based more on personal opinion rather than facts. You might want to do a little more research next time, and you might find that having 9 runningbacks is not that many at all. Based on some of the rosters I've seen, 9 RB's is on the low end of the spectrum. Just a few examples are: ND-9 RB's, Ohio State-8 RB's, Auburn-15 RB's, Florida-15 RB's, Michigan-12 RB's,
Texas A&M-12 RB's and Texas-12 RB's, just to name a few.Mind you, I'm not saying that there isn't some validity to your claims about USC. However, you can substitute USC with any other major school in the country and your comments would be no more or no less valid.
Continue to speak your mind, its what this blog is all about.
c-dogg said:
posted on July 30, 2007 11:11 AM — 76.188.187.195 — link — abuse?
NDAFArly(#44)
Haven't you had enough of me yet? :O)
Read some of my past posts throughout fanblogs. I'm very good at ripping people when provoked. I would love nothing more than to do it to you. I need the practice before I take my skills to the jim Rome show.
O.K. Mr.Cabbage truck driver?
9 years and counting....please win a bowl game this year.
c-dogg said:
posted on July 30, 2007 11:17 AM — 76.188.187.195 — link — abuse?
Dman (#46)
I agree about the SEC talk. It's played out and almost ruined fanblogs before Kev stepped in a few weeks ago and shut the site down for a couple of days.
I care about teams a lot more than conferences. The ones that usually brag about their conference do so because their favorite team hasn't won a national title in along time (if ever).
gatorhippy said:
posted on July 30, 2007 4:24 PM — 209.16.115.5 — link — abuse?
This is why the NCAA needs to nut up on the playoff issue and take control of a situation that is direly out of hand...
If the NCAA will take control of the D-1 offseason, institute some type of playoff, and award and recognize a Champion...
Then no conference would have a leg to stand on like they do with this "Made for TV" BCS crap...
IBleedOrange said:
posted on July 30, 2007 5:31 PM — 71.52.46.154 — link — abuse?
What an idiot.
Let's see how many top-notch recruiting classes the Pac-10 is pulling down when the kids don't get a chance to play for a NC anymore.
Of course they like playing at the Rose Bowl. It is in the home state of 3 of their teams and I'm sure they bring in a ton of money from it, but this guy needs to understand that a play-off system is the only way to have a clear-cut champ every year.
Let the teams settle it on the field! Why should the AP and the Coaches essentially "pick" the champ? Case in point. Why did LSU have to share its NC with USC because the AP decided they were #1, but unbeaten teams like Auburn a few years back and last year's Boise State team get no share of the NC? I don't know the stats here but I'd say that there are less AP votes coming from small rural areas like Auburn, AL and Boise, ID then there are in, say, Los Angles.
Anyways, Gatorhippy is right. The NCAA could take control of the situation and mandate a change, and every conference would fall in line regardless of whether they liked it or not, because none of them are stupid enough to alianate themselves from the rest of the CF world.
posted on July 30, 2007 6:12 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
Dman: What if you threw a party and nobody came? That would be the case if the Rose Bowl terminated their BCS relationship. You'd instantly resort back to the same old "pride and tradition" that you yearn so dearly for. See you at the parade.
The Rose Bowl has hosted three games this century that were de facto national championship games. And to whom do they owe the thanks? Why, the BCS, that's who. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of the BCS, but they've single-handedly brought back the credibility of the Rose Bowl. It's had in the last 6 years more games of national title significance than they've had in the previous 50 years.
Oh, don't bring up the fact that some national champions have played in the Rose Bowl the last 30 years. Michigan played there in 1997 and USC played there twice in the 1970s, all winning national titles. But don't even try to say that these were 'national championship' games, matching the top two teams in the country, as the BCS now attempts to do with it's rotating four bowls. Most of the opponents in these games were also-rans who had no hopes of a national title for that year. Ho-hum. The real opponents that these national champions should have been playing were relegated to playing in the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta bowls.
If you're such a fan of the Rose Bowl, you better thank God that the BCS threw open the doors and let more deserving teams play in your precious game. The TV people did, because since the BCS got involved with the Rose Bowl, TV ratings are the highest in 20 years. Come on back!
ksuwild said:
posted on July 30, 2007 9:11 PM — 170.35.224.63 — link — abuse?
"What's the difference between what we use now and the plus-one? Nothing," Hansen says. "You're still relying on (the BCS points system) to determine who plays in the game after all the other bowls. What if three teams are close to each other after all the bowl games? Which two play in the (plus-one) game?"
NOTHING would change???????????????
Let's break down this intelligent little quote from Tom Hansen. The BCS now picks a TOTAL of 2 teams to play for the National Championship. A plus one format playoff would take the TOP 4, with the winners playing eachother for the National Championship. I don't know about you guys but 4 is more than 2, I think I learned that in preschool.
What if 3 teams are close, who plays? I'll try to give Tom some credit and assume he's referring to a season that ended with 3 undefeated teams, otherwhise it's just a retarded statement.
1. HELLO, that is exactly what the problem is with the current system, it cannot "fairly" handle that scenario.
2. It's quite simple, with a plus one format the 3 undefeated teams(assuming they were top ranked)would be in, and the next highest ranked team(who more than likely only has one very close loss against a very good opponent(Florida to Auburn in 06')would get the 4th spot. It's not rocket science Tom.I can tell Tom Hansen and Jim Delaney didn't take 2 seconds to consider the plus one format. Come with a reasonable argument or keep your ignorant mouth shut.
Like War Eagle Atlanta said, watch how irrelevant the Pac 10 and the Rose Bowl will become without the BCS and any tie-ins to the National Championship. It wouldn't take long before they were begging to get back in.
Dman said:
posted on July 30, 2007 9:44 PM — 68.224.30.32 — link — abuse?
McCock, Not an SEC hater here, just tired of the same old drivel from SEC fans. The SEC is 10-9 against the PAC-10 the last decade with the majority of those games played on SEC turf so I hardly see how thier so dominant. And, since when did I say the SEC was a weaker conf. As for the facts, most don't like the BCS in any format so stating that the PAC-10 needs some vision-what !!
It's been the PAC-10 that's had the vision in athletics the last 3 decades, what are you talking about ?. I can tell you this much, an SEC team playing in an BCS sanctioned bowl game will get half the T.V. rating as a PAC-10/BIG-10 Rose Bowl game BCS or no BCS. So before you strut your economics degree out let me warn you of something.
The BCS isn't going to do a thing unless both the PAC-10 & BIG-10 agree to it. Who do you think the BCS wants to see, a game with South Carolina involved or a game with USC, UCLA, Michigan or Ohio St. Like it or not, the PAC-10 and BIG-10 are at the top of the food chain when it comes to financial clout so it may be you and the BCS who need to be careful and not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.Dman said:
posted on July 30, 2007 10:01 PM — 68.224.30.32 — link — abuse?
post 57 : FYI, the size of a state has nothing to do with how many AP votes that state has. It's the amount of publications in a particular state and, which are granted the vote. It works very much like the electorial college in our federal election and for the same reason.
Dman said:
posted on July 30, 2007 10:15 PM — 68.224.30.32 — link — abuse?
War Eagle, that post was just plain stupid. Don't tell me about a party or anything else. If there was a party no one came to it would be a game Auburn was involved in. That would be a nightmare for the BCS. The ROSE BOWL year in year out hammers the rating and notice we don't need an SEC team to be in it. The ROSE BOWL also has been the biggest payout, why ? rating brother. Where do you think all that money came from ? You didn't think it came from the networks being gracious did ya. The " ROSE " has been and will always be the top bowl game for many of us whether it's for a Natl Title or has an SEC team playing or not. And, frankly we don't care if you SEC folks watch or not, it hasn't effected the rating in the past. Watch your BCS bowl game, Tangerine Bowl or whatever, we really don't care.
goodolnuma5 said:
posted on July 30, 2007 11:00 PM — 65.24.221.145 — link — abuse?
Go independent, youre already as hated as ND
Tomcat said:
posted on July 31, 2007 1:18 AM — 70.243.66.148 — link — abuse?
WareagleATL I agree ,so tradition and history of past glorys or more important than the real deal.
These stubborn fools have been somewhat brainwashed as to the notion that they can do what they want to, regardless of what the rest of the country wants
1. a true champion
2. one played on the feild
3. not in the press
If the Pac-10 wants out great let C-USA in
The Keith Jacksons and Dan Fouts would still broadcast their bias during their coverage of the grandaddy of them all Bull-sh-t.P-10 vs B-10
Whatever, that would open up the Cotton Bowl to take over as the great game that it used to be, often determining the Nat. Champ.
Tex vs Bama, Tex vs LSU, Tex vs ND
notice how no pac-10 or b-10 teams were mentioned. Interesting Yall dont want to admit it but the two best Rose Bowls in the last 30 or 40 years featured the Texas Longhorns.They were both great games that went down to the final seconds.
A team that all the Pac-10 and Big 10 fans didnt want to see.They say because of tradition and that the Horns didnt belong.
Its kinda cool that the XII team beat the B-10 team and the Pac-10 team, so they want to keep the teams from XII or SEC out.
When its only Pac-10 vs Big 10 in the RB then one of them is going to win. Win What?
After the Pac is out of BCS and the C-USA is in this will help SMU, S Miss, Memphis, UTep, Houston, Tulsa and others compete on a bigger stage, and have a chance at a true Nat title,won on the playing feild. As opposed to somekind of title based upon some kind of traditional popularity contest religated by bias media influences.
Hookem-HornsTrojanHorse said:
posted on July 31, 2007 6:08 AM — 75.75.86.11 — link — abuse?
Do you guys think that if 21 of the current 65 or so BCS teams were not part of the BCS alignment that you could 1. still have a true national championship? just like the guy above stated, what if you threw a party an no one came, in this case if the B10 & P10 don't show, its not the same party. 2. Do you think you can replace those 21 teams with CUSA? if so, then tell me when I can pick my self up off the floor from laughing so hard
soonerfanatic said:
posted on July 31, 2007 6:52 AM — 64.136.49.227 — link — abuse?
I dont get the pac 10...(no offense to the pac 10 teams)... first the ou oregon officiating,...and not to mention no conference championship, and now their against playoffs? I think playoffs would be the best thing to happen to college football! No more BCS madness,no more arguing over who's the best team in the nation there would just be one true champion. (o.k there would still be arguing over who's the best),but the system wouldnt be near as sophisticated.They should at least try it out and even if they didn't like it they could allways change back.If they don't create a playoff system now, sooner or later every team will be able to play in a bowl,regardless of their record thanks to ALL of these new bowls. I MEAN C'MON THE MEINEKE CAR CARE BOWL.
Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on July 31, 2007 10:26 AM — 138.163.0.46 — link — abuse?
This man has some serious ego issues. Who is he to CFB? I seriously hope he does drop out of the race. Somewhere along the line he forgot the game of football is about competition, not money. Get his a__ outta here!
IBleedOrange said:
posted on July 31, 2007 10:39 AM — 71.52.46.154 — link — abuse?
#63 - TrojanHorse:
You're insinuating that if this one idiot actually had enough pull to remove the Pac-10 from the BCS, then the Big-10 would follow suit and leave too. Is that based on something? If you guys in the Pac-10 are so concerned about the Rose Bowl, why don't y'all send your best team there every year regardless of where they rank nationally while the rest of the country competes for a NC. When you wake up and realize that all your football teams have become football clubs because you can't recruit anyone worth a damn maybe y'all will come back and play nice with the other kids.
posted on July 31, 2007 11:22 AM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
DMan: Thanks for responding at length to my stupid post. I'm beginning to think that you must be this Tom Hansen's son, because you want to take your bowl game and go home. I'll try to respond to your issues by number, so they're easy for you to follow.
1)"Throwing a party and no one came" is a metaphor. It's meant to represent something else. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.
2) All BCS bowls pay out the SAME amount of money. Currently, $17M to each conference for their team participating, with some bonus for multiple teams. You should have really looked that up before you started pecking on the keyboard.
3) If you're such a Rose Bowl fan, why wouldn't you want the best teams available to play in your game, regardless of affiliation? There's nothing wrong with wanting the 'best'.
4) Ratings have risen after the BCS tie-in, after 20 years of decline. Hmmmm. Cause and effect? Hey, last I looked, the RB was in Pasadena, CA. California is a ratings bonanza as it is--worth an 8 if only that state watched it.
Okay, in any further responses, please don't say "I don't care if you SEC teams watch it or not." That's 3rd grader logic and it's getting old.
posted on July 31, 2007 11:52 AM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
TrojanHorse: Here's what will happen if this Hansen follows through on his bluff: First, forget about the Big Ten. Hansen is not their commissioner, but there's no way that the Big Ten sits on the sidelines and watches everyone else play for the NC.
And neither would the Pac 10. USC would be the first team to secede, to become an independent, followed by a few more. Eventually, the Pac 10 would collapse, only to reform itself later in virtually the same format. Why would they want to do that? This Hansen sounds more like a university president than an athletics commissioner. It's the presidents who are always railing against football playoffs, not the commissioners. Sounds like the Pac 10 needs a new commish!
UTFanatic said:
posted on July 31, 2007 12:08 PM — 63.240.122.81 — link — abuse?
dman, you've made your point that in the past, blah, blah, blah. You keep bringing up the past, and claiming that the pac-10 is the cornerstone of the College Football. But you can not clearly convince anyone that if the Pac 10 does part ways with the BCS system, that the pac-10 would lose greatly from; recruites, attendance, and top games. You keep showing you statistics were the Pac-10 has won 10-9 of the games against the SEC, but if pac 10 backs out of the BCS, do you think that any other conference teams would be willing to play a team that their conference does not support the current ranking system, or playoff system. The game that would be against pac-10 wouldn't even matter. So you agree with this jackleg, and say that it would be a good move to not support the BCS plus one system, back on out, and watch the rest of our conferences win the National Title.
Fanofthepac said:
posted on July 31, 2007 12:43 PM — 207.200.116.5 — link — abuse?
Soonerfanatic #68
Your ignorance really shows when you take the Pac 10 to task for not having a conference championship game. There are two reasons they dont - (1) The NCAA DOES NOT ALLOW CONFERENCES WITH LESS THAN TWELVE MEMBERS TO HAVE A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. This is why the Big 10 does not have one either (as they have eleven members). (2) The Pac 10 plays a round robin whereby every team plays each other and a true champion is established during the regular season, so what would be the point?
That said, this Tom Hansen guy needs to go. He has already done the conference a disservice with his bowl affiliation contracts he made years ago. Let's see, Hmmm, how about our 2nd place team goes to the Holiday Bowl. And our 3rd place team can go to El Paso. Yeah, that sounds good. Never mind that 2nd and 3rd place teams from the other major conferences are playing on NEW YEARS DAY. He obviously doen't think his conference can compete with the big boys or he would have pushed for better bowl games for his top teams, and now he doesn't want to be part of a playoff. Amazing. Um, Tom, maybe you could do us a favor and resign before you do further damage. Thanks in advance.
gatorstud said:
posted on July 31, 2007 1:34 PM — 69.95.111.248 — link — abuse?
d-man #61...i understand the yawn part of it....cause that is usually what we do when we watch pac-10 games....yawn a lot....
# 63.....who are you speaking for ..when you say .."we don't need the sec"....is it just you are you now speaking for the entire state......glad to see that you speak for the whole state of california on certain issues....now we know who to blame for AAAHHHNOLD.....
and yet you still don't put your favorite team on here for everyone to talk about.....LOSER.....your nothing but a punk with a keyboard who is ashamed to say who he roots for.....
here is some advice for you......put the penthouse and jar of peanut butter down...come out of your mom's basement and join the rest of the world....it is quite obvious you have been down there for about twenty years or so.......
if the rose bowl doesn't go with the bcs playoff system...they might as well call it the holiday bowl.....it would be a huge mistake....hell, call it the "NFC" bowl........ "NOBODY FU$&ING CARES" bowl.....
and your quote "frankly we don't care if you SEC folks watch or not"....i swear i could hear a little sniffle-sniffle....
it almost sounds like your gonna start crying right then.......
c'mon bucky......toughen up...it'll be ok.....at least you have the refs on your side.....go gators....and hokies
GatorMatt said:
posted on July 31, 2007 1:42 PM — 128.227.7.35 — link — abuse?
This is an article predicting the bowl games. I know it's early, and has no merit, but take a peak at the Rose Bowl. After all this, how funny would it be if a team from the Pac-10 didn't even make the Rose Bowl?
ksuwild said:
posted on July 31, 2007 2:46 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
Dman,
Do you really think the revenue the Rose Bowl generates would be close to what a playoff would generate? Please, humor me so I can laugh hysterically at your posts. A 4 team plus one playoff would generate a HUGE revenue and would absolutely DWARF the revenue of a non-BCS Rose Bowl. That's D W A R F as in NOT EVEN CLOSE. Whether you compared an individual playoff game to the Rose Bowl, or added up the total revenue and divided it by the number of games, it really wouldn't matter. It wouldn't even be in the same ball park. Sorry to burst your Rose Bowl bubble Dman.
College Football is bigger than the Pac 10, bigger than the Big 10, Bigger than the Rose Bowl, and certainly bigger than Tom Hansen or Jim Delaney. Make no mistake about that Dman. Tom Hansen is truly playing with fire, especially if he thinks the BCS is going to bow down to his arrogance. One or more of the Presidents and/or Commissioners are going to point out that his "what if there are 3 teams" argument(if you can call it that)doesn't hold water when you break it down. If anything he is inadvertently pointing out the need for a playoff, as well as what the problem is with the current system. An inability to handle multiple undefeated or one loss teams. The current system(as well as the one before it)simply has no answer for that, and it's too obvious not to be pointed out by one or more of his colleagues. I have NEVER heard a worthy response from a playoff hater(or anyone for that matter)to that scenario. NOT ONCE. Tom Hansen doesn't have an answer, nor does Jim Delaney, and that is why they are going to get burned if they don't change their toon.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 31, 2007 2:55 PM — 66.142.90.76 — link — abuse?
#67 Trojanhorse Read my post again and check this out. If the Pac-10 is no longer a{BCS] conference then no automatic bid, right?
Last year for example if USC was the top Pac team. Then no two loss team from a non BCS conference would have a shot. The Pac would be on the outside looking in. The C-USA having 12 teams & a Conf Champ game a BCS conference now{in my senerio} would have an automatic bid,Houston.
Since the PAc ran away so did the big money and the top recruits, their all running to sign up with teams from {BCS] conferences like C-USA.
Are you still laughing?
Yes after the PAC drops out, they would fall behind everybody including Mt Wst and WAC.
Teams like Bois St , BYU and TCU would get in and teams like USC & Cal would be left out.
#71 & #72 WarEagleAtL ya your right
Hopefully the Pac drops out and then they can host their own Bowls with their own refs watched by their own fans exchanging their own money between themselves. Makes sense, sounds logical, meanwhile the rest of the country plows ahead taking on all opponents proving who's the best and awarding championships to true Champions.
Dont want playoffs? Whats the matter scared of the SEC, XII ,ACC, Big East and now C-USA.
Games like UCLA vs Rice would be more fun to watch and the Bruins might have a chance at pulling off an upset over the OWls who afterall are from a tougher BCS conference.
Go SMU Mustangs
posted on July 31, 2007 3:37 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Gatorstud: DMan doesn't actually root for a team. He sells concessions at the Rose Bowl and roots against any of those carpet-bagging non-west coast teams that dare trespass. He's new on here and doesn't realize that if you don't fly your true colors, you're considered a pirate. Let's turn him over to C-dogg, who breaks in the new fish...
KSUwild: College presidents realize that there's more money in prolonging the problem than in fixing it. And there's less class to be missed by the student athletes if there's not a playoff. Ho-hum... Coming down to the plains of east Alabama in a month to watch your 'Cats play? Come on down!
posted on July 31, 2007 3:47 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?
Fan of the PAC: You are correct about the rules concerning conference title games, but the PAC 10 only instituted a 9-game conference schedule last year, guaranteeing the 'round robin' that you mentioned. And that's fine with me. I see no reason to have a title game if every team in the conference plays everyone else.
Here's my question for you: Why did the Pac-10 have co-champions of USC and Cal last year even though USC beat them? That's not crowning a single champion. I used to cringe back in the 1980s when the SEC played a 6 game conference schedule and sometimes had 3 teams as champions. If the PAC is going to have co-champions, it might as well go back to a 7 game conference schedule and get some other teams in there.
Perhaps the liberals at Berkeley don't want anyone to be considered losers. "They should play the game, but don't keep score. No one should suffer 'losing'."
FanoftheGame said:
posted on July 31, 2007 4:17 PM — 198.211.223.194 — link — abuse?
I could sit here and choose a side like most everyone else, but I think I would rather address, what may be a much bigger picture. First of all, the BCS doesn't exist without the support of the BCS conferences. With that in mind, look at the contrevoursey that has surrounded the bcs system almost since the beginning. If two of the major supporters choose to walk away from the BCS now, I'm not so sure that the other major conferences wouldn't do the same. I mean, if the BCS is only as strong as the major conference supporters, then it is going to get understandibly weaker if the PAC-10 and Big10 aren't on board any longer. Whether you like or dislike either of those two conferences it easy to see that those schools in the PAC10 and Big10 can't be replaced by just any other schools out there. There is no way that you'll be able to find 21 other schools that are not currently in BCS conferences that can play at the level of most of the PAC's and Big10's teams. College football as a whole would suffer greatly and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen.
It's not far fetched to think that the other BCS conferences would walk out too, before they let college football decline to that depth.
Now if they all do decide to walk, then what? Are we back to the old bowl systems that were in place prior to the BCS? OR better yet, will a new alliance be created between the major conferences?Most of us debate pros and cons of the BCS compared to a playoff system that would crown a national champion, but if the BCS disolves with no resolution of where to go forward, then we better be prepared to take a huge step back. Personally, I think the NCAA needs to take a leadership role here and find a system that works best for everyone. It is well within the realm of practical thinking to have some sort of playoff system, while still allowing teams to have their ties to certain historical bowl games, and still maintain the integrity of the game.
I'm all for democracy, but I think College Football needs a dictator to lay down the law. Someone to say." This is the way its going to work, and that's final". If schools have a problem with it then there is always D-II, and I don't think any D-I team want s to take that step down.Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on July 31, 2007 4:22 PM — 68.107.99.8 — link — abuse?
LFMAO @ Dman. Post #75 sounds about right. I think the Rose Bowl is heading down a fast track to being named the "Nobody Fu__ing Cares Bowl. Well, except for Dman and Hansen. Where are all the Big-10 bloggers?? I'm curious to see what you think about playing the Pac-10 in the "Nobody Fu__ing Cares Bowl" instead of joing the rest of the country for a Championship. While we're at it let's change the name of USC to the Mexico City Trojans be/c nobody in America will care about them if they don't get rid of that dumb a__ making them look stupid. BOOOO THIS MAN!!!!
Fanofthepac said:
posted on July 31, 2007 4:47 PM — 207.200.116.5 — link — abuse?
War Eagle
Good one - the libs at Berkeley crack me up too. Maybe they can use the co-champ tag as a recruiting tool, but it wont help them. Once Tedford leaves for greener pastures Cal will be back to being a 5 win program.
Tomcat said:
posted on July 31, 2007 7:29 PM — 66.142.90.76 — link — abuse?
#81 FanoftheGame I totally agree with your post.
A playoff system could be implemented without ruining traditional bowls. You are correct that the NCAA needs to lay down the law regarding these issues. They really need to call on the PAC's bluff and let them walk. The teams in Conferences like Mt West & C-USA would probably be more than happy to become BCS conferences. They may not be at the same level as the Big10/11 or the Pac now, but after a decade or so they will improve tremendously.
Southern Miss vs Tulsa would have more importance then USC vs Cal. Then it would be hard for Dman to sell concessions because everybody will be at home watching the important games like Rice vs UAB
BYU vs TCUksuwild said:
posted on July 31, 2007 11:10 PM — 71.237.67.235 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta,
There's more money in prolonging the problem than fixing it? How do you figure that? A playoff means not only more games, but more games that bring more revenue per game, which means fixing the problem by implementing a playoff would bring in WAY more total revenue than leaving things the way they are. As far as students not getting as much study time, I haven't heard any complaints from the 1AA ranks, who happen to have a full blown playoff, so I doubt that taking 4 teams for a plus one format playoff would be much of an issue, if any at all.
I will not be able to make it to the Auburn Kansas St. game but I will be glued to the television on Sep. 1st. K-State will bring it's fastest and deepest Defense since 03' and the Offense has to be better than last year.
FanoftheGame,
If you took away 21 teams there would still be 98 teams left in D1A. Even if some of them aren't as powerful as those 21 teams now, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be in the future(Tomcat, 2 points!). Also, I can guarantee USC, Ohio St., Michigan, UCLA, CAL, and all the other high profile teams would be going independant or into other conferences anyway. They're not going to ride a sinking ship to the ocean floor. I do agree with you that the NCAA should step in. They should say enough with the year in and year out controversy, we are implementing a playoff because it is proven to work in every sport on every level. We're starting with a 4 team plus one format that we will re-evaluate in 2 years, at that point we will decide whether to tweek it, expand to 8 or 16, or go back to the original BCS format. Those who don't like it, here's a bucket to cry in.
Zac said:
posted on July 31, 2007 11:26 PM — 76.85.143.185 — link — abuse?
TrojanHorse, you know; at 1st I looked at Post 67 and considered a rebuke. But, upon further review, I think you hit on something BIG. You just don't know it yet.
Yo!!! Everybody!!! What if - (Just thinking out of the box a little.) - What if the 119 NCAA Div-1 teams were split into divisions just like the NFL does? What if each division (I don’t care how many, 2, 4, 6, don't matter.) had a division champion and said champions played for the National Championship? How would that fly???
CommonManCommonSense said:
posted on August 1, 2007 1:32 AM — 68.104.43.164 — link — abuse?
If an extra game is part of the concern (after all it is all about academics in the "research" environment of the Pac-10 - gag) why not return to the 11 game schedule and use the extra game in a potential playoff scenario or as the plus one game?
Let's face it, whether you like the Pac-10 or not, a playoff will have no merit without their participation just as the BCS cannot be ligit because of they are not willing to invite the champions of all conferences. Any system that categorically limits open participation is flawed.
By the way - for all of the fat cats in funny suits, let's return to the tradition of January 1. I remember growing up waiting for the big day. Now I miss half of the best games because some of us work for a living and can't stay home to watch a game on Wednesday, January 8th. Move the smaller bowls back to December and load up on New Years Day!
FanoftheGame said:
posted on August 1, 2007 9:35 AM — 198.211.223.194 — link — abuse?
#86...Ksuwild
I think you missed my point a little, if not entirely. The whole "replacing the PAC and Big10 with 21 other teams" is ridiculous. Even if the new 21 would eventually improve to the caliber of the PAC or Big10, how long is that going to take? 2 years, 5 years , 10 or 20? I'm not talking about a One Year Wonder, but a stable top tier team. The point is that no matter how long it would take, college football and the fans will suffer the setback.
These top tier teams of the PAC and B10 aren't going independent, as you suggest. If they aren't in agreement with the PAC's and B10's commissioner's views about not supporting the BCS, then they would more than likely seek new commissioners, before jumping out of the conferences alltogether.
It's easy to sit back and say, "To hell with the teams of the PAC10 and Big10, if they don't want to play like everyone else". But the reality is, college football and the fans need the PAC10 and Big10 as much as they need the SEC, Big12, ACC and Big East. And yes, even ND.
Again guys, I'm not choosing sides here but I think this deserves a little more thought than, the "oh well, screw'em attitude".Just a thought
TrojanHorse said:
posted on August 1, 2007 11:32 AM — 132.228.195.207 — link — abuse?
Isn't one of the major issues of the NCAA instituting a playoff format of any size 4, 8, 16 etc.. that the revenues from the playoffs now will be distributed over all 120 ways (119 teams plus the NCAA).. in the end this will make for smaller pieces of the pie for the 65 BCS conference teams (and whatever one Non-BCS conf team that gets a bid)... even with major revenue increases, I think that the BCS conferences arguement would be (even if this arguement is behind closed doors) that they are getting less money with an NCAA run playoff.
Two more problems that might prevent the P10 and B10 schools from bailing.. at least with the P10.. TV viewership would decrease from the Rocky Mtns to the pacific.. thats a large market in aggregate
Another issue is, the P10 and B10 are competitive in a ton of other sports including Hoops.. I would imagine that there would be some repercussions in other sports as well.. what Im not sure yet but I can't imagine all of this could happen without any repercussions to the other P10 and B10 sports
posted on August 1, 2007 1:02 PM — 64.12.116.136 — link — abuse?
ksuwild: I was being sarcastic with that comment. Honestly, I don't know why college presidents are overwhelmingly opposed to a playoff. Perhaps they are worried about it totally overshadowing academics. I've heard the reasons about missed class from a playoff, but every other sport seems to have worked that out.
Good luck, Sept 1. I'm looking forward to a good game.
Tomcat said:
posted on August 1, 2007 5:48 PM — 66.142.90.76 — link — abuse?
#88 I certainly agree with your second paragraph, any system that categorically limits open participation is flawed.With 119 NCAA teams only 65 belong to {BCS}conferences leaving 54 teams outside looking in. Even if one of these teams goes undefeated like Utah 04 or Bois St 06, they still do not get a shot. I agree with Fanofthegame's posts and recognize that CFB needs the great teams from the PAC and B10/11.
While I'll be the first to agree that C-USA and Mt West are not of the same caliber as the B10/11 and The PAC 10, and my previous posts were given as an example of just how ridiculous and unfair the current system is.
There are alot of great teams with alot of history including Heisman trophies and National Championships who no longer have a shot, because their school does not belong to a {BCS} conference. There are alot of examples like TCU, SMU,BYU etc. etc.
Zac thanks for thinking outside the box, I would be in favor of a total realignment of all conferences based on regions and eliminate the BCS altogether, but until that happens a plus 1 format or playoff senerio would be welcomed.
12 conferences with 10 teams each or
10 conferences with 12 teams each would be more fair to everybody including the schools that are not in a {BCS} conference.
Every other sport Basketball, Baseball and pro football has some sort of playoff situation CFB should as well. Most folks are reluctant to change especially the guys wearing ties that represent the B10 and Pac10.They have it made in the current system and are going to use their power to retain the paradign that exist today in College Football.Its not in their perceived best interest to accept change, so they must be forced to do so.
Go TCU Frogs back to back 11 win seasons
adios PAC welcome Mt Westksuwild said:
posted on August 1, 2007 7:10 PM — 170.35.224.64 — link — abuse?
FanoftheGame,
Nope, I got your point, and addressed it. What is ridiculous is allowing 2 conferences out of 11 to block a playoff(which by the way is good for the game)with an ignorant EMPTY threat. You say losing 2 major conferences is a setback, & I agree with that, but you should also realize that blocking a playoff that would fix a faulted system IS A SETBACK.......and should not be allowed to happen. If they do allow this threat to block a playoff, what's to stop another commissioner or conference from doing the same thing in the future? If the NCAA and BCS allow progress to be stopped because of 2 people.......that is truly a travesty.......and they are setting themselves up to be manipulated in the future.
The reason they should proceed with the playoff is to essentially call the bluff, and force those sane minds withing these 2 conferences to step up to the plate and challenge these 2 people. If they don't proceed with a playoff, who is going to challenge these guys? Probably NO ONE. Is that OK with you?
Why should the NCAA & BCS bow down when the opposing side has PRESENTED NO LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT?
Also, you made my point for me about the Pac 10 & Big 10 getting rid of their commissioners before any teams would jump ship. If the NCAA proceeded with a playoff and the Pac 10 & Big 10 didn't get rid of these guys I can guarantee you teams would leave, and because no one-including me-want that, they would be forced to take action in some form or another. Action that wouldn't be taken if the NCAA & BCS give in to a mere threat.
Who is limiting open participation? The NCAA & BCS, or the stubborn Pac 10 & Big 10?
That's like getting an invitation to a party, not showing up, and saying that you didn't get invited in the first place. They are invited, now it's up to them to show up.
ksuwild said:
posted on August 1, 2007 8:09 PM — 170.35.224.64 — link — abuse?
War Eagle Atlanta,
Sorry for the lack of sense of humor. The reason I didn't take it as sarcasm is that many playoff haters have used those same arguments in the past. My Bad. I get a little fired up about playoff talk because I truly love the game and I want what is best for it, not what is best for the people who are in control.
I really believe Kansas St. Auburn will be a great game. I know Auburns' D will be flying, but I believe Kansas St. will match their defensive speed & intensity. Good luck to you friend.
Mc Duck said:
posted on August 1, 2007 11:16 PM — 63.230.172.173 — link — abuse?
D2 and D3 colleges have playoffs...but D1 does not? Those schools are ahead of the curve...why is D1 so far behind? I was talking with a co-worker about this...he thinks that D1 should go so far as to have a 32 team playoff...it wouldn't lengthen the season that much longer. Look at how long the lay off was last season before the first Bowl game was played! That time could have been utilized by playing early round playoffs...the idea of a Final Four would be exciting...just as exciting as in College Basketball...and then, and then...a legitimate National Champion would be crowned in NCAA Division 1 Football. Hansen, be damned!
TrojanHorse said:
posted on August 2, 2007 5:59 AM — 75.75.86.11 — link — abuse?
I'm also not sure why all this dislike for the p10 and b10 when I don't see any other SUPPORT for a playoff from any other conference. The SEC presidents shot down a chance to discuss a playoff when the UF prez tried to bring it to life. What conference out there has publicly stated support for a playoff? (link?) I want to read it
Dr. J. said:
posted on August 2, 2007 5:39 PM — 74.230.212.112 — link — abuse?
I'm not surprised by the Pac 10's decision. For years they have been dodging the best teams from the South with their Big 10 Rose Bowl tie-up. They know they can beat the best of the Big 10 most years and then claim a national championship in the polls. I'd like to see what some of those so-called "great" U.S.C. teams would have done against the best team ffrom the South.
Ed said:
posted on August 2, 2007 6:23 PM — 216.205.224.10 — link — abuse?
To: MrGamecockFan #47 who said:
"The SEC has proved time and again that we are one of the best out there. And, before you even talk about the beating USC layed on Arkansas, let me just remind you that early season games are no measure of how good a team is. It matters most how they do down the stretch."That sure didn't stop every SEC fan from pointing to the 2006 Cal vs. Tennessee game and citing that as definitive proof SEC >>>> every other conference.
GatorMatt said:
posted on August 2, 2007 7:58 PM — 68.101.66.219 — link — abuse?
I found a nice little article in the campus paper comparing the Pac-10 to the SEC. I will share some numbers with you:
1. Every year, the PAC-10 boasts an impressive out-of-conference schedule. This I agree with, but there's one little problem here - they don't exactly stomp the competition.
Last year, the PAC-10 faced off against 37 out-of-conference opponents. The record: 25-12. Doesn't seem too bad, but then again, I'm not sure losses to San Jose State, Navy and Hawaii should be overlooked
The SEC, in contrast, played 59 games, posting a 48-11 record. In addition, out of the 10 losses, eight of the teams finished in the Top-25.
So, to sum that up quickly: I'm glad the PAC-10 plays such tough opponents, but at least the SEC beats the teams they're supposed to
2. I don't care what the California locals tell you, it's not even close. It's USC and then it's everyone else. Forget Cal, and don't mind UCLA, even though they will always be heroes in my book. These great rivalries are just games to see if USC chokes; they aren't yearly toss-ups like UF vs. Tennessee, or LSU vs. Auburn.
In the SEC, you have several teams worthy of being No. 1.
I can count six, maybe even seven teams if you add South Carolina. (Eight if you believe in Nick Saban).
Just put it this way: If Georgia won the SEC, would it be nearly as shocking as Washington pulling out the PAC-10 crown? No way
3. Just look at recruiting. According to Scout.com, the SEC had five of the top-10 incoming classes in 2007. The PAC-10 fielded only two, with the second being Oregon at No. 9
4. Let's look at bowl games. The SEC went 6-3, which included UF winning a national championship and LSU thrashing Notre Dame. The PAC-10 went 3-3, with Hawaii blowing out Arizona State and mighty BYU hammering Oregon 38-8
- I just wanted to throw this out there on a Pac-10 thread, as I'm kind of tired of hearing about how tough the OOC schedule of the Pac-10 is
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on August 2, 2007 9:02 PM — 71.14.108.232 — link — abuse?
"The SEC, in contrast, played 59 games, posting a 48-11 record. In addition, out of the 10 losses, eight of the teams finished in the Top-25."
Too bad 40 of the 48 wins are against D-2 teams :P
Here's a break down the the ENTIRE SEC OOC 2007 Schedule:
Total SEC OOC games: 46
Total SEC OOC home games: 37 (.804 of the total # of games)
Total SEC OOC away games: 8 (only .174 of the # of games)
One neutral game.
Of the 46 OOC SEC opponents, only 14!!! are against BCS conference opponents (that's a pathetic .304 against BCS competition)
The 14 games against actual BCS opponents: 8 are SEC home games (.571) and 6 are road or neutral sites (.429)
SEC teams scheduled a total of NINE games against teams not even D1A
The SEC likes picking on the SUN BELT conference the most, scheduling more games against that conference then any other conference (11 games).
I'm not sure SEC fans have any ground to criticize any other conference for their OOC scheduling - ESPECIALLY the Pac-10.
GatorMatt said:
posted on August 3, 2007 9:39 AM — 128.227.146.12 — link — abuse?
I have a question then. If they only scheduled 9 games that weren't against D1a teams, then how did they beat 40 D-2 teams? I didn't take the time to research the article, I just posted excerpts from it, but what you just said doesn't make too much sense. Perhaps the Seminoles should have scheduled several D-2 opponents. Maybe then they wouldn't have gotten shut out at home
Dr. J. said:
posted on August 3, 2007 4:40 PM — 74.230.212.112 — link — abuse?
I still say to all Pac 10 teams, "If you aren't afraid of the competition, drop that Rose Bowl tie-up with the Big 10. The only reason you have it is because Alabama used to go out there on New Year's Day and kick butt on your showcase team."
TrojanHorse said:
posted on August 3, 2007 6:08 PM — 75.75.86.11 — link — abuse?
I look at it as USC is the best team in D1A; so if they are head and shoulder's above the rest of the PAC so be it; what that means is that the rest of the PAC is not bad but just not as good as USC.. the rest of the PAC (no I don't include Stanford, UDub) but the upper tier teams are good.. just not as good as SC
P10 teams will play anyone during the Reg Season.. even in other bowls. but the RB is a P10/B10 matchup and most of us could give a crap about the SEC when the RB is played.. you guys just wish you could be part of something as special as the RB but youre not so get over it
As for SJSU, Navy and Hawaii.. I can tell you that SJSU (Stanford) and Hawaii (UDub) were losses to the dredges of the P10.. kind of like your Mississippis, your Vandy's etc... I don't recall who Navy beat.. I will say this, though, P10 teams are not afraid to go on the road unlike SEC teams not named the Vols.
SEMINOLE_NATION said:
posted on August 3, 2007 7:27 PM — 71.14.108.232 —
CUTotalTiger said:
posted on July 27, 2007 5:26 PM — 68.59.7.45 — link — abuse?I still do not understand why each conference can not send their champion to represent them in a playoff systme. sure we would have to make some adjustments here or there, but it sure beats what we have now.