The Pac-12 Thread....

Another issue is 4, teams, 8 teams, and 16 teams. There's a lot of things to consider but we do have history to somewhat reflect on. Has the 64th or 65th college basketball team ever smelled a title? Have we even gone further than a single digit seed very often? I would think it's exponentially easier for a low seed to win in a game that has 5 starters than one in which there are about 30+ starters.

No number 16 has won the NCAA tournament but plenty of two seeds and a couple numbers 4's have won which is the 5th through 16th higher ranked team according to the committee

No number 16 has won the NCAA tournament but plenty of two seeds and a couple numbers 4's have won which is the 5th through 16th higher ranked team according to the committee    

Excellent and my point indeed.
 There you have it. In a sport where there are only five starters in the lineup, no too hard a linup to fill, there aren't a ton on cinderella stories. Now how rare would they be if you needed 30+ starters to accomplish this?

Actually, there are "cinderella stories" every year. They just don't usually win the championship. However, they do get in their and wreak havoc which is most of the fun of the NCAA tournament. Sometimes they make it pretty far too, like VCU and Butler.

With a playoff, you have the possiblity of getting an upstart or "cinderella team" in there (like Boise or Utah). Would you see them as often as you do in the basketball tournament? No, but maybe often enough to keep things interesting.

Because just as the NFL teams peak and can get on a run. After the first few games last year who would've honestly though SC would end the season the way they did? There is a good debate that they were the best team at the end of the year just as in 02 when they started off slow but ended where it could be argued they were better than Ohio State.

I think 16 is too much but if there is going to be a playoff they at least need 8. I just don't see the jusfication if they are going to allow their perceived number 4 team in when there is rarely a difference between 4-7. And last year there didn't seem to be a whole big difference between the BCS's 3-10 and even LSU and Alabama were questionable since LSU beat Alabama and Oregon but then made Alabama look like a Pac-12 school. I hate Oregon but had LSU and Oregon played in the title game I personally think Oregon would've won.

How is a Seahawks fans jabbing at a Whiners fan anything similar? The Whiners have had 1 good season since they formed the new NFC west

OMG -- LMFAO**** -- A franchise that had a dynasty for 15 years and is 5-0 in the Super Bowl vs a team that is irrelevant in NFL History -- just like USC and Washington State.

With a playoff, you have the possiblity of getting an upstart or "cinderella team" in there (like Boise or Utah). Would you see them as often as you do in the basketball tournament? No, but maybe often enough to keep things interesting.

Excellent post and for the good of college football they need cinderella teams. Parody is an actual good thing to sustain college football. The only time change has happened in college football is when there is a fan backlash. I think Boise is a flavor of the month and won't sustain their success but there is nothing wrong with everynow and then having a team like have a good season and making a playoff over say an average Arkansas team who's resume consisted of bad OOC games and 2 great losses yet still would've made a top 8

OMG -- LMFAO********-- A franchise that had a dynasty for 15 years and is 5-0 in the Super Bowl vs a team that is irrelevant in NFL History -- just like USC and Washington State.

Comparing San Francisco to SC is a huge disrespect to SC. The whiners has had exactly 15 good seasons in their entire history, the Hawks have had 10. San Fran beat those vaunted Bengals, Broncos, Chargers and I'm lost on the other one. Seattle got screwed in the super bowl but all of the other playoff losses have been to either the super bowl champ or the super bowl participant with the exception of the one Miami loss. So 5 super bowls to 0, ok still don't see the relationship between SC/WSU. It would be more like SC/Oregon except SC hasn't has had more than 15 good seasons and the Seahawks have been more relevent than Oregon has in their existance

 

Because just as the NFL teams peak and can get on a run. After the first few games last year who would've honestly though SC would end the season the way they did? There is a good debate that they were the best team at the end of the year just as in 02 when they started off slow but ended where it could be argued they were better than Ohio State.

Even if the NCAA universities drop class as a requirment I don't want college modeled after the NFL. I'm not in favor of a 16 game schedule, not in favor of almost a third of the teams in the playoffs and even some of the other stuff NLF like.
No matter what playoff system they choose there will be more that disagree with whatever it is than agree with whatever they choose. It's the nature of the beast.
No matter what scenario they choose there will be many of us that truthfully could not care less. Many o9f us are just college football fans and who wins the title, deservidly so or not, is just minutia after the final bell rings.

Wazz,
Your argumants are sound and I'm just being the "Sun Devils"   advocate so to speak. It really doesn't mean much to me. I've been a fan longer than many, seen more games than many and just love the Saturday afternoon activity.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Passivity goes by the wayside as we cruise through the dog days of summer!!!!


LOL


gawd I wish "Game Day" was next weekend....or maybe Tuesday.

Comparing San Francisco to SC is a huge disrespect to SC. The whiners has had exactly 15 good seasons in their entire history, the Hawks have had 10. San Fran beat those vaunted Bengals, Broncos, Chargers and I'm lost on the other one. Seattle got screwed in the super bowl but all of the other playoff losses have been to either the super bowl champ or the super bowl participant with the exception of the one Miami loss. So 5 super bowls to 0, ok still don't see the relationship between SC/WSU. It would be more like SC/Oregon except SC hasn't has had more than 15 good seasons and the Seahawks have been more relevent than Oregon has in their existance

You are totally reaching - the best franchises in NFL history are Steelers, Packers, Cowboys, then the Niners -- the Seahawks are in the bottom 10.  Comparing Oregon to the Seachicks is hilarious.  The Mariners, Seachicks, Sonics (ooops) are a speed bump for most teams.  As far as Wazzu go's -- c'mon one of the worst programs of all-time out of the Big 4 conferences.  We all cheer for you though -- you're like the one legged, red headed step child that everyone feels sorry for - and yes I have been to Martin Stadium - It reminds me of the High School Stadiums here in Texas.

We need the London Games to tide us over the summer before fights break out........

You are totally reaching - the best franchises in NFL history are Steelers, Packers, Cowboys, then the Niners -- the ...

...that's a reach since I believe the Giants and Bears have more titles than all but the Pack.....................HISTORICAL
LY  speaking of course  

We need the London Games to tide us over the summer before fights break out........

....and ED puts up the post of the day!


Life sucks and then football season begins again. 

The comparison with the NFL, playoff-wise just doesn't work. They have a draft. An equalization system that ensures the bottem teams aren't too too far from the top teams. That isn't the case in CFB.


Usually there is only 2, at max 3 teams in CFB that have put it all together. Maturity, experience, balance. No 10-15 year veterans like the NFL.  


Four teams is enough. It's less fair to the odd BSU, but more realistic for the College game. Simple as that.


Besides, a playoff is a joke when a team can "buy" his losing opposition for 250K, selecting his own opposition as it suits him. Any other sport that puts up with that? 



Four is more than enough....too many..LOL            

Comparing San Francisco to SC is a huge disrespect to SC.

Yeah, it is. We pay our players way more than the 'Niners pay their's!!

C'mon.....you were all thinking it!! I'm just saving you the trouble of saying it!!

You are totally reaching - the best franchises in NFL history are Steelers, Packers, Cowboys, then the Niners -- the Seahawks are in the bottom 10.  Comparing Oregon to the Seachicks is hilarious.  The Mariners, Seachicks, Sonics (ooops) are a speed bump for most teams.  As far as Wazzu go's -- c'mon one of the worst programs of all-time out of the Big 4 conferences.  We all cheer for you though -- you're like the one legged, red headed step child that everyone feels sorry for - and yes I have been to Martin Stadium - It reminds me of the High School Stadiums here in Texas.

If you are talking NFL history then the Giants and Colts are well above the Whiners, so your point. The Seahawks have been around half as long as those teams you listed as well they were irrelevent because they haven't won a super bowl? In the early 80's they were one of the best teams in the AFC, without question they have been the dominant team since the new NFC west came together. But again your definition of the Seahawks being irrelevent is exactly what the Ducks have been, 1 Rose Bowl victory in your history, 1 NC game appearance for your entire history. So I guess a better reference for Oregon would be the Eagles maybe or the Bills? And since when did I say anything about Washington State because a great program.

A. Washington State has less overall victories than Oregon because we played much better competition than Oregon did for the first half of the 20th century
B. Washington State is to thank for Oregon and Oregon State not being MWC schools right now because got Washington to make up with the California school. You'd be in Boise State's shoes where your academics blow too much to have Cal and Stanford accept you. So a simple thank you will suffice that Montana and Idaho said no to us first.
C. Martin Stadium is small, ok your point? Oregon couldn't sell out a home game until 94 then couldn't sell out another one until 01. Whats the point of having a big stadium when you have no fan base?
D. Oregon is so far ahead of WSU that your recent success still has you in the bottom 3rd of the conference all time.
E. Kind of funny though that vaunted Oregon is so superior to WSU yet Oregon is solely a relevent program because Bill Moos got Phil Knight to spend his money, but Oregon specifically put in Moos' contract that he was not allowed to leave for WSU. Irony that Oregon's athletic department was so afraid of "one of the worst" teams in history..enjoy your loss to us in Seattle this year, we won't have a 3rd string quarterback marching up and down the field all game on you.

Great news on the Rose Bowl extention with ABC, (that sounds better than ESPN).


The only concession being made is giving up "the Time Slot" to a playoff game and even the number of times that's going to happen is in doubt.


Is there any doubt that if this didn't happen that the Rose Bowl would have gone to say NBC sports and retained the time slot as an idependent Bowl with the Pac and B1G?


The key beyond the value of the Rose Bowl name and tradition, it's also the time slot that it occupies. I don't know would would win if there had been a competing playoff game in the same slot, I guess it would depend on who the contestants were in both games, but surely both would suffer ratings wise.  


Just like the BCS agreement, this one nibbles at the edges a bit more. Guess we can live with it. I may not even be around in 12 years, so no point worring about it.        

Nw,

I thought the agreement calls for the Rose to keep its traditional time slot of 5pm ET.  The timing between the parade and the game are critical.  It is amazing how easily Pasadena handles the traffic and transition of these two events.

ED, yep, they keep the time slot. Here's the difference, BCS NCG is a second game, hence, different time slot when the Rose had both.


Now there's no "both" if the playoff game is at The Rose Bowl, it will be at the traditional "Rose Bowl" time slot. In other words the time slot was always "owned" by the Rose, now the Playoff game technically takes over the slot as well as the location, at least for that year.


That's what I was referring to nibbling at the edges....     

Now I'm hearing the actual playoff game is "optional". That the Rose Bowl can bit for it,(and get it) or choose not to bid for it.!?!?


That was how it came across on ESPN college live. Can anyone confirm/clarify?