Is it the off season? Just checking...
To each his own and I won't argue with that sentiment. I just don't believe that's remotely possible if you want to see the Pac 12remaincatch up with the rest of college football.
Disagree, things will never be equal but the current P5 confences will stay close enough to be competitive.The gap between P5 and G5 wasn't terribly large 20-30 years ago. It's massive today. Without something serious happening with the Pac 12 and this third party investor/TV deals, the financial and competitive gap between the Pac 12 and the BIG/SEC will continue to grow in the same capacity. Not everything is "cyclical" as you suggest.
If the LA schools (in particular USC football and UCLA basketball) can get their big programs back on track and keep them there, this conference will be fine, and there really isn't a reason to expand at all unless the Big 12 collapses.
This is all correct. Things go in cycles, the PAC will be strong again soon enough.
And expansion just to expand doesn't help anyone (except the schools getting a bonus by taking away revenue from the existing schools.
If expansion means more money and exposure for each member of the league then do it, if it means dividing the pie into smaller slices then no thanks.
Actually if you only lose a game in the pac you will go to the playoff.The question is: What has the PAC-10/12 done to help the LA schools get their big programs back on track and keep them there?
-More $$$ / school than competitors? Nope
-Easy (8 conference games) path to national title game? Nope
-Strong enough conference mates to allow for team to still be in with conference loss? Nope
-More TV/exposure to superior high school recruits than competitors? Nope
The PAC12, by doing nothing, isn't helping. The PAC 12, by adding the UNLV/UNM/San Diego States of the world, isn't helping.
The question is: What has the PAC-10/12 done to help the LA schools get their big programs back on track and keep them there?
-More $$$ / school than competitors? Nope
-Easy (8 conference games) path to national title game? Nope
-Strong enough conference mates to allow for team to still be in with conference loss? Nope
-More TV/exposure to superior high school recruits than competitors? Nope
The PAC12, by doing nothing, isn't helping. The PAC 12, by adding the UNLV/UNM/San Diego States of the world, isn't helping.
Not if the ACC, SEC, B1G and Big XII conference champs all have 1 or fewer losses.Actually if you only lose a game in the pac you will go to the playoff.
How do you know that? A one loss pac 12 champ has never been left out of the playoff.Not if the ACC, SEC, B1G and Big XII conference champs all have 1 or fewer losses.
Due to the reputation the PAC has built the past few years, unfortunately. All of the other conferences are currently seen as "tougher." It will take a few years of good out of conference play/ winning to change the narrative.How do you know that? A one loss pac 12 champ has never been left out of the playoff.
Yeah I don’t agree with that what so ever. The pac 12 gets plenty of respect when they play well, in football and basketball and there is no evidence for what you are saying.Due to the reputation the PAC has built the past few years, unfortunately. All of the other conferences are currently seen as "tougher." It will take a few years of good out of conference play/ winning to change the narrative.
Sure, then agree to disagree. I would agree USC will always get a bit more leeway, however, much the same as UT or OU get more leeway than TCU, KSU, etc.Yeah I don’t agree with that what so ever. The pac 12 gets plenty of respect when they play well, in football and basketball and there is no evidence for what you are saying.
We aren’t even that far removed from most of the media arguing a two loss Stanford should be in over a one loss big 10 champ, there was even quite a late contingent saying a three loss USC should be in the playoff.
Not if the ACC, SEC, B1G and Big XII conference champs all have 1 or fewer losses.
But it goes beyond those schools. You have no evidence to support any of this. Even a one loss Washington with a terrible OOC got into the playoff. Everyone wanted Stanford in with two losses. The schools themselves are holding the conference back more than anything.Sure, then agree to disagree. I would agree USC will always get a bit more leeway, however, much the same as UT or OU get more leeway than TCU, KSU, etc.
Sure, maybe not. My point was only that we are currently at a disadvantage as compared to other conferences. Said more clearly, I mean that the PAC is currently likely to be left out when the other conferences produce teams of equal or better record, whatever that record may be, and we have to admit that the SEC getting two teams in again sometime is always a legitimate possibility.The odds of all five major conferences putting out champions that are either undefeated or all have one loss in the same year is so astronomically low its not worth talking about. Most schools play at least one power 5 game in the OOC a year. Yeah, there are situations like Oregon playing Bowling Green, Portland State, and San Jose State in the OOC last year (which I think was due to Texas A&M bagging out of a series against them late enough to where they had no choice but three buy games as an OOC) or us when we were rebuilding under MacIntyre.......but I think there are enough P5 vs. P5 games to where that won't ever happen.
Per my last post, agree to disagree.But it goes beyond those schools. You have no evidence to support any of this. Even a one loss Washington with a terrible OOC got into the playoff. Everyone wanted Stanford in with two losses. The schools themselves are holding the conference back more than anything.
The pac won’t be at a disadvantage in this to any team outside of Bama and Clemson because they earned that on the field. The playoff committee has been very fair over the years and there is no reason to think they would devalue the pac 12 in that scenario other than some weird insecurity you have. And either way the likelihood of this being an issue is very small.Sure, maybe not. My point was only that we are currently at a disadvantage as compared to other conferences. Said more clearly, I mean that the PAC is currently likely to be left out when the other conferences produce teams of equal or better record, whatever that record may be, and we have to admit that the SEC getting two teams in again sometime is always a legitimate possibility.
Good argument.Per my last post, agree to disagree.
I'm not arguing. That's kind of the point you keep missing.Good argument.
Sort of.As a fan, you'd rather see a conference game against a P5 CSU and BSU every year, rather than say UT, OU, NU, TTU, KU, Mizzou, etc?
Sure, maybe not. My point was only that we are currently at a disadvantage as compared to other conferences. Said more clearly, I mean that the PAC is currently likely to be left out when the other conferences produce teams of equal or better record, whatever that record may be, and we have to admit that the SEC getting two teams in again sometime is always a legitimate possibility.
That's not to say such a narrative won't change, it just may take a couple years. But we need PAC teams to consistently win non-conference games and bowls. Our record has been pretty bad the last two, and the public/ media narrative surrounding the PAC has gone down the drain.
I think Pac 12 teams in general need to up the level of competition they're playing OOC in general-The team favored to win the South by most is Utah, and they're playing an OOC that features BYU, Northern Illinois, and Idaho State this year. Utah doesn't play a P5 opponent (No, I'm not giving them a free pass for playing BYU every year) again in the OOC until 2023-so that's an 8 year drought in that respect. Washington draws Eastern Washington, Hawaii, and then goes to BYU. Washington's loss to Auburn LY in the Atlanta kickoff game looks better than wins over any of that murderer's row. Wazzu gets New Mexico State and Northern Colorado (YAWN) at home before they go play Houston.
It’s more likely that the SEC/ACC will go to 9 conference game than the Pac 12, Big 12 and/or BIG go to 8. Saban has been vocally supportive about doing it and the more emphasis the committee places on SOS, the more likely we’ll see it happen.Agreed on the PAC needing an 8 game conference schedule. The SEC has been dealing the benefits of that system for years. Fewer games against conference teams = fewer automatic losses by conference teams = higher average rating for conference teams = more hype, more ranked matchups, etc.
I wrote this as a response to @Buffnik, but it was too long to include as a quote:
A couple of things here-I don't understand the allure of Texas Tech by themselves. One, the football program is mediocre at best. Two, the vast majority of the population in West Texas isn't in the Amarillo/Lubbock area-its in El Paso. Three, TTU alums care about TTU, but they're not a huge draw in the Texas triangle-which features two NFL teams, two MLB teams, three NBA teams, one NHL team, and that's before we get to any athletic programs at Texas or Texas A&M. Its not all that different from CSU-and we all know they're low on the totem pole in terms of sports in this market.
Two, if the Big 12 makes a move for ASU, they're coming after another Pac 12 school-I'm sure the Arizona pols would prefer it be UofA, but I think the Big 12 schools themselves would rather have us back.
Three, I think most of think UNLV joins the Pac 12 at some point after the Raiders' move to Vegas.........but I actually like the idea of trying to make a move to get Mizzou. They're the only FBS school in a state with two major cities, they're a weird fit in the SEC (travel would be slightly harder for them here than it is currently but not by much), and they've got a fair amount of history with at least us. The Pac 12 likes the travel partner setup, and UNLV (assuming Nevada doesn't come with them) joining would probably mean the end of the arranged marriage between us and Utah. I'd love to replace that game with one against a former division mate from the old days.
I know Saban supports it but there seems to be few others. I'm fine either way but think it should be equivalent, and the current setup is working great for the SEC. I'd prefer we take the same route until they change, but we won't so it doesn't really matter.It’s more likely that the SEC/ACC will go to 9 conference game than the Pac 12, Big 12 and/or BIG go to 8. Saban has been vocally supportive about doing it and the more emphasis the committee places on SOS, the more likely we’ll see it happen.
Looks like the AAC might get rid of divisions and go to a 9 game schedule as well so that would be 4 out of the top 6 conferences at 9 games.It’s more likely that the SEC/ACC will go to 9 conference game than the Pac 12, Big 12 and/or BIG go to 8. Saban has been vocally supportive about doing it and the more emphasis the committee places on SOS, the more likely we’ll see it happen.