Not So Fast, My Friends...

[M2]

You can't be so stupid as to not expect USC to play Oregon again. Oh wait...apparently you are.

I'm the ONLY one on this board that predicted that Alabama would lose to A&M.



You really want to question my knowledge about the PAC with yours ???



You southerners and midwesterners live where you live... because of a lack of intelligence, not because you have an abundance of it.


Trust me on this one...

[M2]

And you had problems understanding this:

Kansas State loses to Texas, Oregon drops one to Stanford, Oregon State, or USC, and Notre Dame loses to USC.

Who's a mess?

You are... being that you included U$C when they won't play each other again.


Is this really that hard to understand ?

[M2]

Your knowledge of the PAC is pretty slim considering you didn't even realize Oregon could play USC again.

Huh ???

I said they won't be playing in the game... that kinda fucks your premise right off the bat.

You do understand that, right ?

You predicted that Alabama would lose to both LSU and A&M, as I recall.

... and I was a Less Miles away from being right on that one too.

The PAC doesn't have a Less Miles.

BTW, I prefer you continue to hold the opinion you have of the south. We really would like you to stay the fuck outta here.

EVERYONE has that view of the south... and they're right.

[The Seer]

SuC will win with little effort Saturday. The Bruins will fight for awhile and match the intensity...even maybe out hit the trogans...but SuC has these 2 receivers and UCLA has shit for CB's...so unless they pressure the shit outta inbredBarkley, it could get ugly.

[M2]

SuC will win with little effort Saturday.

I see you working...

so unless they pressure the shit outta inbredBarkley,

Bingo !


fucla is strong along the line... and Mora is a defensive coach (he'll be ready)


Also, see the Stanfurd game.

[Mikey]

Hit Barkley hard a couple of times early. Maybe even at the risk of a late hit. He gets gun-shy.

[Van]

Cash Grab Nonsense Redux, Part 3,417...

So, assuming Oregon beats Stanford and Oregon St, why the fuck does the Pac 12 even need to hold a CCG? Oregon will be 12-0, and 9-0 in conference play. Even if USC beats UCLA and ND, they'll still only be 9-3 and 6-3 in conference play. Oregon already beat USC too, so there goes that flimsy excuse.

Even if USC were to beat Oregon in the Cash Grab they'd still only be 7-3 vs Oregon's 9-1 in conference play, with the two teams having split the head-to-head meetings.

There is simply no reason whatsoever for the Pac 12 to risk losing not only a shot at the national title but also having a second team in a BCS bowl game. Oregon will have clearly won the conference already so why play such a game? Both they and the conference have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Even pure greed doesn't work here, not when the conference stands to lose more money than they can hope to gain merely by playing that one CCG. If Oregon loses, the conference loses a national title game representative and a second BCS slot in the Rose Bowl. Chances are that Oregon would then get that Rose Bowl bid, and that would be it for the conference in terms of BCS bowl games. If Oregon wins, neither USC nor any other Pac 12 team has a shot at the Rose Bowl.

Pretty simple stuff: Don't hold a Cash Grab Game unless it's necessary to break a tie and/or at least benefits the conference.

To force 12-0 Oregon to play in one this year would be pure stupidity.

[Goober McTuber]

you didn't say they won't play, you said thay had already played.

That's funny.


U$C won't even be in that game.

You want to step back and give that another try there... tubby ?


You're a fucking mess.

Consider this possibility:

Kansas State loses to Texas, Oregon drops one to Stanford, Oregon State, or USC,

You really shouldn't cut and paste the thoughts of some SEC/Alabama poster that has no idea that U$C already played Oregon a week and a half ago.

Idiot.

[Goober McTuber]

There is simply no reason whatsoever for the Pac 12 to risk losing not only a shot at the national title but also having a second team in a BCS bowl game.

To force 12-0 Oregon to play in one this year would be pure stupidity.

When the SEC first split nto divisions and instituted the championship game idea everyone freaked out saying we'd never get to play for another NC. Potentially it's a disastrous situation, but, IIRC, only once in all these years has a team with a worse record knocked off a "better" team in the SEC. And I can't even recall who or when that was.

But yes, potentially it could destroy a deserving team's shot at a BCS title game.

If they lost, maybe they weren't all that "deserving". I hate conference championship games, BTW.

[Mace]

OTOH, a win can also allow the winning team to leapfrog someone in the polls who is idle that last weekend. And, for the record, I don't like the CCG either. As Van said, it's simply a money grab....one that will put Oregon's players at risk of injury before the NC game...if they win out.

[Van]

The thing is, it's not just the national championship the Pac 12 risks losing. It's also a berth in a second BCS bowl game. And for what? Exactly what does the league or Oregon gain with a victory in a CCG this year? Nothing. With wins over Stanford and Oregon St the Ducks are going to Miami, regardless. Those same two wins will knock the Beavers and the Cardinal out of any BCS bowl games, and a win over USC or UCLA in the CCG will knock the Trojans or Bruins out of the Rose Bowl. A loss in the CCG knocks the Ducks out of the title game, and it likely still means that only one Pac 12 team would receive a BCS bowl bid. The Rose Bowl would have a tough call there. Do they take the better team with the higher ranking in Oregon, or do they take (in USC's case) the more telegenic conference 'champion' sporting the recent win over Oregon?

[Goober McTuber]

So Van, you think the Pac should just pick and choose each year whether to have a CCG? Sounds a bit wishy-washy and self-serving to me. (A USC fan self-serving? Shocker.)

That's as bad as when the Northwestern coach suggested that because PSU and tOSU from the Leaders division are ineligible for bowl games this year, a committee should select an opponent to play the winner from the Legends division.

[Mace]

Van wants to cancel a game because it can hurt the chances of a conference team (possibly his team) from being selected for a BCS bowl? Who does he think he is, Bill Snyder? Hypocritical much?

[Van]

So Van, you think the Pac should just pick and choose each year whether to have a CCG? Sounds a bit wishy-washy and self-serving to me. (A USC fan self-serving? Shocker.)

How on earth is it self-serving to a USC fan? I'm advocating that USC not be given any chance at winning some bogus conference championship that Oregon will have clearly already won.

And no, I'm not saying that the Pac should randomly pick and choose when to play a CCG. It shouldn't be random at all. I've been saying for years that those games should only be played when necessary to break a tie in the conference that wasn't already broken by a head-to-head meeting. When a team already has a three-game lead at the end of the regular season (including a head-to-head win), such a game is not only pointless, it's stupidly risky both for the championship team and the conference.

It's the same thing in, say, MLB. They only play the one-game tiebreaker when necessary. Otherwise, they don't go through the silly charade of making the obvious champion have to play one more game against a less-deserving opponent just to cement what they already achieved during the regular season.

That's as bad as when the Northwestern coach suggested that because PSU and tOSU from the Leaders division are ineligible for bowl games this year, a committee should select an opponent to play the winner from the Legends division.

Apples and assholes.

[Van]

Van wants to cancel a game

Nope. My point is that such a game shouldn't even be scheduled until it becomes necessary to break a legitimate tie in the conference standings.

because it can hurt the chances of a conference team (possibly his team) from being selected for a BCS bowl?

Speaking from the standpoint of looking out for what's best for the conference, absolutely. The conference's main goal is to see two teams win BCS bowl berths, including a slot in the national title game. A CCG under the current scenario needlessly risks both things. There is no reason to play a game where both the championship team and the conference as a whole have everything to lose and nothing to gain, and that's exactly what they'll be staring at if Oregon ends the regular season with a 12-0 record.

[War Wagon]

My point is that such a game shouldn't even be scheduled until it becomes necessary to break a legitimate tie in the conference standings.

So what's the timeframe of when/if deciding to schedule this extra game? A week, two?

You realize the logistical nightmare that would involve?

[Killian]

A loss in the CCG knocks the Ducks out of the title game, and it likely still means that only one Pac 12 team would receive a BCS bowl bid. The Rose Bowl would have a tough call there. Do they take the better team with the higher ranking in Oregon, or do they take (in USC's case) the more telegenic conference 'champion' sporting the recent win over Oregon?

In that scenario, I find it highly unlikely that there wouldn't be 2 Pac 12 teams in the BCS. If USC beats Oregon in the CCG, USC goes to the Rose Bowl as the Pac 12 champ, and Oregon gets an at large birth, likely displacing the SEC CCG loser.

[Van]

My point is that such a game shouldn't even be scheduled until it becomes necessary to break a legitimate tie in the conference standings.

So what's the timeframe of when/if deciding to schedule this extra game? A week, two?

You realize the logistical nightmare that would involve?

Yes. None at all. It's done in many other sports with nary a problem.

[Van]

A loss in the CCG knocks the Ducks out of the title game, and it likely still means that only one Pac 12 team would receive a BCS bowl bid. The Rose Bowl would have a tough call there. Do they take the better team with the higher ranking in Oregon, or do they take (in USC's case) the more telegenic conference 'champion' sporting the recent win over Oregon?

In that scenario, I find it highly unlikely that there wouldn't be 2 Pac 12 teams in the BCS. If USC beats Oregon in the CCG, USC goes to the Rose Bowl as the Pac 12 champ, and Oregon gets an at large birth, likely displacing the SEC CCG loser.

Very possible.

Still, if you're the Pac 12, why risk it? It was ridiculous in '05 when a 12-0 Texas team was forced to risk everything in order to play four-loss Colorado (a team they'd already trounced that season) in the Big XII Cash Grab Game, and it's every bit as ridiculous now for Oregon and the Pac 12.

[Goober McTuber]

My point is that such a game shouldn't even be scheduled until it becomes necessary to break a legitimate tie in the conference standings.

So what's the timeframe of when/if deciding to schedule this extra game? A week, two?

You realize the logistical nightmare that would involve?

Yes. None at all. It's done in many other sports with nary a problem.

Really, Pollyvanna? How many of those sports draw 70-80,000 fans to a game?

[Van]

How many of those sports draw 70-80,000 fans to a game?

Who cares? Dodger Stadium holds 56,000. NFL stadiums have 80,000-seat capacities. We deal with this issue every year. No one knows who's playing when or where, sometimes literally up to the day before the game. Besides, the new college football playoff system they're introducing is going to place similar short-notice demands on teams, fans, and the selected stadiums hosting each game. Everyone will manage just fine, same as they always have.

[Mikey]

A loss in the CCG knocks the Ducks out of the title game, and it likely still means that only one Pac 12 team would receive a BCS bowl bid. The Rose Bowl would have a tough call there. Do they take the better team with the higher ranking in Oregon, or do they take (in USC's case) the more telegenic conference 'champion' sporting the recent win over Oregon?

In that scenario, I find it highly unlikely that there wouldn't be 2 Pac 12 teams in the BCS. If USC beats Oregon in the CCG, USC goes to the Rose Bowl as the Pac 12 champ, and Oregon gets an at large birth, likely displacing the SEC CCG loser.

Very possible.

Still, if you're the Pac 12, why risk it? It was ridiculous in '05 when a 12-0 Texas team was forced to risk everything in order to play four-loss Colorado (a team they'd already trounced that season) in the Big XII Cash Grab Game, and it's every bit as ridiculous now for Oregon and the Pac 12.

Not sure why you guys are even discussing this. Whatever the pros and cons, the decision in the Pac12 has been made and it's not likely to change in the near future unless some cataclysmic unforeseen consequences result. You also forget, or at least don't bother to mention, that there were other reasons for instituting a CCG, one of which was that the expansion to 12 teams pretty much precluded playing a full conference schedule.

[Goober McTuber]

How many of those sports draw 70-80,000 fans to a game?

Who cares? Dodger Stadium holds 56,000. Do you really think that difference matters? Besides, the new playoff system they're introducing is going to place similar short-notice demands on teams, fans, and the selected stadiums hosting each game. Everyone will manage just fine, same as they always have.

Which college football team plays in Dodger Stadium? Oh, you’re comparing a baseball playoff game (where the stands are mostly filled with people who live within an hour or two of the venue and a game that is going to be played at the same time year after year) with a college football conference championship game that may or may not get played, based on team records that aren’t finalized until a week before said game?

Or are you talking about the new playoff system, where the venues are going to be determined years ahead of time, and the teams will still be slotted at least a month ahead of time each year?

[Van]

I know it's not going to happen, but when has that ever stopped us from talking about anything?



As to your other point, in this case it's a nonstarter. If Oregon finishes 12-0, they'll hold a three-game lead over USC. They also already beat them head-to-head. It doesn't matter that each team no longer plays every other team in the conference, not when the champion has all the bases covered to this degree.

What you're describing would come into play during a season in which the North and South winners didn't play each other while finishing with no worse than a one-game difference in their records. Then, sure, go ahead and play the game. Definitely play it if they finish with the same record and there was no head-to-head meeting.

With a three-game difference, though, including a head-to-head win? It's absolutely pointless, and quite reckless for the conference.

[Goober McTuber]

Just shit or get off the pot. Have a CCG or don't. It's not that difficult.

[Van]

How many of those sports draw 70-80,000 fans to a game?

Who cares? Dodger Stadium holds 56,000. Do you really think that difference matters? Besides, the new playoff system they're introducing is going to place similar short-notice demands on teams, fans, and the selected stadiums hosting each game. Everyone will manage just fine, same as they always have.

Which college football team plays in Dodger Stadium?

Why even bother to ask that question?

Oh, you’re comparing a baseball playoff game (where the stands are mostly filled with people who live within an hour or two of the venue and a game that is going to be played at the same time year after year)

They fill a stadium on one day's notice for a one-game playoff. No one knew that game was going to need to be played. It's certainly not played every year.

with a college football conference championship game that may or may not get played, based on team records that aren’t finalized until a week before said game?

Yep. Exactly as it's done in the D1-AA playoffs, and exactly as it's done in the NFL. It's no biggie. You're making much ado about nothing. Everyone always manages. The stadiums still get filled, even on short notice.

Or are you talking about the new playoff system, where the venues are going to be determined years ahead of time, and the teams will still be slotted at least a month ahead of time each year?

No one will know who is playing where, and they certainly won't for the second round. Similarly, teams and their fans in the NFL deal with this exact same situation every year and their stadiums hold 80,000. They also draw fans from all over the region.

It's no big deal. It only involves two teams and their fans plus one stadium, and they're all glad to do it. They manage in every other sport, they'll manage in college football too.

[Van]

Just shit or get off the pot. Have a CCG or don't, as needed. It's not that difficult.

Yep.

[Mikey]

As to your other point, in this case it's a nonstarter. If Oregon finishes 12-0, they'll hold a three-game lead over USC. They also already beat them head-to-head. It doesn't matter that each team no longer plays every other team in the conference, not when the champion has all the bases covered to this degree.

What you're describing would come into play during a season in which the North and South winners didn't play each other while finishing with no worse than a one-game difference in their records. Then, sure, go ahead and play the game. Definitely play it if they finish with the same record and there was no head-to-head meeting.

With a three-game difference, though, including a head-to-head win? It's absolutely pointless, and quite reckless for the conference.

With a three game difference yes, it's probably pointless. But the problem is that the teams don't play the same set of opponents so a direct comparison of their regular season records is not a valid metric. You could throw out games they played that were not against a common opponent but then you're negating part of the conference schedule.

There's a huge difference between the north champions and the south champions this year but that's not going to be true every year. You can't have a perfect resolution assured 100%, but you also can't go changing from season to season, at the end of the season, based on what happened in the regular season. You just have to pick a system and stick with it whatever the consequences. it's still a relatively unbiased system because you have no idea going into the season how things are going to shake out.

[Goober McTuber]

Van, you’re all over the place. Are you trying to justify the on again/off again CCG you proposed, or the 4-team playoff that’s coming? If it’s the former, you’re trying to justify this using professional baseball one-game playoffs (apples and assholes much?) Or D1-AA playoffs, which involve a few thousand fans, at best, and are scheduled for a specific date years ahead of time? Or the NFL, which uses home stadiums, and are scheduled for a specific date years ahead of time? The hotel logistics alone render your arguments as ridiculous.

Regarding the latter, everything I’ve read about the 4-team playoff indicates that they will use existing bowl games for the semis. Those teams will be set by the first week in December. The games won’t be played until January. That is not comparable in terms of short notice.

[Van]

Mikey, in no way am I suggesting that they change the system every year. Not at all. Rather, I'm suggesting the exact opposite: do the same thing every year, which is to play the game only when it's needed in order to break a tie that wasn't already resolved by a head-to-head meeting.

The logistics 'issue' is a total nonstarter. We're only talking two teams, one stadium, and it won't come up all that often anyway. When it does come up, both teams will know the date and locale within the same timeframe that many NFL teams learn their playoff destinations, and no one ever has a problem with it.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A loss in the CCG knocks the Ducks out of the title game, and it likely still means that only one Pac 12 team would receive a BCS bowl bid. The Rose Bowl would have a tough call there. Do they take the better team with the higher ranking in Oregon, or do they take (in USC's case) the more telegenic conference 'champion' sporting the recent win over Oregon?

You were doing pretty well up until this point, but the part in bold is where your analysis starts to head south fast.

First things first. The Rose Bowl is obligated to take the Pac-12 champion. By definition that is the winner of the CCG. So if Oregon loses the CCG, then the winner of the USC-UCLA game goes to the Rose Bowl.

But Oregon could drop as far as #4 and still be an AQ for the BCS, even if they don't win the conference. And even if they're not an AQ, it seems somewhat inconceivable that they'd miss the BCS entirely as a one-loss team, particularly with the Fiesta Bowl holding the first pick this year among the bowl games with a second pick.

OTOH, if Oregon were to win out, there's a very good chance that no other Pac-12 team finishes in the Top 14, and therefore, there isn't a second BCS bid for the Pac-12. By beating Stanford and Oregon State, Oregon would knock both out of the Top 14. The USC-UCLA loser will have no shot at the Top 14, and Oregon would remove the winner of that game from the Top 14 if Oregon wins the Pac-12 CCG.

Here's how the candidates for the four BCS bids that don't go to AQ conference champions stack up, imho:

1. ND: While I'm still of the opinion that ND needs one more win to clinch a BCS bid, at this point it probably would take a very unlikely turn of events for ND to miss out on the BCS.

2. SEC: With all the highly-ranked teams in this conference, it seems extremely likely that this conference will get a second BCS bid.

3. Oklahoma: Looks to be in good shape if they win out.

4. Pac-12: If Oregon plays in the NCG, they'll get a second BCS bid if a second Pac-12 team is in the Top 14, but that seems unlikely at present. If Oregon wins out in the regular season and then loses in the CCG, the Pac-12 almost certainly gets a second BCS bid.

5. Louisiana Tech: The only possible BCS buster remaining, they'll need to win out AND get some help in terms of the champion of one of the AQ conferences finishing behind them in the BCS rankings. Most likely candidates are the B1G (with a loss by Nebraska, and possibly a loss by Michigan for good measure), Big East (if the winner of the Louisville-Rutgers game loses once more); and the ACC (if the Coastal Division champion wins the CCG).

6. Clemson: Needs the most help of all. Could get in as the ACC's second representative IF: (a) they win out; (b) Florida State beats Maryland; (c) either: Louisiana Tech loses, or finishes behind the conference champions of the ACC, B1G and Big East; and (d) either: Oregon wins out or Oklahoma loses.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Terry,

Good points. What are the chances that FSU will play Notre Dame in a bowl?

[M Club]

You're confined to a wheelchair yet somehow don't have the time to figure that out for yourself? You should take those 24s of yours out for a spin in oncoming traffic.

[M Club]

You realize the logistical nightmare that would involve?

Yes. None at all. It's done in many other sports with nary a problem.

Really, Pollyvanna? How many of those sports draw 70-80,000 fans to a game?

Oh god, the horror of having to put on an 8th or 9th game in a single season after years and years of operating a football stadium. Where will they find enough toilets or concession workers, especially the as likeliness of hosting one whole extra game began to emerge well before it was actually confirmed?

[Dinsdale]

WHOLE lotta P12BSH'ering going on in this thread.

That's because by far the best team in the country plays there.

[Dinsdale]

WHOLE lotta P12BSH'ering going on in this thread.

That's because by far the third best team in the country plays there.

FTFM