Slugs Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 44 to 6!!! Two FGs for UCLA. What the hell happened to this team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Shocking! Now I will have to listen to the UCLA grads in my family! It will be hard, but I shall suffer through with the silent mantra, "Roll Tide!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) Most of the PAC teams are interchangable with the WAC teams, so I don't see the problem. The PAC-10 needs to step into the 21st century and get at least a 12 team conference going to have a championship game, making them have to earn their rights just like the other BIG TIME conferences. That includes you too Big 10...errr...Big 11...whatever you are? Edited September 16, 2007 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I completely agree with the Pac10 needing to expand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 44 to 6!!! Two FGs for UCLA. What the hell happened to this team? It's called football. You're not ready to play. You get outplayed. You lose. Pay attention. Happens to most everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprofessor Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Most of the PAC teams are interchangable with the WAC teams, so I don't see the problem. The PAC-10 needs to step into the 21st century and get at least a 12 team conference going to have a championship game, making them have to earn their rights just like the other BIG TIME conferences. That includes you to Big 10...errr...Big 11...whatever you are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Once again, I fail to understand what a championship game is supposed to do? It's soul purpose is to generate revenue. Nothing more, nothing less. Take the pay day, accept the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I've always thought the Pac 10 should invite BYU for sure. Not quite sold on Utah long term. Maybe steal Colorado from the Big 12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushey Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I would like to see the Pac10 drop Oregon State and bring Boise State in. I don't see the point in having a tournament though. Brian's point in right on the money. No pun intended. What does the winner get when they win the tournament? A date in the NC game? It is all about the money. Start clammering for a REAL tourney. All other tourneys are pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 I would like to see the Pac10 drop Oregon State and bring Boise State in. I don't see the point in having a tournament though. Brian's point in right on the money. No pun intended. What does the winner get when they win the tournament? A date in the NC game? It is all about the money. Start clammering for a REAL tourney. All other tourneys are pointless. Are you outta yer mind? drop OSU, never will happen. I could see maybe adding BSU, Utah or Colorado though at some point........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 The other thing about championship games, at least in the BIg 12, a joke. Come on, Texas vs Colorado 2 years ago. What a waste of time. The very idea that, that Colorado team had a shot at going to a BCS bowl is mind boggling. The SEC Championship usually features a "sexier" game, but it's more often than not, a blow out as well. All it is is nothing but a way for the powers that be to line there pockets for an extra nationally covered game, with no competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 The other thing about championship games, at least in the BIg 12, a joke. Come on, Texas vs Colorado 2 years ago. What a waste of time. The very idea that, that Colorado team had a shot at going to a BCS bowl is mind boggling. The SEC Championship usually features a "sexier" game, but it's more often than not, a blow out as well. All it is is nothing but a way for the powers that be to line there pockets for an extra nationally covered game, with no competition. Brian it's called marketing. SEC took it upon themselves to self promote their conference and it worked. Here's a cute story: Harvey Schiller (former SEC commissioner) was simply not a back-row kind of guy. So when the former Air Force colonel with combat experience in Vietnam walked into his first NCAA Convention as commissioner of the Southeastern Conference and saw the SEC party sitting in the back of the meeting room, he wanted to know why. He was told that representatives of the Big Ten and Pac-10 always sat in the front, and the SEC always sat in the back. So the next day he sent an associate at 6 a.m. to mark the front as reserved for the SEC. "You can't imagine how upset the Big Ten and Pac-10 guys were," Schiller recalled. "They said, 'We've been sitting at the front for years.' And I looked at them and said, 'Not anymore.'" That was January 1987. The SEC had sent notice that it would not take a back seat to anyone in the NCAA again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 rocker, i didn't say theres anything wrong with championship games, i'm simply saying that the argument that the big ten and pac 10 should have them is just stupid. The Big Ten earns plenty of revenue without one, so from a financial standpoint they certainly don't need to. And who are they going to bring in? Notre Dame doesn't want to, and there is no other team that would make smart, logistical sense. And you have to have 12 teams to have the game. Seems like a whole lot to do for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 rocker, i didn't say theres anything wrong with championship games, i'm simply saying that the argument that the big ten and pac 10 should have them is just stupid. The Big Ten earns plenty of revenue without one, so from a financial standpoint they certainly don't need to. And who are they going to bring in? Notre Dame doesn't want to, and there is no other team that would make smart, logistical sense. And you have to have 12 teams to have the game. Seems like a whole lot to do for nothing. Answer: Make it more than financial. Here's the problem. It's one less hoop the "winner" of the Big 10 or Pac 10 to jump through. Yet, in the conferences that have the championship games, it can cost you alot (say a BCS bid). If teams get to the conference championship, they are having to play another quality opponent making it more difficult. I know they took that challenge on themselves, but they should also get credit for it. Let's say, you have a team that doesn't play in a championship (maybe USC or Notre Dame) and then you have one that does (maybe LSU or Okla.). If USC is sitting at #1 and LSU and Okla. are sitting at #2 and #3 respectively, if both the latter teams win, I like the idea of both those teams jumping ahead of USC or Notre Dame in the polls. It sure would make those conferences (or independents like Notre Dame) start trying to put together a championship game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 When you have a real 10 team league that requires you to play all 9 teams in the league, I'm not sure what a championship games proves. Its only for the money, and I wouldn't vault a B12 or SEC team over them just due to not having a championship game. That is the Pac10, of course. Now when you have a 10+1 league and don't play all your league teams, you could miss out on having the top 2 go head to head. And you have had some teams (in the very recent past) that get 7 or 8 at home, and 2 of the roadies are vs. pansies - how on earth does the NCAA allow that to happen? So I could see the issue with needing another game. That wacky Big10, its a head scratcher alright... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 rocker, i didn't say theres anything wrong with championship games, i'm simply saying that the argument that the big ten and pac 10 should have them is just stupid. The Big Ten earns plenty of revenue without one, so from a financial standpoint they certainly don't need to. And who are they going to bring in? Notre Dame doesn't want to, and there is no other team that would make smart, logistical sense. And you have to have 12 teams to have the game. Seems like a whole lot to do for nothing. Here's what SEC Commissioner Mike Slive's says is the reason the SEC plays a conference championship game. "One of the premises of the BCS is that every conference has the right to figure out how it wants to determine its champion," he said. "We (in the SEC) enjoy a championship game and we can't dictate to any other league that they have to have a championship game. So we have to put together our priorities and obviously we would love to win the national championship, but we certainly value and hold highly our (championship) game." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 When you have a real 10 team league that requires you to play all 9 teams in the league, I'm not sure what a championship games proves. Maybe which team is better at a neutral site? Certainly home field is an advantage in the Pac 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 (edited) Maybe which team is better at a neutral site? Certainly home field is an advantage in the Pac 10. Of course it is, but I'm not sure if beating the same team twice is necessary. And if one team narrowly won on the road, but then narrowly loses at a neutral site, does it really prove the other team is better? If the two games are far apart maybe something can be said for peaking at the right time, but if they are just a couple weeks apart, not so much. We can go around and around for ever, so I promise not to. My point was the Pac10 has more of a leg to stand on when defending their stance than the B10+1 does... Edited September 17, 2007 by Coffeeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 While it is one more hoop to go through, THATS a consequence for taking the payday. Big Ten has tiebreakers. The championship games arent even true championship games. Colorado had a shot at the big 12 title? Give me a break. They shouldn't have even gone to a bowl game. A lot of times they arent even between the top 2 teams in the conference. You take the payday, you accept consequences if there are some, because you certainly accepted the rewards (like LSU getting to the title game in 03 through the backdoor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugs Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share Posted September 17, 2007 I would like to see the Pac10 drop Oregon State and bring Boise State in. I don't see the point in having a tournament though. Brian's point in right on the money. No pun intended. What does the winner get when they win the tournament? A date in the NC game? It is all about the money. Start clammering for a REAL tourney. All other tourneys are pointless. The ACC thought they had the answer when they pillaged the Big East, but guess what? It all went wrong.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 It'a all about marketing. Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix are all served by the Pac-10. Las Vegas and Denver would be the next two largest makets, and frankly, I don't know if you can add either for the sake of just adding them, and everyone being happy about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 My good friend from high school, Dallin Rogers scored one of the TD's against UCLA Saturday. True Frosh, Second String tight end. Made our small town of Placerville with Division II High Schools very proud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 (edited) It'a all about marketing. Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix are all served by the Pac-10. Las Vegas and Denver would be the next two largest makets, and frankly, I don't know if you can add either for the sake of just adding them, and everyone being happy about it. If you're afraid of gaining two 'doormat' teams to make it a Pac12, I wouldn't let that stop us. Look at some of the conferences that play CC games - they're littered with doormats and are unapologetic about it. Especially the Big12, where the north teams have been no competition at all for the Sooners/Horns now for years in their 'big, important' CC games... I'm on the fence about the whole 12-team + CC game thing - some days it makes sense and some days it doesn't. Like I said, at least we play all the other 9 teams in the P10 now, alternating home/away each year. The B10+1 can't say that, unfortunately... Edited September 20, 2007 by Coffeeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 I think tiebreakers work just fine. It doesn't happen where co-champions didn't play each other. 2002, Iowa and Ohio State both went 8-0 and didn't play each other. That's the only one that comes to mind. Iowa in 1990 won a 4 way split, but beat all 3 of the other teams and thus went to the Rose Bowl. So it gets settled on the field in most cases. I think it would be a crime that Iowa went on the road and beat Michigan State, Michigan, and Illinois in the same season in their house, and then had to play one of them in some sort of championship game and then maybe lost on some fluke play or something like that, and missed out on a chance to go to Pasadena. Rocker correctly pointed out, that LSU might beat Florida in the regular season, but then lose to them in the championship game. I think that's BS, cuz LSU already took care of business. But again, SEC takes the payday, there teams should have to accept the consequences if they lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.