The PAC12 THREAD v.2

[4down20]

Maybe if you say this has something to do with my team 100 more times it will make it real. That seems to be your strategy at this point.

Got anything of actual substance to add? No you don't because you can't defend this garbage scheduling by your team and conference. Just more smoke and mirrors.

If your team was any good you'd be more interested in them than blaming everyone else.

So I think it does have everything do with your team.

And I don't defend this "garbage scheduling", I just like to point out that for all you that like to sit around and bitch - your shit is even worse. Because the truth is - the discussion on this thread is 1% about schedule, 99% about fans of shitty teams needing someone to blame for their failures.

"The SEC needs to schedule more conference games so there is a chance of knocking themselves out of the Championship picture so teams from my crappy conference has a chance of playing someone they can beat".

 

[WizardHawk]

If you want to see quality football, then why are you a fan of Washington?

May I suggest becoming a fan of Oklahoma? They got it done on the field last year.

Right, another attempt to make this about my team to avoid the topic at hand. Anyone else see the desperation here?

We get it. You only care about winning championships and couldn't care less if half the games are against worthless opponents. The games themselves mean nothing to you. Some of us enjoy the sport. I watch nearly every Pac game unless it is those crappy OOC ones and watch as many of the big national games as I can. I'm a fan of the sport. You are a fan of a trophy. No one will be able to sway your views because of it. You don't give a shit about real football.

 

[WizardHawk]

If your team was any good you'd be more interested in them than blaming everyone else.

So I think it does have everything do with your team.

And I don't defend this "garbage scheduling", I just like to point out that for all you that like to sit around and bitch - your shit is even worse. Because the truth is - the discussion on this thread is 1% about schedule, 99% about fans of shitty teams needing someone to blame for their failures.

"The SEC needs to schedule more conference games so there is a chance of knocking them out of the Championship picture so teams from my crappy conference has a chance of playing someone they can beat".

lol, and the circle jerk continues. You simply cannot stick to the actual topic.

No one blames any of our losses on the SEC or anything other than our teams didn't play well enough. Period.
No one here denies our bad schedules. In fact, we keep telling you we would love to see an end to those for ALL. You just don't get it and it seems this topic is just too far over your head to ever get it.
The SEC is the top conference right? Change comes from the top down. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that right? In fact you said our teams would have to be stupid to not do what you do when it leads to titles. WHICH PROVES you know the end of shitty football can't happen unless the SEC is involved in the solution.

And yet you keep just in circles.

It's sad to see smiles own you so hard and end up reduced to nothing more than 'yeah, well my team is better than yours so there'.

 

[4down20]

Right, another attempt to make this about my team to avoid the topic at hand. Anyone else see the desperation here?

We get it. You only care about winning championships and couldn't care less if half the games are against worthless opponents. The games themselves mean nothing to you. Some of us enjoy the sport. I watch nearly every Pac game unless it is those crappy OOC ones and watch as many of the big national games as I can. I'm a fan of the sport. You are a fan of a trophy. No one will be able to sway your views because of it. You don't give a shit about real football.

Keep telling yourself that because of 1 game a year, while blaming your own weaker schedule on everyone else. Pretty much highlights how full of shit you are.

And btw, as for your blaming the SEC in general for college football, you are a fucking idiot. The SEC has been behind basically EVERY bit of progress over the past 20 odd years. The SEC was the one that brought about Conference Championship games(I guess those aren't quality enough for you). They brought about the BCS while the Pac12 and Big10 were too worried about protecting the Rose Bowl(which they were too scared to let other people in because they got tired of losing). The SEC has been pushing for playoffs for years, and again the Pac12 and other conferences were always against it because of things like the Rose Bowl, and it finally took 2 SEC teams making the game to even get that changed.

The truth is, if you cared even remotely about this crap you keep talking about then you should be thanking the SEC for bring about the changes that have improved the game. But you can't because you and everyone else ignorantly assumes that because the SEC has success, then everything in college football is to blame on them.

So you keep on bitching about the SEC. But the reality is quite different, and even if it wasn't, nobody that actually matters gives a shit about what you think.

 

[4down20]

lol, and the circle jerk continues. You simply cannot stick to the actual topic.

No one blames any of our losses on the SEC or anything other than our teams didn't play well enough. Period.
No one here denies our bad schedules. In fact, we keep telling you we would love to see an end to those for ALL. You just don't get it and it seems this topic is just too far over your head to ever get it.
The SEC is the top conference right? Change comes from the top down. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that right? In fact you said our teams would have to be stupid to not do what you do when it leads to titles. WHICH PROVES you know the end of shitty football can't happen unless the SEC is involved in the solution.

And yet you keep just in circles.

It's sad to see smiles own you so hard and end up reduced to nothing more than 'yeah, well my team is better than yours so there'.

Change comes from the top down? If that is true, and the SEC has been pushing for playoffs for over 10 years, then how come we didn't get a playoff until the SEC put 2 teams in the game, and the other conferences finally voted in favor of it?

And exactly what is the SEC playing a tougher schedule going to accomplish anyway? Seriously? What is that going to change if the SEC plays even tougher schedules? Oh yeah, fucking nothing because the SEC already plays the toughest schedules in the country, and has over the past few years and all anyone wanted to do was reward teams like Boise St BCS bowl games while they played shit schedules. SEC fault too?

PS: It's funny that suddenly smiles is supposedly owning me, when he's been posting that same tired shit since I've been here. My guess - it ain't got shit to do with what is said, but rather you needing a cop out because you ain't got shit. I bet you think everyone is owning me at this point - because it makes you feel better and you need it.

 

[The Crimson King]

Well quick glances at most of your schedules shows many teams no one has ever heard of. If some of them are obscure bottom dwelling FBS teams mixed with those FCS then so be it. You can't deny most SEC teams play 3 terrible OOC teams a year. When you add the bottom dwelling SEC teams in the IC schedule you get half a season of garbage.

But feel free to stay in denial. It seems to be quite contagious down in the south.

I don't see anyone denying that.

And yeah, Clemson and Georgia Tech were the only teams to play 2 FCS teams last year. And Georgia State played three

 

[LawDawg]

Just did one with Penn St back a few years ago. Also had an away game against Duke a few years ago, I have no idea why on that one.

But the neutral site to start the season is what we should be seeing more of in the future. Hopefully it catches on for other teams because the benefits are great. Able to get a new team every year, both teams get nice paydays and it's starting out the first game of the season with a high quality game, rather than starting out the year with cupcakes.

As a sports fan in general, I like the neutral games to start the season. Great way to get it started. But, as a fan of my team, I want H&A games so I can travel to different conferences and see different cultures and stadiums. Life details kept me from going to Colorado, ASU, and OkSU, but a bunch of my friends went to those games and had a blast.

 

[LawDawg]

What I love is how SEC fans keep changing the reasons why they schedule like they do. Every time one of their excuses gets blown up, they make up another one.


So far, over the years and in no particular order I've seen:


1.) We can't be expected to play tough OOC games AND play an SEC schedule.
2.) Those games are how the cupcakes balance their athletic books.
3.) Our local economy depends on those extra home games every year.
4.) Why would we play in a region where we don't recruit a lot?
5.) Other teams stadiums are too small.
6.) We get a lot of pressure from state assemblies, etc. to play the in-state cupcakes.

That's a darn good list ... they all make sense to me. I might enhance 4 with why travel so far away that it is more difficult for your fans to follow - that's why Clemson and GaTech make so much sense for my team. Great list ... I approve.

Oh, but wait, you are criticizing the list. Why exactly aren't those good reasons (no. 1 excluded, because we will never agree on that)?

 

[LawDawg]

Yep. LSU, Tennessee and Georgia need not make any excuses.

Although I fear with our current AD, who comes from the Florida school of scheduling, we may slide down a little. There has been talk of a H&A with Notre Dame. I'd like that a lot. Wish we hadn't dropped the Oregon matchup.

 

[LawDawg]

I barely read his posts, so that's not likely to happen.

It's funny, but I realized earlier that I don't read his posts any more, either. Don't think it is because they are too long, it's just that I've read the same tripe from him for so many years I realize that I know what he is saying without having to read it.

 

[LawDawg]

So you get the foundation, but simply can't understand the structure on top of it.

I want to see quality football. I've said at least 20 times that covers all of college football. It has nothing to do with who can actually beat who. I'd rather see my team get smoked by LSU than drop 60 on nobody. But I'd really rather see top teams from all of the power conferences play each other more, like they used to. I love college football. It seems you love winning even when the games are meaningless.

Every time you post it just shows how desperately you are trying to defend the indefensible.

What you can't seem to grasp, at least for me, is I totally understand your position, and even agree with parts of it, but I disagree as to other parts. No matter how many times you post it here, not everyone is going to agree with you. So, say it as often as you want, but just because others disagree doesn't mean they don't understand what you are saying.

You: I want quality football, and I bitch at my school when they don't schedule it.
Others: We recognize that to win the NC, you can't play 3 or 4 top OOC games with your IC schedule.
You: Pussies.
Others: It is what it is ... that's how the system works if you want to get a NC.
You: Pussies.
Others: Meh.
You: You don't understand my argument.
Others: Meh. Ignore.

 

[trojanfan12]

That's a darn good list ... they all make sense to me. I might enhance 4 with why travel so far away that it is more difficult for your fans to follow - that's why Clemson and GaTech make so much sense for my team. Great list ... I approve.

Oh, but wait, you are criticizing the list. Why exactly aren't those good reasons (no. 1 excluded, because we will never agree on that)?

Honestly, it comes down to a matter of perspective. From a certain point of view, they all make perfect sense. From another, they don't.

I've always been very happy with the way USC schedules (although it looks like we may have some OOC games coming in the future that I'm not going to be happy about) because I prefer games where the opposing team at least has a shot at beating us. I also like seeing us travel to other parts of the country to play top teams. For me, it makes for a better game. I love being excited about the upcoming game rather than thinking "Oh boy, here comes a team we should beat 60-0".

From another perspective, all of the things I listed are true. Those games often do make the difference in smaller schools balancing their athletic budgets, the extra home games do help the economies of the local towns, etc., etc.

My biggest issue with it is that it does create an uneven playing field because of some teams/conferences scheduling more IC games and/or fewer "guaranteed wins" than others.

Personally, I'd like to see all of the conferences that are involved in the playoff schedule similarly. While I prefer the 9 game IC schedule, I ultimately would be fine with an 8 game IC schedule as long as all of the conferences played the same number of IC games. Also, I'd like to see all of the major conferences ban playing FCS schools and keep the cupcakes to a minimum. For example, in a 9 game IC schedule, 1 BCS level team, 1 mid-major and 1 cupcake. If a team wants to schedule 2 BCS teams and a mid-major or cupcake, that's fine too.

 

[trojanfan12]

Although I fear with our current AD, who comes from the Florida school of scheduling, we may slide down a little. There has been talk of a H&A with Notre Dame. I'd like that a lot. Wish we hadn't dropped the Oregon matchup.

Hopefully it doesn't change too much.

 

[LawDawg]

Honestly, it comes down to a matter of perspective. From a certain point of view, they all make perfect sense. From another, they don't.

I've always been very happy with the way USC schedules (although it looks like we may have some OOC games coming in the future that I'm not going to be happy about) because I prefer games where the opposing team at least has a shot at beating us. I also like seeing us travel to other parts of the country to play top teams. For me, it makes for a better game.

From another perspective, all of the things I listed are true. Those games often do make the difference in smaller schools balancing their athletic budgets, the extra home games do help the economies of the local towns, etc., etc.

My biggest issue with it is that it does create an uneven playing field because of some teams/conferences scheduling more IC games and/or fewer "guaranteed wins" than others.

Personally, I'd like to see all of the conferences that are involved in the playoff schedule similarly. While I prefer the 9 game IC schedule, I ultimately would be fine with an 8 game IC schedule as long as all of the conferences played the same number of IC games. Also, I'd like to see all of the major conferences ban playing FCS schools and keep the cupcakes to a minimum. For example, in a 9 game IC schedule, 1 BCS level team, 1 mid-major and 1 cupcake. If a team wants to schedule 2 BCS teams and a mid-major or cupcake, that's fine too.

Good post.

I am hopeful that the committee will act in a way so that there will be more uniformity in what is expected. We shall see.

 

[trojanfan12]

How many years of probation will you get after?

Meh. Probably another 5!! Unless we start handing out mobile homes instead of houses. At least then, if the NCAA comes sniffing around, we can move them!!

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Saints trade up from 27th to 20th to take Brandin Cooks. Cooks on that turf with Brees throwing the rock = perfect situation to succeed.

Yeah, Saints saw something they liked, took a gamble and in the end got what they wanted..I like that daft move.

Cooks will like "the Big Easy".

 

[trojanfan12]

Well we do appreciate the assist in us landing Petersen. Thanks!

I think/hope that both schools will be happy with their respective HC's for the next 10+ years.

 

[smilesid]

Change comes from the top down? If that is true, and the SEC has been pushing for playoffs for over 10 years, then how come we didn't get a playoff until the SEC put 2 teams in the game, and the other conferences finally voted in favor of it?

And exactly what is the SEC playing a tougher schedule going to accomplish anyway? Seriously? What is that going to change if the SEC plays even tougher schedules? Oh yeah, fucking nothing because the SEC already plays the toughest schedules in the country, and has over the past few years and all anyone wanted to do was reward teams like Boise St BCS bowl games while they played shit schedules. SEC fault too?

PS: It's funny that suddenly smiles is supposedly owning me, when he's been posting that same tired shit since I've been here. My guess - it ain't got shit to do with what is said, but rather you needing a cop out because you ain't got shit. I bet you think everyone is owning me at this point - because it makes you feel better and you need it.

Actually, owning you, dear friend, is kind of like owning a badly used mobile home. And I'm taking offers from wiz, mamba, and my other friends, with whom. like you, I enjoy spirited debate. Isn't that the point? Besides, they tell me that for the privilege of their owning you, that I'd need to pay them.

The reason you tire of my "tired shit" is because, it is CORRECT, which irritates the crap out of you.

You should acknowledge that your friends do have a point. I won't disagree that the SEC strategy of a carefully choreographed conference schedule, in which the top teams have an easier way, combined with a pathetic non-conference one, is working, better than Mike Slive could have ever imagined. The 7 set foes, 1 round robin, 1 semi-decent OOC, and three creampuffs assures that the top SEC school will be undefeated or have but a single loss. And the rules are written to the SEC's advantage. They can continue this cowardly strategy, and still stay on top. And the money is good. You good folks can pay some sad sack 1/2 to a million, keep the rest, and soak the fans who mysteriously are willing to pay out to watch 5 touchdown blow outs week after week. God, Tuscaloosa must REALLY be a town with nothing else happening.

But, like all hopeless homers, you miss the bigger point, good 4down20. Is college football a sport, or something else? Methinks that to you, it's more of a business, a religion, or a way to reassure oneself of ones virility, manhood, or worth as a human being. You tell me.

Nah, that's not gonna happen....

 

[outofyourmind]

Actually, owning you, dear friend, is kind of like owning a badly used mobile home. And I'm taking offers from wiz, mamba, and my other friends, with whom. like you, I enjoy spirited debate. Isn't that the point? Besides, they tell me that for the privilege of their owning you, that I'd need to pay them.

The reason you tire of my "tired shit" is because, it is CORRECT, which irritates the crap out of you.

You should acknowledge that your friends do have a point. I won't disagree that the SEC strategy of a carefully choreographed conference schedule, in which the top teams have an easier way, combined with a pathetic non-conference one, is working, better than Mike Slive could have ever imagined. The 7 set foes, 1 round robin, 1 semi-decent OOC, and three creampuffs assures that the top SEC school will be undefeated or have but a single loss. And the rules are written to the SEC's advantage. They can continue this cowardly strategy, and still stay on top. And the money is good. You good folks can pay some sad sack 1/2 to a million, keep the rest, and soak the fans who mysteriously are willing to pay out to watch 5 touchdown blow outs week after week. God, Tuscaloosa must REALLY be a town with nothing else happening.

But, like all hopeless homers, you miss the bigger point, good 4down20. Is college football a sport, or something else? Methinks that to you, it's more of a business, a religion, or a way to reassure oneself of ones virility, manhood, or worth as a human being. You tell me.

Nah, that's not gonna happen....

Which fan base is getting soaked exactly??
During the 16 years of the BCS era, Boise State has played Oregon once, Washington St. twice, Oregon St. twice, in Boise; that's it, that's all, and it's questionable that you can count WSU or OSU as teams your fans are anxious to see. Generous to say the least. Throw in the likes of Tennessee-Martin and Cal St.-Sacramento and you end up with pathetic.

Match that up with conference games with Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, and we have to ask......
Which team is fucking their fan base over more????

 

[7Samurai13]

Which fan base is getting soaked exactly??
During the 16 years of the BCS era, Boise State has played Oregon once, Washington St. twice, Oregon St. twice, in Boise; that's it, that's all, and it's questionable that you can count WSU or OSU as teams your fans are anxious to see. Generous to say the least. Throw in the likes of Tennessee-Martin and Cal St.-Sacramento and you end up with pathetic.

Match that up with conference games with Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, and we have to ask......
Which team is fucking their fan base over more????

How many big name teams are willing to go into Boise to play a game?