The PAC12 THREAD v.2

[LawDawg]

Made a list of top FBS conferences and the number of FCS teams that they've played in the last 10 years (decided to include this years schedule).

AAC (10 members)
Conference total: 83

ACC (14 members)
Conference total: 127

Big 12 (10 members)
Conference total: 81

Big 10 (12 members)
Conference total: 86

Pac 12 (12 members)
Conference total: 65

SEC (14 members)
Conference total: 120

So props to the PAC 12 - USC and UCLA in particular. And looks like NC State and TTU are guilty of playing the most FCS teams, over the last 10 years.

If you run averages, it is kind of interesting:

AAC - 8.3 per team
ACC - 9.1
BigXII - 8.1
B1G - 7.1
PAC - 5.4
SEC - 8.5

Clearly the PAC leads the way. All the others are fairly statistically insignificant. I'll give the B1G second best because they've passed a rule that their teams can't play FCS in the future. All the others are basically the same.

I don't like FCS games except in-state, and even then not very often. But it doesn't seem to be just an SEC problem as so many PAC posters like to post.

 

[7Samurai13]

If you run averages, it is kind of interesting:

AAC - 8.3 per team
ACC - 9.1
BigXII - 8.1
B1G - 7.1
PAC - 5.4
SEC - 8.5

Clearly the PAC leads the way. All the others are fairly statistically insignificant. I'll give the B1G second best because they've passed a rule that their teams can't play FCS in the future. All the others are basically the same.

I don't like FCS games except in-state, and even then not very often. But it doesn't seem to be just an SEC problem as so many PAC posters like to post.

That being said, yes the PAC and Big12 schedule less, but would their be a chance that more FCS schools would be scheduled had they had a 4 OOC games?

Obviously it is way too much work to calculate it out, but some conferences are being punished for slacker schools. All of aTm's FCS schools count against their numbers despite being in conference two years.

 

[LawDawg]

That being said, yes the PAC and Big12 schedule less, but would their be a chance that more FCS schools would be scheduled had they had a 4 OOC games?

Obviously it is way too much work to calculate it out, but some conferences are being punished for slacker schools. All of aTm's FCS schools count against their numbers despite being in conference two years.

I'm curious, but too lazy to look it up ... when the BigXII was playing a CG, did they play 8 or 9 IC?

 

[7Samurai13]

I'm curious, but too lazy to look it up ... when the BigXII was playing a CG, did they play 8 or 9 IC?

8, the ONLY reason they switched to 9 was because they went to 10 teams in conference with Colorado and Nebraska leaving to greener pastures. Had that never happened, they would still be at 8 conference games. That happened between the 2010 and 2011 seasons

 

[WhiteMamba]

@wallace

I am currently @ the goose. U were right. That Ruben sando should be illegal it is so good. On way to game 4

 

[mrwallace2ku]

@wallace

I am currently @ the goose. U were right. That Ruben sando should be illegal it is so good. On way to game 4

Home cuein brudda...what u doin down thar taday?

 

[LawDawg]

8, the ONLY reason they switched to 9 was because they went to 10 teams in conference with Colorado and Nebraska leaving to greener pastures. Had that never happened, they would still be at 8 conference games. That happened between the 2010 and 2011 seasons

And, the PAC10 played 9 because they had 10 teams, and kept that when they went to 12 teams. Me thinks there is a lot of chest pounding going on when the reason for playing 9 games is more happenstance than planning.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

And, the PAC10 played 9 because they had 10 teams, and kept that when they went to 12 teams. Me thinks there is a lot of chest pounding going on when the reason for playing 9 games is more happenstance than planning.

WOOF!

 

[mrwallace2ku]

@wallace

I am currently @ the goose. U were right. That Ruben sando should be illegal it is so good. On way to game 4

Dayum..now I got that on me mind ...lifes just is NOT FAIR ya baztard.

 

[SUBuddha]

FYI Oregon Bitches. I am about 24 hours away from confirming tickets for my pops and I for Nov 1st in Eugene. Should know for sure if I will be there to see my boys try and make it 3 in a row by late tomorrow or the day after.

 

[WizardHawk]

If you run averages, it is kind of interesting:

AAC - 8.3 per team
ACC - 9.1
BigXII - 8.1
B1G - 7.1
PAC - 5.4
SEC - 8.5

Clearly the PAC leads the way. All the others are fairly statistically insignificant. I'll give the B1G second best because they've passed a rule that their teams can't play FCS in the future. All the others are basically the same.

I don't like FCS games except in-state, and even then not very often. But it doesn't seem to be just an SEC problem as so many PAC posters like to post.

I don't recall anyone saying it was a SEC only thing. Would you mind posting a link to someone even hinting at that for me? Thanks.

I do believe I have been saying any solution to this problem had to include the SEC. That doesn't mean ONLY them, it means INCLUDE them.

UW had never played an FCS team until Sark came and I think we have played one every year since. This is a new thing and something most of us don't like. Why are they doing it now? Because they are going with the flow. If the SEC can put 4 or 5 teams in the top 10 while playing shitstains then most would say they would be dumb not to do it as well.

Of course this is a separate issue to the topic of this thread, or at least indirectly related. As I've said if the SEC did go to 9 it MIGHT help push the Pac to drop their FCS teams as they would have to increase their SOS by a similar amount. The SEC would still be able to get away with playing one, but not two a year.

I mean how much more clearly can we make this?

 

[LawDawg]

I don't recall anyone saying it was a SEC only thing. Would you mind posting a link to someone even hinting at that for me? Thanks.

I do believe I have been saying any solution to this problem had to include the SEC. That doesn't mean ONLY them, it means INCLUDE them.

UW had never played an FCS team until Sark came and I think we have played one every year since. This is a new thing and something most of us don't like. Why are they doing it now? Because they are going with the flow. If the SEC can put 4 or 5 teams in the top 10 while playing shitstains then most would say they would be dumb not to do it as well.

Of course this is a separate issue to the topic of this thread, or at least indirectly related. As I've said if the SEC did go to 9 it MIGHT help push the Pac to drop their FCS teams as they would have to increase their SOS by a similar amount. The SEC would still be able to get away with playing one, but not two a year.

I mean how much more clearly can we make this?

You seem to be the only one arguing here ... if you read my post, you will see that I am not. You have an odd way of taking a compliment.

 

[WizardHawk]

And, the PAC10 played 9 because they had 10 teams, and kept that when they went to 12 teams. Me thinks there is a lot of chest pounding going on when the reason for playing 9 games is more happenstance than planning.

Really? Because that topic has come up in the Pac meetings more than once and has been resoundingly turned down. There has been talk about the FCS matter as well and as long as the SEC is playing two of them a year it's not likely they will go back to giving a penalty for playing them.

Amazing that a SEC fan can try to question the motives of the only fucking decent conference that actually still has the balls to play 9 while not really needing to.

 

[WizardHawk]

You seem to be the only one arguing here ... if you read my post, you will see that I am not. You have an odd way of taking a compliment.

But it doesn't seem to be just an SEC problem as so many PAC posters like to post.

Funny compliment.

 

[LawDawg]

Really? Because that topic has come up in the Pac meetings more than once and has been resoundingly turned down. There has been talk about the FCS matter as well and as long as the SEC is playing two of them a year it's not likely they will go back to giving a penalty for playing them.

Amazing that a SEC fan can try to question the motives of the only fucking decent conference that actually still has the balls to play 9 while not really needing to.

Simple observation - when the PAC12 went from 10 to 12 teams, did they say, "we are going to stay at 9 games because we have balls the other conferences don't have," or did it just make sense to stay at 9 because you were already there? Just asking.

 

[trojanfan12]

My point is that all this has come about because the Pac 12 coaches want a level playing field. If this is to be about that then I should hope to see the same Pac 12 coaches come out and make a statement similar in strenghth to the one they did against the SEC, unless its purely about the SEC(and we all know it is). This same argument happens yearly about this time and now we can see its not simply an SEC thing, but I wonder if the same disdain is felt for the ACC due to its similar practices? We will see over the next day or so if that thread gets the same love and we will get our answer of what its really about by the number of posts in that one versus this one. If its really about level field, then it should get similar responses. time will tell.

Again, you're not going to see the ACC get that kind of "love" because their fans aren't running around claiming to be the top conference and calling other conferences weak.

Sorry, but when a conferences fans pop off as much as many SEC fans do and put down other conferences, there is going to be backlash. Why would you expect otherwise? Just realize that when people are talking about the SEC fanboys, they don't mean you.

As for it being about the SEC, if it is, it's because the SEC has made it about themselves. That's not necessarily a criticism either. It means the SEC's success makes them a target.

Hell, like I've said before, I can't wait until folks start hating on USC again, it'll mean we're back in the NC hunt where we belong!!

 

[LawDawg]

Funny compliment.

You are a selective reader ... you missed the part about kudos to the PAC. Oh, well, I can only do so much.

 

[trojanfan12]

You do know that the Pac coaches didn't come out on purpose right? They were all together and the media asked them questions about their thoughts on it and they replied. And not every HC said something. Petersen for example said he wasn't worried about anyone else's schedule as he had one of his own to prepare for.

I would expect if the media asked them questions (we all know it won't happen) that they would likely give the same answer.

It was the media that stirred this up and frankly it didn't have much legs in the news day as it was. Don't think I've read a thing about it since.

I don't think Sark was quoted at all.

 

[trojanfan12]

Damn media again, dont they have anything better to do?

Just imagine how much better we'd all get along without the media stirring shit up!!

 

[LawDawg]

Again, you're not going to see the ACC get that kind of "love" because their fans aren't running around claiming to be the top conference and calling other conferences weak.

Sorry, but when a conferences fans pop off as much as many SEC fans do and put down other conferences, there is going to be backlash. Why would you expect otherwise? Just realize that when people are talking about the SEC fanboys, they don't mean you.

As for it being about the SEC, if it is, it's because the SEC has made it about themselves. That's not necessarily a criticism either. It means the SEC's success makes them a target.

Hell, like I've said before, I can't wait until folks start hating on USC again, it'll mean we're back in the NC hunt where we belong!!

I've always said that if I were a Bama fan I'd tell you all to kiss my ass and count the crystal about 3 times a day. I'd love to have some Dawg hate for win 3 NCs like that. Hell I get the Dawg hate now and all I have are pre-season NCs.