2014 College Football Season

[The_Douger]

Well, if they want to go back to 8 conference games they can give back some of that TV money they're getting and do so. They're playing 9 conference games for the TV money, and not any other reason. If they want to help combat East coast bias against the PAC, they'd play more OOC games against teams in the other power conferences instead of playing an extra game against themselves and ensuring more losses throughout the conference.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Well, if they want to go back to 8 conference games they can give back some of that TV money they're getting and do so. They're playing 9 conference games for the TV money, and not any other reason. If they want to help combat East coast bias against the PAC, they'd play more OOC games against teams in the other power conferences instead of playing an extra game against themselves and ensuring more losses throughout the conference.

Huh? They are getting TV money because Southern Cal is one of te 3-4 flagship programs in CFB and the P10 usually has 2-3 of the more exciting teams to watch in CFB. You think Utah/Washington and Colorado/Arizona are adding a lot of value?

The P12 schools play as many games as they can against eastern schools. If the east won't come west there is only so much you can do. Like Georgia backing out of an Oregon series.

[The_Douger]

Huh? They are getting TV money because Southern Cal is one of te 3-4 flagship programs in CFB and the P10 usually has 2-3 of the more exciting teams to watch in CFB. You think Utah/Washington and Colorado/Arizona are adding a lot of value?

The P12 schools play as many games as they can against eastern schools. If the east won't come west there is only so much you can do. Like Georgia backing out of an Oregon series.

They could play 8 games if they wanted and play more OOC games to assure less losses just like the SEC is doing. Do they think they're going to guilt the SEC in to doing what they want? They got more content for their league channel by playing 9 games and that meant more money for the PAC teams through the media deal. East coasters don't see the play because sometimes the games are on at night and they pay for it in the polls at times. They don't have to do it the way they're doing. They choose to because it meant more money for their TV deal.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

They could play 8 games if they wanted and play more OOC games to assure less losses just like the SEC is doing. Do they think they're going to guilt the SEC in to doing what they want? They got more content for their league channel by playing 9 games and that meant more money for the PAC teams through the media deal. East coasters don't see the play because sometimes the games are on at night and they pay for it in the polls at times. They don't have to do it the way they're doing. They choose to because it meant more money for their TV deal.

You clearly know the history of the Pac, can you tell me when they started playing 9 conf games? I'm sure it was when the P12 network started, for all this content!

[TripletDaddy]

the timing of the PAC 12 is fortuitous. SC had wrapped up a monster run, Oregon had established itself as a national power and changed how offense is played, and both stanford and Oregon turned into perennial BCS bowl participants. The money associated with the deal is not contingent on paying more conference games, otherwise the SEC would be making less overall. Also, scheduling east coast teams isn't the problem either. As HFN pointed out, it is getting those teams to make the return trip, something the SEC rarely does.

the biggest issue is that the bottom feeders in the PAC are pretty awful. The usual line about Vandy in the SEC doesn't hold water as of late, as Vandy has become a respectable football program the past couple of seasons.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

the timing of the PAC 12 is fortuitous. SC had wrapped up a monster run, Oregon had established itself as a national power and changed how offense is played, and both stanford and Oregon turned into perennial BCS bowl participants. The money associated with the deal is not contingent on paying more conference games, otherwise the SEC would be making less overall. Also, scheduling east coast teams isn't the problem either. As HFN pointed out, it is getting those teams to make the return trip, something the SEC rarely does.

the biggest issue is that the bottom feeders in the PAC are pretty awful. The usual line about Vandy in the SEC doesn't hold water as of late, as Vandy has become a respectable football program the past couple of seasons.

Of course like all conferences, Vandy's rise also means Kentucky still is awful, Tennessee's fall to pathetic, Mississippi's continued being a traditional power from the bottom of the league. All conferences have bottoms.

[TripletDaddy]

They could play 8 games if they wanted and play more OOC games to assure less losses just like the SEC is doing. Do they think they're going to guilt the SEC in to doing what they want? They got more content for their league channel by playing 9 games and that meant more money for the PAC teams through the media deal. East coasters don't see the play because sometimes the games are on at night and they pay for it in the polls at times. They don't have to do it the way they're doing. They choose to because it meant more money for their TV deal.

You are conflating issues here. The PAC isn't playing "more" conference games to make more money through the PAC 12 deal.

i agree that the SEC won't do what the PAC wants them to do, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic.

[Mormon Red Death]

the timing of the PAC 12 is fortuitous. SC had wrapped up a monster run, Oregon had established itself as a national power and changed how offense is played, and both stanford and Oregon turned into perennial BCS bowl participants. The money associated with the deal is not contingent on paying more conference games, otherwise the SEC would be making less overall. Also, scheduling east coast teams isn't the problem either. As HFN pointed out, it is getting those teams to make the return trip, something the SEC rarely does.

the biggest issue is that the bottom feeders in the PAC are pretty awful. The usual line about Vandy in the SEC doesn't hold water as of late, as Vandy has become a respectable football program the past couple of seasons.

How bout Arkansas then?

[TripletDaddy]

Of course like all conferences, Vandy's rise also means Kentucky still is awful, Tennessee's fall to pathetic, Mississippi's continued being a traditional power from the bottom of the league. All conferences have bottoms.

True. But the perception is that a win against Tennessee is still a good win. Colorado or utah wins don't provide the same boost.

apparently all of this would be resolved if the PAC played one less conference game and replaced it with savannah state.

[TripletDaddy]

How bout Arkansas then?

What about Arkansas?

[Mormon Red Death]

What about Arkansas?

You made an argument that Vanderbilt was not the bottom of the SEC anymore. Except now you have Arkansas which is the bottom of the SEC. Arkansas won 3 games last year. And none of those wins were in conference.

[The_Douger]

You clearly know the history of the Pac, can you tell me when they started playing 9 conf games? I'm sure it was when the P12 network started, for all this content!

If you have 10 teams, playing 9 makes sense because you can have a round robin. There's no reason to do so when you have 12 because you just pit division winners in a CCG. They're only hurting themselves by assuring more losses scattered throughout the group's record.

I believe they started playing 9 in 2005 or 06 or something. Nobody made them do it. They had a good opportunity to go back to 8 when they added two teams.

[The_Douger]

True. But the perception is that a win against Tennessee is still a good win. Colorado or utah wins don't provide the same boost.

apparently all of this would be resolved if the PAC played one less conference game and replaced it with savannah state.

Agreed, they seem to be one of those teams that you get credit for beating even if they're not that great.

And I've never suggested they replace it with Savannah State, but keep up with those straw men.

[TripletDaddy]

You made an argument that Vanderbilt was not the bottom of the SEC anymore. Except now you have Arkansas which is the bottom of the SEC. Arkansas won one game last year

Ah, ok thanks.

Vandy has changed its media perception. All schools are cyclical, so Arkansas being down doesnt mean much nor has it hurt the SEC because the perception is still that it is a quality program (I dont think Arkansas is a an elite program, but a good one? sure, ok). The net result is that you have new teams which are traditionally NEVER good now playing good football and the media giving a pass to traditionally strong or decent programs like tennessee or arkansas.

Contrast to the PAC....nobody perceives Utah or Colorado to be "down," they are perceived to just be not very good. Washington is still probably getting a media pass from when Warren Moon walked the halls. The media doesnt really take WSU seriously. Oregon State is a mixed bag. As I said, the bottom feeders in the PAC are worse than the lousy SEC teams. the media seems to agree.

[The_Douger]

You are conflating issues here. The PAC isn't playing "more" conference games to make more money through the PAC 12 deal.

i agree that the SEC won't do what the PAC wants them to do, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this topic.

Does it or does it not give more content for their channel?

If everyone is so convinced the SEC is jobbing the system, then everyone should just copy what the SEC does, play 8 conference games, and go from there.