EDSBS » Archive » THE ROOF CAVES IN: PAC-10 NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

November 9, 2005

THE ROOF CAVES IN: PAC-10 NIGHTMARE SCENARIO

Boi gets acutely legalistic with the nightmare scenarios resulting from a hypothetical USC loss and its bizarre implications for the endgame of the college football season.

14 Responses to “THE ROOF CAVES IN: PAC-10 NIGHTMARE SCENARIO”

1

Heff says:

Leave it to Boi to be thinking about three-ways.

November 9th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
2

Rick says:

The only difficulty with Boi’s scenario is the certain fact that SC is going to put at least a four touchdown beatdown on UCLA.

November 9th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
3

Plowhand says:

Precisely why you Pac-10 pussies should play a championship game.

November 9th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
4

mayday says:

Hooray for championship games solving all our problems and everything, but couldn’t there be a three-way tie in, say, the SEC East just as easily as in the Pac-10? If Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida all finished 6-2 one year, with no out-of-conference losses, one loss each to an SEC West team, and one loss each to one of the other two teams in question, what would be your brilliant solution?

November 9th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
5

CFR says:

Yep, I’m beating a dead horse when there’s a LOT more people who still think like the above “you Pac-10 pussies should play a championship game”.

The horse ain’t dead fellas.

Stayin’ on message until it is. Get tired of it if you want, but if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem (general snark, malaise, castigation, etc.).

November 9th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
6

boifromtroy says:

Starting next year, all pac ten teams will play each other, so no need for a title game.

November 9th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
7

Plowhand says:

Twere that situation were to occur then it really wouldn’t matter who came from the east b/c the west champ would likely trounce them. And your question doesn’t change the logic to my original statement, in this case at least a true champion would still be crowned through competition.

November 9th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
8

Kanu says:

Easy with the vitriol, Plowhand. Take a deep breath.

1) I guess your SEC West “likely trouncing” is based on the West Champions’ overall 5-8 record in the 13 SECCs. I will give you that each side have produced 3 seperate champions, but this speaks to evenness rather than Western Superiority.

2) Can’t have a conf. championship and call it fair unless you have 12 or 14 teams, and the PAC10 is not the PAC12 (yet). Also, as Boi points out, a title game is not neccessary if every team plays every other team, which the PAC 10 is going to next year with the addition of the 12th game(and which the ACC did until they stopped being ‘pussies’ and went from 9 to 12 teams). Are the BIG 10 pussies? Surely you can acknowledge that conf. championship games are a function of economics rather than manhood?

November 9th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
9

Plowhand says:

Kanu, I forgot this is a Florida blog, my bad. I didn’t mean to be cutting or to imply historical Western superiority, just humorous. Just saying, it’s hard to argue that this year the SEC west is a tougher division than the East. Thought that was obvious by the W’s and L’s.

Aside from that, I understand the numbers involved. And of course there are economics involved in this game, but what’s your point? Do you and will you recognize that the current sytem is biased in some manner or another? At least a championship game rules out room for error and concern. As far as the Big 10 goes, my personal belief is that they are a much stronger conference than the PAC on a bad day, but the same holds true, until the playing field is made even with every conference, there will partiality and unfairness in determining who is on top in the final poll. Why don’t you explain to me how this is untrue?

November 10th, 2005 at 1:58 am
10

Solon says:

This only applies tangentially to the topic at hand, but there’s an odd quirk regarding the SEC and the Pac-10–they are the only conferences whose most recent expansion (1992 in the SEC, 1978 in the Pac 10) wasn’t an obvious attempt to strengthen the conference.

The SEC was simply trying to get to 12 teams and get a Championship game, that much is obvious–why else grab SWC also-ran Arkansas and non-descript independent SCarolina?

Does anyone (CFR?) know why the Pac-10 grabbed the ‘Zona schools? As far as I can tell, ASU had just had a good run in CFB, and was great at baseball, but that’s about it. Was it just an attempt to expand from an 8-team league (i.e., an economic move), West-coast camaraderie, or what?

Also, the whole argument in favor of playing a championship game is pretty stupid when you apply it to the Pac 10, or any 10-team conference that plays 8 conference games. Because Pac-10 teams only miss one opponent, unless two teams that don’t play each other run the table it isn’t ever a problem. This hasn’t ever happened, of course, and starting next year it isn’t possible that it will happen–so it’s all a moot point.

The only time a championship game makes sense is when the teams haven’t played already; otherwise, you’re arguing that you should have to beat someone twice for the first game to matter, which is a bit much (this is football, after all–beating someone once is enough). In fact, the whole ACC setup (where Miami and FSU were stuck in different divisions, then forced to play early in the season, with the hopes that the loser could climb up the polls to get back in the MNC mix–which is exactly what’s happened) is the ultimate example of why championship games are stupid. I mean, I’ve seen FSU and Miami play 50 times over the last five seasons–do I really have to watch them play again? And, is a Miami win over FSU actually supposed to prove something? It will–that Miami is a shit team for not having beaten FSU before. Does a (potentially) 5-3 FSU team deserve to play for the ACC title?

You sure won’t go 5-3 in the Pac 10 or the Big 10 during the regular season and win it all, even in the worst of seasons.

November 10th, 2005 at 2:55 am
11

Nathan says:

Best example of bogus conference champions thanks to championship games:

Kansas State – 2003

November 10th, 2005 at 10:05 am
12

I'm a Realist says:

But doesn’t this championship game argument correlate to the playoff argument? If we are wary of “bogus conference champions” where the champion was decided on the field, how can we not be wary of a “bogus national champion” when a low seed upsets there way to the title? In 2002, an 8-3 Western Kentucky team (I think they were seeded in the teens, but I can’t recall) won the D1-AA national championship. Is that what we really want?

November 10th, 2005 at 10:53 am
13

Plowhand says:

I would prefer that Realist, absolutely. The beauty of football is it truly is the one sport where talent alone doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t always ensure victory. If some low level seed in a playoff game, or K-state v. full-of-themselves OU goes out onto the field and smashes the other team in the mouth to win the game, then they deserve it. Especially if they are playing for something signifigant like a championship. The fact that Champions are determined with out this intagible that can only be factored in by playing the game, just seems prejudiced.

Good points all around, but I remain steadfast. That said, I will respect the perspective and refrain from calling anyone else a pussy.

Solon, FYI – when the SEC expanded in ‘92 they did extend an invitation to Florida State to join the conference (South Carolina was their 2nd choice in the East). It was declined, and over the next eight years FSU lost something like 3 conference games in the ACC. Smart move, but cowardly.

November 10th, 2005 at 11:38 am
14

CFR says:

Solon,

Not sure. I’m guessing it might have to do with balancing the conference. Besides USC and UCLA, there’s nobody very far south for the Pac-10, everybody’s in Palo Alto/Berkeley or regions much higher.

The Pac-10 I’m guessing had non-football motivations in grabbing the Arizona schools, maybe it saw something in them as far as overall athletics. At least Arizona has paid off, they have a lot of really good other sports, cross country, softball, sometimes baseball, basketball, etc.

Back to football, I think championship games are a horrendous idea. Obviously there’s the Kansas State example, but there are many more. It bothers me in college basketball, too. I’m always annoyed watching all the conference playoffs where the regular season champ is usually taking it easy because their NCAA Tournament ticket is punched, and then they lose so we get some fraud claiming the conference crown.

November 10th, 2005 at 12:21 pm