Pac 12... 11... 10... 9... 8... 7...6...5...4... POOF!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I can't believe there are 24 teams worthy of this experiment. They would have to add 10 teams after OSU/WSU + MWC. And if the merged conferences were able to swing a media deal for 100M/year, for example, they aren't going to get an additional 50M for adding South Dakota, Weber State, Cal Davis plus 5 other similar programs

the 16 team merged conference is already going to be struggling with dilution. Adding those lesser programs will just dilute the shares for everybody else. And those teams that will be hovering between Tier 1 and tier 2 are apt to bail as soon as there's any talk about uneven payouts
 
what a 12-team playoff might look like this season:



so, if you're Oregon, in a 5 game stretch, including the Pac-12 championship, you'd have to beat USC-->PennState-->Michigan-->FloridaState-->Georgia

easy peasy

*****************************************

by the way, if this was next year, the conference representation would be:

Big-10 --> 6 teams
SEC --> 2 teams
ACC --> 1 team
Big-12 --> 1 team
AAC --> 1 team
Independent --> 1 team

(although I'd bet Alabama would bump either Utah or Tulane)
 
Last edited:
wizenheimer said:
what a 12-team playoff might look like this season:



so, if you're Oregon, in a 5 game stretch, including the Pac-12 championship, you'd have to beat USC-->PennState-->Michigan-->FloridaState-->Georgia

easy peasy

*****************************************

by the way, if this was next year, the conference representation would be:

Big-10 --> 6 teams
SEC --> 2 teams
ACC --> 1 team
Big-12 --> 1 team
AAC --> 1 team
Independent --> 1 team

(although I'd bet Alabama would bump either Utah or Tulane)
Click to expand...

Problem is if there are 6 teams in the Big10 how are they all going to avoid enough losses to stay in the top12?

Maybe 2 loss team can still make it but I can't see a 3 loss team being ranked ahead of 1 loss teams in other conferences.
 
What would the Beavers have to gain long term by making a run this year and getting into the CFP?

Could it give them an invite to a big conference?
Could it help the new Pac/MWC get a larger TV deal?

Would it not matter at all?
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Problem is if there are 6 teams in the Big10 how are they all going to avoid enough losses to stay in the top12?

Maybe 2 loss team can still make it but I can't see a 3 loss team being ranked ahead of 1 loss teams in other conferences.
Click to expand...

the Big-10 and SEC teams are going to get lots of credit for playing in super-conferences with elite competition. It's probably the case that a 3-loss team wouldn't get the invite unless they won their conference championship game. Unless of course, in the Big-10's case, they went to a 10-game conference schedule (it's being debated). It also might be that a 2-loss team that gets the 3rd loss in a close conference championshi

the SEC is famous for twisting the system. Only 8 conference games. Almost never playing a road OOC game. Scheduling a mid-to-late-season OOC game against FCS teams. And the elite teams consistently dodging each other during the regular season. The CFP committee has never punished SEC teams for that.

I suspect what will happen is that teams in the two super-conferences will diligently schedule weaker OOC teams. It would make much sense to have trap and difficult games in the OOC. (which is why I believe the UofO/OSU civil war game will get swept into the dust bin. OSU has already made plenty of noise about not wanting to play it, and it makes no sense at all for Oregon.

I'd also wonder if the Big-10 will re-visit their rule about prohibiting members from playing FSC teams OOC

SharpesTriumph said:
What would the Beavers have to gain long term by making a run this year and getting into the CFP?

Could it give them an invite to a big conference?
Could it help the new Pac/MWC get a larger TV deal?

Would it not matter at all?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would get them an invite to the Big-12 or ACC. OSU/WSU are essentially welded at the hip now and neither one of those conferences has shown a bit of interest. What it might accomplish is elevating the reputation of OSU, give them some cred in future years....much like the cred Boise State built for a few seasons (it's completely gone now)
 
wizenheimer said:
It would make much sense to have trap and difficult games in the OOC. (which is why I believe the UofO/OSU civil war game will get swept into the dust bin. OSU has already made plenty of noise about not wanting to play it, and it makes no sense at all for Oregon.
Click to expand...

There is an element to this - but also UO biggest issue now is travel as well as recruits concerns such as family attending big games - so having one quality game locked up that is a 50 minute drive could be a bigger benefit than the risk of a loss.

OSU side is angry now but it makes sense to get a big program opponent locked on to the schedule if their conference has so many weaker opponents.
 
wizenheimer said:
I don't think it would get them an invite to the Big-12 or ACC. OSU/WSU are essentially welded at the hip now and neither one of those conferences has shown a bit of interest. What it might accomplish is elevating the reputation of OSU, give them some cred in future years....much like the cred Boise State built for a few seasons (it's completely gone now)
Click to expand...

Those just seems like a pretty abstract benefit in the grand scheme of all the current OSU athletics problems. I don't see what even winning the pac12 or more will get the Beavs.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
There is an element to this - but also UO biggest issue now is travel as well as recruits concerns such as family attending big games - so having one quality game locked up that is a 50 minute drive could be a bigger benefit than the risk of a loss.

OSU side is angry now but it makes sense to get a big program opponent locked on to the schedule if their conference has so many weaker opponents.
Click to expand...

teams don't have to travel for home games, nor is there the need to 50-50 split gate receipts . No compelling need to have an annual home-&-home with OSU. In the last 10 non-covid seasons, Alabama has played exactly 1 OOC game on the road, and that was about 9 years ago. IIRC, Ohio State has played 3 in the same time frame. Elite teams rarely travel OOC because it makes no logical or financial sense to do so. Traditions have died in the last 2 years in FBS football. I think the civil war will be in the grave pretty soon
 
wizenheimer said:
teams don't have to travel for home games, nor is there the need to 50-50 split gate receipts . No compelling need to have an annual home-&-home with OSU. In the last 10 non-covid seasons, Alabama has played exactly 1 OOC game on the road, and that was about 9 years ago. IIRC, Ohio State has played 3 in the same time frame. Elite teams rarely travel OOC because it makes no logical or financial sense to do so. Traditions have died in the last 2 years in FBS football. I think the civil war will be in the grave pretty soon
Click to expand...
Alabama has 7 SEC opponents either in state or close sharing a border with Alabama thats a reasonable drive.

UO will have 1 regional game with UW, cupcake nonconference opponents at home, and likely average half their big10 conference opponents at home that are winners. So that averages about 3 meaningful games a year in the region. I'd think they'd want more, but who knows you might be right.
 
Relegation in American sports is a pipedream. It will never happen. OSU's only chance is to have a great season and somehow finagle an invite to a P5(4?) conference from the publicity. If they are left out then Coach Smith is gone imo.
 
tlongII said:
Relegation in American sports is a pipedream. It will never happen. OSU's only chance is to have a great season and somehow finagle an invite to a P5(4?) conference from the publicity. If they are left out then Coach Smith is gone imo.
Click to expand...
It's a sad reality. At least we have this year, better make the most of it.
 
BassPlaya said:
"An historic"
Click to expand...
Really? I never heard this. Tried to look it up;

https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/an-historic-vs-a-historic/

Quick summary
Traditionally, the word an is used as an article before vowel sounds and the word a is used as an article before consonant sounds. Formally, the word historic begins with a consonant sound and so the form a historic is preferred in formal writing. However, many people prefer the form an historic in informal writing and speech for personal reasons.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Really? I never heard this. Tried to look it up;

https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/an-historic-vs-a-historic/

Quick summary
Traditionally, the word an is used as an article before vowel sounds and the word a is used as an article before consonant sounds. Formally, the word historic begins with a consonant sound and so the form a historic is preferred in formal writing. However, many people prefer the form an historic in informal writing and speech for personal reasons.
Click to expand...
I always assumed it was because Brits don't pronounce leading H's.
 
Oregon State, Washington State Will Expand to the Big 12 Or ESPN Loses $320 Million | Big 12 News

 
I’ve said before, people aren’t talking into account the OTHER sports involved in this. Womens gymnastics and Men’s golf, lacrosse and women’s soccer barely have enough of a budget to travel to the Bay are and Arizona let alone cross country multiple times a season.
I do understand teams are getting a huge amount of money for the move, but the logistics will be a nightmare for the smaller sports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top