So what happens if CFP splits right down the middle?

[Thiefery]

I know they won’t now. But they would’ve at the time when the raid of the Big 12 was first negotiated. The quality of play is directly a result of the fail of the Big 12 raid and the terrible negotiations that followed.

I wonder how the PAC would have looked now (perception wise) had UT, ou, tech, and osu joined.

If the PAC could do it all over again, would they have let UT bring the LHN network with them?

 

[Deep Creek]

Nothing personal but my position has nothing to do with what you, 1 person, thinks and more with the general health of the sport. There is or was Bama/Clemson/tOSU/OU fatigue. It's mostly Bama fatigue. Having other programs healthy won't keep the best from winning, but it will make the sport more enjoyable. Who doesn't want more better games.

I'm going to guess coaches and athletic directors that schedule crappy OOC games...mostly just to get additional home games.

And they'll hide behind the altruistic excuse that it helps the opponents financially.

 

[Deep Creek]

I wonder how the PAC would have looked now (perception wise) had UT, ou, tech, and osu joined.

If the PAC could do it all over again, would they have let UT bring the LHN network with them?

Yes, but not Tech or Okie Lite.

 

[Thiefery]

Yes, but not Tech or Okie Lite.

think the original plan was them bringing in Colorado, UT, aggy, ou, osu and tech. Going from 10 schools to 16, 2 divisions of 8 with all the Big12 teams being paired with ASU and AZ in one division.

When aggys said thanks, but no thanks, PAC still wanted the other 5.. one which was CU accepted and didn't care if UT/ou came or not. Think they would have still offered Utah in this same scenario to make the conference 16.

No way would the PAC had struggled to get it's network carried by all cable/satellite companies. Wonder if the incoming schools ADs would have advised them to get rid of the regional networks that was a hindrance.

 

[OlyDuck]

Nothing personal but my position has nothing to do with what you, 1 person, thinks and more with the general health of the sport. There is or was Bama/Clemson/tOSU/OU fatigue. It's mostly Bama fatigue. Having other programs healthy won't keep the best from winning, but it will make the sport more enjoyable. Who doesn't want more better games.

but its not like other programs arent healthy or winning they just aren't the programs with the same names. why is it "good" for the sport to have USC good instead of Utah winning 2 of the last 3 P12 S titles?
why wasn't it good for the BigTen when Michigan State was the top team instead of Ohio State and Michigan?

 

[Thiefery]

but its not like other programs arent healthy or winning they just aren't the programs with the same names. why is it "good" for the sport to have USC good instead of Utah winning 2 of the last 3 P12 S titles?
why wasn't it good for the BigTen when Michigan State was the top team instead of Ohio State and Michigan?

because SC name brings attention when they are good. When was MSU the top team? and whenever that season was.. was tosu and UM bad like the 2021 SC football team?

 

[OlyDuck]

Nothing personal but my position has nothing to do with what you, 1 person, thinks and more with the general health of the sport. There is or was Bama/Clemson/tOSU/OU fatigue. It's mostly Bama fatigue. Having other programs healthy won't keep the best from winning, but it will make the sport more enjoyable. Who doesn't want more better games.

I think my take on it changed when in the late 90s and early 2000s when Oregon Washington and Oregon State were all top 10 teams WSU and Stanford made some rankings and USC was struggling to get to .500 and despite having 3 or 4 teams ranked people still said where's USC. Pac 12 and college football are better when USC is good.
then Pete came along and everyone said its just USC and 9 dwarves again ignoring the success (while obviously not as high or consistent as USC) the rest of the teams actually had.

 

[7samurai13]

because SC name brings attention when they are good. When was MSU the top team? and whenever that season was.. was tosu and UM bad like the 2021 SC football team?

It’s been awhile but 2015 and 2013 isn’t a crazy long time ago but Ohio State was very good both years and Michigan wasn’t that down in 2015.. 2014 we finished 5th in the country. But I agree, Michigan State has not carried the same kind of recognition as a Michigan or Ohio State in the last 50 years, if ever (the 50’s and 60’s were good to us).

 

[huskers1217]

are we still going away from the 16 team power 4 conferences I expected?

 

[Thiefery]

I think my take on it changed when in the late 90s and early 2000s when Oregon Washington and Oregon State were all top 10 teams WSU and Stanford made some rankings and USC was struggling to get to .500 and despite having 3 or 4 teams ranked people still said where's USC. Pac 12 and college football are better when USC is good.
then Pete came along and everyone said its just USC and 9 dwarves again ignoring the success (while obviously not as high or consistent as USC) the rest of the teams actually had.

gotta admit, when Carroll got those SC teams rolling, it had everyone watching from coast to coast

It’s been awhile but 2015 and 2013 isn’t a crazy long time ago but Ohio State was very good both years and Michigan wasn’t that down in 2015.. 2014 we finished 5th in the country. But I agree, Michigan State has not carried the same kind of recognition as a Michigan or Ohio State in the last 50 years, if ever (the 50’s and 60’s were good to us).

gotcha and I wasn't taking a shot at MSU either, just saying that they got a lot of attention because they were good as was tosu and UM.. especially when you compare how Utah has fared alongside a really struggling SC out west.

 

[OlyDuck]

gotta admit, when Carroll got those SC teams rolling, it had everyone watching from coast to coast

but people still called it as USC and the 9 dwarves despite 3 shared conference titles
Multiple top 10 and 15 finishes by the other teams.(and other ranked)
other teams also making NC runs.

 

[Thiefery]

but people still called it as USC and the 9 dwarves despite 3 shared conference titles
Multiple top 10 and 15 finishes by the other teams.(and other ranked)
other teams also making NC runs.

Yes they did, and to a point, people still say the same thing today

 

[OlyDuck]

Yes they did, and to a point, people still say the same thing today

so how does ignoring multiple good teams because 1 name brand team is good, good for the sport?

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

but its not like other programs arent healthy or winning they just aren't the programs with the same names. why is it "good" for the sport to have USC good instead of Utah winning 2 of the last 3 P12 S titles?
why wasn't it good for the BigTen when Michigan State was the top team instead of Ohio State and Michigan?

I have no problem with others being good. Utah and BYU this past year were great. MiSU being good is great. But having the blue bloods being great is best IMO. I guess I am saying that I want the blue bloods to get good again ... they won't all at the same time, and I want more of the middling teams to be good and be able to compete, too. What I don't think is healthy is to have 2 or 3 teams dominate.

I admit all this could be overreaction. We all know that college football is cyclical. OU has a new coach. UGA just won, can we stay on the top for a while. FSU won and collapsed. Bama is Saban ... what happens to them when he retires? Clemson is at a crossroads right now, do they stay on top or fade away? tOSU missed the CFP last year. With NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion, we could see some cycling in the next decade.

 

[Thiefery]

so how does ignoring multiple good teams because 1 name brand team is good, good for the sport?

are we really ignoring them? Oregon had a lot of noise pre season and grew even more after the win in Columbus..but since that, they had an ugly loss to stanford who lost to KSU.. I mean you gotta have a dominant team to make people look past SC record to justify the PAC conference.

 

[OlyDuck]

are we really ignoring them? Oregon had a lot of noise pre season and grew even more after the win in Columbus..but since that, they had an ugly loss to stanford who lost to KSU.. I mean you gotta have a dominant team to make people look past SC record to justify the PAC conference.

how many of petes teams were actually dominant?
why does Oklahoma still get cred when they have multiple losses and close wins every year?
Clemson and Alabama are the only teams that have been dominant consistently

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

are we really ignoring them? Oregon had a lot of noise pre season and grew even more after the win in Columbus..but since that, they had an ugly loss to stanford who lost to KSU.. I mean you gotta have a dominant team to make people look past SC record to justify the PAC conference.

Also, blue bloods are going to blue blood. UGA isn't a blue blood, so it's all Bama even when we do well. UGA is getting a ton of attention now but it'll go away if we don't keep winning. It is what it is.

Fact is that the networks love the blue bloods because they bring eyeballs to sets. Is it fair? Nah. Life ain't fair.

 

[Thiefery]

how many of petes teams were actually dominant?
why does Oklahoma still get cred when they have multiple losses and close wins every year?
Clemson and Alabama are the only teams that have been dominant consistently

wait.. you don't think SC from 2002-2008 wasn't dominant in the PAC conference? They won 6/7 BCS games in that span. Got a share of a MNC and won a BCS title outright by murdering Big Game Bob. PAC conference would kill for another SC run like that where they were must see.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

so how does ignoring multiple good teams because 1 name brand team is good, good for the sport?

The issue is -- Those other teams don't have large fan bases, they aren't a national brand and they haven't won national titles. That's why USC is the key for the PAC getting eyeballs back on the conference.

It is great to see Oregon do well or Stanford or Washington or Utah, etc. but they aren't winning titles and that is how you are going to gain fans.

You can't force people to watch teams just for the 'good of the sport' -- the team has to do something to pick up those viewers. There are about a half dozen teams who will draw 3+ million viewers and it doesn't matter who they play. Those teams are mostly in the SEC and B1G. It is because they have huge alumni bases, are national brands and they are blue blood programs usually. In the PAC -- the team who could do that is USC and that is about it. If Oregon started winning titles -- they could get there, but that hasn't happened.

 

[OlyDuck]

wait.. you don't think SC from 2002-2008 wasn't dominant in the PAC conference? They won 6/7 BCS games in that span. Got a share of a MNC and won a BCS title outright by murdering Big Game Bob. PAC conference would kill for another SC run like that where they were must see.View attachment 64231

best team mostly yes. had some dominant years yes. dominant every year no