Morning Oatmeal: The Pac-10 sucks edition

by jtlight on Apr 30, 2008 11:56 AM PDT in News

Since Dave handled a bit of the draft round-up, there isn't a whole lot going on today. And unfortunately, that will probably continue for some time. We are entering the longest 4 month stretch of the sporting season, and boy, August cannot come soon enough. Baseball, though a nice diversion, just doesn't cut it for me. At least next year Oregon will have a baseball team to follow.

So, with that, lets hate on the Pac-10, Big 10, and Rose Bowl. Another article just come out regarding the "plus-one" system that has been talked about to some degree or another, and the author of this piece flat out states that if not for the Rose Bowl, we would be on our way to some sort of playoff. Also, a few days ago, another columnist claimed that college football was being held hostage by these 3 entities.

I do not disagree with either of these articles. The second, especially, makes a great case for the elitism and greed of the Rose Bowl, Pac 10, and Big 10. I can't really say it any better than the authors here.

But to me, the icing on the cake is that in the name of "tradition," quality football gets thrown out the window. Last year, we were subjected to USC/Illinois (which I refused to watch). It was a pathetic game, with a team that only got in because of its conference affiliation. No other BCS bowl would have taken Illinois. This was done purely because, hey, the Rose Bowl needs a Pac 10 and Big 10 team. This was done despite possibility of having a Georgia/USC Rose Bowl.

Screw tradition, I want to see the best football possible. As a Pac 10 fan, I feel cheated. I would much rather play in a different bowl game and play a good football team than go to the Rose Bowl and play a team like Illinois. This type of blind following of tradition does a disservice to both players and fans.

This isn't even about a playoff or bowl system. It's about two conferences and a bowl game deciding to have a bad football game for the sake of tradition. And that its one of the most ridiculous, asinine things I've seen. No wonder the Pac 10 gets such horrific bowl games.

GO DUCKS!

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Someone else jumped on the bandwagon

Another article on the Pac 10, Big 10, and Rose Bowl.

by jtlight on Apr 30, 2008 1:23 PM PDT 0 recs

dave frohnmayer retired

i'm too lazy to look for a link but its true

by dougall5505 on Apr 30, 2008 4:00 PM PDT 0 recs

Yes, he did

There are good articles around...there's a good listing here (http://www.ducksportsnews.com/categories.php?category_id=22)

by jtlight on Apr 30, 2008 4:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

rosebowl

i like the pac 10-big 10 matchup, i wish it was like that every year..but NOT if its not both the conference champs. If one of the champs of these conferences goes to the "championship" game, then screw tradition..but as long as its the big 10 vs. the pac 10 champ, i like it. I wish thats how all the bowls were, and that we didnt have a
"national championship" game, not as long as the system for determining the champion is such a joke.

by coolconman on Apr 30, 2008 5:15 PM PDT 0 recs

I agree

I think that we should go to one extreme or the other. Either dump the BCS and go back to the traditional bowl matchups and let people argue about who is #1 or take at least the top four teams for a playoff. This half-assed approach that we currently have is frustrating.

by ntrebon on Apr 30, 2008 5:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

Unfortunately

We could never go back to the old bowl system (even if I wanted to). There are now 34 bowl games. 34!!!! That is ridiculous.

It's moving forward or nothing else....

by jtlight on May 1, 2008 6:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

An opposing POV

IF you want an NFL style play-off structure, by all means, become an NFL fan and get on with it.

A "Plus One" benefits no one. The arguments just shift from which the top two teams should be to which the top four should be.

The only objectively "unbiased" major college football play-off possible is one that pits all six of the BCS conference champions against one another along with four at large bids, with automatic qualification for "have not" conference champions who finish top 12 or Notre Dame if it finishes top 10.

Until then, I'll keep the Rose Bowl thanks.

The Rose Bowl is the only BCS game with nearly universal independent appeal. It's the crown jewel of bowl games and always has been for the history of the game and the pageantry of the parade.

It's not as if we've been making it there enough to yawn about it. The one recent season we would've gone to it, we were jobbed out of the Rose Bowl and into the Fiesta. The RB rocks, and you know it, the other conferences know it, and no legitimate NC game could take place without two of the most powerful conferences in the sport.

The Deseret moron says that if the BCS fractured that Big Ten and Pac Ten recruiting would suffer for it. He's apparently not from these parts. Kids like to play near home and the RB is still THE GOAL for the teams of the two conferences whenever one of them is not in the hunt for the MNC. Why? Because it is the biggest deal in all of CFB outside of the current NC game when that game is not in the RB. If the BCS fractured, it'd be an easy readjustment to play in the "best" bowl game rather than the sports world version of American Idol as produced by Fox.

In my view, what would happen in a "Plus One" is that teams would stop playing tough out of conference games in lame attempts to finish in the top four via the "Kansas Model." it's simply easier to manipulate your way into two extra spots than into the top two. Last year, the Big 12 were media darlings going into "Dr. Pepper season" due to Okie and Kansas. Turned out to largely be a mirage. Okie sucked and Kansas wasn't all that. tOSU got to back into the game.

In a "Plus One" system, they'd have all still sucked and until ALL of the conference champs can square off for a shot at the big one, expanding the excrement filled system to picking the "Top Four" teams would lead to even greater injustices on a more regular basis than has the current BCS model. It's only in retrospect you find out who the pretenders were, and as last year amply demonstrated, you can just as easily have four as two.

And yes, I say this even though the Ducks would have faced Miami for all of the marbles in a "Plus One" scenario in 2001.

Alas, it turns out that the Big XII, Big East, and Notre Dame joined the Pac-10, and the Big Ten in wanting no further discussions on the topic through the end of the current contract.

I guess we'll be seeing some fans converting to the No Fun League now, for their usually mostly meaningless last three weeks of each regular season.

by Canard on Apr 30, 2008 5:54 PM PDT 0 recs

Bowl arrangements

As a side note, the Pac-10 gets crappy bowl games for three primary reasons: 1) Poor fan traveling, particularly by the Cali schools. 2) Lower population densities west of the Rockies results in the Pac-10 being the only BCS conference west of the Rockies, which means no compelling regional lower BCS qualifier bowl match-ups that are as easy to pull off as in the midwest and east. 3) Tom Hansen is about as dynamic a salesman as one would expect from a zombie. The Pac-10 should work hard at getting the Holiday Bowl on to Dec. 31 in primetime or up against the Outback in January and create, out of pocket if necessary, a better third place bowl than the Sun and site it in Glendale (proximity) or Hawai'i (more flexible TV window).

However, bowls won't get better so long as the Cali fans don't/won't travel and Hansen is happy with things.

by Canard on Apr 30, 2008 8:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

First...

It seems that the many articles that came out about the plus-one being stopped by the Pac 10, Big 10 and Rose Bowl were quite overblown. That said, I still am sick of the current system, and the way that all 3 throw good football under the bus for "tradition."

That said, I'd like to respond to what Canard said above.

You do realize that college football is the only major sport that does not end its season in some sort of tournament? It has nothing to do with the NFL. This is a horrible argument. I (an many others) are fans in spite of the bowl system, not because of it.

I also think that it's pretty bad argument to say that picking the top 4 is not any easier than picking the top 2. It won't always be easier, but many times it will be. There will always be people on the outside looking in, but the more you let in, the less of an argument the fringe teams have. 4 teams is not ideal in my mind, but is much better than 2. I think that a 4 or 6 team system would also put a lot more emphasis on winning your conference, which could HELP non-conference schedules, as if you win your conference, you'd have a great shot of going to the playoff, regardless. The BCS system HURTS out of conference games.

Also, Pac-10 fans that are so gung-ho about the RB, are like SEC fans in general. Yes, the Rose Bowl holds lots of tradition, and memories, etc. But it's not this heavenly thing you and others make it out to be. I would completely disagree that recruiting would not be hurt by a BCS fracture. If the Pac 10 and Big 10 were shut out, recruiting would be hurt, especially for Oregon, as they recruit nationally. I think it's also sitting in the past to say that the Rose Bowl is THE goal. The Rose Bowl is a goal. To say that it is THE GOAL for even a decent minority of the players would be stretching it. Try being USC and telling players they couldn't play for a National Title. Give me a break. The assertions made here were ridiculous. Some west coast recuits play for a Rose Bowl. But outside of that (and many recruits come from elsewhere for many Pac 10 schools), the Rose Bowl means very little in comparison to a national title.

Honestly, in my opinion, the Rose Bowl in and of itself means nothing. The Rose Bowl is just a game, and the only reason people like it is because of "tradition" and the "pageantry of the parade." Are you frickin kidding me? A parade? This type of argument again shows why the Rose Bowl can throw football under the bus.

Lastly, your arguments against a top 4 system, or any playoff system, are convoluted and contradictory. As I said above, any true playoff would HELP out of conference games.

Lastly, your dig about a meaningless NFL season. Yes, that is the case for a 32 team league where 14 teams get into the playoffs. Even in a top 8 or 16 in college football, that is out of 119 teams in Division 1-A, or taking just BCS schools, over 60. Because this percentage would be so low, games would take on MORE IMPORTANCE. For every game that loses importance, 3 gain importance.

I get tired of the same old anti-playoff arguments that can't hold any semblance of water. There are arguments against a playoff, but these weren't them.

by jtlight on May 1, 2008 6:42 AM PDT 0 recs

Here's some more thoguhts on this subject...

From The Wiz. Money Quote:

The formula for success is simple: Line up the nonconference schedule with home games against the likes of Tennessee Tech, Maine, Wofford and Villanova, ensuring four victories. Then grind out a 2-6 conference record and presto -- you're bowling!

The same is true for getting into the National championship game! What a friggin joke.

by jtlight on May 1, 2008 7:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

Also...

If you want a good (more civil, sorry for getting a bit heated at times) debate on the Plus One, etc, take a listen to "The Writers Block" from yesterday (http://rgweb-c.registerguard.com/audioPlayer/schroeder_043008.MP3).

They also talk about how, while others have stopped the Pac-10 and Big 10, the main culprits are the Rose Bowl and its participants.

They also cover many of the topics discussed above.

by jtlight on May 1, 2008 7:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

Seriously.

I didn't realize that anti-playoff arguments needed to be unsinkable.

When all of the righteous indignation is stripped away from your "pro arguments" the only thing which remains is that you are cranky about the status quo. Yea, Division II does it, 1-AA does it, but they run true playoffs not fake ones.

Like it or not, appreciate it or not, history and tradition play a fundamental role in college football, much more so than in pro football. Hell, the "Super Bowl" is conceptually borrowed from the spectacle of college bowl games.

You'll please take note that I am not fundamentally anti-playoff, I am vehemently anti-craptastic playoff.

I'd rather have the status quo than an ersatz playoff. The history and tradition of college football works against the Ducks, and does not serve them. Do you seriously believe that if were were number 4 in the BCS and Texas number 5, with the "playoffs coming" that the human component of those polls won't find a way to muscle the Longhorns in? The TV execs would sure love for that to happen.

Until entry into a proposed playoff format is automatic for league winners of the major conferences, I am not in favor of any incrementalism that may become permanent half-baked solution.

Right now, you win the Pac-10 and the worst that happens to you is a BCS bowl and most years that is the RB. Any Ducks fan that went to the '94 RB will likely tell you that only the Fiesta Bowl in '01 even comes close, but the sentiment is only similar because we finally killed the Buffaloes. The '94 season's RB was the best loss in Ducks history. You have to be really jaded to want to chuck the RB tie in.

And most of the Ducks roster still comes from Cali, where getting to the RB still means something.

"Try being USC. . . ." Yeah we should try that, LOL. Until we can beat them AND take the league in the same year, we'll never have to worry about the NC game format.

by Canard on May 5, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up 0 recs