re: SEC vs. PAC (Wack) 10

I agree with this:

quote:

---

Q: The Southeastern Conference is largely considered college football's premier conference. What will you do to bring the Pac-10 to the same level?

---

He said:

quote:

---

. I don't want my answer to be interpreted as signaling there will be a change or won't be a change to the Pac-10's position on this. But I think it's fair to say that the reason someone like myself has been chosen is that people want a fresh look at all these things.

---

quote:

---

I'm also clear on the very special, historical relationship that the Pac-10 has with the Rose Bowl and what a fabulous event that is, how important it is to the Pac-10 and the members.

---

He didnt say in was for a playoff or a plus 1. Doublespeak at best. My irrational PAC 10 bashing continues.




A quote from morningOatmeal 4/30/08 a oregon ST site:
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!

quote:

---

ME: Is that why the new PAC-10 commish just said he is open to playoffs?

You: Link please. If true, I'll delete my post and resume reasonable discussion.

So you are willing to discuss the possibility of a playoff and willing to look at potential changes?

Yes, in the sense that I've been brought in to come with a new and fresh perspective in everything. There's been no issue that I've been told, 'This one you can't touch,' or, 'This isn't up for discussion.' . . . I don't want my answer to be interpreted as signaling there will be a change or won't be a change to the Pac-10's position on this. But I think it's fair to say that the reason someone like myself has been chosen is that people want a fresh look at all these things.

---

quote:

---

My irrational PAC 10 bashing continues.

---

That's okay you can go back on your word. I did not expect you to man up.

At least you admit your discussions are irrational and unreasonable.

So you really think everyone else has it wrong and the Pac 10 is all that?

He did not say he was open to playoffs. To me, it said I'm not changing jack, but please stop picking on us for being chickens%^t about it. Did not sound open to change. Oh, and the Rose Bowl is great the way it is- with Big 10 / Pac 10 connections.

You make false claims and question my response? I freely admit I'll be irrational about the PAC-10 until they stop holding the plus 1 hostage. You select certain quotes and translate them through your rose colored glasses.

Didnt care to discuss your fellow PAC 10 brothren's comments?

quote:

---

Give me a break, someone post an article where the person writing it slams the pac 10 and touts the SEC, here you come with your usual defense.

---

No break for you. You seem to gleen over the many times, including today, that I tout the SEC as the toughest. All I have ever said is that the PAC-10 is not as weak as many of you make it out to be. Manyt here tout opinions. I do as well. However, when I post FACTUAL data, many, including you interpret that as me saying that the PAC-10 is better than the SEC or something of that sort. I just posted the data--you and some others are the ones who ran with it and decided to make interpretations of my thoughts.

quote:

---

Im over the rest of the argument today.

---

and tomorrow?

Well, I don't post much on weekends and I'm traveling everyday next week. So, no Pac 10 police for over a week.

i agree the SEC is the stronger conference. however i dont get why i always hear SEC fans say the conference is superior, every week is tough etc. than say USC only beat arkansas and auburn their no good? which is it?

quote:

---

Doesnt sound as if tennis boy has a position on it.

---

That was in response to how to determine a ntional championship. He stated his openess to a playoff. It's okay. I never exepceted you to man up.

There have been calls for a playoff system for football, and the Pac-10 has been criticized for standing in the way of change. How would you like to see a national champion determined?

A: I don't have a position on that yet. . . . I know there's been a lot of talk about it. . . . I have been brought in to come with a fresh perspective and an open mind, and to establish a future Pac-10 position with the presidents on that issue. I know there's a lot of complicating factors. I'm also clear on the very special, historical relationship that the Pac-10 has with the Rose Bowl and what a fabulous event that is, how important it is to the Pac-10 and the members.

Q: So you are willing to discuss the possibility of a playoff and willing to look at potential changes?

A: Yes, in the sense that I've been brought in to come with a new and fresh perspective in everything. There's been no issue that I've been told, 'This one you can't touch,' or, 'This isn't up for discussion.' . . . I don't want my answer to be interpreted as signaling there will be a change or won't be a change to the Pac-10's position on this. But I think it's fair to say that the reason someone like myself has been chosen is that people want a fresh look at all these things.