Started By
Message
re: SEC vs. PAC (Wack) 10
Posted on 4/24/09 at 1:35 pm to junior
Posted on 4/24/09 at 1:35 pm to junior
quote:
Link please. If true, I'll delete my post and resume reasonable discussion.
Departing boss of women's professional tennis tour says he's willing to consider a college football playoff, among other potential changes.
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.
LINK
LINK
Delete.
1
Posted on 4/24/09 at 1:57 pm to LSUTANGERINE
I agree with this:
He said:
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:
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!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News