Pac 10 Football [Archive] - SEC Sports Forum | SEC Basketball | SEC Football

PDA

View Full Version : Pac 10 Football



Carolina Razorback
10-21-2010, 08:58 PM
Question: Pac 10 championship will be played at division winner with best overall record. What happens if there is a tie? Not sure if it is mathematically possible but just asking.

dnmuga93
10-21-2010, 09:01 PM
Head to head, then division record is my guess.

I'm dumbfounded the Pac 12 will not play their game at a neutral site. I know their choices are limited (Qwest Field and Invesco in Denver are it IMO), but still, can't they do any better than that? I think it makes them look second rate.

GatorMan32
10-21-2010, 09:14 PM
LOL Home field? WTF. That seems fair LOL Can you imagine, for instance, having to go to Oregon to play the Pac 12 title game because you had to play their during the season and lost on the road and so head to head was against you? WTF are they thinking? Epic fail! They could have played in Denver, San Fran, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tempe, etc. But I mean to do this? Bwahahahahahahahaha

socalwildcat
10-21-2010, 09:34 PM
LOL Home field? WTF. That seems fair LOL Can you imagine, for instance, having to go to Oregon to play the Pac 12 title game because you had to play their during the season and lost on the road and so head to head was against you? WTF are they thinking? Epic fail! They could have played in Denver, San Fran, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tempe, etc. But I mean to do this? Bwahahahahahahahaha

ESPN radio had Pac 10 commissioner Larry Scott on today and was asked about this. A neutral site game would have to be truly neutral. The Rose Bowl, Coliseum, or Qulacom would favor the So Cal teams if they were in the NC game. Same for No Cal if Stanford Stadium was selected and it's capacity was reduced to around 50,000. Candlestick Park (or whatever it's called now) in SF is a dump. Scott said NFL playoff games are played on home fields.

Personally, I think the Phoenix area Glendale Cardinals Stadium makes the most since and it's covered. Las Vegas was considered but they don't have a large enough stadium now.

They also announced the divional alignment. North and South with Colorado and Utah in the South. Sceduling is 5-2-2 with two permanent inter division games. That way both UCLA and USC can continue the annual games with Cal and Stanford. The Oregons and Washintons then pair up with Arizonas, Utah and Colorado.

GatorMan32
10-21-2010, 09:40 PM
ATL has advantages for certain teams. Its not an excuse for just giving someone home field. One stadium would give some teams somewhat of an advantage so instead make sure one team has a complete advantage? Interesting circular logic.

bamablazer
10-21-2010, 10:52 PM
Better to play at a sold-out home field than to look like the ACC. They've been playing in front of CUSA sized crowds. Not all conferences can pull off the neutral field title games.

solongseku
10-22-2010, 08:47 AM
Better to play at a sold-out home field than to look like the ACC. They've been playing in front of CUSA sized crowds. Not all conferences can pull off the neutral field title games.

That's because playing for the ACC title game is like playing for fourth place in the SEC east.

aufan59
10-22-2010, 09:38 AM
I liked the idea. One division may have the conference race wrapped up with multiple games to go, but there is still home field advantage to play for.

Bayou Bengal 72
10-22-2010, 12:09 PM
Qwest Field and Invesco in Denver are it IMO


They could have played in Denver, San Fran, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tempe, etc.


The Rose Bowl, Coliseum, or Qualcom would favor the So Cal teams if they were in the NC game. Same for No Cal if Stanford Stadium was selected and it's capacity was reduced to around 50,000. Candlestick Park (or whatever it's called now) in SF is a dump. Scott said NFL playoff games are played on home fields.

Personally, I think the Phoenix area Glendale Cardinals Stadium makes the most since and it's covered. Las Vegas was considered but they don't have a large enough stadium now.

It's amazing that Denver, Seattle and Phoenix have new NFL venues but the major California cities (L.A., Pasadena, San Diego and San Francisco) are all relatively old stadiums. However, a new 49ers Stadium is scheduled to be built starting in 2012 with the passage of a measure this summer that will build a new stadium in Santa Clara. However the 49ers and Santa Clara County have to raise $937 million to begin construction.

And Qualcomm won't be an advantage to any school because there isn't a team near San Diego. The SoCal teams (USC and UCLA) are in L.A. a couple of hours away.

The PAC 12 website admits they were worried about attendance at a neutral site. The article says their championship game "will be played at the home stadium of the team with the best overall conference record, ensuring a full stadium" ! They evidently have seen empty seats in some conference championship games!

And did you notice they put both of their new schools (Colorado and Utah) in the South Division (with USC, UCLA, Arizona, AZ State) while the North is all existing teams (Stanford, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State).

orange&white
10-22-2010, 04:24 PM
Better to play at a sold-out home field than to look like the ACC. They've been playing in front of CUSA sized crowds. Not all conferences can pull off the neutral field title games.

That is the real reason.

GatorMan32
10-22-2010, 04:58 PM
Further establishing that other conferences can try to immitate but can never be the SEC. We are the only conference that can support a neutral site CG. Even the Big 12 has to move theirs around like a gimmick things instead of establishing one location. It means something to make it to Atlanta in the SEC.

GR8NESS
10-22-2010, 05:02 PM
We are the only conference that can support a neutral site CG.

False.

The Big Ten can do it.

GatorMan32
10-22-2010, 05:17 PM
We'll see, I suppose.

fishntime
10-25-2010, 04:30 PM
I think they made a mistake with this setup. There are a lot of places to host the game.

ugabrad
10-31-2010, 11:25 PM
It's amazing that Denver, Seattle and Phoenix have new NFL venues but the major California cities (L.A., Pasadena, San Diego and San Francisco) are all relatively old stadiums. However, a new 49ers Stadium is scheduled to be built starting in 2012 with the passage of a measure this summer that will build a new stadium in Santa Clara. However the 49ers and Santa Clara County have to raise $937 million to begin construction.

And Qualcomm won't be an advantage to any school because there isn't a team near San Diego. The SoCal teams (USC and UCLA) are in L.A. a couple of hours away.

The PAC 12 website admits they were worried about attendance at a neutral site. The article says their championship game "will be played at the home stadium of the team with the best overall conference record, ensuring a full stadium" ! They evidently have seen empty seats in some conference championship games!

And did you notice they put both of their new schools (Colorado and Utah) in the South Division (with USC, UCLA, Arizona, AZ State) while the North is all existing teams (Stanford, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State).

I found this particularly interesting, since both Palo Alto and Berkeley are south of Salt Lake City and Boulder. It smells of gerrymandering to me...