Birmingham was a long time ago and yes....Bama enjoyed quite a homefield over Fla in those games. Atlanta though is a different story because of even ticket distribution policies and the relative central driving location for all SEC fans. Do I think this is a valid proposal? I think it has some merit if the PAC 10 and the MWC want better chances of making the BCS title game should nothing change much over the next few years with the BCS. Will there be BCS changes that help them....I'm not entirely sure so maybe this Western Playoff should be considered. First it has to be brought up by the conferences themselves rather than by just a few media and fan types kicking it around.
I wouldn't support Zemek's proposal. WRT Pac-10 football champions: 1992-Washington, Stanford 1993-UCLA, Arizona, USC - :shock: (Dang, 3 champs???!!!!!) :shock: 1994-Oregon 1995-USC & Washington 1996-Arizona State 1997-Washington State, UCLA 1998-UCLA 1999-Stanford 2000--Oregon, Oregon State,Washington - :shock: (Dang, 3 champs???!!!!!) :shock: 2001-Oregon 2002-USC, Washington State 2003-USC 2004-USC 2005-USC 2006-USC, California 2007-USC, Arizona State http://www.pac-10.org/school-bio/pac10-alltime-championships.html#4 Maybe I misread the official Pac-10 web site, but it appears the Pac-10 doesn't always recognize a "conference champion" in football, every season. If true, how could the Pac-10's approach be better than any other approach, when .... by it's own records and reporting .... the conference does not always have a single football conference champion? Heck ... this would render such a system inferior to the current BCS approach to deciding a national champ in football. :?
Corey, no you didn't answer the question. You answered something but not the question. I'm not sure what proposal you are asking is it crap? But let me answer it this way, your proposal of either a round robin or 9th conference game in the SEC is crap. The proposal in the article is crap as it relates to the Pac 10. Your proposal of a 16 game playoff in the format you suggested if not crap is at the very least unrealistic.
Bill, The whole dang topic started on the proposal in the 1st post. Did you even read it? The proposal was that the Pac10, MWC and WAC all have a playoff with 3 champs and a wildcard (+2 games on top of the regular season).. The entire reason for me mentioning the round-robin format was to show how crazy this proposal was... That the SEC, ACC, Big12 etc aren't asked to do anything more to prove they belong in the title game.. but the entire western half of the United States must play a 12 game season PLUS 2 more games just to produce one 'worthy' title contender... Gaterz- You are glossing facts. Re-read it. The 12th game was added in 06. Only 2 of the seasons you asked about are relevant and in both of those seasons, there were 'Co-Champs' but the clear #1 was USC by virtue of their head to head win. As to the 'Dang 3 champs', I explained that here when I said: By the way.. that 2000 season.. Washington won the Rose Bowl over Drew Brees and Purdue Oregon State blew out Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl Oregon beat Texas in the Holiday Bowl But as I said.. those were all before the 12th game added, in which the Pac10 added the extra conference game to give them the round-robin. Why not mention the 1959 season as well?? It's just as relevant.
Corey The only pertinent fact re the Pac-10 is .... they do not have a conference champ in football, every year.
Yes I read it Corey and in my last post I told you that where the article related to your precious S. Cal and Pac 10 it was crap. I do not think it is so much crap where it relates to the other conferences. I also read where after the article was posted and only MCG had posted us you did your normal contempt for the SEC and said only and SEC fan could think it was a good proposal. Your normal painting us SEC fans with your contempt brush. I also saw you ignore that comment, ignore the nine game comment and so forth so forth so forth.
By chance.... did you catch my response to Aquila in which I said that is fine. I agree the SEC determines its champ their way as the Pac10 does theirs. I have an issue with this ongoing perception that these teams somehow achieve less than what the superconferences do. I also notice that you seem to ignore some of the things posted by Dave and Gaterz... Once or twice you ignore their baiting, I can see that.. but continually dodging it.. after a while, it does give the perception that perhaps you endorse it. Perhaps it is our more barbaric "Irish style" but I don't think you see (for example) Sid, or Mike or myself post something that the other doesn't agree with....without one of us speaking up on it sooner or later. Gaterz, Please list all years in which the Pac10 didn't have a champ in football?
Corey, if you haven't observed the exchanges between me and Dave over the last couple of years about his posting style you haven't paid much attention. I've also said a few things to Gaterz. As far as taking my silence to them as agreeing with them that is an erroneous assumption on your part. Just like it would be a big error on my part to write to Terry and tell him that because he's a Notre Dame fan and hasn't responded to you he must agree with you. That just doesn't fly. Also notice that I haven't taken a shot at other Notre Dame fans because I don't like some of your proposals. My remarks here have been mainly to you and I probably wouldn't have been on this topic at all if you hadn't decided to deride SEC fans. You have a difference with MCG and Gaterz it would be nice you address them not aim your ire at SEC fans in general. I caught your response to Aquila. Glad to know you feel we have the right to determine the SEC championship as we feel it should be done, I sure had a feeling that you wanted us to add conference games. I have to go bowling and there's a lot of ice and snow here now so I gotta go.
LOL :lol: at YOUR claims, assertions of baiting by others. That's funny. And WRT your query highlighted above, I have done so in the list I copied from the Pac-10 web site (see link) ... and I'm just very sorry if you are unable to see which years do not "have a champ in football".
nope, I looked and it appears there is at least one champion every year. If you're referring to them allowing 'co-champion' for listing and feel good purposes, I don't agree with it at all...but that is some of that feel good, everyone plays, tree hugging philosophy that we use there. USC was the clear champion, and you know this. Your failure to use seasons like 1959 tip your hand. You want to 'appear' relevant, but you know it is the same thing in 1959 as it was 2002... But you know if you go back that far, you'd look silly. Bill, Fair enough. I don't buy the line about Terry not having an opinion on ND guys at each other's throats... Terry, like me, chimes in on everything I see what you're saying though.
:lol: LMAO :lol: ... but you are still wrong in asserting that the Pac-10 has the best system for determining its football champion .... when in fact the conference fails to have "a champion" on a regular basis. Riddle me this IC .... assume that USC loses to UCLA and Oregon UCLA loses to Oregon and Stanford Oregon loses to Stanford and Cal Stanford loses to USC and Cal Cal loses to USC and UCLA and all other Pac-10 teams have at least 3 comnference losses ... which team is the Pac-10 champion? USC? UCLA? Oregon? Stanford? Cal? Or ... all of the above? In the proposed 16-team playoff systems, which of the 5 Pac-10 teams with an 8-2 conference record would receive the automatic bid into the "playoff tournament"?
BTW Corey .... there's a good reason I picked 1992 as the start date of the listing of the Pac-10's report of its annual football champ(s) .... and I bet you know why. Just as a point of refernece, here's a listing of the annual footbal champ for the SEC over the same time period. 1992 Alabama 1993 Florida 1994 Florida 1995 Florida 1996 Florida 1997 Tennessee 1998 Tennessee 1999 Alabama 2000 Florida 2001 LSU 2002 Georgia 2003 LSU 2004 Auburn 2005 Georgia 2006 Florida 2007 LSU Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... interesting to see which league actually crowns "a champ" each season. 8)
Hey....can we add 2008 Florida to the list? Interesting that there appears to be no weak sister champions on that list. Many eventual national champions....one that could have been ( Auburn ) and some that could have been except for those pesky Gators...( Tenn '97, Georgia 2002 ) and one that was national champion in spite of losing to those Gators...2003 LSU. Damn them Gators!!!!
MCG, I hate to call your hand on handing Tenn. the hardware in '97 but I feel confident that if I don't that our resident Husker fan will. Tennessee got absolutely dominated in the Orange Bowl by Nebraska after the '97 season to the tune of 42-17. I remember watching that game and being sickened by Nebraska's ability to drive the ball 90+ yards on two drives doing nothing but running the ball. That Tennessee team was good but nowhere near the best team that season in a year that Nebraska and Michigan split the NC.
One of the great comments about Tom Osbornes teams by Phil Fulmer... Do you know what it's like to know exactly what a team's going to do on Offense, and you still can't stop them?
How do the east and west divisions of the SEC determine which team goes to the SEC Championship game in the event 2 or more (or all) teams finish with equal records? And so it goes...
Rick The SEC has a well defined tie-breaker for ties at the divisional level, determining which team will play for the conference title. As a result, the conference ends each season with a "clearly determined conference champ" .... determined in a style that's not unlike some proposed playoff systems. Teams play for the conference champ title title; winner takes all. However, it appears the sytem one person (maybe more??) claims to be superior to that used by the SEC, Big-12, and others .... is unable to clearly determine a "confernce champ" every season. I'm just wondering how it could be "superior" ... when, in fact, the final result as published by that conference in its web site is indeterminate as regards which team is "the conference champ".
Gaterz, Again, you are using seasons from BEFORE the 12 game schedule (round robin) to justify your point that the round robin system fails. You must see the logic in that, or did you not realize you are doing that? It is clear who the Pac10 champ is and was, and if you don't believe that, I'd suggest you let the Big10 know they were set up and played the wrong team.. I'm sure they'd be relieved. Now, you claim your way is better. I am fine with that. It is your opinion. I think the Pac10 way is better. That's my opinion. Long ago lost in all of this is that the round robin was brought up because some jackass proposed 3 teams who use the round robin format all have to play it off, just to sit at the big kid's table. Just because the conference let's some runner-up print up 'co-champion' T-shirts doesn't mean they were, in fact #1.