Why are we suggesting things that only benefit california? Because that benefits the conference as a whole? Once usc is good again it won’t matter. That is the perceived greatness by the rest of the country USC. For the time being the current schedule seems to benefit Utah the most. The push should be to move every conference to 9 games in conference.
It very much does not benefit the entire conference. That fixed schedule could potentially be a three game advantage for any of those schools, especially USC. This would be a terrible idea.
Huh? This most certainly does not benefit USC the most. They would have to play Stanford and UCLA every year. And for Utah, instead of playing USC every year, they could insert in other teams, which means better chance for more wins.
How would going to less conference games hurt Utah? It makes our schedule easier.
And for BattleGround – the SEC and ACC ain’t going to 9 games. Why would they? They get to punch tickets to the playoffs every year because the other conferences are too dumb to schedule down.
Let’s be the Georgia of the PAC-12. They seem to be pretty happy.
Get a new commisioner is the biggest priority for the conference. All this bigger picture talk is pipe dreams until you throw Skirt out. After that yes I think the 9 game model is unsustainable. B1G is probably realizing this soon enough. Two years in a row left out. I would sooner have a zipper sort of play. Rotate all the schools for the greater good each season.
Your argument is equivalent to LSU or A&M talking about how awesome it is to finish second to Alabama every year and say “yeah, we lost to them on their way to the SEC title game.”
I’d much rather be Georgia or Florida than Texas A&M or Miss St.
No the larger issue is Larry Scott that is what needs to be done first. You hire a leader to get something done. Getting the PAC12 back into CFP discussion. I think even if Wazzu won every game they still get left out.
.
Loading ...
