squintsdd wrote:Man you're twisting words. I said nothing about being in a superior position. I said the Pac 12 is the stronger conference
By what metric though? I just posted quite a few reasons why the B1G is the "stronger" conference; claiming I'm twisting your words is being awfully pedantic.
You're taking two schools and saying that the B1G is the stronger conference. I would argue that 2 schools do not make a conference. 6 schools in the top 25 vs 3 would tell me that the pac12 is stronger. Now if you want to argue that the B1G is stronger based off media rights and annual earnings, yeah the B1G far and away exceeds the Pac 12.
Saying that I said the pac12 is the "superior" conference is most definitely twisting words. Never did I say that. On the field, based off of end of season results by the ENTIRE conference, the Pac12 is stronger.
At seasons end, the B1G has 2 of the 4 teams in the Playoff, the Pac has 0.
2 of the ranked teams for the Pac are leaving for the B1G.
So yes, the Pac is the weaker conference all things considered.
squintsdd wrote:Man you're twisting words. I said nothing about being in a superior position. I said the Pac 12 is the stronger conference
By what metric though? I just posted quite a few reasons why the B1G is the "stronger" conference; claiming I'm twisting your words is being awfully pedantic.
You're taking two schools and saying that the B1G is the stronger conference. I would argue that 2 schools do not make a conference. 6 schools in the top 25 vs 3 would tell me that the pac12 is stronger. Now if you want to argue that the B1G is stronger based off media rights and annual earnings, yeah the B1G far and away exceeds the Pac 12.
Saying that I said the pac12 is the "superior" conference is most definitely twisting words. Never did I say that. On the field, based off of end of season results by the ENTIRE conference, the Pac12 is stronger.
At seasons end, the B1G has 2 of the 4 teams in the Playoff, the Pac has 0.
2 of the ranked teams for the Pac are leaving for the B1G.
So yes, the Pac is the weaker conference all things considered.
Right now, at this point in time, currently. The Pac 12 is stronger. Usc and ucla are not in the B1G this season, and 2 schools do not make a conference
squintsdd wrote:
Right now, at this point in time, currently. The Pac 12 is stronger. Usc and ucla are not in the B1G this season, and 2 schools do not make a conference
It's still 2 teams to 0 in the CFP.
9 Bowl eligible teams to 7.
96-74 (564%) to 81-65 (582%)
If the PAC was good enough to have 2 teams in the CFP, we wouldn't have 6 ranked teams either.
If you think that's the better position to be in, with more ranked teams while half the CFP is occupied by 1 Conference than sure but I'd much rather be in the B1G's position.
squintsdd wrote:
Right now, at this point in time, currently. The Pac 12 is stronger. Usc and ucla are not in the B1G this season, and 2 schools do not make a conference
It's still 2 teams to 0 in the CFP.
9 Bowl eligible teams to 7.
96-74 (564%) to 81-65 (582%)
If the PAC was good enough to have 2 teams in the CFP, we wouldn't have 6 ranked teams either.
If you think that's the better position to be in, with more ranked teams while half the CFP is occupied by 1 Conference than sure but I'd much rather be in the B1G's position.
It's like talking to a wall.
As a whole. The Pac 12 is the stronger conference. Why couldn't they have 6 ranked teams with 2 in the playoffs? The SEC has 6 ranked teams and very easily could argue they deserve to have 2 teams in.
As a whole. The Pac 12 is the stronger conference. Why couldn't they have 6 ranked teams with 2 in the playoffs? The SEC has 6 ranked teams and very easily could argue they deserve to have 2 teams in.
I don't think the median team strength means a damn thing when they are 2/4 of the CFP and we are 0/4. Arguing that the strength of middling teams like OSU and UCLA vs Maryland and Purdue make us a better overall conference seems awfully dumb and short-sighted when we have 0 teams in the CFP.
This PAC-12 vs B1G debate is interesting, both are making very valid points. To me it comes down to the reality that it’s impossible to tell, some seasons the conferences we think are weak do really well in bowl season and vice versa. Yes the B1G has two teams in the CFP but do we really know how good the B1G is? Michigan and Ohio State had a garbage non-conference schedule and for the most part the B1G did really bad in non-conference games, so it’s possible both teams aren’t near as good as everyone thinks and they get blown out. The biggest issue for years with CFP which the playoff was supposed to fix but did not is that we truly have no clue how good teams are because they really only play tough in-conference games and teams that schedule tough non-conference games get penalized. I truly believe the NCAA or CFP needs to step in and make drastic changes to scheduling to allow us to get a better idea of how good teams are outside of their conference. I know that won’t happen but I can hope! Here’s my idea:
To be eligible for the CFP or at least an at large bid, all conferences must adjust their schedule to have only 8 conference games, and of their 4 non-conference games, you can’t have more than 1 that’s an FCS opponent and 2 HAVE to be P5 teams. That would give us all a better idea of how good teams really are. Obviously rules are slightly different for non-P5 teams but I think this could help.
Quick summary, no way to truly tell who is better between PAC-12 and B1G, and NCAA or CFP should make changes to scheduling to give us a better idea of how good teams really are.
The Pac-12 definitely seems like the stronger conference from top-to-bottom, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the CFP and reaching the sport's mountaintop. If anything, the Pac-12 is at a disadvantage for being stronger. It's a big reason why we rarely have playoff representation. Our top-tier teams have to do better (and be luckier) than teams in other conferences.
Fortunately, this debate won't matter in a couple of years once the playoff is expanded and the Pac-12 champ will be in each year. I expect we'll see Oregon go to the CFP more regularly than USC or UCLA. The B1G may still be better-positioned to send two teams each year simply by virtue of bias and ratings, but unless college football goes all-in on two major super conferences then Oregon's path to a natty will be clearer through the Pac-12.
It is not possible for me to accurately compare the strength of the Pac-12 and Big Ten college football conferences, as I am a large language model trained by OpenAI and do not have the ability to browse the internet or access current information about sports. Additionally, the strength of a college football conference can vary from year to year and can be affected by many factors, such as the performance of individual teams and the quality of coaching and recruiting. It is generally not productive to compare conferences based on a single measure of strength, as this can be misleading and does not provide a complete picture of a conference's overall performance.
The reality is that the Pac-10 is not going to even get 50% of the media deal that the BIG locked down and it will be less than what the Big-12 received. There are just not enough eyeballs on Pac-10 football and the conference is losing two of its top four brands, which are in the largest TV market. UCLA is not staying and if they do, then the BIG is just going to take Stanford instead.
Bob Thompson came out and essentially said that Prime Time adds no value to a media deal that will start in two years. There is probably less than a 5% chance he will be at Colorado in three years.
People are going to be shocked when the media deal finally gets signed and it is in the mid $20M per school per year range. It might be fine for a couple years with a path to the playoff, but eventually the discrepancy in money and revenue sharing with the players will sink the PAC-10. What good is getting to the playoff, if you get run out of the stadium every year?
I am just going to accept that the window of opportunity for Oregon sports competing at an elite level is going to start slowly tapering off.
northbeachsf wrote:The reality is that the Pac-10 is not going to even get 50% of the media deal that the BIG locked down and it will be less than what the Big-12 received. There are just not enough eyeballs on Pac-10 football and the conference is losing two of its top four brands, which are in the largest TV market. UCLA is not staying and if they do, then the BIG is just going to take Stanford instead.
Bob Thompson came out and essentially said that Prime Time adds no value to a media deal that will start in two years. There is probably less than a 5% chance he will be at Colorado in three years.
People are going to be shocked when the media deal finally gets signed and it is in the mid $20M per school per year range. It might be fine for a couple years with a path to the playoff, but eventually the discrepancy in money and revenue sharing with the players will sink the PAC-10. What good is getting to the playoff, if you get run out of the stadium every year?
I am just going to accept that the window of opportunity for Oregon sports competing at an elite level is going to start slowly tapering off.
At the point that this is allowed, then I think it is the moment the Players will unionize to create a shared revenue model so that they all make the same off the media deals in the same way the Pro leagues all have shared revenue systems. There will be real labor laws that will have to adhered to and its likely the most logical way that the NCAA continues to exist in the new model.
Stanford views themselves as elitists. If ucla is a no go, and the b1g approaches stanford, i dont think stanford likes to play second fiddle. Their prestige and image is worth more than doubling their annual athletic revenue stream.
alxtw wrote:Stanford views themselves as elitists. If ucla is a no go, and the b1g approaches stanford, i dont think stanford likes to play second fiddle. Their prestige and image is worth more than doubling their annual athletic revenue stream.
Stanford and the 4 fans who watch them, won’t be getting an invite before UO or UW. This is about money, and no one is getting excited about a Stanford and Jason Garret.
Duck07 wrote:Since ChatGPT is about to take over the world...
It is not possible for me to accurately compare the strength of the Pac-12 and Big Ten college football conferences, as I am a large language model trained by OpenAI and do not have the ability to browse the internet or access current information about sports. Additionally, the strength of a college football conference can vary from year to year and can be affected by many factors, such as the performance of individual teams and the quality of coaching and recruiting. It is generally not productive to compare conferences based on a single measure of strength, as this can be misleading and does not provide a complete picture of a conference's overall performance.
We should have considered ChatGPT for the OC spot.
