It feels like the Rebel Alliance taking on the Empire. At least they’ll have a seat in the playoff. Good for them. But like Stewart Mandel of The Athletic mentioned yesterday, it won’t measure up to the Power conferences. Shrewd moves on Gould’s part though. Makes you wonder why her predecessors failed so miserably?
It feels like the Rebel Alliance taking on the Empire. At least they’ll have a seat in the playoff. Good for them. But like Stewart Mandel of The Athletic mentioned yesterday, it won’t measure up to the Power conferences. Shrewd moves on Gould’s part though. Makes you wonder why her predecessors failed so miserably?
Will be interesting to see what happens next... if there are super conferences... and most think so... how will the members be selected? Four divisions? If so, are they four conferences? Or ?
The Pac does not have a seat in the Playoff. If the conference champ is ranked among the top 5 conferences they do. Last year Liberty was No. 23 in the final CFP rankings, but as Conf USA champion they were the 5th best conference and got in. SMU was No. 24 and American Conf was No. 6 so SMU didn't.
Liberty took the slot of the No. 12 CFP ranked team. Oregon State was No. 19 with 3 Pac members in front of them. The ranking was not strong enough for an at-large at No. 19.
Who knows whether they would still have been No. 19 (and the 5th conference champ if there schedule wasn't boosted by association with UW, UO, UA.
I believe Cincinnati, then in The American Conference, was the last "sure thing" for a Playoff slot.
It is unlikely the Pac will have more than a conference champion invited either as a No. 5 conference champ or at-large. But, to improve their odds, that's why the Pac only picked the top 4 Mt. West teams and why they will likely only have 9 members so they can schedule as many Power 4 teams for non-conference games as possible to improve their image.
The Pac will be competing with all the so-called Group of 5 champs for a CFP slot.
The only way the Pac-however-many will get a guaranteed spot in the CFP playoff is by having its teams go out and consistently win their share of games against the now-P4 teams, including wins against the top teams in those conferences. That will take at least several years.
Bruce, I think it's why the next 2 in PAC (to make 8 and qualify for CFP) will be lightweights that the 'big 6' now in the PAC can regularly notch W's against. I think this rebuild is less about holding PAC together for long term and more about allowing some of the PAC to become TV $ valuable enough to jump to B12 (or even B1G).
Perhaps they failed on purpose...as in an "INSIDE JOB," The narrative still isn't changing, USA Today and NY TImes (part of the Southern Tory-Brit Alliance) continues to bash the PAC...gee that's odd, it's only been going on since 2001.
It feels like the Rebel Alliance taking on the Empire. At least they’ll have a seat in the playoff. Good for them. But like Stewart Mandel of The Athletic mentioned yesterday, it won’t measure up to the Power conferences. Shrewd moves on Gould’s part though. Makes you wonder why her predecessors failed so miserably?
Will be interesting to see what happens next... if there are super conferences... and most think so... how will the members be selected? Four divisions? If so, are they four conferences? Or ?
The Pac does not have a seat in the Playoff. If the conference champ is ranked among the top 5 conferences they do. Last year Liberty was No. 23 in the final CFP rankings, but as Conf USA champion they were the 5th best conference and got in. SMU was No. 24 and American Conf was No. 6 so SMU didn't.
Liberty took the slot of the No. 12 CFP ranked team. Oregon State was No. 19 with 3 Pac members in front of them. The ranking was not strong enough for an at-large at No. 19.
Who knows whether they would still have been No. 19 (and the 5th conference champ if there schedule wasn't boosted by association with UW, UO, UA.
I believe Cincinnati, then in The American Conference, was the last "sure thing" for a Playoff slot.
It is unlikely the Pac will have more than a conference champion invited either as a No. 5 conference champ or at-large. But, to improve their odds, that's why the Pac only picked the top 4 Mt. West teams and why they will likely only have 9 members so they can schedule as many Power 4 teams for non-conference games as possible to improve their image.
The Pac will be competing with all the so-called Group of 5 champs for a CFP slot.
What happens when the B1G and SEC Elite programs get sick of subsidizing their conference mate also rans?
The only way the Pac-however-many will get a guaranteed spot in the CFP playoff is by having its teams go out and consistently win their share of games against the now-P4 teams, including wins against the top teams in those conferences. That will take at least several years.
Bruce, I think it's why the next 2 in PAC (to make 8 and qualify for CFP) will be lightweights that the 'big 6' now in the PAC can regularly notch W's against. I think this rebuild is less about holding PAC together for long term and more about allowing some of the PAC to become TV $ valuable enough to jump to B12 (or even B1G).
Perhaps they failed on purpose...as in an "INSIDE JOB," The narrative still isn't changing, USA Today and NY TImes (part of the Southern Tory-Brit Alliance) continues to bash the PAC...gee that's odd, it's only been going on since 2001.