1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pac-12 Networks confident, even without DirecTV

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Athlon646464, Jun 29, 2013.

  1. chillyfl

    chillyfl Cool Member

    74
    6
    Sep 11, 2012
    You should take it up with Rece Davis and David Pollack from ESPN. They were saying last night on BCS Countdown that UCLA owns it's destiny over the ACC teams. They aren't saying they would do it, but if they did run the table, they would get in before Clemson or FSU.
     
  2. BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    515
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    UCLA is currently undefeated and ranked in the top 10. If Stanford went undefeated, they would have went through all of those teams.

    Utah and Oregon State are irrelevant for the BCS title game, but they are both good teams that could finish the season ranked in the top 25. They increase the strength of schedule for Stanford, UCLA, and Oregon. You could also add Washington and Arizona State to that list. All good teams that will add to the strength of schedule for Oregon, Stanford, and UCLA.

    Stanford didn't even make it through that list without taking a loss, so the point is already proven.
     
  3. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,601
    774
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    This is exactly the problem you get in determining how good a conference is. Teams from different power conferences don't play each other very much during the season, so a lot of it comes from preseason perceptions of how good each team and each conference is. The SEC starts with a lot of teams ranked because of that, it is like starting an inning with a runner on first. I'm not saying that's unfair because they keep winning the NC game, but the reality is you have to schedule and beat SEC teams to make an impact in the rankings, or at least beat them in the bowls.

    This has been one of the biggest knocks on the B1G in the past decade: they keep losing to the SEC in bowl games. My Hawkeyes actually have the best bowl record in the B1G against the SEC over the past decade (3-1, or 4-1 if you count beating Missouri a year before they joined the SEC ;)) But we've only had one season during that time where we were really in the NC conversation (ended the 2002 regular season #3 - Iowa and OSU were both 8-0 in the B1G because we didn't play each other and there was no conference championship back then) Conference perception hinges on what the flagship teams in the conference do, and for the B1G that's OSU and Michigan. They've been awful against the SEC over the past decade, and that's what people remember. Even if all the other B1G teams were as successful against the SEC as Iowa, if OSU and Michigan continue to lose to them, the B1G's reputation wouldn't improve.
     
  4. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    I think it is the other way around. The SEC is invited to the game because they always win. If both teams were always from the SEC, then I would agree with you, but that happened only once. The other eight times an SEC team played in the championship team, the SEC team won against a non-SEC opponent. The three years you complained about specifically - Oklahoma versus Florida, Alabama versus LSU, and Notre Dame versus Alabama, the team that one could argue did not belong in the championship game was the team that won.
     
  5. BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    515
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    So because Alabama won last year means Oregon didn't deserve to be there?

    No. I think most people agree that Oregon would have won too. Or why not give Stanford a rematch? Alabama got a rematch the year before. Stanford's only loss was to Notre Dame so maybe they deserved the same courtesy that Alabama was given the year before.

    I think most people agree Stanford would have beaten them in a rematch.

    I don't care that the SEC keeps winning when I know that several other teams could have also won if the SEC didn't have an automatic ticket to the game.

    As good as Oregon and Stanford have been recently, you'd think the SEC team with a free ticket to the game would have to play one of these guys in the game at some point. But then they wouldn't always win, so we can't have that.

    We'll probably have it this year, since it's the last year of the game. Oregon will probably smash Alabama. Then we'll move to playoffs next year. Or maybe Oregon loses a game so they miss out yet again. A 1 loss PAC 12 team doesn't get in, even if they would probably smash the SEC champ in the game. The SEC team has an automatic ticket, even if they have a loss.
     
  6. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    I disagree... it was a close game and a rematch could've gone either way. Also, ND wasn't Stanford's only loss... Washington beat them 2 weeks prior.
     
  7. fleckrj

    fleckrj Icon

    1,569
    146
    Sep 4, 2009
    Cary, NC
    The SEC does not always get a free pass to the championship game. There have been six championship games that did not include an SEC team:
    1999 (Florida State beat Virginia Tech - both teams are now in the ACC)
    2000 (Oklahoma beat Florida State)
    2001 (Miami beat Nebraska)
    2002 (Ohio State beat Miami)
    2004 (USC beat Oklahoma, but the USC victory was vacated)
    2005 (Texas beat USC)

    It has only been since 2006 that an SEC team has always been in the championship game, and the SEC team has always won (except, of course the 2011 game when Alabama beat LSU - one of them had to lose). Oregon did get a shot at Auburn in 2010, but lost 22 to 19.
     
  8. BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    515
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    The SEC does not always get a free pass to the championship game. There have been six championship games that did not include an SEC team:
    1999 (Florida State beat Virginia Tech - both teams are now in the ACC)
    2000 (Oklahoma beat Florida State)
    2001 (Miami beat Nebraska)
    2002 (Ohio State beat Miami)
    2004 (USC beat Oklahoma, but the USC victory was vacated)
    2005 (Texas beat USC)

    It has only been since 2006 that an SEC team has always been in the championship game, and the SEC team has always won (except, of course the 2011 game when Alabama beat LSU - one of them had to lose). Oregon did get a shot at Auburn in 2010, but lost 22 to 19.
    To be clear, I'm fine with an SEC team getting in if they're undefeated. But when they have a loss, I have a problem with them getting an automatic ticket. I have a even bigger problem with 2 SEC teams playing each other. And that is even worse when both of those teams have a loss.

    It's a farce. I don't care that the SEC keeps winning when the system is rigged to insure they keep winning. I just hope Oregon makes it through a tough schedule without a loss so they can smash whoever the SEC sends. History has proven that if Oregon loses they won't get the same courtesy regularly extended to SEC teams that have a loss. Which will mean the SEC representative will probably get an easier matchup, so they'll probably win again.
     
  9. boukengreen

    boukengreen Legend

    519
    32
    Sep 22, 2009
    and the SEC doesn't always get an automatic ticket. In 2004 Auburn was undefeted and didn't play for the NC.

    RTR
     
  10. BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    515
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    Right, I got it. In the entire history of the BCS Championship there have been a few times when the SEC hasn't got in. But for the last 7 years, they've had an automatic ticket. It's to the point now that everyone understands the SEC has an automatic ticket before the season even starts.
     
  11. davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006
    LOL at the automatic ticket being earned anywhere other than on the field.

    SEC has 7 consecutive BCS champions because they have best teams and best conference. Not even arguable.

    No other conference even remotely close.

    PAC 12 is far closer to being grouped with the other(Non SEC) BCS conferences than closing gap on the SEC.



    Now all that said I do think PAC 12 is the second best BCS conference this season and also through the last five year cycle.

    Also would love to see D make arrangements for the PAC 12 Net to be added.

    Just pointing out that in on field performance and caliber of NFL athletes that PAC 12 is much closer to whomever you consider to be the third best BCS Conference, than they are to the SEC.

    Late EDIT: To correct some sloppy typos.
     
  12. BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    515
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    LOL at the automatic ticket being earned anywhere than on the field.

    SEC has 7 consecutive BCS champions because they have best teams and best conference. Not even arguable.

    No other conference even remotely close.

    PAC 12 is far closer to being grouped with the other(Non SEC) BCS conferences than closing gap on the SEC.



    Now all that said I do think PAC 12 is the second best BCS conference this season and also through the last five year cycle.

    Also would love to see D make arrangements for the PAC 12 Net to be added.

    Just pointing out that in on field performance and caliber of NFL athletes that PAC 12 is much closer to who ever you consider to be the third best BCS Conference that they are to the SEC.

    What do you base that on?
     
  13. damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    233
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Directv get Pac 12 yet?
     
  14. DC_SnDvl

    DC_SnDvl Godfather

    276
    0
    Aug 17, 2006
    Is it 2015?
     
  15. DC_SnDvl

    DC_SnDvl Godfather

    276
    0
    Aug 17, 2006
    If SEC teams played 9 in conference games I don't think they would get the "automatic birth" each year. With wins being the only thing that counts in the current system the conference has not incentive to do this. With SOS being used to determine the playoff teams in the future. The SEC is going to have to go to 9 in conference games or replace one of the little sister schools they pay with a BCS school opponent.
     
  16. davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006
    Agree with you wholeheartedly on this.

    SEC will indeed be moving to 9 Conference Games by 2015. Nothing official yet but all the tea leaves point to this.

    Should have already been done IMO.
     
  17. slice1900

    slice1900 Well-Known Member

    7,601
    774
    Feb 14, 2013
    Iowa
    There's another reason 14 team conferences (at least the B1G, SEC and likely eventually the ACC) want to move to nine conference games - when you have 7 teams per division that's 6 division games a year. 8 games leaves only 2 cross division games a year.

    If there is some sort of cross division rivalry (like the B1G has with its current stupid divisions, luckily eliminated except for Indiana/Purdue in the new geographic divisions) then you'd be down to a single cross division floating game - in such a situation you'd only play teams in the other division aside from your rival every six years, and visit their stadium once every 12! You wouldn't want to have three brothers in the B1G have careers spanning 11 years and none of them ever visit the Big House, or a kid in the SEC playing 4-5 years and never facing Alabama. The 9th game reduces that problem greatly.

    It actually might be easier to schedule if expansion continues and we see 16 team conferences, then you can divide them up into 4 team pods, and you play the other three teams in your pod, four teams in another pod (which rotates every season and who is your 'partner' for division play) and then one team each in the other two pods. That way you'd still play every team every three years, and would face every team in the conference at least twice every four years, both home and away, except one you'd face only once.
     
  18. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,186
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    Put the best SEC team and the best Pac 12 team for the last 10 years in the championship game at the end of the year I'd imagine itd be closer to five and five record for both rather than a lopsided SEC gets now to a certain extent. The pack 12 doesn't get a pass on one loss like the SEC does.

    With that said in the end I really don't care the truth is the playoff system is coming will help make it a lot clearer in the long run. Again I just wish they got eight schools rather than four. No conference gets two schools ever in the same playoffs. That'd be fair for everyone IMHO.
     
  19. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,186
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    There's another reason 14 team conferences (at least the B1G, SEC and likely eventually the ACC) want to move to nine conference games - when you have 7 teams per division that's 6 division games a year. 8 games leaves only 2 cross division games a year.

    If there is some sort of cross division rivalry (like the B1G has with its current stupid divisions, luckily eliminated except for Indiana/Purdue in the new geographic divisions) then you'd be down to a single cross division floating game - in such a situation you'd only play teams in the other division aside from your rival every six years, and visit their stadium once every 12! You wouldn't want to have three brothers in the B1G have careers spanning 11 years and none of them ever visit the Big House, or a kid in the SEC playing 4-5 years and never facing Alabama. The 9th game reduces that problem greatly.

    It actually might be easier to schedule if expansion continues and we see 16 team conferences, then you can divide them up into 4 team pods, and you play the other three teams in your pod, four teams in another pod (which rotates every season and who is your 'partner' for division play) and then one team each in the other two pods. That way you'd still play every team every three years, and would face every team in the conference at least twice every four years, both home and away, except one you'd face only once.


    The best part about moving to 16 team conferences would be they'd also be able to have a 8 team playoff format basically include every single conference winner. But all conferences would have to go to 16 teams.
     
  20. BlackDynamite

    BlackDynamite Legend

    515
    16
    Jun 5, 2007
    Put the best SEC team and the best Pac 12 team for the last 10 years in the championship game at the end of the year I'd imagine itd be closer to five and five record for both rather than a lopsided SEC gets now to a certain extent. The pack 12 doesn't get a pass on one loss like the SEC does.

    With that said in the end I really don't care the truth is the playoff system is coming will help make it a lot clearer in the long run. Again I just wish they got eight schools rather than four. No conference gets two schools ever in the same playoffs. That'd be fair for everyone IMHO.
    How many conferences are there, 11? The ideal would be a 16 team playoff. Every conference champion, plus another 5 at large bids go to the highest ranking teams that didn't win their conference.

    4 weeks of games, spread out over December and January, which is currently the bowl season. And the traditional bowls could be a part of it. So the Rose Bowl could be round 1 or 2 of the playoffs and put the PAC 12 and Big 10 champions against each other.

    We'll get there some day.
     

Share This Page