The sport clearly needs some sort of meaningful commissioner and regulation. Right now, it's a free for all money grab. Even corrupt people like Saban have said as much. This gets worse and more shallow before it possibly improves.
The sport clearly needs some sort of meaningful commissioner and regulation. Right now, it's a free for all money grab. Even corrupt people like Saban have said as much. This gets worse and more shallow before it possibly improves.
With the exception of the Saban comment, this is an excellent, spot-on post.
You'll never find a more traditional Pac-10 advocate than me. I did my senior project in high school about making a Pac-10 website. The sad reality I think to come to terms with is things just changed out west to the point where it being a power conference as was doesn't work and it's because the big dogs fucked up and the markets don't like football.
It's actually very unfortunate for the Pac-12 Phil Knight wasn't a USC, UCLA or UW alum. Hell, probably even ASU. If those programs had that investment this may have overcome the big west coast markets becoming college football graveyards.
As @RaceBannon so eloquently points out, we just need a few more "improvements" to get college football just right.
One of the things that really chaps my ass about this latest "improvement" is how UO and UW who both have been CFP teams in the past 8 years get the fucking shaft, while the likes of Indiana, Northwestern, Minnesota , Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, et al, get to remain in a relevant conferences.
What shit as fuck sport...
Well, whatever "improvements" happen, it'll still be Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, and Ohio State dominating the headlines. It was boring 5 years ago and it's still boring today.
At least we will continue to laugh at Sark in Texas.
The BCS and Pac/Big 10 giving away the Rose Bowl was the first in a series of "improvements" that led us to this cluster fuck. The game has gotten progressively worse since.
Oregon fucked us all by not beating Penn State in the Rose Bowl in 1994.
College football was ahead of its time by being something where the best was determined just by opinions, arguing, and shit you can never prove and they caved to the playoff system. Multiple and debatable champions also just kind of created more fanfare. I think UW wins, but say Miami and UW play of the natty in 1991 and Miami wins - how much magic does that lose the program? Same for Michigan/Nebraska in 97.
The sport clearly needs some sort of meaningful commissioner and regulation. Right now, it's a free for all money grab. Even corrupt people like Saban have said as much. This gets worse and more shallow before it possibly improves.
With the exception of the Saban comment, this is an excellent, spot-on post.
This is a great point. There needs to be some kind of consolidated direction or at least a face for it. I'm trying to think of someone in the college football world who is universally liked who might be up for something like that who is invested in college football.
The sport clearly needs some sort of meaningful commissioner and regulation. Right now, it's a free for all money grab. Even corrupt people like Saban have said as much. This gets worse and more shallow before it possibly improves.
With the exception of the Saban comment, this is an excellent, spot-on post.
This is a great point. There needs to be some kind of consolidated direction or at least a face for it. I'm trying to think of someone in the college football world who is universally liked who might be up for something like that who is invested in college football.
One could argue that Chris Petersen might fit that role. But one could also argue that he'd burn out in 15 months.
The sport clearly needs some sort of meaningful commissioner and regulation. Right now, it's a free for all money grab. Even corrupt people like Saban have said as much. This gets worse and more shallow before it possibly improves.
With the exception of the Saban comment, this is an excellent, spot-on post.
This is a great point. There needs to be some kind of consolidated direction or at least a face for it. I'm trying to think of someone in the college football world who is universally liked who might be up for something like that who is invested in college football.
One could argue that Chris Petersen might fit that role. But one could also argue that he'd burn out in 15 months.
USC and UCLA have sucked for the past decade. So there's not going to be much of a falloff in 2024.
Agreed. I am agnostic about what this move will do for USC, but I am pessimistic about what it will do for UCLA. Playing Buck in powder blue is bad for your health.
They will be mediocre in the B1G like they are in the PAC 12. They will be a top team or at least should be in basketball.
Comments
Which is all they care about anyway.