What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

The Pac-12, the Big Ten, the four-team playoff and Larry Scott’s … line in the sand??

RSSBot

News Junkie
Jon Wilner

It’s the season for conference meetings, and college football’s postseason has taken the place of realignment as the hottest topic in the room. One day Nick Saban is ripping “self-absorbed people” — perhaps the funniest thing the Nicktator has ever said — and the next, the Big 12 is coming out in favor of a [...]

Originally posted by College Hotline
Click here to view the article.
 
I still think the ACC has some power schools that are either going to jump to another conference or pull pieces to try and become a power player.
 
Good stuff. I think Wilner pretty much nails it with the PAC-12/Big 10 coalition being as strong as ever.
 
I hate to see the ACC and the Big East get completely left out. It opens the door to some not so fun realignment options.
 
what do you mean? in a plus one model, it seems SEC/Big 12 winner versus PAC 12/ Big 10 winner in a game for the national championship.
You don't think an undefeated FSU or VaTech wouldn't get into a plus 1? Almost certainly in. Does give a leg up to the big 4 tho.
 
You don't think an undefeated FSU or VaTech wouldn't get into a plus 1? Almost certainly in. Does give a leg up to the big 4 tho.

absolutely but doesn't that wreck the collaboration of the four "power" conferences. It gets messy on who you leave out at that point. Do you play the winner of the SEC/Big 12 game or winner of Pac 12/ Big 10?
 
absolutely but doesn't that wreck the collaboration of the four "power" conferences. It gets messy on who you leave out at that point. Do you play the winner of the SEC/Big 12 game or winner of Pac 12/ Big 10?
depends on who has the better record methinks. Selection committee, BCS, whatever will pick.
 
You don't think an undefeated FSU or VaTech wouldn't get into a plus 1? Almost certainly in. Does give a leg up to the big 4 tho.

Depends if the plus-1 is based on some sort of ranking system or if the plus-1 is just the winners of the Rose Bowl and the B12/SEC bowl.
 
It is clear to me that they favor better games and scheduling over going undefeated on 3-4 cupcakes.... Face it... The B1G and the PAC have a better revenue model for TV games because they are forcing their members to play better non-conference opponants....

The "Rose Bowl" Coalition does not want to be left out of a championship game due to better scheduling...

I LOVE IT.
 
they are pushing for the top 4 teams based on ranking. Everyone else doesn't want that.

who do you mean they? I think Scott wants a playoff model:

Pac-12 officials have to be think that the playoff model — especially one with the best four teams qualifying (the SEC plan) — further tilts the national championship scales to the southeast, and away from the west coast.
 
are you reading what you quoted?

yes, why are we interpreting it so differently. If you read the WSJ article (and even this one I think) Scott doesn't want the SEC to be rewarded for playing 8 games and 4 cupcakes, while the PAC:12 teams go through a tougher schedule. So a two loss Colorado could be better than a one loss Alabama even though Alabama will be ranked higher because they are on the east coast. If they redo the rankings after the bowl games they will pit two east coast school against each other and he would rather they take the winner of the Rose bowl and Rose bowl east in a title game.
 
yes, why are we interpreting it so differently. If you read the WSJ article (and even this one I think) Scott doesn't want the SEC to be rewarded for playing 8 games and 4 cupcakes, while the PAC:12 teams go through a tougher schedule. So a two loss Colorado could be better than a one loss Alabama even though Alabama will be ranked higher because they are on the east coast. If they redo the rankings after the bowl games they will pit two east coast school against each other and he would rather they take the winner of the Rose bowl and Rose bowl east in a title game.
:bang:

Scott wants a plus 1 now that there is a big 12/SEC matchup. If we do have a playoff, he doesn't want it to be the top 4 teams.
 
1. Go to OP.
2. Open article linked in OP.
3. Focus on this part:

Then, after the Big 12 and SEC unveiled a plan in mid-May to create their so-called “Champions Bowl” — their version of the Rose Bowl — Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott told the Wall Street Journal:

“I’d say before Friday that idea of a plus-one didn’t have much traction, but I think the announcement on Friday’s a game-changer. We’re pretty far down the path on four-team playoff options, but given the very positive reaction to what the SEC and Big 12 have done, it’s possible that (a plus-one) could get some traction.”

Then read Wilner's take on that part (his interpretation, but he's the best guy for this sort of thing and the PAC):

Instead … and this is just my reading, based on Scott’s comment and conversations with league officials over time … I believe the Pac-12 CEOs favor of incremental change to the postseason — change that has minimal impact on the Rose Bowl. In their view, that’s best delivered by the Plus-One.

Scott’s comment, especially when read in conjunction with Perlman’s, was a way of saying (again: my interpretation):


“My CEOs are not necessarily ready to move in lockstep with the SEC and Big 12 on the playoff model, and they can’t get there without us.”
 
Then read Wilner's take on that part (his interpretation, but he's the best guy for this sort of thing and the PAC):

there is nothing that says this is what scott wants, and using some guys speculation based on what a husker says is just plain wrong.
 
there is nothing that says this is what scott wants, and using some guys speculation based on what a husker says is just plain wrong.
Umm. Ok. Note the part where he says "Scott's comments" and also the words "conversations with league officials" as also informing his opinion.

And please present evidence for your opinion as to otherwise.
 
Umm. Ok. Note the part where he says "Scott's comments" and also the words "conversations with league officials" as also informing his opinion.

And please present evidence for your opinion as to otherwise.

Perlman (husker) was the one who gave the comment that he wants the plus one.
 
is this some kind of racist comment?
Hopefully. But seriously, I would love to see you back up your opinion as to Larry Scott and his wants given that you are apparently unable to infer anything or even believe the opinion of the most informed media guy in the nation.
 
Hopefully. But seriously, I would love to see you back up your opinion as to Larry Scott and his wants given that you are apparently unable to infer anything or even believe the opinion of the most informed media guy in the nation.

I posted the quote that gave me my opinion. posts 17 and 19 have it all and how I formed my opinion.
 
I posted the quote that gave me my opinion. posts 17 and 19 have it all and how I formed my opinion.

Wow. That's amazing to me that you extracted that meaning from what he said especially in the context of the media and dodds' response. Basically, you are wrong.

Anyone else agree with tante?
 
Back
Top