The title of this thread is quite misleading. The gist of the article was that divisionless play was attractive to maximize playoff opportunities. At the same time, while 8 conference games in theory could help the Pac-12 for playoff purposes, they listed a whole bunch of negative reasons why schools wouldn’t do it.

I tend to agree with the anticipated conclusion: the Pac-12 may push for divisionless play, but they aren’t reducing the conference schedule.

I'm honestly a fan of 9 conference football games. Though they f you must go 8 then go the SEC route for non conference games. 1 P5 oof game like Notre Dame or who ever.(try to sell Kansas football as a hard game) 2 G5 schools MWC or Cusa and a FCS conference team. (WAC or Big Sky)

9 conf games left Pac 12 with 4 home games vs P5
1 is on Pac12 network

(06-21-2021 10:17 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 09:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 09:18 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 08:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 08:26 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  I can't see them dropping down to 8 conference games. Everyone wants to maximize their footprint inside of California and that includes the schools that already reside there. The only path for the Pac-12 dropping down to 8 conference games is if the California schools are willing drop their requirement to play each other annually. The Northwest schools who gave up their annual trip to LA and the mountain schools doing the same with the Bay Area are extremely unlikely to be willing to make further sacrifices here.

Dropping divisons would be something I can see them doing as there has been more than one year recently where the 2 best teams in conference have been coming from the same division (2015 & 2018) and a few pre playoff years where Oregon & Stanford were running the conference in the post Pete Carroll era.

I tend to agree. I think the PAC dropping divisions is almost inevitable. Dropping to 8 games is less likely.

I agree as well with a move to eight games. Just does not make sense for them. There are no guarantees by dropping divisions. If a team takes second place with a 7-2 record, but went 1-2 in non-conference, they are an 8-4 team playing for a conference championship. If they win, they might not get in with four losses. Anyway, they are just throwing ideas around at this point. The best idea would be to do whatever it takes to get better in football. An eight game schedule and no divisions will not make the quality of the product on the field better.

Thing is, though, the PAC has not had trouble playing good football. Unlike say the ACC, the PAC has never come close to flirting with a non-Power level of performance on the field.

What the PAC has lacked is a super-power like Clemson that makes the playoffs every year, thus covering, in the eyes of the media, the fact that the overall conference hasn't been very good in some years.

The PAC needs for a USC 2002 - 2008 to emerge. A national title contending standard-bearer. And I'm not sure there's a magical formula for that.

You are right. What I meant to say was that they need stronger teams at the top. I think they could get there with Oregon and USC. Those two teams are loaded with talent and I think UCLA and Washington are going to have good seasons as well. I think this will be a good season for the PAC. Unfortunately, being loaded with talent is not good enough these days with the super-loaded talented teams like Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State out there.

As I have said many times before, the PAC needs to do a better job of keeping there best players at home. The conference leadership could help with that. Defensive lineman J.T. Tuimoloau, who is currently ranked the No. 1 ranked player in the 2021 class, is deciding between Washington, USC, Oregon, Ohio State, and Alabama. He is from the Seattle area and the PAC needs to keep him at home. He waited until June to make his decision because he wanted to visit each school this month. Keeping talent like J.T. Tuimoloau at home should be more important to the PAC than if they play an eight game schedule or divisions.

No question, the PAC has to do a better job of keeping those 5-star California kids in-conference. Can't have them going to Alabama or Clemson.

But Notre Dame has proved that you don't need Alabama/Ohio State level talent to make the playoffs. They have talent in the same range USC and Oregon have and have been getting there. Coaching matters a lot too.

The PAC had what it took to make the CFP for a long while - USC from 2002 to 2008, then when Carroll left, Oregon from 2010 - 2014 took up the baton. It's just been bad luck that since 2015, there's been nobody else. I'm not sure there is a conference-structure solution. Just need that right combination of talent and coach to come along.

(06-21-2021 11:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 09:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 07:19 PM)Crayton Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...eport/amp/

Pre COVID I recall they explored opening up more OOC dates later in the year. This article also mentions a desire to go divisionless (the cause is mounting).

What would Pac-12 teams do with an additional OOC game? I suppose more P5 content but unless the Big 12 or Big Ten do the same, that content is locked up for nearly a decade. More BYU and MW then.

Any change likely wouldn’t go into effect for 2+ years anyway, times well with a new media deal and maybe a new playoff. Perhaps the conference could use a new PR image too.

Good luck selling fewer conference games to ESPN and Fox.

If the Pac-12 played 8 conference games, that would provide more conference games to TV than the Big 12 playing 9.

This would assume that instead of the extra ninth conference games which would be six home games and six road games for the 12 Pac-12 teams you are getting 12 home games (or at least more than 6) for the 12 Pac-12 teams to replace them with. You are then depending on the attractiveness of the 12 teams and their sites to get teams to travel to them.

Of course the obvious negative is that we're talking about the West Coast. Teams in general are less likely to travel out West if it's a longer trip. California schools do have a benefit that it is California. The other Pac-12 schools don't have that luxury and Arizona and Arizona have the heat to deal with in September. Sure, they can always invite FCS schools who will travel anywhere if you pay them enough. Then the media partners will be less enthusiastic about those games. I'm giving up Oregon-USC for Oregon-FCS? Good luck selling that to ESPN and FOX.

Will you get more home games? Probably. Will they be better? I doubt it unless the Big Ten and/or Big 12 also follow suit. Do I expect the ACC and/or SEC to play more games against the Pac 12 if the Pac 12 drops to 8 games? No.