(01-14-2022 04:29 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:08 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 12:50 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Curious why you left out the PAC versus the MWC?

In the last 3 years (excluding 2020) the PAC versus MWC is: 15-15

In the litany of issues that the Pac-12 needs to be concerned with, beating the MWC would be at about No. 107. No one in the Pac-12 is concerned about the MWC. The MWC does not have the same level of talent that the Pac does in football or any other sport. In the 2021 NFL draft, the Pac-12 had 28 players drafted, the MWC 3. If I looked at the past three drafts, it is 93 Pac-12 players drafted, 23 MWC players drafted. This is with the Pac being down the past three years.

In 2019, the Oregon beat Nevada 77-6, Washington beat Hawaii 52-20 and also beat Boise State 38-7. These three MWC bowl schools got blown out. Does it mean anything? No. The Pac went 2-1 against the SEC this season, with Texas A&M beating Colorado 10-7. Does it mean anything? No.

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2022-nfl-...-big-board
Pro Football Focus recently put together their list of top 100 players for the 2022 NFL draft. In the top 32 or what would be considered first round picks, there are five players from the Pac-12 in the top 32. None from the MWC. There are also none from the Big 12, but that is a separate subject.

The Pac-12 has better talent and a much higher ceiling than the MWC. I have always been a fan of the MWC, but these ridiculous comparisons and the constant shots at the Pac-12 you are making are getting tiresome.

Well considering your school lost to Fresno
37-40 at home with PAC-12 refs
14-38 at home with PAC-12 refs
31-36 at home with PAC-12 refs
09-17 in San Jose

Maybe you ought to beat Fresno this century before flapping your gums about how superior you all are. Or maybe it better move up your list so we stop making the Rosebowl Bulldog Stadium south

And maybe your commissioner should stop flapping his gums about how it’s the SEC’s fault, and it’s the G-5’s fault, blah, blah blah. Then issuing threats on how they will impose a system. A few less threats and a few more wins on the field might be nice.

Again, you miss the point. None of this matters. The Pac-12 has larger issues than Fresno State going 3-0 in the Rose Bowl in the 21st Century. Oregon is 6-0 vs Fresno State this century. USC is 4-0 vs Fresno State this century. It's just a non-conference game on the schedule for Oregon and USC. UCLA is 6-1 vs the SEC since 2000, 4-0 in the Rose Bowl. They beat Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M, and LSU in the Rose Bowl. But they can't beat Fresno State in the Rose Bowl.

The UCLA fans don't show up for Fresno State. The Fresno State fans take over the Rose Bowl. I went to five of the seven home games this season at the Rose Bowl. The two games I missed were the Hawaii game and the Fresno State game. I had better things to do. Fresno State is on the schedule to fill out the non-conference schedule.

Pac-12 schools can get any of the other power conference schools to play them on their home field. The MWC cannot. For example, the Pac-12 has 44 future games against the SEC, about half of those at home. Same goes with the other power conferences and Notre Dame. So enjoy the wins over the Pac-12 and the million dollar payments for the games, but it does not put you at the same level with the Pac-12 schools.

(01-14-2022 11:02 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 10:38 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 01:29 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s not a whole lot of love between the SEC and the other P5 conferences:

The Big 10 have long considered them their biggest rival and they’ve been at philosophical loggerheads on just about every issue.

The SEC’s models are a direct threat to the Pac 12’s access to the Rose Bowl, an institution they built. The Pac 12 will follow the Big 10’s lead.

The SEC took 4 of the Big 12’s best teams. If that’s not reason enough to oppose them, I’m not sure what would.

That leaves the ACC. I don’t think they like playing 2nd fiddle in the South and the academic wing on the conference is inclined to want to associate with the Big 10 and Pac 12.

——

The potential saboteur is ND. They want an SEC style playoff that affords lots of at large spots. An alliance of 4 could leave them without a post season ally, unless they are incorporated into the ACC.

The PAC is on record as not caring, the SEC’s models would give it’s champion a regular shot at the CFP. If the Rose Bowl is really that important to the B1G and PAC, just take it out of the semifinals rotation and let it be played on January 1st between the two highest ranked B1G/PAC teams who didn’t make a 12 team playoff. Replace the Rose in the CFP semis with a new game at SoFi but let them Pasadena in on the bidding war/rotation for hosting the CFP Title Game with Vegas, Miami, Indy, JerryWorld, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Tampa, Detroit, and Minneapolis.

Here is the latest PAC-12 spin

Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff had this to say to the Los Angeles Times about the matter:

“We’re extremely flexible,” he said. “I think the issue that’s been created is it was originally structured as “What do we have to do to amend the current contract within the time frame?” And to do that you have to have unanimous consent by all 11 [FBS conference commissioners]. It’s clear that, despite us being willing to agree to almost anything, with the 10 other folks in the room there’s at least one holdout for every potential scenario that’s been discussed. People have been public about this. The SEC has said we’re not agreeing to any expansion to eight, we’ll only go to 12. If you go to 12, the Group of Five has said we’re not going to agree to the best 12 teams, there have to be automatic qualifiers, and the AQs have to go to the six highest-ranked conference champions. The Big Ten has said we’re OK with going to 12, but it has to be five Power Five conferences get an AQ and the Group of Five gets one additional AQ. The ACC has said it doesn’t think it’s the right time to expand to eight or 12 and is in favor of staying at four.

“So I think the right solution is let’s put aside worrying about what the last two years of the current contract look like and instead let’s think about what the next contract should look like, because we have no obligation to each other after the end of the current contract. If we focus on what the right outcome is going forward, I actually don’t think you need all 11 to agree, certainly contractually you don’t. If enough folks agree then others can make a decision about whether to join the playoffs or not. I think they would choose to join the playoffs, but they don’t have to vote yes to begin with.”


Haha. Only a few believe this spin as if the PAC supports the top 12 teams. With a 16 team SEC a straight top 12 would be 6 SEC teams, 4 BIG teams and the PAC would still be left out. But let’s blame it on the G5 and postpone until we can shove what we want down the G5’s throat.

The PAC is the worst and most disingenuous P5.

What? How do you interpret this as disingenuous? This is about as open and honest feedback about the entire proceedings as I've seen. Kliavkoff is not throwing stones, He's stating facts and the facts are that at this time with everyone at the table there is no agreement.

It might be hard to hear but he's also correct when he states that at the expiration of the current CFP contract, they will only need a simple majority to establish the next. Kliavkoff is stating this because he wants to make it clear that when they all sit down to renegotiate, the PAC is going to back whatever plan has the most support. That's the opposite of disingenuous.

Not sure where you get “not throwing stones” when he is specifically calling out the G5 for items no way the PAC supports like the 12 best teams. That model would be 4-6 SEC, 3-5 Big teams and the PAC fighting for scraps. If you think the SEC gets all the PAC 5* recruits now go to a straight 12 model. It would also make CF even more regional.

The PAC is part of The Alliance which suddenly pulled support for something they all agreed to in June. Not sure how the “wasn’t me” campaign can be seen as anything but disingenuous.

(01-14-2022 11:11 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The Pac 12 was the first conference to speak out about any automatic bids for any specific conferences, way back in the beginning of the FBS season, way before the Big Ten and ACC did. I don't think the Big Ten would have campaigned for automatic P5 bids if it weren't for the Pac 12 and/or ACC because for practical purposes they would rarely be out of the top six conference champions according to the CFP rankings.

That was in June and that was Larry Scott. He had less than two weeks left on the job and no one asked him to speak up about it. He should have kept his mouth shut. George Kliavkoff has committed to playoff expansion and that is all you know. I am sure he would be happy with an automatic bid for the conference champion. Politically and strategically, the less said, the better.

(01-14-2022 11:44 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 04:29 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:08 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 12:50 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Curious why you left out the PAC versus the MWC?

In the last 3 years (excluding 2020) the PAC versus MWC is: 15-15

In the litany of issues that the Pac-12 needs to be concerned with, beating the MWC would be at about No. 107. No one in the Pac-12 is concerned about the MWC. The MWC does not have the same level of talent that the Pac does in football or any other sport. In the 2021 NFL draft, the Pac-12 had 28 players drafted, the MWC 3. If I looked at the past three drafts, it is 93 Pac-12 players drafted, 23 MWC players drafted. This is with the Pac being down the past three years.

In 2019, the Oregon beat Nevada 77-6, Washington beat Hawaii 52-20 and also beat Boise State 38-7. These three MWC bowl schools got blown out. Does it mean anything? No. The Pac went 2-1 against the SEC this season, with Texas A&M beating Colorado 10-7. Does it mean anything? No.

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-2022-nfl-...-big-board
Pro Football Focus recently put together their list of top 100 players for the 2022 NFL draft. In the top 32 or what would be considered first round picks, there are five players from the Pac-12 in the top 32. None from the MWC. There are also none from the Big 12, but that is a separate subject.

The Pac-12 has better talent and a much higher ceiling than the MWC. I have always been a fan of the MWC, but these ridiculous comparisons and the constant shots at the Pac-12 you are making are getting tiresome.

Well considering your school lost to Fresno
37-40 at home with PAC-12 refs
14-38 at home with PAC-12 refs
31-36 at home with PAC-12 refs
09-17 in San Jose

Maybe you ought to beat Fresno this century before flapping your gums about how superior you all are. Or maybe it better move up your list so we stop making the Rosebowl Bulldog Stadium south

And maybe your commissioner should stop flapping his gums about how it’s the SEC’s fault, and it’s the G-5’s fault, blah, blah blah. Then issuing threats on how they will impose a system. A few less threats and a few more wins on the field might be nice.

Again, you miss the point. None of this matters. The Pac-12 has larger issues than Fresno State going 3-0 in the Rose Bowl in the 21st Century. Oregon is 6-0 vs Fresno State this century. USC is 4-0 vs Fresno State this century. It's just a non-conference game on the schedule for Oregon and USC. UCLA is 6-1 vs the SEC since 2000, 4-0 in the Rose Bowl. They beat Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M, and LSU in the Rose Bowl. But they can't beat Fresno State in the Rose Bowl.

The UCLA fans don't show up for Fresno State. The Fresno State fans take over the Rose Bowl. I went to five of the seven home games this season at the Rose Bowl. The two games I missed were the Hawaii game and the Fresno State game. I had better things to do. Fresno State is on the schedule to fill out the non-conference schedule.

Pac-12 schools can get any of the other power conference schools to play them on their home field. The MWC cannot. For example, the Pac-12 has 44 future games against the SEC, about half of those at home. Same goes with the other power conferences and Notre Dame. So enjoy the wins over the Pac-12 and the million dollar payments for the games, but it does not put you at the same level with the Pac-12 schools.

Scoreboard dude.

And Fresno State is on the schedule because it’s the only way UCLA can boost their crappy attendance numbers now that your are 4th fiddle in LA behind the Rams, Chargers, and Trojans. Read Jim Mora era as before the Rams and Chargers showed up.

Attendance in the Chip Kelly era is down over 17,000 per game.
From 2000 - 2017, UCLA averaged 64,251, compared to Chip Kelly's average of 46,572.
Attendance is down 20,000 per game from the Jim Mora era
(2012-2017) -- 66,656.
It's not a game time issue either. From 2000 - 2017 games that started at 7:00 PM or later averaged 63,483, less than just 1,000 off the overall average.
Since Kelly took over at UCLA, only the LSU game this season (68,123) drew more than what the other previous UCLA coaches averaged.
The only other Kelly game that cracked 60,000 was when Fresno State brought seemingly half the Central Valley in 2018 (60,867).

But you keep up with your faux superiority.

(01-14-2022 12:13 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:11 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The Pac 12 was the first conference to speak out about any automatic bids for any specific conferences, way back in the beginning of the FBS season, way before the Big Ten and ACC did. I don't think the Big Ten would have campaigned for automatic P5 bids if it weren't for the Pac 12 and/or ACC because for practical purposes they would rarely be out of the top six conference champions according to the CFP rankings.

That was in June and that was Larry Scott. He had less than two weeks left on the job and no one asked him to speak up about it. He should have kept his mouth shut. George Kliavkoff has committed to playoff expansion and that is all you know. I am sure he would be happy with an automatic bid for the conference champion. Politically and strategically, the less said, the better.

I would agree. Too bad he is running around the country on his “wasn’t me” campaign.

(01-14-2022 12:08 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:02 AM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 10:38 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 01:29 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 11:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There’s not a whole lot of love between the SEC and the other P5 conferences:

The Big 10 have long considered them their biggest rival and they’ve been at philosophical loggerheads on just about every issue.

The SEC’s models are a direct threat to the Pac 12’s access to the Rose Bowl, an institution they built. The Pac 12 will follow the Big 10’s lead.

The SEC took 4 of the Big 12’s best teams. If that’s not reason enough to oppose them, I’m not sure what would.

That leaves the ACC. I don’t think they like playing 2nd fiddle in the South and the academic wing on the conference is inclined to want to associate with the Big 10 and Pac 12.

——

The potential saboteur is ND. They want an SEC style playoff that affords lots of at large spots. An alliance of 4 could leave them without a post season ally, unless they are incorporated into the ACC.

The PAC is on record as not caring, the SEC’s models would give it’s champion a regular shot at the CFP. If the Rose Bowl is really that important to the B1G and PAC, just take it out of the semifinals rotation and let it be played on January 1st between the two highest ranked B1G/PAC teams who didn’t make a 12 team playoff. Replace the Rose in the CFP semis with a new game at SoFi but let them Pasadena in on the bidding war/rotation for hosting the CFP Title Game with Vegas, Miami, Indy, JerryWorld, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Tampa, Detroit, and Minneapolis.

Here is the latest PAC-12 spin

Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff had this to say to the Los Angeles Times about the matter:

“We’re extremely flexible,” he said. “I think the issue that’s been created is it was originally structured as “What do we have to do to amend the current contract within the time frame?” And to do that you have to have unanimous consent by all 11 [FBS conference commissioners]. It’s clear that, despite us being willing to agree to almost anything, with the 10 other folks in the room there’s at least one holdout for every potential scenario that’s been discussed. People have been public about this. The SEC has said we’re not agreeing to any expansion to eight, we’ll only go to 12. If you go to 12, the Group of Five has said we’re not going to agree to the best 12 teams, there have to be automatic qualifiers, and the AQs have to go to the six highest-ranked conference champions. The Big Ten has said we’re OK with going to 12, but it has to be five Power Five conferences get an AQ and the Group of Five gets one additional AQ. The ACC has said it doesn’t think it’s the right time to expand to eight or 12 and is in favor of staying at four.

“So I think the right solution is let’s put aside worrying about what the last two years of the current contract look like and instead let’s think about what the next contract should look like, because we have no obligation to each other after the end of the current contract. If we focus on what the right outcome is going forward, I actually don’t think you need all 11 to agree, certainly contractually you don’t. If enough folks agree then others can make a decision about whether to join the playoffs or not. I think they would choose to join the playoffs, but they don’t have to vote yes to begin with.”


Haha. Only a few believe this spin as if the PAC supports the top 12 teams. With a 16 team SEC a straight top 12 would be 6 SEC teams, 4 BIG teams and the PAC would still be left out. But let’s blame it on the G5 and postpone until we can shove what we want down the G5’s throat.

The PAC is the worst and most disingenuous P5.

What? How do you interpret this as disingenuous? This is about as open and honest feedback about the entire proceedings as I've seen. Kliavkoff is not throwing stones, He's stating facts and the facts are that at this time with everyone at the table there is no agreement.

It might be hard to hear but he's also correct when he states that at the expiration of the current CFP contract, they will only need a simple majority to establish the next. Kliavkoff is stating this because he wants to make it clear that when they all sit down to renegotiate, the PAC is going to back whatever plan has the most support. That's the opposite of disingenuous.

Not sure where you get “not throwing stones” when he is specifically calling out the G5 for items no way the PAC supports like the 12 best teams. That model would be 4-6 SEC, 3-5 Big teams and the PAC fighting for scraps. If you think the SEC gets all the PAC 5* recruits now go to a straight 12 model. It would also make CF even more regional.

The PAC is part of The Alliance which suddenly pulled support for something they all agreed to in June. Not sure how the “wasn’t me” campaign can be seen as anything but disingenuous.

Stating the wants of the G5 conferences is not calling them out, he's just stating facts. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings but he's really not trying to, he's trying to give a general synopsis of what is happening in the room. Again just facts.

All that was agreed upon in June was to conduct a feasibility study on what and how a 12 team CFP as it was proposed by the small committee would work. That's it, that is not an agreement to the model as it was layed out. Do you know the amount of civic projects and business mergers that have failed when the proposals go to a feasibility study??

I don't know why you are so upset with the Kliavkoff but he's not saying anything that isn't true.

(01-14-2022 10:27 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 10:42 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 06:56 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I think George Kliavkoff is a much better negotiator than Larry Scott and has no intention of showing his hand. I think they prefer a 5-1-2 or a 5-1-6, but the other models work for increasing access. I also think there are other issues such as revenue distribution, the Rose Bowl, etc., that need to be sorted out. Currently, the five Power Conferences and Notre Dame get 78% of the CFP revenue. Each conference currently gets a guaranteed $66 million dollar payment from the CFP. I just don't see the 65 power conference schools wanting to give that percentage up in the future.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ivide-fbs/

FWIW, I don't see revenue distribution as a big problem. The same basic 80/20, P5/G5 split can be built in to the expanded playoffs.

It’s not their real issue. The want a 5 + 1 + 6 and are determined to delay and pin the delay on the G5 to try to get their way.

Eh, I believe the PAC commissioner. I think that in the end, they would accept and vote for any of the six plans, even ones without P5 autobids, because even those plans are clearly better for the PAC than the horror-show (for them) that is the current CFP. They won't delay to the point of sabotaging an agreement, IMO.

But sure, like you I think they want P5 autobids, and will fight for that behind closed doors. Maybe even delay an agreement a bit. But in the end, I don't think they sabotage a solution over it, as long as the solution is one of the six plans.

Beyond that, I think that if a plan passes that has autobids for the top 6 conference champs, then the PAC will abandon its divisions to prevent upsets by 7-5 teams in the CCG. Heck, I expect the B1G and SEC to abandon divisions as well.

Well if he had just said we will support anything and left it at that he could be believed. But let me ask you a question or two:

1) if true, why is he actively going around the country trying to spin this alliance versus the working group as a P5/G5 argument?
2) why is he issuing threats to the G5, go my preferred way or else?
3) which conference has the most to gain by P5 auto qualification?

I’m curious your answers to those questions. I’m also curious how you think his “wasn’t me” schtick is playing with the other commissioners?

I think that the new statement made yesterday supersedes the earlier statements about P5 autobids.

I think other commissioners view all public utterances by other commissioners as public relations first.

I think the new PAC position is rational. While I agree that the PAC wants P5 autobids, any of the plans without autobids is a big improvement from their POV.

To kind of flip your Q3, far more than any other P- conference, the PAC stands to benefit from expansion, period. Because the PAC has missed the CFP playoffs five straight years, with no end in sight. No other conferences has come close to being locked out so often. The last time a PAC team played in a playoff game, Barack Obama was President.

This is not only a big blow to PAC pride, it's hurting their football quality. Right now, in the Massey Composite, there is an extremely close race between the AAC and MW as to who the top G5 conference is. It's not settled yet because more computers are still being factored in. But additionally, both the AAC and MW are also extremely close to beating out the PAC in these standings. The PAC may in fact end up being rated behind one or both of these G5 conferences.

The PAC just went 0-5 in bowl games, despite the fact that because they don't put anyone in the playoffs, they get favorable matchups. Last year, their champ, Oregon, was thrashed by the Big 12 runner-up in the Fiesta Bowl. This year, their champ lost to B1G runner up Ohio State in the Rose Bowl.

That's what's happening now - higher finishing PAC teams are losing to lower finishing teams from other leagues. And historically, the PAC has been the second-best bowl conference, behind the SEC.

So the PAC is hemorrhaging right now, it's bad.

So it seems reasonable to me that the PAC would be very agreeable to any of the six expansion plans, as all would likely be a vast improvement over the shite-show the CFP has been for them. Now, that doesn't mean they won't push for P5 autobids. I think they will. But they won't push past a certain point, IMO.

(01-14-2022 06:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 10:27 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 10:42 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 10:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, I don't see revenue distribution as a big problem. The same basic 80/20, P5/G5 split can be built in to the expanded playoffs.

It’s not their real issue. The want a 5 + 1 + 6 and are determined to delay and pin the delay on the G5 to try to get their way.

Eh, I believe the PAC commissioner. I think that in the end, they would accept and vote for any of the six plans, even ones without P5 autobids, because even those plans are clearly better for the PAC than the horror-show (for them) that is the current CFP. They won't delay to the point of sabotaging an agreement, IMO.

But sure, like you I think they want P5 autobids, and will fight for that behind closed doors. Maybe even delay an agreement a bit. But in the end, I don't think they sabotage a solution over it, as long as the solution is one of the six plans.

Beyond that, I think that if a plan passes that has autobids for the top 6 conference champs, then the PAC will abandon its divisions to prevent upsets by 7-5 teams in the CCG. Heck, I expect the B1G and SEC to abandon divisions as well.

Well if he had just said we will support anything and left it at that he could be believed. But let me ask you a question or two:

1) if true, why is he actively going around the country trying to spin this alliance versus the working group as a P5/G5 argument?
2) why is he issuing threats to the G5, go my preferred way or else?
3) which conference has the most to gain by P5 auto qualification?

I’m curious your answers to those questions. I’m also curious how you think his “wasn’t me” schtick is playing with the other commissioners?

I think that the new statement made yesterday supersedes the earlier statements about P5 autobids.

I think other commissioners view all public utterances by other commissioners as public relations first.

I think the new PAC position is rational. While I agree that the PAC wants P5 autobids, any of the plans without autobids is a big improvement from their POV.

To kind of flip your Q3, far more than any other P- conference, the PAC stands to benefit from expansion, period. Because the PAC has missed the CFP playoffs five straight years, with no end in sight. No other conferences has come close to being locked out so often. The last time a PAC team played in a playoff game, Barack Obama was President.

This is not only a big blow to PAC pride, it's hurting their football quality. Right now, in the Massey Composite, there is an extremely close race between the AAC and MW as to who the top G5 conference is. It's not settled yet because more computers are still being factored in. But additionally, both the AAC and MW are also extremely close to beating out the PAC in these standings. The PAC may in fact end up being rated behind one or both of these G5 conferences.

The PAC just went 0-5 in bowl games, despite the fact that because they don't put anyone in the playoffs, they get favorable matchups. Last year, their champ, Oregon, was thrashed by the Big 12 runner-up in the Fiesta Bowl. This year, their champ lost to B1G runner up Ohio State in the Rose Bowl.

That's what's happening now - higher finishing PAC teams are losing to lower finishing teams from other leagues. And historically, the PAC has been the second-best bowl conference, behind the SEC.

So the PAC is hemorrhaging right now, it's bad.

So it seems reasonable to me that the PAC would be very agreeable to any of the six expansion plans, as all would likely be a vast improvement over the shite-show the CFP has been for them. Now, that doesn't mean they won't push for P5 autobids. I think they will. But they won't push past a certain point, IMO.

Fair points. I think it is a balancing act between the two bolded positions.

Yes the PAC needs the play-offs badly but they also need to put space between themselves and the MWC. Heck this month not a single Fresno player has transferred to a PAC school but Cal’s starting slot receiver and captain just transferred to Fresno to play with Haener. You don’t see Purdue’s starters transferring to Ball State.

They also can’t be seen as the one forcing the issue as it further hurts TV viewership where they are also struggling.

I think a 2 year delay to potentially get autobids and maintain a P5 G5 distinction is worth it to them. And yea it’s completely rational but the “wasn’t me” tour strikes me as disingenuous.