A true Pac 10 champion. | A College Football Fan

I just read Bill Plaschke's, a L.A. based sports writer, article about how USC should root for Oregon St. to win out because they need more than just another Rose Bowl. I agreed that it would be nice to see USC up against someone else besides the Big 10's #2 team or even just a Big 10 team (I'd love to see USC's staunch D up against one of the three Big 12 South teams), but one thing caught my glance. Mr. Bill mentionned how Oregon St. and USC would share a Pac 10 title, but this is not true. Since both would have one loss in Pac 10 play, and Oregon St. won the head to head match between them, then Oregon St. would be the Pac 10 champion. I love the Pac 10's round-robin schedule, so let's not go messing it up with splits and ties. If Oregon St. wins out, then they are the Pac 10 champion. If they don't win out, then USC is the Pac 10 champ (provided that USC beat UCLA which is very likely). It's as simple as that. If Oregon St. wins out, then USC will be no more of a Pac 10 champion than Cal in 2006 and Arizona St. in 2007.

Wild cat at USC? I thought they were QB U.

Jump song girl! Jump!

Here should be a new rule: anytime someone mentions USC in a blog, they should include an obligatory Song Girl. The same goes for UCLA and their cheerleaders.

Comments (2) Add A Comment

December 2, 2008 09:27 AM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Sadly, this is not the case. Tiebreakers in the Pac-10 are only used to decide who is the Rose Bowl representative. It does not determine the conference champion, hence why two one-loss in conference teams are co-champions. I don't like this either, because I hate the concept of co-champions unless you do not play the other team. The Big-10 is even worse, because they don't play two of the teams in their conference, but can still be called 'co-champions' with a team they did lose to.

skyraker

Green Bay, WI

Total Comments (17)

December 3, 2008 11:44 AM ET

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 09:27 AM ET 12.02 by skyraker

Sadly, this is not the case. Tiebreakers in the Pac-10 are only used to decide who is the Rose Bowl representative. It does not determine the conference champion, hence why two one-loss in conference teams are co-champions. I don't like this either, because I hate the concept of co-champions unless you do not play the other team. The Big-10 is even worse, because they don't play two of the teams in their conference, but can still be called 'co-champions' with a team they did lose to.

That's messed up.

My point is moot now (and probably will continue to be so with a probable Trojan win over UCLA), but had Oregon St. beat Oregon, then the Beavers would've been the sole Pac 10 champion in my own little world.