Message Boards

It's pretty sad if they're worried about not selling out their championship game but I wonder if it has more to do with wanting to give their best team a better chance at the BCS.

I think it's a great reward for having the best record in the conference. They may regret it should Washington State finish on top some year (thanks to the small stadium size) but there's nothing that says they can't change this down the road if they want.

I'm most happy about the California schools getting to play each other every year. That's a great concession to keep old rivalries in place.

Article
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5711336

North division
--------------
Stanford
Cal
Oregon,
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State.

South division
---------------
UCLA
Southern California
Arizona,
Arizona State,
Utah
Colorado.

QUOTE:

Originally posted 04:55 PM ET  10.21 by The Ladybird

What do y'all think about the Pac 12 allowing the divisional winner with the better conference record to host the championship game?

Is that official? I can't find an article on that.

It does make some sense. The obvious media-friendly locations (LA, SF, Phoenix, Denver, Seattle, SLC) are in somebody's back yard; in many years one team would have a significant home field advantage anyway. Better to let the best team host the game as a reward for having a great season.

Of course this will be a financial disaster when Oregon State, Wazzoo (and to a lesser extent Oregon) play host, but creating the Pac12 was never about the money, right?

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 05:46 PM ET  10.21 by UB bulls

Is that official? I can't find an article on that.

ESPN's reporting it.

It would be a nice reward but probably too nice. Two years ago, Florida played Alabama in the SEC championship game. The winner was going to play for the national title. Under this format, Florida would have had to play in Tuscaloosa. An extra home game in this situation is not good for the game.

Like the idea-why not reward the team with the best conference record?

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 12:18 AM ET  10.22 by TnerB57

Should name them the Forest and Desert conferences

Nah, go with the shaved and non-shaved divisions.


Then again, that's pretty much what you said anyway...

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 12:18 AM ET  10.22 by TnerB57

Should name them the Forest and Desert conferences

If they're to be split the way UB shows it in #3, the conferences should be named Rain and Shine.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 02:54 AM ET  10.22 by Tribute to Troy

If they're to be split the way UB shows it in #3, the conferences should be named Rain and Shine.

Now that's funny

QUOTE:

Originally posted 04:55 PM ET  10.21 by The Ladybird

What do y'all think about the Pac 12 allowing the divisional winner with the better conference record to host the championship game?

I prefer the concept of a neutral site game.

San Fran has a new stadium proposed for 2014 (above)... it seems like a natural fit.

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 05:04 PM ET  10.21 by The Ladybird

It's pretty sad if they're worried about not selling out their championship game but I wonder if it has more to do with wanting to give their best team a better chance at the BCS.

It may be a combination of both reasons.

I don't think any conference wants to have championship games with lackluster attendance like the ACC has had in recent years. Can't say how an Oregon -Arizona match up would sell in an area not near either one.

Has anyone heard what a potential tiebreaker would be in the instance that both division winners has the same conference record?

I don't like one team hosting the championship, but I understand the reasons that they set it up this way. Pac 10 championship game in Utah sounds nice.

Hey Hammered, how big is UNLV's stadium?

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 08:59 AM ET  10.22 by Grue

I prefer the concept of a neutral site game.San Fran has a new stadium proposed for 2014 (above)... it seems like a natural fit.

Considering it's proximity to Cal and Stanford, San Francisco is no more neutral than Anaheim would be neutral for USC/UCLA. San Diego is only a 2-hour drive from LA, but is its own media market and a more neutral site than any other major locale on the west coast.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 11:24 AM ET  10.22 by Tribute to Troy

Considering it's proximity to Cal and Stanford, San Francisco is no more neutral than Anaheim would be neutral for USC/UCLA. San Diego is only a 2-hour drive from LA, but is its own media market and a more neutral site than any other major locale on the west coast.

Let's say you choose the Rose Bowl. Because of the location, I don't think you'll have any problem filling the stadium with 50% Oregon, Utah, Oregon State, Washington, Colorado, Arizona, or Arizona State fans. Washington State might be a problem but then again not really. I would say the same can be said if the game were in the San Francisco area.

The SEC game always sells out and I think beyond the fact that it often has national implications (which a Pac 12 championship game should have most years) its located in a major metro area that has more to offer then the game itself. The ACC game doesn't sell out because they rotate it and it hasn't meant much because of their mediocrity over the last several years.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 11:04 AM ET  10.22 by Tribute to Troy

Hey Hammered, how big is UNLV's stadium?

I don't think it holds 40,000 but if they had a bigger stadium, that would be the ideal location.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 11:24 AM ET  10.22 by Tribute to Troy

Considering it's proximity to Cal and Stanford, San Francisco is no more neutral than Anaheim would be neutral for USC/UCLA. San Diego is only a 2-hour drive from LA, but is its own media market and a more neutral site than any other major locale on the west coast.

Yea, but how often do Cal & Stanford matter?

*Grue ducks rock thrown by OM*

QUOTE(#19):

Originally posted 12:15 PM ET  10.22 by Grue

Yea, but how often do Cal & Stanford matter? *Grue ducks rock thrown by OM*

They matter all the time to those of us from Stanford or Cal. But that's not really the point.

The new 49ers stadium will be in Santa Clara. Practically a home game for Stanford should they make it sometime. But why there? Why not Seahawks Stadium? Or Mile High Stadium? Every region of the conference would love to host the game. Let's remember just for a minute that these are still students, and that the most ardent fans are also going to still be students. If your team hosts the championship game it's a heck of a reward for the student body to be able to go without spending a fortune.

Now, would I want to go to the championship in Pullman? Maybe not... but I guarantee the game will be a sell out just the same, and still be televised for the rest of us.