Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sactowndog

Play-off Committee Jan Meeting

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Pelado said:

Straw man.

The Pac-12 has come out in favor of all the iterations currently under discussion.  I don't think a top 12 with no automatic qualifiers is currently in discussion anywhere.  I think he was just saying that every conference seems to have their own hangups, and that it seems unlikely that they'll achieve unanimity on expansion during the current contract.

The whole thing is a straw man for the PAC-12 to delay until they can disenfranchise the G5.   They are just trying to avoid looking like the villain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pelado said:

Straw man.

The Pac-12 has come out in favor of all the iterations currently under discussion.  I don't think a top 12 with no automatic qualifiers is currently in discussion anywhere.  I think he was just saying that every conference seems to have their own hangups, and that it seems unlikely that they'll achieve unanimity on expansion during the current contract.

I think @sactowndog is pretty much spot on here though.  I'd say the overwhelming sentiment from the P5 is just to wait it out until the G5 has no say.  Then we can just eat what we're fed or go find somewhere else to dine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

I think @sactowndog is pretty much spot on here though.  I'd say the overwhelming sentiment from the P5 is just to wait it out until the G5 has no say.  Then we can just eat we're their fed or go find somewhere else to dine.

The only interesting point is I think the SEC wants 6 + 6 for their own reasons from what I have read.   Let’s say SDSU had beaten Fresno and Utah State and were ranked above Utah in the rankings. Not a stretch.  

in a 12 team play-off that last spot likely comes down to Ole Miss and one of SDSU (5 + 1 + 6) or Utah (6 + 6).  The SEC doesn’t want to be the league keeping out Cinderella.   That point is why Sankey agreed and promotes the 6 + 6.   It’s not the P5 generically here delaying, it’s the alliance with the PAC having the most to gain.  

The PAC’s PR is trying to spin this as if they have nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headbutt said:

I think @sactowndog is pretty much spot on here though.  I'd say the overwhelming sentiment from the P5 is just to wait it out until the G5 has no say.  Then we can just eat what we're fed or go find somewhere else to dine.

Aresco and Hair back early last year said they weren't voting yes on something without AQ that is nothing new. And actually no sactowndog whole argument is that Pac-12 is evil, they are everything that is evil with college football and Pac-12 is driving this when all the facts, statements and everything else show that they aren't. He just hates Pac-12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

Aresco and Hair back early last year said they weren't voting yes on something without AQ that is nothing new. And actually no sactowndog whole argument is that Pac-12 is evil, they are everything that is evil with college football and Pac-12 is driving this when all the facts, statements and everything else show that they aren't. He just hates Pac-12

I actually don't care about @sactowndog's agenda one way or the other.  Just agreeing that the P5 will stall the vote until the G5 loses the right to vote (two years I believe) and it won't matter what Aresco and Hair have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

Aresco and Hair back early last year said they weren't voting yes on something without AQ that is nothing new. And actually no sactowndog whole argument is that Pac-12 is evil, they are everything that is evil with college football and Pac-12 is driving this when all the facts, statements and everything else show that they aren't. He just hates Pac-12

No my argument is the PAC-12 is one of the main drivers of this delay despite what their PR campaign would say.  People should recognize who are actually helping them and who isn’t.   
 

The P5 are not all the same here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headbutt said:

I actually don't care about @sactowndog's agenda one way or the other.  Just agreeing that the P5 will stall the vote until the G5 loses the right to vote (two years I believe) and it won't matter what Aresco and Hair have to say.

No No no, his argument is that its the Pac-12 only doing this. Not ACC, Not B10 Not G5 no one else but the Pac-12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sactowndog said:

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 only ones dumb enough to believe this shit is @StanfordAggie and @RSF

So you quoted an article that contradicts everything that you have been saying in this thread, and then say, "Of course, everything this article says is a lie! This is all the PAC's fault!" :rolleyes:

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

No my argument is the PAC-12 is one of the main drivers of this delay despite what their PR campaign would say.  People should recognize who are actually helping them and who isn’t.   
 

The P5 are not all the same here.  

And once again, you have absolutely zero evidence to support that claim. In fact, all of the available evidence directly contradicts that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Headbutt said:

I think @sactowndog is pretty much spot on here though.  I'd say the overwhelming sentiment from the P5 is just to wait it out until the G5 has no say.  Then we can just eat what we're fed or go find somewhere else to dine.

Well, there is probably an element of truth to that, but I also think Aresco is not helping the situation with his "P6" nonsense. The last I heard Aresco continues to insist that the AAC is a "P6" conference and that he will veto any proposal that doesn't give an autobid to the AAC. The P5 may be telling him that he needs to drop his stupid demand or they will simply create a new system without his input (which is not an entirely unreasonable stance).

But let's not get outraged until this actually happens. I very highly doubt that they will actually try to keep the G5 out of the playoffs. One can easily imagine a scenario where an undefeated G5 team gets left out of the playoff and a 3-loss P5 team gets hot and wins the playoff. Then the AP voters select the undefeated team as the national champion, and we get a split national championship that the playoff was supposed to avoid. Nobody is going to want to risk that scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StanfordAggie said:

So you quoted an article that contradicts everything that you have been saying in this thread, and then say, "Of course, everything this article says is a lie! This is all the PAC's fault!" :rolleyes:

And once again, you have absolutely zero evidence to support that claim. In fact, all of the available evidence directly contradicts that claim.

Bullshit.  Sankey and Bowlsby were on the committee that created the 6 + 6 plan and fully supported it.   None of the evidence contradicts the facts unless you are willfully blind.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StanfordAggie said:

Well, there is probably an element of truth to that, but I also think Aresco is not helping the situation with his "P6" nonsense. The last I heard Aresco continues to insist that the AAC is a "P6" conference and that he will veto any proposal that doesn't give an autobid to the AAC. The P5 may be telling him that he needs to drop his stupid demand or they will simply create a new system without his input (which is not an entirely unreasonable stance).

But let's not get outraged until this actually happens. I very highly doubt that they will actually try to keep the G5 out of the playoffs. One can easily imagine a scenario where an undefeated G5 team gets left out of the playoff and a 3-loss P5 team gets hot and wins the playoff. Then the AP voters select the undefeated team as the national champion, and we get a split national championship that the playoff was supposed to avoid. Nobody is going to want to risk that scenario.

This statement is 1000% incorrect and just displays your biases and willful desire to remain ignorant.  

1) The 6 + 6 proposal was negotiated over 2 years by Thompson on the committee.  

2) The SEC and Big 12 are fully supportive of the 6 + 6 proposal and the alliance is opposed to it.   

3) The only conference talking about waiting 2 years and having the P5 create and impose play-off model is the PAC-12.  

try to use the internet to learn something or just go to the PAC board since you want to repeat their PR in opposition to the MWC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sactowndog said:

This statement is 1000% incorrect and just displays your biases and willful desire to remain ignorant.  

1) The 6 + 6 proposal was negotiated over 2 years by Thompson on the committee.  

2) The SEC and Big 12 are fully supportive of the 6 + 6 proposal and the alliance is opposed to it.   

3) The only conference talking about waiting 2 years and having the P5 create and impose play-off model is the PAC-12.  

try to use the internet to learn something or just go to the PAC board since you want to repeat their PR in opposition to the MWC. 

Did you even read the articles you posted? The PAC has stated repeatedly that they are fine with the 6+6 model. Again, you are just blatantly making sh*t up because you want the PAC to be the villain.

For what it's worth, here is one article claiming that every conference commissioner was willing to sign off on the 6+6 model except for the B1G:

https://thespun.com/college-football/report-1-person-is-holding-up-college-football-playoff-expansion

But I'm sure now you are going to try to tell me that the B1G did this on behalf of the PAC because the PAC is always the true villain. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all the P12's fault.  Evil bastards.

 

 

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah others are reporting that the ACC is demanding no expansion past eight teams with six automatic qualifiers and two at-larges because they think that would force Notre Dame to join the conference as a full member. But I'm sure that the ACC has no real interest in Notre Dame and their true motive is to help the PAC screw over the MWC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wolfpack1 said:

Seriously I am begging you to get yourself some help . This kind of hatred is not healthy at all.............or run for office

Pretty funny on other boards general boards it’s generally assumed the PAC-12 is pushing for 5-1-6.  But here on the MWC board you have “MWC fans” defending the PAC over the interests of their own conference.  Classic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, StanfordAggie said:

Yeah others are reporting that the ACC is demanding no expansion past eight teams with six automatic qualifiers and two at-larges because they think that would force Notre Dame to join the conference as a full member. But I'm sure that the ACC has no real interest in Notre Dame and their true motive is to help the PAC screw over the MWC.

Dude never said the ACC didn’t want 5-1-6.   The ACC and the PAC are both in the Alliance of the PAC/BIG/ACC that blocked this playoff expansion.   But you keep being a PAC-12 apologist.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Pretty funny on other boards general boards it’s generally assumed the PAC-12 is pushing for 5-1-6.  But here on the MWC board you have “MWC fans” defending the PAC over the interests of their own conference.  Classic.  

When you assume something you are just making an ass out of yourself. 

I'm not defending Pac-12 because they along with the other P5 would screw over the little guy at every chance they get. Each conference has their own set of goals they want with the playoff and have said they won't vote for something unless X, X and A happens. There is a lot more in play than just the playoff.

What gets me is someone who hates the Pac-12 so much, their eyes turn red, blame Pac-12 for everything that is wrong no matter what and then digs in harder when they are proven incorrect time and time time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

When you assume something you are just making an ass out of yourself. 

I'm not defending Pac-12 because they along with the other P5 would screw over the little guy at every chance they get. Each conference has their own set of goals they want with the playoff and have said they won't vote for something unless X, X and A happens. There is a lot more in play than just the playoff.

What gets me is someone who hates the Pac-12 so much, their eyes turn red, blame Pac-12 for everything that is wrong no matter what and then digs in harder when they are proven incorrect time and time time again.

Dude chill out.  I said the PAC was trying to stop 6 + 6 and switch it to 5 + 1 + 6.  They and their alliance partners who are the ACC and the BIG successfully stopped it. Now it’s a PR campaign to try to get it switched to a 5 + 1 + 6 and that starts with making it a P5 versus G5 issue (it’s not currently) and trying to paint the G5 as unreasonable.   (Hence the LA times “Wasn’t me” campaign.
 
It’s not “they along with the other P5”.   Sankey (SEC), Swarbrick (Notre Dame), and Bowlsby (Big-12) went to the mat for the 6 + 6 model and if we hang together we would still have the votes 10-6 when it gets voted on in two years.  But instead you are echoing exactly what the PAC PR wants you to say.  And yes other issues are also at play but the 6 - 6 versus 5-1-6 is a big one.  

Pull your head out of your ass, recognize what is happening, and support your +++++ing conference you traitor.  You are as bad as the San Jose State alums who cheer for Stanford over their own school.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...