Pac-12 Bowl matchups
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
Because there’s more flights, less expensive, easier to get into. It’s about a 4 hour drive from Dallas.
It takes time to build a brand. In 1978 the Huskies were coming off a huge Rose Bowl win, went 7-4, lost to three ranked teams including losses to the two teams that shared the National Championship, and they stayed home during the bowl season. They had beaten 7-4 Stanford, which nonetheless got a bowl bid. You have to keep winning and get some signature wins to get any respect. It's a long term thing.
I think there were "groups" of people who were making the flight to Dallas and saving $200-300 per ticket. So it's not $100, it's up to $1000 in some cases. That's turning into real money.
What's interesting is how many of you guys are thinking short term instead of the long game. This isn't about one game. For WSU directly, it's getting pummeled by Michigan State last year in the Holiday Bowl, circumstances be damned. It's about being unable to beat a mediocre Minnesota team the year before. If our conference had gone 8-1 last year, everyone would take that into account. Instead, our entire conference has been mediocre against quality competition for a couple years in a row. We've empowered the narrative with our performance as an entire conference.
It's easy to blame Larry Scott for it, but it's also lazy to try to pin it on him. It's lazy to say that it's "East Coast Bias". UW lost to 7-5 Auburn.....a team that went 3-5 in the SEC. Their wins came against Texas A&M, Ole Miss and Arkansas. Those teams went 6-18 in the SEC. Our "best" team couldn't beat the SEC's 8th best team. It's the cumulative effect of all of the mediocrity that our conference has put forth.
I agree that there is an inherent bias in college football and that if the USC, UCLA and UW are down, the conference itself is perceived negatively. That's a real thing. However, if you lose to two out of three of those, regardless of the circumstance, you kind of look like an idiot for complaining about how you're being treated.
The good news is that, contrary to what others are saying here, we could be ranked #10 if we win our game against #24 Iowa State. UCF, LSU, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, and UW all have the potential to drop below us if they lose and four of them play each other so two losses are guaranteed. Looking at the schedule, Florida, UW and UCF are the three most likely candidates. So, if UCF falls to #13 with a loss to LSU, UW falls to 12th with a loss to Ohio State and Florida falls to #11 with a loss to Michigan, we are #10. Will we raise higher than that, even if we "should", probably not, but that's next year's team goal is to improve on this year, not whine about bias after losing a game that we needed to win if we wanted respect.
I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I've been shopping airfare since AC and NW to SA is $650, to DFW its $550. I just checked and they went down $100 each.
Hey...at least Whittingham will get the Pac-12 that one win like last year!
Seriously, the somewhat scary thought is if the Pac-12 again loses most all of their bowl games.
Surprised that The Ohio State is only favored by 4 vs UW. I was thinking it would be 10.
Cheaper and more flights. Alaska was full when I checked (only one flight per day from SEA to SAT).
Austin and Houston could be options for anyone thinking about it.
That's the bad thing about travelling. There's always an ebb and flow as companies try to seek short term profit.
Yes...and that is why the bowl games that are not deciding the national championship are so difficult to pick.
Well I think it is 4.5, although I just assumed it was a typo and they meant 45. That's probably more realistic than 4.5.
I hope the Pac-12 does great in the bowls for a change, although I hope the mutts get rolled big time. Just can't do the "go Pac-12" in their case.
Ok there’s still more flight options. Just answering a question someone has no reason to be a dick
I don’t hate it, but it can make trip planning problematic and expensive. I’m spending 18 hours driving round trip on this one, so it doesn’t directly impact me
I think best case for us is #9.
UCF, UW, Florida, LSU, and Penn State (#8-12) would likely fall behind us with a loss, so that gains 4 spots (LSU and UCF play each other).
Georgia wouldn't fall below us if they lose to Texas, and UT might rise above us. I'm not convinced either Ohio State or Michigan would fall behind us, but UW and Florida would stay ahead of us. So, no net gain.
If Kentucky beats Penn State, there's a chance they jump over us while Penn State falls, and again creates no net gain.
I think worst case is we stay at #13. That would require that Kentucky and Penn State swap spots, and that UW, Florida, and LSU all win and trade places with Ohio State, Michigan, and UCF. That seems pretty unlikely.
You might think that it matters, but it doesn't. If our conference went 8-1 last year it would have been a minor blip on the radar and been all but forgotten come September. Those talking heads only talk about things that further their preferred narrative. If the Pac does poorly in bowl season they'll talk about come this time of year. If the Pac does well in bowl season, they'll talk about something else like not being able to win the whole thing with UW/UO or UW not beating Auburn preseason. Outside of marquee matchups between "brand name" entities, none of will change anyone's minds.
I don't think losing or winning the Alamo changes anything for us either way. Same goes for ISU. Outside of our collective fan bases it has zero influence on the college football power brokers.
I'd certainly agree that winning "the big games" is more important than what happens in the small games. And I do agree that the downside to play ISU in the Alamo Bowl is that it is a situation where a loss is perceived much more harshly than a win is viewed positively. That said, there is a cumulative effect on perception over time and the Pac-12 has fared poorly there for a while. One good or bad bowl season doesn't make or break a conference. It does change the opportunities that you have the next year.
This is an agree to disagree thing, but I feel that if WSU had beaten Michigan State in the Holiday Bowl last year and if the Pac-12 had gone 6-3 instead of 1-8, I believe that WSU would be playing UCF in the Fiesta Bowl. Sadly, all of you that are bitching and moaning about the Alamo Bowl would simply transfer your bitching and moaning to how meaningless it is to play a team like UCF and how much of a lose/lose it was.......because some people just want to be pissed off. However, meaningless as a win over UCF would be specifically, it's the getting that 11th win and a NY6 bowl win at all that's important. Even beating ISU is important for that reason (11th win and a bowl win).
When WSU as an individual team and the Pac-12 conference has a whole gets the opportunities to win "big" games, we need them to win (except when it's cable....err....the Huskies....f#ck them). Whenever we are playing other teams from other conferences, we need to win more than we lose. Next fall, we need Oregon to beat Auburn in Texas, ASU to beat Michigan State in East Lansing, we need UCLA to hang around with Oklahoma, Stanford to beat Northwestern and Notre Dame, Cal to beat Ole Miss, USC to beat Notre Dame, Arizona to beat Texas Tech, Colorado to beat Nebraska, and everyone to take care of the G5 and FCS teams on our schedules. If our conference can go 7-2 in those games and finish 5-2 in our bowl games this year, a 10-2 team like WSU is going to be less likely to get the shaft. Can't say it won't happen, because when I was looking around yesterday, I realized that West Virginia was ranked #16 a couple years ago in the final CFP poll despite being 10-2. Of course, the fact that it was the first time in years that they had 10 wins was a big reason for that. Still, if the overall perception starts to shift, it improves our odds.....but it takes time and consistency, something the Pac-12 has not been good at.
So I do agree that individually, none of these matter, but in aggregate, it does become important.
