Pac 10 Roundtable
Is it better suited for the conference as a whole to send the most teams possible to bowl games or only ones that have a legitimate chance at victory...aka teams that won't further embarrass the Pac-10?
I've thought about this question for some time and I don't feel that there is any right or wrong answer. One school of thought is that if you send five teams, and those five teams win, you still send the message that only five teams were bowl eligible. Sending 6-7 teams (maybe 8, if it's possible) presents the challenge of winning all your bowl games BUT you can say that we sent 6 teams. However, all that being said, it goes back to scheduling; I don't want the Pac10 to start scheduling weaklings so that it can fill up all 7 bowl slots. I want us to continue to improve from top to bottom (or maybe just 2nd place to bottom, USC can suck it). I want our 6th and 7th place teams to be able to compete with the 4th place teams in other conferences.

0 recs |
4 comments
Comments
Really? I can suck it, too?
How come I’m just finding out about this!?!?!??!
Please disregard the above ramblings as those of a clearly delusional fan.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Dec 3, 2008 5:03 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs
You MAY suck it too
Gosh you Cal grads have such a condescending tone in your voices
Always gotta be on top, don’t you Twist????
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on
Dec 3, 2008 5:19 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
TWSS.
It's spelled "S-h-u-r-l-y-c-o-l-l-e-g-e-f-o-o-t-b-a-l-l-d-e-s-e-r-v-e-s-b-e-t-t-e-r"
by JShufelt on
Dec 3, 2008 5:37 PM PST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
At-large has always made sense to me. Makes it more of a tournament and less like what it actually is—a made for TV business venture. Yuck.
It's spelled G-I-A-N-S-A-N-T-E
by ArbyOSU on
Dec 3, 2008 9:25 PM PST
reply
actions
0 recs










