The Pac-12’s “solution searching for a problem”

In a move that sounds straight out of Butts-Mehre, the Pac-12 voted not to send any conference team that finished with a 5-7 regular season to a bowl game.  Super genius Larry Scott explains.

“In requiring a minimum of six regular season wins our goal is to support the significance of the bowl season and provide our fans around the country with the most exciting games featuring our leading Pac-12 teams.”

I would think that any bowl game featuring a 5-7 team by definition isn’t significant, Larry, but, then again, I don’t have your bank account, so what do I know?

That being said, this seems like a meaningless gesture that, as usual, allows administrators to puff their chests out while denying kids a fun postseason.  Leave it to Mike Leach to deflate the balloon.

Washington State coach Mike Leach called the conference’s policy, which is in effect for this season, “a solution searching for a problem.”

“If we had a 5-7 team lucky enough to make a bowl, they could probably use the practice and the players would probably appreciate the chance to play another game,” Leach said. “Why should we limit opportunities when other conferences aren’t?”

Maybe we should start referring to the Pac-12 Way.


Filed under Pac-12 Football

11 responses to “The Pac-12’s “solution searching for a problem”

  1. Mayor

    The real issue is practice time. Teams that go to a bowl get more practice time than those that don’t. Hence those that don’t are at a disadvantage the next year. If the proliferation of bowls is such that there aren’t enough 6-6 teams to fill all the bowl slots, and the highest rated 5-7 team is in the PAC 12, now that team can’t go and the team is disadvantaged for the next season plus the conference loses the bowl revenue. A lose-lose.


  2. UGA '97

    “…..Baby even the losers, get lucky sometimes….” yea not so fast. There must be some stink to Larry’s actions here so probably just follow the money. It’s almost as if he’s trying to put lipstick on the pig for a new TV bowl contract or something.


  3. atlasshrugged55

    We’re talking about an idea originating in California. Their view of the world is dramatically different from how the rest of us see it.

    But I’ll run w/ Larry for a moment. If you want to “provide our fans around the country with the most exciting games” the answer is to cut back on the number of bowls so that only those teams most deserving are playing. But then what would espn do for programming?


    • Russ

      What do you have against the Popeye’s Fried Chicken Bahamas Bowl?


    • TomReagan

      I’ve never really gotten the animosity towards the low end bowl games or that ESPN makes a killing off of them. It’s more football to watch around the holidays which is fine by me.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. DawgPhan

    I have always said that you can’t turn down something that hasnt been offered.


  5. Hobnail_Boot

    Which is it, Senator?

    Are bowl games a fun opportunity for kids to let loose, or are they another chance for a corrupt system to take advantage of its unpaid working class?

    I’m just trying to keep up with the bullshit.


    • Gee, when have I ever said bowl games are “another chance for a corrupt system to take advantage of its unpaid working class”?

      You’re not the only one trying to keep up with the bullshit.


    • Cousin Eddie

      Well they do get some compensation for bowl games. Even if it is a $500 gift card from best buy, more than they (legally) get any other time.


  6. HiAltDawg

    I get the 5 loss teams don’t deserve a bowl (although programmingneeds dictate otherwise). Don’t 5-7 teams have to meet some sort of academic benchmark to get a bowl waiver? I’m sure it’s the lowest possible benchmark but, punishing a “college” team that at the very least took care of it’s academic responsibilities seems lame.