# UCLA v Oregon - when money screws up



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

There are many reasons why I hate restructured NCAA's leagues like the Pac-12. But Friday's game on Fox could become the poster child against screwing around with college football for money.

In case you don't know what I'm talking about, here's some comments from a UCLA alumnus and part-time contributor to Foxsports.com Brian Lowry:


> UCLA -- coming off an embarrassing 50-0 shellacking by its crosstown rival USC, and a tepid 6-6 overall record -- stumbled into the "championship" against Oregon, a true contender....
> 
> The game is not about football, however, but TV money, and trying to produce a showcase that will generate additional revenue....
> 
> ...


Lowry offers more info in his thorough article.

Money and college sports. It's almost as if there is no memory of the Pacific Coast Conference being disbanded after the "pay-for-play" scandal involving Cal, USC, UCLA and Washington forcing the conference to dissolve in 1959.

At least the Pac-8 from 1968-1978 consisting of Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, and Washington State made sense of the term "Pac" meaning "Pacific" as in the ocean on which all the states involved had frontage. Now the term "Pac" in my mind is just associated with money in sports and politics.

Yeah, I know that UCLA could pull out an upset making all this meaningless though Lowry says "the early line has the Ducks favored by 32 points."


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

If USC hadn't been busted for cheating, thus barring them from the postseason, then the game would be better and relevant.


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

With programs jumping ship to join conferences unrelated to their home geographical area (Air Force in the _Big East_??), there is one obvious solution: dissolve the existing conferences and establish a nationwide league with tiers, similar to professional soccer worldwide, with promotion and relegation. Twenty or so programs play each other in the BCS Premier League, competing for spots in the BCS-endorsed bowls. The lowest three or four programs each year would be relegated to lower tiers, which would consist of other BCS programs. The top three programs in the lower BCS tiers would be promoted; this would give the TCUs and Boise States of this world a legitimate shot at the national championship.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

What I loathe is that the national obession with "who is #1?", coupled with the debacle that is the BCS, has severely diluted the relevance of conference chamionships, never mind having a really good year and finishing high in your conference. These things used to mean a lot. Now, it's getting more to where if you are not in the final 2, many people don't care. This is an overall loss to color and fabric the sport of college football in my opinion. The old days of striving to be conference champion, go to a great bowl, along with the sometimes endless unsettled debate over who is/was #1, for all its faults, was a better state of affairs then what we have now.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> If USC hadn't been busted for cheating, thus barring them from the postseason, then the game would be better and relevant.


As noted in the San Francisco Chronicle:


> "Stanford (11-1) only has one loss," Oregon coach Chip Kelly told reporters this week. "That's the team that really has a gripe."


And just to confirm its all about money, the article notes:


> If the Bruins lose on Friday night - and it's a virtual lock - they're expected to be granted an NCAA waiver that would allow them to play a bowl game. Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel is forecasting UCLA vs. Western Michigan in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, an absolute buzz-kill for the fans and organizers of that New Year's Eve game at AT&T Park.
> 
> What's happened at USC, meanwhile, is an absolute crime. Instead of sanctioning the violator (Reggie Bush), the coach (Pete Carroll) or athletic-department officials in the know, the NCAA issued a two-year bowl ban that punishes a bunch of kids who had nothing to do with that long-ago scandal. Are you kidding? I'm not sure LSU would want any part of USC, led by quarterback Matt Barkley and his school-record 39 touchdown passes.


So the inept UCLA team will play in a bowl. And the talented USC team suffers a bowl ban because it hits USC executives and alumni where it matters - money.

At one time college sports was about offering the kids an opportunity and an education. But that's when I was walking to classes barefoot in 8' snowdrifts uphill in both directions....:sure:


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> If USC hadn't been busted for cheating, thus barring them from the postseason, then the game would be better and relevant.


and if the NCAA applied their 'rules' against other universities (like they do against USC), many other schools wouldn't be playing either . . . .

and spare me the explanation how cam newtons situation is any different than that of reggie bush.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

"dhines" said:


> and if the NCAA applied their 'rules' against other universities (like they do against USC), many other schools wouldn't be playing either . . . .
> 
> and spare me the explanation how cam newtons situation is any different than that of reggie bush.


Not to defend Cam... But isn't the major difference that Buh's family actually got benefits, whereas Newton's family did not?


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Love the way the are introducing teams as "The two teams that earn the right to be here".


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Of course it's all about money, but that doesn't have anything to do with the UCLA/Oregon game.

UCLA did earn the right to be there. They were ahead of Utah, Az State, Az, and Colorado, and finished better than .500 in their conference. As for Stanford, they just happened to be in the wrong division - this year.

No different than the fact that the Rays are in the same division as the Red Sox and Yankees in baseball. 

The two best eligible teams from each division are playing against each other - exactly how it's supposed to be.

Heck, Alabama will play in the National Championship game and not only did they not even win their own division in the SEC, they're not even playing in the SEC championship game. Stuff happens.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Of course it's all about money, but that doesn't have anything to do with the UCLA/Oregon game.
> 
> UCLA did earn the right to be there. They were ahead of Utah, Az State, Az, and Colorado, and finished better than .500 in their conference. As for Stanford, they just happened to be in the wrong division - this year.
> 
> ...


If Georgia somehow manage to beat LSU will they give the SEC three teams in the BCS. If so who would they keep out?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

yosoyellobo said:


> If Georgia somehow manage to beat LSU will they give the SEC three teams in the BCS. If so who would they keep out?


Yes, if Georgia beats LSU, LSU will still play Alabama for the National Championship (most likely), and they'll have 3 teams in the BCS.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Yes, if Georgia beats LSU, LSU will still play Alabama for the National Championship (most likely), and they'll have 3 teams in the BCS.


IMO, if Oklahoma St. beats OU, then they deserve to be in the title game. I don't think Alabama deserves another shot at LSU (if they beat UGA) and teams should win the conference to be in the championship. I'd even say Virginia Tech deserves it if they beat Clemson and Oklahoma St. loses.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> IMO, if Oklahoma St. beats OU, then they deserve to be in the title game. I don't think Alabama deserves another shot at LSU (if they beat UGA) and teams should win the conference to be in the championship. I'd even say Virginia Tech deserves it if they beat Clemson and Oklahoma St. loses.


I agree with you. Unfortunately, our vote/opinion doesn't matter.

I'd rather see Houston than Alabama.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I agree with you. Unfortunately, our vote/opinion doesn't matter.
> 
> I'd rather see Houston than Alabama.


I forgot to mention them. I would, too...they could put up points on LSU.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

phrelin said:


> As noted in the San Francisco Chronicle: "Stanford (11-1) only has one loss," Oregon coach Chip Kelly told reporters this week. "That's the team that really has a gripe." :


I don't think that Stanford really has a gripe. We had a chance to play for the national championship, and we got dominated by Oregon at home. As we were (away) last year.

Two years. Two losses. Both to Oregon.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

No team ever has a "gripe" unless it wins all of its games. The only team in the nation, thus, with a gripe is Houston. If anyone feels slighted, they should have simply won all of their games. That simple.

As to the Pac 12, IMHO, it was a mistake for it to hold a championship this year. With USC on probation (and it deserved the probation and actually got off light) it really only has 11 teams, and the NCAA requires 12 for a championship. However, this is a one year deal and in the future we will see Pac 12 championship games that are valid.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

"SamC" said:


> No team ever has a "gripe" unless it wins all of its games. The only team in the nation, thus, with a gripe is Houston. If anyone feels slighted, they should have simply won all of their games. That simple.
> 
> As to the Pac 12, IMHO, it was a mistake for it to hold a championship this year. With USC on probation (and it deserved the probation and actually got off light) it really only has 11 teams, and the NCAA requires 12 for a championship. However, this is a one year deal and in the future we will see Pac 12 championship games that are valid.


I tend to agree... Better to not have the game this year in hindsight... But at least the pain is over.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Boise State is playing in the Whatchamacallit Bowl. If the had lose 1 more game they be playing in the Toilet Bowl. Mild rant over.


----------

