Obviously this puts the team from the other division at a distinct disadvantage.

Any thoughts on why the Pac-12 did this?

it's not the worst idea ever. I assume they think 7 out of 10 will be in LA.

Same reason that Conference USA does it. They don't feel it's best to have it at a neutral site.

It gives the highest ranked team every advantage. If you have a team in line for the Championship you want to be sure they make it, but you also want that Championship game TV money. So it's a way to be confident the highest ranked team will win.

The northern schools probably thought they had a better chance at hosting it that way. Otherwise, it'd rotate between LA, SF and San Diego.

More fans.

I think they did it this year because it was the easy thing to do because they didn't have a lot of time to put it together. Plus it helps to make sure that the best team in your conference represents your team in the BCS.

I think neutral site makes more sense. Otherwise it is more like a regular season conference game with home field advantage playing too much of a role. Why not reward a city in the Pac-12 footprint with the game? Alternate between several cities if necessary. Give Pac-12 fans not in college towns a chance to see the game in their city.

[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 12/3/2011 7:51p).]

Didn't the SEC just do it this afternoon?

Works for the nfl

Because they knew it would not sell out at neutral site

quote:

---

Didn't the SEC just do it this afternoon?

---

I think the SEC championship game is always in Atlanta. Obviously very convenient for Georgia fans, but not in Athens.





[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 12/3/2011 7:54p).]

quote:

---

I think neutral site makes more sense. Otherwise it is more like a regular season conference game with home field advantage playing too much of a role. Why not reward a city in the Pac-12 footprint with the game? Alternate between several cities if necessary. Give Pac-12 fans not in college towns a chance to see the game in their city.

[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 12/3/2011 7:51p).]

---

there are no real neutral sites though. Say LA was it this year, then UCLA had a home game. Also, you have to consider ability to travel. They considered it and opted not to.

You're right old main.

It started in Birmingham I think.

Yeah, selling tickets is the main priority. Making it a team's home game is how you help ensure you get that done.

San Diego would be a decent choice for the Pac-12 Championship game. Denver might make sense as well (for one year).

Neither would sell out

Larry Scott knows what he is doing.

quote:

---

San Diego would be a decent choice for the Pac-12 Championship game. Denver might make sense as well (for one year).

---

Since I live in SD I was hoping for it and they considered it. But, Qualcomm would not have been 50% full for the game.

Sort of shows you how important college football is on the west coast if the Pac-12 commissioner has no confidence in decent attendance for a neutral site championship game.

[This message has been edited by Old Main (edited 12/3/2011 8:05p).]

Must be quite a revelation for you

I like it. The team with the better record should be rewarded. Plus, college football should always be on campus. Neutral sites suck.