Can't wait for ESPN's bracket graphic on Tuesday to somehow still have Miami as the ACC champion.

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) November 30, 2025

whitetrash said:

---

SMU kicker pushes tying FG right just like he did against us in OT

---

Kinda is, really. No real hate for SMU. Bad for Texas football.

Fighting Irish with a 3 score lead over Stanford 21-0.

Hawaii and Wyoming tied at 7.

4 games left in the regular season

UNLV vs Nevada (Battle for Freemont Cannon)
ND vs Stanford (Battle for the Legenda Trophy)
San Jose State vs Fresno State (Battle for the Valley)

and wrapping up Wyoming at Hawaii

I don't like the call to kick a 50-yarder with 8 seconds left, especially given their kicking struggles this year.

Would have at least run one more play.

Either a quick sideline pass to gain a few more yards if the defense concedes it, or see if you can fool them on a go route for the win if they play it too close.

Kind of ironic that by not playing a 9-game conference schedule and truly thinning out the field, the ACC may have cost themselves a berth in the CFP.

BINGO

The point of conferences is to figure out the best teams within a group and then compare nationally.

We can't figure out the best teams in conferences anymore because they're too big and the best teams don't all play each other.

(SMU also has a case as the ACC's best) https://t.co/UkyvFuS36u

— Chris Vannini (@ChrisVannini) November 29, 2025

The playoff bullschiff has destroyed football.

Nice win for Berkeley. Great effort and perseverance there, Golden Bears.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Season’s over; losing sucks.

Let’s not forget what USC and UCLA did to a 100 year old conference just so they could play Rutgers at 1 in the morning pic.twitter.com/MIBOyJ5MYa

— Oregon State out of context (@NoContextOState) November 30, 2025

---

My feelings about this are gradually starting to change.

While I do still wish that SC and UCLA were still in the PAC, and that the PAC could have survived, it was inevitable.

I can't say I'm happy about the move to the B1G. I would have liked to see us just go Independent. But I know those days of teams being Independent are numbered.

At the end of the day it's the PAC12, and its leadership, who PAC12ed itself.

USC was unhappy with that conference for a long time. But stuck with it despite it all. It's sad though that when USC and UCLA did leave the conference that it would collapse like a house of cards. Almost immediately. But that just proved how important the brands that were USC and UCLA, were to the PAC. Whether the rest of the teams liked it or not.

When SC and UCLA left though, there were still ten teams. With two strong anchors in Oregon and Washington. They could have survived without us. If they wanted to stay at 12, add two more teams. Otherwise, go back to the PAC10.

The departure of Oregon and Washington sealed the deal.

USC and UCLA were part of the biggest market in the conference. And didn't dig what they saw happening in the conference. The leaders did nothing to rectify any of those situations and didn't seem overly concerned with keeping USC and UCLA. So the writing was on the wall.

But again, the conference could have held. It wasn't a well run conference though. And that was exposed even more when the Trojans and Bruins left.

TrojanMoondoggie said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Season’s over; losing sucks.

Let’s not forget what USC and UCLA did to a 100 year old conference just so they could play Rutgers at 1 in the morning pic.twitter.com/MIBOyJ5MYa

— Oregon State out of context (@NoContextOState) November 30, 2025

---

My feelings about this are gradually starting to change.

While I do still wish that SC and UCLA were still in the PAC, and that the PAC could have survived, it was inevitable.

I can't say I'm happy about the move to the B1G. I would have liked to see us just go Independent. But I know those days of teams being Independent are numbered.

At the end of the day it's the PAC12, and its leadership, who PAC12ed itself.

USC was unhappy with that conference for a long time. But stuck with it despite it all. It's sad though that when USC and UCLA did leave the conference that it would collapse like a house of cards. Almost immediately. But that just proved how important the brands that were USC and UCLA, were to the PAC. Whether the rest of the teams liked it or not.

When SC and UCLA left though, there were still ten teams. With two strong anchors in Oregon and Washington. They could have survived without us. If they wanted to stay at 12, add two more teams. Otherwise, go back to the PAC10.

The departure of Oregon and Washington sealed the deal.

USC and UCLA were part of the biggest market in the conference. And didn't dig what they saw happening in the conference. The leaders did nothing to rectify any of those situations and didn't seem overly concerned with keeping USC and UCLA. So the writing was on the wall.

But again, the conference could have held. It wasn't a well run conference though. And that was exposed even more when the Trojans and Bruins left.

---

So glad we have Brett Yormark for our little group. He thinks outside the box

TrojanMoondoggie said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Season’s over; losing sucks.

Let’s not forget what USC and UCLA did to a 100 year old conference just so they could play Rutgers at 1 in the morning pic.twitter.com/MIBOyJ5MYa

— Oregon State out of context (@NoContextOState) November 30, 2025

---

My feelings about this are gradually starting to change.

While I do still wish that SC and UCLA were still in the PAC, and that the PAC could have survived, it was inevitable.

I can't say I'm happy about the move to the B1G. I would have liked to see us just go Independent. But I know those days of teams being Independent are numbered.

At the end of the day it's the PAC12, and its leadership, who PAC12ed itself.

USC was unhappy with that conference for a long time. But stuck with it despite it all. It's sad though that when USC and UCLA did leave the conference that it would collapse like a house of cards. Almost immediately. But that just proved how important the brands that were USC and UCLA, were to the PAC. Whether the rest of the teams liked it or not.

When SC and UCLA left though, there were still ten teams. With two strong anchors in Oregon and Washington. They could have survived without us. If they wanted to stay at 12, add two more teams. Otherwise, go back to the PAC10.

The departure of Oregon and Washington sealed the deal.

USC and UCLA were part of the biggest market in the conference. And didn't dig what they saw happening in the conference. The leaders did nothing to rectify any of those situations and didn't seem overly concerned with keeping USC and UCLA. So the writing was on the wall.

But again, the conference could have held. It wasn't a well run conference though. And that was exposed even more when the Trojans and Bruins left.

---

I think USC and UCLA are both going to learn a lesson that Nebraska has already learned the hard way and that OU, Texas, and Texas A&M are in the process of learning. It has been 21 years since the Trojans last won a championship and 50 since McKay fielded dominant teams. LA was a very different city 50 years ago. When you sell your birthright for a mess of pottage, the future usually works out a lot differently than you think it will.

In the last decade, USC has only beaten Notre Dame twice, and the Fighting Irish have built a 51-37 series lead.

Personally I think your athletic leadership really misread the room and your future in the Big 10 is going to look a lot more like Northwestern than Ohio State.

It was a great conference and the reminisce are still good enough to dominate this conference.

I hope SC and UCLA both rot in the basement like Nebraska. At least Nebraska made geographic sense. The B1G makes no sense whatsoever, sorta like the Big 12.

Northern Illinois moving from the MAC to the...Mountain West Conference...is interesting.

pic.twitter.com/cL5OQY7sYp

— no context college football (@nocontextcfb) November 30, 2025

6 FBS teams were unable to win a conference game this year. Next year could be better! pic.twitter.com/hRiLIGRV8p

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) November 30, 2025

I keep thinking tOSU is the only dominant program this year but I'm not yet convinced. Bama and UGA seem to be a little less dominant than usual.

It would be fun to see Indiana run away with the title but probably not going to happen.

How many times have Bama and UGA played each other the last two seasons and in playoffs? It seems like more than 4.

Interesting to see those who would have once deemed the PAC as a weak a$$ conference and not really worth mentioning, would suddenly wish any of its former teams to "rot" now. As if, now, the PAC was suddenly this great conference that was worthy of being preserved.

Now personally, I always knew better. I always knew it was great. It had both championship teams (the top 3 schools with the most NCs across all sports were from the PAC), as well as an academic prowess that went deeper than most conferences outside of the Ivy, with Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA and in recent decades USC. Even Washington was no slouch.

The PAC was, sadly, a poorly run conference. And it had several opportunities to right the ship. USC had complained about it for quite some time, and had even been talking about moving to Independent for quite a while itself.

I know there was an arrogance at USC that felt they should have this larger than life voice when it came to all things PAC. Not only was it, along with UCLA, part of the largest TV market in CA, but was one of the two schools that had a lot to offer when it came to the main sports of football and basketball, respectively. Of course, Arizona also had a rich basketball tradition, and Oregon was trending as the Johnny come lately to the world of football.

But the PAC played games, and came up short. USC made its move...after many years of talking about it, but not acting on it...and UCLA followed.

Even so, there was still a conference there. OSU and WSU should have taken it up with Oregon and Washington, respectively. They could have all said screw USC and UCLA and worked toward getting things going in the PAC. Oregon had football. Arizona still had basketball. Cal and Stanford would have maintained the academic prestige. But Oregon and Washington were smart enough how deeply the problems went. So they looked to bail too.

The conference crumbled. Which means that dislike USC all you want, the dissolution of the conference just showed how powerful USC (and UCLA) were to the brand that was the PAC. Maybe these other schools who were left behind should have spoken out more than they did, as well, in support of burgeoning up the conference, rather than just riding the coattails of the bigger programs. IMO it was conference leadership, and even some of these schools, who misread the room.

That being said, I wasn't happy with the move to the B1G. And wish things could have been different within the PAC leadership to make what happened, not happen. But it is what it is. And it goes beyond just USC and UCLA simply wanting to go elsewhere.

I certainly don't think that, truth be told, SC had some delusion that its teams were going to enter the B1G and become a powerhouse. I don't think there was any misreading of the room on that level.

I do think they kidded themselves into thinking that just because a coach was good in the Big XII, he would be good elsewhere. And they paid the dude a lot of dime to come here. I'm sure even the coach himself had imbibed on the Koolaid and believed he would come out here and own the weak a$$ PAC. Didn't happen. And it's not happening in the B1G either. SC really SCed itself on that one.

As to ND. Whatever. I have no ill will toward them. They are a good fanbase and we get along famously with them. Sure, to the college football landscape they aren't unlike the Democrat party to the national media. They are "America's Sweetheart" and they will always be built up, regardless of what is happening (good or bad) at the university. They will never do wrong in the eyes of the press. When other schools would be taken to the woodshed for similar offenses.

Again, they are pretty easy to get along with as a fanbase, as long as you can put up with their drivel whenever USC is going through a good spell and ND isn't. Their excuse is always that their players are just too much the stellar scholars, a bunch of Einsteins, and that's why they aren't winning. lol.

So now that they are always good and USC isn't, what's their reasoning for that? I'm sure you'll still hear about their grad rate ad nauseam. As if they're the midwest's answer to Stanford. But no. Not even close. There are a number of schools that have good grad rates among football players. But those uni are not necessarily academic juggernauts. So who knows, or really cares about that anyway. IMO, the sports media will always protect the ND brand though. Regardless. And athletes will always be treated differently when it comes to academic expectations by comparison to the regular student body. My friends who have worked with recruiters, and those who have worked as HS counselors will usually say that yes, Stanford does have higher expectations. These other schools...not as much as they want you to think they do.

TrojanMoondoggie said:

---

Interesting to see those who would have once deemed the PAC as a weak a$$ conference and not really worth mentioning, would suddenly wish any of its former teams to "rot" now. As if, now, the PAC was suddenly this great conference that was worthy of being preserved.

Now personally, I always knew better. I always knew it was great. It had both championship teams (the top 3 schools with the most NCs across all sports were from the PAC), as well as an academic prowess that went deeper than most conferences outside of the Ivy, with Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA and in recent decades USC. Even Washington was no slouch.

The PAC was, sadly, a poorly run conference. And it had several opportunities to right the ship. USC had complained about it for quite some time, and had even been talking about moving to Independent for quite a while itself.

I know there was an arrogance at USC that felt they should have this larger than life voice when it came to all things PAC. Not only was it, along with UCLA, part of the largest TV market in CA, but was one of the two schools that had a lot to offer when it came to the main sports of football and basketball, respectively. Of course, Arizona also had a rich basketball tradition, and Oregon was trending as the Johnny come lately to the world of football.

But the PAC played games, and came up short. USC made its move...after many years of talking about it, but not acting on it...and UCLA followed.

Even so, there was still a conference there. OSU and WSU should have taken it up with Oregon and Washington, respectively. They could have all said screw USC and UCLA and worked toward getting things going in the PAC. Oregon had football. Arizona still had basketball. Cal and Stanford would have maintained the academic prestige. But Oregon and Washington were smart enough how deeply the problems went. So they looked to bail too.

The conference crumbled. Which means that dislike USC all you want, the dissolution of the conference just showed how powerful USC (and UCLA) were to the brand that was the PAC. Maybe these other schools who were left behind should have spoken out more than they did, as well, in support of burgeoning up the conference, rather than just riding the coattails of the bigger programs. IMO it was conference leadership, and even some of these schools, who misread the room.

That being said, I wasn't happy with the move to the B1G. And wish things could have been different within the PAC leadership to make what happened, not happen. But it is what it is. And it goes beyond just USC and UCLA simply wanting to go elsewhere.

I certainly don't think that, truth be told, SC had some delusion that its teams were going to enter the B1G and become a powerhouse. I don't think there was any misreading of the room on that level.

I do think they kidded themselves into thinking that just because a coach was good in the Big XII, he would be good elsewhere. And they paid the dude a lot of dime to come here. I'm sure even the coach himself had imbibed on the Koolaid and believed he would come out here and own the weak a$$ PAC. Didn't happen. And it's not happening in the B1G either. SC really SCed itself on that one.

As to ND. Whatever. I have no ill will toward them. They are a good fanbase and we get along famously with them. Sure, to the college football landscape they aren't unlike the Democrat party to the national media. They are "America's Sweetheart" and they will always be built up, regardless of what is happening (good or bad) at the university. They will never do wrong in the eyes of the press. When other schools would be taken to the woodshed for similar offenses.

Again, they are pretty easy to get along with as a fanbase, as long as you can put up with their drivel whenever USC is going through a good spell and ND isn't. Their excuse is always that their players are just too much the stellar scholars, a bunch of Einsteins, and that's why they aren't winning. lol.

So now that they are always good and USC isn't, what's their reasoning for that? I'm sure you'll still hear about their grad rate ad nauseam. As if they're the midwest's answer to Stanford. But no. Not even close. There are a number of schools that have good grad rates among football players. But those uni are not necessarily academic juggernauts. So who knows, or really cares about that anyway. IMO, the sports media will always protect the ND brand though. Regardless. And athletes will always be treated differently when it comes to academic expectations by comparison to the regular student body. My friends who have worked with recruiters, and those who have worked as HS counselors will usually say that yes, Stanford does have higher expectations. These other schools...not as much as they want you to think they do.

---

I look at it a bit like as to why the old SWC folded and the early Big 12 had to reformat. UT was this 900 lb gorilla that used their financial and political power to destroy the other teams in Texas in the SWC and the early Big 12. Notice the non-Texas and the "other" state school, Texas A&M teams abandoned both organizations as UT kept throwing it's weight around. That's why UT has more haters in Texas than folks that like them. USC and UCLA were the power teams for too long and started thinking that they held that same UT sway. At least that's the way I perceived it.

aggie fled Big 12 while UT tried to hold it together. We would still have a great conference if they hadn't runaway from their roots

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

aggie fled Big 12 while UT tried to hold it together. We would still have a great conference if they hadn't runaway from their roots

---

UT was trying to move with a block to the PAC 12 at that time. Aggie thwarted the deal by not agreeing, then it was revealed they were already in the process of bolting to the Sec.

UT wasn't trying to hold it together. Neither was aggy.

The SWC blew up because of the cheating scandals that had destroyed the integrity of the league. Otherwise, the SWC could have been one of the elite leagues that would have been absorbing the best of Big 8, not the other way around.

Any statement that begins with “While we respect” gives a pretty clear indication that they (understandably) do not, in fact, respect the decisions the conference made here. https://t.co/f3CEc8VMeN

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) November 30, 2025

Not that I recall. Everyone was ready to bolt to Pac 12 but the Tech "problem" arose. Pac 12 would not accept them. UT most definitely tried to hold everyone together after that failed. Stallings led aggie revolt to SEC. UT tried but was rebuffed by aggies.

I guarantee you this is going to get pushed by SEC for next year....F the G5 teams, we need 8 $EC teams in the playoffs.

We need to get rid of the G5 auto bid in the College Football Playoff.

The fact that a team like the University of North Texas is going to get into the playoff while teams like Vanderbilt and Texas may not is a HUGE negative for the sport.

pic.twitter.com/GWvR59mcR8

— SEC Numbers Guy (@secnumbersguy) November 30, 2025

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Not that I recall. Everyone was ready to bolt to Pac 12 but the Tech "problem" arose. Pac 12 would not accept them. UT most definitely tried to hold everyone together after that failed. Stallings led aggie revolt to SEC. UT tried but was rebuffed by aggies.

---

Actually, UT was trying to bring Baylor, but the Pac didn't like us.

Assassin said:

---

I look at it a bit like as to why the old SWC folded and the early Big 12 had to reformat. UT was this 900 lb gorilla that used their financial and political power to destroy the other teams in Texas in the SWC and the early Big 12. Notice the non-Texas and the "other" state school, Texas A&M teams abandoned both organizations as UT kept throwing it's weight around. That's why UT has more haters in Texas than folks that like them. USC and UCLA were the power teams for too long and started thinking that they held that same UT sway. At least that's the way I perceived it.

---

The demise of the PAC sounds a lot like the demise of the old SWC. Or even what has happened recently with the Big 12.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Any statement that begins with “While we respect” gives a pretty clear indication that they (understandably) do not, in fact, respect the decisions the conference made here. https://t.co/f3CEc8VMeN

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) November 30, 2025

---

Well...Perhaps we should add New Mexico and one more school to the Big 12.

Big 12 West

Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
BYU
Colorado
New Mexico
Texas Tech
K State
Kansas

Big 12 East

Cincinnati
West Virginia
UCF
Houston
Baylor
TCU
Oklahoma State
Iowa State
_____________


With a championship game that features #1 in the west vs #1 in the east.

Ours should be Bye. We have an even record with them.

Here we go...im sure this is now a matter of national security.

If ND gets in and Miami doesn’t, it will further erode the importance of the regular season. I’m OK with both getting in, but identical records should mean the head-to-head is the tiebreaker if you have to choose between them. https://t.co/tPRRhqGijb

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) November 30, 2025

No thanks. It's bad enough after the last expansion.

#1 and #2 playing next week in Indianapolis and Gameday goes to Atlanta for "SEC Tea" shows the Conference Championship games are essentially meaningless.

Called it! https://t.co/p7onssRIIC

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) December 1, 2025

Virginia will make the ACCCG without having played any of the teams who finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th in the ACC standings

Didn't play Miami, Ga Tech, Pitt, or SMU

They'll make the playoffs with 0 ranked wins, and only 2 top 40 FPI opponents (Lou #29, FSU #33)

— College Football Nerds (@CFBNerds) November 30, 2025

He's taken the Finebaum pill..

Ty Simpson when asked why Alabama is a Playoff team:

"The question is, why aren't we?... We're the most resilient team in the country."

He said if it were up to him, every SEC team would be in:

"Basically, every SEC game is a playoff game." pic.twitter.com/ucRfEMoK0Z

— Trevor Denton (@trevordenton37) November 30, 2025

Jack Bauer said:

---

Virginia will make the ACCCG without having played any of the teams who finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th in the ACC standings

Didn't play Miami, Ga Tech, Pitt, or SMU

They'll make the playoffs with 0 ranked wins, and only 2 top 40 FPI opponents (Lou #29, FSU #33)

— College Football Nerds (@CFBNerds) November 30, 2025

---

Hate these mega-conferences

Watching

SEC Championship: Georgia vs. Alabama followed by
ACC Championship: Duke vs. Virginia

Is like watching The Godfather followed by a Paulie Shore movie...