Should the Pac-10 End Round Robin Scheduling?
by Avinash on Apr 29, 2009 4:00 AM PDT
in Football
484 comments
(Carp has talked about improving the conference many times, so I decided to step in and provide an alternative approach to getting the Pac back on track.)
The BCS, for better or for worse, is here to stay for most of the next decade. We don't really have much of a say in it, so we have to deal with the system as is. So we have to figure out what situations would benefit the Bears assuming USC maintains its conference dominance. One thing to look at it is the vaunted Pac-10 round robin. I got thinking about this after reading a quote from Wizard of Odds:
Wouldn't it be nice if BCS teams took off the skirt and started playing BCS teams in nonconference? Wouldn't it be nice if you, the fan, actually got value for all that money you pump toward a university just to get a decent seat? Wouldn't it be nice if the spirit of competition returned to college football?
This is a nice viewpoint, but it's a little naive. The Pac-10 already does this, playing the extra game, having every other team in the conference play each other once. How much respect do they get for this system? (Hint: it's equal to the number of BCS at-large bids they've been rewarded with the past six seasons.)
Here's the dirty secret: This extra conference game drives up the probability of an extra loss. And you could argue has crippled BCS dreams several times for our conference's best.
The post continues on after the jump, but ponder this question in the comments: Should the Pac-10 eliminate one of the nine conference games?
Ever since we instituted the round robin, it's brought the Pac-10 nothing but grief in terms of BCS dreams if you didn't have Tommy Trojan deflowering your field. Cal in 2006, Oregon/ASU in 2007, Oregon State in 2008 all had excellent chances to earn a BCS berth going into mid November. However, an extra game has choked them up--there was one game where the team either got upset in their worst performance of the season or suffered a key injury (Dixon, Quizz) that crippled their hopes.
Just as bad, USC has stumbled and lost a game they shouldn't have lost each year, costing them not only National Championship aspirations but making it even more difficult for an at-large bid to emerge from the Pac-10. Why? Well, when the best team in your conference keeps on stumbling through the Pac-10, the second best team looks that much worse. It arguably kept Arizona State in 2007 from earning a BCS berth. The round-robin system doesn't seem to do the conference any good, a self-fulfilling prophecy that we weren't good enough to keep up with the best teams in our conference.
More importantly, the Rose Bowl tie-in would compel the Committee to pick a Pac-10 team. Because USC stumbles, they fall into that Pac-10 slot, and other bowls are less interested in taking a Pac-10 at-large in favor of the big schools from the east.
By contrast, our Rose Bowl devil pact partners in the Big Ten play inferior schedules against weaker OOC opponents, and they've been rewarded with at-large bids SIX of the last seven years. Much of this has to do with the Rose Bowl tie-in, which for whatever reason has always accepted a Big Ten team (a totally undeserving Illinois team in 2007). Ohio State has for the most part been the class of the conference, blasting through the rest of the schedule while benefiting from teams in other conferences stumbling from difficult conference opponents; they've earned two national championship berths while their runner up takes the Rose Bowl tie-in. Jim Delaney probably couldn't care less about the criticism he gets from the other conferences; he gets two teams in the big bowls, he's done his job. The system benefits his conference.
Big 10 teams have eleven opponents in their conference and only schedule eight, like their SEC/Big 12 counterparts. We could go through those conferences too and find similar inequities. The Left Coast Conference continues to flagellate itself in search of utopian ideals, that somehow because we play tougher teams we garner greater respect. Nopes.
No other conference seems willing to go past the current eight games in conference alignment, not willing to sacrifice precious chances to beat up on the Citadels and Troys of the world. And they get away with this crap every season, we shrug our shoulders, and hope that next season is different. Where's that definition of insanity again?
If our goal is to make a Rose Bowl, then the Pac-10 is best served shedding that extra conference game and returning to an eight team conference schedule like the rest of the big conference schools. At least until the BCS becomes part of the past.
7 recs |
484 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Would giving up the round robin really help?
The premise behind eliminating the round robin sked seems to be that the Pac-10 members can then add an additional OOC game and enhance our BCS chances. But I’m not sure the premise works. Presumably, the choices for the extra OOC game would be either (1) a “weak” OOC game (like the SEC/Big Ten teams seem to do) or (2) a high profile game against a BCS conference team. I’m not sure #1 helps and I’m not sure # 2 is possible.
Living here in my midwestern hell Ohio, where they treat BCS bowl appearances as an entitlement , I can tell you that the anti-West Coast bias is real. REALLY PHUCKING REAL. They think all we do in the Pac-10 is chuck the ball all over the field, that we don’t run the ball, that we don’t tackle, that we’re not physical, and — most of all — that we don’t have any good teams out West except USC. (If the Pac-10 had a better TV contract, some of this perception might change. Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s worth a shot.)
That said, scheduling a weaker OOC opponent for a 4th OOC game is a no win for us. Winning the game does us no good. Pundits/voters would just say, “Who cares?” So the better choice is to schedule an “A” opponent for the 4th OOC game. But best of luck to us doing that on a year to year basis. What incentive does an upper tier Big Ten, SEC, or Big XII team have to play a Pac-10 team regularly? Methinks we would have a hard time filling the 4th OOC game with an “A” opponent consistently.
At least the Pac-10 has the “badge of honor” of being the only BCS conference that plays a true round robin conference sked. I could be wrong (and I so often am), but I think that goes further toward respect than beating an OOC opponent from a non-BCS conference. Yes, it kinda sucks having 5 conference road games every other year, but perhaps that’s a feather in the conference’s cap, too.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
I have to completely disagree with you here. Eliminating the round robin game in favor of a weak OOC game = 5 more wins for the Pac-10, which will benefit it over the 5 automatic losses the 9th game gives the conference.
That said, F the rest of the country. The system obviously benefits their weak shit, scared to play a tough game on the road mentality. As Avinash said, how many at-large bids has the Pac-10 gotten recently, despite having the highest winning percentage as a conference vs. the other BCS conferences over the last 10 years. That said, as a fan, I want to see good games and good matchups, and I don’t want to stoop to the Big-12/SEC formula of 1 FCS team, 2 terrible mid-majors, and maybe every 2-3 years 1 BCS conference team at home. It hurts the Pac-10…but I guess that’s the price we pay for having balls.
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Eliminating the round robin game in favor of a weak OOC game = 5 more wins for the Pac-10, which will benefit it over the 5 automatic losses the 9th game gives the conference.
Fair enough. But I’m doubtful that the theoretical 5 wins would help the Pac-10. If having a high winning percentage vs. other BCS conferences and, for that matter, a pretty good bowl record hasn’t helped the conference gain cachet, how will 5 annual wins against FCS or weak FBS opponents?
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
Because voters see a shiny 11-1 record (with one extra win against a patsie) as shiny enough to deserve a NC shot, but not 10-2. Because voters see a 10-2 Oregon State record (with one extra win against a patsie) as shiny enough to deserve an at-large bid, but not 9-3 Oregon State. Same situation with Oregon. Not that these situations would occur every time, or even most times, but they would benefit the conference some years.
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions
That 10-2 record with an extra road win against a good mid-major OOC team on the road really helped in 2004.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
early in the season (as it was supposed to be), it would have gone unnoticed. Late in the year, with no one else playing…and Americans asking “How good is Cal, really?”
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
I guarantee you that if an SEC school were in the same position of having to go to Hattiesburg at night to play a prime time nationally televised game against a good (not great, but good) Southern Miss team for a shot at BCS bid, a 26-16 victory would have been spun a lot different.
And it should’ve been 33-16. Still wondering what penalty Marvin Philip actually committed on the JJ TD run that should’ve been.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
by Ohio Bear on Apr 29, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No
The fix was in for Cal two weeks before that, when they lost votes to Texas after smashing the Furd. Texas had been wronged the year before by the BCS, and they were not going to get screwed over again.
It’s the football equivalent of Scorsese winning an Oscar for The Departed when he should have won it for six better films.
Bork bork bork!
Taxi Driver
The Conversation
Raging Bull
Goodfellas
Casino
Hell, even Gangs of New York was better.
Bork bork bork!
I’d put it at least on par with Casino, and better than Gangs of New York.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I liked it
But he won an Oscar for that, not the other two. Just like you can’t really tell whether Texas 2003 or Texas 2004 was the better year.
Bork bork bork!
I hated GoNY…we actually left the theater and went to watch another movie.
the others are money.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
I never saw GoNY and I never heard of The Departed. I’m not big on Taxi Driver. But The Conversation was awesome and Enemy of the State wasn’t half bad. Raging Bull was good but I’m not really a Deniro fan.
The great modern gangster movies:
- The Godfather
- The Godfather Part II
- Goodfellas
- Casino
- Scarface
- Donnie Brasco
- On the Waterfront
- The Freshman
- Married to the Mob
- My Blue Heaven
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
On the Waterfront is NOT a gangster film. It is loosely in the gangster genre, but the plot has nothing to do with those elements. The Hustler and The Sting are more gangster films than On the Waterfront.
Not a fan of the Untouchables?
Bork bork bork!
The Untouchables, The Usual Suspects, Fargo, LA Confidential are all awesome cop movies, but they’re cop movies. The protagonist is a cop.
Maybe you’re right about On The Waterfront. And I thought you were going to complain about Married To The Mob.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
It isn’t as good as The Freshman or My Blue Heaven, two stellar mob comedies. Perhaps I might have included Some Like It Hot but that isn’t really a mob movie. I can’t stand Woody Allen or should I say, he’s overstayed his welcome, so Analyze This doesn’t work for me.
What Married To The Mob does do (along with Donnie Brasco, is anticipate The Sopranos. It’s about mob life rather than just a caper.
Maybe I’ll check out The Departed.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
Harold Ramis but I was close. I just don’t think Deniro can do comedy. It’s like watching Meryl Streep do comedy but worse.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
you ever see Wag the Dog?
It was a comedy. A satirical comedy, but still. DeNiro is in it. He’a quite good.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
Ah indeed I did
But he was second fiddle to Hoffman (who is an excellent comedic actor). When he’s one of the main guys it doesn’t work as well, and only because “dude it’s so against type.”
Bork bork bork!
fair enough
I’ll give you that. Even when he’s not playing against type in a comedy, i.e. Meet The Parents/Fockers, it still doesn’t work for me.
(I thought he was good in Analyze This, though, hehe)
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
Gangs of New York was garbage...
…except for Daniel Day-Lewis. I mean, Cameron Diaz??? She was awful. And Leo was blah. (He was amazing in The Departed, though – interesting to see the difference in his performance between one Scorcese movie and the next.)
All that to say, The Departed was WAY better than Gangs of New York.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
I liked Gangs because it was a nice change of pace for Marty
Historical epic, beautifully shot, plus I was familiar with the history of New York City going in.
The Departed was better acted, but the plot really didn’t move me at all. Plus it was set in Bahhhhston.
I dunno. Maybe I should watch it again. I think the Scorsese Oscar campaign really made me angry, considering it was just a remake of Infernal Affairs (it was better, but it was still a REMAKE).
Bork bork bork!
Seems like everything movie out there is a damn remake these days. Well, all the movies the big studios are pushing anyways. I have to assume there are still original ideas out there, they just must not be getting any funding.
And don’t even get me started on Broadway. Musicals based on movies? Gimme a break! (except Spamalot, that gets a pass). Musicals based on a musician’s discography (Abba, Billy Joel, Elton John)? Ridiculous. Even Berkeley Rep’s getting to the act – they’re producing a stage version of ‘American Idiot’. And Julie Taymor should be shot for Spider-Man: The Musical. I WISH that I could say it was a joke – but Spider-Man: The Musical is actually coming to Broadway. Sweet Lord, someone shoot me in the head.
{{ ahem }}
ummm… we now return you to your regularly scheduled sports blog.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
Did Scorsese whine like a little bitch in the days leading up to the vote about how much he deserved to win it, too?
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
you know, he actually might have...
…or maybe people did it on his behalf. I can’t remember – or maybe I’m wrong. Either way, there was at least a lot of talk about ‘will this be the year’, etc. etc. so that definitely got into the voters’ ears.
I haven't seen that many tear-stained dollar bills since my dad hired a stripper for my uncle's funeral.
it's pretty funny
we can point to that call and the phantom PI on Hughes in the 06 Arizona games as two heinous calls which kept us out of 2 separate rose bowls…ok, maybe “funny” isn’t the right word.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Do you mean funny “ha ha”? Or funny “just rip out my heart and guts and spit on them why don’t you?”
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
Speaking of masochism did you get my message?
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions
That said, F the rest of the country. The system obviously benefits their weak shit, scared to play a tough game on the road mentality.
This is how I felt originally (“weak shit”), but really it’s just the smart move. Has the Pac-10 ever benefited from playing tougher opponents?
And if we’re talking about a system that makes it easier for Cal to earn a BCS bowl bid, then it’s clear that a nine team round robin has not worked.
Bork bork bork!
I agree with you completely. As I said later in my post, I personally would rather see the good matchups and ultimately have it hurt the conference, though.
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Would the Pac-10 actually benefit from playing weaker opponents? I don’t see how it would in any historical scenario, and totally disagree with your assessments on the years with 12 games. Your conclusion is based on the assumption that you can take one loss (on the good teams) out, and replace it with a win. That just doesn’t work. It may work like that at certain times, but a lot of the time, it wouldn’t. You can’t just say that OSU wouldn’t play Stanford or Oregon last year (2 of their losses were out of conference). On top of that, the knock on ASU 2 years ago was that their schedule was so weak.
The Pac-10, more than anything else, needs to get better exposure. They need to have big games where they compete on a national stage. Removing potentially huge conference games in favor of a patsie is just not worth that risk.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Oregon State would not be playing a Cincinnati or Utah, they’d be playing a Big Sky or Big West (or whatever the hell they call it) Div I-AA opponent. ASU has hilariously skewed home/road game distribution, which is a separate issue, but they were in the discussion for a BCS berth the last week of the season.
All I’m saying is that the current benefit does not help our chances at BCS bids, and at worst, hurts us.
Bork bork bork!
That said, scheduling a weaker OOC opponent for a 4th OOC game is a no win for us. Winning the game does us no good.
If one investigates a schedule closely, you are right.
BUT
This doesn’t happen with voters, etc. How many times did we hear about undefeated 8-0 Texas Tech who played 4 patsies OOC (and 2 FCS teams). Ibid Okie St and other teams of that ilk. The fluff win gets lost in the magik of an 10+ win team. They all schedule patsies OOC, all the teams have 4 easy wins (mostly), rankings rise, and league losses don’t hurt as bad because they’re losing to other overly inflated teams.
To get around this, the NCAA needs some type of regulation. No FCS games + 1-2 BCS team per OOC schedule seems like it would put everyone on a more respectable playing field.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
To get around this, the NCAA needs some type of regulation.
We’d all love this, but we live in the real world, and the NCAA lives in Pleasantville.
Bork bork bork!
At the very least, the NCAA should either prohibit games vs. FCS opponents or go back to the old rule that games against FCS opponents don’t count toward bowl eligibility.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s realistic, and even if it was, it wouldn’t accomplish much. More bowl eligible teams = more money for the NCAA – with all the bowls they have these days they need as many teams with .500 and winning records as possible. Also, it won’t stop top teams from the SEC/Big-12 from doing it anyways because they aren’t too concerned with just being bowl eligible.
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey!
The Big East plays a true round robin, too. And we’re a BCS conference. We get an automatic BCS bid and everything :). Granted, there are only 8 teams in the Big East football conference, so it’s a 7-game conference schedule, meaning we’ve generally got the opposite problem the Pac 10 schools have, in that it’s hard to put together a decent 5-game non-conference schedule (it’s very easy to end up with too many weak opponents ala Rutgers or too many strong opponents ala Syracuse — I think given the state of my Orange right now we should be following the Kansas State school of scheduling, but the administration doesn’t seeem to agree).
You guys play seven games
I mean, it’s nice and all, but it’s seven games. You’d be thrown out of the big conferences if you didn’t play round robin. The Pac10 plays round robin by choice, without any tangible benefit insofar.
Bork bork bork!
I would have voted for other if there was such an option
If we were to do this, I say go all the way:
8 league games, 2 Divisions, 4 divisional games, 4 rotating non-divisional games, and a conference championship game.
Why o why carp?
Good question.
The SEC and Big12 obviously know how to spin the money wheel of college football. They get 2 BCS teams frequently if not all the time and they have 2 divisions and a conference championship. It works better with 12 teams, but it can be done with 10 teams.
The real advantage is that the North champion would have to play the South champion in the conference championship game. Prior to the full round robin expansion, the Pac10 frequently had the “well, so and so didn’t have to play Oregon” or “So and so didn’t have to play USC.” In my scenario, the best team from each division will have to play each other.
As an added perk to all other scenarios, it gives these high profile teams another high ranking opponent very late in the BCS hodown. Somehow, it also gives them a 13th game.
While robins that are round make us feel good inside, it puts us on an unlevel playing field with the rest of the college football.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
So if you have a North and a South that means Cal and Stanford get split into different divisions…
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes. They might be able to flop divisions if the Pacific Rim plate moves and puts the peninsula off the coast of Florence, OR.
This would make a Big Game a league game 4/5 years, and one year it could be a non-league game I suppose.
It’s not pretty, but dreaming on the Internet never is.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
They get 2 BCS teams frequently if not all the time and they have 2 divisions and a conference championship. It works better with 12 teams, but it can be done with 10 teams.
Are you sure this can be done? I recall there being some sort of NCAA reg that allowed a conference championship game only if the conference has 12 or more teams. If memory serves, the ACC tried to get a waiver so that they could play the ACC championship the year they had 11 teams (if memory serves, the year before BC joined the league). But the NCAA said no.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
You are correct, Ohio Bear. You need 12 teams to hold a conference championship game.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
do you know why they require 12? 10 or 12 still affords 8 regular season games and 10 actually allows you to miss less opponents.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
i think it's because the NCAA would rather not sanction Conference Championship Games if they didn't have to
and with any number of teams fewer than 12, you can still have a plausible conference champion even without a full round-robin (though the Big TEleveN does stretch credulity with two opponents missed for each team).
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Again, fantastical scenario
But totally unfeasible and something the Pac-10 would not consider. Maybe a Pac-12, which is a separate issue.
Bork bork bork!
I voted no, and really, I think that both answers for #2 are right...
First, SCREW the rest of the country. We play the only real conference schedule around, so fuck everyone else.
2nd, getting rid of a quality game would do nothing. Would adding a patsie game have helped 2004 Cal or 2005 Oregon? Of course not. Oregon was screwed because they didn’t play UCLA that year, which could have been a quality win. Also, no 2nd Pac-10 team has been in the position of getting to a BCS bowl since this schedule went into effect. In fact, it hasn’t even been close.
The Pac-10 has been getting screwed long before this went into effect, because people don’t watch our conference play. What should happen is that we should focus on getting more exposure, so the country can see us play, and continue to play the hardest schedules around (which help the conference in SOS). Adding patsie games won’t help us in the BCS, or for national recognition.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Apr 29, 2009 8:25 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Good point on 2005 Oregon, and it reminds me of another point I forgot to make earlier. The main post blames the round robin schedule for costing teams a BCS bid, citing CAL 2006, Oregon/ASU 2007, and Oregon State 2008 as examples. But the premise isn’t really sound. For example, CAL 2006 lost at Arizona in November. Well, we would’ve been playing a November game anyway prolly. And it’s not like we would’ve avoided Arizona anyway — I believe that before we went to the round robin, the master sked had us missing ASU in 2006. Rather than miss them, we played them — we blasted them 49-21 at a time when ASU was ranked. So the true “extra” game actually helped us in 2006.
Point is that I’m not sure we can blame the “extra” game for what’s happened the last few years. Would we have been less likely to lose at Arizona in 2006 if there’d been only 8 conference games? I can’t say yes. Would Dennis Dixon have been less likely to be injured at Arizona in 2007 if there were only 8 conference games? Can’t really say yes there either — he might have been playing (and might have hurt) in that game regardless. Would OSU have been less likely to lose at stanfurd in the 2008 season opener if there had been only 8 conference games? Don’t think so.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
My thoughts exactly
I’m not sure how one could cite USC’s loss to Oregon State last season which caused them to miss the NC, for example, as a result of simply playing an extra conference game. They were coming off a confidence-building win over tOSU and could just as easily have lost their conference opener to anyone. You could also argue that the loss simply spurred them on to play better the rest of the year.
by johnnycougar on Apr 29, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Would adding a patsie game have helped 2004 Cal or 2005 Oregon? Of course not.
2004 Cal and 2005 Oregon were not playing a round robin in the Pac-10, AND there wasn’t an extra BCS bowl game. If that extra bowl game had been in place both teams would have been strongly considered for invites. Those circumstances were different from the current ones.
Also, no 2nd Pac-10 team has been in the position of getting to a BCS bowl since this schedule went into effect. In fact, it hasn’t even been close.
That is not true. Cal was one win away in 2006, ASU was strongly considered in 2007, Oregon was considered the best team in the country before Dixon went down, Oregon State was one win away from the Rose Bowl last season. Playing that extra conference game is tough, leads to more injuries, has great upset potential, and while you might not argue all those teams would have earned BCS bids, it’s not out of the realm of possibility to argue at least one or two of them would have.
Bork bork bork!
OSUs scenario would have little to do with an extra Pac-10 game or not. Automatic bids are not affected by the extra game. Every team in the Pac-10 must play an extra game, and play each other, so no one benefits or is hurt by that. Injuries are a random event for the most part, and really can’t be part of this conversation, in my mind.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t think that you can say Cal was one win away. As Ohio Bear said, they wouldn’t have played ASU that year, which ended up being a great win. It cuts both ways.
As it was, under the true round robin system, none of those teams had even an argument for a BCS bid. Had they gotten rid of a loss and added a win, none would have received an at-large bid with an extra win. Notre Dame and LSU would have gone light years ahead of even 10-2 Cal. And Kansas is going to the Orange Bowl before Oregon or ASU, even if ASU is 11-1. And that has nothing to do with whether or not the teams deserved it, but with how bowl at-large teams are picked.
For a Pac-10 team to get an at-large pick, they have to get into the Fiesta Bowl, and they have to be so much better than other teams, that they draw better ratings and more fans. This just doesn’t happen with Pac-10 teams, and is why other teams get picked. It has nothing to do with the round robin.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
An extra game for Oregon State ended up being an injury for the Beavers running Jacquizz Rogers into the ground, and he was unavailable for the Civil War. How much does that game change with him not out there?
I should also add that you are missing the USC qualifier, that an extra conference game makes it harder for them to run the table, get into the national title game, and hand the Pac-10 an automatic invite to the Rose Bowl. It has only benefitted the Big 10 as of late because Ohio State has played easy schedules and rolled their way into the big game and the runner up ends in Pasadena. USC plays a tougher schedule, they stumble, and take away an at-large bid from our conference.
Bork bork bork!
I’m pretty sure a 100×100×100 with lasers attached to it could not have stopped Oregon’s offense that day. I remember I was at my grandparents, and I wanted to watch the game but my grandfather is very protective about the remote. It was a quarter break for the game he was watching so I flipped it over for a few minutes to see the beginning then switched back to his game. When his game was over I went back to the Civil War.
It was like walking into a room with 50 people inside that exploded. I was like: ‘What the fuck happened here? Is anyone on OSU’s defense alive?’
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
by 100×100×100 i meant a brick wall.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah but in that case, we control the ball more
Its a huge “what if” scenario that I’m not getting into. Jacquizz would have made the game completely different, but who knows to what extent
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 Apr 29, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Which means that an extra conference game makes it easier for another team to win the Pac-10 championship, like Cal.
You’re forgetting that the last time the P-10 had an at-large team in the BCS it was Washington St. in the Rose Bowl and USC in the Orange Bowl. USC is the most attractive at-large team possible. I don’t doubt the effect it might have on the conference’s rankings with 5 more wins, but on the conference championship itself, the best bet is to keep the round robin schedule.
slow clap to this:
The Pac-10 has been getting screwed long before this went into effect, because people don’t watch our conference play. What should happen is that we should focus on getting more exposure, so the country can see us play, and continue to play the hardest schedules around (which help the conference in SOS).
Let’s hope Tennis Champ can figure something out and not have us starting games at 10 PM EST.
Adding patsie games won’t help us in the BCS, or for national recognition.
C’mon…it’s helped Big12S and SEC teams as recently as this last year. The BCS/national recognition won’t come in the specific game, but rather from the fluffed records (oh my, Okie St’s 6-0 when they’ve only played 2 real games!).
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
National Championship games (for teams other than USC) will only come from playing hard games, and not playing a patsie schedule. As far as BCS games go, maybe.
But at there have been no teams in the past 3 years that have actually been hurt by the extra Pac-10 game. In 2006, even if Cal were able to replace a loss with a win, they would have been beaten out by LSU and Notre Dame. And OSU was 8-4 in 2008.
Really, 2007 is the only year you could say something, where ASU (at 10-2) was passed over for Illinois and Kansas (11-1). But even if ASU has played 8 conference games, whose to say that they would have not played Oregon or USC. And while Kansas didn’t play any really hard games (until they lost a close one to Missouri), ASU wasn’t really competitive in either of their games on the national stage. On top of this, these “snubs” were also due to the problems Pac-10 teams have always had with bowl games, and not necessarily with the BCS.
In my mind, we haven’t seen one time where one less conference game would really help the conference to get into the BCS. If these arguments over getting snubbed were even close, then we’d have an argument. But at this point, if we moved to one less conference game, at best we’d simply get to bitch more about getting screwed by the BCS.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
You make some decent points. What about thinking about this a different way. Look at how the Big-12 and SEC teams have benefited from playing an extra patsie. Teams like Oklahoma St have a nice undefeated record when they play Texas, so Texas gets a lot of credit for beating a “tough opponent”. Same with Alabama. Impressive win for them over #3 Georgia. They get credit for wins against teams like LSU, as well. Record seems to be the most important thing to voters, and the SEC/Big 12 have figured that out.
Just some things to think about…
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Textbook example this year
Whenever you read about Ole Miss’ rise through the rankings this year, keep in mind that they’re really only playing an 8 game schedule. They’re playing two I-AA schools, Memphis, and UAB. If they have even an average year in the SEC (4-4 or 5-3) they’ll have won 8-9 games. But I guarantee that at midseason when everyone is crowing about the 15 SEC teams in the Top 10, it will be because of unserious pollsters looking merely at the overall record.
Is it really the records, or the names. Do schools get credit for beating the record or the name? I think it is a bit of both, and the Pac-10’s problem is that they really only have One and a half brand name schools in the conference (SC = 1, Oregon = 1/2). You hear the names Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, LSU, Florida in the SEC, and Ohio St. Penn St. and Michigan in the Big-10. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska in the Big-12 (when the hell was the last time Nebraska was pertinent to the national scene?), but these other conferences have the name brand schools, we have one, and we need more people watching to build some university brands.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
Agreed, there are a lot more factors than just the scheduling. But look at Texas Tech and Oklahoma St at various points last year. The record definitely helped the prestige of the Big-12. So I think it is a factor, even if the significance of it is open to debate…
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
National Championship games (for teams other than USC) will only come from playing hard games, and not playing a patsie schedule.
Not playing a patsie schedule also allowed Washington and Wazzu to finish a combined 2-23 this season and become the laughing stock of the country. How’d that help the Pac-10’s perception?
Bork bork bork!
It was a wash after the bowl season. Sure they were laughable, but the Pac-10 shut up a lot of critics after the bowl games, and redeemed themselves after a rather horrible showing in OOC.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
I’ve always felt it intellectually disingenuous to rely upon the Pac10s record in the Bowl Games somewhat, because they always play inferior teams, in theory. It’s Pac10 2 v. Big XII 4 generally. We should win that game! Cal was the #4 Pac10 team and we took on like the 4,000th ACC team. Who we barely beat!
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I don’t disagree at all, but the media had a different reception. Irregardless if it was truly a disingenuous record.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
Irregardless
I’m not sure we should use this pacific example
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Apr 29, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
In fairness, I think that every single team in the ACC was 7-5 this year.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
About as well as Cal losing to Maryland, ASU losing to UNLV (or whoever the hell they lost to), OSU getting crushed by Penn State, Oregon losing at home to Boise State.
That has little to do with the round robin scheduling, and more to do with the entire Pac-10 sucking last year. And it’s not like them getting a couple more wins over PSU would have helped anything. No one gave a shit that WSU beat Portland State. They still thought they sucked.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
OSU could have helped national perception of the Pac 10 a lot by remembering they had talent earlier in the season. But, then again, if that happened we would not have had the awesome Bama pantsing in the Sugar Bowl.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I mostly agree with jtl
a) fuck the rest of the country, we play the best ball and we know it.
b) There have been very few true snubs as far as the bcs goes, but the patsie playing conferences get the benefit of the doubt.
c) as a conf. we could never schedule the 5 to 8 additional A games that it would take for the exposure needs (see Auburn v. Ucla ’09). the A teams are way to skeered of any pac 10 team, as even our down teams are better than most others (with exceptions at various times such as washbags ’08)
d) It’s really all about ESPN hightlights, which their editiorial decision to move the late sports center to and LA studio will actually help develop. Now the Overnight SC will be the LA one with all the late Pac10 highlights, not the one from two hours earlier that only includes first half action of too many games.
Go Bears Go
I’m pretty sure the conference championships don’t really decide anything either.
Who were the best 4 teams in the Big-12 last year? Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State. All Big-12 South. The Big-12 championship game? Oklahoma and Missouri. Texas got SHAFTED, and they did virtually everything right, including being the only team that beat Oklahoma.
It isn’t a system that decides the best in a conference. It’s a system that is indicative of the failure of the BCS system itself. Ever since the round robin was established, the Pac-10 has had an indisputable conference champion. The Big-12 can’t say that. Ole Miss got shafted in ‘03, so even the “Uber SEC” can’t say that. The ACC can’t say that, last year Boston College beat VT in the regular season – but that game was COMPLETELY POINTLESS because of the “conference championship game”
To all the Big-12ses, SECeses, and ACCsesses.You’re system sucks, and if thinking your better because you can artificially inflate your records and not make every game you play count, – you can suck my bawls. Your system is dumb. Play a REAL schedule.
I vote “no”. A thousand times if I could.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
by JShufelt on Apr 29, 2009 9:25 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
is that why we have “co-conference champions.” What a yoke.
the real prize is two BCS bowl bids. Plain and simple.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
Co-conference champions are a joke. 2007, you had ASU “Co-champions”, ’06, is the same thing with Cal.
But the prize for the Pac-10 is the Rose Bowl, and neither ASU or Cal had any case to take that from USC. The rules are pretty clear.
I don’t care about the BCS. It’s a bad system. I could care less what the rest of the nation thinks. Is it nice? Yes, but only because of the money for the conference. But changing our system would highly unlikely have changed ANYTHING in getting two BCS bowl bids so far. So… what’s your point?
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
To all the Big-12ses, SECeses, and ACCsesses.You’re system sucks, and if thinking your better because you can artificially inflate your records and not make every game you play count, – you can suck my bawls. Your system is dumb. Play a REAL schedule.
They have no reason to. They get along just fine. They play the system the right way to get the most out of it. The Pac-10 should too.
Bork bork bork!
So we should play a horrible system that is unfair and renders games meaningless, just because it will give us a few extra bucks? Maybe I’ll watch the NFL instead – it sounds just as fun.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
Maybe this is just because Oregon has been to a BCS bowl that our perspectives are different
But Cal fans want the Rose Bowl. Half of them have spent their ENTIRE LIVES without it, and we need to look for every possibility to maximize our chances of getting there.
Bork bork bork!
But there are only two scenarios that Cal will go to the Rose Bowl, regardless of the system.
1. Win the Pac-10.
2. Hope the winner of the Pac-10 goes to the national championship game, and Cal is a solid 2nd for the Pac-10 and in the top 25. You can do this even with three losses. (Ref: Illinois, 2007)
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
I don’t see how the extra game hurts you then. The extra conference game doesn’t affect how the conference members interact, but how the Pac-10 as a whole interacts with the rest of college football.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
One less difficult game for teams=easier road to the BCS
Why do you think the SEC schedules pushovers in the middle of November? It’s a bridge between their conference game and (historically) difficult finishing run through Florida State and the SEC title game.
Bork bork bork!
But what if you played the Washington schools in the middle of November? Isn’t that easy enough?
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
They won't be down forever
Well, maybe CBKWit’s precious Wazzu, but we get as much credit for beating them as we would UC Davis.
Bork bork bork!
I thought your goal was the Rose Bowl…Not just the BCS…
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
For those that feel like “we’re a cut above the rest because we have a round-robin schedule and difficult OOC opponents”…the nation doesn’t care. All they see is a Pac1.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
I think that is true when you talk to the inbreds in the south, but I think those opinions are not held by the majority of those that actually matter in the college sports world. With the internet growing, and the availability of information growing, the ignorance will fade.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I disagree entirely. That opinion seems seems to be very strong among sports reporters – just read anything that comes out on ESPN…
by HyphyBearsFan on Apr 29, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
To be fair, I think most of ESPN’s writers are ok. Now, Beano…entirely different story. Pat Forde is a little shaky too.
Still happy over the fact that the Nets signed Ryan Anderson. Now if only they can sign Leon Powe after this year...
by yellow fever on Apr 29, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve never had that impression from articles from ESPN or SI. Ever. They actually watch Pac-10 games, because that’s what they’re paid for. Maybe some talking head like Lou Holtz, but that’s a subjective opinion. It’s like calling out Bill O’Reilly’s bias opinion. Well, duh. But that isn’t journalism, it’s commentary, and shouldn’t ever be treated as “the opinion of ESPN”
“East Coast Bias” exists from the effect of time zone disparity and the failure of the Pac-10 in contractual media exposure, not from agendas.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
What writers are you reading?
Most of the people on ESPN are very fair to the Pac-10 (the College GameDay guys), and the writers are very excellent. Lou Holtz is the notable exception.
And I even think Beano is pretty good too. He seems to get these issues (scheduling, etc.) better than most, and gives the Pac-10 a lot of credit.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
But Lou Holtz is hilarious, so he shouldn’t be criticized.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Have to agree
And the reason – as others have mentioned – is because it’s all they see.
This is probably deserving of a separate thread, but if I’m Larry Scott, I’m calling up Dick Ebersol and telling him that NBC needs to add a Pac-10 game of the week. Just like that, even if it’s just USC playing somebody else, every Pac-10 team is getting national exposure and providing a real alternative to the SEC on CBS or the regional/national game on ABC. As an added benefit, occasionally that regional/national game would involve Pac-10 teams. To use 2007 as an example, can you imagine how effective it would’ve been if in the morning/afternoon viewers were treated to UCLA vs. Stanford on NBC, not a great game but something to watch, and then had the chance to flip over to ABC and witness Tennessee @ Cal? Repeated exposure along those lines are how multiple BCS bids are earned.
2007, Oregon got the engine started because of handing Michigan their worst loss in the Big House on national TV.
It kicked in to 3rd gear after losing to Cal post Colvin fumble. The big key? Despite that it was regional, it was early enough for the highlight clips to get aired in the middle of ABC’s other regional airtime.
USC was a big game. It was the first time two top 10 teams faced off in Autzen – aired on FSN, but that only gained minimal national exposure from the Sunday articles of “Oregon beat USC.”
ESPN begged and pleaded to get coverage for ASU @ Oregon the following week, they got it but it still didn’t do AS much as Cal or Michigan, because it was a west coast night game.
At this point, it was the Heisman coverage of Dixon that kept Oregon moving high on the national scene, and the losses of all the firsts and seconds in the BCS poll.
You want a 2nd BCS bowl? Get the media coverage fixed. A championship game or soft schedule hasn’t done anything for the ACC or Big East, and likely has had a slight, but minor effect for SEC and Big-12.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
TRUE!
And it all starts with getting the new commish to fix the TV contracts.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Also
Not to get all tribal, but Cal got it started by playing the marquee non-conference on the opening weekend. Oregon’s beatdown happened the next week and accelerated the momentum. But that’s not a really significant point in the long run.
Here's my take on the matter. And I apologize in advance, because I know I'm going to catch hell
(NOTE: I didn’t read all the posts, so if I’m repeating information, I apologize). I’ll start off with one to hopefully eliminate any hatred later on…
1. Oregon State needs to quit shitting the bed early, on the road, on national TV games.
2005- L to Louisville by 36
2006- L to Boise State 28
2007- L to Cincinnati by 31
2008- L to Penn State by 31
Every single one of these games was play either on ESPN or ABC, and was billed it’s “major game” of the day. I even believe the Cincy game was a Thursday night. When the rest of the country sees Oregon State do this, then finish 2nd or 3rd in the Pac-10, it makes them scratch their heads, and for obvious reasons.
2. What do Cal 2004, and ASU 2007 have in common? Both had BCS at-large chances that weren’t given to them. What else do they have in common? They played like crap in the Holiday Bowl. Whether we like it or not, we’re always going to be facing an uphill battle. There is a double standard for Pac-10 football that doesn’t exist elsewhere. So yes, everyone was wondering in ‘04 and ’07 how good Cal and ASU actually were. They wondered this all through bowl season. Then, when the time came to prove it, they got blown out and became an after thought. Ever wondered what we’d be talking about had Cal destroyed Texas Tech? What about if ASU had beaten Texas? Do you think we’d still be talking about the 2004 NC had Auburn lost it’s bowl game?
3. Perception isn’t going to change about the Pac-10. I had a talk with a Big 12 and an SEC friend of mine. When the Pac-10 was in it’s hay day of throwing the ball 400+ yards/game, the rest of the nation discussed how bad the Pac-10 defenses were. Now, the defenses have improved, and the talks are about how bad the offenses are. Meanwhile, now the Big 12 is throwing it every which way, and the discussion is how amazing their offense is. It’s a double standard mentioned above.
4. What can we do? Well, the Pac10 needs to market itself. Is it any wonder that Oregon is the 2nd most followed Pac10 team in the country outside of USC? Everyone sees the crazy jerseys, hears about the awesome facilities, watches the fun offense, and remembers the Joey “Heisman” at Times Square. Carp did a post about Jahvid Best over at Track ‘Em Tigers (Auburns site) and half of the people had NEVER EVEN HEARD OF HIM! For a part of the country that prides itself on its love of football to haven’t even heard of arguably the best player in the country is saying something. That being said, if Cal were to do some marketing campaign for Best, people will take notice.
That’s my rant for now.
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 Apr 29, 2009 10:35 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Good post
As far as Jahvid goes, that perception is about to start changing. I don’t know how many people read SI.com’s football page in the off-season, but there is an excellent article about him up right now. Looks like it was yesterday’s headline.
Link
On the other hand, awareness about the Pac-10 is out there. Auburn’s AD caught a lot of flack for backing down from the 2010 meet-up with UCLA.
2. What do Cal 2004, and ASU 2007 have in common?
You can pretty much add in Oregon in 2005 too. While they fought against Oklahoma… they didn’t play like they were a BCS bowl contender.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
I tried to keep it positive about Oregon
Because whether I like the Ducks or not, they bring a national audience to the Pac10
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 Apr 29, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I can’t argue with anything you said.
chowder deserves the hat tip though. He went deep into unfamiliar territory and got the ball rolling.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
=)
Oregon St isn’t the only school, the top half of the Pac-10 needs to do better OOC. Last year the Pac-10’s non-USC bowl schools lost to Penn St (in embarrassing fashion), Boise St (due to a boatload of qb injuries), Maryland (due to weather), and New Mexico (can’t explain this).
If these schools want an at-large bid, we have to play like it and not have lame excuses.
It makes the rest of the top half look worse. I do excuse Oregon losing to a good boise st, even if it was at home.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
Yes but let's say OSU goes into Happy Valley and puts up a strong fight against PSU (even if they lose)
Then it becomes a different story. Then people aren’t as surprised when we beat USC. Then people don’t scratch their heads about how this team that gets walloped finish in the top 3 in the Pac10
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 Apr 29, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
First off, a few weeks ago I went to at least one school of each of the BCS conferences and asked them a bunch of questions regarding the Pac-10. Most people responded to the Pac-10’s scheduling applauding our efforts to play top-notch quality and playing a true round robin. They predominantly wished their schools and conferences did the same.
Secondly, the Pac-10 has gotten the shaft regarding the BCS the past few years, but I do feel in several situations their were extenuating circumstances. This is based on memory so correct if I’m wrong (I’d look it up, but because my internet is way too slow right now I can’t) ‘04 Cal got screwed. ’05 the system was set up to favor ND over Oregon (and anyone else). ’06 Cal ended up 9-3, you can’t expect a 9-3 team to get an at-large birth. ‘07 Arizona St was not that good, and everyone knew it (plus, we would have had two at-large births if Cal didn’t give up on the season after UCLA, and Dennis Dixon didn’t tear his ACL). ‘08 Last year was a down year for the conference, let’s admit it.
I think the two biggest factors involved in the Pac-10’s failure to receive two BCS births are the TV deals, and the size of the conference. The Pac-10 is at the back of everyone’s mind when it comes to college football because they never see us, and when they do it is ALWAYS USC, and generally USC beats the Pac-10 team. We need the rest of the Pac-10 to move out of the shadow of USC. In ‘07 the Pac-10 had a lot of respect among the media, I feel this was due to the nationally televised Cal-Oregon game. Everyone saw two great teams from the Pac-10 playing an excellent football game, and it didn’t involve USC.
As for size, with 10 vrs. 11 or 12 teams like the other major conferences, we are simply unlikely less likely to have a better team mathematically.
To answer your question, I would not like to remove an in-conference game. I like the true round robin, and in most years (last, being the exception) this fact helps the strength of schedule. Last year the Pac-10 was not that good, Washinton and Washinton St were terrible, and two black eyes on the conference, but both had bad luck with injuries to add to transition years.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
Their wishes are nice, but they won’t help us in earning a BCS bid. There is no harm in losing it and no gain in keeping it except making us feel all nice and superior on the inside.
Cal-Oregon was not a national telecast. It was a regional ABC telecast seen mostly in the Western regions.
You can’t have two at-large bids from the same conference.
Bork bork bork!
i meant to say 2 bcs bids not 2 at large bids
the harm is in not having a true-champion.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
i understand there is one guaranteed birth, i meant fulfilling that at guaranteed birth and receiving an at large birth
They're after our precious bodily fluids
I think you mean 'berth'
A guaranteed birth is what the wife provides. I think an at-large birth is what happens when you knock up the mistress.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
And it’s possible, but not recommended to have multiple at-large births from the same conference.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
Darren McFadden is one such example.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Apr 29, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
HOHOHO
Nailed it!
STAY THIRSTY, MY FRIENDS
by Thoroughbred on Apr 29, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions
FOUND
A guaranteed birth is what the wife provides. I think an at-large birth is what happens when you knock up the mistress dolphin.
the Maharg is above catch phrases
seriously…once your wife gets ahold of your baby interests, you cannot overcomb her incredible power. STAY STRONG. Take it from the guy with the preggo wife.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
seriously…once your wife gets ahold of your baby interests, you cannot overcomb her incredible power. STAY STRONG. Take it from the guy with the preggo wife.THANKS CARP!
Honk if you think Rags is great!
Are you implying that our bizarre and inane commentary is why we don’t get linked to by ESPN more often?
Because that makes sense, actually.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Apr 29, 2009 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would like to think we're above everyone else's lower standards...
That’s what makes Berkeley special, isn’t it? So just speaking as a Cal grad here (and not in terms of the PAC-10), we do a lot of things differently. We couple renowned academics with great athletics program, and our liberal past only foreshadowed the Republican Club, which is the largest club by membership on campus. By no means does that mean we’re a school of contradictions; rather, it means that we hold ourselves to a higher standard in fulfilling our potential in any endeavor than any other school.
And I would trade all of that just for one extra win. We WILL get to the Rose Bowl before I die.
I think people are missing the main aim of my argument
~USC playing an extra conference game makes it harder for them to run the table (it certainly hurt them in 2006 & 2008) and get to the national title game.
~This in turn pushes them into the Rose Bowl and pushes the Pac-10 tie-in out
~By contrast the Big 10 plays only 8 of their 10 possible opponents, and Ohio State has benefited from two NC bids in 2006/2007 (and Penn State nearly did the same in 2008)
~This in turn allows the Big 10 to get a Rose Bowl tie-in
~Even piddling Ohio State got a Fiesta Bowl at large-bid over Oregon last year. Big reason? One extra win over a weak school.
In the past three years since round robin was instituted: Big 10 at large bids 3, Pac 10 at large bids 0.
I like the round robin, but I want all things to be equal in scheduling. We do ourselves no good by playing one extra while everyone else plays less and benefits.
Bork bork bork!
First, USC has blown games they shouldn’t have, over and over again. I don’t think this has anything to do with the Pac-10 schedule, as much as Pete Carrol’s coaching strategy. They get up for big games, and win them. But they also have let downs. Again, I don’t see how this relates at all to round robin scheduling. It’s fun to say that USC would go undefeated, but there no logical connection between the two, considering how USC has dropped their games. I mean, they lost to freaking STANFORD, one of the worst teams ever. While it is true their losses have kept them out of the NC game, hurting the Pac-10, I don’t see how the Pac-10 scheduling has hurt USC. USC has hurt USC.
I also think the Ohio State comparison is not legitimate, considering that they were #1 pretty much the whole season in 2006 and beat some good teams (Texas, Michigan) in big time matchups. In 2007, they backed in cause everyone else sucked. Also, they got the Fiesta Bowl slot because 1) they travel, 2) they draw ratings, 3) they were pretty much the only available option. Oregon had lost 3 games. OSU only had lost to two top 10 teams. There are so many reasons that these things happened, and the round robin scheduling is like 20th on the list.
I will again reiterate, I think that all the things you’ve listed totally miss the main reason why Pac-10 teams don’t get BCS at-large bids, because they don’t bring in the money other teams do. It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with skill or strength or number of wins. It’s about money, and Pac-10 teams will always be given the shaft with the BCS unless we can get more exposure.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
So you believe USC losing only one game in the Pac from 2003-2005 against an eight team conference schedule is not an indicator that the extra game hurts them? You can’t see how nine games for a Pac-10 team isn’t the same as eight games for an SEC teams?
Texas was not big time in 2006. They barely won the Alamo Bowl.
Bork bork bork!
I think that is an example of USC having one of the best teams of all time with some of the best players during that time. There was a large change offensively from 2005 to 2006.
The schedule did not hurt them at all.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
For further proof of this...
2005 USC averaged 579 yards per game. Since then, 391, 434, and 454. During that time, their defense did improve, however.
In fact, during that time, the SOS of USC has been fairly constant. Yeah, there are up years and down years, but they’ve consistently been in the top 25 and top 10 nationally (per Sagarin). So you can’t say that their schedule got harder, which caused the change in stats.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It's harder to win games in conference than OOC
Compare USC’s OOC margin of victory to conference margin of victory. Much narrower and closer contests.
Bork bork bork!
I don’t really think you can draw anything from that. I would say that’s a massive generalization considering they barely beat Fresno State and Notre Dame in 2005 while whipping through the Pac-10. In fact, at that time, it could have been said that adding a Pac-10 made their life easier.
It’s not necessarily harder to win OOC. It’s harder to beat good teams.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Well Notre Dame is really just another conference game for USC
They play each other every year.
Familiarity makes it easier to gameplan against them is the argument I’m making. Easier to understand tendencies of the other coaches, gadget plays they run, patterns in their playcalling, etc.
Bork bork bork!
Notre Dame had a first time coach that year…And it’s only gotten easier for USC since then….
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Notre Dame had a good team with Ty’s recruits. Once Charlie the Hutt started bringing in his own people and coached them up did they start to slide toward crapsville.
Bork bork bork!
Whatever…
The point is you can’t just say that USCs beginning to drop conference games happened in 2006 due to the extra game. They happened for very real in-game reasons.
USC lost multiple conference games in 2006 and 2007, which cost them. They had a chance going into the final game to win and go to the title game, and they did not. They didn’t have injury problems, and they just simply lost. They weren’t that great in 2007 and Pac-10 hopes for multiple teams exploded with Dennis Dixon’s knee. In 2008, they didn’t show up for their CONFERENCE OPENER, after having a week and a half off!
These things have nothing to do with the number of conference games.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I’ve said this many times: USC is the best team in college football. Every single year. I think it would help if they stopped shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I just think they should, by default, be in the NC game every single year until Carroll dies.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions
By contrast the Big 10 plays only 8 of their 10 possible opponents, and Ohio State has benefited from two NC bids in 2006/2007 (and Penn State nearly did the same in 2008)
Big-10 getting an extra BCS bowl is more of a result of the Rose Bowl committee than anything else.
~Even piddling Ohio State got a Fiesta Bowl at large-bid over Oregon last year. Big reason? One extra win over a weak school.
Ohio State wouldn’t have even made a BCS bowl if Oregon lost the Civil War. It makes your head explode thinking about it.
In the past three years since round robin was instituted: Big 10 at large bids 3, Pac 10 at large bids 0.
Correlation does not equate to causation. The last three years, I seriously double the round robin had an effect on our ability to get at-large bids. The only thing it has had an effect on would be the failure of the Pac-10 to fulfill all of its bowl tie-ins. ASU gets to go to the prestigious Hawai’i Bowl, and Stanford gone to the “Oh so coveted” Poinsettia Bowl. Both of which probably shouldn’t exist.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
The Poinsettia was the 3rd best bowl match-up this year. Don’t hate.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I follow the logic
My main problem is that it sounds as if you’re giving up on the Pac-10 championship. In this year of all years, when some outlets have picked both Oregon and Cal to beat them in the Pac-10. That’s way premature. Remember Cal in 2006, but for Arizona, where Pac-10 champions go to die, could have won. Like I said above, the last time the Pac-10 had two teams in the BCS it was because Washington St. won the Pac-10 and USC was merely “co-champion.”
USC is incredible. They have won just over 90% of their games beginning in 2002. But they’re not unbeatable, and Pac-10 teams are the ones that beat them.
The entire premise of your argument is that the only way two teams from the Pac-10 make it is through USC going to the NC. I don’t buy that.
by Nashville on Apr 29, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not giving up on the Pac-10 championship
If we win the Pac-10 title we go to the Rose Bowl and this discussion is moot. But the odds are against that happening. USC has won six straight conference titles, either by beating the nearest challenger or having them fall apart at the opportune time.
In 2006 & 2008, Trojan losses in-conference kept them out of the title game and kept the Pac-10 runner-up from earning the Rose Bowl bid (and they would have taken a Pac-10 team; if they took Big Ten runner-up 8-4 Illinois in 2007, they HAVE to take the Pac-10 runner-up).
Doesn’t mean I don’t covert a 2008 situation where USC ends up as an at-large and Cal the Pac-10 champs, but that scenario is highly unlikely given recent history.
Bork bork bork!
Fair Enough
Good points and I can’t really refute them. On the other hand, I think the odds still are better with USC playing the extra Pac-10 game.
USC has to be one of the two highest ranked (not best mind you) teams out of the 117 in the NCAA – or 65 in the Big Six conferences – to make the National Championship. I thought about attempting to calculate the odds that they face in becoming one of those two teams, but I really didn’t have any idea what an appropriate weight would be, so suffice it to say that from my perspective they are a lot worse than the odds of one of the other nine teams in the Pac-10 winning the conference championship.
In the abstract, maybe...
… in reality, they’ve been in the final top 5 and the top 8 going into the bowls every year since 2002, so I’d think the odds of USC being in the BCS title game are probably better than any other school’s. Moreover, every year since 2002 USC has won at least a share of the Pac 10 title, and 2002 was the only year they didn’t have the Rose Bowl tiebreaker over the team they tied with. So it’s a pretty safe bet that USC will win the Pac 10. They might not.
I guess it’s a matter of perspective here, but which do you really think is more likely — that USC loses one more game (which they likely would be heavily favored to win, or at least favored) and so fails to win the Pac 10, or that they win one more game (again, where they’re likely heavily favored to win) and so goes to the BCS title game.
True
Which is why I didn’t really want to take the time/effort to figure out what fair odds for them would be.
Again, 2002, 2006, and 2007, USC has “slipped up” and lost 2 games. In 2008, they did not control their own destiny going into the final game of the regular season. Only from 2003-2005 did the rest of the Pac-10 essentially not stand a chance. Though USC has an incredible collection of talent this year, I don’t see it as certain that they’ll finish any higher than 3rd.
I think that the 9 teams represent the better likelihood. Because there’s just no chance that USC doesn’t get picked as an at-large team, unless it’s because they’re the third place team in the conference.
This is still based on the assumption that if we were to remove a conference game, USC would have gone undefeated in conference. I still think there is no real basis to make this assumption.
USC had no reason losing to OSU after having a week and a half off, besides the fact that they simply did not come to play in their Pac-10 opener. This has nothing to do with an extra Pac-10 game. it’s not like they got picked off after a tough season. They just didn’t freaking show up.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Even piddling Ohio State got a Fiesta Bowl at large-bid over Oregon last year. Big reason? One extra win over a weak school
Bigger reason: Buckeye Nation brings more people to the bowl site than the state of Oregon’s population.
OK, an exaggeration, but the point being that bowls are still about that, too. And that factor is where a lot of teams from these other conferences have us beat.
Marshawnthusiastic Jahvidtician and member of the PRileytariat.
Ted Miller linked to this post!
I’ll probably update this post with my thoughts, but these paragraphs stuck out to me.
Arizona State and Stanford would have been bowl teams. UCLA, Washington and Washington State wouldn’t have been as much of an anchor for USC’s strength of schedule as the Trojans tried to insinuate themselves into the national championship picture with the exact same record as the two teams that ended up playing for the title.
The BCS system does not reward the Pac-10 for round-robin scheduling, whether considered from the perspective of mathematical formulas or public perception.
Ever tried to explain the perils of round-robin schedule to an adherent from another conference? Their eyes glaze over.
How often do pundits note it as an explanation for why the Pac-10 doesn’t produce seven bowl teams?
Kentucky, which lost six of its final eight regular-season games, was a bowl team last year. The Wildcats didn’t beat a BCS team with a winning record. They did beat Norfolk State, Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky
.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on Apr 29, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I like that Miller (unlike Yokanes) ran this story…sometimes I think he misses important stories from this site and others, but it’s nice to know he’s above the “Unemployed weirdo’s in basements” credo.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
Ted Miller is right about one thing....
The overall scheduling does severely hurt the ability of the Pac-10 to get teams bowl eligible. But that’s not just the round robin, as much as the whole scheduling philosophy.
Overall though, it doesn’t affect BCS at-larges, because of how that process is decided.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
More on what he said
Depending on how Larry Scott does with the hypothetical TV deal with NBC (or anyone for that matter), the round robin schedule could become an extremely attractive marketing opportunity, that is cease being an anchor and become an air balloon. (Better metaphors welcomed.)
Think of it this way. ESPN has turned into the college football network by letting people know that “every game counts,” and then tried to televise as many of them as possible. The Pac-10 is capable of building that same storyline with a network partner in a way that the Big XII, SEC, ACC, and Big Ten cannot. In the Pac-10, Arizona vs. Arizona St. is just as significant to the result as Washington vs. Washington St. and USC vs. UCLA. All of those games influence the outcome of the Pac-10 championship. But how much effect does Vanderbilt vs. South Carolina or LSU vs. Arkansas have on the SEC West and East races respectively? The answer is none. You don’t have to be the best of twelve teams in those conferences, you just have to be the best of 7 (6 team division plus conference championship).
The round robin means that there is a legitimate storyline for the Pac-10 every week! The round robin scheduling is maybe a liability right now, but unless I am completely crazy, I think it has the potential to be a huge asset, assuming NBC, CBS, or Fox wants to come through with a Pac-10 game of the week.
Agreed...
Unfortunately, we’ve had Tom Hansen running the show for the past bazillion years.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
But how much effect does Vanderbilt vs. South Carolina or LSU vs. Arkansas have on the SEC West and East races respectively? The answer is none. You don’t have to be the best of twelve teams in those conferences, you just have to be the best of 7 (6 team division plus conference championship).
And sometimes not even that. Again, Boston Collage beat Virginia Tech played mid season last year. What impact did that game have? Nada, because Virginia Tech beat them in the conference championship at the end of the season. yawn
2008 Season
Situation 1. OSU beat USC solidly last year. That win could be rendered pointless in a North vs. South championship game as OSU heads back to Corvallis.
Situation 2. No conference championship game, 8 conference schedules. OSU schedules Western Oregon, and USC schedules Northern Arizona. USC goes undefeated because they weren’t scheduled this year. OSU’s best win is now Arizona, and still lost to Stanford. USC is the ONLY BCS team.
2006 Season. I’m skipping the conference game scenario, because I can’t think of a realistic situation where USC doesn’t win it.
Situation 2. No conference championship game, 8 conference schedules. USC schedules UC Davis, Cal schedules Sacramento State. Everything still plays out. Both USC and Cal are 10-2. With USC losing to OSU and UCLA, with their best win being ND, and Cal losing to Tennessee and Arizona, with their best win being Oregon (Which USC also beat).
What case does Cal have making the Rose Bowl over USC?
ND still gets an auto-bid, and Michigan is a shoe-in for the last at-large with 11-1. USC is the only BCS bowl.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
1/3 Coaches Poll, 1/3 Harris, and 1/3 a mix of 7 computer polls.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
And again...
BCS rankings have almost NOTHING to do with who gets the at-large bids. There are some mandatory rules, but for the most part, the games pick who will make them the most money.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
yes, that is why ND is automatically in if they are in the top 6 (or 8???) well, whatever it is, it is why the BCS treats ND likes its own conference.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
If ND is eligible...which may be top 12...
they will be virtually guaranteed a big, because they will bring the fans and TV ratings.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It's only a rule if they're in the top 8
(used to be top 6)
If they’re 9-14, and have at least 9 wins, they’re eligible for an at-large, but not guaranteed one (they’re extremely likely to get an at-large bid if eligible, but there are a few teams that would probably be selected before them at this point).
autobid rules
1. bcs #1 and bcs #2
2. bcs conference champs
3. top-ranked non-bcs conference champ, if in the top 12 or in the top 16 and above the lowest-ranked bcs conference champ
4. ND, if in the BCS top 8
5. bcs #3, if it doesn’t already have an autobid and is from a BCS conference
6. bcs #4, if it doesn’t already have an autobid, is from a BCS conference, and bcs #3 didn’t get an autobid via rule 5
7. any remaining bids filled from anyone with nine wins and in the BCS top 14
8. various funky rules apply if there aren’t enough teams for all the BCS bowls after rule 7
Why do y'all care so much about the BCS and national perception...
…when the Golden Bears are one of 9 teams in the conference that can’t reliably challenge for the conference title. Let’s all focus on THAT. Since, because we all play each other, THAT is the only actual championship any of us can win. Then, MAYBE, let’s talk about national rankings when any of the 9 other teams has a legit shot at some sort of national “championship” (bullshit) game. Until then, who cares? Holiday Bowl, Vegas Bowl, Smoked Almonds Bowl, it’s all pretty much the same bullshit in a different location.
No one’s arguing that the BCS doesn’t blow. But it’s the system in place and we should look toward opportunities that make it easier for Cal to advance toward a Rose Bowl/BCS berth. Round robin scheduling might just be making our job harder.
Bork bork bork!
I’m sure you’ve responded to this multiple times already but I don’t want to read all 200 posts – it’s worth considering whether we want the way our conference is run to be determined by what we deem the best method to game the BCS.
Right. We have a GREAT way of determining a conference champion in place and that’s the primary goal for at least 9/10ths of the teams right now. BCS rankings are secondary at best. That’s an aloof conversation for those that are regularly top 5. Not us.
All I want is fairness
If the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and ACC are going to play only 8 of 10/11 possible opponents, then it makes no sense for the Pac-10 to play all 9 of theirs.
If all of the other four conferences agree to similar provisions (at least scheduling 9 opponents) then I’d be behind the round-robin. But until conferences are distributed equally, we are playing a tougher road for no tangible purpose other than for pride.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on Apr 29, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
If we don’t all play each other then we revert something we actually do right to potential BCS-like pissing matches of who is the true champion when, say, USC and WSU both go undefeated in conference. Boo. Booooooo!
How many times do I have to say it. We all play each other for a tangible purpose: the championship of the conference. Other conferences, who cares. They can have a tournament, or an argument, or no champion, or who cares?
All you want is fairness in who wins the opinion polls that determine which heavily marketed teams go to the glorified exhibition games that add a meaningless postscript to the college football season. Got it. Rec’d!
by zoonews on Apr 29, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
For a diehard Cal backer, you seem totally indifferent to how taking advantage of the BCS’s financial incentives would benefit the Golden Bears.
Bork bork bork!
What, do you sell the BCS door to door for a living? Please tell me more about this amazing BCS and what it can provide me!
The BCS sucks, but it’s here and we have to deal with it. I don’t know why you keep on stating I’m a proponent of the system, I’ve reiterated this many times.
By financial incentive alone, gaining a BCS tie-in berth is roughly equivalent to winning the conference championship. So we should recognize that finishing 2nd and earning a BCS berth is well within the realm of possibility and we should discuss ways that we can improve our prospects of earning an at-large berth.
Bork bork bork!
You are a TOTAL proponent of the system by saying we should (must?) change to fit better into the system. Your reiterations are meaningless. Someone truly not a fan of the system would suggest, I dunno, getting rid of the system. As I do.
Someone truly not a fan of the system would suggest, I dunno, getting rid of the system. As I do.
That is not going to happen for another five years, so my indignation will have to wait for a little bit on that. Until then, I’m arguing for ideas that could help Cal in the near future.
Bork bork bork!
And you’ve come up with the irrefutable conclusion that the conference should schedule more patsies. That’s nice work, Lou! What happens in this plan when we lose at home to, say, Colorado State and Air Force? Or do you want to only play REAL losers, like say U.C. Davis?
Then we lose. We groan and mumble. Then we move on.
Alabama lost to Louisiana-Monroe at home in 2007. The next year they were in the Sugar Bowl. Yep, damned fools, the lot of them.
Bork bork bork!
Don’t gloss over the part about your plan backfiring and everyone in the nation laughing and pointing at the Pac-10, har har they suck lolz.
As far as I can tell, he’s arguing that the BCS is a joke and we should be more concerned about winning the Pac-10. In other words, look after our own house and not worry what the rest of the country thinks.
What does that have to do with scheduling weak OOC opponents? Is that why you think they went to the Sugar Bowl?
No
But zoonews is arguing that losing to weak OOC opponents will hurt big teams and conferences in the long run. Alabama 2008 is an example of the exact opposite happening.
Bork bork bork!
Alabama's run to the Sugar Bowl
Is actually good evidence for what a number of us have argued in this thread: the power of media exposure.
Their entire run was kicked off by eviscerating a Clemson team whose coach was fired mid-season, but it happened on national television. (I think. Perhaps it was just super-regional.) Then they played a weak SEC (laugh and remember that week that 5 teams were in the top 10) where they had the chance to be on national television several more times (vs. Georgia, LSU, and Mississippi IIRC).
Focus on the fact that ESPN and CBS helped create the phenomenon far more so than did Alabama’s actual exploits on the field.
Making the Sugar Bowl?
Obviously.
But being ranked #8 in week 4 when their opponents thus far had been Clemson, Tulane, Western Kentucky, and Arkansas? No. That’s why Alabama got to jump to the head of the class and Texas Tech basically hovered in place until they beat Texas and everyone else in front of them started losing.
Why is it inherently “tougher” for Pac-10 teams to play all of our in-conference opponents? That’s only the case if and when SEC/Big 10/Big 12/ACC teams schedule weak OOC opponents – and that’s a different issue.
It’s a guaranteed five more losses in conference, which usually leads to less bowl appearances by the Pac-10 (we only had five last year, six the year before in what was supposedly a STRONG season). By contrast the Big Ten sends seven-eight almost every season now.
Bork bork bork!
UW & WSU are not going to be this bad forever
In 2007 they played as tough conference opponents. This season is the anomaly.
Bork bork bork!
Irrelevant. The point is that either in or out-of conference teams can be either strong or weak. The problem isn’t the manner of scheduling, it’s the teams that are scheduled.
It is not irrelevant. Every other conference (save for maybe the Big East, not sure about their SoS) is afforded an extra victory or two against patsy opponents. This is a tangible advantage for those teams compared to the Pac-10.
Bork bork bork!
…again, that’s not because they schedule out of conference opponents, but rather because they schedule easy out of conference opponents. The extra victory is due to the teams that they choose to play, not due to the fact that those teams are out of conference.
Yes
And if the Pac-10 forfeited the round robin, I’d argue that the conference teams should schedule a game against a D I-AA opponent. We want a level playing field, every team should play one second-tier opponent.
Bork bork bork!
So you’re saying that rather than playing the other teams in the Pac-10 regardless of how good or bad they are, we should have more out of conference games so that we can ensure lopsided victories over second tier teams?
That is a system that has worked to the benefit of every other conference
So you’ll have to argue why such a system would not be to the benefit of the Pac-10.
Bork bork bork!
It's a little irrelevant
USC since 2002:
71 Wins
61 BCS conference opponents (including bowl games and ND).
USC would just use the fourth OOC game to schedule someone good. In 2006 and 2008 they didn’t play a single non-BCS opponent. Which, IIRC, you were citing as the era in which the extra conference game was causing their losses. How do you know it wasn’t their refusal to schedule Idaho, Louisiana-Monroe, or somebody else as opposed to playing the rest of the Pac-10 that caused their loss? There’s no way to tell.
No one’s arguing that the BCS doesn’t blow.
I would make that argument, but you would probably ban me.
This article I agree with 100 percent
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh lord
Please, PLEASE make this argument in a fanpost ASAP. After your Meme Madness bracketology post.
Bork bork bork!
Because you want to refute me?
I seriously have nothing to add to that post. Out of every opinionated article I have ever read, I have NEVER agreed with anything more. It is exactly how I feel.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Copy and paste the parts you like and explain why you feel that way
Come on, don’t your English teachers anything about argumentative essays?
Bork bork bork!
Sure, because he’s in college, right?
by HolmoePhobe on Apr 29, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Are you this unfunny in real life? Because then, yes, you would probably find me humorless in response.
Does anyone here?
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I would copy and paste the entire article.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m actually in agreement with Avinash here. I think its an interesting topic and if RollOn won’t do it, I might do it as a front page stories. People have told us that we dont do enoguh “Front Page Opinion Stories.” Avinash went out on a limb with this one and it has been going gangbusters.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Apr 29, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I will do it. After the bracketology post. This is an issue I feel very strongly about.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Before you do that, can you contact us via email at goldenblogs at gmail dot com to discuss it. Because I think this would be front page worthy and would like to coordinate it with you.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I agree with this post entirely. I fully endorse the “out on the limb” pieces that make blogs interesting and not regurgitation.
I think, in the end, people hate change. Even if it is before the better. Even if it will help bruge HUGE amounts of dollars into their conference and dispersed to their teams. They just want to keep showing up to a crumbling Memorial Stadium (that no casual Bay Area fan could ever find a decent place to park), sit in splintering bleachers that were meant to fit the 1920’s person, and use porta juans with no handwashing station. Instead of winning the arms race, they give up and say “well, at least we do it the RIGHT way.”
Maybe it changes when our quality assistant coaches get bought out by Big12/SEC teams or (gasp) even Jeff Tedford or Sandy Barbour.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
by carp on Apr 29, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think, in the end, people hate change. Even if it is before the better. Even if it will help bruge HUGE amounts of dollars into their conference and dispersed to their teams. They just want to keep showing up to a crumbling Memorial Stadium (that no casual Bay Area fan could ever find a decent place to park), sit in splintering bleachers that were meant to fit the 1920’s person, and use porta juans with no handwashing station. Instead of winning the arms race, they give up and say "well, at least we do it the RIGHT way."
Aaaaand we have a candidate for another excellent fanpost discussion. Keep that one in mind carp.
Bork bork bork!
you mean Porta juans vs. porta johns: an essay on the hispanicization of California culture in the 21st century?
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I think, in the end, people hate change. Even if it is before the better. Even if it will help bruge HUGE amounts of dollars into their conference and dispersed to their teams.
That is so true. And that is why so many people won’t embrace playoffs, etc. Because they are tied down to tradition. That is why people still care about the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl is bullshit. It’s a reward for winning the Pac-10 title. But winning the Pac-10 title is what is important, not what game you go to. And all the Pac-10 and Big 10 infatuation with Pasadena does it stop change.
So I say it now: FUCK THE ROSE BOWL
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
THIS DUCK IS STEALING OUR IDEAS!
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
OFF WITH HIS HEAD. YOU THINK YOU CAN HAVE IDEAS, DON’T YOU? STUPID DUCK.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I just think my team can win some conference championships after the 60s………
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Well.. well, uhh… our jerseys aren’t ugly! So, uhh, yeah. We have that, uh, going for us.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Not in our house...
Be sure to make checks payable to The Regents of the University of California.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
Say that to an old blue. You will be spat on.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
You are one mighty fool, to march into enemy territory and blaspheme about the ultimate goal. Now, enemy, you have crossed a line not merely geographical, but a line that no man shall cross if he wishes to see the next day. You, who comes in with such pride and swagger, pretending that the goal is so easy. We have not tasted it. We have not felt its warm embrace, softly whispering ‘The Big Ten sucks, you will win easily’. We have not felt the joy that comes with winning a BCS game. AND WE WILL FIGHT UNTIL WE OBTAIN THIS SEEMINGLY UNOBTAINABLE GOAL OR WE WILL DIE IN PURSUIT. NOW WHO IS WITH ME! (This is where we would charge onto the battlefield with an undying passion to be nourished from the mythical bowl of Rose).
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
It will be produced Friday. If I go to school for a bit that day it will come out maybe 5ish. If not, I will work on it all day and maybe mid-afternoon.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Smokey, this is not Vietnam. This is bowling, there are rules.
by AERose on Apr 29, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
lol
Watching college football on television is probably the best thing about my life.
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
It is up there for me. I watched at least a quarter of most of the bowl games. I only missed a few, like the ones shown on NFLN.
I didn’t watch Texas-tOSU. Because I don’t care. Those games are not even close to as fun as watching random bowl games. I watch at least one bowl game a day over christmas break. Usually more. Watching Southern Miss vs. Troy in the New Orleans bowl is far more interesting then the Fiesta Bowl. I love watching the small bowl games. I love watching seniors play their heart out in their last major football game. I love learning a lot about all these players who I never would have heard of otherwise. I love seeing amazing or weird things happen that not a lot of other people did (in that Troy vs. Southern Miss, there was a true freshman receiver on SM who had over 1000 yards receiving. The announcers were talking about how amazing he was. It was I believe the 1st quarter and he hadn’t gotten a catch yet. The announcers were saying he would get started and wow us. Then he ran a deep route. And he fell. The CB thought he would be getting a PI penalty. Then he saw what actually happened. He looked like he was about to vomit. This is why
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I know what happened, I’m not clicking that link…
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Did you watch the game?
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions
If so, it was a very entertaining game. Troy lost because their kicker had a kick blocked that would have tied the game. He was very upset with himself. He threw off his helmet. He wouldn’t allow teammates to console him. He was angrily crying and just pacing around the field. If that isn’t compelling I don’t know what is.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
heh, I never meant to imply that football isn’t fun to watch or that bowl games don’t matter, just that his statement was a rather…interesting one.
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I never said you did. I was using you to prove my own point. Because I presume that if you watched the game, you enjoyed it.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I’m sure it was a fantastic game, but…I wouldn’t call it the “best thing about my life.”
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not comparing you to the article whatsoever. I am just trying to prove the merits of small bowls to people.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions
That article makes no sense. He’s basically saying “If we had playoffs, a bunch of games wouldn’t matter, but with the bowl system, we have a bunch of other games that don’t matter.”
They don’t matter? Think about a senior playing in his final major football game at a mid-major, his first time on national TV, in front of all his friends and family. That game doesn’t matter? Are you fucking kidding? The smaller bowl games matter far far more than any of the major ones.
Hey guys, lets punish people who don’t have as much natural talent as the big name players and not let them play a game where everyone they know can see them play, possibly for the first time. Lets reward the people on top because they are better, and let people who have already been on national TV every single game of the year be on TV more. Lets punish people because they weren’t born with supreme talent. Obviously the big name teams worked so much harder then the little guys. So lets punish them for not being as talented and not working as hard.
No. I care much more about a senior from FAU coming up big in his last game then Colt McCoy leading his team to another bowl game win. Why? Because I love everything about college football. And it isn’t just about the big boys.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe not to you. But I don’t think you went through two a days in the hot summer sun. I don’t think you went through at least 8 years of incredibly physical pain. I don’t think you busted your ass working out to try to get better. So who are you to say whether they matter?
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Are you training to be a shitty sports journalist?
Nobody cares how hard they work, only how good they are.
Well, they DID overcome a lot of adversity. Heck, give ‘em a trip to Hawaii! No, let’s go to Vegas! No, let’s just drive across the bridge to San Francisco. Congrats, kids. Now play Miami.
The problem with Klosterman’s article is his assumption that a minor bowl game is somehow more important or exciting than a first-round playoff game. Which is not necessarily the case.
Unless your argument is that bowls > playoffs because there are more of them, which is silly but a totally different argument.
Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, college football is a business, not a self-esteem workshop. So no, I don’t give a shit about the less talented little guys. I’d rather watch the most talented teams play.
You probably enjoy feeling as though you know who is No. 1, because that’s what really matters to you. But maybe you like college football as an experience a little less than you think.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Meaningless platitudes will get you everywhere in life! Or at least a career as a second-rate pop non-fiction writer.
Are you having a bad day? You’ve responded to a few of my posts today. They have, for the most part, been rude and condescending. I don’t know why you seem to be just pissed off at everyone today.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Well as long as it is to everyone it is fine. I know I am an underdog of sorts (not much of one though) on this site, so I don’t really mind.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions
You two must be the same person. Either that or it’s a hive mind thing when you guys argue it up and confirm each other biases.
Bork bork bork!
Me and Avinash have actually never had a disagreement over anything ever.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, Klosterman isn’t saying anything, objectively speaking, about whether a minor bowl game is or is not more exciting than a first-round playoff game. It’s a personal opinion, and he makes no argument that his opinion is either ‘correct’ (if you could even make such an argument) or shared by other people.
Don’t share his opinion? Fine. But there’s really no basis to attack Klosterman (or rollonubears) for his.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
What is your opinion?
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
He’s arguing that bowl games are superior (or preferable to him) due to certain characteristics, while ignoring the fact that playoff games could be equally likely to posses said characteristics. In that sense, his argument is self-contradictory.
Do you hate underdogs? You must be the most talented or skilled person in the world or else you are the biggest hypocrite ever. Did you know Cal is now only accepting people that either got perfect on the SAT or are judged as a 10 in beauty unanimously by a panel of 25 admins.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions
No, I don’t hate underdogs. But I also don’t expect people to give me credit for things that I’m not good at.
You don’t seem to realize that college football is essentially a business. If you’re not good enough, not very many people are going to want to watch you play. Market forces and all that jazz.
Then why does everyone love upsets in March Madness?
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Because they’re entertaining.
If watching two D-II teams play was more entertaining and people got more excited about it than watching, say, Florida-Alabama or USC-OSU, there would be a financial incentive for it to receive more publicity. And it would be on TV.
But since people don’t get excited to watch, it isn’t. The only one punishing them is the market.
You even agree with this part of the article?
¹ Later this evening, Texas Tech will come back from a 35-7 deficit against Minnesota to win the Liberty Bowl. This event occurred on the same day that Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq. All things considered, I think Saddam had a better day than Glen Mason.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Ok, I don’t. But obviously that is a joke.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
My somewhat jaded point of view
Like Ohio Bear points out in the very first comment, there is a profound, willful lack of interest and respect toward the Pac-10 in much of the rest of the country. And while time zones and television exposure probably has something to do with it in the otherwise cosmopolitan BosWash megalopolis, in the Midwest and the South it has more to do with regional myopia. It doesn’t take long for a West (or East) Coaster to encounter the enormous chip on the shoulder carried by the residents of Big 10, Big 12, and SEC country. While I’ve gotten small tastes of it on visits to Knoxville and Lincoln, for me personally it was four years of grad school in Madison that led me to conclude that the Pac-10 (and for that matter, the Big East) will never enjoy even begrudging respect from those in the middle of the country. That’s just the way it is, and the way it always will be.
Rather than whine and gripe about BCS snubs, then, I prefer to not give a rat’s ass about mythical “national championships” and New Year’s Day Week bowl games. All that matters to me as a Cal football fan is that the Bears compete—and hopefully someday win outright—a Pac-10 championship. And because it’s a 9-game, round-robin schedule, I know that championship will be legitimate, something truly earned on the field, not subject to the biases of pollsters and computer algorithms or the luck of the schedule draw.
In short, Pac-10 disrespect is an unfixable problem, so let’s at least do things right on our own terms. I, for one, do not have a chip on my shoulder, and I couldn’t care less whether folks in Ames and Bloomington and Tuscaloosa like my alma mater’s football team, even if I happen to enjoy watching—simply as a generic football fan—their teams.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Apr 29, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions 9 recs
when i was talking to people across the country, someone was flabergasted at the idea that a buddy moved to LA and they did a college football pool at his new work. only the pool was for PRO football, not college football. the dude was utterly flabergasted
it has to be noted that the West Coast simply doesn’t have the passion of the other parts of the country. this will inevitably lead to less marketability and profitability. personally, i think its a good thing.
They're after our precious bodily fluids
they did a college football pool at his new work. only the pool was for PRO football, not college football
How does that work?
the Maharg is above catch phrases
I agree.
Even if we DID model exactly like the SEC/Big-12, the fans of the SEC/Big-12 will laugh at Pac-10 football as long as there are cultural differences between “us and them”. Sure, there are crossover fans, and fans with general respect for other conferences, but this will ultimately and continually be an issue.
The left coast isn’t the south. Or even the midwest. It’s shocking, I know. We sip our lattes and vote for blue, they eat fried catfish and sing Garth Brooks.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
Even if we DID model exactly like the SEC/Big-12, the fans of the SEC/Big-12 will laugh at Pac-10 football as long as there are cultural differences between "us and them". Sure, there are crossover fans, and fans with general respect for other conferences, but this will ultimately and continually be an issue.
The reason this wouldn’t work is because of the general opinion toward the conferences. The SEC, and the Big XII to a much lesser extent, has somehow managed to create the consensus that playing in its conference necessitates a cupcake non-conference schedule. The Pac-10 perception is that the conference is weak and therefore a tougher non-conference schedule is required.
Top SEC schools regularly lose to average or below-average conference opponents (Vanderbilt beating Georgia, Arkansas beating LSU, etc.) but the public reaction tends to a “gee, Vandy/Arkansas/Kentucky sure is playing well this year” instead of an “LSU/Georgia/Florida is overrated.” Until that perception is fixed, the one that says an Oregon St. team that’s won 27 games in three years is just so-so, then I don’t think adding a cupcake non-conference opponent is the answer. In fact, I would suggest the complete opposite is required. The only way in which that perception will change is to go out and beat teams that have strong public “brands.” I shit you not, every excuse in the book will be used. After USC beat Arkansas 50-14 to start the season the year Arkansas won the SEC West, all anyone said was “well, Darren McFadden wasn’t playing.” As if he could account for 36 points.
Five more years of consistent, strong OOC opponents, in which Washington, UCLA, and Arizona St. get some quality OOC wins and Cal, Oregon, and USC keep on doing what they’ve been doing and maybe we can talk about weakening our schedule because it’s gotten too tough. For now, I think we ought to keep on scheduling great OOC match-ups and playing nine conference games because it’s a service to the fans, and, frankly, the players.
But Darren McFadden wasn’t playing!!!
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions
As another note, if I’m paying for season tickets, I’d rather see a Pac10 team than, say, UC Davis. UC Davis might be better than Washington or whatever. But if we were to replace USC with UC Davis this year (a potential possibility under Avinash’s plan), then that would effect people’s ticket buying.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Apr 29, 2009 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I just think if you are going to use the finances as a positive for your idea (getting a 2nd BCS team in and splitting the funds), we should look at potential negative downsides financially to the plan.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and so teams might be uneasy to give up guaranteed ticket money on the hopes that some other team makes the BCS and gives them a hand out.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Not sure how much the difference would be. Cal generally sells most of the tickets for its lousiest game (and more than general conference games) b/c the tickets are cheap. There would probably be a slight dropoff, but it pales in comparison to the BCS money.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
…the hell?
Bork bork bork!
Its an old saying of what you actually have is more valuable than what you might potentially have in the future. We have no idea whether your idea would actually bring a 2nd BCS team. So, the teams would be giving up genuine revenue for future potential revenue. And, moreover, it might be several years between 2nd BCS teams (if at all), so itd be several years worth of lost revenue, which could add up.
I have no idea what the difference is. Certainly, USC to UC Davis is going to be a HUGE drop off. Thats the most extreme example, obviously. But somebody somewhere is going to lose a home game with USC and NOT be happy.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
But somebody somewhere is going to lose a home game with USC and NOT be happy.
You mean they’ll be ELATED, right?
Bork bork bork!
I would be pissed if we missed USC. yes, I hate that USC beats us every year, but its a huge game. And if we COULD pull it off! Epic!
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yeah. If we went undefeated without playing USC it would feel dirty.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What are you, someone who is younger then me?
(I think I see what I did there)
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions
i don't think USC to UC Davis is the most extreme
i think we would still get a fair amount of people in the stadium because of the proximity between the campuses. If we played a patsie no one has heard of, then who the F cares. If you want to see your team run over a clearly inferior team, then set up your high school team to play an elementary school team – and watch your high school team gain NOTHING by it except expectations that they should have won by more.
F the BCS, F the BCS, F the BCS. We should NOT change our system, which clearly picks a Pac-10 champion, to one that “fits” into a really crappy post-game selection process.
Damnit, I made OskiWeeWee mad
Please don’t hurt me, it was just an op/ed! I MEANT NOTHING!
Bork bork bork!
lol
I’m totally not mad. :)
I enjoyed reading this post and all of the comments – some really good thoughts and opinions here.
But what I enjoyed the MOST was that, except for the short Scorsese interruption, the comments regarding this post were all on topic. I sincerely enjoyed being able to read all the comments without feeling like I’ve been left out of some inside joke. Kudos to everyone.
Hey, youll notice that I kept mostly out of this discussion for fear of being unable to control my inanity. This was particularily difficult given that Avinash posted up what may be the most homoerotic photo I’ve seen since the last time I had sex with a man wearing Batman and Robin suits.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Apr 30, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
hahahaha. I wonder what Ted Miller’s thoughts on the photo were.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 30, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
wait....
so you’re saying all the inside jokes and off topic comments alienate lurkers and non regular posters? NO WAY!!!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Apr 30, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If only there was a mod here, who did everything in his power, working tirelessly, to keep the inanity limited to the DBD so as to allow for both the legitimate and perhaps less than legitimate conversations can both be enjoyed at this fine website.
If only…….
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
and a modest one at that!
Hey, youll notice that I kept mostly out of this discussion for fear of being unable to control my inanity. This was particularily difficult given that Avinash posted up what may be the most homoerotic photo I’ve seen since the last time I had sex with a man wearing Batman and Robin suits.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I’d like to continue this conversation with you, CBKWit, but only if you stop posting so many Honks and Nailed Its in this thread. Its really upsetting the lurkers and non-regular readers. Thank you.
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
You, sir, are a man of the people.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 30, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions
It seems this argument has been shot down
64% against, and almost all the commenters too. Expected as much. I guessed a lot of people would have difficulty digesting this. Hopefully the next opinion piece will do better.
Bork bork bork!
by Avinash on Apr 29, 2009 5:10 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Even if many people did not vote in your favor, I think this opinion piece did amazingly well. Great discussion all around!
I am the Tyrant Boy King Of UC Eugene! An endless cavalcade of worthless inanities is my currency!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I agree. There was a calm, reasoned sports-related discussion that (mostly) avoided personal insults and resulted in a net positive contribution from a number of posters YOU FUCKING WHORE SLUT.
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions
WHAT?!?!!!?!?!?!?!
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 29, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions
LIES
I’ve already got the tail gate stuff set up in my front yard!!!!
Go Bears Go
Yeah. I even put it in my Pac 10 bl- I mean, uhhh, Ted Miller put it in his Pac 10 blog. I am not Ted Miller whatsoever. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions
these numbers are par for the course on issues that require a departure from the norm. Nice work.
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
You just want to never leave 1978-2005...
The Glory Years of Incomplete Pac-10 Football Scheduling
Oh the benefits we reaped!
Different time, different place
And the Pac-10 did actually send two at-large bids to the BCS during that period, with the one less bowl.
Bork bork bork!
Also from ESPN:
UCLA’s future nonconference schedules include San Diego State (Sept. 5 at home), Tennessee (Sept. 12) and Kansas State (Sept. 19 at home) in 2009; Kansas State (Sept. 4), Houston (Sept. 11 at home) and Texas (Sept. 18) in 2010; Houston (Sept. 3), San Jose State (Sept. 10 at home) and Texas (Sept. 17 at home) in 2011; Rice (Sept. 1), Nebraska (Sept. 8 at home) and Houston (Sept. 15 at home) in 2012; and Nevada (August 31) and Nebraska (Sept. 14) in 2013.
Rick Neuheisel thinks everyone in favor of more patsies is a pansy.
And God help me if I don’t agree with the slimy git.
They actually do an admirable job of scheduling. All 3 of their non conference games were against teams that were at one point in the top 25 this year. I know this off the top of my head because of the weekly phone game me and my sister play called “Are we going to lose today?” Fortunately, most of the time I say yes.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 29, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it’s kind of telling that Carp goes on a Walter Sobchak-esque rant and Avinash basically argues that we as fans are obligated to support anything that would profit our team (seriously, I do not love Cal nearly enough to care about their balance sheet), and meanwhile the actual coaches and ADs are going out hunting for the biggest game available.
Fuck it Dude, let’s go bowling.
by AERose on Apr 29, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I want to hang out with this mofo. He knows where it’s at.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
You’re out of your element, jt.
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
by Spazzy Mcgee on Apr 30, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
That has to be one of the first times that was said where it wasn’t directed at me.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 30, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
you're killing your father, AERose
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Apr 29, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Heh, I’m not just doing it for cash. I’m not Milo Minderbinder. The Pac-10 does itself no favors with the round robin and based on past results seems like an extravagance and not a necessity.
Bork bork bork!
MARK IT ZERO SMOKEY!
Heaps and Hinder...come on down!
by carp on Apr 30, 2009 6:43 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Dr Saturday also chimes in...
He wants us to stand firm in giving the finger to the rest of the nation.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Dammit! I was going to write a post about how I love the BCS. I was going to have the title be a play on Dr. Strangelove. Then I see that blog for the first time ever. FUCK.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 30, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s an awesome blog. RSS it.
Doc Saturday is the artist formally known as SMQ (Sunday Morning Quarterback). He ran an SBNation blog here.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
Yeah, he’s a reasonable guy with good thoughts.
He might actually read this blog. In fact, I think I inspired him to do some of his analysis posts because his analysis posts have been eerily similar to mine.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Great Write-Up!
One of our readers discussed this as well last August…
Ted Miller chimed in too linking back to CC.
I am not a fan of diluting our OOC schedules…I say keep going after the tough teams while keeping intact our round robin within the conference.
Until some of the bottom feeders in the pac-10 step it up I really see it as the only way to keep our stature in the national picture.
The BCS could fix the problem of top teams feasting on non-BCS teams and FCS teams with a small and simple change: add a clause to the BCS rules which prohibits any team who has played a FCS opponent and/or two non-BCS teams that year from playing in any BCS bowl.
Thus, for example, if a team goes 12-0 on the season, but played The Citadel, they’d be prohibited from being selected in a BCS bowl. Or, for example, if a team had an OOC of Kansas, Louisiana-Monroe, and Utah State, they’d be prohibited from being selected for a BCS bowl since Louisiana-Monroe and Utah State are non-BCS opponents.
Such a clause would force teams to at least schedule 2 to 3 BCS opponents. Pac-10 teams, who have 3 OOC games, would then only have the liberty of scheduling 1 non-BCS team. Other teams who have 4 OOC games, could then only schedule up to two non-BCS teams.
Such a rule would discourage teams from playing FCS teams and scheduling a full meal of non-BCS opponents if they want to play in a BCS bowl and most importantly for the national championship. It probably wouldn’t encourage teams to schedule real top level opponents to get huge matchups like USC vs. Ohio State every year, but it’s a start and would at least avoid crap games like Ohio State vs. Youngstown State.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on Apr 30, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
This would make college football more exciting compared to how it is right now.
I like this idea.
And I threw up for complementing HydroTech.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
Bad idea. Make the rule that if they play 2 FCS opponents they can’t go (See 2007 Warriors, Hawai’i). If you make the mandatory 2 BCS teams, then nobody will play the TCU’s or the Utah’s or the Boise’s of the world, which is unfair to them.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 30, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I like the idea too
On the other hand, and I’ve only heard this second hand, but tOSU’s pathetic, annual non-conference schedule against Youngstown St., Ohio University and somebody else was actually required by the Ohio state legislature.
Would you consider adding exceptions based on BCS+ teams like Boise St., TCU, Utah, Miami (OH) – the year they were good, etc.? My idea on how to do this would essentially be something like, if the non-BCS team has average 8+ wins over the past 3 seasons, or 10 wins in the prior season. Otherwise, I worry that we might never get the chance to see Utah paste Alabama again.
Well the OSU-YSU thing is because Tressel used to be AD at YSU.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on Apr 30, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I see your point with the exceptions for strong non-BCS teams like BSU, TCU, and Utah but I disagree with the logic. A rule which says that if they average 8+ wins the past 3 years they should are exempt for that year as a non-BCS team is illogical. Why? Well, they may have been good 3 years in a row, but there is no guarantee they are just as good in the present year. The current team shouldn’t benefit from prior teams because those prior teams aren’t the present team. This is all about the current team, not past teams.
The biggest flaw with the addition I proposed above, is that teams such as BSU, TCU, and Utah would automatically not qualify for BCS bowls because they play a conference schedule full of non-BCS teams. In other words, there is no way they can qualify to not play more than 2 non-BCS teams.
I don’t really have a good solution for this problem. Either, non-BCS schools are exempt from the rule and thus if Utah goes 12-0 on the season they can still go to a BCS bowl. However, the BCS schools would cry foul since Utah does play against lesser competition. So such an exception to the rule would be unfair to BCS teams.
Or we have a similar rule for non-BCS teams which is something like: “Non-BCS teams must not play ANY non-conference games against FCS or non-BCS teams to qualify for a BCS bowl.” Thus, in other words, Utah would be required to schedule all of its non-conference games against BCS opponents. It goes without saying that Utah would implicitly be required to win those games too. So for example, if Utah had a schedule such as Oregon State, Nebraska, and Indiana, they’d qualify for the rule and be eligible for BCS bowls (pending they win games and are ranked high enough and all that other stuff).
Of course, no BCS team would be particularly eager to schedule the strongest non-BCS teams like BSU, Utah, BYU, and TCU. So those poor guys would probably get passed over by top BCS schools and those poor non-BCS schools would be stuck playing low level BCS teams or even worse they wouldn’t find a BCS team willing to play them and they’d have to settle for non-BCS teams.
So this brings me to my final extreme suggestion: the NCAA handles out of conference matchups. The NCAA would randomly pick who each team plays every single year with a reciprocal home-home series. As extreme as this might be, it ensures completely fairness by randomness. No longer can big time schools get away with playing the Utah States, Louisana-Monroes, and San Diego States of the world – not unless they get so lucky as to randomly draw those teams.
For example, the NCAA would random pick Cal’s OOC schedule. By random chance, Cal might draw New Mexico St., Oklahoma, and Syracuse. Thus, Cal would play a home-home series with those teams. Ideally, the NCAA would stagger the picks so Cal isn’t playing NMST, OU, and SU two years in a row. In other words, Cal’s schedule would look like below:
2009 – New Mexico St., @Oklahoma, (another random OOC pick)
2010 – @ New Mexico St., Oklahoma, @ Syracuse
2011 – Syracuse, (another random OOC pick), (another random OOC pick),
If we fill it all in (with me choosing random teams), it might look something like this:
2009 – New Mexico St., @Oklahoma, Texas A&M
2010 – @ New Mexico St., Oklahoma, @ Syracuse
2011 – Syracuse, @Texas A&M, North Carolina,
2012 – Nevada, @North Carolina, @FAU
2013 – @Nevada, FAU, LSU,
2014 – @LSU, Utah State, Florida,
As you can see, there is a complete home-home series with every team that is matched up. Furthermore, the random picks are staggered so a team isn’t play X, Y, and Z opponent two years in a row. Some years might be easier than others, such as 2012 (Nevada, NC, @FAU), and some years would be harder such as 2014 (LSU, Utah St., Florida). While it is inevitable that some teams would get easier schedules than other teams, that disparity can still be controlled with human voting polls, as well as with computer ranking systems that take into account the strength of schedule. So in other words, just because X team gets an easier schedule than Y team doesn’t necessarily mean X team will definitely benefit because the voters could always not rank X team as high because of their softer schedule.
Anyways, as extreme as this method might be, it ensures 100% fairness by randomly picking the OOC schedule for every team in the nation. This would also make for some really interesting cross-country matchups that are rarely seen. Furthermore, this method completely disallows teams from purposely scheduling cupcakes since the NCAA is doing the scheduling and not the individual schools. With such a system in place, I have a hard time seeing how people can gripe about unfairness with OOC scheduling other than merely having “bad luck” if they draw an OOC schedule of Ohio State, USC, and Florida in the same year.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
For some reason, it appears as if my second to last paragraph is glitched and not properly appearing. I have copy+pasted the text below:
As you can see, there is a complete home-home series with every team that is matched up. Furthermore, the random picks are staggered so a team isn’t play X, Y, and Z opponent two years in a row. Some years might be easier than others, such as 2012 (Nevada, NC, @FAU), and some years would be harder such as 2014 (LSU, Utah St., Florida). While it is inevitable that some teams would get easier schedules than other teams, that disparity can still be controlled with human voting polls, as well as with computer ranking systems that take into account the strength of schedule. So in other words, just because X team gets an easier schedule than Y team doesn’t necessarily mean X team will definitely benefit because the voters could always not rank X team as high because of their softer schedule.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
What if you had an OOC weighted point system formula to qualify for BCS eligibility?
You need to meet the requirements of reaching 1 point per OOC game plus 1.
Teams with 3 OOC games would require 4 points, and teams with 4 OOC would require 5 points.
The weights would be something like zero points for FCS, one point for Mid Major, and two points for BCS teams.
Teams with 3 OOC games could schedule 2 BCS teams, and their “UC Davis”, or 1 BCS team, and two mid majors.
Teams with 4 OOC games could then schedule 2 BCS teams, a mid major, and still get their “Citadels”, but they also couldn’t pray heavily on non-BCS games. They could also do 1 BCS team, and 3 mid major.
Essentially, everyone would need to play at least one BCS team OOC. If you schedule TWO, you get to play a FCS.
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
I like this idea the most
The only problem is that the NCAA doesn’t own the CFB post-season, and the BCS is really a consortium of the “Big Six” conferences. So, I imagine to effect any kind of change, the conference chairmen would have to vote and accept the change. It’s not something that could be decided by fiat. I don’t see the Big XII or the SEC agreeing to do that.
The other issue is that there would be a bit of a contractual crisis if for instance Florida, Ohio St., or any conference champion failed to get the requisite number of points. The Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl are promised the Pac-10/Big Ten and SEC champions respectively. Does their claim to the conference champion supersede the roadblock this hypothetical rule change would impose? I can easily imagine a scenario in which the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl committee basically says “F the rules, I’m picking who I want to pick.” I’m not sure who exactly would stop them.
I agree entirely with that. Honestly, none of the proposed ideas have been practical. They’ll continue to be impractical until SOMEONE GROWS SOME FREAKING BALLS,
It’s spelled "S-H-U-M-W-O-W"
by JShufelt on May 1, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, I don’t like this idea because:
1. It allows teams to play FCS.
2. It still has the problem of nobody wanting to play the best non-BCS teams like Utah, etc. Why play Utah with a coin flip for the win and only get 1 point when you can play Utah State and get 1 point and a guaranteed win?
Right now, I think the best proposal is that the NCAA handles all OOC scheduling. It’s clear that teams are going to abuse their ability to make their own schedule to get to the BCS. If that’s the case, I think there isn’t a strong argument to oppose them losing that right.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Some interesting ideas
I see your point with the exceptions for strong non-BCS teams like BSU, TCU, and Utah but I disagree with the logic. A rule which says that if they average 8+ wins the past 3 years they should are exempt for that year as a non-BCS team is illogical. Why? Well, they may have been good 3 years in a row, but there is no guarantee they are just as good in the present year. The current team shouldn’t benefit from prior teams because those prior teams aren’t the present team. This is all about the current team, not past teams.
This is of course true. No one can guarantee a given team’s performance in the upcoming year. But it’s also a bit silly. Washington’s record over the last three years is 5-7, 4-9, 0-12. USC’s is 11-2, 11-2, 12-1. Who do you think will have the better record in the current year? What would possibly lead you to that conclusion? The truth is that while nothing in the current year is guaranteed, particularly when there are injuries, three and five year trends are pretty good indicators of likely results.
I would have to think a lot more on your proposed system. Up front, I simply disagree with it based on the principle of I don’t like NCAA and I don’t think they should have that much control. My own solution is a bit less draconian, namely that an FCS opponent would disqualify you for BCS eligibility. This would preserve the eligibility of teams outside the “Big Six,” who still have a tough row to hoe, while still keeping a modicum of scheduling integrity amongst the biggest and strongest players cough Florida, LSU, Texas Tech. The overall trend of OOC scheduling is toward better opponents anyway. I don’t think there’s any reason that will change, particularly if you eliminate a whole class of opponents. Plus, imagine how great a scenario it would be to have a regular bowl luck into a top 5 or top 10 team simply because they had an FCS opponent on the schedule. Might restore a bit of relevance to the rest of bowl season.
Well, my first suggestion was this:
The BCS could fix the problem of top teams feasting on non-BCS teams and FCS teams with a small and simple change: add a clause to the BCS rules which prohibits any team who has played a FCS opponent and/or two non-BCS teams that year from playing in any BCS bowl.
But as I pointed out, it was flawed. How so? Teams will just schedule Utah St., San Jose St., and Louisana-Monroe instead of The Citadel, Eastern Washington, and South East Missouri State. While that is an improvement, it’s such a small improvement that it’s perhaps pointless. That’s why I added the second requirement that they must schedule a certain amount of BCS teams. But as I noted in further analysis, that two part rule is biased against non-BCS schools. So in an effort to completely level the field for BCS teams and non-BCS teams, I suggested the NCAA handles all OOC scheduling by randomness.
Right now, I think that’s the most fair way of going about OOC scheduling. It’s clear teams are going to abuse their power to make their own schedule to get to the BCS and dilute the sport of college football. If that’s the case, then I think the NCAA can take that right away – if they so choose in order to bring fairness to the BCS and make the sport of college football more exciting.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
But as I pointed out, it was flawed. How so? Teams will just schedule Utah St., San Jose St., and Louisana-Monroe instead of The Citadel, Eastern Washington, and South East Missouri State.
Kind of. These patsies don’t get unlimited OOC games, so Big Six teams who want to play non-Big 6 teams will frequently miss out on scheduling Louisina-Lafayette may have to get Troy. The SunBelt is a pretty bad conference, but MTSU still almost beat Kentucky and did beat Maryland and Troy should’ve beaten LSU. Plus, it isn’t inconceivable that a BCS team would travel to a non-BCS school (e.g. Cal @ CSU or Arizona @ UNM) and road games are where crazy things happen.
I also think the overall trend without any NCAA muscle, Texas Tech being a significant exception, is for Big Six teams scheduling at least one tough BCS opponent, occasionally beyond their rivalry game. This year, for instance, UGA is playing Oklahoma St., Arizona St., and Georgia Tech in addition to their SEC conference schedule. And UGA used to be one of the worst examples in OOC scheduling.
My bottom line on this is that I want the FCS teams to disappear from the schedules of the elite BCS conference teams, but I don’t mind if Washington St. or Vanderbilt has one on their schedule every now and then. It seems like you hate FCS teams with the passion of a thousand suns, but I view them as a necessary evil. CFB is a revenue generator and nothing generates revenue like a home game.
I don’t hate FCS with the passion of a thousand suns. I hate how elite teams schedule FCS then claim they should play for the national championship. So to prevent such ridiculousness, I think all teams shouldn’t be allowed to play FCS. A rule which allows some BCS teams to play FCS and other BCS teams to not play FCS is a double standard – one which I cannot endorse – since it poses the obvious problem of trying to find a way to distinguish between what BCS teams can and cannot play FCS.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I also hate how elite teams schedule the Utah States and Louisiana-Monroes of the world to go 4-0 in OOC play, go 12-0 on the season, and claim they should be playing for the national championship. So to avoid this problem of teams taking advantage of their ability to make their own schedules, I propose the NCAA handles all OOC matchups by random picking.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Kind of. These patsies don’t get unlimited OOC games, so Big Six teams who want to play non-Big 6 teams will frequently miss out on scheduling Louisina-Lafayette may have to get Troy.
You have a valid point that I agree with. However, who is going to be the most likely to land Louisiana-Lafayette? The teams with the biggest pocket – teams like Ohio State, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, LSU, Florida, etc. Those teams can afford to pay Louisiana-Lafayette $1.5 million to come to Death Valley and get murdered, or to the Horse Shoe and get stomped, or to the Coliseum and get massacred. So while not everyone will be able to schedule Louisiana-Lafayette, it’s the teams who we most want to NOT schedule Louisiana-Lafayette who have the best chance at scheduling Louisiana-Lafayette. Furthermore, those teams have the most incentive to schedule Louisiana-Lafayette since it (1) gives them an easy win, and (2) gives them revenue from another home game. With such huge incentives for scheduling Louisiana-Lafayette, there is little incentive to NOT schedule them, and thus those powerhouse teams who we strive to stop from scheduling crap teams will continually schedule crap teams.
I think the NCAA choosing random OOC matchups solves this problem.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
And I agree with your goals. I really do want to see OOC match-ups improved.
But complete randomness in NCAA scheduling is not a viable solution unless you can also come up with a revenue-sharing plan because as you note every athletic department’s budget is not created equal. There are significantly more teams in the American Southeast. What if Hawaii, Fresno St., UNLV, or even Washington St. drew an all East of the Mississippi road OOC slate? Those athletic departments might not be able to afford that kind of travel budget.
Likewise, as you note, who would broker the size of the fee for the road team? If the NCAA is randomly assigning opponents then no market mechanism exists to determine the size of the payout. Do you really want to cartelize the CFB landscape even more?
I will be the first to admit that I don’t have a viable proposal. And I recognize being a constant naysayer while not offering solutions isn’t a very endearing practice. But as I said earlier, if you can institute something that prevents the top teams from loading up on cupcakes, the lower-tier Big Six teams will be able to schedule them and get the wins, and more importantly the revenue to later allow them to compete with the top teams and the monster budgets. I just haven’t figured out a way to do that that makes sense.
This is of course true. No one can guarantee a given team’s performance in the upcoming year. But it’s also a bit silly. Washington’s record over the last three years is 5-7, 4-9, 0-12. USC’s is 11-2, 11-2, 12-1. Who do you think will have the better record in the current year? What would possibly lead you to that conclusion? The truth is that while nothing in the current year is guaranteed, particularly when there are injuries, three and five year trends are pretty good indicators of likely results.
Just like you said, it’s a “pretty good indicator” but it’s not a perfect indicator. We can’t make assumptions. Using a team’s past record is making assumptions. Many teams have had 8+ win seasons the past 3 to 5 years only to suddenly and unexpectedly tank, such as Michigan for example.
So while I agree that past records are a “pretty good indicator” it’s not perfect. But it’s biggest flaw, is that it’s based on prior teams which are meaningless since college football is about the current team.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
So while I agree that past records are a "pretty good indicator" it’s not perfect. But it’s biggest flaw, is that it’s based on prior teams which are meaningless since college football is about the current team.
Great.
If you agree that 3-5 year trends tell us something than what are we arguing about? You’ve ceded my point. I never argued they were infallible, just reliable. We can make assumptions, we just have to understand the basis of them. Predictions are frequently wrong, but they are less wrong when there are solid trends behind it.
And the Michigan example works, until you consider the changes they went through this past off-season. This is an honest question, but how many teams can you think of that kept their head coach but suddenly and unexpectedly tanked? Auburn and Tennessee are the only two that come to mind. I don’t consider Cal in 2007 to have tanked, but if you want to include that, fair enough.
One point I do agree with you on is that it is dumb to label Florida as the “defending National Champs” because college teams have huge levels of turnover.
I cede your point. But your point is illogical. Past records are not infallible. They are somewhat reliable. But they must be infallible. They are not infallible. Thus, past records should not be used.
Your argument is essentially this: if past records are reliable, then we should consider past teams’ performances in assessing the current team.
You furthermore do not require “reliability” to be 100% whereas I do. That is where we differ. The reasoning behind requiring 100% reliability is more logical and reasoned than your argument.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I should say at the outset that I don’t think my proposal above is a great one. Three consecutive years of 8+ win seasons was just something off the top of my head that I figured would not immediately exclude the best of the non-BCS teams without resorting to the scorched earth policy of having the NCAA schedule everyone’s games. Anybody who puts in more than two minutes of thought will likely come up with something better than my idea. So rejecting that doesn’t bother me.
My argument is close to that. It is, unless there is a material event in the off-season, such as the departure of the head coach (Michigan), the death/departure of a star player (Michigan again), past records are reasonably reliable indicators of future performance.
To paraphrase your point, it sounds like you are saying we can’t make any assumptions about any of this year’s teams because they are not the exact same team that existed when they compiled the prior years’ records. That is, to be polite, silly. Do you really think we know nothing about Cal’s 2009 team? Florida’s? USC’s? The prior year’s record is relevant even though its correlation isn’t 1.0.
Let me cast it in a slightly different light. I have enjoyed many of your insightful and thoughtful posts breaking down Cal’s offensive tendencies. Why would you do that if you didn’t believe there was some predictive power to it?
To paraphrase your point, it sounds like you are saying we can’t make any assumptions about any of this year’s teams because they are not the exact same team that existed when they compiled the prior years’ records. That is, to be polite, silly. Do you really think we know nothing about Cal’s 2009 team? Florida’s? USC’s? The prior year’s record is relevant even though its correlation isn’t 1.0.
You paraphrased my point with your first sentence. Let me reiterate, as I said before, a team’s status for whether it gets treated as a BCS team versus a non-BCS team should not be determined based on a prior years, afterall it is the current team that is competing in the current year, not prior teams. For example, maybe BYU does have an 8+ win record the past 3 years, but what has the current team done to earn a special status in 2009? Nothing. The 2009 team is different than the prior teams. We seem to disagree on this notion without you or more budging on our points. I’m not sure more arguing on this point will achieve much more.
Now, you say how can we not know anything about Cal’s 2009 team? You say surely we must know something about the 2009 team. In fact you’re right. What is that knowledge based on? It’s on the players, the coaches, etc. It is NOT based on the prior year’s record. When anybody predicts how a team will perform in the upcoming year, they base that prediction on player performance. Let me illustrate this. What is more convincing of the two statements?
(1) The fact that USC had 8+ wins last season was because in the prior three years to last year they also went 8+ wins.
(2) The fact that USC had 8+ wins last season was because USC has 24 5-star recruits on the team, 6 First Team All-Americans, and three Day1 NFL draft picks.
I think most people would find the second statement more convincing. Does the fact that USC went 8+ wins in 2005 really mean they’re going to go 8+ wins in 2009? No. It’s the underlying facts, the fact that USC has X, Y, and Z players which will lead someone to conclude that the current team will probably go 8+ wins this season. However, a team never has the exact same set of players every single year since a team graduates players. But by saying a team should be treated differently this year because they went 8+ wins the past three years, and thus they’re pretty likely to go 8+ wins this season is making an assumption. Perhaps that assumption will be right 80% of the time, but it must be right 100% of the time. Why 100%? It’s a pretty big windfall if Alabama schedules Utah, whom we’re assuming went 8+ wins three seasons in a row, but graduated all its NFL talented players, and is full of underachieving freshman and at season’s end Utah goes 2-10. This windfall must be avoided. The only way to avoid it is to find a 100% fool-proof way of knowing that a team will perform 8+ wins this current year. There is NO way to know that with certainty. Because there is no way to know how a team will perform with certainty, I cannot endorse a proposal which attempts to predict how a team will perform in order to determine its special status.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Arguing in circles
We seem to disagree on this notion without you or more budging on our points. I’m not sure more arguing on this point will achieve much more.
You’re very likely right on this measure. So, what I’m putting down here is mostly an attempt to clarify as oppose to prolong this little disagreement we’re having.
Let me reiterate, as I said before, a team’s status for whether it gets treated as a BCS team versus a non-BCS team should not be determined based on a prior years, afterall it is the current team that is competing in the current year, not prior teams.
Quite right. The current team is not identical to the prior year’s. Nor is it entirely distinct. Teams don’t replace their roster after every year. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of all 44 players on the two deep graduating/leaving early after a particular year, though Florida next year will probably come close. This fact means there is some continuity between years. The current year’s team – as you well know – is never an entirely new complement of players and so it’s just silly to argue that we can’t know anything about how the current year’s team will perform when it is not at all uncommon to have 50% or more of the prior year’s team returning.
It’s on the players, the coaches, etc. It is NOT based on the prior year’s record. When anybody predicts how a team will perform in the upcoming year, they base that prediction on player performance. Let me illustrate this. What is more convincing of the two statements?
(1) The fact that USC had 8+ wins last season was because in the prior three years to last year they also went 8+ wins.
(2) The fact that USC had 8+ wins last season was because USC has 24 5-star recruits on the team, 6 First Team All-Americans, and three Day1 NFL draft picks.
Okay, now I get it. I’m not being explicit enough for you. When I say number one above, I’m using that as a shortcut to say what you’re pointing out in number two. I took it as a given that everyone understood that a team’s record is compiled through the efforts of the coaches and players in that year and not, say, the arbitrary result of a bunch of beer bottles with helmets on during halftime of the Super Bowl (though Bud Bowl was always entertaining).
It’s the underlying facts, the fact that USC has X, Y, and Z players which will lead someone to conclude that the current team will probably go 8+ wins this season. However, a team never has the exact same set of players every single year since a team graduates players. But by saying a team should be treated differently this year because they went 8+ wins the past three years, and thus they’re pretty likely to go 8+ wins this season is making an assumption.
Nor do they have an entirely different set of players. Calibrating your expectations against that balance of returnees is what Ted Miller, Athlon, and every other college football expert or amateur is doing when they make their pre-season Top 25 prediction, er, assumption.
Perhaps that assumption will be right 80% of the time, but it must be right 100% of the time. Why 100%? It’s a pretty big windfall if Alabama schedules Utah, whom we’re assuming went 8+ wins three seasons in a row, but graduated all its NFL talented players, and is full of underachieving freshman and at season’s end Utah goes 2-10. This windfall must be avoided.
I disagree. This specific discussion started out, I think, about how to make OOC scheduling more equitable. Now you’ve laid out an interesting case for why the NCAA should handle it. I’ve raised some objections that may or may not be reasonable, but because your proposal – and I mean no offense by this – will never happen, we need to look for more of a middle ground to improve scheduling habits. As you have repeatedly and correctly noted, nobody has any idea what’s going to happen in the coming year. Therefore, we need to do the next best thing and encourage teams to schedule OOC opponents who have demonstrated prolonged periods of success. Because scheduling happens years in advance (e.g. UT set up their series with Cal during the Holmoecaust) Alabama should not be penalized if Utah turns out to be abysmal in the year they actually play. They should be rewarded for agreeing to play a team that had a sustained run of success. In fact, a better refinement would be to base the threshold for qualifying non-BCS teams on the number of regular season games won and not the total games won as too many teams would be included otherwise.
If you want to see an interesting database through the 2007 season on who attempted to set-up the hardest schedule, as opposed to what they actually played, I would encourage you to visit this website: Who Likes a Challenge?
I have no idea what you guys are arguing anymore
Not that this discussion hasn’t been productive…but man, where the hell did this end up?
Bork bork bork!
We’re done. Nashville and I agreed that my proposal would never happen although I think, and maybe Nashville may agree, that it is the most fair method of creating OOC schedules.
However, since Nashville and I agreed that my method would never happen, the combined method of my first suggestion (adding a clause to BCS rules requiring that for teams to qualify for BCS bowls they cannot play FCS and/or a certain amount of non-BCS teams) with Nashville’s suggestion (of treating non-BCS teams that have averaged 8+ wins the prior three years as BCS teams for the purposes of satisfying my proposed clause) is a viable solution.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Clarification. In my first paragraph, when I said “my proposal,” I meant my second proposal of the NCAA creating OOC schedules by random drawings, and not my first proposal of adding a clause to BCS rules requiring that for teams to qualify for BCS bowls they cannot play FCS and/or a certain amount of non-BCS teams.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I still like my proposal better. However, I do agree that my proposal would never happen. As you said, you’re trying to achieve a middle ground and your proposal is a viable solution.
I was thinking exactly this too as I was writing my last response:
…but because your proposal – and I mean no offense by this – will never happen, we need to look for more of a middle ground to improve scheduling habits. As you have repeatedly and correctly noted, nobody has any idea what’s going to happen in the coming year. Therefore, we need to do the next best thing and encourage teams to schedule OOC opponents who have demonstrated prolonged periods of success. Because scheduling happens years in advance (e.g. UT set up their series with Cal during the Holmoecaust) Alabama should not be penalized if Utah turns out to be abysmal in the year they actually play.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I cede your point. But your point is illogical. Past records are not infallible. They are somewhat reliable. But they must be infallible. They are not infallible. Thus, past records should not be used.
I guarantee this is the only sports blog in the universe where we regularly see sentences like this.
BEAU SWEENEY DRINKS ZIMA
all very interesting ideas!
my thought would be something the ncaa could do and that is say that FCS teams do not count towards bowl eligibility. Then if you are 12-0 with two fcs…you are only really 10-0 as far as bowl time….
I like the idea of the bcs changing to a points based OOC schedule where you have to accumulate a certian points value to be eligible for a bcs game.
Go Bears Go
No one cares.
The only thing we care about is you finishing Meme Madness Bracketology. Why are you reading this???
Bork bork bork!
I write it and get criticized for not being able to use the f word. I can never win.
I'm old enough to understand. Jerks.
by rollonubears on May 1, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions
College football is fun because of its patent ridiculous unfairness, not in spite of it. If I wanted any kind of equality amongst teams, I’d watch the NFL.
by AERose on May 1, 2009 5:16 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
