This Week In The Pac-12: Bowls, Big 10, Basketball
And thus football season ended on the West Coast, with the Pac-12 earning a record of 2-5 in bowl games. Considering that USC's ineligibility cost the conference an elite bowl representative AND kicked every team up a rung in the pecking order, that dismal record can hardly be considered a surprise. If you're into caring about conference reputation, all that really matters is that the elite teams acquitted themselves well, winning one BCS bowl and losing another by the narrowest of margins. Hell, only Arizona St. got blown out - the four other losers all fell by 11 points or less.
Me? I'm done caring about conference affiliation. Thanks to the expansion of the BCS there is only one situation when conference reputation matters: when a team is competing for a spot in the national title game. After that, it's all about whatever it is that makes BCS bowls pick an at-large team, and as we've seen over the years football reputation is pretty low on the list of criteria.
Let's move on to Pac-12 events that might actually impact Cal. It didn't get a ton of coverage around these parts because the news was announced on the same day as a certain bowl game in San Diego, but the Pac-12 announced a pretty big development: Larry Scott has made an agreement with Jim Delany and the Big-10 on a "collaborative effort'' that means annual non-conference games between the two conferences across basketball and many Olympic sports, with a full 12 football games starting in 2017.
With the Bears playing Texas in 2015 and 2016, I would guess that the Bears are one of the primary reasons that the full, 12 game Pac-12/Big-10 schedule isn't starting until 2017. I wouldn't mind if Cal added a lower tier Big 10 program to the schedule (your Indianas, your Minnesotas) but Texas and, say, Nebraska would be a little much for one year.
So, what do people think about the deal? Well, a quick survey of the blogosphere seems to indicate that most are in favor of the deal. Just one year removed from the Mountain West, Utah fans are thrilled that Big-10 schools will visit Salt Lake City. 69% of Washington fans like the move. Even the curmudgeonly Bruins are behind Larry Scott! Out on the other side of the country, Off Tackle Empire is firmly in favor, and Iowa fans are looking forward to better non-con opponents. In fact, MGoBlog is the only blog I've seen voicing reservations, mostly because of specific Michigan issues involving Big-10 scheduling quirks. Is this actually a thing that happened in college football that is basically universally praised? Does that still happen?
My take? A great move. A major problem in college football is that there's no incentive to schedule tough out-of-conference opponents . . . but with this move, every team in two of the four best conferences will play at least one meaningful game. It will boost both conference's strength of schedule numbers, and it will guarantee great resume wins for a few teams, and schools that have generally ducked tough non-conference teams will have to play real games. Hey, it might even force the SEC to schedule real games . . . OK, no it won't. But most importantly, it means good, entertaining football games that we'll all look forward to watching. That's why we're fans, right?
Basketball-wise . . . there is no guarantee that the Big-10 will continue to be the best basketball conference in the nation, but they are right now and will continue to be excellent in the foreseeable future. Perhaps we won't have to agonize about how poor a job conference teams have done setting up their schedule when these games roll around.
This Week In The Pac-12: Basketball
It was mostly chalk this week, as Cal, Stanford, Washington, Arizona and Colorado all protected their home court in games they were favored to win. Even Washington State managed to split at home against Oregon and Oregon St. As a result, there isn't a ton of interesting things to say about what could have been a more intriguing weekend, but we'll try as always!
Team of the Week: Washington
Cal and Stanford would also be deserving choices, but Oregon and Oregon St. are collectively better teams than UCLA and USC (WHAT ALTERNATE UNIVERSE ARE WE LIVING IN?) and so the nod goes to the Huskies. Washington closed out Oregon St. with a 12-0 run in the last three minutes of the game before controlling the Ducks for the majority of a game that was inexplicably chosen for prime time exposure on ESPN2.
Disappointment of the Week: Oregon State
The northwest road trip is a tough one, but it's still disappointing that Oregon State couldn't earn at least a split. After some promising results in the non-conference schedule, the Beavers had some dark horse championship buzz and even sported a conference player of the year candidate in Jared Cunningham. Losing twice doesn't kill those chances, but Beavers fans probably expected more from Cunningham than 13 points against Washington and seven total turnovers on the weekend.
Player of the Week: Tony Wroten
I didn't want to give both positive awards to one team, but Wroten impressed me. I've wondered in the past why he's been taking so many shots when you've got C.J. Wilcox and Terrance Ross on the floor, but Wroten did something he hasn't done a ton of: play efficient basketball. He shot well over 50% on the weekend and had a better than 2:1 assist-to-turnover ratio. If he plays like that more often, with the type of talent UW has elsewhere on the roster, the Huskies become much, much scarier in conference.
Next Week
Back in the good ole days of the Pac-10, there were always nine games every week, with two matchups of 'travel partners' (Bay Area vs. Washington schools, Arizona schools vs. Oregon schools, etc.) and one rivalry game. But with six travel partners, that's no longer possible. So this week we get a smorgasbord of 12 games to enjoy*
Thursday (All times Pacific Standard)
Washington at Colorado, 6:00
Washington St. at Utah, 6:00
Stanford at Oregon, 6:00
California at Oregon St., 7:00
Arizona St. at USC, 7:30
Arizona at UCLA, 8:00
Saturday
Washington at Utah, 11:00
Washington St. at Colorado, 1:00
Stanford at Oregon St., 7:00
Arizona St. at UCLA, 7:30
Sunday
Arizona at USC, 2:30
Cal at Oregon, 4:30
The most intriguing foursome are the games involving Oregon, Oregon St., Cal and Stanford. The Beavers are good enough to give any team a run for their money at home, and the Ducks are likely to always be a tough out at Matt Court. Kenpom favors Cal and Stanford to win all four games on the road this weekend, but all four have low to very low confidence ratings. I'd be shocked if both Northern California schools survive the week unscathed, but watching to see who falls will be the fun.
None of the other match-ups look exciting, but I'd enjoy watching UCLA and Arizona battle, in part because it's a better test for the Wildcats than a sorry Arizona St. team, but also because UCLA is in real danger of falling to 0-3. If that happens their Saturday game against Arizona St. is worth watching. How long can the flagship of west coast basketball remain miserable until something happens?
*Your enjoyment of games involving Utah and USC may vary
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don’t completely understand the Big-10/Pac-12 thing.
Does this mean that every Pac-12 team has to play at least one Big-10 team (and vice versa) every year (starting ’17)? Or is it that there will always be a Big-10/Pac-12 matchup every year but not for all teams?
In other words, Go Bears!
I love the Big Ten and PAC-12 thing.
It means every year from 2017 (there was a typo in the post), every PAC-12 team will have one game against a Big Ten opponent. As both conferences have 12 teams — unless I lost track somewhere — it just means everybody’s gonna play somebody from the other conference.
It’s basically as if the conferences have merged, but without all the legal and logistical issues that come with merging conferences. And just like every other year, the champions of each conference will play each other in the Rose Bowl. There’s a possibility of a rematch, which is always good for news/stories.
I’m meh on it. It’s nice having a guaranteed solid opponent but I like geographical variability. And it makes games like Tennessee all the more unlikely…
The odds of Cal winning are inversely proportional to the odds of Cal winning.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jan 3, 2012 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
Yep
Tennessee becomes out of the question except maybe when we play somebody like Minnesota or Indiana. Then you gotta schedule the other half of the home and home. Gonna be tough to schedule any power from another BCS conference.
by HelloBowlesHall on Jan 3, 2012 11:30 PM PST up reply actions
I know the Big-10 currently does this with the ACC. I guess their agreement will run out soon if the Big-10 is going to do this with the Pac-12.
Jorge Gutierrez is "The guy with the hair plays with the flair"
It means that starting in 2017 every Pac-12 football team will play one Big Ten football team (and vice versa, of course).
From 2012 to 2016, there will be an incomplete schedule of Pac-12 vs. Big Ten teams: there will be less than 12 games between the two conferences.
"We do not seek men who will bravely lie down to die, but men who will fight valiantly to live."
"Winning is not everything. It is far better to play the game squarely and lose than to win at the sacrifice of an ideal."
-- Andrew Latham Smith
Typo
You said starting in 2007 (instead of 2017). I always get mixed up this time o’ year, too…..
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I like it......alot
I think we’ve suffered from poorly-matched OOC schedules the past few years. I’d rather get matched up with a comparable team from the Big 10 than “whoever we can pick up for a win” type of match-ups or weak opponents that over-boost our confidence. But that comes down to actually having the games be between “comparable” opponents. I know this isn’t always possible with schedules determined well-ahead of time, but I’d hate to see another Wisconsin-OSU matchup like we saw this year when it could be USC/Oregon/Furd against Wisconsin. Let OSU take on Minnesota/Indiana/etc.
I think Cal needs to have a better barometer of our football team than we’ve generally had in the OOC portion of the year. I also would love to start recruiting some of those HUGE midwest linemen that Wisconsin was sporting…….exposure, my friends; exposure. If people in Ohio will only watch west coast teams when they are playing them, then we better play them. Alot.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
some of those HUGE midwest linemen
I don’t know about that, against faster opponents they become decorative.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Meh, I think they’re better for our style of offense. If we plan on running a complete spread (option) type offense, then yeah…we want the more mobile guys. But we’re ideally more of a power running team with an efficient passing game; having those big guys and being able to force the ball down their throats is what I think we’re going for.
having those big guys and being able to force the ball down their throats is what I think we’re going for.
Wisconsin thought that was going to work against Oregon, and it did – until the 4th quarter. If the 2005 national championship game had happened, USC would have obliterated Oklahoma’s line because they were too slow to stop the defense. Point is, there’s a happy medium, and the Big 1X is usually on the wrong side of it against the Pac 12.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
I am sorry but I have to disagree
I think Cal needs to have a better barometer of our football team than we’ve generally had in the OOC portion of the year.
I think Cal has always had a very respectful OOC schedule during the Tedford era. Cal has actually done very well in its OOC matchups, it is the USC’s and visits to LA we have had issues with.
We have played and won (as well as lost a few) some very good OOC matchups.
I don’t FULLY disagree, but when we beat Minnesota and Jahvid had 5 TDs, I was thrilled, only to be disappointed by the season I’d hoped for but didn’t get. If we’d played a better Big 10 team we might have lost, but we wouldn’t be filled with false confidence.
We beat Colorado this year and I was excited because they looked decent. Turns out WE made them look decent……at least the QB and WR. Fresno St. was useful, though.
I like the Tennessee matchup a few years back just fine. That’s the type of competition I’m looking for. I’d get rid of the FCS matchup and schedule another FBS team. Just my 2 cents.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
Re: Hoops
You asked:
How long can the flagship of west coast basketball remain miserable until something happens?
I didn’t realize Arizona was miserable. Sure, it’s a down year for them, but miserable?
You did mean Zona, didn’t you? Because it couldn’t have been Uclol. They haven’t been a flagship in years.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
has it been that many year since UCLA's back-to-back-to-back trip to the Final Four
I had to looked it up and that was 2006, 2007, 2008 so this year is merely the 4th year
I guess that’s one generation of college students but other than last year when they made it to the Elite Eight, Zona success came before that (mainly the championship in 2001).
by LEastCoastBears on Jan 3, 2012 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
I love the old Pac-10/Big 10 rivalry that used to manifest itself every January in the Rose Bowl. And I’d love to get a leg up on the SEC.
On the other hand, long standing non-conference rivalries may be jeopardized (Colorado/Colorado State, Utah/Utah State, Utah/BYU, U$C/Notre Dame). And locking in more of the schedule means less variety. It’s going to be harder to schedule games with anyone not in the Big 10 — am I the only one hoping for a road game at Hawaii one day?
The biggest issue for me, though, is that this will probably mean a lot more travel expense and time commitment from our student athletes. Everyone’s going to be required to travel a couple thousand miles for away games. It won’t just be a sometimes thing. It will be consistent.
If we had to make a deal like this, though, I’m glad it was with the Big 10. I’m definitely looking forward to a road game in my hometown (Chicago).
There is no way on god’s green earth that SC will be giving up the Notre Dame game. We’ve been playing that longer than several of the in-conference games, including against UCLA.
Frankly, this deal is less exciting for SC because it just takes away the discretion to schedule OOC games – most of which were at least decent when they were set up. But I suppose cross-marketing is all part of the “gaining revenue” game, and since we’re getting ever further from even the pretense that this game is for student athletes, so be it.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Actually, the way the NCAA sets up the schedule now,
a road game to Hawaii basically gets you an extra regular-season game. Seriously, look it up: it’s a special rule. Road game in Hawaii = 13-game regular season if you want it.
I realize that this does not in any way disprove your larger, valid point about schedule flexibility. It’s just kind of weird.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
It's only 1 road football game
every other year, since you get a home game as well.
Most Pac-12 teams are making a road trip that long or further regularly anyway in a home and home.
Andy Wooldridge, andy_wooldridge@yahoo.com
BuildingTheDam.Com
Go Beavs!
What's the over/under on points scored by Utah AGAINST USC?
30?
25?
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.

























































