Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game (/thread-2768.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game (/thread-2768.html)
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - OutsiderFan - 01-09-2012
I'll reserve my angst until it is confirmed that this move to October is permanent and no other schools in the conference (Oregons, Washingtons, Arizonas, and LAs) will be asked to play their rivalry games in October in the future.Â
Until that confirmation, I'll assume everyone is going to share the pain and the Big Game was just the first one to suffer a move.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - OutsiderFan - 01-09-2012
I'll reserve my angst until it is confirmed that this move to October is permanent and no other schools in the conference (Oregons, Washingtons, Arizonas, and LAs) will be asked to play their rivalry games in October in the future.Â
Until that confirmation, I'll assume everyone is going to share the pain and the Big Game was just the first one to suffer a move.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - OutsiderFan - 01-09-2012
I'll reserve my angst until it is confirmed that this move to October is permanent and no other schools in the conference (Oregons, Washingtons, Arizonas, and LAs) will be asked to play their rivalry games in October in the future.Â
Until that confirmation, I'll assume everyone is going to share the pain and the Big Game was just the first one to suffer a move.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - OutsiderFan - 01-09-2012
I'll reserve my angst until it is confirmed that this move to October is permanent and no other schools in the conference (Oregons, Washingtons, Arizonas, and LAs) will be asked to play their rivalry games in October in the future.Â
Until that confirmation, I'll assume everyone is going to share the pain and the Big Game was just the first one to suffer a move.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012
(01-09-2012, 04:05 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite School near Oakland and Stanford being in separate divisions from the University of South Central and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of the University of South Central and UCLA in negotiations?
The weekenders were preserved because USC wanted to have them preserved. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, having the weekenders while being in the North means we have a harder route to the Rose Bowl. We have to defeat the strong team in the North -- usually Oregon or Washington -- as well as USC in the regular season.
The demand to play ND at the end of the season was made on ND's part. They want to have a winter trip to the West Coast, and they want access to California recruits.
The Northwest schools lost out in the expansion because they don't play in SoCal every year, and we lose with the harder route to the Rose Bowl. The LA schools, or more specifically SC, had all the power, and all the concessions were made to suit the newcomers.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012
(01-09-2012, 04:05 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite School near Oakland and Stanford being in separate divisions from the University of South Central and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of the University of South Central and UCLA in negotiations?
The weekenders were preserved because USC wanted to have them preserved. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, having the weekenders while being in the North means we have a harder route to the Rose Bowl. We have to defeat the strong team in the North -- usually Oregon or Washington -- as well as USC in the regular season.
The demand to play ND at the end of the season was made on ND's part. They want to have a winter trip to the West Coast, and they want access to California recruits.
The Northwest schools lost out in the expansion because they don't play in SoCal every year, and we lose with the harder route to the Rose Bowl. The LA schools, or more specifically SC, had all the power, and all the concessions were made to suit the newcomers.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012
(01-09-2012, 04:05 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite School near Oakland and Stanford being in separate divisions from the University of South Central and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of the University of South Central and UCLA in negotiations?
The weekenders were preserved because USC wanted to have them preserved. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, having the weekenders while being in the North means we have a harder route to the Rose Bowl. We have to defeat the strong team in the North -- usually Oregon or Washington -- as well as USC in the regular season.
The demand to play ND at the end of the season was made on ND's part. They want to have a winter trip to the West Coast, and they want access to California recruits.
The Northwest schools lost out in the expansion because they don't play in SoCal every year, and we lose with the harder route to the Rose Bowl. The LA schools, or more specifically SC, had all the power, and all the concessions were made to suit the newcomers.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012
(01-09-2012, 04:05 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite School near Oakland and Stanford being in separate divisions from the University of South Central and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of the University of South Central and UCLA in negotiations?
The weekenders were preserved because USC wanted to have them preserved. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, having the weekenders while being in the North means we have a harder route to the Rose Bowl. We have to defeat the strong team in the North -- usually Oregon or Washington -- as well as USC in the regular season.
The demand to play ND at the end of the season was made on ND's part. They want to have a winter trip to the West Coast, and they want access to California recruits.
The Northwest schools lost out in the expansion because they don't play in SoCal every year, and we lose with the harder route to the Rose Bowl. The LA schools, or more specifically SC, had all the power, and all the concessions were made to suit the newcomers.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - terry - 01-09-2012
I heard that the four California schools all demanded that they play each other every year.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - terry - 01-09-2012
I heard that the four California schools all demanded that they play each other every year.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - terry - 01-09-2012
I heard that the four California schools all demanded that they play each other every year.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - terry - 01-09-2012
I heard that the four California schools all demanded that they play each other every year.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - stanfan - 01-09-2012
I don't understand why the conference couldn'taccommodate all of the "rivalry" games on the last weekend: Trojans/Bruins, Huskies/Cougs, Beavers/Ducks, Devils/Cats and Stanford/kal. Something has to be done with Utah and Colorado, but why does everything else have to be tipped over? It was bad enough to have to play kal and then the Domers. This is unfortunate.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - stanfan - 01-09-2012
I don't understand why the conference couldn'taccommodate all of the "rivalry" games on the last weekend: Trojans/Bruins, Huskies/Cougs, Beavers/Ducks, Devils/Cats and Stanford/kal. Something has to be done with Utah and Colorado, but why does everything else have to be tipped over? It was bad enough to have to play kal and then the Domers. This is unfortunate.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - stanfan - 01-09-2012
I don't understand why the conference couldn'taccommodate all of the "rivalry" games on the last weekend: Trojans/Bruins, Huskies/Cougs, Beavers/Ducks, Devils/Cats and Stanford/kal. Something has to be done with Utah and Colorado, but why does everything else have to be tipped over? It was bad enough to have to play kal and then the Domers. This is unfortunate.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - stanfan - 01-09-2012
I don't understand why the conference couldn'taccommodate all of the "rivalry" games on the last weekend: Trojans/Bruins, Huskies/Cougs, Beavers/Ducks, Devils/Cats and Stanford/kal. Something has to be done with Utah and Colorado, but why does everything else have to be tipped over? It was bad enough to have to play kal and then the Domers. This is unfortunate.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - FarmBoy - 01-09-2012
Yvonne, that's not how I remember it playing out in the press. From what I understand, we wanted to preserve those annual match ups as much as the SoCal schools. IIRC, they needed at least 8 votes on conference alignment and Stanford/C.al weren't going to vote in favor of us being the North without these required games. Stanford (and Cal) get great tv exposure, increased ticket sales, increased access to SoCal recruiting, and favorable alumni relations through these games.
The downside of having a tougher path is not that big; without the grantees, we would be playing them 2/3 of seasons anyway. In fact, you could argue there's more upside to ensuring we have them, from a strength of schedule standpoint. Can you imagine how we would have been viewed this year without the U.SC win? Without U.SC on our schedule, we don't have a lot of "quality wins" to point to when making an argument for BCS consideration. UW? C.al? ND? Not exactly murderers row. But beating U.SC, in LA, was brobdingnagian for us, especially with the way the Condoms finished the season.
And why would the Pac12 care if ND made that scheduling request? If anything, the rest of the Pac12 is annoyed by the arrangement because it causes more headaches in creating schedules to have on Pac12 team playing a late season OOC game. They only cared because USC and Stanford made the request, knowing that the extension of the rivalry game was contingent on the ND visit being in November.
I will concede that following the expansion we've probably lost clout, if only because every school's vote gets diluted when you grow the clubhouse. Someday we may regret ceding all of this control and influence to the Commish and a bunch of interloper schools.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - FarmBoy - 01-09-2012
Yvonne, that's not how I remember it playing out in the press. From what I understand, we wanted to preserve those annual match ups as much as the SoCal schools. IIRC, they needed at least 8 votes on conference alignment and Stanford/C.al weren't going to vote in favor of us being the North without these required games. Stanford (and Cal) get great tv exposure, increased ticket sales, increased access to SoCal recruiting, and favorable alumni relations through these games.
The downside of having a tougher path is not that big; without the grantees, we would be playing them 2/3 of seasons anyway. In fact, you could argue there's more upside to ensuring we have them, from a strength of schedule standpoint. Can you imagine how we would have been viewed this year without the U.SC win? Without U.SC on our schedule, we don't have a lot of "quality wins" to point to when making an argument for BCS consideration. UW? C.al? ND? Not exactly murderers row. But beating U.SC, in LA, was brobdingnagian for us, especially with the way the Condoms finished the season.
And why would the Pac12 care if ND made that scheduling request? If anything, the rest of the Pac12 is annoyed by the arrangement because it causes more headaches in creating schedules to have on Pac12 team playing a late season OOC game. They only cared because USC and Stanford made the request, knowing that the extension of the rivalry game was contingent on the ND visit being in November.
I will concede that following the expansion we've probably lost clout, if only because every school's vote gets diluted when you grow the clubhouse. Someday we may regret ceding all of this control and influence to the Commish and a bunch of interloper schools.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - FarmBoy - 01-09-2012
Yvonne, that's not how I remember it playing out in the press. From what I understand, we wanted to preserve those annual match ups as much as the SoCal schools. IIRC, they needed at least 8 votes on conference alignment and Stanford/C.al weren't going to vote in favor of us being the North without these required games. Stanford (and Cal) get great tv exposure, increased ticket sales, increased access to SoCal recruiting, and favorable alumni relations through these games.
The downside of having a tougher path is not that big; without the grantees, we would be playing them 2/3 of seasons anyway. In fact, you could argue there's more upside to ensuring we have them, from a strength of schedule standpoint. Can you imagine how we would have been viewed this year without the U.SC win? Without U.SC on our schedule, we don't have a lot of "quality wins" to point to when making an argument for BCS consideration. UW? C.al? ND? Not exactly murderers row. But beating U.SC, in LA, was brobdingnagian for us, especially with the way the Condoms finished the season.
And why would the Pac12 care if ND made that scheduling request? If anything, the rest of the Pac12 is annoyed by the arrangement because it causes more headaches in creating schedules to have on Pac12 team playing a late season OOC game. They only cared because USC and Stanford made the request, knowing that the extension of the rivalry game was contingent on the ND visit being in November.
I will concede that following the expansion we've probably lost clout, if only because every school's vote gets diluted when you grow the clubhouse. Someday we may regret ceding all of this control and influence to the Commish and a bunch of interloper schools.
Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - FarmBoy - 01-09-2012
Yvonne, that's not how I remember it playing out in the press. From what I understand, we wanted to preserve those annual match ups as much as the SoCal schools. IIRC, they needed at least 8 votes on conference alignment and Stanford/C.al weren't going to vote in favor of us being the North without these required games. Stanford (and Cal) get great tv exposure, increased ticket sales, increased access to SoCal recruiting, and favorable alumni relations through these games.
The downside of having a tougher path is not that big; without the grantees, we would be playing them 2/3 of seasons anyway. In fact, you could argue there's more upside to ensuring we have them, from a strength of schedule standpoint. Can you imagine how we would have been viewed this year without the U.SC win? Without U.SC on our schedule, we don't have a lot of "quality wins" to point to when making an argument for BCS consideration. UW? C.al? ND? Not exactly murderers row. But beating U.SC, in LA, was brobdingnagian for us, especially with the way the Condoms finished the season.
And why would the Pac12 care if ND made that scheduling request? If anything, the rest of the Pac12 is annoyed by the arrangement because it causes more headaches in creating schedules to have on Pac12 team playing a late season OOC game. They only cared because USC and Stanford made the request, knowing that the extension of the rivalry game was contingent on the ND visit being in November.
I will concede that following the expansion we've probably lost clout, if only because every school's vote gets diluted when you grow the clubhouse. Someday we may regret ceding all of this control and influence to the Commish and a bunch of interloper schools.