The CardBoard
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)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - CrazedZooChimp - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 04:42 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=5356.msg38891#msg38891 date=1326150308]
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 the University of South Central 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 the University of South Central 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.
[/quote]

It's not really true that we have to beat both the top North teams and $C to go to the Rose Bowl (our schedule looks harder, but it doesn't really impact our winning the division chances).  As long as we beat the other "strong" team in the North we would win the North, win or lose vs U$C.  Much like how Oregon this year beat us and lost to U$C, it is only an issue in terms of winning the division if we plan to lose to some other Pac-12 teams along the way, and at that point we probably shouldn't be going to the Rose Bowl anyway.  The hope for us to make the Rose Bowl will always depend much more on us beating the teams in our division and owning those tie breakers than anything else, it's the benefit of a conference championship game.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure all 4 CA schools wanted it this way, I know I did.  Just saying...

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - CrazedZooChimp - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 04:42 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=5356.msg38891#msg38891 date=1326150308]
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 the University of South Central 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 the University of South Central 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.
[/quote]

It's not really true that we have to beat both the top North teams and $C to go to the Rose Bowl (our schedule looks harder, but it doesn't really impact our winning the division chances).  As long as we beat the other "strong" team in the North we would win the North, win or lose vs U$C.  Much like how Oregon this year beat us and lost to U$C, it is only an issue in terms of winning the division if we plan to lose to some other Pac-12 teams along the way, and at that point we probably shouldn't be going to the Rose Bowl anyway.  The hope for us to make the Rose Bowl will always depend much more on us beating the teams in our division and owning those tie breakers than anything else, it's the benefit of a conference championship game.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure all 4 CA schools wanted it this way, I know I did.  Just saying...

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - CrazedZooChimp - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 04:42 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=5356.msg38891#msg38891 date=1326150308]
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 the University of South Central 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 the University of South Central 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.
[/quote]

It's not really true that we have to beat both the top North teams and $C to go to the Rose Bowl (our schedule looks harder, but it doesn't really impact our winning the division chances).  As long as we beat the other "strong" team in the North we would win the North, win or lose vs U$C.  Much like how Oregon this year beat us and lost to U$C, it is only an issue in terms of winning the division if we plan to lose to some other Pac-12 teams along the way, and at that point we probably shouldn't be going to the Rose Bowl anyway.  The hope for us to make the Rose Bowl will always depend much more on us beating the teams in our division and owning those tie breakers than anything else, it's the benefit of a conference championship game.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure all 4 CA schools wanted it this way, I know I did.  Just saying...

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - CrazedZooChimp - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 04:42 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=5356.msg38891#msg38891 date=1326150308]
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 the University of South Central 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 the University of South Central 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.
[/quote]

It's not really true that we have to beat both the top North teams and $C to go to the Rose Bowl (our schedule looks harder, but it doesn't really impact our winning the division chances).  As long as we beat the other "strong" team in the North we would win the North, win or lose vs U$C.  Much like how Oregon this year beat us and lost to U$C, it is only an issue in terms of winning the division if we plan to lose to some other Pac-12 teams along the way, and at that point we probably shouldn't be going to the Rose Bowl anyway.  The hope for us to make the Rose Bowl will always depend much more on us beating the teams in our division and owning those tie breakers than anything else, it's the benefit of a conference championship game.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure all 4 CA schools wanted it this way, I know I did.  Just saying...

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012

I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012

I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012

I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - yvonne - 01-09-2012

I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - 76lsjumb - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

Okay, that's it...I've got to stop paying so much attention to recruiting. 

I read Yvonne's post and, for the life of me, couldn't figure out what Barry J. Sanders' high school had to do with all of this, or how it could influence Pac-12 scheduling...  ???

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - 76lsjumb - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

Okay, that's it...I've got to stop paying so much attention to recruiting. 

I read Yvonne's post and, for the life of me, couldn't figure out what Barry J. Sanders' high school had to do with all of this, or how it could influence Pac-12 scheduling...  ???

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - 76lsjumb - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

Okay, that's it...I've got to stop paying so much attention to recruiting. 

I read Yvonne's post and, for the life of me, couldn't figure out what Barry J. Sanders' high school had to do with all of this, or how it could influence Pac-12 scheduling...  ???

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - 76lsjumb - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

Okay, that's it...I've got to stop paying so much attention to recruiting. 

I read Yvonne's post and, for the life of me, couldn't figure out what Barry J. Sanders' high school had to do with all of this, or how it could influence Pac-12 scheduling...  ???

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - Farm93 - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

I had to chuckle that you had to battle this reality bit by yourself.  It was in the conference's best interest to imply that Cal & Stanford were key in the battle to keep the Cali collection, but it was all about what SC wanted.  SC won't be playing UCLA on October 20th any time soon, and they won't need to flex any muscle to keep their rivalry game at the end of the season.

Put it a different way, I bet three of us and DeCastro can beat any other four on this board in a tug of war battle.  And "we" will flex our muscle and show that "we" are powerful.  But everyone else in the world would know DeCastro won and the other three were just hanging on to the rope.  Sounds ridiculous, but that is essentially what USC represented in our fight to keep the annual Cali scheduling.

The Big Game battle actually had two schools battling against 9 others AND SC.  Much like my DeCastro analogy, the battle was over before it began once SC was on the other side.

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - Farm93 - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

I had to chuckle that you had to battle this reality bit by yourself.  It was in the conference's best interest to imply that Cal & Stanford were key in the battle to keep the Cali collection, but it was all about what SC wanted.  SC won't be playing UCLA on October 20th any time soon, and they won't need to flex any muscle to keep their rivalry game at the end of the season.

Put it a different way, I bet three of us and DeCastro can beat any other four on this board in a tug of war battle.  And "we" will flex our muscle and show that "we" are powerful.  But everyone else in the world would know DeCastro won and the other three were just hanging on to the rope.  Sounds ridiculous, but that is essentially what USC represented in our fight to keep the annual Cali scheduling.

The Big Game battle actually had two schools battling against 9 others AND SC.  Much like my DeCastro analogy, the battle was over before it began once SC was on the other side.

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - Farm93 - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

I had to chuckle that you had to battle this reality bit by yourself.  It was in the conference's best interest to imply that Cal & Stanford were key in the battle to keep the Cali collection, but it was all about what SC wanted.  SC won't be playing UCLA on October 20th any time soon, and they won't need to flex any muscle to keep their rivalry game at the end of the season.

Put it a different way, I bet three of us and DeCastro can beat any other four on this board in a tug of war battle.  And "we" will flex our muscle and show that "we" are powerful.  But everyone else in the world would know DeCastro won and the other three were just hanging on to the rope.  Sounds ridiculous, but that is essentially what USC represented in our fight to keep the annual Cali scheduling.

The Big Game battle actually had two schools battling against 9 others AND SC.  Much like my DeCastro analogy, the battle was over before it began once SC was on the other side.

Re: Purdy on the ruining of Big Game - Farm93 - 01-09-2012

(01-09-2012, 05:02 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:I agree that we wanted to maintain the rivalries with UCLA and SC, but we didn't wield the power to make it happen. Heritage Hall had the power, and if they didn't get what they wanted, they would have walked. They just happened to want the same thing we wanted.

As far as preserving the ND game date, we already had a contract  to play the last game of the year on even years. The conference preserved that out of legal necessity, not because of our desire.

I had to chuckle that you had to battle this reality bit by yourself.  It was in the conference's best interest to imply that Cal & Stanford were key in the battle to keep the Cali collection, but it was all about what SC wanted.  SC won't be playing UCLA on October 20th any time soon, and they won't need to flex any muscle to keep their rivalry game at the end of the season.

Put it a different way, I bet three of us and DeCastro can beat any other four on this board in a tug of war battle.  And "we" will flex our muscle and show that "we" are powerful.  But everyone else in the world would know DeCastro won and the other three were just hanging on to the rope.  Sounds ridiculous, but that is essentially what USC represented in our fight to keep the annual Cali scheduling.

The Big Game battle actually had two schools battling against 9 others AND SC.  Much like my DeCastro analogy, the battle was over before it began once SC was on the other side.

The real test will come when it's someone else's turn in the barrell - Redrum - 01-09-2012

Next year, will the schedulers give Stanford/Kal back its season-ending rivalry game while  making UCLA and U.SC bite the bullet for an early Oct. game because it's the only one that works.  Or the only one that's fair.  And will UDub/ WSU follow suit,  along with ASU/ Arizona? 

Maybe if it turns into a big enough cluster****,  with enough griping,  the priorities might change. 

The real test will come when it's someone else's turn in the barrell - Redrum - 01-09-2012

Next year, will the schedulers give Stanford/Kal back its season-ending rivalry game while  making UCLA and U.SC bite the bullet for an early Oct. game because it's the only one that works.  Or the only one that's fair.  And will UDub/ WSU follow suit,  along with ASU/ Arizona? 

Maybe if it turns into a big enough cluster****,  with enough griping,  the priorities might change. 

The real test will come when it's someone else's turn in the barrell - Redrum - 01-09-2012

Next year, will the schedulers give Stanford/Kal back its season-ending rivalry game while  making UCLA and U.SC bite the bullet for an early Oct. game because it's the only one that works.  Or the only one that's fair.  And will UDub/ WSU follow suit,  along with ASU/ Arizona? 

Maybe if it turns into a big enough cluster****,  with enough griping,  the priorities might change. 

The real test will come when it's someone else's turn in the barrell - Redrum - 01-09-2012

Next year, will the schedulers give Stanford/Kal back its season-ending rivalry game while  making UCLA and U.SC bite the bullet for an early Oct. game because it's the only one that works.  Or the only one that's fair.  And will UDub/ WSU follow suit,  along with ASU/ Arizona? 

Maybe if it turns into a big enough cluster****,  with enough griping,  the priorities might change.Â