Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - 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: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! (/thread-9166.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: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! (/thread-9166.html)
Pages:
1
2
Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - Redrum - 05-01-2015
Of course, it's all about "intra-conference competitiveness", but Sonny Yikes thinks it would be a good idea to discontinue playing USC and UCLA every year. Sonny, not steeped in the Pac-8, Pac-10, Pac-12 traditions thinks replacing them with, say, theoretically, New Mexico St. or San Jose St. would be best for the overall conference, to say nothing of the Bearz W-L record.
I understand traditions, but typically those teams have pretty good programs, Dykes said. I think it puts you at a bit of a disadvantage."
Of course, he could recruit and coach his own team up so the disadvantage belongs to the Trojans and Bruins but ummm...well, you know
http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Sonny-Dykes-says-Cal-has-strong-candidates-for-6235186.php
More seriously, maybe Yikes doesn't know the Bay Area schools brought this on themselves by insisting (in cooperation with the LA schools) that the conference schedule make an accommodation to maintain the LA/Bay Area rivalries annually intact. I wonder if "We Bow to No Program" Stanford's coaches and administrators still feel the same.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - washingtonismoney - 05-01-2015
"I'm not a good coach but would like to conceal that fact from somnolent 59er administrators."
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - 82lsju - 05-01-2015
Sonny says
The problem, according to Dykes, is that the Big 10, SEC and ACC all play eight conference games, meaning they can schedule one extra non-conference team.
Someone should let him know the Big 10 begins playing nine conference games in 2016....
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - OutsiderFan - 05-01-2015
Dykes is right. It's crazy to play USC & UCLA every year when also scheduling the like of Ohio State, Texas, Auburn OOC. Oregon missed USC the last two years, which is a brobdingnagian advantage for them over Cal and Stanford in terms of winning the North.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - Rally - 05-01-2015
I would like to see maintain these rivalry games both for the sake of tradition and the possibility of winning a "state championship." What I don't understand is scheduling any school to skip the same conf. opponent two years in a row. How hard is it to schedule every team at least once every two years?
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - JohnR34231 - 05-01-2015
(05-01-2015, 09:23 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Yikes is right. It's crazy to play U$ & UCLA every year when also scheduling the like of Ohio State, Texas, Auburn OOC. Oregon missed U$ the last two years, which is a of exceedingly large proportions advantage for them over Low APR U and Stanford in terms of winning the North.
I know it is heresy on this board to defend a Kal coach, but I don't think it is so unreasonable for him to want to be on the same scheduling plane with the teams (like Oregon and Washington) he has to compete with for a North championship.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - FarmBoy - 05-01-2015
Quote:What I don't understand is scheduling any school to skip the same conf. opponent two years in a row. How hard is it to schedule every team at least once every two years?
Essentially, they play a 4 year cycle. 2 years against U.SC and 2 years skipping them. The Pac12 has chosen to do those 2 years back to back rather than alternating. Perhaps they did this so you could have a grudge match against a team that's similar to the one you played the year before. If you played ever other year, the player turn over would be more significant between the rematches. But they theoretically could make that change.
Anyone running from SOS in the playoff world will get the same outcome as the Big12 when they were left out of this year's playoff. If Sonny and UCB want to win more meaningless games, more power to them.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - terry - 05-01-2015
Last year, Stanford played better against UCLA and U'S'C than against Arizona State and Utah. I'm actually kind of happy to get ASU off our schedule for a couple years.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - Papa John - 05-01-2015
(05-01-2015, 09:23 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Yikes is right. It's crazy to play U$ & UCLA every year when also scheduling the like of Ohio State, Texas, Auburn OOC. Oregon missed U$ the last two years, which is a of exceedingly large proportions advantage for them over Low APR U and Stanford in terms of winning the North.
Well, two years ago, Oregon missed U-S-C and Stanford won the North. Last year, Stanford had four conference losses, including to Oregon, so even if Oregon played U-S-C and lost and Stanford didn't play U-S-C and beat, say, Colorado, Oregon still would have won the North.
To follow up on what terry wrote, Stanford has defeated UCLA seven straight seasons, and the games with U-S-C have highly competitive, albeit excruciating. I, for one, will not bow to any program in SoCal.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - CTcard - 05-01-2015
(05-01-2015, 09:44 AM)JPRI link Wrote:I know it is heresy on this board to defend a Kal coach, but I don't think it is so unreasonable for him to want to be on the same scheduling plane with the teams (like Oregon and Washington) he has to compete with for a North championship.
Whether it's heresy or not depends on the details (and the responder). However, that isn't really what Yikes was talking about. He was talking about wanting an 8 game conference schedule, and to get that was willing to give up the guaranteed LA games.
(05-01-2015, 09:23 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Yikes is right. It's crazy to play U$ & UCLA every year when also scheduling the like of Ohio State, Texas, Auburn OOC.Â
Again, that isn't really what Yikes was talking about.
Nevertheless, on this issue Yikes is (mostly) wrong.
It is not crazy to play S-C and UCLA every year.
I'm not going to repeat it now, but I looked at the difference between Stanford having both LA schools every year vs a random sampling of south division teams and posted it here - at least twice. By memory, an aggressive estimate was that on average it would cost about 1 win every ten years.
So, there is a small possible trade off in win-loss record to balance against the tradition of always playing the LA schools plus having a larger presence in southern California - the main recruiting bed for the Pac 12 (remember that EVERY conference team wanted to be grouped with the LA schools - supposedly Colorado demanded it as the cost of swapping conferences).
Some might prefer the former, some the latter (about 90% of this board if I remember the poll); but that makes it a difficult call at most - not crazy.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - Spiny_Norman - 05-01-2015
If Dykes is arguing that all conferences should be on a level playing field by playing the same number of conference games, David Shaw made the same point a year ago.
http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/david-shaw-calls-out-8-game-sec-schedule
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - BostonCard - 05-01-2015
The move is towards more conference games, not fewer, especially as strength of schedule becomes an issue for the playoffs. Moreover, since the Pac-12 is the most geographically isolated Big5 conference, it would not be a trivial task to find quality OOC opponents to fill the gap. What Dykes really wants is to downgrade his strength of schedule. That makes sense when you are trying to get your sixth win to make a bowl game, but harms top teams looking to get into the playoffs. Also, I'd much rather play home and homes with conference rivals than with random schools, especially if they are lower tier OOC opponents.
BC
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - CrazedZooChimp - 05-01-2015
(05-01-2015, 11:58 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=12081.msg117518#msg117518 date=1430498644]
I know it is heresy on this board to defend a Kal coach, but I don't think it is so unreasonable for him to want to be on the same scheduling plane with the teams (like Oregon and Washington) he has to compete with for a North championship.
Whether it's heresy or not depends on the details (and the responder). However, that isn't really what Yikes was talking about. He was talking about wanting an 8 game conference schedule, and to get that was willing to give up the guaranteed LA games.
[/quote]
To be clear, he wasn't even saying he necessarily wanted an 8 game conference schedule. Kyle Bonagura tweeted a bunch of things clarifying what Dykes actually said. Basically it boils down to he thinks every conference should play the same number of conference games, and that he acknowledged playing $C/UCLA every year is a disadvantage (which I don't agree with in this day and age) but his preference would not be to end them.Â
I'm all for mocking Cal, but everything I certainly agree with him it's silly the conferences play schedules with a different number of conference games, although my preference is we all play 9 (or more).
The relevant tweets:
[tweet]594184241228820480[/tweet]
[tweet]594185307760627712[/tweet]
[tweet]594186486834016256[/tweet]
[tweet]594188228699127808[/tweet]
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - Hulk01 - 05-01-2015
I love big games. UCLA, Oregon, Notre Dame. And I love beyond words winning those games. To me, they're the games that make a season.Â
Beating Colorado or Washington State? Merely a relief.
I dislike the proposed solution, which is SEC teams playing three meaningless games every year against colleges unknown to everyone except the school's graduates and students.
The answer to better college football isn't more bad games. It's more good ones.Â
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - oman - 05-01-2015
Agree, as always, with Hulk.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - FarmBoy - 05-01-2015
If playing the LA schools is such a disadvantage, why was it such a brobdingnagian contention point when the conference expanded? Apparently Utah and Colorado were insisting on being in the same division with them. Supposedly the rest of the northern schools were worried about what would happen if they played them less frequency. On the margin, the LA schools will be better than a random sampling of the other schools in the "South". But the additional TV exposure and recruiting opportunities afforded by playing them more than offset that. Then there's the tradition and the joy of beating LA schools that can't be matched beating random South school X.
The Pac10 ADs and Utah/Colorado knew there was brobdingnagian value in playing the LA schools as often as you can. Why don't the fans understand the same? The anxiety of playing the LA schools every year makes no sense to me.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - BostonCard - 05-01-2015
+1 for what Hulk said. Would love to see games against FCS schools eliminated. We've been good about avoiding them, but I never enjoyed beating (or worse, losing to) Sacramento Stare or Davis. From a television perspective I'd love to see top teams playing in September. Directional state U versus Alabama, not so much.
BC
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - Redrum - 05-01-2015
If playing the LA schools is such a disadvantage, why was it such a of exceedingly large proportions contention point when the conference expanded?
I think at one time the California Four went for the "Zipper" concept that featured the geographically vertical division of the schools into (roughly) East/ West divisions. That kept the California schools intact as a group and left the conference with the heavy lifting of figuring out which two schools in Oregon and Washington would join them. When that process got two unwieldy, it didn't have the votes...in fact it never made it to some sort of "voting" stage.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - yvonne - 05-01-2015
The zipper idea was tossed around in the media, on blogs, and in discussion groups, but it was not originally the conference's idea, but Wilner's. It's not even clear whether the conference itself discussed it.
Re: Run AWAY! Run AWAY! - CTcard - 05-01-2015
(05-01-2015, 02:28 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:The zipper idea was tossed around in the media, on blogs, and in discussion groups, but it was not originally the conference's idea, but Wilner's. It's not even clear whether the conference itself discussed it.
True, and the zipper meant that each of the natural rivals would be in opposite divisions. The one guaranteed game against the other division each year would be your rival. The rest would rotate.
So, you might have:
Division A - UW, UO, Stanford, S-C, UA, Utah
Division B - WSU, OSU, kal, UCLA, ASU, Colo.
---------
Of course, to keep the California schools together they could have just gone to actual north-south locations [Stanford,Berkeley are both south of Boulder/Salt Lake City]. But the point was to satisfy first Colorado and Utah's demand to be with the LA schools (though how Utah had any power to make any demands is beyond me) and actual geography had nothing to do with it.