[FarmBoy]

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?

Someone listed the games in which they wore the black jersey and it wasn't exactly a murderer's row. Not creampuff city, but I doubt the unis had much to do in the outcome. I can't find that list now (note to Admin, is there a tuturial on using the search function on the board? I can never find anything by searching even when I use a relatively uncommon word/name that I know was in a post from just a few weeks ago. or can we get it powered by google or something? not that I'd know how to do that myself...)

If we could GUARANTEE that we'd get a top flight SEC program every year by dropping ND, I'd consider it. But ND is a nice "sure thing" when it comes to scheduling a headliner. Even then, it's nice to have some history in our OOC. I prefer to use our other non-creampuff OOC slot to get another quality opponent.

[FarmBoy]

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?

Someone listed the games in which they wore the black jersey and it wasn't exactly a murderer's row. Not creampuff city, but I doubt the unis had much to do in the outcome. I can't find that list now (note to Admin, is there a tuturial on using the search function on the board? I can never find anything by searching even when I use a relatively uncommon word/name that I know was in a post from just a few weeks ago. or can we get it powered by google or something? not that I'd know how to do that myself...)

If we could GUARANTEE that we'd get a top flight SEC program every year by dropping ND, I'd consider it. But ND is a nice "sure thing" when it comes to scheduling a headliner. Even then, it's nice to have some history in our OOC. I prefer to use our other non-creampuff OOC slot to get another quality opponent.

[CornFed]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.

[CornFed]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.

[ColoradoTree]

Hey, if our players play with a bit of an extra edge because they like the black uniforms, then I'm all for it (as a once a year thing, that is).  Sure, the uniforms don't make our players better, but if they make them more confident and focused, then that's not nothing.

[ColoradoTree]

Hey, if our players play with a bit of an extra edge because they like the black uniforms, then I'm all for it (as a once a year thing, that is).  Sure, the uniforms don't make our players better, but if they make them more confident and focused, then that's not nothing.

[Leftcoast]

CZC - One quick correction / Nit to pick.

Some of those examples you mentioned (Alabama vs Wisconsin (2015), Alabama vs USC (2016), Texas A&M vs ASU) AREN'T home-and-away deals.  They are one-off, neutral site games played in non-affiliated Dallas Cowboy stadium or Houston's NRG Field, a scheduling trend I dislike.  I definitely wouldn't be in favor of losing our home-and-away deal with N.otre Dame for a series of neutral site games.  As a season ticket holder Stanford playing, say, Oklahoma at Denver's Mile-High stadium is a poor substitute for a home game against N.otre Dame.

Also, there are marketing and recruiting reasons why Alabama is playing limited neutral site games in Texas and competition reasons why they otherwise never cross the Mississippi.

[Leftcoast]

CZC - One quick correction / Nit to pick.

Some of those examples you mentioned (Alabama vs Wisconsin (2015), Alabama vs USC (2016), Texas A&M vs ASU) AREN'T home-and-away deals.  They are one-off, neutral site games played in non-affiliated Dallas Cowboy stadium or Houston's NRG Field, a scheduling trend I dislike.  I definitely wouldn't be in favor of losing our home-and-away deal with N.otre Dame for a series of neutral site games.  As a season ticket holder Stanford playing, say, Oklahoma at Denver's Mile-High stadium is a poor substitute for a home game against N.otre Dame.

Also, there are marketing and recruiting reasons why Alabama is playing limited neutral site games in Texas and competition reasons why they otherwise never cross the Mississippi.

[ColoradoTree]

If C.al didn't want to take the hit on a Big Game at Levi's the year that they were hosting, why can't we do it in a year where we're scheduled to be the home team?  The home schedule would still be good, with ND, Oregon, and UCLA among others, but we'd take a big step toward righting the schedule imbalance.

Forgive the self-quoting, but I wanted to follow up on this.  I just looked at C.al's schedule, and they have the same unbalanced scheduling problem that we do, albeit in different years.  (Forgive my ignorance, as most of you likely knew this already, but in my defense, I care so little about C.al football that I didn't give it the slightest thought.)  Next year (excluding the Arizona/ASU/Utah/CU rotation), they get Oregon, UW, UCLA, and us at home, while they play at SC, Oregon State, and Wazzu.  So, that gives them years like this past year, where they hosted SC but played on the road to Oregon, UCLA, UW, and us. 

Stanford deferring Big Game at home for a year and doing it at Levi's that year helps us, and it helps C.al.  If C.al wasn't willing to lose a home game that year to do it, why not set it up for, say, 2023 to give the ADs more time to schedule non-conference games around it?  (We currently have an open non-conference date that year, and C.al looks to have two open dates.)  Every time the question of a one-off neutral-site Big Game comes up, it gets dismissed by saying, "oh, C.al didn't want to give up the home game," and that ends the conversation.  But it really shouldn't end the conversation.  Delay it, maybe, but not end it.

[ColoradoTree]

If C.al didn't want to take the hit on a Big Game at Levi's the year that they were hosting, why can't we do it in a year where we're scheduled to be the home team?  The home schedule would still be good, with ND, Oregon, and UCLA among others, but we'd take a big step toward righting the schedule imbalance.

Forgive the self-quoting, but I wanted to follow up on this.  I just looked at C.al's schedule, and they have the same unbalanced scheduling problem that we do, albeit in different years.  (Forgive my ignorance, as most of you likely knew this already, but in my defense, I care so little about C.al football that I didn't give it the slightest thought.)  Next year (excluding the Arizona/ASU/Utah/CU rotation), they get Oregon, UW, UCLA, and us at home, while they play at SC, Oregon State, and Wazzu.  So, that gives them years like this past year, where they hosted SC but played on the road to Oregon, UCLA, UW, and us. 

Stanford deferring Big Game at home for a year and doing it at Levi's that year helps us, and it helps C.al.  If C.al wasn't willing to lose a home game that year to do it, why not set it up for, say, 2023 to give the ADs more time to schedule non-conference games around it?  (We currently have an open non-conference date that year, and C.al looks to have two open dates.)  Every time the question of a one-off neutral-site Big Game comes up, it gets dismissed by saying, "oh, C.al didn't want to give up the home game," and that ends the conversation.  But it really shouldn't end the conversation.  Delay it, maybe, but not end it.

[Rally]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14322.msg152212#msg152212 date=1452538836]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.
[/quote]

Hell, Cornfed, as a little boy I felt that way when I put on a brand new pair of socks.  Let's not even talk about how I felt putting on a new pair of tighty whiteys!

[Rally]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14322.msg152212#msg152212 date=1452538836]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.
[/quote]

Hell, Cornfed, as a little boy I felt that way when I put on a brand new pair of socks.  Let's not even talk about how I felt putting on a new pair of tighty whiteys!

[Leftcoast]

ColoradoTree --  We tried this and the Cal AD was on board until a mass uprising by the mad dog, foaming at the mouth B.ear faithful killed it.  That always paranoid group saw this as the AD kowtowing to Stanford.  The AD reversed course rather than be tagged as a quisling.  Their board was must read material for a couple of weeks.

Sure it would make sense for both camps but if there is even the SUSPICION that it might help Stanford more than C.al any deal is doomed.

[Leftcoast]

ColoradoTree --  We tried this and the Cal AD was on board until a mass uprising by the mad dog, foaming at the mouth B.ear faithful killed it.  That always paranoid group saw this as the AD kowtowing to Stanford.  The AD reversed course rather than be tagged as a quisling.  Their board was must read material for a couple of weeks.

Sure it would make sense for both camps but if there is even the SUSPICION that it might help Stanford more than C.al any deal is doomed.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14322.msg152253#msg152253 date=1452547590]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=14322.msg152212#msg152212 date=1452538836]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.
[/quote]

Hell, Cornfed, as a little boy I felt that way when I put on a brand new pair of socks.  Let's not even talk about how I felt putting on a new pair of tighty whiteys!
[/quote]

Careful, my friend.  We are getting awfully close to that invisible line between good-natured banter and lewd and lascivious imagery.  The admin's finger is poised above our delete buttons!!  But if sneakers could improve my running and jumping, then .  .  .  .  .  .hmmm

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14322.msg152253#msg152253 date=1452547590]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=14322.msg152212#msg152212 date=1452538836]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.
[/quote]

Hell, Cornfed, as a little boy I felt that way when I put on a brand new pair of socks.  Let's not even talk about how I felt putting on a new pair of tighty whiteys!
[/quote]

Careful, my friend.  We are getting awfully close to that invisible line between good-natured banter and lewd and lascivious imagery.  The admin's finger is poised above our delete buttons!!  But if sneakers could improve my running and jumping, then .  .  .  .  .  .hmmm

[ColoradoTree]

ColoradoTree --  We tried this and the Low APR U AD was on board until a mass uprising by the mad dog, foaming at the mouth B.ear faithful killed it.  That always paranoid group saw this as the AD kowtowing to Stanford.  The AD reversed course rather than be tagged as a quisling.  Their board was must read material for a couple of weeks.

Sure it would make sense for both camps but if there is even the SUSPICION that it might help Stanford more than C.al any deal is doomed.

Ah, I didn't realize that Stanford had offered up one of our home games as the guinea pig.  I know expecting rationality from the more rabid elements of the C.al fanbase is futile, but it's precisely the same problem, so it's maddening that they can't recognize that.  We have mirror conference schedules, for Pete's sake: In odd years, C.al hosts SC, Oregon State, Wazzu, and a rotating South team, while they play road games vs. UCLA, UW, Oregon, us, and a rotating South team.  In the same year, we play those same core teams, but at home where C.al plays them on the road, and vice versa.  In odd years, that switches, with C.al's home slate getting the more high-profile games (except SC), while we get the brutal road slate.  Heck, we could do it at the Oakland Coliseum if they wanted someplace on their side of the bay, or AT&T Park if they wanted more geographically neutral ground. 

The only difference is that we have ND on our schedule every year, which I suppose makes our problem slightly worse than theirs, but they still have a problem. Just bizarre that they wouldn't be interested in fixing it because it would help us, too. 

[ColoradoTree]

ColoradoTree --  We tried this and the Low APR U AD was on board until a mass uprising by the mad dog, foaming at the mouth B.ear faithful killed it.  That always paranoid group saw this as the AD kowtowing to Stanford.  The AD reversed course rather than be tagged as a quisling.  Their board was must read material for a couple of weeks.

Sure it would make sense for both camps but if there is even the SUSPICION that it might help Stanford more than C.al any deal is doomed.

Ah, I didn't realize that Stanford had offered up one of our home games as the guinea pig.  I know expecting rationality from the more rabid elements of the C.al fanbase is futile, but it's precisely the same problem, so it's maddening that they can't recognize that.  We have mirror conference schedules, for Pete's sake: In odd years, C.al hosts SC, Oregon State, Wazzu, and a rotating South team, while they play road games vs. UCLA, UW, Oregon, us, and a rotating South team.  In the same year, we play those same core teams, but at home where C.al plays them on the road, and vice versa.  In odd years, that switches, with C.al's home slate getting the more high-profile games (except SC), while we get the brutal road slate.  Heck, we could do it at the Oakland Coliseum if they wanted someplace on their side of the bay, or AT&T Park if they wanted more geographically neutral ground. 

The only difference is that we have ND on our schedule every year, which I suppose makes our problem slightly worse than theirs, but they still have a problem. Just bizarre that they wouldn't be interested in fixing it because it would help us, too. 

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=14322.msg152273#msg152273 date=1452551517]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14322.msg152253#msg152253 date=1452547590]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=14322.msg152212#msg152212 date=1452538836]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.
[/quote]

Hell, Cornfed, as a little boy I felt that way when I put on a brand new pair of socks.  Let's not even talk about how I felt putting on a new pair of tighty whiteys!
[/quote]

Careful, my friend.  We are getting awfully close to that invisible line between good-natured banter and lewd and lascivious imagery.  The admin's finger is poised above our delete buttons!!  But if sneakers could improve my running and jumping, then .  .  .  .  .  .hmmm
[/quote]

I said it was when I was very little, CornFed, but meant "very young."    I have never been little.  Get your mind out of the gutter and back on FarmersOnly.com where it belongs.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=14322.msg152273#msg152273 date=1452551517]
[quote author=CornFed link=topic=14322.msg152253#msg152253 date=1452547590]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=14322.msg152212#msg152212 date=1452538836]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=14322.msg152176#msg152176 date=1452527518]
And all the people here who think we should wear black jerseys because the players like it should contemplate what the players would think of dropping the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends from the schedule. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that 99+ percent would oppose that. Like everybody else, they consider the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends a big stage, and they want to be on it.

Maybe the players play harder in the black jerseys.  We're undefeated in the black jerseys.  Would you rather be 12-2 in regular jerseys or 13-1 (at least) in black jerseys?
[/quote]

I think this is a false dilemma.  When I got a new pair of sneakers when I was a little boy, I felt that I could run faster and jump higher, but in reality I couldn't.  To think that the color of our uniform has even a minute effect on the outcome of any game can really only be based on superstition.  Undefeated when we wear black?  I would emphasize that correlation is not causation.
[/quote]

Hell, Cornfed, as a little boy I felt that way when I put on a brand new pair of socks.  Let's not even talk about how I felt putting on a new pair of tighty whiteys!
[/quote]

Careful, my friend.  We are getting awfully close to that invisible line between good-natured banter and lewd and lascivious imagery.  The admin's finger is poised above our delete buttons!!  But if sneakers could improve my running and jumping, then .  .  .  .  .  .hmmm
[/quote]

I said it was when I was very little, CornFed, but meant "very young."    I have never been little.  Get your mind out of the gutter and back on FarmersOnly.com where it belongs.

[terry]

Someone listed the games in which they wore the black jersey and it wasn't exactly a murderer's row. Not creampuff city, but I doubt the unis had much to do in the outcome. I can't find that list now

Stanford has a record of 7-0 when the team wears black jerseys:

2010  Wake Forest      W, 68-24
2011  UCLA                W, 45-19
2012  Duke                W, 50-13
2012  UCLA                W, 27-24 (conference championship game)
2013  Washington      W, 31-28
2014  Washington St.  W, 34-17
2015  U*S*C              W, 41-22 (conference championship game)

I think that's a respectable group of opponents.

[terry]

Someone listed the games in which they wore the black jersey and it wasn't exactly a murderer's row. Not creampuff city, but I doubt the unis had much to do in the outcome. I can't find that list now

Stanford has a record of 7-0 when the team wears black jerseys:

2010  Wake Forest      W, 68-24
2011  UCLA                W, 45-19
2012  Duke                W, 50-13
2012  UCLA                W, 27-24 (conference championship game)
2013  Washington      W, 31-28
2014  Washington St.  W, 34-17
2015  U*S*C              W, 41-22 (conference championship game)

I think that's a respectable group of opponents.

[Leftcoast]

Re: Big Game in Santa Clara

Here's a link to the Cardboard thread on the proposal from back in 2013. 

From a WIM post, "Looks like the intention is for the game to change the pattern of games -- 2013 @ Stanford, 2014 @ Santa Clara, 2015 @ Berk -- rather than the number of home/away. Not sure what the rationale is from Barbour's end, but for us it helps balance out the schedule, with even year home games becoming almost if not more appealing than odd."

You'll also get a sense of the emotional reaction to the proposal with proponents and detractors from both sides.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=8283.0

[Leftcoast]

Re: Big Game in Santa Clara

Here's a link to the Cardboard thread on the proposal from back in 2013. 

From a WIM post, "Looks like the intention is for the game to change the pattern of games -- 2013 @ Stanford, 2014 @ Santa Clara, 2015 @ Berk -- rather than the number of home/away. Not sure what the rationale is from Barbour's end, but for us it helps balance out the schedule, with even year home games becoming almost if not more appealing than odd."

You'll also get a sense of the emotional reaction to the proposal with proponents and detractors from both sides.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=8283.0

[BostonCard]

Looks like it's not happening:

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...1637238784

As to why, if we swap, then there is a different scheduling problem, which is that each team will host both Big Game and USC the same year.  For us, it's not as big a deal as we would host ND on alternate years, but for Cal, it does unbalance their schedules, since they have no counterbalance to Big Game.


BC

[BostonCard]

Looks like it's not happening:

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...1637238784

As to why, if we swap, then there is a different scheduling problem, which is that each team will host both Big Game and USC the same year.  For us, it's not as big a deal as we would host ND on alternate years, but for Cal, it does unbalance their schedules, since they have no counterbalance to Big Game.


BC

[ColoradoTree]

Looks like it's not happening:

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...1637238784

As to why, if we swap, then there is a different scheduling problem, which is that each team will host both Big Game and Unbelievably Spoiled Children the same year.  For us, it's not as big a deal as we would host ND on alternate years, but for Low APR U, it does unbalance their schedules, since they have no counterbalance to Big Game.


BC

But C.al's schedule, like ours, is already unbalanced.  If the Big Game switch were to be approved, here's the effect:

Even years:
Big Game @ Stanford
C.al home vs. UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team; C.al away to SC, Stanford, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team
Stanford home vs. SC, C.al, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team; Stanford away to UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team

Odd years:
Big Game @ C.al
C.al home vs. SC, Stanford, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team; C.al away to UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team
Stanford home vs. UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team; Stanford away to SC, C.al, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team

This ensures two high-profile home games for each team each year (with SC and Big Game helping to wash down the Oregon State and Wazzu matchups, and three solid games in the other year).  I don't see playing SC and C.al both on the road in odd years as a problem.  Would C.al attendance really dip that much in even years with a home slate of UCLA, Oregon, UW, and a South team?   

I think I'll just keep shouting "THIS HELPS BOTH TEAMS" from the rooftops until someone muzzles me....  ;)

[ColoradoTree]

Looks like it's not happening:

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...1637238784

As to why, if we swap, then there is a different scheduling problem, which is that each team will host both Big Game and Unbelievably Spoiled Children the same year.  For us, it's not as big a deal as we would host ND on alternate years, but for Low APR U, it does unbalance their schedules, since they have no counterbalance to Big Game.


BC

But C.al's schedule, like ours, is already unbalanced.  If the Big Game switch were to be approved, here's the effect:

Even years:
Big Game @ Stanford
C.al home vs. UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team; C.al away to SC, Stanford, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team
Stanford home vs. SC, C.al, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team; Stanford away to UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team

Odd years:
Big Game @ C.al
C.al home vs. SC, Stanford, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team; C.al away to UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team
Stanford home vs. UCLA, UW, Oregon, Rotating South Team; Stanford away to SC, C.al, Wazzu, Oregon State, Rotating South Team

This ensures two high-profile home games for each team each year (with SC and Big Game helping to wash down the Oregon State and Wazzu matchups, and three solid games in the other year).  I don't see playing SC and C.al both on the road in odd years as a problem.  Would C.al attendance really dip that much in even years with a home slate of UCLA, Oregon, UW, and a South team?   

I think I'll just keep shouting "THIS HELPS BOTH TEAMS" from the rooftops until someone muzzles me....  ;)

[FarmBoy]

I checked the records for the teams we played in black unis:

2010  Wake Forest      W, 68-24 (3-9)
2011  UCLA                W, 45-19 (6-8)
2012  Duke                W, 50-13 (6-7)
2012  UCLA                W, 27-24 (conference championship game) (9-5)
2013  Washington      W, 31-28 (9-4)
2014  Washington St.  W, 34-17 (3-9)
2015  U*S*C              W, 41-22 (conference championship game) (8-6)

3 out of 7 have winning records. Pretty mediocre overall, if you ask me. If the black unis give them the extra pep, why not save them for the toughest opponents?

I don't have a problem with wearing them once a year, I just wouldn't put any stock in the idea that it's an important weapon for winning games. But who knows, in 2 of the 3 games games played against teams with winning records, we only won by 3 points.

[FarmBoy]

I checked the records for the teams we played in black unis:

2010  Wake Forest      W, 68-24 (3-9)
2011  UCLA                W, 45-19 (6-8)
2012  Duke                W, 50-13 (6-7)
2012  UCLA                W, 27-24 (conference championship game) (9-5)
2013  Washington      W, 31-28 (9-4)
2014  Washington St.  W, 34-17 (3-9)
2015  U*S*C              W, 41-22 (conference championship game) (8-6)

3 out of 7 have winning records. Pretty mediocre overall, if you ask me. If the black unis give them the extra pep, why not save them for the toughest opponents?

I don't have a problem with wearing them once a year, I just wouldn't put any stock in the idea that it's an important weapon for winning games. But who knows, in 2 of the 3 games games played against teams with winning records, we only won by 3 points.

[Rally]

I checked the records for the teams we played in black unis:

2010  Wake Forest      W, 68-24 (3-9)
2011  UCLA                W, 45-19 (6-8)
2012  Duke                W, 50-13 (6-7)
2012  UCLA                W, 27-24 (conference championship game) (9-5)
2013  Washington      W, 31-28 (9-4)
2014  Washington St.  W, 34-17 (3-9)
2015  U*S*C              W, 41-22 (conference championship game) (8-6)

3 out of 7 have winning records. Pretty mediocre overall, if you ask me. If the black unis give them the extra pep, why not save them for the toughest opponents?

I don't have a problem with wearing them once a year, I just wouldn't put any stock in the idea that it's an important weapon for winning games. But who knows, in 2 of the 3 games games played against teams with winning records, we only won by 3 points.

Of course the uni doesn't make a physical difference but I am surprised some people here don't recognize the importance of psych. in sports.  It is very real, both positive and negative.  I forget when but one team a few years back as undefeated in whites so chose to wear them instead of the home jerseys for the final game (might have been a Rose Bowl?)  The blacks mean something to the team, at least most of them, so why doubt it?  Just hope they don't some year decide pink jerseys would be lucky.

[Rally]

I checked the records for the teams we played in black unis:

2010  Wake Forest      W, 68-24 (3-9)
2011  UCLA                W, 45-19 (6-8)
2012  Duke                W, 50-13 (6-7)
2012  UCLA                W, 27-24 (conference championship game) (9-5)
2013  Washington      W, 31-28 (9-4)
2014  Washington St.  W, 34-17 (3-9)
2015  U*S*C              W, 41-22 (conference championship game) (8-6)

3 out of 7 have winning records. Pretty mediocre overall, if you ask me. If the black unis give them the extra pep, why not save them for the toughest opponents?

I don't have a problem with wearing them once a year, I just wouldn't put any stock in the idea that it's an important weapon for winning games. But who knows, in 2 of the 3 games games played against teams with winning records, we only won by 3 points.

Of course the uni doesn't make a physical difference but I am surprised some people here don't recognize the importance of psych. in sports.  It is very real, both positive and negative.  I forget when but one team a few years back as undefeated in whites so chose to wear them instead of the home jerseys for the final game (might have been a Rose Bowl?)  The blacks mean something to the team, at least most of them, so why doubt it?  Just hope they don't some year decide pink jerseys would be lucky.

[CornFed]

Well, there can be a placebo effect, or a "Dumbo's crow's feather" illusion.  A little like baseball players who pull one of their back pockets out or wear their socks a certain way.  It'll feel like it has an effect (like my new sneakers) until it doesn't.  Then I guess we will need to find some new totem.

Gotta say though, ferrari, I too shaved all extremities, chest and back (even where I really had no hair) for the state meet every year.  I will testify that there is an incredible sensation when one dives in the first time.  I felt slippery in the extreme.  I feel pretty certain, however, that it had no more effect on my performance than did my sneakers.

[CornFed]

Well, there can be a placebo effect, or a "Dumbo's crow's feather" illusion.  A little like baseball players who pull one of their back pockets out or wear their socks a certain way.  It'll feel like it has an effect (like my new sneakers) until it doesn't.  Then I guess we will need to find some new totem.

Gotta say though, ferrari, I too shaved all extremities, chest and back (even where I really had no hair) for the state meet every year.  I will testify that there is an incredible sensation when one dives in the first time.  I felt slippery in the extreme.  I feel pretty certain, however, that it had no more effect on my performance than did my sneakers.

[FarmBoy]

My point wasn't that player psych isn't impacted, but the games they choose to wear them in are usually not ones where an extra edge is needed. If there really is such a benefit, they should pull the unis out for the 'SC or Oregon game. Not against Duke, Wake Forrest or WSU.

[FarmBoy]

My point wasn't that player psych isn't impacted, but the games they choose to wear them in are usually not ones where an extra edge is needed. If there really is such a benefit, they should pull the unis out for the 'SC or Oregon game. Not against Duke, Wake Forrest or WSU.

[terry]

My point wasn't that player psych isn't impacted, but the games they choose to wear them in are usually not ones where an extra edge is needed. If there really is such a benefit, they should pull the unis out for the 'SC or Oregon game. Not against Duke, Wake Forrest or WSU.

I don't think the black jerseys ever were intended to be something special for very important games. I've never heard them described that way. I think they were intended just as a change of pace.

[terry]

My point wasn't that player psych isn't impacted, but the games they choose to wear them in are usually not ones where an extra edge is needed. If there really is such a benefit, they should pull the unis out for the 'SC or Oregon game. Not against Duke, Wake Forrest or WSU.

I don't think the black jerseys ever were intended to be something special for very important games. I've never heard them described that way. I think they were intended just as a change of pace.

[Robbie]

...I feel pretty certain, however, that it had no more effect on my performance than did my sneakers.

You swam in sneakers? I posit that they did have an effect.

[Robbie]

...I feel pretty certain, however, that it had no more effect on my performance than did my sneakers.

You swam in sneakers? I posit that they did have an effect.