T1B

May 28, 2009 12:00 PM

Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller

In an informal poll conducted by the Pac-10 blog, conference coaches voted 6-4 in favor of ending round-robin conference scheduling and reverting back to an eight-game slate, which was how things were before a 12th game was added in 2006.

That's about how a straw poll went in May during the Pac-10 meetings in Phoenix, and feelings were strong enough against the nine-game conference schedule that the athletic directors will review the issue during their June meetings in San Francisco.

The vote mostly split like the current conference standings, with the top-half teams favoring nine games and the bottom half teams wanting to go back to eight.

There's a good reason for that. Nine conference games insures five conference teams will lose an extra game every season, which could be the difference between earning bowl eligibility or not.

Two Pac-10 teams, Arizona State and Stanford, finished 5-7 in 2008. If both had finished 6-6 then the conference would have filled all seven of its bowl contracts.

There are a number of reasons the nine-game schedule was adopted in 2006.

Equity: With no misses in the conference, the schedules are equal, with no team, say, missing USC while another misses a team at the bottom of the conference.
Easier scheduling: It's easier to schedule conference games than to go looking for another nonconference opponent. Also, the home and road arrangements alternate every year, so there is little mystery where UCLA and Oregon will be playing next fall if they square off in the Rose Bowl this season.
Balance: An eight-game schedule led to some screwy home-and-road arrangements over a series of years because multiple teams wanted special guarantees, such as the California schools wanting to play every year. Moreover, in the eight-game format, coaches from Arizona or the Northwest would get angry when they missed an annual trip to the recruiting hotbeds of Southern California. And with the nine-game slate, each team gets at least one visit to each Pac-10 state a year.
Fan interest: A conference game is easier to sell to a fan base than a game against a lackluster nonconference foe.
"When the schedule went from 11 to 12 games, it seemed like the logical thing to do," said Jim Muldoon, the Pac-10's associate commissioner for communications.

A funny thing happened on the way to a logical, equitable decision: No other conference followed suit. And it benefited them.
Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh is a strong advocate of reverting back to the eight-game schedule, and he presented his case to the coaches in May.

"There's a reason no other conference plays nine conference games," he said.
The biggest, of course, is most teams use a fourth nonconference game to schedule a certain victory.If the Pac-10 did the same, it would not only increase the number of bowl-eligible teams,
it also would increase the odds of getting two teams into BCS bowls, which the conference hasn't done since 2002. The strength of the conference, both as a mathematical part of the BCS formula and as a perception issue within the college football nation, would improve because records would be better.

"I probably have changed on this," Arizona athletic director Jim Livengood said. "I believed [adding a ninth conference game in 2006] was the right thing to do. It just seemed to be fair to go around and play everybody.
"Now that we've been through it, I'm probably on the other side totally. I'm not sure it's a great idea any more."

Which format generates more revenue in the regular season? That's a tough one. Livengood said he doesn't think there's much difference.

During even-numbered years, he noted, Arizona gets five Pac-10 home games in the current format, and that generates a good gate. Harbaugh, however, pointed out that the a fourth nonconference game could always be scheduled as a home game, which then would operate as a two-for-one deal vs. the nine-game, round-robin schedule.

A Pac-10 team then could play a nonconference game on the road annually and still get seven home games every year. Stanford only had five home games last year because it opted to play at TCU and Notre Dame and played five conference road games.

Even with one marquee nonconference game, most Pac-10 teams could schedule their way to a 3-1 or even a 4-0 start, which is what nearly every other BCS team does.

It's the new strategic paradigm. It's the strategy of the BCS, which is about smart scheduling and public perception.Still, it figures to be a contentious issue in June.

"A bigger part of it is how to get out of it," said Livengood, pointing out that all the old scheduling controversies will again arise. Getting out of it might be complicated.

The ultimate question, though, is whether the conference can afford to stay in it.



http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-9-76 ... uling.html

That blows. They said it, clear as day: The shittier teams just want to be able to schedule themselves one more guaranteed OOC win.

Fuck that. Right now, the Pac 10 is one of the only conferences which does it the right way. Leave it alone.

With a twelve game schedule, and only eight conference games, I wonder if USC would use that extra OOC game to schedule another BCS conference team, or would they just intentionally pad their record?

Hopefully, at least in their case, it'd mean another chance at scheduling the type of game we rarely see in BTPCF...

Van wrote:Fuck that. Right now, the Pac 10 is one of the only conferences which does it the right way. Leave it alone.

Agree 100%. Unfortunately, the current system punishes the mid-tier Pac-10 teams for playing an extra conference game. Meanwhile in the Big Ten, Ohio State & Michigan State are playing New Mexico Fucking State & Western Michigan, respectively, right in the middle of conference play. Instead of playing each other.

This is pretty odd. I figured when they made the switch initially, this was an obvious sacrifice they were making (eliminating that extra OOC cupcake win in favor of balanced schedules). How can they now be recognizing this as a "problem" when it should've been evident before they even made the switch? Cripes, what a bunch of dunces...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:How can they now be recognizing this as a "problem" when it should've been evident before they even made the switch? Cripes, what a bunch of dunces...

IIRC, back when they chose to play 9 conference games, any win vs. a non-1-A school did not count towards bowl eligibility. Meaning...if a team were to go 6-6 with a win over a non-1-A school, they would be 5-6 in the eyes of bowl eligibility.

Now that the non-1-A win does count, damn near every team is getting at least 1 non-1-A matchup each year in addition to at least 2 or 3 cupcake wins. The PAC is missing out big time on some BCS dollars by usually only having U$C as the sole representative while the Big XII and Big 10 are usually getting double the BCS $.

It's all about money. That's it. The PAC would get more $ if they go back to 8 conference games. Nuff said. We'll see what wins out. My $ is on the $.

Hope that the current format stays the same. It's always better to play every team within your conference. I know it's tough for the teams who get the short end of the conference schedule every other year (we have to go through the same thing in the Big East), but you do get the years with the extra home conference game and a larger crowd.

IndyFrisco wrote:IIRC, back when they chose to play 9 conference games, any win vs. a non-1-A school did not count towards bowl eligibility. Meaning...if a team were to go 6-6 with a win over a non-1-A school, they would be 5-6 in the eyes of bowl eligibility.

Now that the non-1-A win does count, damn near every team is getting at least 1 non-1-A matchup each year in addition to at least 2 or 3 cupcake wins. The PAC is missing out big time on some BCS dollars by usually only having U$C as the sole representative while the Big XII and Big 10 are usually getting double the BCS $.

It's all about money. That's it. The PAC would get more $ if they go back to 8 conference games. Nuff said. We'll see what wins out. My $ is on the $.

For the most part, this switch is only going to help the .500 level teams...and they aren't going to BCS games anyway.

Mgo, the obvious impetus for this was their inability to fill all their bowl slots last season. The change they're proposing would've almost certainly made Stanford and ASU bowl eligible.

I think that's a much bigger issue for them than the BCS bowl game thing. I really don't think adding extra OOC cupcake wins would make much of a difference in the Pac landing that second BCS bowl team.

The only way this would help in that regard would be if the top tier teams in the conference took this opportunity to add one more killer OOC game to their schedules. Yeah, if Oregon adds a second Michigan (most years) type OOC game then it might help the Pac in garnering that extra BCS bowl game.

On the flip side, if the Pac does what everyone else seems to do and all they do with this extra OOC game is schedule themselves a record padding cupcake then nope, it won't help them to get another BCS bowl game. It'll only help in securing sufficient bowl eligible teams.

I guess the Pac really wants their share of being in those meaningless, bottom feeder, Christmas week bowl games. The Pac apparently took umbrage at seeing Weathervane Tech, rather than Stanford, play Moistbung A&M, in Shreveport, in front of a packed house disguised as bare metal benches.

Van wrote:Mgo, the obvious impetus for this was their inability to fill all their bowl slots last season. The change they're proposing would've almost certainly made Stanford and ASU bowl eligible.

Yeah, and like I said, this should've been an evident problem prior to the switch. These guys get paid a lot of money, it shouldn't have been too tricky to foresee that playing an extra conference game instead of playing San Jose St. was going to make it harder for some teams to become bowl eligible. As I said, I figured this was something they realized would happen, but were willing to make that sacrifice in order to have balanced schedules. As it turns out, they needed the problem to actually occur before they realized it was a problem. That's what I found odd.

On the flip side, if the Pac does what everyone else seems to do and all they do with this extra OOC game is schedule themselves a record padding cupcake then nope, it won't help them to get another BCS bowl game. It'll only help in securing sufficient bowl eligible teams.

Completely agree.

It's all about money. That's it. The PAC would get more $ if they go back to 8 conference games.

Exactimundo.

Ever notice that whenever money is the sole motivator for doing something BTPCF is inevitably administered a lube-less rogering?

-Conference championship games. Strictly a money grab. Often times, a complete abortion.

-Cheating: programs, players and alums.

-Cupcake OOC scheduling.

-8-4 home game-away game scheduling.

-Synthetic turf, in place of grass.

-ND's tv contract.

-The continued gainful employment of Charlie Weis.

-At least sixteen too many bowl games.

-The fact that Jim Delany still draws breath.

-The BCS.

No good ever comes of greed coming before the welfare of the game. The product always suffers, when greed drives it.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:IIRC, back when they chose to play 9 conference games, any win vs. a non-1-A school did not count towards bowl eligibility. Meaning...if a team were to go 6-6 with a win over a non-1-A school, they would be 5-6 in the eyes of bowl eligibility.

Now that the non-1-A win does count, damn near every team is getting at least 1 non-1-A matchup each year in addition to at least 2 or 3 cupcake wins. The PAC is missing out big time on some BCS dollars by usually only having U$C as the sole representative while the Big XII and Big 10 are usually getting double the BCS $.

It's all about money. That's it. The PAC would get more $ if they go back to 8 conference games. Nuff said. We'll see what wins out. My $ is on the $.

For the most part, this switch is only going to help the .500 level teams...and they aren't going to BCS games anyway.

Well, think of it this way when I referred to more teams in the BCS. If every PAC team, including the big dogs, could remove one conference game a year and replace it with a cupcake, the upper level teams may be removing a game they may have lost.

Let's use Arizona St. in 2007 for my comparison:

They went 10-3 that year losing in the Holiday Bowl to t.u. The Holiday being the best bowl the PAC #2 gets if not in a BCS bowl. However, they lost to both Oregon and U$C that year. Had they been able to schedule a cupcake and skipped Oregon or $C that year, they may have had a good enough record to get the poll and computer votes to work their way into the BCS. edit: And keep in mind...payout for 1 BCS bowl is more than all the other bowls a PAC team plays in combined. In 2008, payout per team/conference in the BCS was $17.5 million. Multiply that by 2 teams and you're looking at serious cayshe.

Possibly, Indy, but more than likely their SOS would suffer to the point that any Pac 10 team on the BCS bowl "bubble" would not get the nod. Lacking the title of "conference champion" a 9-3 or 10-2 ASU team which replaced USC on its schedule with Northern Arizona still isn't going BCS bowling, not as long as there are any other viable choices out there.

They'd need to replace USC with another OOC big name opponent, to even have a shot. You know that isn't what they'd do. They'd replace USC with another Northern Arizona cupcake, just to help guarantee basic bowl eligibility.

Van wrote:Possibly, Indy, but more than likely their SOS would suffer to the point that any Pac 10 team on the BCS bowl "bubble" would not get the nod. Lacking the title of "conference champion" a 9-3 or 10-2 ASU team which replaced USC on its schedule with Northern Arizona still isn't going BCS bowling, not as long as there are any other viable choices out there.

They'd need to replace USC with another OOC big name opponent, to even have a shot. You know that isn't what they'd do. They'd replace USC with another Northern Arizona cupcake, just to help guarantee basic bowl eligibility.

Yes, but at bowl selection time, their record would have been 11-1 with a loss to either U$C or Oregon and that cupcake win. Before the loss to U$C (their second loss), they were ranked #8 in the BCS Polling. An 11-1 PAC team may have bumped an 11-1 Kansas team out. You never know.

I agree one of the reasons is to help the .500 teams, but it also helps the #2 team as well. 'Sall I'm sayin'.

Obviously playing everyone else in conference is the best way to do it but it's also the most risky. what point are you making if you choose to play in a system that nobody else plays in and only hurts yourself?
I would rather see USC (and the rest of the Pac 10) play 8 home games and 4 road games with all 4 of their OOC games being vs patsies and then watch the Trojans be 11-1 in the BCS title game than see them play 6 on the road, 6 at home and play 3 BCS conf teams OOC (and the rest of the Pac 10 teams playing similar schedules) and seeing an 11-1 USC team, with their only loss being in conf, on the road and on thursday night, have to Prison Rape another sorry ass Big 11 team in the Rose bowl again while teams that lose at home or at neutral sites get to play for the title

Under that scenario why would USC get into the BCS title game, any more than under the current system?

In those two scenarios, where they go 11-1, hell, I'd rather see the status quo, where they try to play good OOC games and the entire conference schedule.

Playing four cupcake OOC games, all at home? Fuck that. Nobody wants to see that.

Exactly. The reason SC keeps getting left out has nothing to do with their schedule. It's because the fucking jackass pollsters east of the Mississippi cling to the illusion that the Pac 10 is a soft conference. Adding more home games and cupcakes would only strengthen that thinking.

As to the original blog than inspired this thread, the only thing I take umbrage with is the author's subtle swipes at other conferences who didn't add an extra conference game when the 12th game was added. Obviously, the Pac 10 is in an ideal situation where they can play a full round-robin schedule and still play 3 OOC games. But what good would it do for conferences with 11 or 12 teams to add an extra conference game? It'd just make scheduling that much more convoluted and they still wouldn't play every other team in the conference. It's apples and oranges.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:Exactly. The reason SC keeps getting left out has nothing to do with their schedule. It's because the fucking jackass pollsters east of the Mississippi cling to the illusion that the Pac 10 is a soft conference. Adding more home games and cupcakes would only strengthen that thinking.

I disagree. Having a cupcake would put about 6 PAC 10 teams in the top 25.

Much like the SEC where they play 3 to 4 "high schools" to pad their resume and all they have to do is win 2 games in conference to become bowl eligible.

If the PAC 10 is the only conference that wants to play a tough OOC schedule... then it only hurts the PAC 10.

If the PAC 10 can make all of their OOC games 4 division II schools like the SEC.... They would rule the College Football World.(See 5-0 in bowl games last year).

This philosophy hasn't hurt the SEC or the BIG 12.... actually it's been a benefit and has put a shit load of teams from the conference in BCS games and the title games.

I'm not for it... but, its the way the game is played now.

Nobody cares if Oregon State loses on the road in the last seconds to Utah (in Utah).... while that same Utah team absolutely kicks the shit out of an overrated SEC team in Alabama in a game played in the south.

Alabama gets a higher ranking at the end of the season due to the wins they acquired during the regular season .... not who they played and/or lost to when it mattered.








the truth

That was the clearest, sharpest and most erudite post I think I've ever seen from m2. (Was it his??)

Can't disagree with any of it, except this....

If the PAC 10 can make all of their OOC games 4 division II schools like the SEC.... They would rule the College Football world.

While it would help their records, and it would land them more bowl teams, it wouldn't suddenly elevate the Pac 10 to dominant status. It would merely place them on a more level playing field with everyone else.

Van wrote: While it would help their records, and it would land them more bowl teams, it wouldn't suddenly elevate the Pac 10 to dominant status. It would merely place them on a more level playing field with everyone else.

Sure it would... the PAC wouldn't be playing with two hands tied behind their back.

Psst... the PAC 10 teams went 5-0 in bowl games last year while being the underdog in most cases.




the truth

So, what, if the Pac 10 played four OOC cupcakes maybe they would've gone 7-0 in last year's bowls?

Okay. Maybe they would've gone 5-2.

Regardless, it's just one season, and most of those were minor bowl games anyway. Your point is that merely by being on a level playing field with everyone else the Pac 10 would suddenly rise to dominant status.

No, they wouldn't. They'd benefit in some ways, but the whole landscape of college football wouldn't suddenly become dominated by the Pac 10.

Van wrote:Under that scenario why would USC get into the BCS title game, any more than under the current system?

In those two scenarios, where they go 11-1, hell, I'd rather see the status quo, where they try to play good OOC games and the entire conference schedule.

Playing four cupcake OOC games, all at home? Fuck that. Nobody wants to see that.

Because USC would have lost on the road on Thursday night to a team that finished the season 10-2 instead of 8-4 or if it was a year when USC skipped Ore St the Trojans would have finished 12-0.

The collective will always be .500 in league play but you can subtract 5 losses from the overall record and replcace them with 10 wins if you drop to 8 conference games and add a 4th OOC patsie at home to the collective like everyone else is doing.

The Pac 10 finished the season last year 14-16 OOC, not including bowl games, 8 of those losses were on the road, some conferences dont play 8 OOC games on the road total, why should the Pac play more? Going to the 8 conf games and and 4 patsies like the other conferences do, last year the Pac could have gone 40-0 in OOC games, 30-0 at the worst, that would be a +16 to the collectives overall record.

It is better to do it the way the Pac is with everyone playing everyone but when its only the Pac that has everyone playing everyone and are not getting any credit for doing so, why continue? The Pac is being judged vs conferences playing under different rules, there is no reason to continue going that way. If the SEC wants to play 48 OOC games and have 41 of them at home vs directional beauty colleges, theres no reason the Pac should play 30 OOC games and have only 17 of them at home.

SoCalTrjn wrote:It is better to do it the way the Pac is with everyone playing everyone but when its only the Pac that has everyone playing everyone and are not getting any credit for doing so, why continue?

To be honest, the Big East plays a full round-robin (as do the MWC, WAC and Sun Belt, although those three are all non-BCS conferences). So the Pac-10 is not the only conference doing it that way. In fairness, the Big East has only eight football members, so a full round-robin is a little different under those circumstances.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:It is better to do it the way the Pac is with everyone playing everyone but when its only the Pac that has everyone playing everyone and are not getting any credit for doing so, why continue?

To be honest, the Big East plays a full round-robin (as do the MWC, WAC and Sun Belt, although those three are all non-BCS conferences). So the Pac-10 is not the only conference doing it that way. In fairness, the Big East has only eight football members, so a full round-robin is a little different under those circumstances.

It's still apples & oranges, though, in the sense that Big East teams still get five non-con games that they can schedule any way they see fit. If it was the old Pac 8, I don't think you'd see the same desire from middle-tier teams to only play six conf. games instead of seven.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:It's still apples & oranges, though, in the sense that Big East teams still get five non-con games that they can schedule any way they see fit.

The 5 OOC games can be a real detriment though. Case in point, USF had a home date with FIU this season when Rutgers came in at the last minute and offered a 1 for 1 deal that was certainly to FIU's favor (the game with USF was the 3rd in a 3 game series that saw USF only go to FIU once (the game was FIU's first in their new stadium)). That left USF scrambling to find an opponent for a home game that could only be filled by an FCS opponent.

Obvioulsy, we didn't see this as part of our schedule, so there is good and bad with 5 OOC games. I'd love for the Big East to get one more football playing member in, but it has to make the conference better. ND was be the first option since they are in the Big East for other sports, but there are the obvious reasons why they wouldn't join for football.

Well, I do blame the SEC for making me fall in love with beignets, King Cake, creole and cajun food. I also blame the SEC for Steve Morse, Bourbon Street and Daisy Duke. I especially blame the SEC for my secret desire to maybe up and move to the south, or maybe the Mid-Atlantic region.

If it weren't for the humidity, and NASCAR, I'd be seriously inclined to take a stab at it, and it's pretty much the SEC's fault.

Sam, before I take the leap, can you fix the humidity, so that I don't have to always stay inside, where it's air conditioned? The south seems mighty pretty. I'd kinda like to be able to go outside, and not die.

Can you deport all the NASCAR necks, and their NASCAR paraphernalia? I'd kinda like my brain to not die.

Oh, and can you somehow make sure I won't suddenly become morbidly obese from southern cookin', including all their fried foods? I'd kinda like to make sure all of me doesn't die, just from embarrassment, if not heart disease.


It's the damn women, though. Southern women. Endearingly stupid, scantily clad and skillfully slutty is seriously tough to beat.

A PET of you dying in the heat and humidity would actually be kinda cool.

Seriously....

You and 'Spray, on some dried up lawn, shirts against sleeves, playing tackle football, in mid July.

Home and home series. Your place, then his place. Auburn visits Bama, then Bama travels to 'Spray's home state of Georgia to face Auburn. You could even ditch the shirts against sleeves thing, in lieu of wearing Bama and Auburn jerseys, but then you'd be depriving us the sight of 'Spray being shirtless, in SEC heat.

That PET is sure-fire Archive material.












(Why is 'Spray an Auburn fan, anyway? Why isn't he a Dawgs fan?)

Van wrote:Mid-Atlantic

You're not wanted.

Actually the ACC is as guilty of scheduling 4 home games OOC vs directionals as the SEC and I think the ACC had more 1AA teams last year in their collective schedule.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote: The collective will always be .500 in league play but you can subtract 5 losses from the overall record and replcace them with 10 wins if you drop to 8 conference games and add a 4th OOC patsie at home to the collective like everyone else is doing.

Your math is pretty suspect there. You don't replace 5 losses with 10 wins, you replace 5 losses with 5 wins. The other 5 wins are washes on the schedule.

you're right
my bad

Pac-10 football: No change to the round-robin schedule

The Pac-10 won’t drop its round-robin football schedule in favor of an eight-game lineup that allows for an extra non-conference game — and presumably an extra win.

Put another way: The league will continue to operate at a competitive disadvantage relative to other BCS conferences.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -schedule/

Good for the Pac 10. It's about time someone didn't choose the path of least resistance.

Like the article says, they chose not to buy themselves extra wins.

I don't care if this means fewer bowl teams, fewer BCS bowl teams and an overall competitive disadvantage, relative to other BCS conferences.. It's the right thing to do, and it's good to see someone finally doing the right thing, for the right reason.

That's good news. The PAC 10 did the right thing.