...Cal is not the only team with issues related to the Pac-12 schedule changes (Colorado was scheduled prior to the league change, evidently).

The Ducks will have seven home games in 2012, including nonconference matchups with Arkansas State, Fresno State and Montana State the first three Saturdays in September. Oregon will also host Pac-12 Conference games against Arizona, Colorado, Washington and Stanford.

Seeing that the Ducks seats just went up to $85 each (from $58 last year), they will have alot of unhappy fans next fall.
They'll get a sure 3 wins out of the deal, though.

Chippy is trying pull an SEC type schedule to pad the record and get an easier shot at the BCS .... what a surprise ... NOT!!!!!!!!

DrDanger;553815 said:

---

...Cal is not the only team with issues related to the Pac-12 schedule changes (Colorado was scheduled prior to the league change, evidently).

The Ducks will have seven home games in 2012, including nonconference matchups with Arkansas State, Fresno State and Montana State the first three Saturdays in September. Oregon will also host Pac-12 Conference games against Arizona, Colorado, Washington and Stanford.

Seeing that the Ducks seats just went up to $85 each (from $58 last year), they will have alot of unhappy fans next fall.
They'll get a sure 3 wins out of the deal, though.

---

This type of scheduling simply sucks...and only compounds the "P10 conference is weak" perception.(which I agree with by the way) It should be mandatory that each BCS conference member schedule at a minimum 2 OOC games against opponents from other BCS conferences.

Trojan Warrior;553882 said:

---

This type of scheduling simply sucks...and only compounds the "P10 conference is weak" perception.(which I agree with by the way) It should be mandatory that each BCS conference member schedule at a minimum 2 OOC games against opponents from other BCS conferences.

---

For what it's worth, I don't think the OOC scheduling gives the perception that the conference is weak (it doesn't hurt the SEC after all). It's more postseason matchups that determine the perception.

Trojan Warrior;553882 said:

---

This type of scheduling simply sucks...and only compounds the "P10 conference is weak" perception.(which I agree with by the way) It should be mandatory that each BCS conference member schedule at a minimum 2 OOC games against opponents from other BCS conferences.

---

Agreed - would be a great change. I would phrase it slightly differently though in that I would allow BCS teams to play at most 1 game against a team from outside the BCS per year, and no FCS teams. The difference is that some of the BCS conferences play 4 OOC games which would mean 2 bodybag games.

yellerbear;553893 said:

---

For what it's worth, I don't think the OOC scheduling gives the perception that the conference is weak (it doesn't hurt the SEC after all). It's more postseason matchups that determine the perception.

---

It sure as hell doesn't help when the conference can't even win those body bag games such as UNLV beating ASU or ucla getting their doors blown off against the likes of BYU...those are just two examples off the top of my head. There are plenty more too.

Unit2Sucks;553899 said:

---

Agreed - would be a great change. I would phrase it slightly differently though in that I would allow BCS teams to play at most 1 game against a team from outside the BCS per year, and no FCS teams. The difference is that some of the BCS conferences play 4 OOC games which would mean 2 bodybag games.

---

Understood, however, the way to neutralize that 4th game is simple...every BCS conference should play 9 conference games and 3 OOC games...unless a team is willing to travel to Hawaii for the 4th OOC game.

drunkoski;553908 said:

---

so you suggest we schedule more difficult games?

---

You don't get better by beating teams you're supposed to win...you get better by taking on the challenge. Oh yeah, the top end prospects like playing in those games too.

Trojan Warrior;553920 said:

---

You don't get better by beating teams you're supposed to win...you get better by taking on the challenge. Oh yeah, the top end prospects like playing in those games too.

---

You calling us out on our schedule? Prebysterian this year was a fluke. We have a home and home with OSU and Texas in the next four years.

Trojan Warrior;553882 said:

---

This type of scheduling simply sucks...and only compounds the "P10 conference is weak" perception.(which I agree with by the way) It should be mandatory that each BCS conference member schedule at a minimum 2 OOC games against opponents from other BCS conferences.

---

I think the Pac 12 does a damn good job overall with their OOC schedules....also note in the last quote that we play much tougher non-AQ teams then those in the east...

Quote:

---

1. In the BCS Era (beginning in 1998), the SEC and Pac-10 are the only two conferences with winning records against the other BCS conferences. The SEC is 127-112 (.531), while the Pac-10 is 117-106 (.524).

2. The Pac-10 is the only conference that has a losing record against less than two of the other conferences. It’s only deficit is against the Big 12 and it’s a narrow one (30-32). The SEC has losing records against both the Big East (14-19) and the Pac-10 (9-12).

3. Of the BCS conferences, the Pac-10 has played the fewest games (38) against I-AA opponents–and it’s not even close. The other conferences: Big 12 (86), ACC (85), SEC (78), Big East (66), Big Ten (56).

---

Quote:

---

Now, without a doubt, the SEC has been excellent since 2006. Besides winning four national titles, it has a 58-38 (.604) record against the other BCS conferences. The Pac-10 is 46-35 (.567). However, the SEC is also 105-7 (.937) against the non-BCS (65-6) and 1-AA (40-1) portion of its schedule during that same stretch while the Pac-10 is 65-28 (.698). The Pac-10 is 20-0 against 1-AA opponents since 2006, but is just 45-28 against the other non-BCS conferences.
This clearly reflects the Mountain West Conference’s emergence as the strongest of the non-BCS leagues (it is 16-14 vs. the Pac-10 since ’06) and the general rule that non-BCS leagues out West–the ones more likely to play Pac-10 teams due to geography–feature far stronger teams (Boise State, TCU, BYU, Utah, Fresno State) than the ones in the East. Significantly enough, the Pac-10 also went to a round robin schedule in 2006, which added five more guaranteed losses to its members.

---

http://heismanpundit.com/2010/09/24/conferences-vs-conferences/

Cal_Fan2;553935 said:

---

I think the Pac 12 does a damn good job overall with their OOC schedules....also note in the last quote that we play much tougher non-AQ teams then those in the east...





http://heismanpundit.com/2010/09/24/conferences-vs-conferences/

---

They have in the past, however, recent OOC schedules say otherwise.

yellerbear;553934 said:

---

You calling us out on our schedule? Prebysterian this year was a fluke. We have a home and home with OSU and Texas in the next four years.

---

Go back to my OP in this thread and then get back to me.

Trojan Warrior;553920 said:

---

You don't get better by beating teams you're supposed to win...you get better by taking on the challenge. Oh yeah, the top end prospects like playing in those games too.

---

Can't disagree with that one. The problem is that on a cursory glance, the lazy national media just goes with record to somewhat arbitrarily assign success to teams.

Trojan Warrior;553903 said:

---

Understood, however, the way to neutralize that 4th game is simple...every BCS conference should play 9 conference games and 3 OOC games...unless a team is willing to travel to Hawaii for the 4th OOC game.

---

Problem with that strategy has two issues (at least) unless we go to a playoff and/or super conferences (though I mostly agree):

1) Major SEC/Big Ten teams will lose $5-10 million per year in revenue and won't like it. These are the 7-8 home games teams. Is it that easy to say screw them? I dunno. Of course, when BCS games are exhibitions that require 10k-20k in ticket guarantees, the teams that can fill 80-100k stadium for a crap game are the same teams that the bowl games want to fill their stadiums and hotels. Playing a hard schedule and winning don't mean as much to bowls as selling overpriced tickets.

2) Non-BCS schools will be relegated to a second class status and won't be able to get many games with BCS opponents (likely 1 or maybe 2). Unless the BCS is changed, that's going to be seen as much more exclusionary than the current status quo. More exclusionary than a 4 team superconference playoff? No, but close.

Trojan Warrior;553903 said:

---

Understood, however, the way to neutralize that 4th game is simple...every BCS conference should play 9 conference games and 3 OOC games...unless a team is willing to travel to Hawaii for the 4th OOC game.

---

We're in agreement on this one.

Look, I hate Oregon's program more than anybody else on this board, but why should they play anybody? It doesn't really mean anything for BCS purposes and they, like the SEC teams don't need to play anybody to fill up their stadium. That is the big difference. Florida will get 100,000 playing The Citadel. USC won't. There is a competitive advantage to playing the little guys and teams that can fill up their stadiums no matter what don't suffer financial consequences from the body bag games. Again, what does it benefit Oregon to play, say TCU, Wisconsin, and Virginia in a non conference season?

Trojan Warrior;553948 said:

---

They have in the past, however, recent OOC schedules say otherwise.

---

I agree that lately we've dropped the ball but lets call that regression to the mean...still, thru 2009 I found this stat....not only does the Pac 12 have the highest percentage of OOC away games, we are 2nd in playing opponents with winning records...I don't see a problem overall as long as we don't regress too much.

This from a Birmingham, Al. blog.....

When it comes to nonconference football games, SEC teams pick 1 heavyweight with 3 cupcakes



http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/09/when_it_comes_to_nonconference.html

ColoradoBear1;553954 said:

---

Can't disagree with that one. The problem is that on a cursory glance, the lazy national media just goes with record to somewhat arbitrarily assign success to teams.



Problem with that strategy has two issues (at least) unless we go to a playoff and/or super conferences (though I mostly agree):

1) Major SEC/Big Ten teams will lose $5-10 million per year in revenue and won't like it. These are the 7-8 home games teams. Is it that easy to say screw them? I dunno. Of course, when BCS games are exhibitions that require 10k-20k in ticket guarantees, the teams that can fill 80-100k stadium for a crap game are the same teams that the bowl games want to fill their stadiums and hotels. Playing a hard schedule and winning don't mean as much to bowls as selling overpriced tickets.

2) Non-BCS schools will be relegated to a second class status and won't be able to get many games with BCS opponents (likely 1 or maybe 2). Unless the BCS is changed, that's going to be seen as much more exclusionary than the current status quo. More exclusionary than a 4 team superconference playoff? No, but close.

---

I'm pretty sure that everyone sees the "super conferences" coming to fruition, sooner rather than later.

I agree with the general tenor of your argument(s), however, the paradigm shift is moving toward the more "challenging" scheduling; the B10 is actually moving toward the 9-game conference schedule in the very near future. And even though the SEC will kick and scream till the very end, they'll jump on that train too.

ColoradoBear1;553954 said:

---

Can't disagree with that one. The problem is that on a cursory glance, the lazy national media just goes with record to somewhat arbitrarily assign success to teams.



Problem with that strategy has two issues (at least) unless we go to a playoff and/or super conferences (though I mostly agree):

1) Major SEC/Big Ten teams will lose $5-10 million per year in revenue and won't like it. These are the 7-8 home games teams. Is it that easy to say screw them? I dunno. Of course, when BCS games are exhibitions that require 10k-20k in ticket guarantees, the teams that can fill 80-100k stadium for a crap game are the same teams that the bowl games want to fill their stadiums and hotels. Playing a hard schedule and winning don't mean as much to bowls as selling overpriced tickets.

2) Non-BCS schools will be relegated to a second class status and won't be able to get many games with BCS opponents (likely 1 or maybe 2). Unless the BCS is changed, that's going to be seen as much more exclusionary than the current status quo. More exclusionary than a 4 team superconference playoff? No, but close.

---

This is why I think that the BCS formula should take into account the number of home games (subtract BCS points) and the number of road games (add BCS points) with the ideal that teams play 6 road and 6 home.

Trojan Warrior;553920 said:

---

You don't get better by beating teams you're supposed to win...you get better by taking on the challenge. Oh yeah, the top end prospects like playing in those games too.

---

I didn't understand if you meant the "you" specific to us, or a general "you." But it seems like you meant the latter, so I'm glad to be corrected.

yellerbear;554020 said:

---

I didn't understand if you meant the "you" specific to us, or a general "you." But it seems like you meant the latter, so I'm glad to be corrected.

---

Yep, I meant the ubiquitous "you.":beer:

Trojan Warrior;553978 said:

---

I'm pretty sure that everyone sees the "super conferences" coming to fruition, sooner rather than later.

I agree with the general tenor of your argument(s), however, the paradigm shift is moving toward the more "challenging" scheduling; the B10 is actually moving toward the 9-game conference schedule in the very near future. And even though the SEC will kick and scream till the very end, they'll jump on that train too.

---

I think if the SEC goes to 14 as expected when they take aggy, they will have to go to 9 games immediately to preserve cross division rivalries. Going to 14 is going be plenty ugly due to the strange divisions that will result - 9 game conference schedule will help. It would most likely involve splitting AU/UA. Going to 16 would mean yearly games like Auburn/Georgia, LSU/Florida, Alabama/Tennessee would likely be gone. Those are big value games for TV, too.

Also, from a TV perspective, these crap OOC games make little sense.

The real question I have regarding the super conference era is whether playing non-BCS teams would even be allowed (due to 'full cost' scholarships and maybe a new football governing body to replace the NCAA) and what kind of playoff format would there be - if it's simply a 4 team playoff with 4 conference winners coming from four 16-team conferences, OOC games would then become exhibitions. That might be really good for getting better matchups due to no penalty for losing. It might be bad for the intensity of the complete regular season (plus then there would be an incentive not to get players hurt during OOC). On the other hand, if the playoff is larger than 4 teams, some are going to be at-large and we'd have the same OOC scheduling issues as now and could have issues with the non BCS teams as we do now.

drunkoski;554030 said:

---

but sadly the bcs doesn't reward teams who take on the challenge and lose. just look at teh number of sec teams in the polls and their rather pathetic non conference schedules on average.

---

AGREE!!! That's why I fuggin' hate the BCS and the manipulating of the schedules. You've seen enough of my posts as well as others post about this ad nauseum.

Here's a perfect example: in 2008 USC shutout Wazzu on the road, while UiF beat The Citadel at home on the same weekend I believe...guess who moved up in the polls. Now granted, Wazzu, flat out stunk that year, nevertheless, they are still considered a D1 BCS conference team...The Citadel is not. Or I could use both of our losses from that same season...USC lost on the road in Corvallis, meanwhile UiF lost at home to Ole Miss...guess who fell further in the polls.

Good luck trying to find enough members of other BCS conferences that want to schedule P12 teams. Part of the issue has nothing to do with the P12 schools desire to schedule cupcakes but rather the difficulty finding opponents willing to play them.

I know that Cal has tried again and again to schedule decent non-FCS teams but has been told, "no thanks" (with geography playing a big part in the equation).

I see what you are saying, and I agree that Oregon's schedule is chickenshit next year, but it doesn't make the Pac 12 look weak at all when you beat up on patsies. The SEC does it every year and there is no negative impact. Even when Tennessee loses to UCLA, Georgia loses to Colorado, Tennessee loses bad to Cal, etc., nobody cares. As long as the best teams in conference go undefeated, the conference looks great.

And by the way, the Pac 10/12 non-conference schedules are the most difficult in the land year after year, and how has that helped us if you still perceive us as weak along with every dipshit that gets near a microphone?

Californication;554130 said:

---

I see what you are saying, and I agree that Oregon's schedule is chickenshit next year, but it doesn't make the Pac 12 look weak at all when you beat up on patsies. The SEC does it every year and there is no negative impact. Even when Tennessee loses to UCLA, Georgia loses to Colorado, Tennessee loses bad to Cal, etc., nobody cares. As long as the best teams in conference go undefeated, the conference looks great.

And by the way, the Pac 10/12 non-conference schedules are the most difficult in the land year after year, and how has that helped us if you still perceive us as weak along with every dipshit that gets near a microphone?

---

How much more would you like to see the OOC schedule get dumbed down when UNLV can beat ASU or New Mexico beats UA? I have more examples if you'd like.

I have zero issue with P10/12 teams losing to BCS level teams in OOC games, however, those same teams sure as hell better beat the cupcakes...and they're not.

IMO the OOC schedule should be 1 good BCS conference team and 2 lesser teams. Major conferences have enough tough games and with a Championship game now on the docket as well, you cannot overschedule.

6956bear;554321 said:

---

IMO the OOC schedule should be 1 good BCS conference team and 2 lesser teams. Major conferences have enough tough games and with a Championship game now on the docket as well, you cannot overschedule.

---

If you're a BCS supporter I can see where you're coming from. Just remember, prior to the BCS being implemented strong OOC schedules were the rule and not the exception.

The important thing is that Oregon will be facing Cal here in 2012, in a game that will signify a changing of the guard.
:chainsaw

...would be like the Giants getting to play a series against the Sacramento River Cats or worse the Stockton Pilots at home in AT&T, while Colorado goes to play the Yankees.

Sooner or later they are going to work in a point system that works so that a team losses points for playing a non-BCS team...then it will stop.

:headbang