... especially Tucson.

FiatSlug;739975 said:

---

...One Pac-12 school must have a bye week on Thanksgiving Weekend because of the ND contracts with USC and Stanf*rd.

---

Traditionally, the majority of conference teams had a bye that weekend. Cal has done so for decades due to the large number of students who do not live in the Bay Area and who choose to go "home" and spend the holiday with their families.

calumnus;739700 said:

---

Yeah, I'm not so interested in why he is leaving, but am very curious where he chose and why.

---

He's retiring to Mexico

Utexbear2;740008 said:

---

He's retiring to Mexico

---

Where in Mexico?

manus;739952 said:

---

Why can't the schedulers make these last game, local rivals games as fixed points in each team's annual scheduling?

---

Cal/Stanford was offered the last week for the Big Game this year, but didn't want to play then due to the Thanksgiving break. The notion that the weekend before Thanksgiving should be the last weekend of the year and hold rivalry games has been gone for decades, and with the 12 game schedule, it's virtually impossible.

With all the things in our schedule to complain about, I can't see how wanting the big game in the last week ranks all that high in priorities. Especially since the administrations are set on not having it over Thanksgiving, so it's never going to be the last week anyway.

And as FiatSlug says, one team has to have a bye over Thanksgiving due to the ND game. And because USC and Stanford rotate the home game, Thanksgiving weekend is not going to be the traditional weekend for a rivalry game.

southseasbear;740007 said:

---

Traditionally, the majority of conference teams had a bye that weekend. Cal has done so for decades due to the large number of students who do not live in the Bay Area and who choose to go "home" and spend the holiday with their families.

---

Traditionally, there were not a 12 game schedule and a CCG played. But yes, Cal and Stanford don't want to play the BG over Thanksgiving. We are the two schools with the highest % of kids who travel out of the area for the break.

The fact that this is an issue is what is stupid to begin with, and I imagine is what lead to people voting down the possibility of expanding to 14 teams by adding the Oklahoma schools. The pac10 invited the schools in with good faith that "divisions would be worked out favorably", and the original pac8 got 100% screwed over in favor of the newest 4 teams to the conference.

Do you think that USC/UCLA like being cut off from the entire rest of the original pac8? You think the rest of the original pac8 likes being cut off from USC/UCLA? It's garbage really.

They should have either gone with the zipper model or gone with north/south with the California + Arizona schools in the south. With all 4 California teams in the south it would have guaranteed 2 games vs California schools every year. One home, one away, for teams in the Northern division (something the schools DON'T have now!) It would have also eliminated the need for the special California rules.

The current division alignment makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for any schools not named Colorado, Utah, Arizona, or Arizona State.

~MrGPAC

GivemTheAxe;740001 said:

---

I am concerned by the slow slide toward "win the championship at any cost" and away from maintaining "traditional rivalries" that I have seen on this board over the past few years.

Thanks for your post 510bear.

I have been watching Cal FB since 1959, the fun of long time traditional rivalries is a very big part of the enjoyment I get out of watching Cal FB.

---

Good points! I forgot about the SOS factor...not only does respect matter after we win our BCS game, it might also matter in terms of getting us to that BCS game.

I also forgot about attendance/"fan interest" factors (to anyone who doesn't think that matters, you might want to check out a certain Wall Street Journal article on Cal football, as hacky as it is....)

I really don't know why everyone's moving over to this "let's back-room scheme our way to a championship" view. Maybe people think they're being smart. But in a more long-term view, they're not being smart, by advocating something that devalues the championship they want so badly, not to mention the entire sport of college FB.

510Bear;740052 said:

---

Good points! I forgot about the SOS factor...not only does respect matter after we win our BCS game, it might also matter in terms of getting us to that BCS game.

I also forgot about attendance/"fan interest" factors (to anyone who doesn't think that matters, you might want to check out a certain Wall Street Journal article on Cal football, as hacky as it is....)

I really don't know why everyone's moving over to this "let's back-room scheme our way to a championship" view. Maybe people think they're being smart. But in a more long-term view, they're not being smart, by advocating something that devalues the championship they want so badly, not to mention the entire sport of college FB.

---

It's probably because people are tired of seeing other teams do it. And by other teams, I of course mean the entire SEC. The path of least resistance has worked out great for them.

~MrGPAC

MrGPAC;740051 said:

---

The fact that this is an issue is what is stupid to begin with, and I imagine is what lead to people voting down the possibility of expanding to 14 teams by adding the Oklahoma schools. The pac10 invited the schools in with good faith that "divisions would be worked out favorably", and the original pac8 got 100% screwed over in favor of the newest 4 teams to the conference.

---

No, the reason why the Oklahoma schools were not formally invited is that Texas wouldn't also accept an invitation from the Pac-12. If the Oklahoma schools, Texas, and Texas A&M (or Texas Tech) had accepted invitations from the Pac-12 on Larry Scott's terms, you can bet that the original Pac-8 would have been one division and the other division would have included the last 8 schools to join the conference.

MrGPAC;740051 said:

---

Do you think that USC/UCLA like being cut off from the entire rest of the original pac8? You think the rest of the original pac8 likes being cut off from USC/UCLA? It's garbage really.

---

I think that USC and UCLA accept the current situation as a trade-off. And I think that the rest of the old Pac-8 accepts the same trade-off.

MrGPAC;740051 said:

---

They should have either gone with the zipper model or gone with north/south with the California + Arizona schools in the south. With all 4 California teams in the south it would have guaranteed 2 games vs California schools every year. One home, one away, for teams in the Northern division (something the schools DON'T have now!) It would have also eliminated the need for the special California rules.

---

The zipper model is a failure (see the ACC for why).

The current Pac-12 alignment makes sense from the perspective that every non-California school has at least one trip to California (either the Bay Area or LA) every year, which is something you seem to advocate.

The only better alignment from the perspective of access to the LA market is a rotational alignment. In such a scenario, every school outside of California would have the same number of trips to LA and the Bay Area in a 16-year cycle.

MrGPAC;740051 said:

---

The current division alignment makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER for any schools not named Colorado, Utah, Arizona, or Arizona State.

~MrGPAC

---

I'm not so sure. The old Pac-8 schools knew what was required if they decided that expanding the conference was worth it. They may not like it, but it does make sense. There were clearly trade-offs and theose trade-offs were deemed acceptable for the final product.

If it doesn't work out well enough, you can be sure that there will be adjustments until either it does work or the whole thing collapses 9very unlikely in my view).

The whole argument is based on what is the current BCS scenario - a scenario which could be changed as soon as the year after next.

College football is based on tradition, rivalry and amateurism. I am glad that we got a great TV contract to generate more revenue, which will help with the stadium remodel, etc, but we do not need to cower about playing USC.

Cal has not gone to the Rose Bowl in 50 years. Does not playing SC make that more likely? We will still have to beat them if they are any good in the CCG, and if they are not, why give up the opportunity to beat them anyway? What better feeling than beating those guys?

Or would you rather have Oregon and Washington trolling the grounds of southern California annually for recruits?

The fact is that the Pac 12 network will want better games, not powered puff games - playing an 8 game schedule is a recipe for low ratings and lower revenue. I want to play top quality competition each year and fill the stadium, pay off the bonds, get good players and win. You do not grow a program by avoiding the best teams. You grow a program by beating the best teams. The best thing that ever happened to Cal football in the past 10 years was beating SC in 2003. That was a 8 year pass to JT, a big bump in national respect, and a launching point to a new stadium, the SAHPC, etc. Replace that with beating Nevada, and it hardly is worth thinking about.

No other school has been asked to give up it's in-state rivalries. California schools should not either. Ridiculous.

510Bear;740052 said:

---

I really don't know why everyone's moving over to this "let's back-room scheme our way to a championship" view. Maybe people think they're being smart. But in a more long-term view, they're not being smart, by advocating something that devalues the championship they want so badly, not to mention the entire sport of college FB.

---

^ this

Since Cal has to play USC in the "regular season" a loss goes against us in the standing when say, Oregon, gets to bypass the Trojans and possibly have a better record and win the division. Then, let's say Cal wins the division, think about it...8 out of 10 years it will be USC that we will be playing. So effectively Cal has to beat USC TWICE in one year to win the Conference and other schools may only have to face them once.

So, to juice recruiting, let our alums get some sun, or just continue a rivalry, we are effectively sacrificing any chance at actually winning the Pac-12, since in my book the odds of beating USC 2 times in one year is about 2 in 100 and quite frankly we have a better shot at being in the Rose Bwol than that happening.

F*CK USC...who cares if we play them?

:headbang

southseasbear;740007 said:

---

Traditionally, the majority of conference teams had a bye that weekend.

---

Traditionally, teams weren't trying to fit 12 games in 13 weeks.

FiatSlug;739975 said:

---

One Pac-12 school must have a bye week on Thanksgiving Weekend because of the ND contracts with USC and Stanf*rd.

---

One partial remedy would be to get the BYU-Utah game permanently moved to Thanksgiving weekend, where it has been played sometimes in the past. Then we could have 2 Pac-12 teams playing OOC and the other 10 playing in conference.

QuakeFan;740190 said:

---

One partial remedy would be to get the BYU-Utah game permanently moved to Thanksgiving weekend, where it has been played sometimes in the past. Then we could have 2 Pac-12 teams playing OOC and the other 10 playing in conference.

---

It's a good idea and makes a ton of sense to keep everyone with a bye week in the middle of the season (somewhere from late September to early November) instead of someone being forced to play 12 consecutive games.

It also would give some help to placing most archrivalry games on the weekend before Thanksgiving, which has been the traditional date for archrivalry games.

I would hope that the Pac-12 would go for this arrangement.

QuakeFan;740190 said:

---

One partial remedy would be to get the BYU-Utah game permanently moved to Thanksgiving weekend, where it has been played sometimes in the past. Then we could have 2 Pac-12 teams playing OOC and the other 10 playing in conference.

---

That's a pretty good idea from the conference perspective. It would mean that CU-Utah would have to be the weekend before Thanksgiving, which is a slight change for CU who developed their rivalry game with Nebraska in the 90's by playing on Thanksgiving. However, that was not a traditional date for that game as OU was Nebraska's rival game before the Big 8 was split to form the Big 12 divisions.

CU-UU, Cal-Stanford and USC-UCLA all the weekend before Thankgiving, AZ-ASU, WSU-UW and Oregon-OSU over Thanksgiving. Eugene is 45 miles from Corvallis and 110 miles from Portland, Tempe/phoenix is 111 miles from Tucson... so those games are easily drivable and are not going to see huge attendance drops due to Thanksgiving with family. So Pullman is still in BFE, can't change that. But lots of WSU alum live in Seattle area so the apple cup will still be well attended in seattle and not so much in pullman... but nothing really changes there anyway.

Oski87;740133 said:

---

. The best thing that ever happened to Cal football in the past 10 years was beating SC in 2003. That was a 8 year pass to JT, a big bump in national respect, and a launching point to a new stadium, the SAHPC, etc. Replace that with beating Nevada, and it hardly is worth thinking about.

No other school has been asked to give up it's in-state rivalries. California schools should not either. Ridiculous.

---

Could not agree more. For weeks and weeks after Cal beat USC, that was all the talk on talk-radio sports shows in SoCal. How could Cal beat USC.
Great PR for Cal FB and also a lot of fun if you were a Cal fan. That talk again geared up for the weeks preceding the next Cal-USC game. Cal came within 6 inches of winning the 2004 Cal-USC game when Jordan(?) slipped in the endzone on Cal's last play.

calumnus;740009 said:

---

Where in Mexico?

---

I don't think that has been finalized yet. Various locations in Michoacan, Oaxaca, etc have been mentioned...

ColoradoBear1;740195 said:

---

That's a pretty good idea from the conference perspective. It would mean that CU-Utah would have to be the weekend before Thanksgiving, which is a slight change for CU who developed their rivalry game with Nebraska in the 90's by playing on Thanksgiving. However, that was not a traditional date for that game as OU was Nebraska's rival game before the Big 8 was split to form the Big 12 divisions.

CU-UU, Cal-Stanford and USC-UCLA all the weekend before Thankgiving, AZ-ASU, WSU-UW and Oregon-OSU over Thanksgiving. Eugene is 45 miles from Corvallis and 110 miles from Portland, Tempe/phoenix is 111 miles from Tucson... so those games are easily drivable and are not going to see huge attendance drops due to Thanksgiving with family. So Pullman is still in BFE, can't change that. But lots of WSU alum live in Seattle area so the apple cup will still be well attended in seattle and not so much in pullman... but nothing really changes there anyway.

---

[U]EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS[/U] (years ending in 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8)

[U]BEFORE T'giving[/U]
California - Stanford (at California)
Colorado - Utah (at Colorado)
UCLA - USC (at UCLA)

[U]AFTER T'giving[/U]
[U]BYU - Utah (at Utah) ***
Notre Dame - USC (at USC) ***[/U]
Arizona - ASU (at Arizona)
Oregon - OSU (at OSU)
Washington - WSU (at WSU)

Other conference games would include some combination of:
Cal
Colorado
Stanf*rd
UCLA


[U]ODD-NUMBERED YEARS[/U] (years ending in 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9)

BEFORE T'giving
California - Stanf*rd (at Stanf*rd)
Colorado - Utah (at Utah)
UCLA - USC (at USC)

AFTER T'giving
[U]BYU - Utah (at BYU) ***
Notre Dame - Stanf*rd (at Stanf*rd) ***[/U]
Arizona - ASU (at ASU)
Oregon - OSU (at Oregon)
Washington - WSU (at Washington)

Other conference games would include some combination of:
Cal
Colorado
UCLA
USC

To avoid a repetitive pattern or other scheduling issues, any of the three rivalries shown as AFTER T'giving could be moved to BEFORE T'giving to make other Pac-12 games possible for AFTER T'giving.

Utexbear2;740209 said:

---

I don't think that has been finalized yet. Various locations in Michoacan, Oaxaca, etc have been mentioned...

---

Nice. One of the few TV shows I watch is "House Hunters International"--just to fantasize/consider/plan.

hanky1;739606 said:

---

When he was there, Harbaugh was actually against playing UCLA/USC every year. My understanding is that Cal is the biggest supporter of this 'all california schools play each other' system.

---

who told the Times he was bombarded mail from SC fan concerned about missing the annual trip to the Bay Area. Also, SC does recruit well in NorCal. HE THREATENED TO TAKE SC INDEPENDENT, which Barbour never did with Cal. Barbour did help lead the push (with Hayden) for the LA/Bay team schedule.

Bowlsby did say that Furd fans were upset about not playing the traditional LA rivals, but that his then coach could care less. Bowlsby listened to his donors and supported the requirement, and did UCLA's AD.

But don't kid yourself, SC football (and its TV revenue generation) is the big dog in this one.

Yeah, breaking of Traditional Rivalries for TV is a given today...

While we are dismantling the foundation of the sport, maybe he can tell us why we need a playoff, too.


BTW, how is playing Furd any different than playing USC? In terms of MONEY, I am sure there are better opportunities. Ask ATM. Maybe one day "fans" will be convinced to drop playing Furd in favor of TV money, easier schedule, or a playoff...




The idea of ending one of the longest consecutively played rivalries in the sport to have an easier schedule, or to get more TV revenue disgusts me as a fan.

68great;740199 said:

---

Could not agree more. For weeks and weeks after Cal beat USC, that was all the talk on talk-radio sports shows in SoCal. How could Cal beat USC.

---

Which is a little sad, proving how nobody in SoCal (whether USC player, USC fan, or general observer) took Cal football seriously at the time. Understandable, though, as we only had a little over one season of being decent. And if it made them all butthurt over losing to us, works for me.

Sounds like everyone I mentioned above took us seriously in 2004.

Now? Back to the status quo. If we beat USC this fall, it'll be viewed the same as if they were to lose to a San Diego St., a San Jose St., or a Hawaii (who are their first opponent), an unexpected, unthinkable disaster.