As you guys know, Cal faces both Utah and UCLA on the road after both teams have bye-weeks, while Cal gets half of a bye-week with a Thursday game. Meanwhile it's been pointed out by Wilner (LINK) that Furd has one hell of an easy schedule with their only road games left being WSU and Colo. And UCLA plays 2 games in 27-days because of scheduling.

I understand a lot of the difficulty of schedule can't be predicted due to rankings/how good or bad a team is during a season. That said, would killing the "California-schools-must-play-all-California" rule lightened the load for Cal and all the odd scheduling, and even allow for some flexibility on scheduling the Big Game? I'm all for tradition but it seems by demanding it, Cal gets shorted a bit. I'd also guess that killing the rule would avoid this stuff for UCLA and Furd. Or is it more complex than this rule?

Quote:

---

But let’s not forget that the schedules weren’t created equal, and the edge goes to … Stanford.

The Cardinal is 2-0 in league play with both wins on the road; it has five of its last seven at home, including Oregon and Cal; and its only remaining road games are Washington State and Colorado.

I repeat: Its only remaining road games are Washington State and Colorado.

---

Quote:

---

We’re into October: UCLA.

For the Bruins, the 10th month means time to catch up on some sleep. Because of back-to-back Thursday games (against the Bay Area teams), UCLA will play twice in a 27-day stretch.

Sleep jokes aside, the Bruins will be well rested for the stretch run.

---

NB: We also play WSU and Utah after they each have byes. We got screwed this year with the bye week scheduling.

As to your point, I would rather us leave the PAC and still play the California schools every year (out of conference) than stay in the PAC and give up those rivalries.

There is no easy way to win a PAC championship. There is only one way to win -- line up against USC, UCLA, and stanfurd, then drive their poorly-educated asses backwards.

complaining about scheduling is the same as complaining about the heat or weather or whatever for a game.

Only affects bad teams.

how about we become a badass program, so those other schools start complaining about having to play CAL every year?

It's also a great opportunity to play a tough schedule. If Cal were to ever with the P12 championship, it would have a fantastic resume.

Dbearson;842557380 said:

---

complaining about scheduling is the same as complaining about the heat or weather or whatever for a game.

Only affects bad teams.

---

While I generally agree it's a weak team thing, Furd wanted to change the years BG home games are played, to help balance their yearly schedule. Meanwhile Cal is boxed in by the all-CA schedule and BG not after Thanksgiving. My point being once tradition boxes you in, time to reconsider it.

rathokan;842557382 said:

---

how about we become a badass program, so those other schools start complaining about having to play CAL every year

---

Okay, make it happen.

More often than not we are at a competitive disadvantage playing all of the CA schools every year. Just like several conferences are at a competitive disadvantage to the SEC by continuing to insist on playing 9 conference games instead of 8. But too many people are caught up in their traditions from 30 years ago to ever let this change. God forbid we get into the Rose Bowl by beating ASU or Colorado instead of losing to USC or UCLA...at least we'll have the moral victory of playing a real schedule.

beelzebear;842557370 said:

---

As you guys know, Cal faces both Utah and UCLA on the road after both teams have bye-weeks, while Cal gets half of a bye-week with a Thursday game. Meanwhile it's been pointed out by Wilner (LINK) that Furd has one hell of an easy schedule with their only road games left being WSU and Colo. And UCLA plays 2 games in 27-days because of scheduling.

I understand a lot of the difficulty of schedule can't be predicted due to rankings/how good or bad a team is during a season. That said, would killing the "California-schools-must-play-all-California" rule lightened the load for Cal and all the odd scheduling, and even allow for some flexibility on scheduling the Big Game? I'm all for tradition but it seems by demanding it, Cal gets shorted a bit. I'd also guess that killing the rule would avoid this stuff for UCLA and Furd. Or is it more complex than this rule?

---

The alternative theory is that playing the LA schools (especially in LA) positively influences our LA area recruiting. The real answer is that Colorado/Utah should not have been given a spot in the Pac-12 South and consequently regular games with LA schools, which with the California exception especially screwed the NW teams as they are playing with LA schools even less frequently than before.

Beezle, I'm with ya. We kill ourselves by insisting on playing SC, UCLA as well as the Furd every year. I agree on playing Stanford every year, but the other two could be altered in the same way we play UT and Colo/AZ and ASU. Recruiting would not suffer since we are a California school and the best of the lot academically. We are but one hour away by plane and five by car. We are far enough away from parents to allow some independence, but close enough to have the family see us play. A Cal degree is an achievement that rewards the recipient for a lifetime. We should definitely reconsider playing the Trojans and the Bruins every year. It's not a necessity!

Current PAC-12 setup won't last forever-most likely a 16 team league and Bears will be back in the PAC-8 division. The AZ and (eventual) TX schools will bitch that they won't play enough games in CA.

Which Texas schools do you talk of? Just curious...

Weak argument. Are usc and ucla fans complaining about playing Cal and furd every year? Doubt it, because we have been the weakest of the 4 California schools for years.

This year, we begin our two year rotation with Utah and Arizona State while furd plays Colorado and Arizona. Meanwhile, usc plays Oregon and uw while ucla plays OSU and WSU. Of these four, ucla's rotation is by far the easiest. However, the north division is much weaker than the south. It's all about qualifying for the championship game, so winning all of the divisional games leaves room for a non-divisional loss.

jankoski;842557410 said:

---

Which Texas schools do you talk of? Just curious...

---

Dunno, but don't see the PAC ever getting to 16 without anyone in TX. SDSU, BYU/Utah State, UNLV, or CO State won't increase shares for existing schools.

I warned about this the moment the P12 divisions were announced. The conference rewarded our stubborn insistence about playing all the California schools annually by putting us in the North, ensuring that we had the toughest confab schedule each year.

That being said, as a southern Californian, I'm not ready to give up the L.A.game yet. It's important for recruiting and alumni purposes. Of course, giving up The Big Game is out of the question.

Conference realignment presents the best chance for a fix. Putting the California schools in the same division will solve our problem.

CaliforniaEternal;842557411 said:

---

Weak argument. Are usc and ucla fans complaining about playing Cal and furd every year? Doubt it, because we have been the weakest of the 4 California schools for years.

This year, we begin our two year rotation with Utah and Arizona State while furd plays Colorado and Arizona. Meanwhile, usc plays Oregon and uw while ucla plays OSU and WSU. Of these four, ucla's rotation is by far the easiest. However, the north division is much weaker than the south. It's all about qualifying for the championship game, so winning all of the divisional games leaves room for a non-divisional loss.

---

Actually yes, the SC complained
for years about playing both Cal & furd. Back when we played 8 Conference games SC wanted to drop Cal in favor of scheduling a top OOC game. But Cal, furd and reluctantly, LA, hung together to block the move.

Since then the $ alums have made it clear to their AD that the annual Bay Area weekender is mandatory.

I'd rather play the socal schools and have a slightly worse record than play everyone equally and win an extra fraction of a game per year.

though i do live in LA

Cal Strong;842557376 said:

---

NB: We also play WSU and Utah after they each have byes. We got screwed this year with the bye week scheduling.

As to your point, I would rather us leave the PAC and still play the California schools every year (out of conference) than stay in the PAC and give up those rivalries.There is no easy way to win a PAC championship. There is only one way to win -- line up against USC, UCLA, and stanfurd, then drive their poorly-educated asses backwards.

---

Thank you Cal Strong. You live up to your handle. :bravo

The games that live most in my memory are the wins against the California teams (with the only exception being the Cal historic comeback against UO down 30 to an eventual Cal win late in the 4th quarter.)

If we are not good enough to beat stanfurd, USC and UCLA we don't deserve the championship. (Maybe someone would like to eliminate a California opponent and add College of Notre Dame in San Mateo, or Dominican University in San Rafael, or the Little Sisters of the Poor. That would pump up our W-L record.)

By the way since USC and UCLA are in the "Southern" Division, if we should lose to one of them during the regular searson and still win the PAC 12 North, we could get a second chance to beat them in the Championship game.

Don'tDance;842557401 said:

---

The alternative theory is that playing the LA schools (especially in LA) positively influences our LA area recruiting. The real answer is that Colorado/Utah should not have been given a spot in the Pac-12 South and consequently regular games with LA schools, which with the California exception especially screwed the NW teams as they are playing with LA schools even less frequently than before.

---

Right you are. When the PAC12 was created Utah, Colorado, ASU, UA, WSU, UW, UO and OSU [U]all complained [/U]that Cal and Stanfurd had an unfair advantage playing both SoCal schools each year since it guaranteed a game in SoCal each year for both Cal and Stanfurd. But Cal Stanfurd USC and UCLA said "no deal" to the PAC12 without an annual rivalry game with each of the California schools.

68great;842557468 said:

---

The games that live most in my memory are the wins against the California teams...

---

Why should your memories dictate what my memories are going to be?

It would suck if we didn't play the traditional Pac schools every year. Screw the Zona schools and the mountain schools, they're nowhere near the Pacific.

Football success waxes and wanes. We were the team no one wanted to play eight years ago. Then it was Oregon. USC and UCLA have both had bad stretches. Now Utah looks way tougher than USC. Colorado won't suck forever. They are a great university and will eventually find a good coach who can turn things around.

Just because USC and UCLA are currently tough doesn't mean we should freak out and change the schedule.

We just need to line up and push their poorly-educated asses backwards. Beat the crap out of them. Our goal shouldn't be to occasionally squeak by the California schools. The goal should be to smash them good and make their fans cry.

Cal 56, USC 9.
Cal 43, UCLA 13.
Cal 77, stanfurd 0.

This is how things should be. This is the goal. Screw those other teams. We are Cal. Cal Strong.

My plan was three natural Divisions of 4 teams each: California, the Pacific Nowthwest and the 4 corners states. Everyone plays everyone in their division plus 2 from each of the other divisions. Final "conference" game would be first round of a playoff (3 division champs plus one wildcard) with other games scheduled to avoid repeats of earlier games.

CaliforniaEternal;842557411 said:

---

Weak argument. Are usc and ucla fans complaining about playing Cal and furd every year? Doubt it, because we have been the weakest of the 4 California schools for years.

This year, we begin our two year rotation with Utah and Arizona State while furd plays Colorado and Arizona. Meanwhile, usc plays Oregon and uw while ucla plays OSU and WSU. Of these four, ucla's rotation is by far the easiest. However, the north division is much weaker than the south. It's all about qualifying for the championship game, so winning all of the divisional games leaves room for a non-divisional loss.

---

This is wrong. A loss to $C counts just as much as a loss to furd.

Cal Strong;842557504 said:

---

Football success waxes and wanes. We were the team no one wanted to play eight years ago. Then it was Oregon. USC and UCLA have both had bad stretches. Now Utah looks way tougher than USC. Colorado won't suck forever. They are a great university and will eventually find a good coach who can turn things around.

The point is just because USC and UCLA are currently tough doesn't mean we should freak out and change the schedule. Just line up and push them backwards. Beat the crap out of them. Our goal shouldn't be to occasionally squeak by the California schools. The goal should be to smash them and make their fans cry.

Cal 56, USC 9.
Cal 43, UCLA 13.
Cal 77, stanfurd 0.

This is how things should be. This is the goal. Screw those other teams. We are Cal. Cal Strong.

---

USC and UCLA have been consistently tough for decades. They sit in the largest market and have the most high school talent nearby. It would be foolish to not assume they will be tough in the future--some down years on occasion, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

socalBear23;842557509 said:

---

This is wrong. A loss to $C counts just as much as a loss to furd.

---

For determining tie breakers, head to head is first, record in division is next. Then various other stuff. So a loss to U$C would not hurt as much but only in a tie-breaking scenario.

in-state games are the best marketing tool we've got. it's a bummer that it's hurting us this year, but really, none is unwinnable anyway.

I'm all for tradition, like playing the CA schools and it does help recruiting. So let me pose the question another way: would you be willing to change how Cal schedules games for maybe a 10%-15% benefit, and maybe a similar bump at getting to a RB? I think given the time, we need any help we can get.

I agree that it's yearly but this year just seems stacked against Cal, and I also agree that this change might mean maybe 10% help, however if you look at the SEC they add up all those 5%-10% advantages. By holding on to CA-only and No-BG-after-Turkeyday traditions, I think Cal creates a slight penalty for itself. It's not crazy but it doesn't help either.

calumnus;842557514 said:

---

USC and UCLA have been consistently tough for decades. They sit in the largest market and have the most high school talent nearby. It would be foolish to not assume they will be tough in the future--some down years on occasion, but that would be the exception, not the rule.

---

Do you remember the last year under Carroll? How about the sanctions era? Or Lane Kiffin getting fired? USC wasn't very good during this time. Just because Cal was too crappy to beat them doesn't make USC "consistently tough."

UCLA. Hmmm. I seem to recall Rick Niehiesal, Karl Dorrell, and Bob Toledo fielding a ton of crappy teams. Perhaps that's why each of them got their asses fired. In Tedford's weakest season (by far), he was able to crush Mora -- even with Zach Maynard as our QB.

This stuff comes and goes. We just need to get good and smash them in the mouth. Cal strong!

Cal and Stanford have mirror schedules. In odd years, Cal has it rough and LSJU easy. In even years, it is the opposite. Next season, the Cardinal partisans will whine about their tough schedule and you won't hear a word from Bear fans. Therefore, my thought re: scheduling, let ever season be an even year (something SF Giant fans would like as well).

As for playing the LA schools annually. Count me in. I like the idea.....

68great;842557468 said:

---

If we are not good enough to beat stanfurd, USC and UCLA we don't deserve the championship.

---

But it's OK for Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Oregon St., WSU, UW, AZ and ASU to NOT have to beat all THREE of those teams, but yet, deserve a championship?

This rule will keep us out of the Rose Bowl in perpetuity, but then again the Rose Bowl is dead anyway.

71Bear;842557542 said:

---

Cal and Stanford have mirror schedules. In odd years, Cal has it rough and LSJU easy. In even years, it is the opposite. Next season, the Cardinal partisans will whine about their tough schedule and you won't hear a word from Bear fans. Therefore, my thought re: scheduling, let ever season be an even year (something SF Giant fans would like as well).

As for playing the LA schools annually. Count me in. I like the idea.....

---

Good point about Furd's reverse schedule and I guess this is why I thought of it this season; we still have Goff, so this is a peak Cal year. If Goff is gone next season, I think Cal will still do okay...but no Goff is an issue.

bluehenbear;842557547 said:

---

But it's OK for Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Oregon St., WSU, UW, AZ and ASU to NOT have to beat all THREE of those teams, but yet, deserve a championship?

This rule will keep us out of the Rose Bowl in perpetuity, but then again the Rose Bowl is dead anyway.

---

Stanfurd was able to do it. So why the hell can't we?

Cal Strong! stanfurd weak!

bluehenbear;842557547 said:

---

But it's OK for Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Oregon St., WSU, UW, AZ and ASU to NOT have to beat all THREE of those teams, but yet, deserve a championship?

This rule will keep us out of the Rose Bowl in perpetuity, but then again the Rose Bowl is dead anyway.

---

This is basically the argument against. Cal, by choice, plays three of the more difficult schools yearly. When tradition starts to hurt you, re-evaluate.

Cal Strong;842557554 said:

---

Stanfurd was able to do it. So why the hell can't we?

Cal Strong! stanfurd weak!

---

They got to play a mediocre UCLA twice at home in two weeks. UCLA backed their way into the P12 championship that year.

bluehenbear;842557567 said:

---

They got to play a mediocre UCLA twice at home in two weeks. UCLA backed their way into the P12 championship that year.

---

This proves my point. The other California teams aren't always tough. Sometimes the Arizona or mountain schools are much tougher. So why destroy a tradition when we have no idea how good the teams will be in the next few years?

Stanfurd played the other California teams FOUR times in a single season and still made the Rose Bowl.

UCLA made the championship game that year too. How can this be? Because USC sucked. Hell, UCLA made the championship with a terrible team in the year Rick Niehiesal got canned!!! So how tough was USC that year?

Just line up and beat 'em. Cal Strong!