Post Reply
1 of 1
Chase Garbers
4,092 Views |
27 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by BearPatrol
The idea of playing 10 of the other 11 teams seems weird and nonsensical to me. If we're going to have an all conference slate then let's have an ALL conference slate.*
* the foregoing is in no way colored by the fact that Cal would get to pick up the two weakest teams in the Pac-12 (Colorado and AZ) and would accordingly be benefited more than anyone by going to an all conference slate. Nope. Not colored at all.
* the foregoing is in no way colored by the fact that Cal would get to pick up the two weakest teams in the Pac-12 (Colorado and AZ) and would accordingly be benefited more than anyone by going to an all conference slate. Nope. Not colored at all.
Been saying it forever: if you can't play every conference opponent yearly, your conference is too big.
I want no non conference games every year. No conference over 12 teams. Auto bids from all conferences plus some wildcards in a roughly 16 game playoff.
I want no non conference games every year. No conference over 12 teams. Auto bids from all conferences plus some wildcards in a roughly 16 game playoff.
If we can play at all this fall, I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being a 6 or 7 game season with a number of scheduled games postponed or cancelled due to outbreaks on the various teams. One team might be perfectly healthy but its scheduled opponent is deemed a risk or can't field a fully functioning and safe team -- maybe the entire quarterback room has to quarantine (I know, the offense can just run wildcat formation the next couple of weeks). In that scenario, you might have some teams that would be healthy enough to play every week, but several of their games are cancelled or postponed because of their opponent's health. Does that go down as a win or a loss or is it simply erased from the record altogether?
If this, in fact, came to pass, teams' final record might mean little if anything, but each individual game played would be all important in and of itself -- which is maybe the way we should see every game when we get back to normal.
If this, in fact, came to pass, teams' final record might mean little if anything, but each individual game played would be all important in and of itself -- which is maybe the way we should see every game when we get back to normal.
The odd issue of scheduling luck would also be removed going to an all conference slate. I mean randomly missing Cal and Oregon (this year at least) is a whole lot better than missing AZ and Colorado. You'd get a true conference champion with an all conference slate. Would like the championship to be decided on the field as much as possible.
Of course the scheduling misses is still not as bad as the 3rd or 4th division standing tie breaker that got triggered last year between us and UW for who finished 2nd in the division. I believe we discovered that one was alphabetical. I mean who came up with that? Did they decide a mascot battle would be too Bread and Circuses? Of course since Cal will always be alphabetically first in the division I'm also less incensed by that one.
Of course the scheduling misses is still not as bad as the 3rd or 4th division standing tie breaker that got triggered last year between us and UW for who finished 2nd in the division. I believe we discovered that one was alphabetical. I mean who came up with that? Did they decide a mascot battle would be too Bread and Circuses? Of course since Cal will always be alphabetically first in the division I'm also less incensed by that one.
while I agree, it looks like 10 game schedules so there flex weekends built in. The Big 10, which has 14 teams, said they are looking to get "at least" 10 games.Sebastabear said:
The idea of playing 10 of the other 11 teams seems weird and nonsensical to me. If we're going to have an all conference slate then let's have an ALL conference slate.*
* the foregoing is in no way colored by the fact that Cal would get to pick up the two weakest teams in the Pac-12 (Colorado and AZ) and would accordingly be benefited more than anyone by going to an all conference slate. Nope. Not colored at all.
My preference is play everyone so all teams are on an equal footing. The reality (as opposed to my preference) will be determined by the virus, health officials and lot of other factors out of the conference's hands, and I understand if they build flexibility into their model. And no *****ing if the Big Game day is moved!.
How about this. North teams play each other in pool play. South teams play each other in pool play. We seed. Top 2 teams in each pool get a bye. Bottom 4 in each play each other. Single elimination tourney from there with consolation games! Everyone plays 8 or 9 games.wifeisafurd said:while I agree, it looks like 10 game schedules so there flex weekends built in. The Big 10, which has 14 teams, said they are looking to get "at least" 10 games.Sebastabear said:
The idea of playing 10 of the other 11 teams seems weird and nonsensical to me. If we're going to have an all conference slate then let's have an ALL conference slate.*
* the foregoing is in no way colored by the fact that Cal would get to pick up the two weakest teams in the Pac-12 (Colorado and AZ) and would accordingly be benefited more than anyone by going to an all conference slate. Nope. Not colored at all.
My preference is play everyone so all teams are on an equal footing. The reality (as opposed to my preference) will be determined by the virus, health officials and lot of other factors out of the conference's hands, and I understand if they build flexibility into their model. And no *****ing if the Big Game day is moved!.
(I know this isn't realistic)
wifeisafurd said:while I agree, it looks like 10 game schedules so there flex weekends built in. The Big 10, which has 14 teams, said they are looking to get "at least" 10 games.Sebastabear said:
The idea of playing 10 of the other 11 teams seems weird and nonsensical to me. If we're going to have an all conference slate then let's have an ALL conference slate.*
* the foregoing is in no way colored by the fact that Cal would get to pick up the two weakest teams in the Pac-12 (Colorado and AZ) and would accordingly be benefited more than anyone by going to an all conference slate. Nope. Not colored at all.
My preference is play everyone so all teams are on an equal footing. The reality (as opposed to my preference) will be determined by the virus, health officials and lot of other factors out of the conference's hands, and I understand if they build flexibility into their model. And no *****ing if the Big Game day is moved!.
The virus ALSO wants to have all Pac 12 teams play each other and it will see what it can do on that. (We talk.)
I've been hearing that the Big 10 is looking to front load the season with division games when teams are mostly healthy and then the back half will be almost all cross-division games. Have you heard if they're thinking about that for the Pac too? It could take some suspense out of the championship game if we effectively know who the North and South winners are by midseason, but it makes sense if we're trying to crown a real Pac-12 champion to play the most important tiebreaker games early
Oh heck, you mean the Bears aren't going to get the chance to beat the s#!% out of Cal Poly?
Ever since there was talk of the pac10 expanding to 16 teams I was always fond of the 16 team conference.
Two 8 team divisions.
Every year you play the 7 teams in your division + 4 teams from the other division for a total of 11 conference games.
With 8 teams in the other division, over a 4 year collegiate career you would be guaranteed 1 home game and 1 road game against every team in the other division.
Winner of the division is based on games against your division only, using the other games only as tie breakers. This gets rid of "luck of the draw" on which teams in the opposing division you play and their strength.
Winner of each division plays each other in the conference championship.
Champion is guaranteed access to the playoffs.
Best of all, we could have gone back to the pac8 as one division.
Of course a 10 team conference playing 9 conference games each is better...but that wasn't an option at the time.
Two 8 team divisions.
Every year you play the 7 teams in your division + 4 teams from the other division for a total of 11 conference games.
With 8 teams in the other division, over a 4 year collegiate career you would be guaranteed 1 home game and 1 road game against every team in the other division.
Winner of the division is based on games against your division only, using the other games only as tie breakers. This gets rid of "luck of the draw" on which teams in the opposing division you play and their strength.
Winner of each division plays each other in the conference championship.
Champion is guaranteed access to the playoffs.
Best of all, we could have gone back to the pac8 as one division.
Of course a 10 team conference playing 9 conference games each is better...but that wasn't an option at the time.
If there is no bowl season, this has a lot going for it.OaktownBear said:How about this. North teams play each other in pool play. South teams play each other in pool play. We seed. Top 2 teams in each pool get a bye. Bottom 4 in each play each other. Single elimination tourney from there with consolation games! Everyone plays 8 or 9 games.wifeisafurd said:while I agree, it looks like 10 game schedules so there flex weekends built in. The Big 10, which has 14 teams, said they are looking to get "at least" 10 games.Sebastabear said:
The idea of playing 10 of the other 11 teams seems weird and nonsensical to me. If we're going to have an all conference slate then let's have an ALL conference slate.*
* the foregoing is in no way colored by the fact that Cal would get to pick up the two weakest teams in the Pac-12 (Colorado and AZ) and would accordingly be benefited more than anyone by going to an all conference slate. Nope. Not colored at all.
My preference is play everyone so all teams are on an equal footing. The reality (as opposed to my preference) will be determined by the virus, health officials and lot of other factors out of the conference's hands, and I understand if they build flexibility into their model. And no *****ing if the Big Game day is moved!.
(I know this isn't realistic)
I like the structure, but only playing one noncon game a year would be tough. For this year, I'm kind of on board with playing a 10 game Pac slate all against the North. It would make our schedule way harder without getting the weaker South teams, but all 6 North teams playing a home and home against the 5 other North teams would make an even schedule and limit Covid exposure
Good thing you don't make the rules, because that sounds awful. I'd argue that OOC games are the most exciting. Matchups that don't usually happen are new and fresh. I'd rather watch Oregon play Ohio State this year than Oregon play USC every year. Whenever you have teams from different conferences match up with each other, it's just way more fun. Us vs. Texas?? North Carolina? Ole Miss? AUBURN?? These games (especially when the Pac plays east coast and southern teams) are always super exciting. Just a nice change of scenery.
Its coming.
Go Bears!
The season should start with all rivalry games just to make sure we get those out of the way.
Great idea. Why not.plus only bus travel and no overnight needed.CALiforniALUM said:
The season should start with all rivalry games just to make sure we get those out of the way.
Go Bears!
ARbear said:
Good thing you don't make the rules, because that sounds awful. I'd argue that OOC games are the most exciting. Matchups that don't usually happen are new and fresh. I'd rather watch Oregon play Ohio State this year than Oregon play USC every year. Whenever you have teams from different conferences match up with each other, it's just way more fun. Us vs. Texas?? North Carolina? Ole Miss? AUBURN?? These games (especially when the Pac plays east coast and southern teams) are always super exciting. Just a nice change of scenery.
Having 3 OOC sounds great in theory. In practice there is at most 1 interesting out of conference game per year per team. This year we drop Reno and Davis and keep TCU. Last year we drop Davis and North Texas and keep Ole Miss. Are we really missing out on that much losing those match ups?
Additionally, if winning your conference guarantees a spot in the playoffs you stand to lose a LOT less playing against elite competition making for that 1 out of conference game being MORE interesting each year on average.
You also have to remember when expanding to 16 teams was proposed, the additional teams to take us to 16 were Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. There would have been some good match ups in there.
Finally, I think it would be really interesting to scrap the current bowl system. Keep the premier bowls as sites for the playoffs. For the rest, make matchups for all of the teams. Have these set ahead of time regardless of the teams overall records.
Conference A #1 vs Conference B #1
Conference A #2 vs Conference C #2
Conference A #3 vs Conference D #3
Etc. Match like for like on depth in each conference. This should make for much more interesting match-ups than, say, us playing Ohio State when they are #1 and we go 1-11 on the year. Rotate which conference lands where. Let every team play in what would have been a "bowl game" where everyone gets the extra practice.
If you want to make it really interesting, make the conference records effect seeding in the playoffs. Start at the bottom (Conference A #16 vs conference B #16) and work your way up to the top. This should lead to more competitive games, and by making each one mean something it would raise interest in each. How likely am I to watch Oregon State vs South Carolina in a bowl game? Eh. If it might effect Cal's seeding in the playoffs? I'd be far more likely to watch it. And not just for the Beavers vs Gamecocks aspect.
This may sound stupid but with no live audience and all teams will be far less than 100% (illness, lack of conditioning and training camps), I wouldn't mind if the Pac-12 forfeit the whole season and structure instead shorter "exhibition" games to help reduce risks of infection and increase chance for team practices. Would be great for Cal to get develop its offense with the new OC with these exhibition games. Also easier on the athletes. Without proper conditioning because of Covid-19, a full football season would add to the injury risk. No?
HungryCalBear said:
This may sound stupid but with no live audience and all teams will be far less than 100% (illness, lack of conditioning and training camps), I wouldn't mind if the Pac-12 forfeit the whole season and structure instead shorter "exhibition" games to help reduce risks of infection and increase chance for team practices. Would be great for Cal to get develop its offense with the new OC with these exhibition games. Also easier on the athletes. Without proper conditioning because of Covid-19, a full football season would add to the injury risk. No?
IMO the PAC-12 will probably decide to move the season to the Spring. Or scrap it entirely unless AZ and SoCal get control of the pandemic very quickly
Only problem is that teams with a bye re "punished" with one less gamewifeisafurd said:If there is no bowl season, this has a lot going for it.OaktownBear said:How about this. North teams play each other in pool play. South teams play each other in pool play. We seed. Top 2 teams in each pool get a bye. Bottom 4 in each play each other. Single elimination tourney from there with consolation games! Everyone plays 8 or 9 games.wifeisafurd said:while I agree, it looks like 10 game schedules so there flex weekends built in. The Big 10, which has 14 teams, said they are looking to get "at least" 10 games.Sebastabear said:
The idea of playing 10 of the other 11 teams seems weird and nonsensical to me. If we're going to have an all conference slate then let's have an ALL conference slate.*
* the foregoing is in no way colored by the fact that Cal would get to pick up the two weakest teams in the Pac-12 (Colorado and AZ) and would accordingly be benefited more than anyone by going to an all conference slate. Nope. Not colored at all.
My preference is play everyone so all teams are on an equal footing. The reality (as opposed to my preference) will be determined by the virus, health officials and lot of other factors out of the conference's hands, and I understand if they build flexibility into their model. And no *****ing if the Big Game day is moved!.
(I know this isn't realistic)
Was just thinking about some of the points you brought up.
Tell someone you love them and try to have a good day
Good non-conference games are usually the ones I look forward to the most. Especially if it allows fans to take a trip somewhere that they normally can't see their team play.
Sounds like a world cup format, no thanks.
I will not be unhappy about not playing UNLV, TCU, and the annual Division 1AA opponent. We should not play Division 1AA opponents. If we win the take is "So what?" If we lose it is a huge embarrassment. In addition we can lose players. If I remember correctly we lost Tre Watson for the season playing a Division 1AA opponent.
Variety is the spice of life... Ole Miss last season was epic and we loved visiting Memphis and Oxford!
1AA teams are useful tune-up games and players can be injured during practice. What's your point?
BTW, being afraid to lose is not a helpful mindset. How about focusing on playing well, instead?
BTW, being afraid to lose is not a helpful mindset. How about focusing on playing well, instead?
Heh Chase! I could care less about our non-conference schedule unless we are playing a ranked team. Bring on the PAC 12. King of the North!
Lets play football... I will take whatever schedule we can get.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Add Former 4 star Wisconsin DE TJ Bollers
by Jim McGill
Bears Add Maryland Portal Tight End Corey Dyches
by Jim McGill
Cal Duo Earns Pac-12 Weekly Honors
by Cal Athletics