Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Should the Pac-12 play an 8-game conference schedule?

How many conference games should the Pac-12 play?

  • 9

    Votes: 45 63.4%

  • 8

    Votes: 26 36.6%
  • Total voters
    71
Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Oregon is 10-2. Both losses were in conference games.

UCLA is 9-3. All 3 losses were in conference games.

Stanford is 11-2. Both losses were in conference games.

Same with Arizona, Washington and others - all losses were to Pac-12 teams.

In short, playing a 9-game conference schedule ends up putting extra losses on Pac-12 teams. Compare with the SEC, which has 14 teams but only plays 8 conference games. Many of them were taking a break in the middle of their conference schedule to play 1AA or Sun Belt teams in November.

Will the 9-game schedule benefit the Pac-12 when we go to a playoff and Strength of Schedule comes into play?

Or is it simply human nature for voters to look at a 10-2 team that played 9 conference games and 2 other BCS opponents in the non-conference (like Oregon) and rate it lower than an 11-1 team that played 8 conference games and 1 other BCS opponent in the non-conference (like Ohio State)?

No conference played a tougher schedule this year than the Pac-12. The Pac-12 won big in its non-conference matchups. The Pac-12 has 1 team in BCS bowl games.
 
Can't believe you forgot to include Colorado. And I say it is too early. if the playoff panel starts rewarding SOS, then no. If it doesn't back down to 8.
 
**** that. In the new set-up SOS is taken into consideration. The other power conference will not be able to schedule soft and only have 8 conference games.
 
Big 12 plays 9 and B1G is starting in a year or two now that they've added Maryland and Rutgers. I'm guessing the ACC and SEC aren't that far behind.
 
**** the way the SEC does things. Half of the SEC sucks ass annually anyway, so one more conference game is just as likely to be a cupcake as a tough game.

I'd rather be in a conference that does the right thing than a pussified one.

Besides - the more conference games we play, the more chances we get to play in our recruiting areas.
 
9+ no more mid majors, no more DII. I think the schedules should be about challenging teams. Play the hardest non conference as possible then your conference. I miss the days where ALL of our games truly meant something (Tennessee to start the season, Miami, Michigan, Florida St., Georgia, etc) - of course every team should follow this model... No more husker schedules. That's my opinion. I also want us to be competitive like the old days to go along with said schedule.
 
I like 9.

Frankly, I'd like to see a 13-game schedule so we could justify playing 11 Pac-12 games every year with 2 non-conference matchups.
 
I think we're headed to 14-game schedules anyway, so everybody will *probably* end up with 10-game conference schedules before too long.
 
sackman said:
I think we're headed to 14-game schedules anyway, so everybody will *probably* end up with 10-game conference schedules before too long.
Click to expand...

Not happening. At least with the current bowl system. It simply doesn't fit in the academic calendar, plus with a playoff you would be looking at a potential of 17 games for a playoff team. That would simply be too rigorous both from an educational and physical standpoint.
 
8 seems more traditional and is my preference in this case. Play everyone in the South every year then half of the North, which alternates every two years after a home and away. Plus this would give us 4 non-conf games, which to me is more interesting than seeing the same teams every year in conf play.
 
BuffClass90 said:
8 seems more traditional and is my preference in this case. Play everyone in the South every year then half of the North, which alternates every two years after a home and away. Plus this would give us 4 non-conf games, which to me is more interesting than seeing the same teams every year in conf play.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this method as well. It is very clean. But it must be consistent for all major conferences and SOS needs to be taken into account when selecting teams for the playoff.
 
Allowing more out of conference games could benefit us. With 8 conference games, that leaves 4 left right? Re-ignite the rivalry with Air Force, play CSU every year, BCS school... and we could maybe add Wyoming, or New Mexico (New Mexico State) etc. The teams that are geographically close that we fight for recruits with sometimes.
 
skinsfan55 said:
Allowing more out of conference games could benefit us. With 8 conference games, that leaves 4 left right? Re-ignite the rivalry with Air Force, play CSU every year, BCS school... and we could maybe add Wyoming, or New Mexico (New Mexico State) etc. The teams that are geographically close that we fight for recruits with sometimes.
Click to expand...
There are more things wrong with this post than I thought were possible.
1) AFA will not play us in football due to historical issues.
2) The sooner we get out from under the CSU contract, the better, as there is no benefit to CU.
3) While we may sometimes compete with WY, NM, and NM St for recruits, it is a symbol of all that is wrong with CU right now in our down times and shouldn't be reinforced.

Other than that, no problems here with the ideas presented...
 
skinsfan55 said:
Allowing more out of conference games could benefit us. With 8 conference games, that leaves 4 left right? Re-ignite the rivalry with Air Force, play CSU every year, BCS school... and we could maybe add Wyoming, or New Mexico (New Mexico State) etc. The teams that are geographically close that we fight for recruits with sometimes.
Click to expand...

fyi - we don't fight for recruits with them. And if we ever do, it's a very bad sign for the state of CU football.
 
9 conference games definitely makes for a tougher schedule, but Stanford must really be kicking themselves. They lost nail-biters to Utah (still don't understand that one) and USC (excusable under the circumstances, but still no way they should have lost). Without those they'd be playing FSU for the title.
 
1.) That was years ago. If there's a fit, why hold a grudge over something that happened in the 70's?
2.) Personally I like the Rocky Mountain Showdown. Isn't playing in an NFL stadium once a year a draw to some recruits? Also, I thought it was a pretty good money maker.
3.) Obviously we should be beating those guys for recruits, but we usually offer or show interest in the same players due to geography.
 
I don't think a committee is going to be able to withstand the political pressure of passing on a 1 loss team over a 2 loss team, unless the circumstances are extraordinary. But I still like more conference games. All play all would be awesome.
 
zbuff said:
I don't think a committee is going to be able to withstand the political pressure of passing on a 1 loss team over a 2 loss team, unless the circumstances are extraordinary. But I still like more conference games. All play all would be awesome.
Click to expand...

For teams in the 5 major conferences that will most likely be the case.
 
skinsfan55 said:
1.) That was years ago. If there's a fit, why hold a grudge over something that happened in the 70's?
2.) Personally I like the Rocky Mountain Showdown. Isn't playing in an NFL stadium once a year a draw to some recruits? Also, I thought it was a pretty good money maker.
3.) Obviously we should be beating those guys for recruits, but we usually offer or show interest in the same players due to geography.
Click to expand...

1 - it's not us, it's them. They've been asked.
2 - it can be a money maker for CSU, and they can afford to pay us more for their "home" years. CU makes the same playing at Folsom as being the "home" team in Denver, and would make more playing another team on the road in the "away" games. Basically no financial benefit to CU.
3 - the way it traditionally works, and the way we'll get back to soon, is if we offer a local recruit, he would never consider the other local schools, it will be us vs the out of state BCS schools.
 
sackman said:
I think we're headed to 14-game schedules anyway, so everybody will *probably* end up with 10-game conference schedules before too long.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that, that would be a 17 game schedule for those teams that play in the championship (possibly 18 games if they play at Hawaii)
 
skinsfan55 said:
Allowing more out of conference games could benefit us. With 8 conference games, that leaves 4 left right? Re-ignite the rivalry with Air Force, play CSU every year, BCS school... and we could maybe add Wyoming, or New Mexico (New Mexico State) etc. The teams that are geographically close that we fight for recruits with sometimes.
Click to expand...
In terms of just making a bowl it would, we could possibly only need 2 conference victories.
 
scotth92 said:
There are more things wrong with this post than I thought were possible.
1) AFA will not play us in football due to historical issues.
2) The sooner we get out from under the CSU contract, the better, as there is no benefit to CU.
3) While we may sometimes compete with WY, NM, and NM St for recruits, it is a symbol of all that is wrong with CU right now in our down times and shouldn't be reinforced.

Other than that, no problems here with the ideas presented...
Click to expand...
I'd be better with it if we moved our home games to Folsom.
 
skinsfan55 said:
1.) That was years ago. If there's a fit, why hold a grudge over something that happened in the 70's?
2.) Personally I like the Rocky Mountain Showdown. Isn't playing in an NFL stadium once a year a draw to some recruits? Also, I thought it was a pretty good money maker.
3.) Obviously we should be beating those guys for recruits, but we usually offer or show interest in the same players due to geography.
Click to expand...
It be bigger a draw if they could actually fill the place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top