Play 8, just like everyone else
Play 9, be different and better
I like cheese
Assuming the Pacific Athletic Conference expands to 12 teams and CU is one of the additions, do you want the conference to continue playing 9 in-conference football games every season? Other conferences (whether 10, 11 or 12 teams) only play an 8 game conference schedule.
With a 12-team conference and 8-game in-conference slate, you get the 5 division teams every season plus the teams in the other division 1/2 or 2/4 years (depending on how it's organized). With this, you'd get a home-and-home with everyone in the other division on a 4-year schedule.
By going to a 9th game, you'd play 4 of the 6 other division teams every year. With this, you'd get a home-and-home with everyone in the other division on a 3-year schedule.
Pros: Truer conference champion. Stronger rivalries with non-division teams.
Cons: Unbalanced conference schedule (4 home / 5 away or vice versa). More difficult to make bowl game with removal of patsy.
Edit: A Pac 12 Network and the conference tv contracts would likely be a lot stronger with 9 in-conference games. So that's another Pro.
What do you guys think?
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. - Alex Levine
I like cheese.
I also think 9 conference games would give you a more representative league champion. It would also give you an even number of teams not played each year, which would make scheduling somewhat easier.
And if other conferences expand beyond 12, they are almost going to have to go to 9 conference games. I think it could easily become the new standard, honestly...
If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading - Lao Tzu
The pride and tradition of the Colorado Buffaloes will not be entrusted to the timid or the weak
The unbalanced home game thing will probably prevent it if I'm reading your proposal correctly and you wouldn't always have the same number of home games. Teams need those home games from a revenue perspective from both ticket sales and contractual agreements with sponsors. That was one of the issues with doing the CSU game at Mile High because sponsors were supposed to have a guarantee of X number of home games for their money.
Playing 9 conference games hampers the ability of the conference to send two teams BCS bowling.
Quite frankly, nobody talks about how Florida doesn't leave the state for OOC games, or talks about Alabama scheduling patsies while those two are in the national championship hunt.
If 9 games becomes the standard so be it. If you're the only conference doing it, it just makes it harder for two conference teams to get high $$$$ bowls.
Unless all other conferences do it, keep it at eight IMO...
This.Originally Posted by Junction
But 1 or 2 of those OOC games for Florida is FSU and usually either Miami or USF. As for Bama, one of their OOC games this past year was that patsy Virginia Tech.
Last edited by CarolinaBuff; 02-28-2010 at 12:53 AM.
nm
That's going to be a tough one for CU. The current PAC teams deal with it already. We'd be left with only 2 home dates if there are 9 in-conference games (since our 10th game is CSU in Denver). That leaves us with 2 open dates every year. We'd have to figure out how to have 1 home game in the years when the PAC schedule favors us and both 2 as home games in the years when the PAC schedule doesn't favor us. Not an easy task. I believe the only way it works is if we are willing to play a 1-AA team (or 1-A patsy) every year that will come to Boulder for a sacrificial payday.
Gruyere + Emmenthaler + Black Pepper + White Wine + Garlic + Flour. Melt. Dip toasted french bread.
incorrect.
No pepper, Corn Starch not flour, and you forgot Kirsch.
"Don't argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
ENTJ
I just want to be in the division with USC/UCLA/Stanford/Cal or at least one from Socal and one from Norcal. If we get stuck with being in the same division with Utah and the Oregon/Washingtons, then it is only slightly better than what we have now.
My Aviation and Nature Photography: [URL="http://timsamples.smugmug.com"]timsamples.smugmug.com[/URL]
That's fine, but at least each school can choose their OOC schedule. Rivalry games in this manner can continue even if teams are no longer in the same conference if desired. I like playing one tough OOC, one "B" lister and one or two patsies, myself...
I guess my point is that conference games are the toughest. Even when your team is dominating, a lowly conference foe may knock you out because they are so familiar with you. Look who has beaten USC the past couple of years, this year notwithstanding...
If playing 9 games, or even better, everyone in your conference is more realistic in creating a true champion (which I do think it is), then why is the Pac currently slammed for not having a CG? Even when it's the only conference where determining the winner is based off playing all conference foes?
Again, unless all conferences are playing 9 conference games, it will hurt your conference in the post-season. Whether one likes that or not is debatable, but I don't think there's any question that the Pac playing a 9th conference game currently without a CG is hurting the conference tremendously. The new reality of college football is to pad your OOC schedule with wins, win a conference CG, then cruise to the MNC game unless two other conferences have teams with the same record...
That's joy of cooking's recipe and it's not as good as mine.
Just because you have a conference title game doesn't automatically mean dividing the conference into divisions. You could have the two top teams in the unified conference standings play each other in the title game.
Then, if you keep 9 conference games, you have one team you play each other every year, and play the other 10 teams 8 years out of ten. That way, everybody gets to play in socal for recruiting, you don't have to worry about a weak division/strong division making a joke of the title game, the revenue would be less likely to get wildly lopsided, etc.
I do not think any Pac expansion will result in a north south conference alignment.
It would IMO be a detriment to the Pac, much the way the current Big XII alignment is.
I see a East-West or random split instead. For it to really work, all teams must play in L.A. every single year. Love it or hate it, it simply has to happen for the conference to truly thrive...
9 games so teams in the conference don't have as many chances to schedule Northsoutheast Idaho Tech in preparation for the season. More good games is good for college football.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
