new rivalries

[@&$;ing Mike]

Mac1 called out nu, mac 2 should do the same with sc. Hate those smug ***holes

 

[goalline]

We should make a trophy and dare Alabama to come take it.

 

[Duff Man]

How about Mike MacIntyre just does his own thing?

 

[Highlander]

I think there might be some uncertainty about how much longer the cali teams will continue playing eachother every year and this is why there is a hold on the schedule right now.

Yeah. I heard something about that. Not sure they want it as much as they did and the other 8 certainly don't like it.

That's a great reason to not publish a long term schedule!

 

[sackman]

USC will likely become one since they are consistently pretty good, and everybody universally seems to hate them, both good attributes of a solid rivalry. I see them as the new cornholers over the next 10-20 years.

Without the meth addled mouth breathing inbreds! Win!

 

[Buffnik]

Mac1 called out nu, mac 2 should do the same with sc. Hate those smug ***holes

Totally different.

1. Border State.
2. They only had 1 other rival.
3. Their existing rival had a bigger rival.
4. Long history already existed.

To USC, CU has to get in line behind Notre Dame and UCLA. There are several PAC-12 programs in that line ahead of CU already.

No geographic proximity.

USC's existing rivals already circle the game as its main game for fans, boosters and recruiting.

Very little history.

I honestly don't see the logic here other than "Mac1 did a crazy thing 30 years ago, it worked, so Mac2 needs to do a similar but crazier thing since we believe lightening will strike twice."

We need to chart a new path and let things happen naturally. Maybe Utah. Maybe someone else. Maybe no one (lots of great programs don't have a huge rivalry game).

 

[sackman]

Wait, so are Cal and Stanford softening on their "we have to play USC and UCLA every year" demand? IIRC, it wasn't USC and UCLA making the demands. Those two couldn't care less. It was all about keeping Cal and Stanford happy.

 

[Alfred91]

lots of great programs don't have a huge rivalry game

Not really arguing, but I can't think of one.

 

[jizzrag85]

This. All this. Rivalries are created by playing on the field. You can't force it. It starts with something happening, one team gets screwed in some way, they hate it. You develop a dislike of that school, of that program. Hell, for the existence of it, we haven't given two ****s about a CSU rivalry until recent history when they won some games and we slid to the depths of CFB. Now that we're back and the clear dominant school again, CSU will go by the wayside. It's always been a they hate us and we pretend to care rivalry anyways.
Nebraska can suck a bag of dicks...**** those guys. That's a rivalry. If a meteor crashed into Earth, only hitting Nebraska and wiping that godforsaken *** stain off of planet Earth I would stand up and cheer, and ask if I could get the meteor's autograph.
I have no use for Texas. **** Texas!

Hahahaha this is great. These are the kinds of things I say to my GF that make her give me strange looks and ask me what's wrong with me. Perfect.

 

[sackman]

Not really arguing, but I can't think of one.

I can't, either. Maybe Tennessee?

Big programs create big games. Big games, when played annually, become rivalries. That's how it works.

 

[skibum]

Understandable - but they still have some kind of master plan, right? Doesn't the conference know which teams will be playing each other for the next 5-6 years barring realignment? From what I can tell, we don't even find out who north opponents will be more than a year or two out.

I like the fact they hold the dates to try to optimize TV revenue, but surely they can allow us to know who we will playing and whether it is home or away years out on the schedule. Yes, I like to look at these things.

I think there might be some uncertainty about how much longer the cali teams will continue playing eachother every year and this is why there is a hold on the schedule right now.

Yeah. I heard something about that. Not sure they want it as much as they did and the other 8 certainly don't like it.

The non division schedule is an 8 year cycle, so you can work it out. I think it's sort of smart to not set it in stone years in advance, but...
the further into the 8 year cycle you get, the easier it is to work out who is going to play whom. In terms of them changing it going forward, I think I remember the thought was that the conference would go through one full cycle, and then revisit the Cali special exemption.

There's no easy way to work through the numbers; the best approach is to start with a Cali school, and once you work it on their end, to switch to a non-Cali school from the other division and work it from there.

I'm going to pick Cal, just because it's easier to do this with a name on the school:
They have 9 conference games each year.
5 of them are against the other P12 North Schools
2 of them are against USC and UCLA
2 of them are against the non-Cali P12 South schools.

That last line is key: they have two games with which they have to work a rotation of 4 teams. It would take 2 years to play those four teams one time each, and 4 years to complete a home and home series with each of them. (or you could do it other way: 2 years to complete a home and home with 2 teams, then another 2 years to do the home and home with the other 2).

Now switch to a non-Cali school in a different division from Cal, let's go with Colorado, but instead of just looking at one year, we'll start at the four year schedule dictated from the above math:
CU has 9 conference games each year, so a total of 36 games in four years.
20 of those 36 are against the other P12 South Schools
2 of those 36 are against Cal
2 of those 36 are against Stanford

This leaves 12 games to spread among 4 teams, which means we'll play UW, WSU, UO and OSU 3 times each during that 4 year span, but that means that the home/home series won't be even, so to even that out, we'll have to increase the number of years in the cycle. And because of the Cali schools playing each other every year, we can't add just two years, we have to increase by at least 4 years, which means 8 years for a full cycle.

So, over 8 years:
We will play the P12 South schools 8 times each.
We will play Stanford and Cal 4 times each.
We will play UW, WSU, UO and OSU 6 times each.

We are in year 6 of the 8 year cycle; by the end of this season, we will have played:
Stanford 4 games
Cal 2 games
UO 6 games
OSU 4 games
UW 4 games
WSU 4 games

So, in 2017 and 2018 we will play the P12 South plus:
Cal, OSU, UW and WSU.
No Oregon or Stanford.

And in 2019, all bets are off, because it's the start of a whole new cycle. About the only thing I can guarantee is that we will not play both Cal and Stanford in the same season, unless it involves the P12 Championship game.

 

[jizzrag85]

The non division schedule is an 8 year cycle, so you can work it out. I think it's sort of smart to not set it in stone years in advance, but...
the further into the 8 year cycle you get, the easier it is to work out who is going to play whom. In terms of them changing it going forward, I think I remember the thought was that the conference would go through one full cycle, and then revisit the Cali special exemption.

There's no easy way to work through the numbers; the best approach is to start with a Cali school, and once you work it on their end, to switch to a non-Cali school from the other division and work it from there.

I'm going to pick Cal, just because it's easier to do this with a name on the school:
They have 9 conference games each year.
5 of them are against the other P12 North Schools
2 of them are against USC and UCLA
2 of them are against the non-Cali P12 South schools.

That last line is key: they have two games with which they have to work a rotation of 4 teams. It would take 2 years to play those four teams one time each, and 4 years to complete a home and home series with each of them. (or you could do it other way: 2 years to complete a home and home with 2 teams, then another 2 years to do the home and home with the other 2).

Now switch to a non-Cali school in a different division from Cal, let's go with Colorado, but instead of just looking at one year, we'll start at the four year schedule dictated from the above math:
CU has 9 conference games each year, so a total of 36 games in four years.
20 of those 36 are against the other P12 South Schools
2 of those 36 are against Cal
2 of those 36 are against Stanford

This leaves 12 games to spread among 4 teams, which means we'll play UW, WSU, UO and OSU 3 times each during that 4 year span, but that means that the home/home series won't be even, so to even that out, we'll have to increase the number of years in the cycle. And because of the Cali schools playing each other every year, we can't add just two years, we have to increase by at least 4 years, which means 8 years for a full cycle.

So, over 8 years:
We will play the P12 South schools 8 times each.
We will play Stanford and Cal 4 times each.
We will play UW, WSU, UO and OSU 6 times each.

We are in year 6 of the 8 year cycle; by the end of this season, we will have played:
Stanford 4 games
Cal 2 games
UO 6 games
OSU 4 games
UW 4 games
WSU 4 games

So, in 2017 and 2018 we will play the P12 South plus:
Cal, OSU, UW and WSU.
No Oregon or Stanford.

And in 2019, all bets are off, because it's the start of a whole new cycle. About the only thing I can guarantee is that we will not play both Cal and Stanford in the same season, unless it involves the P12 Championship game.

That's the most convoluted conference rotation I've ever seen. No wonder I couldn't figure out why we weren't playing Washington this year.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Holy smokes, SkiBum. That was Mtn-esk.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

The non division schedule is an 8 year cycle, so you can work it out. I think it's sort of smart to not set it in stone years in advance, but...
the further into the 8 year cycle you get, the easier it is to work out who is going to play whom. In terms of them changing it going forward, I think I remember the thought was that the conference would go through one full cycle, and then revisit the Cali special exemption.

There's no easy way to work through the numbers; the best approach is to start with a Cali school, and once you work it on their end, to switch to a non-Cali school from the other division and work it from there.

I'm going to pick Cal, just because it's easier to do this with a name on the school:
They have 9 conference games each year.
5 of them are against the other P12 North Schools
2 of them are against USC and UCLA
2 of them are against the non-Cali P12 South schools.

That last line is key: they have two games with which they have to work a rotation of 4 teams. It would take 2 years to play those four teams one time each, and 4 years to complete a home and home series with each of them. (or you could do it other way: 2 years to complete a home and home with 2 teams, then another 2 years to do the home and home with the other 2).

Now switch to a non-Cali school in a different division from Cal, let's go with Colorado, but instead of just looking at one year, we'll start at the four year schedule dictated from the above math:
CU has 9 conference games each year, so a total of 36 games in four years.
20 of those 36 are against the other P12 South Schools
2 of those 36 are against Cal
2 of those 36 are against Stanford

This leaves 12 games to spread among 4 teams, which means we'll play UW, WSU, UO and OSU 3 times each during that 4 year span, but that means that the home/home series won't be even, so to even that out, we'll have to increase the number of years in the cycle. And because of the Cali schools playing each other every year, we can't add just two years, we have to increase by at least 4 years, which means 8 years for a full cycle.

So, over 8 years:
We will play the P12 South schools 8 times each.
We will play Stanford and Cal 4 times each.
We will play UW, WSU, UO and OSU 6 times each.

We are in year 6 of the 8 year cycle; by the end of this season, we will have played:
Stanford 4 games
Cal 2 games
UO 6 games
OSU 4 games
UW 4 games
WSU 4 games

So, in 2017 and 2018 we will play the P12 South plus:
Cal, OSU, UW and WSU.
No Oregon or Stanford.

And in 2019, all bets are off, because it's the start of a whole new cycle. About the only thing I can guarantee is that we will not play both Cal and Stanford in the same season, unless it involves the P12 Championship game.

So we get to avoid Oregon and Stanford just as those programs are falling off a cliff.

 

[skibum]

So we get to avoid Oregon and Stanford just as those programs are falling off a cliff.

Pretty much.

But, at least we avoided UW in the season that they are world beaters.

 

[sackman]

Stanford isn't falling off a cliff. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they are still better than Cal next year.

Replacing Oregon with UW is going to leave a mark.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Stanford isn't falling off a cliff. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they are still better than Cal next year.

Replacing Oregon with UW is going to leave a mark.

They've been slipping from consistently top 10 to just another bowl team.

 

[scoob]

So we get to avoid Oregon and Stanford just as those programs are falling off a cliff.

It will make our case for the playoffs stronger this way.

 

[sackman]

They've been slipping from consistently top 10 to just another bowl team.

Last year they were the first ones out of the playoff. They're having a down year. That's all. Don't write Stanford's epitaph just yet.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I can't, either. Maybe Tennessee?

Big programs create big games. Big games, when played annually, become rivalries. That's how it works.

Florida is a pretty big rivalry with Tennessee, no?

What about Wisconsin? Minnesota? Texas Tech? ****Baylor? TCU? Kentucky? Missouri? Clemson? I'm not saying these teams don't have "rivals", but if they do, I'm not really aware of them.

 

[sackman]

Florida is a pretty big rivalry with Tennessee, no?

What about Wisconsin? Minnesota? Texas Tech? ****Baylor? TCU? Kentucky? Missouri? Clemson? I'm not saying these teams don't have "rivals", but if they do, I'm not really aware of them.

Wisconsin and Minnesota is a huge rivalry that goes back Mike 100 years. I wouldn't call Tech, bailer, TCU, Missouri, or Kentucky big time programs. Clemson and South Carolina is a massive rivalry.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Wisconsin and Minnesota is a huge rivalry that goes back Mike 100 years. I wouldn't call Tech, bailer, TCU, Missouri, or Kentucky big time programs. Clemson and South Carolina is a massive rivalry.

Wisconsin/Minn doesn't scream big time rivalry to me, but fair enough. As I said, not as familiar with some programs/rivalries.

 

[sackman]

I suspect that after a while, Utah and the Arizona schools will end up being our rivals. It's going to take some time though.

 

[bigbang2]

Nebraska is still the most hated rival. No one can ever replace them.

 

[Buffnik]

Not really arguing, but I can't think of one.

Tennesssee
Penn State
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU
VA Tech

There are big games and certainly opponents they care more about, but nothing like certain programs that have that one game.

 

[JCOLE12010]

I suspect that after a while, Utah and the Arizona schools will end up being our rivals. It's going to take some time though.

NO! I HATE the AZ schools especially asu, I suppose that's part of a rivalry, but NO!! USC and UUU will be fine!

 

[Alfred91]

Tennessee
Penn State
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU
VA Tech

There are big games and certainly opponents they care more about, but nothing like certain programs that have that one game.

I can accept some of those. I guess I look at A&M and think that the rivalry with UT is still there and the game will return. As far as LSU and Arkansas, don't they play a rivalry game against each other?

 

[sackman]

NO! I HATE the AZ schools especially asu, I suppose that's part of a rivalry, but NO!! USC and UUU will be fine!

I'm not sure you fully grasp how rivalries work. Hate is a significant contributing factor.

 

[Highlander]

I can accept some of those. I guess I look at A&M and think that the rivalry with UT is still there and the game will return. As far as LSU and Arkansas, don't they play a rivalry game against each other?

There are no A&M vs UT games on the schedule. I believe Texas swore they would never, ever play them again after they dumped the Big 12 conference. Things can change over time, but that is the current situation.

 

[CVilleBuff]

Despite VT dominating UVA lately, that's a clear in-state rivalry. There's no team either side would rather beat in the regular season for 98% of the fan base. It's a game that can make a bad season into one much sweeter.

For CU, our only way for rivalries is to continuously be in the thick of it to win the South and reach the P12CG. That's where our rivalries will from - facing a UU or someone with the stakes high year after year. Although unlike some of you, I'd like to play Nebraska on a semi-regular basis and keep it as somewhat of a historic rivalry. With conference realignment separating so many rivals, bowl games and OOC games provide a link to keep historic rivalries somewhat alive.