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?
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Never been a fan of 9. Something just makes sense about having equal conference home/road per year and an extra OOC game is appealing both for teams fighting for a bowl and reducing conference losses for our contenders.
No vote, but leaning towards 9. I want to see great games every week, including out of conference. OOC games can sometimes be more interesting for the change up to the norm. Just make sure they are all Div I (perhaps every team can have one early crappy team game for a primer if we add an extra game to all schedules.)
I believe the key to all this is an end of season playoff even up to 16 teams (no more.) I don't drink the koolaid about every game being important in the status quo like some people do. It is college football. Every game will be important and full of passion no matter what, and more good games will come if a team can accept an early season "growing pains" loss.
I believe the key to all this is an end of season playoff even up to 16 teams (no more.) I don't drink the koolaid about every game being important in the status quo like some people do. It is college football. Every game will be important and full of passion no matter what, and more good games will come if a team can accept an early season "growing pains" loss.
jahbrahakala
Member
9+
A team should beat at least most of their conference to win it. 8 just opens up more debate about who deserves to be in conference title. Definately feel a team should win their conference to play for a NC.
Hearing an RPI style system will be used for future playoffs and teams will be scrambling for BCS noncon slates. Bad for FCS, but the predicted trend. Will have to see if the SEC can foil it.
A team should beat at least most of their conference to win it. 8 just opens up more debate about who deserves to be in conference title. Definately feel a team should win their conference to play for a NC.
Hearing an RPI style system will be used for future playoffs and teams will be scrambling for BCS noncon slates. Bad for FCS, but the predicted trend. Will have to see if the SEC can foil it.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
The SEC will schedule extra games with SEC teams so the only losses SEC teams have are to SEC teams, there by proving the dominance of the SEC and proving that all four teams should come from the SEC.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
Brilliant!
I like 8 conference games, unless the schedule is expanded to 13 regular season games. There is more scheduling variety to be had with 4 non-conference games, and our current format somehow allows us to play Oregon six straight seasons. If we were forced to play Texas or OU that often, we would not have won as much hardware in the Big 12.
BlackNGold
Club Member
The PAC has had a 9 game schedule since the 12th game became a standard schedule (2007). It will have more to do with TV revenues in the future than anything else especially with the Pac12 network. I think 9 is here to stay.
The Big 12 got rid of the Championship game because they felt it hurt their odds of going to the CG but that has not worked out for them.
The Big 12 got rid of the Championship game because they felt it hurt their odds of going to the CG but that has not worked out for them.
cubuffs85
Active Member
No because you need 12 teams to have the game.
cubuffs85
Active Member
What about UConn?:rofl:
BuffaloChuck
Member
Blow up all the conferences. Create sixteen 8-team conferences (ie, a 7-game conference schedule). Add in 3-4 non-conf games. Add in a season-ending Full Conference A vs. Full Conference B "pride bowl" game for all teams - #1 meets #1, the #2's play each other, the #3's, #4's, #8 vs #8. The Pride Bowl.
Then the 8 winners of the #1's Game moves onto to the four-game playoff, then the Final Four, then the National Champ.
Blow up all the conferences as they are now. Create sixteen 8-team conferences and have a real playoff system. So MANY more bowl games, and the 3-4 non-conf games could be 'pre-season' hypes - using "3" if "4" is judged too heavy of burden. Or even 2 pre-season games, although Home Field money is huge these days at the big stadiums, although stadiums with puny 40-60k levels have always 'done without'.
Then the 8 winners of the #1's Game moves onto to the four-game playoff, then the Final Four, then the National Champ.
Blow up all the conferences as they are now. Create sixteen 8-team conferences and have a real playoff system. So MANY more bowl games, and the 3-4 non-conf games could be 'pre-season' hypes - using "3" if "4" is judged too heavy of burden. Or even 2 pre-season games, although Home Field money is huge these days at the big stadiums, although stadiums with puny 40-60k levels have always 'done without'.
The only possible way to an 8 game PAC schedule would screw CU - we need a 9 game schedule.
You have start from the fact that for some reason it's really important to the California teams that they all play each other every year. I don't think they really give a **** about divisional splits so long as they play each other. The rest of the schools in the PAC care about the divisional splits (aka playing games in the conference's biggest recruiting area).
With the schedule right now, all non CA schools play 3 games in CA every 2 years. UW, WSU, OU and OSU play in the Bay area every year, and in LA every other year. ASU, UA, UU and CU play in the Bay area every other year, and LA every year. An eight game conference schedule with the current division split would end up with UW, WSU, OU and OSU playing in LA once every 4 years, and ASU, UA, UU and CU playing in the Bay area once every 4 years. CU/Cal and UO/USC would only play each other once every 4 years (kind of hard to be a member of the same conference and only play each other once every 4 years...). The point here is that an 8 game conference schedule with the current divisions sucks for 8 of the conference teams. Do you really think UO would rather schedule an annual body-bag game in Autzen vs what is essentially a home/away series against a rotation of USC and UCLA?
So, what about changing the divisions? You'd have to put all the CA schools in one division for their insistence on playing each other every year to not **** up the schedule. If you start with the four CA schools, the only way to make a geographic division even make remote sense is to put the AZ schools in with them. The problem is that screws CU (and UU); an 8 game schedule with that divisional split would mean we would give up our annual [strike]recruiting weekend[/strike] away game in LA. Basically, CU and UU would go from a game in LA every year and a game in SF every other year, to one CA game a year that alternates between LA and SF. UW, WSU, UO & OSU would go from one game in SF every year and an LA game every other year, to the same one game per year alternating between the bay area and LA as UU and CU would have. On the other hand, AU and ASU would be all about this split.
Count up the votes for changes:
8 games with current divisions:
For: 0
Against: 8 (UW, WSU, UO, OSU, UU, CU, ASU, UA)
"We get what we want either way": 4 (Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA)
8 games with changed divisions:
For: 2 (ASU, UA)
Against: (UW, WSU, UO, OSU, UU, CU)
"We get what we want either way": 4 (Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA)
If you could come up with a compelling reason (and $ is probably the only thing compelling enough), you might be able to move the 4 "don't give a ****" votes into the "Yes" column, but even then you only have a plurality. Basically, it would probably take the potential of a big pot of additional money to move any of the 6 "No" votes into the "Yes" column, and it would take an even bigger pot of potential money to get the 4 CA schools to give up their annual games. From where we are right now, I just don't see how a move to an 8 game schedule increases revenues (for every team) by a meaningful enough amount to overcome the other scheduling issues.
Quick note: any sort of "pod" schedule coupled with an 8 game schedule creates the same types of dynamics, it just complicates them a little bit. Assume the CA schools all play each other every year in whatever system is devised (pretty safe assumption, I really think you'd have to throw a lot of money at them to get them to rethink this). With a 9 game conference schedule there are 12 games in CA available each year for the other 8 schools to divide up. Right now, everyone gets exactly 1.5 of those games each year (1 game one year, 2 games the next). If you go to an 8 game schedule, there are 10 CA games available for the other schools to divide up. The same number of schools fighting over a shrinking resource is not a good situation for any conference: I think this conference is smart enough to not artificially create such a situation.
You have start from the fact that for some reason it's really important to the California teams that they all play each other every year. I don't think they really give a **** about divisional splits so long as they play each other. The rest of the schools in the PAC care about the divisional splits (aka playing games in the conference's biggest recruiting area).
With the schedule right now, all non CA schools play 3 games in CA every 2 years. UW, WSU, OU and OSU play in the Bay area every year, and in LA every other year. ASU, UA, UU and CU play in the Bay area every other year, and LA every year. An eight game conference schedule with the current division split would end up with UW, WSU, OU and OSU playing in LA once every 4 years, and ASU, UA, UU and CU playing in the Bay area once every 4 years. CU/Cal and UO/USC would only play each other once every 4 years (kind of hard to be a member of the same conference and only play each other once every 4 years...). The point here is that an 8 game conference schedule with the current divisions sucks for 8 of the conference teams. Do you really think UO would rather schedule an annual body-bag game in Autzen vs what is essentially a home/away series against a rotation of USC and UCLA?
So, what about changing the divisions? You'd have to put all the CA schools in one division for their insistence on playing each other every year to not **** up the schedule. If you start with the four CA schools, the only way to make a geographic division even make remote sense is to put the AZ schools in with them. The problem is that screws CU (and UU); an 8 game schedule with that divisional split would mean we would give up our annual [strike]recruiting weekend[/strike] away game in LA. Basically, CU and UU would go from a game in LA every year and a game in SF every other year, to one CA game a year that alternates between LA and SF. UW, WSU, UO & OSU would go from one game in SF every year and an LA game every other year, to the same one game per year alternating between the bay area and LA as UU and CU would have. On the other hand, AU and ASU would be all about this split.
Count up the votes for changes:
8 games with current divisions:
For: 0
Against: 8 (UW, WSU, UO, OSU, UU, CU, ASU, UA)
"We get what we want either way": 4 (Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA)
8 games with changed divisions:
For: 2 (ASU, UA)
Against: (UW, WSU, UO, OSU, UU, CU)
"We get what we want either way": 4 (Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA)
If you could come up with a compelling reason (and $ is probably the only thing compelling enough), you might be able to move the 4 "don't give a ****" votes into the "Yes" column, but even then you only have a plurality. Basically, it would probably take the potential of a big pot of additional money to move any of the 6 "No" votes into the "Yes" column, and it would take an even bigger pot of potential money to get the 4 CA schools to give up their annual games. From where we are right now, I just don't see how a move to an 8 game schedule increases revenues (for every team) by a meaningful enough amount to overcome the other scheduling issues.
Quick note: any sort of "pod" schedule coupled with an 8 game schedule creates the same types of dynamics, it just complicates them a little bit. Assume the CA schools all play each other every year in whatever system is devised (pretty safe assumption, I really think you'd have to throw a lot of money at them to get them to rethink this). With a 9 game conference schedule there are 12 games in CA available each year for the other 8 schools to divide up. Right now, everyone gets exactly 1.5 of those games each year (1 game one year, 2 games the next). If you go to an 8 game schedule, there are 10 CA games available for the other schools to divide up. The same number of schools fighting over a shrinking resource is not a good situation for any conference: I think this conference is smart enough to not artificially create such a situation.