Should the Pac-10 keep the round robin?

by Nashville on Aug 26, 2009 3:20 PM PDT Comment 29 comments

Hey all. I wanted to alert you guys to a Fan Post I just wrote for CGB focusing on what the Pac-10 as a whole gains, and loses, as a result of the round robin. As you guys are our brothers in arms, thought you might want to check it out. There was a lot of talk about the round robin earlier this summer, but with football season practically upon us, I figured it was a good time to actually look through some of the numbers.

Thanks!

LINK

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Definitely keep the round robin. The old way ended up being a confusing mess and led to some really unfortunate home/away splits between Pac-10 teams (UW playing 5 out of 7 years in Autzen, playing the Beavers 5 out of 7 years in Husky Stadium, etc), and if we have the ability to play every other conference team every year, we should.

I know other conferences generally have a greater number of OOC games where they can fatten up on weak competition to have a glossier W/L record, but just like I don’t think the UW should schedule Div 1-AA teams, I don’t think we in the Pac-10 should lower ourselves to what everyone else is doing in terms of OOC games. Keep the round robin.

by kirkd on Aug 26, 2009 6:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I disagree and agree a bit

Playing eight conference games means every year you have four at home and four on the road. with round robin you have one extra tough conference game and every other year you play five on the road and four at home.

If all conferences did this fine. Since all don’t we are at a disadvantage.

by John Berkowitz on Aug 26, 2009 7:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This polemic involving PAC 10's scheduling can be settled quite simply

ALL PAC 10 TEAMS PLAYING “TOUGH” OOC MATCHUPS OR MAKING IT TO A TOP TIER BOWL GAME MUST WIN THEIR GAMES!!!!!!!!!

It’s that simple.

Listen, the Pac 10 won’t get any respect if fUcla loses to Tennessee, if Cal loses to Maryland, if Oregon loses to Michigan. . . .etc, etc. Yes, the Pac 10 ran the table in their bowl games, but guess what? That’s just a start.

We can’t help it that coaches let their assistants fill out their USA Today coaches ballots, or that the mainstream media rarely watch late left coast games- what we can do to help ourselves is TO WIN OUR OOC & BOWL GAMES.

Win against the Big East, Big Televen, Big 12, SEC, ACC, MOUNTAIN WEST!!!!, and WAC (here’s lookin’ at you Bruins, you freaking morons) and it’ll be just the start in getting some national respect. Losing to a down Michigan, Fresno State, BYU . . . . .dude! the Pac 10 gets hammered for those kinds of losses. This is not just something that happens every now and again. . . .it happens all the time! It’s gotta stop.

It’ll throw all these discussions of round-robin vs. whatever right off the table.

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 27, 2009 10:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Right on...

you have no idea the nonsense i hear from Penn State fans about them beating the crap out of Oregon State. Pac 10 sucks…we killed their #2 team…blah blah blah. In their minds its USC and everyone else. We HAVE to win out of conference games to get the respect we all know we deserve.

by bigdave967 on Aug 27, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very true

The coaches currently installed across the Pac-10. With Sarkisian getting ready to restore you guys to prominence, Harbaugh keeping Stanford competitive, and Erickson helping Arizona St. realize its potential, I have to believe that the foundation is all there.

2-1 or better in OOC games needs to be the benchmark for Pac-10 teams. That partly means scheduling a manageable OOC along the ABC format; 10 BCS conference opponents in a regular season is certainly an acceptable standard. Many teams play 1 or even 2 less.

by Nashville on Aug 27, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you for frontpaging

I’m glad you guys enjoyed the discussion.

by Nashville on Aug 27, 2009 7:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Integrity

The round robin schedule shows integrity. It is the right thing. No one is watching. The south and east coast sucks. Massive consumers, no elbow room, poorly educated (in the case of the south). I’d just as well go on being the true Conference of Champions.

Not like the Utah Jazz... it's about REAL jazz. Go Dawgs, Go Blazers!

by jazzaholic17 on Aug 28, 2009 7:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The 12th Game...

Gave us the opportunity to play everybody in league and leaves no one out. Having the ability to play everybody in league defines the Pac 10 season. It leaves nothing left to debate, annalize, or to argue about.

In non league action I think it should be required for every Pac 10 club to play one prominent BCS team (Oklahoma, LSU, Notre Dame types), a not-so-great BCS team (Kansas, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Purdue types), and one non-BCS team (Boise State, Utah, TCU, Wyoming types). If every Pac 10 team scheduled using that format for for non league, our league would look a lot better on paper. But when Arizona schedules the likes of Northern Arizona, East Texas, and Utah State in one season- it’s not good.

Eventually we’ll be a 12 member league, college football is leaning in that direction. In the event that this happens, we won’t be able to play everybody in league. Until then I like the idea that we truly define the Pac 10 season and crown a legit Pac 10 champion by using head to head competition. Oregon State beat USC last season and if they would’ve beaten Oregon in the last week, they would’ve been crowned Pac 10 champions. They lost and their loss column was effectively altered and out of Pac 10 title contention. The Pac 10 operates as a league should operate. Now if we could just get out of our Fox TV deal that would be great!

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Aug 28, 2009 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I hate it when we agree.

But you are right on. Until we have 12 teams in the league, and a conference championship game that is a lead in to a play off, the schedule needs to stay the way it is. Could you imagine if USC and UW both went undefeated in conference, and they got to go to the Rosebowl? The current set up is simple, put up or shut up.

If PAC10 teams win the majority of the out of conference games and bowl games, we will get the respect we deserve.

"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"

by Lear Pilot on Aug 28, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree w/ your first paragraph, but I differ on your second

Rarely do we receive the credit that is due for this league, even when we do as you stated. I think the Pac 10’s respect goes outside the window when USC, Ucla, Washington, and Arizona State aren’t the best teams in league. These guys are traditionally the heavy weights. ASU not so much tradition due to joining league in 78, but they do have a legit national appeal about them in football. Might have something to do with playing and winning a few Rose Bowls.

Our league suffers w/ respect because it is not a balanced league right now. The entire college football landscape thinks it’s USC and the 9 dwarfs. But when Ucla, Washington, and Arizona State are good as USC- we get national respect. This is one reason why I think Pete Carroll wanted Sark to get the Washington job. USC’s strength of schedule will be a lot better in everyone’s eyes when Ucla, Washington, and Arizona State can BRING IT!

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Aug 28, 2009 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

and the best way for that to happen

is for all of the PAC10 teams to win as many out of conference games as possible. There will always be an east coat bias, but winning solves everything.

"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"

by Lear Pilot on Aug 28, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boom!

Roasted!

That’s for sure Lear Pilot. Winning solves EVERYTHING!

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 28, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What does everybody mean by "East Coast Bias"?

The Big 12 is not on the East Coast and you don’t see them complaining. I believe in an East Coast bias only because of time zones. If our games were televised back East earlier, then the East Coast would see how truly good we are out here. But that is not going to happen because in order to get the ACC, Big 10, or SEC time slots would require us to begin play at 9:00am PST.

The best we could hope for is getting more mid day ABC and ESPN coverage. The main reason why the Fox deal hurts is due to late day and Saturday Night kickoffs. The East Coast is sleeping by the time it is halftime during the 7:30pm time slot. Instead they read about it the next morning.

The East Coast doesn’t have anything against Pac 10 football. The problem is that they are NOT going to stay up late to watch a meaningless game. It is the equivelent for us (West Coasters) of getting up early Saturday morning an tuning in for an 8:30 am showing of Wake Forest vs. Maryland. To us out in the West that game is meaningless. There’s your East Coast Bias. The phantom bias in not about a grudge, it’s about timezones.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Aug 29, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One word for you, crazidawg

Mississippi

reason: they’re the dregs of the SEC. had one good year last year (beat Florida at Florida) and they’re in everyone’s top 15. They’ve got an above average QB, some solid lineman (but lost their very best last year and they return nobody that has more experience on their lines than the UW, yet “they’ll” contend with Alabama in the SEC West. Sure they’ve got an easy schedule for them to make a serious run on the SEC championship game, but that’s because Alabama has a fierce run this year opening up with VaTech- and they’re not even that for real yet ranked pretty high- in the Top-10’s someplaces- and to be all serious, they’re no better than OklaSt in the Big 12 and THEY’RE RANKED pretty high this year too?. . . .what I’m saying is, there is a bias to the rankings as far as schedule, experience, personnel, and offenses/defenses. . . .the Pac 10 gets either part or some of that credit- definitely not all of the above.

And. . . they don’t watch us. Trust me, people in the South and East coasts WILL WATCH that game- it’ll be on some ESPN or Fox or CBS (especially CBS) in prime time or early time AND THEY’LL PAY ATTENTION TO THAT GAME!

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 29, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One Name for you, Bix

Houston Nutt

The guy has charisma and the college football playing world loves the guy. Many times all this poll taking crap is a popularity contest or a beautty contest. Houston Nutt turned a collosal upset last year and everybody is still talking about it leading up the this season. That upset spawned that horrible Tebow speach.

“And you’ll never see another … and you’ll never see another … and you’ll never see another… God Bless”

The media thought that was the best thing since “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” or “I have a dream”.

Tim Tebow’s rant was HORRIBLE! But the media ran with it, and Nutt’s victory over Florida spawned that thing.

On a different note their is a consiracy theory floating around out there. That some leagues (SEC and Big 12 precisely) get special treatment in the polls. Some think average SEC and or Big 12 teams get ranked so that it helps the big fish like Florida and Oklahoma’s strength of schedule. If Mississippi can stay in the polls, who has no business being there- how does that affect Florida’s strenght of schedule?

I don’t like the poll taking crap, especially the coaches poll and the Harris Interactive. Each person voting in those polls have have an obligated agenda. They vote for themselves and will vote anybody high if it assists in their agenda.

The only credible poll is the AP. Still biased to some extent, but more credible then the others.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Aug 29, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Houston Nutt mean, what exactly?

He’s had Cadillac, Mustain, and now Snead. . . .what has he done with them- in the grand scheme of things? (I’ll tell you what: a share and outright title in the SEC West. SEC WEST buddy, that’s it. not even an SEC title, with the talent he’s had)

You’re not saying much with Houston Nutt. Got anything better?

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 29, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

[edit]

I didn’t mean Cadillac Williams (although that’s what it refers to), I meant McFadden (as in Darren McFadden RB on Raiders- both were badass SEC running backs, but I meant Darren McFadden)

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 29, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chill

Bix all I am saying is that this entire poll system is a popularity contest. The media loves Houston Nutt and maybe, just maybe they give him the benefit of the doubt.

… and they’re still talking about the Ole’ Miss upset still. I’m not saying it’s right, but Houston Nutt is a guy in a clown suit to the media. Sometimes when you are in the spotlight you get special treatement, especially if you are SEC.

I personally think the SEC is over hyped. Look at Mitch Mustain. The guy was a star true freshman QB at Arkansas- had major hype in the SEC. That kid can’t even get on the field at USC. What does that tell you?

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Aug 29, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you know about this youtube before you posted?

This is not even totally off the mark, seriously.

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 29, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha – that’s some good stuff! Someone should do the same for the Fraud…

by kirkd on Aug 29, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do hope to get to "how that affects FL's SOS", I how I do hope to

But I’m off to a beach house in Ventura right now. Didn’t get to this until late (right now). I’m gonna catch some surfing and come back to pack, before I pack and leave I hope to finish my reply/comment to you re: FL’s SOS and Mississippi. Okay?

"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}

by BixBeiderbecke on Aug 29, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, we can rename it then . . .

in honor of Crazi, it will now be known as the Timezone Bias!

"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"

by Lear Pilot on Aug 29, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Timezone bias isn’t a bad word for it.

I think it’s more than just Time Zone bias though, it’s channel availability bias, and I think that’s a strong explanation for why ESPN is now the CFB network and FSN isn’t. As someone who lives in the South, you really have to work to see West Coast football that isn’t a prominent match-up. That’s because FoxSports segments their coverage in such a way that regions don’t see anything beyond what is programmed for it. On the other hand, ESPN has only national channels, so when they make a commitment to a game, the entire country is able to see it.

by Nashville on Aug 29, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure if this is true Nash

I have a brother who teaches at North Carolina- who earned his phd at Washington State. He gets Pac 10 football on FoxSports NW. Do you purchase the cable or satellite sports packages? But then again he has to stay up til 1:30am to see the entire game.

Agree it is a timezone bias and a broadcasting bias. CBS is in bed with the SEC. ESPN is in bed with the SEC, ACC, Big East, and Big 10. The guys that get screwed are the Big 12 and the Pac 10- both still with Fox and ABC (regional coverage only) or if you pony up can watch them on the ESPN pay per view crap.

Thank god I live where I don’t miss one single Washington game- if I don’t attend home or away all games are televised.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Aug 29, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know that...

…it’s much different here in a sense. I’ve spent all of my life (well the majority of it) in the state of Washington. I do not watch any of the games from the SEC. I am more likely to occasionally watch a big 12 match-up. Then again I’m not a hard core “college football” fan. I am a Husky fan and a Pac-10 fan first. Speaking for myself the time zone thing would completely shut me out of watching the Pac-10 if I had to stay up till 1:30 AM. I know I’m getting older and the young kids stay up later but even when I was in my 20s I wouldn’t be staying up that late to catch a frikken out of conference game on the opposite coast. I will usually always watch the SEC championship and the Big 12 Championship games.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Aug 30, 2009 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s true. It’s definitely possible to get it, it’s just expensive. Thus, if you don’t want to pay the extra money, you have to visit a bar or something.

What I meant was FSN NW/CA/AZ wasn’t a part of any basic cable package, so you’d have to upgrade to the specific sports package (looks like it’s the “Comcast Sports Entertainment Package”) to view it. On the other hand, ESPN, ESPN2, and Fox Sports South all come with Comcast’s basic Digital Starter package. The Sports Entertainment Package is only $5 more per month, but that’s still something the vast majority of casual fans wouldn’t spring for.

by Nashville on Aug 30, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I wouldn't either...

…but five bucks a month is nothing for a sports fan who really wants that. So my point is like I said, they obviously don’t want it. It comparable to my situation in the NW. I love the Huskies and the Pac-10, anything beyond that is not something I’m going to pay extra for. I can see it if you’re a transplant. A guy who gets transplanted from Seattle to the South wouldn’t hesitate to pay 5 bucks to see his team/league play football.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Aug 30, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Time to take the East Coast Bias out of the equation

ESPN is not even close to topping out in the sports broadcasting business. In the future ESPN will have control of all college football and basketball rights. ESPN will be in all corners of the country and not just in Connecticut. We’ll eventually have the following channels at our disposal:

- ESPN East
- ESPN South
- ESPN Midwest
- ESPN Southwest
- ESPN Pacific

Furthermore with technology we’ll be able to see every game we want. With the addition of the digital video recorder (DVR), improvements with that technology will allow us to expand what we can record. So with that said, the folks on the East Coast will no longer have to stay up til wee hours in the morning to finish a Pac 10 Saturday Night Showdown. But for it to work the media is going to have to jump on board. And with ESPN having full control of college sports and the newspaper business going out of business, ESPN might be able to control what is being reported so that the newsprint doesn’t affect what is being aired.

Have you noticed that a lot of ABC games are actually ESPN broadcasting crews? A lot is going to change in the next 10 years and hopefully ESPN will be able to take away the phantom East Coast Bias. I’m telling you it’s all about timezones and broadcasting deals.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Aug 30, 2009 9:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Have you noticed that a lot of ABC games are actually ESPN broadcasting crews?

ABC Sports is a bad brand. ABC is a network, with reality shows, sitcoms and drama’s it’s tough for them to develop a sports identidty. ESPN on ABC is an easier brand to build, ESPN is 100% sports (and poker, but that’s a different discussion all together) and they can essentailly tune people into one channel and premote two brands.

ESPN will eventually go the FOX route and split up to target markets individually, but until then there is an East Coast bias. Once ESPN’s LA studios start getting an equal share of resources than it might change. Realistically though, until the images of spoiled Hippies and Surfers gets shed from the conscience of the East Coast, the Pac-10 is destined to be less popular.

I’ll settle for the automatic BCS bid and a few big upsets every year. I don’t need the respect of people in Alabama…Seattle is a fantastic city in a beautiful state, if I truly cared (it does bug me to an extent, but come on) what Southeasterners thought about my football team, I’ve got much bigger problems than UW’s image.

by B Money on Aug 30, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs