Story today in San Jose Mercury News.
Link: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02...nferences-should-embrace-the-future-together/
Link: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02...nferences-should-embrace-the-future-together/
"Strategic Alliance" Between Pac-12 and Big 12?
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
Totally stupid idea. In down years, could have a 7-5, Rosebowl team.
Already the Pac 12 plays 9 Power 5 pac 12 conference games, compared to just 7,8 from other Power 5 conferences.
This proposal would have 12 power 5 conference games to 7,8 from other power 5 conferences.
And the top teams from both the Pac 12, Big 12, would likely have a 11-2, 10-2, 10-3, 9-3, 2,3 losses per year, etc, which would mean that only once in 15 years, would a top team from Big 12, Pac 12, ever go to the playoffs.
And instead of having 7,8,9 teams from the Pac 12, go to bowls, only 4,5,6,7 would go to bowls, because teams would finish 5-7, 6-6, instead of going 6-6, 7-5.
And instead of 2 teams in NY6 bowls, only get 1 team in NY6 bowls.
And would either get 6-6, 7-5 teams in Alamo, Holiday bowls, or Alamo, Holiday Bowls would go from picking Big 12, Pac 12, to non big 12, non pac 12 at large.
Only way to do proposal would be if:
1. Every team in big 12, Pac 12, play 1 noncon game against a team in other conference
2. Or identify the weakest teams in both pac 12, big 12, and have everybody play 3 noncon games against the weakest teams in both conferences.
3. If all the other power 5 conferences agree to play 12 games against power 5 conferences, then and only then pac 12 and big 12 have each team 3 noncon against the other conference and 12 power 5 games.
Already the Pac 12 plays 9 Power 5 pac 12 conference games, compared to just 7,8 from other Power 5 conferences.
This proposal would have 12 power 5 conference games to 7,8 from other power 5 conferences.
And the top teams from both the Pac 12, Big 12, would likely have a 11-2, 10-2, 10-3, 9-3, 2,3 losses per year, etc, which would mean that only once in 15 years, would a top team from Big 12, Pac 12, ever go to the playoffs.
And instead of having 7,8,9 teams from the Pac 12, go to bowls, only 4,5,6,7 would go to bowls, because teams would finish 5-7, 6-6, instead of going 6-6, 7-5.
And instead of 2 teams in NY6 bowls, only get 1 team in NY6 bowls.
And would either get 6-6, 7-5 teams in Alamo, Holiday bowls, or Alamo, Holiday Bowls would go from picking Big 12, Pac 12, to non big 12, non pac 12 at large.
Only way to do proposal would be if:
1. Every team in big 12, Pac 12, play 1 noncon game against a team in other conference
2. Or identify the weakest teams in both pac 12, big 12, and have everybody play 3 noncon games against the weakest teams in both conferences.
3. If all the other power 5 conferences agree to play 12 games against power 5 conferences, then and only then pac 12 and big 12 have each team 3 noncon against the other conference and 12 power 5 games.
I really dont like this idea. The PAC12 season is tough enough so why add three games that will add to the grinder? I like the present format of cupcake, tougher team and tougher team and then PAC12 play. I can see one OCC game per year with the Big 12 but not three per year
Yeah, OK idea in fantasyland, but unless some form of it extended to all the Power 5 conferences, no way. I see where Saban is quoted as saying he would like to see a schedule with only Power 5 opponents, I don't see that reflected in Alabama's scheduling.
Some sort of Pac-12/Big-12 challenge, where the entire conference(s) schedule one game against the other (12 vs 10 numbers don't work, but oh well) would be kind of interesting. Most of us play one Power 5 OOC already, so that would not be too much of a stretch. But again, that leaves out the other 3 conferences.
Finally, one step in the right direction would be for the Power 5 conferences to agree (like that would ever happen) to quit playing D1-AA schools. The Group of 5 would like that, as their members would pick up those slots and the associated paydays and exposure. It would be a financial stick in the eye for 1-AA schools that rely heavily on those paydays to balance their own budgets, but such is life.
Agree on the FCS schools. I believe that it's high time that the NCAA grow a pair and not count FCS wins towards bowl eligibility. Of course, that would also mean that they'd have to tell some bowls that it's not working out for them and they can't host a game. I can imagine that's not a fun conversation.
Here's the thing about the FCS schools. Everyone is discounting the political side of that. Do you REALLY think Eastern WA, as an example, would like this idea? Betcha they wouldn't. They hang their hat on the idea they can play FBS schools hard. They aren't the only ones.
Think of it this way... without some crossover, we are basically saying everyone needs to keep their status where they are. No one can grow. No one can get their shot at beating Goliath. Stay in your lane, little ones. I don't like that idea. At all.
I get where everyone is coming from. But instead of just nixing an FCS school out completely, just make the rule that they can play their first game of the year with an FCS. But that's it! AND it's their choice if they want to play an FCS or not. They can play an FBS if they want! They want to play the whole, "Tougher schedule" thing, great! But ONLY the first game of the year. Nothing else. Then there are choices.
But lets not keep the little guys down. They want a shot at the big boys, let 'em. FBS wants to risk a cupcake loss, let 'em. Guidelines with freedom.
Think of it this way... without some crossover, we are basically saying everyone needs to keep their status where they are. No one can grow. No one can get their shot at beating Goliath. Stay in your lane, little ones. I don't like that idea. At all.
I get where everyone is coming from. But instead of just nixing an FCS school out completely, just make the rule that they can play their first game of the year with an FCS. But that's it! AND it's their choice if they want to play an FCS or not. They can play an FBS if they want! They want to play the whole, "Tougher schedule" thing, great! But ONLY the first game of the year. Nothing else. Then there are choices.
But lets not keep the little guys down. They want a shot at the big boys, let 'em. FBS wants to risk a cupcake loss, let 'em. Guidelines with freedom.
This might make sense in some form, assuming the other changes discussed in the thread. It is dumb if it is just us and the B12.
At this point, not even a quarter baked.
At this point, not even a quarter baked.
I like the idea for one non-con game a year. Set aside a specific week and have all pac-12 vs. big-12 (personally i'd prefer we do it with the big-10, but whatever) it would make for a great showcase. I'd only do the one game though, not all of the non-con schedule. Maybe base it off previous year standings, 1v1, 2v2, et al. I'd even advocate each year one conference gets to host every game, the next it switches, so its balanced home-home.
I'm torn on the "championship" game, from a fan standpoint, it would be cool I think, but it surely would eliminate one of the 2 leagues each year from the playoff, which I don't like.
I'm torn on the "championship" game, from a fan standpoint, it would be cool I think, but it surely would eliminate one of the 2 leagues each year from the playoff, which I don't like.
I'd be OK with one game per team per year against a Big-12 opponent.
My suggestion for how to arrange them:
Has to be 2 years ahead - use 2018 standings to set up 2020 games. Otherwise it'll create complications with late arrangements and scheduling.
Pac-12 #1 and #12 teams are excluded (because there are only 10 Big-12 teams)
Pac-12 #2 plays Big 12 #6 (Based on 2018, this would be WSU v. Baylor)
P#3 v. B#7 (Utah v. K State)
P#4 v. B#8 (Stanford v. Texas Tech)
P#5 v. B#9 (Oregon v Oklahoma State)
P#6 v. B#10 (Arizona State v. Kansas)
P#7 v. B#1 (Cal v. Oklahoma)
P#8 v. B#2 (USC v. Texas)
P#9 v. B#3 (Arizona v. Iowa State)
P#10 v B#4 (UCLA v. West Virginia)
P#11 v. B#5 (Colorado v TCU)
That gives each conference favorable matchups in half of the games while avoiding major mismatches (at least in theory). Using this year's standings, I think most of the games would be watchable.
Either play at the site of the higher seed, or set it up so the odd-numbered Pac-12 teams travel (or something like that). Either way, half of the games every year are at Pac-12 sites, half at Big 12 sites.
Neutral conference officials for all games.
There are 10 games, so I think 1 per week, excluding the first week and the last 2 weeks of the season. Games involving the #1 and #2 seeds occur during the first month.
I was thinking that the logical teams to exclude would be Stanford and USC since they both play Notre Dame every year.
Anybody else remember the "Challenge Bowl" that they had for a couple of years, I believe in the Kingdome? Pac-10 all-stars vs Big 8? Seems like then they had Pac-10 vs Big 10. Then I think it went away.
I would not be on board with exempting the same two teams every year. USC and Stanford can maintain their Notre Dame rivalries and still play a Big 12 team every year. USC has typically set up at least a reasonable non-conference schedule, I don’t think they’d shy away too much. And Stanford would still have room to play UC Davis
I like the idea of using the standings to sort out the matchups, but disagree on the idea that you don't leave the #1 team out. We don't want to give the Big 12 a one step advantage in the series. If Colorado doesn't like it.....be better. That would change the projected matchups to:
UW vs Baylor
WSU vs KSU (Ahhhhh Yeahhh!)
Utah vs Texas Tech
Stanford vs O-State
Oregon vs KU (bloodbath city!)
Arizona State vs Oklahoma
Cal vs Texas
USC vs Iowa State
Arizona vs West Virginia
UCLA vs TCU
Of course, the reality is that TV execs are going to want to set up matchups that are compelling, which would probably lead to something more like:
UW vs Oklahoma
USC vs Texas (kind of an established mini rivalry)
WSU vs West Virginia
UCLA vs TCU
Oregon vs Oklahoma State
Stanford vs Iowa State
Utah vs KSU
Cal vs Texas Tech
CU vs Kansas (gotta get the Buffs a match against an old Big 8 foe)
ASU vs Baylor
I could see West Virginia, Texas Tech and KSU as all schools that TV execs would want to pair off against WSU. In putting CU back in the mix, someone had to go, and my guess is that UCLA history and tradition would mean more than their crappy play recently and they would be included with Arizona getting left out. Of course, Arizona is still a little beloved because of Sumlin and maybe Cal gets left out in the cold.
Unless the P5 goes to playing all P5 games in their schedule, this only helps the other conferences stack the playoff with their teams.
There is zero value in SOS.
IMO, if you do have conference vs conference games.... Every game on the same weekend. Make it a media frenzy, dont drag it out. The way I’d choose games would be such.... names in a hat, flip a coin to see who gets the home field, 2 year deal. Or make it a one year deal but guarantee every school a home game. The strength of teams goes up and down each year. I dunno that seeding teams would really work well. I wanna see some interesting match ups.
I have no prob with playing all 11 league teams and 1 non con either.
There is zero value in SOS.
IMO, if you do have conference vs conference games.... Every game on the same weekend. Make it a media frenzy, dont drag it out. The way I’d choose games would be such.... names in a hat, flip a coin to see who gets the home field, 2 year deal. Or make it a one year deal but guarantee every school a home game. The strength of teams goes up and down each year. I dunno that seeding teams would really work well. I wanna see some interesting match ups.
I have no prob with playing all 11 league teams and 1 non con either.
