|
Post by beaverbeliever on Jul 24, 2020 10:19:06 GMT -8
Given that it was between CU and USC for us, this works out quite well:
|
|
|
Post by beaverbeliever71 on Jul 24, 2020 10:47:08 GMT -8
Given that it was between CU and USC for us, this works out quite well: Seeing as how both OSU and CU already have 5 conference home games scheduled and USC only has 4 conference home games... it would seem only logical that OSU would play at USC for their 10th game
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jul 25, 2020 7:02:47 GMT -8
I would like to see a ten game Pac 12 schedule every year.
|
|
|
Post by obf on Jul 27, 2020 8:07:08 GMT -8
I would like to see a ten game Pac 12 schedule every year. I second that motion. However, the refusal to get real and start making plans for a sping season instead of trying to plan a 10th game is making the NCAA/Pac-12 look a little ridiculous. I understand they desperatly want to make it happen... *I* desperately want them to make it happen, but we are on the cusp of August...
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jul 27, 2020 8:21:51 GMT -8
I would like to see a ten game Pac 12 schedule every year. Devil's Advocate position: This is all Risk and no Reward. No team will benefit from this, as they will not get "credit" for having played a tougher schedule. 12 additional league games means that 6 more teams in the conference will have a worse chance at making a bowl game. The conference championship game often narrows 2 teams that are near or at top 10 ranking to just 1 team. The more conference games the Pac plays, the more they cannibalize the league and the harder it becomes for the disadvantaged programs like Oregon State to make it to a bowl game. It's a tougher schedule without any doubt, and as St. Dennis once said "We need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head."
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jul 27, 2020 8:46:12 GMT -8
I would like to see a ten game Pac 12 schedule every year. Devil's Advocate position: This is all Risk and no Reward. No team will benefit from this, as they will not get "credit" for having played a tougher schedule. 12 additional league games means that 6 more teams in the conference will have a worse chance at making a bowl game. The conference championship game often narrows 2 teams that are near or at top 10 ranking to just 1 team. The more conference games the Pac plays, the more they cannibalize the league and the harder it becomes for the disadvantaged programs like Oregon State to make it to a bowl game. It's a tougher schedule without any doubt, and as St. Dennis once said "We need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head." Until all P5 conferences stop playing St. Mary Margaret's school for kids that don't learn so good every year, you are right. Competitive leagues are punished in our current system of football. Inequitable leagues with 2 good teams and 10 mediocre teams have the biggest benefit.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 27, 2020 10:02:01 GMT -8
Devil's Advocate position: This is all Risk and no Reward. No team will benefit from this, as they will not get "credit" for having played a tougher schedule. 12 additional league games means that 6 more teams in the conference will have a worse chance at making a bowl game. The conference championship game often narrows 2 teams that are near or at top 10 ranking to just 1 team. The more conference games the Pac plays, the more they cannibalize the league and the harder it becomes for the disadvantaged programs like Oregon State to make it to a bowl game. It's a tougher schedule without any doubt, and as St. Dennis once said "We need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head." Until all P5 conferences stop playing St. Mary Margaret's school for kids that don't learn so good every year, you are right. Competitive leagues are punished in our current system of football. Inequitable leagues with 2 good teams and 10 mediocre teams have the biggest benefit. St. Mary Margaret's school for kids has some ballers this year! Don't look past them!
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jul 27, 2020 11:48:41 GMT -8
I would like to see a ten game Pac 12 schedule every year. Devil's Advocate position: This is all Risk and no Reward. No team will benefit from this, as they will not get "credit" for having played a tougher schedule. 12 additional league games means that 6 more teams in the conference will have a worse chance at making a bowl game. The conference championship game often narrows 2 teams that are near or at top 10 ranking to just 1 team. The more conference games the Pac plays, the more they cannibalize the league and the harder it becomes for the disadvantaged programs like Oregon State to make it to a bowl game. It's a tougher schedule without any doubt, and as St. Dennis once said "We need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head." I think you bring up some good points, points I had not considered. But I cannot stand the 9 game conference schedule as it automatically disadvantages half the league every year. And so I could support an 8 game league schedule, but I'd rather have 10.
Eight's too few. We would miss 3 teams a year. Over 1/4 of our conference.
Tied in with this: Conferences have become too big. The Big 10, the ACC and the SEC have 14 teams each; with even a 9-game conference schedule, they do not play almost 1/3 of their conference every year. What's the point of calling it a conference?
I agree with the people is that stiffer scheduling needs to happen in FBS football to provide more equity. Something like limiting games with FCS schools to one every 3-4 years or so. I would like to see an NCAA rule providing mandatory home and home series. Georgia wants to play San Jose St.? Cool. Go to Athens one year and San Jose the next time. Bring Michigan, Auburn and Oklahoma to Corvallis.
Just some ideas...
|
|
|
Post by vhalum92 on Jul 27, 2020 15:46:25 GMT -8
I recall that when we went from Pac 10 to Pac 12, the NW schools made a push to play the Cali schools as often as possible.
I'm not sure if this still holds true but the idea was it was easier to recruit a Cali player as you could promise they would have opportunities to "come home" to play a game every year.
I agree... playing more conference games for us puts us at a disadvantage to the other P5 schools but if we are going to add a 10th conference game... for recruiting reasons we would want it to be the "other" LA school that is missing from each year of our schedule.
St. Dennis was right... our best year of the "modern" era we traveled to play New Mexico, and hosted Eastern Washington and San Diego State.
That amazing team was one 4th down conversion away from giving the ball back to the Lobos with about a minute left on the clock (going from memory here). Think about how good that team was and how much we needed a "weak" out of conference schedule to make an upper level bowl.
Of course if we could have managed to beat the Huskies that year... it would have been a Rose Bowl appearance or better (old BCS system).
I digress... at the end of the day what becomes more important.... the ability to recruit against U$C, Stanford, CAL and F_cla or getting to more bowl games?
At the end of the day, it is fun to discuss but I don't think the University Presidents and ADs are reading our ideas here.
|
|
|
Post by woodrow7525 on Jul 28, 2020 6:30:54 GMT -8
I would like to see a ten game Pac 12 schedule every year. Devil's Advocate position: This is all Risk and no Reward. No team will benefit from this, as they will not get "credit" for having played a tougher schedule. 12 additional league games means that 6 more teams in the conference will have a worse chance at making a bowl game. The conference championship game often narrows 2 teams that are near or at top 10 ranking to just 1 team. The more conference games the Pac plays, the more they cannibalize the league and the harder it becomes for the disadvantaged programs like Oregon State to make it to a bowl game. It's a tougher schedule without any doubt, and as St. Dennis once said "We need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head." . Perhaps a 10 game conference schedule may not be best in the long run, this year it seems like a no brainer. It allows everyone to have 5 home and 5 away, we get to play everyone and since there’s no chance there will be a bowl season, it provides an extra game. It’s not as of anything else is historically consistent right now. Since everything’s on the table, why the heck not?
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jul 28, 2020 7:03:05 GMT -8
I’d argue there’s a fair shot at some kind of a bowl season IF the NCAA has it’s teams actually play 10 games. By December a vaccine is a real possibility and if they haven’t shut things down yet I’d bet a lot of bowls would be a go. It wouldn’t shock me to see a one to three game season this year. They should play the rivalry games first this one season.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Jul 28, 2020 8:28:59 GMT -8
Devil's Advocate position: This is all Risk and no Reward. No team will benefit from this, as they will not get "credit" for having played a tougher schedule. 12 additional league games means that 6 more teams in the conference will have a worse chance at making a bowl game. The conference championship game often narrows 2 teams that are near or at top 10 ranking to just 1 team. The more conference games the Pac plays, the more they cannibalize the league and the harder it becomes for the disadvantaged programs like Oregon State to make it to a bowl game. It's a tougher schedule without any doubt, and as St. Dennis once said "We need a tougher schedule like we need a hole in the head." I think you bring up some good points, points I had not considered. But I cannot stand the 9 game conference schedule as it automatically disadvantages half the league every year. And so I could support an 8 game league schedule, but I'd rather have 10.
Eight's too few. We would miss 3 teams a year. Over 1/4 of our conference.
Tied in with this: Conferences have become too big. The Big 10, the ACC and the SEC have 14 teams each; with even a 9-game conference schedule, they do not play almost 1/3 of their conference every year. What's the point of calling it a conference?
I agree with the people is that stiffer scheduling needs to happen in FBS football to provide more equity. Something like limiting games with FCS schools to one every 3-4 years or so. I would like to see an NCAA rule providing mandatory home and home series. Georgia wants to play San Jose St.? Cool. Go to Athens one year and San Jose the next time. Bring Michigan, Auburn and Oklahoma to Corvallis.
Just some ideas...
You, vhalum92 and woodrow7525 all make good points and I don't truly disagree. Actually, I agree with every single thing you said in the quoted post above. I would be in favor of us playing a 10th in conference game as well, for the record. My intent when I announced that I was casting myself as the Devil's Advocate was to communicate that I don't necessarily agree with this position but it's hard to ignore those key points and felt it was worth discussing.
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Jul 28, 2020 9:55:45 GMT -8
I’d argue there’s a fair shot at some kind of a bowl season IF the NCAA has it’s teams actually play 10 games. By December a vaccine is a real possibility and if they haven’t shut things down yet I’d bet a lot of bowls would be a go. It wouldn’t shock me to see a one to three game season this year. They should play the rivalry games first this one season. I just don't understand why college football players would deserve firsts at a vaccine over all the other people who really need what's available. By the start of next season perhaps, but as much as I want to see the Beavs play, I want my niece the doctor and my niece the nurse and all my friends and relatives that are at high risk get those shots first.
|
|
mrazz
Freshman
Posts: 104
|
Post by mrazz on Jul 28, 2020 11:09:55 GMT -8
The pharmaceutical companies are developing their vaccines in a bass-ackwards manner. Instead of ramping up production after passing trials, they are doing both at the same time. Should they pass both the safety and effectiveness hurdles, there will be vaccine ready. The delivery hardware might be lacking--I hope someone remembered to make 6 billion extra syringes! Some wholly private companies are doing this on their own; some have assurances that their governments will cover some of their sunk costs if a trial fails; some will make bank. The question I struggle with now is how we have professional athletes (baseball and basketball) getting tested twice a week when there are still problems testing everyone that presents at an ER.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2020 11:22:52 GMT -8
there are still problems testing everyone that presents at an ER. Anyone can schedule an appointment today if they want to get tested. Many places don't even require an appointment, and you're claiming people in the ER can't get tested? Give me a break. Get Tested
|
|