|
Post by orangeattack on May 17, 2018 10:36:54 GMT -8
The only drawback would be occasionally skipping WSU, a historical regional rival we should always play. Which puts us right back to where we were in the first place and the california schools trying to preserve all of their regional rivalries causing scheduling annoyances for the non-CA teams... I get that we give up most of the OOC schedule to do it, but.... the only way everyone will be happy is if every conference team plays every other, every year... Just so everybody knows, DearLeader still has Larry Scott's ear and I'm not above using that influence to improve the Conference of Champions. The problem with that is the conference ends up eating their own. More in-conference games is a bad thing, even if the alternative is playing the Alabamas and Floridas and Ohio States when we are looking at it from a macro, health of the conference perspective. The best you can hope for with an in-conference matchup is for your conference members to go .500 - you're guaranteed a loss. This diminishes the relative stature of the conference. I think at a certain point you have to commit to being a superconference, not a historical conference with a couple newbies added to the club but only if they don't disrupt the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on May 17, 2018 12:02:31 GMT -8
Which puts us right back to where we were in the first place and the california schools trying to preserve all of their regional rivalries causing scheduling annoyances for the non-CA teams... I get that we give up most of the OOC schedule to do it, but.... the only way everyone will be happy is if every conference team plays every other, every year... Just so everybody knows, DearLeader still has Larry Scott's ear and I'm not above using that influence to improve the Conference of Champions. The problem with that is the conference ends up eating their own. More in-conference games is a bad thing, even if the alternative is playing the Alabamas and Floridas and Ohio States when we are looking at it from a macro, health of the conference perspective. The best you can hope for with an in-conference matchup is for your conference members to go .500 - you're guaranteed a loss. This diminishes the relative stature of the conference. I think at a certain point you have to commit to being a superconference, not a historical conference with a couple newbies added to the club but only if they don't disrupt the status quo. use the Dear Leaders power to get Scott to fix his failure of a sports network.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 17, 2018 12:37:00 GMT -8
The only drawback would be occasionally skipping WSU, a historical regional rival we should always play. Which puts us right back to where we were in the first place and the california schools trying to preserve all of their regional rivalries causing scheduling annoyances for the non-CA teams... Which is why I like the way it is now; we always play our historical regional rivalries. USC and UCLA are generally going to be tougher than the Arizonas, Utah and Colorado, so if Stanford and Cal insist on playing them every single season, and have fewer games against UA, ASU, Colorado and Utah, have at it. It only helps us to have two of our five Northern Division rivals playing a harder in-conference schedule than us, every single season.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on May 17, 2018 14:41:40 GMT -8
Just so everybody knows, DearLeader still has Larry Scott's ear and I'm not above using that influence to improve the Conference of Champions. The problem with that is the conference ends up eating their own. More in-conference games is a bad thing, even if the alternative is playing the Alabamas and Floridas and Ohio States when we are looking at it from a macro, health of the conference perspective. The best you can hope for with an in-conference matchup is for your conference members to go .500 - you're guaranteed a loss. This diminishes the relative stature of the conference. I think at a certain point you have to commit to being a superconference, not a historical conference with a couple newbies added to the club but only if they don't disrupt the status quo. use the Dear Leaders power to get Scott to fix his failure of a sports network. Even DearLeader not omnipotent, guy.
|
|
|
Post by obf on May 17, 2018 15:11:50 GMT -8
Which puts us right back to where we were in the first place and the california schools trying to preserve all of their regional rivalries causing scheduling annoyances for the non-CA teams... I get that we give up most of the OOC schedule to do it, but.... the only way everyone will be happy is if every conference team plays every other, every year... Just so everybody knows, DearLeader still has Larry Scott's ear and I'm not above using that influence to improve the Conference of Champions. The problem with that is the conference ends up eating their own. More in-conference games is a bad thing, even if the alternative is playing the Alabamas and Floridas and Ohio States when we are looking at it from a macro, health of the conference perspective. The best you can hope for with an in-conference matchup is for your conference members to go .500 - you're guaranteed a loss. This diminishes the relative stature of the conference. I think at a certain point you have to commit to being a superconference, not a historical conference with a couple newbies added to the club but only if they don't disrupt the status quo. Great point about non-conference games being an overall wash for the league. We would have to give up some of our favorite yearly matchups, but that begs the question, why don't we try to maximize OOC games then? 2, 6 team divisions, we play each of those every year (5 games), and then 5 ooc games, and then a conference championship. This has the added benefit of never having the conference championship game be the same opponents as a regular season game.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on May 17, 2018 15:18:45 GMT -8
Just so everybody knows, DearLeader still has Larry Scott's ear and I'm not above using that influence to improve the Conference of Champions. The problem with that is the conference ends up eating their own. More in-conference games is a bad thing, even if the alternative is playing the Alabamas and Floridas and Ohio States when we are looking at it from a macro, health of the conference perspective. The best you can hope for with an in-conference matchup is for your conference members to go .500 - you're guaranteed a loss. This diminishes the relative stature of the conference. I think at a certain point you have to commit to being a superconference, not a historical conference with a couple newbies added to the club but only if they don't disrupt the status quo. Great point about non-conference games being an overall wash for the league. We would have to give up some of our favorite yearly matchups, but that begs the question, why don't we try to maximize OOC games then? 2, 6 team divisions, we play each of those every year (5 games), and then 5 ooc games, and then a conference championship. This has the added benefit of never having the conference championship game be the same opponents as a regular season game. Are you suggesting a 10 game season? Might as well have 7 OOC games then.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on May 17, 2018 15:31:06 GMT -8
Just so everybody knows, DearLeader still has Larry Scott's ear and I'm not above using that influence to improve the Conference of Champions. The problem with that is the conference ends up eating their own. More in-conference games is a bad thing, even if the alternative is playing the Alabamas and Floridas and Ohio States when we are looking at it from a macro, health of the conference perspective. The best you can hope for with an in-conference matchup is for your conference members to go .500 - you're guaranteed a loss. This diminishes the relative stature of the conference. I think at a certain point you have to commit to being a superconference, not a historical conference with a couple newbies added to the club but only if they don't disrupt the status quo. Great point about non-conference games being an overall wash for the league. We would have to give up some of our favorite yearly matchups, but that begs the question, why don't we try to maximize OOC games then? 2, 6 team divisions, we play each of those every year (5 games), and then 5 ooc games, and then a conference championship. This has the added benefit of never having the conference championship game be the same opponents as a regular season game. Since we're going into idealized fantasyland, I'll just throw my hat in the ring:
Convert NCAA D1 into 6 conferences of 2 divisions each, 8 teams each division, for 96 total teams. Every team plays every team in its own division + 3 more from its conference + 2 OOC games. Each conference has a championship game. The six conference champions and 2 at-large play an 8 team playoff. The leftovers go to bowl games.
So no one sues, have a certain number of the bottom feeders in D1 drop down to D2 every 4-5 years and the top dogs in D2 move up to D1 at the same time. Same with D2 and D3. and D4. so on.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on May 18, 2018 9:34:10 GMT -8
Just so everybody knows, DearLeader still has Larry Scott's ear and I'm not above using that influence to improve the Conference of Champions. The problem with that is the conference ends up eating their own. More in-conference games is a bad thing, even if the alternative is playing the Alabamas and Floridas and Ohio States when we are looking at it from a macro, health of the conference perspective. The best you can hope for with an in-conference matchup is for your conference members to go .500 - you're guaranteed a loss. This diminishes the relative stature of the conference. I think at a certain point you have to commit to being a superconference, not a historical conference with a couple newbies added to the club but only if they don't disrupt the status quo. Great point about non-conference games being an overall wash for the league. We would have to give up some of our favorite yearly matchups, but that begs the question, why don't we try to maximize OOC games then? 2, 6 team divisions, we play each of those every year (5 games), and then 5 ooc games, and then a conference championship. This has the added benefit of never having the conference championship game be the same opponents as a regular season game. HMM. Now see, what is interesting about this one to me, is that the cross-divisional rivals could use their OOC games to schedule traditional geographic rivalries that are not addressed by their scheduled divisional games and their yearly cross-divisional rivalry game. Stanford and Cal will still play both the LA teams every year, the PNW teams can all play each other, and the other 4 are kind of the Southwest Conference type who would have their own geographically centered sub-division if you will. This would artificially manufacture a Utah-Colorado war but that is fine to me.
|
|