PAC 10 Ditching Round-Robin?

[GatorGrad]

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-9-76/Pac-10-coaches-vote-6-4-against-round-robin-scheduling.html

If I were a PAC 10 fan, this would upset me. Although I prefer the CCG format, having a round robin schedule is the next best thing IMO. I actually enjoy the PAC 10 race under the current format.

[MasterBevo]

yea... that's a shame. They even admit that the fan base would prefer a conference game rather than a non-conference.

I hate it when they end up with two undefeated teams, who haven't played each other. SO much easier if they all just play each other once...

[EvilVodka]

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-9-76/Pac-10-coaches-vote-6-4-against-round-robin-scheduling.html

If I were a PAC 10 fan, this would upset me. Although I prefer the CCG format, having a round robin schedule is the next best thing IMO. I actually enjoy the PAC 10 race under the current format.

wow that sucks

only in college football

[GatorGrad]

Exactly Bevo. As it is now, only in the Big Ten can two teams finish unbeaten in conference play and be called "co champs" without playing each other. Sounds like the PAC 10 may go back to this which would stink.

[Hail to the Victors Valiant]

Looks as if the B10 and P10 like imperfection and asymmetry, which can be hard for the linear mind to find a place for.

[Akahikea]

I'm a little torn on this. It's nice having a round robin schedule where there's always head to head if someone ties. More interesting, competitive games, etc. It's good for determining the conference title race, but it would be dumb to ignore national ramifications. In 2006, Southern Cal would probably have already had their national title spot wrapped up despite a loss to UCLA, because they would not have played, and lost to Oregon State. We were the team Southern Cal wasn't going to play in the 8 game system. It's upwards of 5 more losses for the conference. It costs the conference in the national championship race because 9 conference games is just that much harder than playing 8, and 5 road conference games every other year is that much more difficult than playing 4...and some teams(TX, OK, FL, GA) get by playing 3 because of the neutral games. That's fine now when they're all good because that's still a very tough game, but it's not always going to be that way) Perhaps just as importantly, it costs the mid-level programs a chance at bowl eligibility, which costs all the schools some money, even though the 6th bowl spot barely pays anything. But that's more TV money, more program exposure, more practices. Arizona State could've had an extra opportunity to do what the vast majority of major teams do, and go play San Jose State or Utah State for an easy win instead of playing (and losing) to Oregon, who they would not have played last season under the 8 game rotation.

Playing a 9th conference game works if the conference has a strong OOC season, and someone gets through undefeated. But it's easier to get 2 teams in the BCS when they didn't play eachother. Florida and Alabama did end up playing, but Alabama already had their BCS spot locked up running through the conference at 8-0 first. The Big 12 just got Kansas and Oklahoma in the BCS...because they didn't play eachother. One more loss by either knocks one out. Georgia and Louisiana State both got in the BCS that same year. A loss by either from a head to head matchup very easily changes that. Repeat this a dozen other times with Ohio State/Iowa back in 2001? and the SEC/Big 12 where you don't play 3 teams.

Since the PAC has their conference schedule out years in advance, I know that the team added to Oregon State's schedule last year was Stanford, thus why it was the season opener, which is for the most part, unusual. That 9th conference game gave Oregon State a loss which ended up costing the PAC a BCS spot last year, because Oregon State would've tied Southern Cal at 7-1. Rose Bowl for Oregon State, Fiesta for Southern Cal, and a lot more money for all of us.

It's been costly for the PAC to add such a tough 9th conference game rather than go find another 1-AA school to schedule like most people did.

[GatorGrad]

It's been costly for the PAC to add such a tough 9th conference game rather than go find another 1-AA school to schedule like most people did.

Good points all around. It may have been "costly" to add a 9th game, but I think a lot of people respect the PAC 10 more for playing a round robin. I know I do. As far as the national race goes, any team coming out of the SEC, BIG 12, or ACC that goes on to the BCS Title Game will usually have to play nine total conference games as well (conference title game.) So I don't think that having a 9th conference game will put any true national contender at a huge disadvantage compared to the rest of the country.

[Don]

....In 2006, Southern Cal would probably have already had their national title spot wrapped up despite a loss to UCLA, because they would not have played, and lost to Oregon State. We were the team Southern Cal wasn't going to play in the 8 game system....

Yes, and Alabama would have been in the BCS last year ... but they lost in the SEC Championship Game (a 9th conference game!).

......It costs the conference in the national championship race because 9 conference games is just that much harder than playing 8, and 5 road conference games every other year is that much more difficult than playing 4...and some teams(TX, OK, FL, GA) get by playing 3 because of the neutral games......

I think you are missing something. In the case of UF and UGa, each schedules their NON-conference IN-state rival (FSU and GT) as a conference game to replace the UF/UGa game in Jax. UF will play 4 Conference games away this year (AT UK, LSU, MSU and USC) and UF will play 4 "conference games" at home (UT, Ark, Vandy, and FSU). Next year these will reverse.

In other words UF and UGa play 4 "conference" away each year. For the record, in the "BCS era" (1998-2008) UF has played 106 "BCS" opponents in the regular season and UGa has played 107 (only 18 teams have played more regular season BCS foes than UF and only 12 have played more than UGa). Only 6 teams have played FEWER BCS foes at HOME than UF.
UF has played 46 BCS foes at home, 45 away and 15 at Neutral sites.

Now, contrary to the perceptions head by some on this board, IF one looks at the BCS foes played by the conferences and the records of those BCS foes vs other BCS teams, one finds that the SEC has played the teams with the HIGHEST w-l records!

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1998&thy=2008&major=on&tmajor=on&nbowl=on&fcn=on&sortby=GP&schedanl=on&oppview=2&iall=on

And, the top 6 teams in BCS-opponents w-l records are
UF, Auburn, Arkansas, LSU, Michigan, and Alabama.

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=1998&thy=2008&major=on&tmajor=on&nbowl=on&sortby=GP&schedanl=on&oppview=2&sasrt=PER


.....
Playing a 9th conference game works if the conference has a strong OOC season, and someone gets through undefeated. But it's easier to get 2 teams in the BCS when they didn't play eachother. Florida and Alabama did end up playing, but Alabama already had their BCS spot locked up running through the conference at 8-0 first. The Big 12 just got Kansas and Oklahoma in the BCS...because they didn't play eachother. One more loss by either knocks one out. Georgia and Louisiana State both got in the BCS that same year. A loss by either from a head to head matchup very easily changes that. Repeat this a dozen other times with Ohio State/Iowa back in 2001? and the SEC/Big 12 where you don't play 3 teams.....

??? UF and Alabama DID play each other and STILL got BCS Bowls. UGa and LSU DID play each other!! The round robin in the PAC 10 is only LEVELING the field as NOW 2 teams from the PAC 10 CAN'T end the season undefeated (JUST LIKE IN THE SEC, ACC, BIG 12, and BIG EAST)!

[CJHawkeyes]

With this system in place, the Pac-10 is foolish to play a round robin schedule just to produce a definitive champion. With no playoff, there really is no value in it and the idea that the leaving open the possibility of two unbeaten teams as some great advantage towards gaining two BCS berths is absurd. Besides, the only difference between one BCS berth and two is the money and fans act like one glorified consolation bowl means so much more than the next. Pac-10 teams play 45 games versus each other guaranteed every year under the round robin format. That is 45 wins and 45 losses. Last year the Big 12 and SEC's top ten teams played 34 games including the CCG. That is 34-34. The 22 game difference is replaced by games versus the bottom two and usually an FCS opponent. Whereas the Pac-10 teams are guaranteed an 11-11 record in the matchups avoided by the 12-team league format, the Big 12 and SEC top ten went 21-1 and 19-3 respectively versus their bottom two members and their worst OOC opponent. Therefore, before we even get to each league's top three OOC games, the Big 12 and SEC's top ten are a combined ten and eight games better than the Pac-10. That is huge advantage towards gaining a second BCS team and producing an inflated SOS.

That said, I personally do not care if any league format gives a particular league a competitive advantage. If the system allows, it makes sense to exploit it. The bottom line is the Pac-10 is handicapping its national interests in order to produce a definitive champion that isn't guaranteed anything more than a glorified consolation game anyway.

[Akahikea]

I didn't say it was impossible for 2 teams from the SEC or Big 12 or ACC to play eachother and get 2 teams in. The PAC 10 got 2 teams in 2000 and they played eachother, and the Big 10 has gotten 2 teams in who played eachother. No one said it was impossible. But it sure helps to just not have them play.

Georgia and LSU...did not play eachother the year LSU made the national title game and Georgia made the Sugar. Perhaps I didn't specify the year, but I figured everyone would get what I was talking about. I guess not.

The in-state rivals, whatever. I don't care if they play an in-state rival to replace a road conference game. I said it was fine because they're all good teams and playing them on a neutral field is plenty tough. But if you're going to give these teams credit for playing a BCS team in their non-conference schedule to act as a 9th conference game/4th road game, then more credit can be given to the PAC than I already was giving for playing 9 conference games, 5 on the road every other year(and the 5th is always the in-state rival, with no neutral field game, so that cancels out this in-state rival road game thing) and for the most part, the PAC still plays tougher OOC games than most everyone else. Notre Dame has fallen to mediocrity unfortunately, but that's no reason to end the tradition. Most PAC teams will play 10 or 11 BCS teams this season, and that's before bowl games. Everyone wonders why some SOS favor the PAC 10. Well, 9 conference games, more BCS opponents, fewer 1-AA opponents, and the midmajors the PAC schedules, are mostly WAC and MWC, which on average are a step up from the Sun Belt and CUSA, all adds up to harder SOS. Dropping conference game #9 would level SOS a bit for us, and takes away 5 guaranteed losses. If we did what everyone else did with their 12th game, we'd go about 9-1 instead of 5-5. I'd count Washington State beating a cupcake, but I'm just not sure that'd be a guarantee.

[GatorGrad]

Since the national conference race is a joke in its current format, I highly value conference races and championships. I love the CCG format but if my conference did not have enough teams to stage a title game, the next best thing would be a round robin IMO. If I were a PAC 10 fan I would be proud of the fact that we had a round robin and hate the idea that they might ditch it. If the SEC didn't have a CCG, I would even prefer an 11 game round robin schedule. Seriously.

[TommyTrojan]

Since the national conference race is a joke in its current format, I highly value conference races and championships. I love the CCG format but if my conference did not have enough teams to stage a title game, the next best thing would be a round robin IMO. If I were a PAC 10 fan I would be proud of the fact that we had a round robin and hate the idea that they might ditch it. If the SEC didn't have a CCG, I would even prefer an 11 game round robin schedule. Seriously.

I am with your GG.

USC has won or shared 7 straight conference titles, and is still considered "chokers" by some nationally. I take pride in them, as you do, but it has become all about chasing highly disputed BCS titles. If your not given the benefit of the doubt by the people that matter, you'll never win these B(c)S titles.