Wilner on SCs bye - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Wilner on SCs bye (/thread-15040.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Wilner on SCs bye (/thread-15040.html)
Pages:
1
2
Wilner on SCs bye - lex24 - 11-26-2017
Thats an advantage for [SC] and bad optics for the Pac-12 the championship game should never carry a competitive advantage for one participant.
My point exactly. Stanford lost two defensive starters in a physical game last night while SC ate pie.
SC doesnt need an advantage. But they were handed one.
BTW - whomever is sullying my reputation I challenge you to a duel. I-Pads at 20 paces. Phogge I ask you to be my second.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - stupac2 - 11-26-2017
Yes, because if Wilner says it, it must be true!
Look, it's clearly true that conditional upon making it to the CCG, having a final-week bye is an advantage. The problem, of course, is it makes it harder to get to the CCG. And the scheduling realities are what they are, either Stanford and USC drop ND, someone else in the conference finds a non-conference opponent for the final week of the year (and if it's not a CA school agree to move their rivalry game), or someone gets a final-week bye. The first isn't happening and the second can't happen every year. Unless your argument is "give the final-week bye only to schools not expected to be in contention for the CCG" there's just no leg to stand on here.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - lex24 - 11-26-2017
Apples and oranges. The unassailable fact is it is an advantage in a championship game. Larry Scott is a smart guy. Figure out a way to avoid this. As I said earlier in the week, if Washington State had won the impact would have been major.
 Its still is going to make a difference. After all Stanford lost two starters while USC ate pie.
You keep arguing the regular season I keep telling you I dont freaking care. A Championship game is a completely different issue and teams should go in on equal footing unless one of the teams has earned an advantage-such as home field or a bye. I simply fail to see what is arguable about that simple point.
I dont give a darn that there are issues to be dealt with in scheduling. They pay a lot of money to these people. There is a way to schedule with everyone ending on the same weekend. Maybe some teams start a week earlier. Figure it out and do it so they all end the same week. All the other power five conferences manage to do it. They have no scheduling issues?
That one of the stories of the Pac 12 this year is scheduling is not good. And it clearly is. Im not suggesting, Stupak, that there were not advantages and disadvantage throughout the regular season. In fact Stanford got a big break when it got a Friday night game at home against Washington. And you are right SC not getting a bye during the season was a disadvantage to them. I think the Pac 12 needs to look at these issues in general. But it wont. Because its all about the freaking money.
I think the bye SC has going into a game with Stanford having a short week is worth a few points. If it were WSU it would have been worth at least aTD. With WSU coming off a road game on a short week. I know I have no empirical proof for that. Common sense says, however, that its a big advantage. And one team should not have an advantage going into this game based on a scheduling issue.
(11-26-2017, 10:32 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Yes, because if Wilner says it, it must be true!
Look, it's clearly true that conditional upon making it to the CCG, having a final-week bye is an advantage. The problem, of course, is it makes it harder to get to the CCG. And the scheduling realities are what they are, either Stanford and U$C drop ND, someone else in the conference finds a non-conference opponent for the final week of the year (and if it's not a CA school agree to move their rivalry game), or someone gets a final-week bye. The first isn't happening and the second can't happen every year. Unless your argument is "give the final-week bye only to schools not expected to be in contention for the CCG" there's just no leg to stand on here.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - CompSci87 - 11-26-2017
I think you guys basically understand each other's points by now. No need to keep saying it over and over.
Yes it's bad to have one team advantaged by a bye just before the CCG, when that happens. Yes it's bad to have no bye during the season. Those two things cut in opposite directions, but they don't really balance out and make it fair overall. However, it's tough to prevent the situation because someone always plays ND the week before the CCG and there may not be another team that can find a nonconference game that week.
Can we all agree on that (at least approximately) and let it go?
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - stupac2 - 11-26-2017
The conference can only play the cards that the teams give to them. They can't force to Cal or UCLA to find a week-13 nonconference opponent. They can't force us to play ND at home during October. The schools are in charge of scheduling and this is what happens.
Although, I suppose one thing they could do is move one of the California rivalry games, because that sure went over well when they tried it!
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - lex24 - 11-26-2017
What fun is there in that? :P. Ill let Stupac respond to my latest if he wants to and then Ill consider it done.
(11-26-2017, 10:44 AM)CompSci87 link Wrote:I think you guys basically understand each other's points by now. No need to keep saying it over and over.
Yes it's bad to have one team advantaged by a bye just before the CCG, when that happens. Yes it's bad to have no bye during the season. Those two things cut in opposite directions, but they don't really balance out and make it fair overall. However, it's tough to prevent the situation because someone always plays ND the week before the CCG and there may not be another team that can find a nonconference game that week.
Can we all agree on that (at least approximately) and let it go?
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - dabigv13 - 11-26-2017
I'm disappointed that no one else took to my argument that byes really aren't all that advantageous!
![[Image: 57eeab6b8eef5.image.jpg]](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/umassmedia.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/65/6654b456-8739-11e6-80d1-6fdbf0019876/57eeab6b8eef5.image.jpg)
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - DC 86 - 11-26-2017
(11-26-2017, 10:55 AM)dabigv link Wrote:I'm disappointed that no one else took to my argument that byes really aren't all that advantageous!
I agree with you, it's been studied numerous times and data supports that byes in college football only offer a negligible advantage at best. However, playing on Friday after a Saturday game is a quantifiable disadvantage, and in this case only one team is being disadvantaged. The combination of a Friday game with one team coming off a bye does create an advantage for USC, although not nearly as significant as has been posited on the board.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - stupac2 - 11-26-2017
(11-26-2017, 10:55 AM)dabigv link Wrote:I'm disappointed that no one else took to my argument that byes really aren't all that advantageous!
I kept meaning to look for data on that and then forgetting. I also think that whatever the normal advantage is it's mitigated by not knowing who your opponent will be. As I mentioned previously, I've heard that teams with byes in NFL playoffs do relatively little opponent prep until they actually know who it'll be.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - dabigv13 - 11-26-2017
I agree, in this case, with a Friday game, it probably does matter a bit more. But I think there is also something to teams losing some sharpness when coming off a bye. I've certainly seen it from our team coming out of byes some 1st quarters. Certainly you see it in bowl games though that is a longer layoff. That versus the extra rest for injuries you get.
There's also some factor to facing a team for the second time in a season, but that's a separate issue which doesn't always apply in the CCG.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - CTcard - 11-26-2017
(11-26-2017, 10:37 AM)lex24 link Wrote:Apples and oranges. ... After all Stanford lost two starters while U$C ate pie.
You keep talking about pie.
How do you know what the $C team meal was?
Though I guess it was apple pie and ... Stanford is going to the Orange Bowl???
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - winflop - 11-26-2017
The first flaw is having the game on Friday night and not on Saturday. The second one is ANY team having a bye the weekend beforehand. Bye weeks should happen in September & October. November should be four consecutive weekends for everyone.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - PAsportsfan - 11-26-2017
Just another build in excuse. Sounds like someone isn't too confident.
These are Stanford kids. I`m sure they`ll be fine.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - CTcard - 11-26-2017
Wilner also projects the Alamo Bowl slot being filled by U$C if they lose the conference championship game and Washington if we lose the ccg.
http://thecardboard.org/board/Themes/Flexive/images/bbc/img.gif
That may be correct (probably is) - for some reason UW is ranked higher than Stanford in both polls right now.
However I would think that with a strong showing vs $C the Alamo should at least consider a Stanford team that just beat two top 10 teams in a row by multiple score margins, one of those teams being the competition for being in this bowl. And the row of cupcakes still stands.
More Wilnerish is that he still lists Stanford possibilities as including the Foster Farms Bowl, even though he doesn't list any possible combination of replacements for Stanford in Alamo/Holiday Bowls.
[That is, if Stanford loses the CCG and falls to the Foster Farms Bowl, Wilner apparently has UW in the Alamo Bowl AND the Holiday Bowl as he lists no other possibilities.]
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - BostonCard - 11-26-2017
On the other hand, this is almost a home game for us; while USC has to travel. Since the P12 championship game is routinely in Santa Clara (at least in the near future), its a big advantage for Stanford (and if they ever made it, for Cal) that no other team has.
BC
(I suspect however that at some point when the new stadium is built in LA and maybe Vegas that the championship will move around)
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - qwerty49 - 11-26-2017
(11-26-2017, 12:22 PM)winflop link Wrote:The first flaw is having the game on Friday night and not on Saturday. The second one is ANY team having a bye the weekend beforehand. Bye weeks should happen in September & October. November should be four consecutive weekends for everyone.
I seem to recall Friday night was touted by Scott as "we have the evening all to ourselves and don't have to compete for TV eyes with the south and East."
I think the reality is the networks had x number of TV slots and someone had to be odd man out. It was either that or the Saturday slot for us was an 8pm Pacific kickoff. Scott probably got a little extra money for "volunteering" to play Friday night. And he probably thinks that's a win compared to the 8pm Saturday slot.Â
The bye works both ways -- after all, $C had to play 12 straight weeks in a row. But I also agree that the optics are terrible. But schedules have a lot of moving parts, so who knows what was possible and what was not.
Of course, we got earlier practice and some time off for the Rice game, so there's that too. I think at the end of the day the biggest sensitivity we have is due first to Bryce's injury and secondly to Cotton and Alfieri's potential unavailability. I daresay that with a 100% healthy Bryce we wouldn't be that concerned.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - Spiny_Norman - 11-26-2017
The P12 championship game moves back and forth between Friday and Saturday depending on which network is broadcasting it. Fox - Friday night. ESPN - Saturday night.
When Stanford played U.SC in 2015, the game was Saturday. 2013 vs. ASU - Saturday. 2012 vs. UCLA - Friday.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - Hurlburt88 - 11-26-2017
My TV is saying that it is on ESPN this year . . . definitely FRiday.Â
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - Spiny_Norman - 11-26-2017
(11-26-2017, 04:43 PM)hurlburt88 link Wrote:My TV is saying that it is on ESPN this year . . . definitely FRiday.
Maybe I should have said, "until recently" Fox and ESPN alternated Friday and Saturday nights. The game has moved around, although maybe it is now firmly on Friday because of the logjam of other games on Saturday.
Re: Wilner on SCs bye - Mick - 11-26-2017
(11-26-2017, 11:39 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=dabigv link=topic=18160.msg215038#msg215038 date=1511718917]
I'm disappointed that no one else took to my argument that byes really aren't all that advantageous!
I kept meaning to look for data on that and then forgetting. I also think that whatever the normal advantage is it's mitigated by not knowing who your opponent will be. As I mentioned previously, I've heard that teams with byes in NFL playoffs do relatively little opponent prep until they actually know who it'll be.
[/quote]
In the last three years, there hasn't been much of an advantage in the Pac-12, though there's been a pretty good-sized advantage in the other four major conferences (brobdingnagian advantage in ACC and Big 12, 54% advantage in Big 10 and SEC). In the Pac-12, it's 9-10 against the spread, although there is a brobdingnagian advantage to betting the under (6-13, O/U).