[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=11641.msg112215#msg112215 date=1422741014]
I'm part of the sizable contingent of fans -- I wager we're a majority -- who want to play UCLA and U*S*C* each year. Games against Utah and Colorado mean nothing to me.

I love U*S*C and UCLA on the schedule when there is a realistic chance of beating them. The next time Stanford has lost to both and is one win short of bowl eligible, I won't like it all.
[/quote]

You assume the alternative is any better.  As I pointed out earlier, Utah, UA, and ASU are all basically equally as good as the LA schools, and over the last few years it's been pretty much a crapshoot which will be the best and which the worst.  Guess what, the Pac-12 South champions over the past 4 years have been UCLA, ASU and UA, and U$C would have won in 2011 if they'd been allowed to.  Soooo, the LA schools haven't been any better since this arrangement has been set-up, and the coaching talent (and maybe even playing talent) is certainly as good at the Arizona schools as the LA schools (I'd argue Wittingham and Mac might be as good as the LA coaches too, certainly seven-win Sark).  We missed the second best team in the conference this year.  Playing the LA schools arguably helped us instead of hurt us (you think UO wouldn't have rather played $C than the UA team they lost to?).  We certainly shit the bed against ASU, a far worse performance than against UCLA or U$C (which was basically equivalent the to the Utah performance).  Parity is here, it doesn't matter who we play from the South, certainly not the tiny fraction it's different than it would be without the rule in place.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=11641.msg112215#msg112215 date=1422741014]
I'm part of the sizable contingent of fans -- I wager we're a majority -- who want to play UCLA and U*S*C* each year. Games against Utah and Colorado mean nothing to me.

I love U*S*C and UCLA on the schedule when there is a realistic chance of beating them. The next time Stanford has lost to both and is one win short of bowl eligible, I won't like it all.
[/quote]

You assume the alternative is any better.  As I pointed out earlier, Utah, UA, and ASU are all basically equally as good as the LA schools, and over the last few years it's been pretty much a crapshoot which will be the best and which the worst.  Guess what, the Pac-12 South champions over the past 4 years have been UCLA, ASU and UA, and U$C would have won in 2011 if they'd been allowed to.  Soooo, the LA schools haven't been any better since this arrangement has been set-up, and the coaching talent (and maybe even playing talent) is certainly as good at the Arizona schools as the LA schools (I'd argue Wittingham and Mac might be as good as the LA coaches too, certainly seven-win Sark).  We missed the second best team in the conference this year.  Playing the LA schools arguably helped us instead of hurt us (you think UO wouldn't have rather played $C than the UA team they lost to?).  We certainly shit the bed against ASU, a far worse performance than against UCLA or U$C (which was basically equivalent the to the Utah performance).  Parity is here, it doesn't matter who we play from the South, certainly not the tiny fraction it's different than it would be without the rule in place.