The CardBoard
Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - 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: Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) (/thread-607.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CowboyIndian - 10-16-2010

Quote:Complete crap.  You\'re talking about taking 100 year old rivalries and stuffing them in the trash for the sake of making more money.  
Finally! Thanks for the sanity snapback, Jeff. I thought I\'d fallen asleep and been transported to the planet "Thank you. sir. May I have another?"

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Extra Point - 10-16-2010

"Complete crap.  You\'re talking about taking 100 year old rivalries and stuffing them in the trash for the sake of making more money."

"Finally! Thanks for the sanity snapback, Jeff. I thought I\'d fallen asleep and been transported to the planet "Thank you. sir. May I have"

I would have preferred to keep the Pac 10 as it was. But, now that it is the Pac 12 and Stanford is most likely going to be in the North division, I want to see what is gives Stanford the best chance of winning. I have been watching Stanford football for a long time. The last thing I want to see is more decade long droughts. I have seen too many of them. If Pat Haden\'s 5-2-2 plan is adopted, then it would be a handicap. The long term effect would be fewer bowl games, less practice time, a drop in recruiting, and more loses. All it takes is a 5 and 7 season to begin a cascade.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Leftcoast - 10-16-2010

I\'m with Extra Point on this one.   If we end up in the Pac 12 North then I don\'t want to be cursed with the toughest schedule in the Pac 12 for season after endless season.  Especially if the other teams in my division perennially have the easiest schedule.

EP\'s second point is a good one too .... our "good" eras and "good" recruiting seasons are always more vulnerable to a tough loss and losing record than other teams.   We need to get our recruiting pool to consistently choose Stanford and even smart 18 year olds are kids at heart and vulnerable to emotional swings.  We can ill afford the extra handicap.

Time to think with our heads and not our hearts.   That and pray for a Pac 8 division in some future Pac 12.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Farm93 - 10-16-2010

The 5-2-2 model will be bad for Stanford and C.a.l football.  It will be great, I guess, for some fans recalling football life in the 50s & 60s.  Apparently the USC band creates some form of hypnotic love or addiction that sets in after 30+ years following the Pac-10.  

FWIW, 5-2-2 will also be bad for Arizona and Arizona State.  Based on the news reports at least one of those two programs was smart enough to vote no too.  It is bad for them because they will be forced to play NW schools more often thanks to the 5-2-2 Cali alliance.  (Cold weather, hostile crowds, better football programs, no possibility of alumni road trips, etc.)

But the worst part is that USC is getting everything it could have wanted and more.  If the TV revenue model doesn\'t have near equal sharing I will know who\'s our conference Daddy.

Since the MWC, WAC and Big12 are all unstable right now I will just hope for the emergence of a Pac-16 ASAP.  If it happens before 2020 then the 5-2-2 deal could be OK for Stanford because SC will below average for the next 3-5 years.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Canalejas - 10-16-2010

We sound so pessimistic.  I\'d rather take my chances playing all of our closest rivals (the California ones, I mean).  If it takes a 5-2-2, so be it.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CowboyIndian - 10-16-2010

Quote:I can\'t believe there\'s anybody who still thinks we can dumb down our schedule into football success. Do the words UC and D.avis mean anything to anybody here?
No kidding! Jeezus....sack up, buckaroos! Why don\'t we just quit the Pac and join the ACC?

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - washingtonismoney - 10-16-2010

I can\'t believe anyone still thinks you can coach your way to success. Do the words B.uddy T.eevens mean anything to you?

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Leftcoast - 10-16-2010

Any schedule that includes UW, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal and UCLA/USC 2 out of 3 years is hardly remedial work.   Well, not unless we find some way to schedule Wa St. three times a year.

Is it pessimistic to not see the logic in playing USC and UCLA twice as often as our division partners?  If so I\'m guilty - but I\'ve already done my time.  I was AT the UC Davis game and stayed through the last awful second.  After that the Spanish inquisition would be welcome relief.  

To restate my position - I\'d much rather be in the Pac 10 South but if that\'s not to be  I don\'t see any compelling advantage for Stanford with the 5-2-2.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - fyao - 10-16-2010

I think it largely revolves around whether Harbaugh stays.  If he stays, I feel fairly confident about our ability to play USC and UCLA. In fact, if we have a good team, I want to play USC every year in the next few as they will get thinner and thinner.  Beating, or even just being competitive with USC and UCLA gives us exposure to southern California recruit, brings prestige to the program and helps with out recruiting.  Even if we lose, with a good team, we\'ll still go to a bowl game.

If, on the other hand, Harbaugh leaves and/or we are not competitive with USC and UCLA, then of course we don\'t want to play them.  It gives us negative exposure with recruits and as some have said, decreases our chances of going to a bowl game.

Too bad we don\'t have a bigger fan base to give us more clout.  Otherwise, I\'d be tempted to try to drop out of the Pac-12 if we get a bad deal and go independent.

Anything other than a zipper is just too unfair to someone.  I\'m surprised they appear to not have considered it more seriously.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CowboyIndian - 10-16-2010

Quote:IIf, on the other hand, Harbaugh leaves and/or we are not competitive with USC and UCLA, then of course we don\'t want to play them.  
This is getting nauseating. Anybody who makes the above argument can never again criticize an SEC out-of-conference schedule. To quote Mr. Harbaugh....or Ric Flair if you prefer..."To be the man, you\'ve got to beat the man." As I descend further into fogey-ism, this is emblematic to me of our cultural decline. The easy way = the best way.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - fyao - 10-16-2010

Quote:
Quote:IIf, on the other hand, Harbaugh leaves and/or we are not competitive with USC and UCLA, then of course we don\'t want to play them.  
This is getting nauseating. Anybody who makes the above argument can never again criticize an SEC out-of-conference schedule. To quote Mr. Harbaugh....or Ric Flair if you prefer..."To be the man, you\'ve got to beat the man." As I descend further into fogey-ism, this is emblematic to me of our cultural decline. The easy way = the best way.

You cherry-picked what you quoted.

If you are 5-6 and can play WSU to make a bowl game or get blown out 59-0 to UCLA and finish 5-7, I\'ll take the former.

If you are 8-3 and can play WSU to go 9-3, or lose to USC 36-35 in an competitive game, I\'ll take the later.


Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - Leftcoast - 10-17-2010

Ouch!  This realignment issue has made us all a bit irritable.  

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CrazedZooChimp - 10-17-2010

What is the point of these arguements?  The North division is better than the South as this year with the proposed breakdown, so why do most of you assume the South will always be better.  Which teams are good in the Pac-10 changes year to year, it\'s why the Pac-10 is fun.  I remember when Kal was terrible, and WSU was good.  Or heck, when Stanford was terrible, then good, then terrible, then good.  As much as people like to talk about traditional powers, it\'s impossible to know what teams will be good.  You can guess based on recruiting trends, but then you\'d assume OSU would always be a cake-walk.  Guess what, Stanford played both UCLA and $C every year when there were only eight Pac-10 games and dealt with it ok, we can do it again.  And I personally would much rather get to play UCLA and $C every year (well, maybe not $C, but that\'s because of their band) then not play them because those rivalries are more fun, and I\'m not going to say we shouldn\'t play them just because U$C was dominant a for 10 years (although they weren\'t dominant the decade prior, hmm).  Guess what, Arizona and ASU this year is a tougher pair of games than $C and UCLA, and Utah is probably better than all of them, so why don\'t we try to avoid those games?

Stop guessing about how hard a division will be and using it as a reason to not play rivals, it\'s stupid.  We might as well join the WAC, it\'ll be easier to go perfect (at least once Boise leaves...).

That rant was probably somewhat incoherent, sorry.  But not wanting to play certain teams because they might be good (even though they\'re not right now) is incredibly dumb.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - jayasena - 10-17-2010

I can\'t speak for others, but at least for me, the preference was never to be in the "easy" division (hence it doesn\'t matter what the "easy" division is). I also don\'t want to avoid the LA teams to make the path to a bowl game easier. What I do want to avoid is a structural disadvantage for Stanford relative to all other teams in the conference (well, Cal is in the same boat as us). Unfortunately, that\'s precisely what the 5-2-2 does if it lasts for more than 4 years or so.

I\'m certainly not in favor of giving up the rivalries with SC and UCLA. I want those games every year.

Unfortunately there\'s no way to meet both of those requirements while being in the North division.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - dabigv13 - 10-17-2010

I\'m in favor of any alignment that preserves the UCLA and USC yearly games. I think the 5-2-2 is pretty silly and an unlikely longterm solution, though I would prefer it to a North division without the preserved rivalries. I honestly don\'t really care about beating any of the other potential North teams besides kal.

With 7-5 being the split in the last set of votes, and the California schools with the leverage, I\'m hopeful they can work something out, perhaps as a concession for even revenue sharing.

Also, for the foreseeable future, I don\'t see how playing UCLA or USC every year puts us at a competitive disadvantage- UCLA is not recovering under Neuheisel, and Kiffin will drive USC into the ground. USC will rise again I\'m sure. UCLA I\'m not so certain.

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - CowboyIndian - 10-17-2010

Quote:[You cherry-picked what you quoted.
Oops...there I did it again.  Straw man argument....who the hell wouldn\'t take a win over a loss?

Re: Uh-oh (CowboyIndian) - fyao - 10-17-2010

Quote:
Quote:[You cherry-picked what you quoted.
Oops...there I did it again.  Straw man argument....who the hell wouldn\'t take a win over a loss?

That remark shows you read and hear what you want to hear.

I have no more use for you.