The CardBoard
Ranking the "misses" - 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: Ranking the "misses" (/thread-5243.html)

Pages: 1 2

Ranking the "misses" - FarmBoy - 06-06-2013

Ted Miller ranked the Pac12 by the teams they "miss" on their schedule. Not surprisingly, he ranks Stanford's miss of Arizona and Colorado as the "worst" based on them being relatively soft teams. His comment:

Quote:12. STANFORD

Misses: Arizona, Colorado

Skinny: If Stanford wins the Pac-12, there will be no naysayers.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/57463/ranking-the-2013-pac-12-misses

Miller has always been very critical of the California schools for insisting on our guaranteed round robin. He thinks we're unnecessarily making our road to the Rose Bowl and/or National Championship that much harder. He further contends that the coaches of those schools would prefer us to throw that requirement out.

Personally, I would be really disappointed if we lost our annual game against US.C. True, in the long run, it means more losses on the schedule, but tradition still means something and as a fan, I'd rather see us play the best in the conference, even if it makes trips to the Rose Bowl less frequent. I would also contend that to get to the future "playoff", you're going to need a decent SOS and having US.C and UCLA will help that (on average), as well as improve rankings (assuming you win) more than beating Colorado or UofA would. If push came to shove, I'd be fine with releasing our annual game against UCLA, for the sake of improved conference scheduling. Of course, this would all be a non-issue if the dummies who drew up the "North" and "South" had realized that Stanford and Ca.l are actually south of Utah and Colorado and therefore should be naturally grouped with them. I wouldn't mind missing Oregon every few years.

Additionally, if you're challenging for the Rose Bowl, you're going to have to beat the best in the conference. True, beating them twice in a year is harder than once in the championship game (as we saw last year).

As for the coaches' opinions, I wouldn't be surprised if they like the annual game. It's a great recruiting tool for kids in SoCal ("you'll be guaranteed to play in LA every year in front of friends and family) and great TV exposure. THose guys are competitive and want to play against the best (unless your Snyder from KSU).

What do other people think? Is it worth whatever additional risk we take on playing guaranteed games to maintain the "weekender" tradition?

Re: Ranking the "misses" - rudruff - 06-06-2013

There was a great Colorado game back in the day that I remember fondly. I guess my issue with the "miss" issue is that I don't value every traditional game as much as a core few. The California schools and ND, recently Oregon. The rest of the schedule I wouldn't mind some variety.



Re: Ranking the "misses" - stupac2 - 06-06-2013

I don't care too much either way. I think it's silly in that giving the CA special treatment is stupid and if we wanted to play every year we should've been in the same damn division, but that ship has apparently sailed so this is what we have. But if we were to lose those annual games I wouldn't really care. Playing two out of every 4 years is plenty.

Also, while those programs are historically successful, that doesn't mean that much projecting forward. A lot can change in a few years, as Stanford fans hardly need to be told. So it's not going necessarily true that this is foolish going forward, although it's likely we'll have more losses than otherwise, it's really hard to say how likely.

Re: Ranking the "misses" - Farm93 - 06-06-2013

So many elements -
First, missing Arizona and Colorado.  That is terrible for Stanford's Pac-12 and BCS chances.  With 9 conference games, Notre Dame, and a strong SJSU, Stanford will soar above all others on SOS.  Missing two of the bottom 3 or 4 in the conference only makes Stanford's task more difficult.  However, if there are a bunch of 1 loss teams trying to get a BCS invite, and Stanford is one of them, I would expect Stanford to get that slot based on preseason rankings and the SOS reality.

Preserving tradition in the Pac-12.  I think over the longer term playing UCLA and USC is a mixed bag.  However plenty of rivalries have been lost to conference re-alignment and at some point the forced California schedule will get dropped.  No doubt in my mind, it is just a matter of time.

Pac-12's newbies - Not in love with Utah or Colorado.  However, there are/were few expansion opportunities that were more logical than those 2 schools.  If the Pac-12 was only 10, then other conferences would have tried to pick the Pac-10 apart.  And in that world, Stanford would have been left to ultimately join the MWC if the Pac-10 became the Pac-5 or 6.  In my mind Arizona & Arizona State could have easily gone to the Big12 after the SEC and the BigTen poached their choices.  If the Pac-?? was forced to play musical chairs then as a Stanford alum that would have been a very bad game to play.  So if Utah and Colorado prevented THAT game, then welcome. 

Re: Ranking the "misses" - FarmBoy - 06-06-2013

I think the Cali schools wanted to be in the same division, but the other schools were worried that in the long run it would be the Big12-redux with the South dominating the North. Oregon would be the Pac North Champ in perpetuity practically.

Other conferences maintain one cross-divisional rivalry, which I think makes sense to have a compromise between tradition and varying the schedules. The SEC takes it too far in having 2 cross divisional rivals, which, after 6 divisional games, leaves 1 rotating spot. With a 12 team conference, 5 divisional games plus 1 annual cross-divisional guarantee leaves 3 spots on the schedule to rotate through the other 5 teams in the other division. That seems workable to me.

I agree that in the long run, the California round robin will not be maintained, but it will be too bad to see the rivalries go. Still, I'm glad we're not in the same division as Utah and Colorado, so we maintain our Pac8 schedule.

Re: Ranking the "misses" - CowboyIndian - 06-06-2013

(06-06-2013, 10:12 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I think the Cali schools wanted to be in the same division, but the other schools were worried that in the long run it would be the Big12-redux with the South dominating the North. Oregon would be the Pac North Champ in perpetuity practically.

I think it was more about giving the northern schools annual or at least bi-annual access to the LA recruiting market. The compromise was allowing Stanford and Kal to maintain their SoCal rivalries.

Re: Ranking the "misses" - FarmBoy - 06-06-2013

Quote:I think it was more about giving the northern schools annual or at least bi-annual access to the LA recruiting market. The compromise was allowing Stanford and Kal to maintain their SoCal rivalries.

Mathematically, the Oregon and Washington schools would have had more visits to SoCal had they allowed the Cali schools to be in one division with no guarantee cross-rivarlies.

Current schedule: 2 trips to SoCal every 4 years 0.5 per year
Cali schools + AZ schools: 4 trips to SoCal every 6 years. -- 0.67 per year

Of course, the current schedule guarantees a trip to NorCal every year. So if you think trips to CA is the most important metric:
Current schedule: 6 trips to CA every 4 years 1.5 per year
Cali schools + AZ schools: 6 trips to CA every 6 years 1.0 per year

So, WA and OR maximized their exposure to CA, but reduced their exposure to SoCal.

This all raises another interesting hole in Miller's argument that the guarantee weekenders is bad for the Cali schools. Either exposure to SoCal is a good thing and worth having to play "more difficult games" or it's better to play patsies and not get on TV. I think Miller would agree that being on TV and accessing the SoCal recruits is a good thing for a program, so having more of it, on the margin, is a good thing.

Utah and Colorado were just movie props - Redrum - 06-06-2013

Rick Scott needed 12 teams to keep up with the mega conference trend.  He failed-- in actuality it was doomed from the start-- in the Great Big 12 Team Robbery of 2010.  He had to do something while crafting the P10/12 network deal.  Colorado and Utah were just part of the Potemkin Village built to please the media gods floating by.

If the National Championship playoff system ever evolves to its full form, an individual school's strength of schedule record will become less and less important compared to the perceived conference strength of schedule.  Then, the tradition and competitive desire to play California school rivalry games every year might weaken.  I really don't care much about playing UCLA every year but can see why many would care.  I could bite my lip and put up with dropping Under Stanford Control out of the regular season schedule to every other year if it made us more likely to be a conference champ feeding into a playoff system.

[Miranda warning:  I'm not a big fan of a playoff.  I am OK with the bowl system, probably because I'm old, set in my ways and haven't been infected with the disease of having to know beyond a certainty of a doubt which team is #1.  That question is less important to me than the question of what's for dinner.  But, it's coming and we need to be part of the elite for as long as we can.]


Re: Ranking the "misses" - JeffInCorvallis - 06-06-2013

This year the difficult schedule may work for us.  We should be favored in most games, but it won't shock me if we drop one or even two games in what will be one of the most difficult schedules in the country.  If you believe that a new chapter is being written in Stanford history and we'll contend for the conference championship every year then you should be happy with this arrangement.  I'm not saying it won't happen, but I've suffered through enough crappy seasons that I know it's not a given.  If we revert back to being an average (or worse) team this schedule will get painful.  Pac-12 North could be the toughest division in college football this year.  And that's with Washington State in the mix.  Oregon thinks they will content for the NC every year.  Now that Chip has left we'll see what happens, but there's no reason to think that there's a severe drop-off in their future.  Washington won't stay down for long, they are a sleeping giant.  OSU and the people across the Bay are going to have their good seasons.  That leaves only WSU as a potential doormat and they can't afford to stay there for long.  UCLA now has a real coach and I expect them to do quite well, they have a ton of talent along with their cross-town rivals who now have a joke of a coach but remain highly talented.  Add a rejuvenated ND and even a SJS squad showing signs of life and you've got the makings of a very, very tough schedule.  Season after season.

I hope we know what we're asking for.


Re: Ranking the "misses" - oman - 06-06-2013

(06-06-2013, 10:22 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:I think it was more about giving the northern schools annual or at least bi-annual access to the LA recruiting market. The compromise was allowing Stanford and Kal to maintain their SoCal rivalries.

Yes, I thought it was that pure and simple.



Re: Ranking the "misses" - terry - 06-07-2013

If Stanford's annual rivalries with U.S.C. and UCLA had not been preserved, we would play each of them two years out of three, on average. So by preserving the rivalries, we get one extra game against each of them every three years. That's not a major difference. And there's no guarantee that the one extra game against U.S.C. or UCLA will be tougher than it would have been otherwise. There may be years when Arizona or Arizona State, for example, is a tougher opponent. I'm willing to accept the potential competitive downside for the sake of preserving the traditional rivalries.

Re: Ranking the "misses" - FarmBoy - 06-07-2013

Quote:If Stanford's annual rivalries with U.S.C. and UCLA had not been preserved, we would play each of them two years out of three, on average. So by preserving the rivalries, we get one extra game against each of them every three years.

By guaranteeing our SoCal matchups, we play 2 games against SoCal schools every year, while the rest of the North only plays 1 game a year. That's a 100% increase in "risk" exposure, although you're right that you have to compare it to the expected risk of the alternative (more games against UofA, ASU, Utah and Colorado.) It is not an insignficant handicap, IMO, but still  worth the "risk"

Re: Ranking the "misses" - Extra Point - 06-07-2013

"It is not an insignficant handicap, IMO, but still  worth the "risk"

In my opinion, it is worth the risk if Stanford has indeed overcome some of the factors that have put them in the middle of the pack in most years. UCLA is on the rise and USC will not be down for long. If Stanford reverts to it's traditional norm it could start a downward spiral. Going to a bowl game gives a school a tremendous advantage. Bowl games help recruiting, sells season tickets, and gives a team another two weeks of practice for the next season. On average Stanford has won slightly over 50% of it's games over the last 50 years. If Stanford reverts to this level of play and loses one more game than they would by not playing an LA school, then a cascade could be initiated that eventually results in a new lower norm. All it takes is the head of admissions raising the standard, an AD who refuses to pay market value for coaches, a few recruits changing their mind at the last minute, an AD who values friendship more than performance, administrators who don't want to see Stanford turn into a football factory, a decrease in alumni donations, a rash of injuries, academic casualties, a few balls bouncing the wrong way, some bad referee calls... How quickly we forget when wearing rose bowl shades!

Re: Ranking the "misses" - FarmBoy - 06-07-2013

Quote:If Stanford reverts to this level of play and loses one more game than they would by not playing an LA school, then a cascade could be initiated that eventually results in a new lower norm.

Then why not just play a bunch of patsies? We could take it further: replace Notre Dame on the schedule with Sacramento St as the non-conference rival. We'll keep in winning and increase our chances for bowl eligibility. Personally, that's not a game I want to watch in perpetuity.

Or, think about it this way: what's the one event everyone invariably points to as the "start" of Stanford's emergence? 2007 @ US.C. If Stanford hadn't been playing the Trojans that year, we lose that opportunity to make a statement that we "bow to no program." Big games are big opportunities. (yes, saying that "the greatest upset of all time" is the bedrock of the current program is oversimplifying, but there's not denying it played a role.)

Re: Ranking the "misses" - jacketree - 06-07-2013

Or maybe Oregon and ASU become more perennially powerful than SC and/or UCLA and it works to Stanford's advantage.  All those things Extra Point mentioned could happen regardless of the schedule rotation.  And if Stanford reverts to bumping along at .500 because they can't beat the LA teams, what difference does it really make?  More to the point, Stanford was in an abyss fairly recently and climbed out of it. There is no such thing as a death spiral at this place.  Stanford has too much money, and when push comes to shove, too much pride.

Re: Ranking the "misses" - Extra Point - 06-07-2013

"Then why not just play a bunch of patsies?"

Before the once in a lifetime upset in 2007, Harbaugh openly advoated an 8 game league schedule to increase the chances of more Pac 10 schools going to bowl games.

"Or maybe Oregon and ASU become more perennially powerful than SC and/or UCLA and it works to Stanford's advantage."

Schools in high population areas that are willing to accept players with poor academics, tollerate deviant behaviors, and pay premium salaries to coaches are always going to have an advantage. Sooner or later the LA schools will return to their norms.

"More to the point, Stanford was in an abyss fairly recently and climbed out of it. There is no such thing as a death spiral at this place."

It is much easier to rise up from the low points when you are consistenlty above .500 and going to bowl games. Once you go a few years without a winning record only maraculus events and over achievement can pull you out. Once you lose fan support and donations for five years, it takes a John Arrillaga to pull you out. Without the support of this one person, the tune on this board would be much different.

I would love nothing more than to see Stanford maintain it's current momentum. What I am concerned about is the internal factors at Stanford that oppose this momentum. I am not sure I could endure another decade long abyss where droves of fans come up from LA to watch the beat downs they fully expect.

Just out of curiosty, is it possible to see the posts on this board the day after the beat downs during the Buddy and Walt years?



Re: Ranking the "misses" - fullmetal - 06-07-2013

You could probably dig them up if you scrolled back far enough in time...right?  Those were dark years...

Re: Ranking the "misses" - Extra Point - 06-07-2013

"You could probably dig them up if you scrolled back far enough in time...right?  Those were dark years..."

The oldest post you can scroll back to is May 07, 2010. This is well after the dark years. Is there an archive somewhere? It would be interesting to see the posts after the biggest upset ever too.

Re: Ranking the "misses" - CompSci87 - 06-07-2013

Yvonne was having problems with the board's database being slow and/or unresponsive. She mentioned to me that she deleted older posts to try to help with that.

Hopefully the old ones are backed up somewhere.

Re: Ranking the "misses" - Farm93 - 06-07-2013

(06-07-2013, 05:05 PM)Extra Point link Wrote:"Or maybe Oregon and ASU become more perennially powerful than SC and/or UCLA and it works to Stanford's advantage."

Schools in high population areas that are willing to accept players with poor academics, tollerate deviant behaviors, and pay premium salaries to coaches are always going to have an advantage. Sooner or later the LA schools will return to their norms.

Historically that has not really been true.  New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston are all big cities and none of them have a college football powerhouse.  The best programs play in the biggest markets WITHOUT an NFL team. 

Talk about a wild card.  If the NFL put a sparkling new stadium in Commerce or Long Beach, or anywhere just far enough from the SC campus, then the whole dynamic would change a lot in the Southland.  The Trojans are in a 99 year lease for an aging local landmark.  They can make it work but their success has actually been rather atypical.  And I would suspect that the Trojans could drop to the attendance levels they had in the mid 80s and 90s if the NFL came back to the region.