[washingtonismoney]

A favorite topic on the board, of course. But there's something genuinely weird this season re: Wilner.

As a part of his new Pac-12 newsletter, he's taken to opining more frequently about teams across the conference. That, for some reason, has led him to vociferously defending SC against the cruel hand that fate (the Pac-12 scheduling office) has dealt it.

Whatever the merits of knight-errant/paladin Wilner's argument, I don't recall him sticking up for Stanford as vociferously and frequently as he has poor beleaguered SC this year.

(Here's the latest newsletter which is admittedly a mild example: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/21/sa...s-to-come/)

[washingtonismoney]

A favorite topic on the board, of course. But there's something genuinely weird this season re: Wilner.

As a part of his new Pac-12 newsletter, he's taken to opining more frequently about teams across the conference. That, for some reason, has led him to vociferously defending SC against the cruel hand that fate (the Pac-12 scheduling office) has dealt it.

Whatever the merits of knight-errant/paladin Wilner's argument, I don't recall him sticking up for Stanford as vociferously and frequently as he has poor beleaguered SC this year.

(Here's the latest newsletter which is admittedly a mild example: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/21/sa...s-to-come/)

[OutsiderFan]

It would be fine if his employer upped the coverage of the local programs, and then in addition went to a more conference-wide view, but has this actually happened?

[OutsiderFan]

It would be fine if his employer upped the coverage of the local programs, and then in addition went to a more conference-wide view, but has this actually happened?

[oldalum]

It would be fine if his employer upped the coverage of the local programs, and then in addition went to a more conference-wide view, but has this actually happened?

No, he just took on the whole conference as his subject. I suspect, given that allocating his time is a zero-sum game, that this means less coverage of the local teams.

His theme on USC is that (1) it is to the conference's benefit to put a team into the CFP; (2) so the conference should have deliberately given USC a better chance to get there by manipulating its scheduling. Of course this roused the masses (he probably did this intentionally to promote his new Pac-12 conference site--more clicks and publicity). Unfortunately, by inciting this reaction he buried the legitimate argument underlying his column. What he could have said was that the Pac-12, compared to other conferences, was disadvantaging its teams with its scheduling and no Pac-12 team should suffer that disadvantage. As an example, look what the conference did to USC this year [explanation] but this applies to any Pac-12 team.

[oldalum]

It would be fine if his employer upped the coverage of the local programs, and then in addition went to a more conference-wide view, but has this actually happened?

No, he just took on the whole conference as his subject. I suspect, given that allocating his time is a zero-sum game, that this means less coverage of the local teams.

His theme on USC is that (1) it is to the conference's benefit to put a team into the CFP; (2) so the conference should have deliberately given USC a better chance to get there by manipulating its scheduling. Of course this roused the masses (he probably did this intentionally to promote his new Pac-12 conference site--more clicks and publicity). Unfortunately, by inciting this reaction he buried the legitimate argument underlying his column. What he could have said was that the Pac-12, compared to other conferences, was disadvantaging its teams with its scheduling and no Pac-12 team should suffer that disadvantage. As an example, look what the conference did to USC this year [explanation] but this applies to any Pac-12 team.

[BostonCard]

Does anyone really believe that USC's record is because the conference screwed them scheduling-wise?  Maybe they just aren't... that good (they are plenty good, but not one of the top-4 teams in the country).  Plus, if the Trojans really wanted to improve their record, they could schedule someone other than Notre Dame; that portion of the schedule is under their control.

BC

[BostonCard]

Does anyone really believe that USC's record is because the conference screwed them scheduling-wise?  Maybe they just aren't... that good (they are plenty good, but not one of the top-4 teams in the country).  Plus, if the Trojans really wanted to improve their record, they could schedule someone other than Notre Dame; that portion of the schedule is under their control.

BC

[Beeg_Dawg]

I'm thinking USC simply isn't that good. 

[Beeg_Dawg]

I'm thinking USC simply isn't that good. 

[CTcard]

It's not just the newsletter. Wilner has changed his "College Hotline" blog, which had nominally focused on ןɐɔ and Stanford, into the "Pac 12 Hotline" which focuses on the Pac 12 (naturally).

My cynical view as to why is that it seems Wilner has always considered himself above just covering local sports teams. He was always much more interested in things like finances, the Pac 12 network, and national trends than he ever was about actual football or basketball games. He also went overboard to show he didn't favour the local teams, including in actual coverage. So, the change to the blog is really marginal.
But remember, he's more than just a sports writer and more than just a local writer.

Since he is now a Pac 12 writer, I guess it makes sense to him that getting a Pac 12 team into the playoff is the #1 goal in life. Some fans do seem to care about such things, but not me. My rooting interests are pretty much purely yes/no on Stanford.

To be clear on just how he was feeling $C's pain; the primary objection was that $C had back to back road games over a short week (at ןɐɔ Saturday 9/23 then at WSU Friday 9/29). That is a tough back to back.
Thursday games are protected, Friday games are not.
For our Friday game, it's at home after WSU road trip. UW comes in after home game vs Oregon. Not sure if any other team has the back to back roadies issue that $C faces.

As oldalum noted, this should apply to any team. Wilner more or less stated as much, that he was only advocating that when scheduling made it unavoidable that some team be given a tough deal then it shouldn't be the contenders. But despite stating that, he didn't proceed to write as if that was really the point. He also didn't really explain how the conference was going to know ahead of time just whom the contenders would turn out to be.

I'm thinking U$C simply isn't that good.

Well, they haven't been great, but they are very beat up. That's always a problem.

At any rate, I am extremely annoyed at them for playing by far their best game of the year against Stanford - but I guess there is some payback for Stanford playing its best game of 2016 against them.

[CTcard]

It's not just the newsletter. Wilner has changed his "College Hotline" blog, which had nominally focused on ןɐɔ and Stanford, into the "Pac 12 Hotline" which focuses on the Pac 12 (naturally).

My cynical view as to why is that it seems Wilner has always considered himself above just covering local sports teams. He was always much more interested in things like finances, the Pac 12 network, and national trends than he ever was about actual football or basketball games. He also went overboard to show he didn't favour the local teams, including in actual coverage. So, the change to the blog is really marginal.
But remember, he's more than just a sports writer and more than just a local writer.

Since he is now a Pac 12 writer, I guess it makes sense to him that getting a Pac 12 team into the playoff is the #1 goal in life. Some fans do seem to care about such things, but not me. My rooting interests are pretty much purely yes/no on Stanford.

To be clear on just how he was feeling $C's pain; the primary objection was that $C had back to back road games over a short week (at ןɐɔ Saturday 9/23 then at WSU Friday 9/29). That is a tough back to back.
Thursday games are protected, Friday games are not.
For our Friday game, it's at home after WSU road trip. UW comes in after home game vs Oregon. Not sure if any other team has the back to back roadies issue that $C faces.

As oldalum noted, this should apply to any team. Wilner more or less stated as much, that he was only advocating that when scheduling made it unavoidable that some team be given a tough deal then it shouldn't be the contenders. But despite stating that, he didn't proceed to write as if that was really the point. He also didn't really explain how the conference was going to know ahead of time just whom the contenders would turn out to be.

I'm thinking U$C simply isn't that good.

Well, they haven't been great, but they are very beat up. That's always a problem.

At any rate, I am extremely annoyed at them for playing by far their best game of the year against Stanford - but I guess there is some payback for Stanford playing its best game of 2016 against them.

[BostonCard]

Wilner more or less stated as much, that he was only advocating that when scheduling made it unavoidable that some team be given a tough deal then it shouldn't be the contenders. But despite stating that, he didn't proceed to write as if that was really the point. He also didn't really explain how the conference was going to know ahead of time just whom the contenders would turn out to be.

For example, Colorado last year.  They became a contender out of nowhere.  Or for example, U$C most years.  They are always tabbed as a contender every year, and in most cases it never comes to pass.

As a matter of course, the powers that be should strive to schedule Friday games after a home game.  But it should not prioritize one team over another.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wilner more or less stated as much, that he was only advocating that when scheduling made it unavoidable that some team be given a tough deal then it shouldn't be the contenders. But despite stating that, he didn't proceed to write as if that was really the point. He also didn't really explain how the conference was going to know ahead of time just whom the contenders would turn out to be.

For example, Colorado last year.  They became a contender out of nowhere.  Or for example, U$C most years.  They are always tabbed as a contender every year, and in most cases it never comes to pass.

As a matter of course, the powers that be should strive to schedule Friday games after a home game.  But it should not prioritize one team over another.

BC

[oldalum]

I think the benefits of getting a Pac-12 team into the CFP that Wilner sees are (1) more $ to the conference (which then gets divided equally among the schools) and (2) reputation (which might help conference teams with future seeding). But the idea that the conference should favor "contenders" over other Pac12 teams, even apart from the issue of correctly identifying them, is a total nonstarter. I can only assume he is seeking more visitors to his Pac-12 site.

[oldalum]

I think the benefits of getting a Pac-12 team into the CFP that Wilner sees are (1) more $ to the conference (which then gets divided equally among the schools) and (2) reputation (which might help conference teams with future seeding). But the idea that the conference should favor "contenders" over other Pac12 teams, even apart from the issue of correctly identifying them, is a total nonstarter. I can only assume he is seeking more visitors to his Pac-12 site.