Pac-10 Insider: Why we love the Pac-10 round-robin schedule

[tlongII]

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/200..._love_the.html

By Ken Goe, The Oregonian
September 21, 2009, 6:27PM

Hey, Goe: What does Washington's big upset of USC say about the conference?

For starters, it says the Pac-10 is one of the most compe ively honest of the major conferences, because each school plays the other nine every season.

In other conferences - the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, the Big 12 and Southeastern, to name four - nobody plays more than eight conference games.

An eight-game schedule allows schools to subs ute a guaranteed win over, say, Delaware State, North Texas, Eastern Illinois or Arkansas State, for a conference rival that not only is trying to knock off your block but is good enough to do it.

Let's face it, everybody in the Pac-10, even Washington State, is better than Charleston Southern, Lousiana-Monroe and North Texas. Those opponents have provided gimmes for Florida, Texas and Alabama, the three teams that sit atop the major polls.

The Pac-10 is a meatgrinder. The nine-game round-robin means five Pac-10 schools will lose their ninth conference game, which doesn't do anything for teams on the fine edge bowl eligibility. Stanford and Arizona State were 5-7 in 2008, and just missed the postseason.

Neither does it help a second conference team get into the Bowl Championships Series, something the Pac-10 last managed in 2002.

Since the Pac-10 went to the round-robin in 2006, nobody has gone through the conference unbeaten. Last season's USC team was the only one with fewer than two conference losses.

But, so what? Pac-10 fans are blessed because the round-robin makes for a glorious regular season. Anybody think the people in Husky Stadium last Saturday would rather have been watching Washington-Southern Utah?

Hey, Goe: Shouldn't the Ducks bench quarterback Jeremiah Masoli now, before it's too late?

With No. 6 California bearing down on Autzen Stadium for a game Saturday, I can't think of a more hare-brained idea.

Back-up Nate Costa has thrown five passes - none since 2006 - in a career truncated by two major knee injuries. Tossing him into action against what some believe is the best Cal team since 1958 without absolutely having to do it would be idiotic.

Masoli gives Oregon a chance. He has a nice feel for the option component of the Oregon spread. He averages 4.4 yards per carry this season and has scored four rushing touchdowns despite operating behind an inexperienced offensive line and alongside new running backs.

He needs to throw ball better than he did last week in a 31-24 victory over Utah, in which he completed 4 of 16 passes, gave up a red zone interception and often looked rushed and off-balance.

But that game is an exception. Masoli was statistically acceptable against Boise State, 14 for 27 for 121 yards in a game in which the Ducks couldn't run the ball a lick, and Purdue, 11 for 21 for 163.

The last time I checked, Oregon is 2-1 this season, the loss coming to a Top 10 team on the road. Objectively speaking, it's not a bad place to be.

I can't forget the way Masoli closed 2008, with brilliant, dual-threat performances against Stanford, Arizona, Oregon State and Oklahoma State.

He was the whole package.

To make a panicky move because of one bad game - a game the Ducks won, by the way -would be silly.

Hey, Goe: Three weeks in, which conference team has been the biggest surprise?

Easy, UCLA. The Bruins are halfway to bowl eligibility after winning their first three games despite injuries and uncertainty at quarterback and on the offensive line.

Even if Tennessee is down, the way UCLA marched into Neyland Stadium and won before more than 100,000 fans was impressive.

Now, Coach Rick Neuheisel's team has two weeks to prepare an Oct. 3 game with Stanford. Can you say, 4-0?

I picked the Bruins seventh in the conference, something beginning to look like a major miscalculation.

Lesson learned: Never underestimate how far a good defense can take you.

[MajorMike]

When you have to take an entire article to create a weak attempt specifically geared at showing people that you aren't as weak as everyone says you are, you probably are.

Congrats to wazzu for being better than a few Div 2 teams; wazzu who needed OT to beat SMU.

Congrats to Az State and Stanford for almost being bowl eligible last year. You know, Az State who started the year a top 15 team and failed miserably, and not by their 'oh so supreme P10 schedule,' they lost to 5-7 UNLV at home. And the B12s worst team, BU, killed wazzu last year. Congrats on that, too. Zona was Bowl eligible and lost to 4-8 New Mexico; good thing they had that 'oh so suprme P10 schedule' to fall back on; congrats all around. And not to mention that UCLA loss to a Fresno team that could barely go 7-6 thru a marvelous WAC schedule.

Funny, KState and CU were both 5-7 last year and the general consensus is that they sucked. Neb was 5-7 the year before and it was the worst record in Husker history, or something like that. I'm glad in the P10 being 5-7 is commendable.

uo and UT play medicore conference bowl eligibile teams every year as well; the differnece between UT and uo and SC is that UT and uo more than normally beat those teams.

And the article is incorrect; if you want to win the B12 (or SEC or etc) you do in fact have to play 9 conf games - a conference championship. Therefore, that way of ensuring you play the best team from the other division - which is tougher than any normal P10 schedule (or opponent, actually, as well).

Trying so hard to say you don't suck usually only proves you do.

[johngateswhiteley]

its an article thats been discussed before, but that doesn't make it any less true. cap'n crunch's response doesn't surprise me...his mind was made up a long time ago. perhaps, oregon crushing his team last year sent him over the edge.

[MajorMike]

its an article thats been discussed before, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Or any less false. Factually, you can't argue one of the overriding facts the article tries to stand on is plain and simply false.

[johngateswhiteley]

Or any less false. Factually, you can't argue one of the overriding facts the article tries to stand on is plain and simply false.

your bias, when it comes to these matters, is astounding.

[MajorMike]

your bias, when it comes to these matters, is astounding.

As I always say, the difference between your musings and mine is that I actually inject fact.

Please tell me if this statement is true or false:
"In other conferences - the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, the Big 12 and Southeastern, to name four - nobody plays more than eight conference games."

Key phrase being "...nobody plays more than eight conference games."

True or false? No one in the B12 ever plays more than 8 conf games in a year.

YOUR bias, when it comes to these matters (and most everything else that makes you look like an idiot), is astounding.

[johngateswhiteley]

As I always say, the difference between your musings and mine is that I actually inject fact.

Please tell me if this statement is true or false:
"In other conferences - the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, the Big 12 and Southeastern, to name four - nobody plays more than eight conference games."

Key phrase being "...nobody plays more than eight conference games."

True or false? No one in the B12 ever plays more than 8 conf games in a year.

YOUR bias, when it comes to these matters (and most everything else that makes you look like an idiot), is astounding.

the big 12 has 8 conference games...thats a fact. if you want to count the le game...thats not a true conference game and it only affect 2 teams. the ACC plays 8 conference games, the SEC plays 8 conference games and the Big 10 plays 8 conference games.

again, you're grasping at straws...the article, as most of these stress, is simply explaining the Pac-10 plays every opponent in the conference each year...nobody else does that. in fact, as far as i know, nobody in the big conferences play even play 9. its not hard to understand.

[MajorMike]

So, basically you wrote a whole passage without being able to answer the simple question:

Please tell me if this statement is true or false:
"In other conferences - the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, the Big 12 and Southeastern, to name four - nobody plays more than eight conference games."

Which is why the perception of you on the board is most generally spot on.

[johngateswhiteley]

Please tell me if this statement is true or false:
"In other conferences - the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, the Big 12 and Southeastern, to name four - nobody plays more than eight conference games."

i believe that to be true (and if i've missed a conference, that doesn't take away from the legitimacy of the argument). so whats your point?

my previous response was taking into consideration your most likely reply, so i could go ahead and dismiss it. a championship game is not the same.

[MajorMike]

Which is exactly why you have no credibility in this forum.

[johngateswhiteley]

Which is exactly why you have no credibility in this forum.

pfft...ok, brah. you are impossible to like.

[j-6]

I see both sides...and I admit that playing every team in your conference every year is a lot more difficult than one might think. It leads to increased parity for mid-level teams and makes every game someone of a rivalry. I also think that if the standard for everyone else is two divisions and a le game, the Pac-10 and the Big 10/11 are doing themselves a disservice. It's not all about athletics, either - the Pac-10 didn't make sense geographically for Texas when the SWC broke up, but they turned there before approaching anyone else due to the superior academics of the conference.

The most ed up system is the Big 10's. I hate hearing about how some team has a chance because they don't have to play someone else in their own league. That makes me a hypocrite since the Big 12 South winner can get to their le game without playing the same teams another division contender plays in-conference. I wonder if the true path to a playoff is conference contraction to 10 teams, but that will eliminate rivalries and cause more confusion.

[johngateswhiteley]

I see both sides...and I admit that playing every team in your conference every year is a lot more difficult than one might think. It leads to increased parity for mid-level teams and makes every game someone of a rivalry. I also think that if the standard for everyone else is two divisions and a le game, the Pac-10 and the Big 10/11 are doing themselves a disservice. It's not all about athletics, either - the Pac-10 didn't make sense geographically for Texas when the SWC broke up, but they turned there before approaching anyone else due to the superior academics of the conference.

The most ed up system is the Big 10's. I hate hearing about how some team has a chance because they don't have to play someone else in their own league. That makes me a hypocrite since the Big 12 South winner can get to their le game without playing the same teams another division contender plays in-conference. I wonder if the true path to a playoff is conference contraction to 10 teams, but that will eliminate rivalries and cause more confusion.

i'm glad that you see it...and i think its harder than a championship game. besides, USC dominates in big games anyway...their achilles heel is the unranked Pac-10 road game. , i heard that Carroll has lost 5 of 9 opening Pac 10 road games. that might have something to do with the huge OOC win prior, but still...