I like switching to 8 conference games and I say rip off the bandaid and make it a fair, equal rotation without accommodating all the past traditions. Each team in the conference needs to play their main rival every year but that's it. We can play the LA schools whenever they come up in the normal rotation.
I'm definitely more of a traditionalist who would prefer we play the whole Pac-8 every year, but I understand that the way things have changed have started to make that untenable.
I'm okay with dropping the USC game, but I really hope we're at least able to continue to play UCLA every year (with Stanford similarly dropping UCLA, but keeping their annual game against USC). That way we still get to keep part of the tradition alive, but we'll still have 2 cross-division games to rotate among the remaining 5 teams.
I'm curious how the Big Ten would handle dropping down to 8 conference games. They have 7 team divisions, including a protected cross-division rivalry for Indiana-Purdue. If they drop a conference game, Indiana and Purdue would be in the same position as the California schools, but with only their primary rivalry available to drop if they want to play more than 1 other cross-division team.
As much as I would love to see the California traditions continue, I just don't see it happening with an 8-game conference schedule. The other 8 schools have never liked the fact that Cal and Stanfurd play U$C and U.C. Los Angeles every year. Preserving the tradition for an 8-game schedule would mean the Oregons and the Washingtons would only play each LA school once every 4 years (with home and away scheduling, only 1 LA trip every 4 years). Moreover, by preserving just Cal-ucla, Cal would only play u$c once every 2.5 years. None of it is ideal, but the conference needs to do what's best for the conference, even if that means we have to "adjust" our traditions. Or we could shrink the conference back to the Pac8 and play a 7-game conference schedule...
We shrink back down to 8, the Big Ten does the same, conference champs play in the Rose Bowl every year, and we just pretend the SEC doesn't exist. Problem solved! /s
Week 1 Pac-12/B1G champs from the previous year matchup at the Rose Bowl, throw in sufficient pageantry and it becomes THE official start of the college football season in the way basketball has opening matchups between 4 top teams.
In recent years, Cal-UCLA and Stanford-USC have tended to be competitive, whereas we've lost 15 out of our last 16 games against USC and UCLA's lost 12 of their last 13 against Stanford.
Additionally, there's the tradition of the two UC schools and the two private schools playing each other. I'm glad we were able to keep our streak of playing UCLA alive even through last season.
Personally, I also just enjoy going to the UCLA game a lot more. My dad and I went to Cal, and my uncle and sister went to UCLA, so there's a friendly family rivalry aspect for us as well. With USC I just have to sit there for four hours while their band plays their inane fight song and their team almost invariably pummels us on the field.
We'd still have 2 other cross-division games per season, so we'd still play USC every two to three years, but of the two, UCLA is the one I'd much prefer to see every season.
Neither the Big 10 nor the ACC regions are recruiting hot beds for Cal. The states of Texas and Arizona have produced more recruits. I suppose exposure to the Big 10 / ACC regions could produce some recruits...tbd. On first blush I don't know that an annual trip to the East is in the best interest of Cal (if you weigh 300lbs a 5 hour flight can't be too comfortable & time zone change wreak havoc on the body). But given that it is going to happen I'm happy to observe what happens.
True, those aren’t recruiting hotbeds for us or the Pac 12 but they could be. I also think it would help with more TV exposure and better game time slots so you can sale having more of your games potentially being on national TV screens or at least better time slots.
Pac 12 goals need to be eliminate 9 conference games and Pac 12 after dark must die.
Teams defeating each other in intraconference play and causing extra losses that dilute the conference's reputation. Better to play one more cupcake like the SEC does.
Seems kinda strange that a player might see an in-conference team only once during a four-year career. I'm torn because having only 1 LA game/season would mean an LA trip only every other year (due to home games) and I think SoCal players like the opportunity to play in front of family and friends (plus recruitment opportunities).
It isn’t about how people feel or think about metropolitan areas and more about San Diego being close enough for players families to watch their kids play.
"I'd rather play different Big Ten or ACC schools every year than SDSU every other year or even every four years."
By cutting down to eight conference games, you don't have to make this choice. As I broke down in the post, Kliavkoff's goal allots for two ACC/B1G games and two more non-conference games--potentially an FCS opponent and this Group of Five/hypothetical San Diego State game.
I wouldn't want SDSU that frequently just for variety's sake. Prioritizing G5 games against SDSU/SJSU/Fresno/Nevada and maybe UNLV, Hawaii, or Boise St. would leave me pretty satisfied though.
Whatever it takes for us to get to the Rose Bowl and then the Natty...
3 divisions
1st: Cal, furd, U$C, Fucla
2nd: Ducks, Beavers, Puppies, Cougs
3rd: Arizona, ASU, Utah, Buffs
Play each team in your division, + 5 from the other 2 divisions. One ACC and 1 Big 10, +1 "other".
OR, realign the North and South to true North and South.
North: Ducks, Beavers, puppies, Cougs, Utah, Buffs
South: Cal, furd, U$C, Fucla, Arizona, ASU
Play each team in your region, + 3 from the other region, + 1 ACC & Big10, + 1 "other"
3 divisions works well from a scheduling perspective, but makes it hard to hold a conference title game.
I like switching to 8 conference games and I say rip off the bandaid and make it a fair, equal rotation without accommodating all the past traditions. Each team in the conference needs to play their main rival every year but that's it. We can play the LA schools whenever they come up in the normal rotation.
I'm definitely more of a traditionalist who would prefer we play the whole Pac-8 every year, but I understand that the way things have changed have started to make that untenable.
I'm okay with dropping the USC game, but I really hope we're at least able to continue to play UCLA every year (with Stanford similarly dropping UCLA, but keeping their annual game against USC). That way we still get to keep part of the tradition alive, but we'll still have 2 cross-division games to rotate among the remaining 5 teams.
I'm curious how the Big Ten would handle dropping down to 8 conference games. They have 7 team divisions, including a protected cross-division rivalry for Indiana-Purdue. If they drop a conference game, Indiana and Purdue would be in the same position as the California schools, but with only their primary rivalry available to drop if they want to play more than 1 other cross-division team.
As much as I would love to see the California traditions continue, I just don't see it happening with an 8-game conference schedule. The other 8 schools have never liked the fact that Cal and Stanfurd play U$C and U.C. Los Angeles every year. Preserving the tradition for an 8-game schedule would mean the Oregons and the Washingtons would only play each LA school once every 4 years (with home and away scheduling, only 1 LA trip every 4 years). Moreover, by preserving just Cal-ucla, Cal would only play u$c once every 2.5 years. None of it is ideal, but the conference needs to do what's best for the conference, even if that means we have to "adjust" our traditions. Or we could shrink the conference back to the Pac8 and play a 7-game conference schedule...
We shrink back down to 8, the Big Ten does the same, conference champs play in the Rose Bowl every year, and we just pretend the SEC doesn't exist. Problem solved! /s
Week 1 Pac-12/B1G champs from the previous year matchup at the Rose Bowl, throw in sufficient pageantry and it becomes THE official start of the college football season in the way basketball has opening matchups between 4 top teams.
In recent years, Cal-UCLA and Stanford-USC have tended to be competitive, whereas we've lost 15 out of our last 16 games against USC and UCLA's lost 12 of their last 13 against Stanford.
Additionally, there's the tradition of the two UC schools and the two private schools playing each other. I'm glad we were able to keep our streak of playing UCLA alive even through last season.
Personally, I also just enjoy going to the UCLA game a lot more. My dad and I went to Cal, and my uncle and sister went to UCLA, so there's a friendly family rivalry aspect for us as well. With USC I just have to sit there for four hours while their band plays their inane fight song and their team almost invariably pummels us on the field.
We'd still have 2 other cross-division games per season, so we'd still play USC every two to three years, but of the two, UCLA is the one I'd much prefer to see every season.
Neither the Big 10 nor the ACC regions are recruiting hot beds for Cal. The states of Texas and Arizona have produced more recruits. I suppose exposure to the Big 10 / ACC regions could produce some recruits...tbd. On first blush I don't know that an annual trip to the East is in the best interest of Cal (if you weigh 300lbs a 5 hour flight can't be too comfortable & time zone change wreak havoc on the body). But given that it is going to happen I'm happy to observe what happens.
True, those aren’t recruiting hotbeds for us or the Pac 12 but they could be. I also think it would help with more TV exposure and better game time slots so you can sale having more of your games potentially being on national TV screens or at least better time slots.
Pac 12 goals need to be eliminate 9 conference games and Pac 12 after dark must die.
This can’t come soon enough. I hope we start the 8 game conference schedule next season.
I assume this means we will have to drop playing USC and ucla every year, which I am completely okay with.
Dropping one conference game may help in stopping the cannibalization that occurs every year...
Teams defeating each other in intraconference play and causing extra losses that dilute the conference's reputation. Better to play one more cupcake like the SEC does.
Seems kinda strange that a player might see an in-conference team only once during a four-year career. I'm torn because having only 1 LA game/season would mean an LA trip only every other year (due to home games) and I think SoCal players like the opportunity to play in front of family and friends (plus recruitment opportunities).
We should just play SDSU as one of our OOC games, that would help ensure we play down in SoCal every year.
It isn’t about how people feel or think about metropolitan areas and more about San Diego being close enough for players families to watch their kids play.
Who are you going to play in LA not named UCLA or USC? LA doesn’t have any other P5 or G5 schools.
SDSU is about it and San Diego is a short drive from LA.
"I'd rather play different Big Ten or ACC schools every year than SDSU every other year or even every four years."
By cutting down to eight conference games, you don't have to make this choice. As I broke down in the post, Kliavkoff's goal allots for two ACC/B1G games and two more non-conference games--potentially an FCS opponent and this Group of Five/hypothetical San Diego State game.
I wouldn't want SDSU that frequently just for variety's sake. Prioritizing G5 games against SDSU/SJSU/Fresno/Nevada and maybe UNLV, Hawaii, or Boise St. would leave me pretty satisfied though.
You had me at "... while providing opportunities for Bears fans to travel and tailgate."