PAC-12/B1G Crossover

[Wilson’s Mustache]

I was listening the Podcast of Champions episode and a listener asked a question about the PAC-12 dropping the 9th conference game each year and instead scheduling a team from outside the conference annually–similar to what Standford and USC do with Notre Dame–to create some kind of rivalry while maintaining that P5 game for SOS. While there are some reason it could help the conference its ultimately unrealistic.

However, I remember a while back there was some talk about a yearly B1G game for every PAC-12 team on a yearly basis–I believe the Utah Michigan games were apart of this–but it was scrapped.

Combining the two ideas, I thought it would be fun contemplate what a good crossover game to be played each year with the Big Ten would be for all the PAC-12 schools.

Arizona-Illinois

California-Purdue

Colorado-Nebraska(This one was obvious, but Michigan State for the Mel Tucker drama would be interesting too)

Oregon-Wisconsin

Oregon State-Indiana

Stanford – Northwestern

UCLA-Penn State

USC-Ohio State

Utah-Iowa (Similar programs based on success and play style)

Washington-Michigan

Washington State-Minnesota

ASU-Rutgers

[Utah]

I’ve beaten this drum so much but I will continue to do so. The P5 need to sell their rights as a package. Every conference plays 8 conference games and 4 OOC games. The tv partners get to set two of the OOC games on a H/H basis. So, every February the tv partners release the OOC matchups. This year would have been Oregon vs Georgia, the two that just barely missed the playoffs. Ohio State vs LSU. Utah vs TCU. Whatever makes for a great game. 

Then the schools can schedule their other two OOC games in late Feb, schedule is released in early March. This year has shown you don’t need to set up a football game 20 years in advance. A couple of months works just fine. 

Every P5 champ is in the playoffs. Expand to 8 games. 5 champs, 3 at large bids. No auto-bid for a G5, but if they earn it, I’m ok with it BUT they have to play AT LEAST 4 P5 schools. No undefeated G5 with one win over a s**tty Pitt team is deserving of a spot over a two loss Wisconsin who played Ohio State twice and 11 other P5 games (so, I’m am in essence saying, no G5). 

There you go, problem solved. Everyone plays the same schedule. Everyone has a tough OOC. Everyone has a couple of gimmee games. And we all get GREAT matchups early in the year. 

[Whitty]

It’s too good of an idea, they’ll never do it

[Utah]

I know it’s been talked about behind closed doors. There is a chance it could happen. What would hurt it is guaranteed money. 

If they group together, will the P12 be ok with 30 million a year while the SEC gets 40? Would the SEC be ok with 30 million, the same as the P12, but a “bonus” for games used, which would end up with the SEC at 40 million? 

That will be the key. How do they pay the SEC and Big 10 more but allowing the ACC, Big 12 and PAC 12 to save face? 

They’d have to do some sort of “everyone gets paid the same but then you get paid extra for every game that we use” type of deal. Maybe every conference gets 25 million per team, and any games on ABC/NBC/FOX get tier 1 bonus, every game on ESPN and FSN gets tier 2 bonus and every game on ESPN2/FSN2/other ESPN channels gets tier 3 bonus. 

I don’t know if the Big 10 or SEC would agree to that because they would be risking money and I don’t know if the P12, ACC, Big 12 would let the other conferences get a bigger “guaranteed” piece of the pie.

BUT, if it happened, it would be glorious. 

[Central Coast Ute]

I like your thinking. Unfortunately, The SEC will never give up on their mid November FCS cupcakes games.

[Utah]

Under my plan, they could still do that with thier two weeks a year of schedule whoever you want. 

 

[Wilson’s Mustache]

Thanks for derailing my thread. =(

[Charlie]

Don’t need to drop a conference game.  Currently, many P5 teams have either 1/4^th or 1/3^rd of their annual inventory scheduled as meaningless games.  The cause of this is pursuit of an undefeated season to position for the playoffs.  Until this changes, number of wins will be the scheduling priority.  Could you imagine a 6A HS team padding a schedule of 2A teams to assure a good playoff position?  It doesn’t happen because division champs go to the playoffs regardless of record.

My solution, all P5 conference champs go to the playoffs.  Any at large team invited should be based on number of P5 wins over win percentage.  This would create a clear incentive to schedule P5 teams (quality inventory of games).  Mid-major schools should have their own playoff.  HSs figured that out long ago, colleges need to do so as well.  To keep some regionally interesting games between P5 and mid-major schools, pre-season games should be allowed for this purpose.  One game a year could be used for this as well as warm up.  With precious few games each year, a single game of poor inventory is about all that is fair to the season ticket holders that currently must pay for so much of that poor inventory.     

[Utah]

I think there should be “qualifiers” to get into the playoffs:

1 – You must play 9 P5 schools, not counting your conference championship game (I’d vote for 10, but be ok with 9).

2 – No non P5 games or bye weeks the last 4 weeks of the regular season. OR You MUST have a bye week/FCS game the last four weeks of the season (if the SEC wants to argue that the schedule is too tough for amatuers to play).   

Those two rules solve 99% of the issues with rankings/schedules/etc. 

[ProudUte]

I don’t always agree with you on things but in this case, I am 100% in agreement.

[UtMtBiker]

Why are all your posts quadruple spaced?

[123punt]

I like your thoughts and agree with almost everything you said. However, I think if any fan base should be sympathetic to an excelling G5 program, it would be Utah. You can look back on Utah’s undefeated seasons and find plenty of reasons they shouldn’t have been included in the BCS, among them an overall weak schedule.

I’m not saying G5 should get an auto-bid, but I think putting a lot of additional criteria on their inclusion would essentially keep them out. Letting a committee decide would hopefully allow for exciting, competitive match ups. Or more $$ for the $EC… 😀

[Utah]

We were kept out. When did we play for a national title? I do believe we were the only undefeated team in 2008. Why make it easier for other, further hurting Utah? 

Why make it so a 11-2 Utah is kept out while a 12-0 Boise or UCF gets in? Utah should NOT fight to make it easier, because no one did that for us. Utah should fight to make it easier for UTAH to get into the playoffs. 

[123punt]

That’s a fair point. Hopefully our trajectory continues and we make the playoffs.

[Author]

Posts