(06-07-2012 09:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Fans of non-AQ programs (mostly ECU) have argued that if the power conferences completely cut out the little guys, that the overall audience will suffer because fans of the 100's of small (I-A, II, III) schools will drop out of the audience.

It occurs to me that we have sort of a test case in California. About 10 years ago, the Big West (the old PCAA) dropped football entirely, and so did most of their California members. And the PAC does have lower audience numbers than the other power conferences.

Did the PAC always have lower audience numbers than the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12/Big 8/SWC?

Am I the only one to have thought of this?

The death of the Big West did impact the PAC, but not substantially, since there were still two other FBS conferences in the West, the WAC & the MWC.

now that there is no more Big West NOR WAC football, PAC can either play Mountain West Universities, or get schools from outside the general-region.

The "effect" on the PAC over time is minimal, compared to what the effect on the SEC or B12 would be, since the majority of Pac12 schools simply DO NOT PLAY FCS OPPONENTS. If we could get the SEC, B1G, ACC & B12 to agree to do that too, FBS would be a much better division in quality than it is today.

(06-10-2012 03:35 AM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  The death of the Big West did impact the PAC, but not substantially, since there were still two other FBS conferences in the West, the WAC & the MWC.

now that there is no more Big West NOR WAC football, PAC can either play Mountain West Universities, or get schools from outside the general-region.

The "effect" on the PAC over time is minimal, compared to what the effect on the SEC or B12 would be, since the majority of Pac12 schools simply DO NOT PLAY FCS OPPONENTS. If we could get the SEC, B1G, ACC & B12 to agree to do that too, FBS would be a much better division in quality than it is today.

Is that a PAC rule, or just how it's done out there?

For what it's worth, in 2012, Washington, WSU, UTah, Oregon, OSU, Colorado, Cal, Arizona and ASU have FCS games. STanford, UCLA and USC didn't. In 2011, Colorado, STanford, USC and UCLA didn't play FCS games.

SO let's amend that statement to saying that USC, Stanford and UCLA don't play FCS games.

(06-10-2012 05:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-10-2012 03:35 AM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  The death of the Big West did impact the PAC, but not substantially, since there were still two other FBS conferences in the West, the WAC & the MWC.

now that there is no more Big West NOR WAC football, PAC can either play Mountain West Universities, or get schools from outside the general-region.

The "effect" on the PAC over time is minimal, compared to what the effect on the SEC or B12 would be, since the majority of Pac12 schools simply DO NOT PLAY FCS OPPONENTS. If we could get the SEC, B1G, ACC & B12 to agree to do that too, FBS would be a much better division in quality than it is today.

Is that a PAC rule, or just how it's done out there?

For what it's worth, in 2012, Washington, WSU, UTah, Oregon, OSU, Colorado, Cal, Arizona and ASU have FCS games. STanford, UCLA and USC didn't. In 2011, Colorado, STanford, USC and UCLA didn't play FCS games.

SO let's amend that statement to saying that USC, Stanford and UCLA don't play FCS games.

Pac teams are playing FCS teams more often. The coaches think that 9 conference games makes the schedule difficult enough as it is.

The real solution is to go back to playing 8 conference games. Maybe that point will eventually sink in.

(06-10-2012 01:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-10-2012 05:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-10-2012 03:35 AM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  The death of the Big West did impact the PAC, but not substantially, since there were still two other FBS conferences in the West, the WAC & the MWC.

now that there is no more Big West NOR WAC football, PAC can either play Mountain West Universities, or get schools from outside the general-region.

The "effect" on the PAC over time is minimal, compared to what the effect on the SEC or B12 would be, since the majority of Pac12 schools simply DO NOT PLAY FCS OPPONENTS. If we could get the SEC, B1G, ACC & B12 to agree to do that too, FBS would be a much better division in quality than it is today.

Is that a PAC rule, or just how it's done out there?

For what it's worth, in 2012, Washington, WSU, UTah, Oregon, OSU, Colorado, Cal, Arizona and ASU have FCS games. STanford, UCLA and USC didn't. In 2011, Colorado, STanford, USC and UCLA didn't play FCS games.

SO let's amend that statement to saying that USC, Stanford and UCLA don't play FCS games.

Pac teams are playing FCS teams more often. The coaches think that 9 conference games makes the schedule difficult enough as it is.

The real solution is to go back to playing 8 conference games. Maybe that point will eventually sink in.

WOW.

That is a radical departure.

Historically, (Exempting the 2 newcomers,) only Wazzu, Oregon State, Stanford & AZ/ASU really ever played lower-division opponents.

You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but U-Dub has for decades maintained a POLICY of not playing lower-division schools... to walk away from that shows that winning a conference championship game (something new for the PAC) has not helped the quality of their OOC any.

O_O

That's not it.

It's that everyone wants to have more W's on their resume so that they can make a bowl game, or a better bowl game. In the Pac, like every other conference, only 3 or 4 teams are even thinking about the national title game this year, the rest are focused more on making a bowl game, or a better bowl game, and not on making the national title game.

The Pac should do it like the SEC. Eight conference games. Qualify as many teams for bowls as possible, and don't put unnecessary obstacles like 10 conference games (9 game regular season plus the conference title game) in the way of the teams who do have a shot at the national title.

The possibility of returning to an 8-game conference schedule died when the Pac-10 became the Pac-12. That is, unless the conference is willing to give up having California schools in both divisions or if the CA schools are willing to give up annual games against each other.

Otherwise we are stuck with the current equilibrium to this political game of divisional alignment. Maybe over time we will care more about padding the win record with patsies to better our bowl chances, but for now other considerations are winning the battle.

Jon Wilner suggested a few weeks ago that it would be in the best interests of Cal and Stanford to agree to drop the guaranteed annual games with U$C and UCLA in exchange for going back to an 8-game schedule.

That only lowers my already low opinion of Jon Wilner. I found it too bad that Ted Miller echoed that particular view.

(06-07-2012 06:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-07-2012 06:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  the extremely narrow demographic slice of fhe Pac-12 is also a factor here. It would be like asking Alabama fans to feel represented by LSU.

"Extremely narrow" = about 25 million people. That's a creative definition of "extremely narrow".

Top 2 % and only in LA and SF is extremely narrow. The Cal State system is the largest educational system in the country and did not have a single BCS representative.

If you look at BCS teams per population, CA is one of the more under represented areas of the country. And if you look at the Valley as an affinity area: (conservative, agricultural) it is completely without representation even though the area from Sacramento to Bakersfield is a highly populated area.

(06-10-2012 09:44 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  That only lowers my already low opinion of Jon Wilner. I found it too bad that Ted Miller echoed that particular view.

I've grown tired of Wilner for several reasons.

1- He is ALWAYS in the Top-5 all season long for "Worst Voter" on the poll-monitoring sites... shameless change-up of his votes to help & hurt specific WestCoast & non-WC programs.

2- Cheerleading constantly for San Jose State, and never responding to honest questions about SJSU's struggles & won't write anything about them that isn't a fluff piece.

3- (worst one recently:) Totally makes up expansion/realignment rumors, and then when his imaginary 'sources' don't pan-out, he waits 4-6 weeks, and re-releases the same phony, concocted rumor and re-releases it as "breaking news." He has been the #1 "source" of "San Diego State & Boise are going to stay in the Mountain West" nonsense that gets shot-down every single time he re-starts the rumor. Yeah, he wishes... see #2 and see where SJSU just went.

I wrote up an elaborate treatise last May on where I thought CFB was headed. Much of it is already dated... http://perfectcollegefootballworld.wordpress.com/

...but I contend that even if the top 70-80 schools broke off from the rest...they'd STILL schedule 2-3 games with the lower division schools because of the need for extra home games...and the need for guaranteed wins.