USC and UCLA

[KYSportsWriter]

I'd argue the amount of western teams tripping east is greater than those coming the other direction.

Depends on the matchup.

A powerhouse will demand a home game.

A non-powerhouse needs a payday.

So while Tennessee was willing to go to Cheyenne to face Wyoming, the Cowboys needed the $1 million payday enough to agree to move the game to Nashville.

You mean Knoxville?

 

[BTExpress]

No. They played that Wyoming "home" game in Nashville.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

No. They played that Wyoming "home" game in Nashville.

OK. Just wanted to check because I didn't know that.

 

[Left_Coast]

There is simply no impetus for teams like Alabama, Auburn, FSU, Florida, Ohio State, et al to go anywhere out west.

Well, they go there anyway sometimes.

Alabama played at UCLA in 2000.

Auburn played at USC in 2003.

Mississippi State played at Oregon.

Tennessee regularly goes to UCLA.

FSU has gone to USC.

Miami has gone to UCLA and BYU and Washington.

True enough, but in the context I was referring more to the non-LA schools.  There are examples ... Arkansas at SC was last year, or the year before? I'd argue the amount of western teams tripping east is greater than those coming the other direction.

Arkansas lost at USC last year 63-17.

USC opens at Fayetteville this year.

 

[Lester Bangs]

I'd argue the amount of western teams tripping east is greater than those coming the other direction.

Depends on the matchup.

A powerhouse will demand a home game.

A non-powerhouse needs a payday.

So while Tennessee was willing to go to Cheyenne to face Wyoming, the Cowboys needed the $1 million payday enough to agree to move the game to Nashville.

And Laramie ...

Well sure ... it's all a financial deal, which is what we were talking about. but even teams that would be considered similarly within the power structure of college football ... say Kentucky and Washington State  ... there is no freaking way Kentucky would do a home-and-home with the Cougs. You think Vanderbilt would agree to a home-and-home with Oregon State or Utah? Just wouldn't happen, as the western teams, other than four or five, will never guarantee the gate that an SEC or ACC team needs to go. And, as long as teams like Tennessee can buy their way out of playing games like this it won't ever change. Wyoming needs the money and Tennessee sure as hell doesn't want to play in Laramie.

 

[BTExpress]

Re: Laramie. I stand corrected.

I'm not sure why it's important what Vanderbilt would or would not do. Their gate is terrible. And I can't imagine a west team even wanting Vandy to visit.

LSU went to Arizona State last year. Arkansas went to USC last year. Tennessee is going to California next year. Mississippi State went to Oregon. Alabama went to UCLA. Auburn went to USC.

Ole Miss went to Wyoming in 2004. Isn't that comparable to your "never will happen" Kentucky-Washington State hypothetical?

What exactly do you want?

 

[TrooperBari]

Nebraska will be in it till the end.

Not a chance. I doubt playing LaTech and Nicholls State in Lincoln will really provide much outside of extra reps before the USC game. USC has a week off after playing at Arkansas.

Yahweh willing, it'll be done by the end of the third quarter so those working for Central Time papers will have some breathing room.

 

[Lester Bangs]

Re: Laramie. I stand corrected.

I'm not sure why it's important what Vanderbilt would or would not do. Their gate is terrible. And I can't imagine a west team even wanting Vandy to visit.

LSU went to Arizona State last year. Arkansas went to USC last year. Tennessee is going to California next year. Mississippi State went to Oregon. Alabama went to UCLA. Auburn went to USC.

What exactly do you want?

I guess I'd like a situation where teams near the bottom of the financial food chain had an opportunity to work their way up and matter ... but with the current structure it simply isn't going to happen. It isn't so much about west vs. (south) east as it is about rich vs. poor ... it just so happens the football rich are disproportionately located in the south. My example of Vandy is only to point out that the football poor of the south would not even care to bother with teams of relative status in the west.

 

[BTExpress]

I guess I'd like a situation where teams near the bottom of the financial food chain had an opportunity to work their way up and matter ... but with the current structure it simply isn't going to happen.

It's not easy.

But it is possible. Look what Bill Snyder did at Kansas State, what Gary Barnett did (for one magical season anyway) at Northwestern.

Fresno State. Louisville. Those programs seem on the cusp of something. Central Florida went from 0-11 to a bowl in one year, went from four home games last year to seven this year.

Part of the problem is once a team starts to climb up the food chain, the coach who helped get them there bolts to an elite program. See Meyer, Urban.

If you're talking about the bottom of the bottom (Louisiana-Monroe, etc.) . . . good luck.

It's not the NFL, which is probably a good thing. I don't think I could take 80 or 90 teams going 5-6 or 6-5.

 

[Shaggy]

I don't understand his point. He criticizes a 12th game, implies that it brings too many cupcakes into the schedule, gives several Pac-10 examples, then admits that the entire Pac-10 will have the same number of nonconference games anyway because a league game was added.

How did a 12th game create more pastries in the Pac-10, when the nonconference games in the league went from 3 to...uhh, 3?

 

[ogre]

USC is also going to play home and home with Miami, starting in 2009.

 

[Songbird]

USC is also going to play home and home with Miami, starting in 2009.

Exxxxcellent.

 

[micropolitan guy]

Georgia might be coming out west in 2010 or 2011 as the sandwich for an impending 2-for-1 series with a Pac-10 team that starts in 2007.

Agree that the premise of the column is faulted because the Pac-10 schools all actually upgraded their schedules by adding the ninth league game and completing the round-robin. That made it extra hard because every other year a Pac-10 team will play an unbalanced league schedule (four home, five away), when the rivalry game it on the road.

 

[Matt Foley]

This is a tidbit from Bob Keisser's column at the Press-Telegram in Long Beach:

For those who had forgotten, the NCAA approved college football's Division I-A team move to a 12-game schedule, yet the same group refuses to consider even a modest playoff system.

And this move basically allows teams to add a pastry to their schedule. Pac-10 schools, too: Most of the teams have a soft-serve on their slate. Portland State shows up on the schedules of Cal and Oregon, and San Jose State is on the slate at Stanford and Washington. Others: Stephen F. Austin (Arizona), Northern Arizona (Arizona State), Eastern Washington (Oregon State) and Idaho (Oregon State and Washington State).

UCLA (Utah, Rice, Notre Dame) and USC (Arkansas, Nebraska, Notre Dame) are the only Pac-10 schools that chose not to pad the slate. One has to wonder if it was a good idea for the Pac-10 to use the 12th game as a chance to play a full conference schedule. Each team now plays all nine opponents.

I'm a USC honk. One of my things is that the Trojans play the best of the best, so this is exciting they're playing Nebraska -- I've never seen a USC-Nebraska game in all my years. I'd love to see a USC-Miami game, too. USC lost both recent games to Florida State in 1997 and 1998; the '97 game was close (14-7), but the Noles killed USC in '98 (30-10 or something like that).

I'm not sure I've ever seen a UCLA-Notre Dame game, either. Screw UCLA.

Screw USC. Please explain how it is UCLA's fault that you have never seen a UCLA-Notre Dame game

 

[Songbird]

It's not UCLA's fault. I just hate UCLA.

 

[Matt Foley]

Well I hate USC, so I guess we can leave it at that.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

Go UK! :D ::)