šŸˆ Pac-12 coaches critical of 8-game SEC slate

Several Pac-12 coaches took aim at the SEC during their spring teleconference Thursday, criticizing the league's decision to stick with an eight-game conference schedule that they believe could disrupt the equity of the selection process as the sport moves into the College Football Playoff era.

"I've been saying this for three years now: I think if we're going to go into a playoff and feed into one playoff system, we all need to play by the same rules," said Stanford coach David Shaw, whose team has played in four straight BCS bowl games, including three in his tenure. "Play your conference. Don't back down from playing your own conference. It's one thing to back down from playing somebody else. But don't back down from playing your own conference."

Last week, the SEC voted to maintain an eight-game conference schedule. The Pac-12 and Big 12 already play nine conference games, and the Big Ten is scheduled to start a nine-game slate in 2016. The ACC will hold its spring meetings later this month in Florida, where it could decide to either maintain an eight-game schedule, plus its partnership with Notre Dame, or move to nine games.

"I would like to see everybody operate under the same set of rules or restrictions or regulations or whatever word you want to throw in there," UCLA coach Jim Mora said. "I think the Pac-12 is an incredibly competitive conference. I look at the teams that make up this conference and I think anybody can beat anybody on any given week. I think the same can be said for the SEC. And yet we play nine games against each other. I like that.

"I think we like that as a conference and I think we take pride in that because we're interested in competing against the best week in and week out. We try not to schedule too many patsies."

Most of the Pac-12 coaches were of the opinion that playing only eight conference games gives SEC teams a competitive advantage -- especially because they can schedule a fourth nonconference game later in the season.

"I would hate for one of those teams left standing that didn't go through the same gauntlet as all the other teams have [to be selected for a playoff]," Shaw said.

Some coaches weren't as pointed as Shaw and Mora.

Washington State's Mike Leach -- also in agreement that there should be a level playing field -- was complimentary of the SEC for taking advantage of the situation.

"Until that is required, I think they are elevating their conference and I think they are fairly clever to do it," he said.

Added Oregon coach Mark Helfrich: "If we're going to call anything equal and everybody pointing in the same direction as far as a playoff, it seems like the qualification for that playoff should be equal. We're a long way from that with a few leagues. We can't do anything about that ...

"I'm not surprised. They do that for a reason. There are a couple of leagues that are in the minority. That's definitely to their advantage. I don't think that part of it was surprising."

Others, like Arizona's Rich Rodriguez and new Washington coach Chris Petersen, said that while they see the competitive advantage, they are more focused on their teams.

"I think it would make it more fair," Rodriguez said. "But I'm not worried about that. Hell, I'm just trying to get a first down right now."

Shaw, who was the most outspoken of the Pac-12 coaches, called the SEC's decision more disappointing than surprising.

"There's no taking away anything that LSU and Alabama and Auburn recently have accomplished," Shaw said. "They've been phenomenal. My take is to say, 'OK, the rest of us are playing our conference. We're playing nine out of 12 teams in our conference. Why can't you do the same thing?'

"You can't color it. You can't try to explain it away. You're not doing what the rest of us are doing it. We're doing it. The Big Ten is doing it. The Big 12 is doing it. Everybody is pushing toward a nine-game conference schedule."

From ESPNU—Continue reading...
 
While I hold my own opinions on the SEC scheduling format—which don't coincide with what it is—I have to take a pause when I see PAC officials making comments.

Is it a conference pride thing? Or, is it a look at what they've done and what they are purporting?

Take as example:

"The depth of our Conference will be on display every week next season," said Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott. "Coming off a record nine teams competing in this year's bowl season, next season's nine-game Conference schedule will be the toughest in the nation."

OK, fair enough. Of the nine, one was a 6-6 Washington State team who lost to Colorado State. A CSU team who tied for sixth place in the Mountain West conference.

Is Oregon over the 2013 Texas team a bragging point? Arizona over Boston College? Wins against BYU?

Granted, no team from either conference won their BCS bowl. I guess I'd call that a push.

Still...leaves me scratching my head, a bit.
 
Wonder why they aren't complaining about the Big XII not having a conference championship game. I mean, hell your complaining about being even and fair, seems like you'd be throwing them into the conversation as well. The result of not playing a conference championship game, Big XII gets THREE BYE weeks...

Big Ten isn't playing 9 conference games until 2016.
Pac-12, Big Ten finally started playing a conference championship game how many years after the SEC? Both in 2011, (almost 20 years after the SEC).
Notre Dame isn't in a conference for football.

Why aren't they bringing the others into the conversation...because they aren't a threat.

That being said, I do think the SEC will eventually get to a 9 game conference schedule. I'm disappointed we haven't.
 
"I think the Pac-12 is an incredibly competitive conference." Well, Jim, I don't disagree, but its all about levels. The PAC12 had 6 teams in the final top 25 and the SEC had 7. That's pretty good. Now to the levels... The PAC12 had 2 teams in the top 15. The SEC had 3 teams in the top 5. Different levels. The PAC12 had 4 teams in the top 20. SEC, 4 in the top 7. Different Levels. Competitive, yes. On the same level, NO.
 
Wonder why they aren't complaining about the Big XII not having a conference championship game. I mean, hell your complaining about being even and fair, seems like you'd be throwing them into the conversation as well. The result of not playing a conference championship game, Big XII gets THREE BYE weeks...

Big Ten isn't playing 9 conference games until 2016.
Pac-12, Big Ten finally started playing a conference championship game how many years after the SEC? Both in 2011, (almost 20 years after the SEC).
Notre Dame isn't in a conference for football.

Why aren't they bringing the others into the conversation...because they aren't a threat.

That being said, I do think the SEC will eventually get to a 9 game conference schedule. I'm disappointed we haven't.

I'm not pointing to our schedule and saying "tougher." However, I am saying just because they are playing nine conference games doesn't mean their's is tougher.

If it was about our schedule? How can they point to a team like Western Carolina without pointing the same finger at Stanford for scheduling UC-Davies?
I suspect you don't hear anyone pointing to it because it's stepping outside of the politically correct guidelines to point to Army...
 
I'm so tired of fair and equitable. I think our schedule blows, I really do. But if it is such an advantage, maybe the PAC should drop to 8.
 
I'm so tired of fair and equitable. I think our schedule blows, I really do. But if it is such an advantage, maybe the PAC should drop to 8.

I'm sure you think teams like W. Carolina, Southern Miss, and FAU blow. There's no real competition there.

However, when you talk about how much you think it could be better, do you consider how difficult it is to make it better? Let me put it another way. Is Colorado State any different?

And let me pose this question: which is worse? Playing at Duke or playing W. Carolina at home?
 
"Don't back down, play your own conference"? Easy to say when you're playing Colorado, Arizona, Washington State, Oregon State, Washington, Utah.

USC hasn't been what they were. UCLA is still a ways away in my eyes, and Arizona State hasn't shown they can step up. So basically you have Stanford and Oregon. LSU and Auburn already slowed the Oregon train, so I think we've shown how good we are on this side of the country.

Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Auburn, South Carolina, Georgia, and sometimes Florida have shown they can play and beat anyone in the country. That's a lot heavier than any other conference in America. Prove me wrong, but I know they can't.
 
@TerryP

Frankly, they're pretty much on par as far as toughness. I'm old school, man. I like home and homes. Shoot me. I think it's pretty damn cool to go rolling into a stadium that we never play at, and on that particular day make it a home crowd, and experience what other places have to offer. I don't care about the loss of revenue from having one fewer home game. I'm not into Bama to generate revenue. You won't convince me that one fewer home game against East Popcorn Directional State School of the Blind Sisters of Mercy is going to damage our program long haul.

I understand why we have the patsies at home, I do. But it doesn't mean I've got to like it, and I'm damn sure not going to attend it.
 
@riz I'm not one to attend those games either. However, there's a part of me that considers people who can't afford to take their family to the Penn State type of games—a W. Carolina fills that bill.

When it comes to revenue, I can see where you're coming from but I take a broader view of that picture. The last report I saw was from the 2012 season and the revenue brought in to the Tuscaloosa area was about 25 million. No matter how you look at impact, there's no denying that's a hell of a boost to the coiffures.

If the University is only seeing 20% of that 25 million?

What do we get out of going to a stadium like Duke? You can be as old school as you like and it still doesn't change the fact we get NOTHING out of a road trip to a school like Duke was when we visited there in 2010. Nadda.
 
Still rather have a home and home. Just don't schedule it with junkers. That's my whoel argument anyway. You just cherry picked the Duke game for argument sake.
 
I have been for 9 conference games for a while, and I would also like to upgrade our OOC schedule. I know there are reasons that we schedule as we do. Still, I went back and looked up our 1977 schedule. We had seven SEC games (then team league then): Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Georgia, UT, Mississippi State, LSU and Auburn. The non conference schedule was: @USC,Nebraska, Louisville and Miami the late seventies USC and Nebraska were perennial top 5 teams, and Miami was competitive. Only Louisville would have been considered a breather. This was an 11 game schedule with seven conference games, two powerhouse opponents (one on the road) and two reasonable foes. The Tide went 10-1 and hammered Ohio State in the bowl game. Anyone who had season tickets that year certainly got their money's worth.

I also think back to 2009 (maybe 2008) in the ACC. They were a twelve team league playing eight conference games. They managed to place nine teams in bowl games. Strong league? Hardly. They won two bowl games. Basically, you had to win two league games, and beat your four cupcakes you are bowl eligible.

So if it was up to me, I would say play nine conference games, play at least one OOC game against a power 5 opponent, and upgrade the rest of it to at least eliminate the FCS teams.
 
Still rather have a home and home. Just don't schedule it with junkers. That's my whoel argument anyway. You just cherry picked the Duke game for argument sake.

There's the thing, though. And you're right, but a little wrong. Duke wasn't cherry picked—it fell in the same category as W. Carolina does this season.

By all indications we're going to continue with the neutral site games. There's one of our four OOC knocked out. With the new scheduling, that'll likely also take care of the requirement by SEC schedule standards.

We had the home and home with Penn State concluding that season. The Duke game, was one of those three games that can only be described as "practice games." I'd rather than those games on campus.

Both scenarios, the Penn State home and home and the neutral site game, fill the requirements. Don't give me one of those remaining three on the road against a piss poor team—let's keep them at home.
 
I have been for 9 conference games for a while, and I would also like to upgrade our OOC schedule. I know there are reasons that we schedule as we do. Still, I went back and looked up our 1977 schedule. We had seven SEC games (then team league then): Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Georgia, UT, Mississippi State, LSU and Auburn. The non conference schedule was: @USC,Nebraska, Louisville and Miami the late seventies USC and Nebraska were perennial top 5 teams, and Miami was competitive. Only Louisville would have been considered a breather. This was an 11 game schedule with seven conference games, two powerhouse opponents (one on the road) and two reasonable foes. The Tide went 10-1 and hammered Ohio State in the bowl game. Anyone who had season tickets that year certainly got their money's worth.

I also think back to 2009 (maybe 2008) in the ACC. They were a twelve team league playing eight conference games. They managed to place nine teams in bowl games. Strong league? Hardly. They won two bowl games. Basically, you had to win two league games, and beat your four cupcakes you are bowl eligible.

So if it was up to me, I would say play nine conference games, play at least one OOC game against a power 5 opponent, and upgrade the rest of it to at least eliminate the FCS teams.

Miami was far from competitive in the 70's. Their best record that decade was a six win season (twice) and the year we played them they were 3-8 (coming off of a 3-8 season in '76.) Louisville was no better. They had a handful of seven win season—against teams that carried worse records than they did. We played one team that year, in the SEC, with a winning record—LSU.

FWIW, 1976 wasn't much better in terms of SEC play. We played three that year with a winning record.

Attached are the '76 and '77 seasons.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    26.8 KB · Views: 3
Bryant felt that the Tide was cut out of the 1966 NC picture because of the perceived weakness of the schedule that year. He did a good bit to upgrade that schedule starting as soon as 1969. The SEC schedule was a relative constant as far as quality. We certainly were not ducking any SEC opponents to ease our path. Bryant's Tide teams were the only consistently strong teams in the SEC from 71-80. While there were a few cupcakes along the way, there was some meat in the OOC part of the schedule.

The home and home with Penn State was certainly a plus for both schools. I am not sure how that home and home with Duke came into being. I know that we tried to get them to move that game to Atlanta, but they declined. We had been bringing Southern Miss to BDS yearly for a long time, but when the time came to renew that contract they wanted one game out of three to be played in Hattiesburg, and we were not interested. There program fell off the planet for a while, and now they are back. I confess that I don't mind them being back. They have actually beaten us in the past. But I agree, never play them at their place. Some of the home and homes we have done I wouldn't mind repeating. them. Besides Penn State, we did Nebraska and Southern Cal (when they were top tier teams), Notre Dame, Oklahoma. I have no problem with any of those, and a few others. But I understand that it is all about the Benjamins, so the need for as many home games as possible. Still, our games with the likes of Georgia State and Georgia Southern need to go away. And as long as we can go places like Atlanta or Dallas (even Indianapolis) for a game against a name opponent on a neutral field. I do realize that in this new environment with the four team playoff we need to be careful, lest we lose to an OOC foe and miss the party. I know that I am not likely to get what I want as far as 9th conference game, but please, let's get a little better grade of cup cake on the schedule.

If the mandatory OOC game against a team from a power 5 opponent goes into effect, I expect that the ADs at Kansas, Colorado and Wake Forest will be getting a lot of calls.
 
Back
Top Bottom