Go West, Young Men: Forget the Big Ten and Schedule Pac-10 Teams Instead

by T Kyle King on Apr 3, 2008 10:33 PM EDT in Football

Recently, I addressed the latest developments in the ongoing deterioration of Big Ten-S.E.C. relations and I was twice told to be less sensitive. Although I believe some sensitivity is warranted (and Cale Self, for one, agrees with me), I have always believed that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so, when Kanu graciously provided some perspective, I joined in his celebration of college football's regional flavor and acknowledged the following:

One thing that has become clear to me in the course of all this interconference squabbling is that Pac-10 fans . . . generally are easier fellows with whom to deal.

On more than one occasion, a Pac-10 blogger has written something with which I disagreed and I have written a response expressing my contrary view. Virtually without fail, I have gotten a cordial, reasonable response, which almost always led to increased mutual understanding and sometimes even the discovery of common ground.

In light of Kanu's ecumenical spirit regarding such matters, I thought I would expound upon that point further; rather than point the finger at some Big Ten fans to illustrate what they are doing wrong, I thought I should follow the advice of at least one Big Ten fan and attempt to illustrate how to do it the right way.

This one's for you, Kanu.

When I argued that there was no East Coast bias, Bruins Nation's Nestor respectfully disagreed, which led to a lengthy exchange of views between Pac-10 and S.E.C. bloggers, ultimately resulting in something resembling consensus between kindred spirits on opposite (though not necessarily opposing) coasts.

In the course of that conversation, USCLink stated that he made it a point to root against the S.E.C., which caused me to accuse him of having a West Coast bias. USCLink likewise responded respectfully and a productive exchange again ensued.

When the now (regrettably) defunct Cal blog Tightwad Hill charged that "the Mighty SEC . . . undoubtedly [would] lead the weenie list again" where out-of-conference scheduling was concerned, I fired back angrily, but Pac-10 bloggers did not respond in kind. 82 Sluggo Win's Jonathan Tu asked a serious question and Tightwad took a measured tone, provoking a more cordial retort from me, which once again led to an insightful exchange between bloggers.

This recurring pattern was seen again when my final BlogPoll ballot drew questions from DCTrojan and BCSBusters, after which an initially heated exchange commenced and ultimately generated fruitful debate. Similarly, when Addicted to Quack's Dave took Les Miles to task for his inflammatory offseason remarks, my reply provoked a calmer clarification of Dave's views. Another discussion ensued.

This discussion didn't even involve any mockery of Oregon's uniforms. Well, O.K., maybe a little.

Such instances abound. When Georgia met Oregon State in the 2006 College World Series, Building the Dam and Dawg Sports handled the competition with class. When The Band Is Out On The Field's Kevin articulated his criteria for organic success, I tried to build on his ideas. When Dave addressed Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen's bold declaration regarding the Rose Bowl, I used his thoughts as the basis for suggesting a compromise. When Dave analyzed his own team, I gave him credit for stating his case more cogently than some national commentators I could name.

In light of all of the foregoing, my opinion on the matter of coast-to-coast interconference relations comes down to this:

The Pac-10 and the S.E.C. share neither geographic proximity nor common bowl tie-ins. For all the attention paid to the split national title of 2003 and Auburn's omission from the mix in 2004, we in the South aren't any more singleminded about national championship arguments than other college football fans, and, besides . . . such debates are part of what makes the sport great.

So what gives, folks? Why does this feud get all the hype? To quote a Los Angelino with my surname, "Can't we all just get along?"

Predictably, good faith attempts at answering this thorny question followed.

Yes, I am working up to a point here; bear with me.

We are left, I believe, with good reason to be grateful for the increase in instances of cross-sectional scheduling between Pac-10 and S.E.C. squads. Certainly, Georgia fans are excited about this fall's trip to Tempe, which is why the Dawgosphere is letting you know how to get tickets to the Arizona State game and what to do when you get there. (Contrary to what Doug Gillett believes, there are more and better reasons for making the trek to the Copper State than the Arizona State and Georgia co-eds . . . not that they shouldn't be reason enough for you single fellows.)

The increasingly cordial relations between Pac-10 and S.E.C. fans (especially in comparison to the ongoing troubles plaguing the S.E.C.'s dealings with the Big Ten), coupled with the level of excitement generated by the Arizona State-Georgia series, strongly suggest that the Red and Black should continue looking westward for future out-of-conference opponents. Since the movement to get Michigan on Georgia's schedule officially is defunct (and since Midwestern teams generally seem disinclined to play the Classic City Canines), we in Bulldog Nation need to be examining options such as U.C.L.A.

The Bulldogs and the Bruins have history with one another---Georgia ended the 1942 season against U.C.L.A. in the Rose Bowl and opened the 1983 campaign against a Rick Neuheisel-quarterbacked U.C.L.A. squad in Athens---and both the reaction of Bulldog Nation to the prospect of a Rose Bowl berth last season and the enthusiasm of the Bruin faithful over their team's 2008 date with Tennessee offer some hint of the sort of excitement a Georgia-U.C.L.A. home-and-home series would generate.

(By the way, I would encourage you to read the comments following the foregoing posting regarding the Tennessee-U.C.L.A. game, in which Bruins Nation anticipates that the showdown with the visiting S.E.C. squad will be "the first in a long line of great games" on "one helluva Labor Day" which will provide "exposure" thanks to "this move to get the program under the national spotlight." The only comment in the entire thread that indicates anything other than eager anticipation at facing a legitimate foe from the Southeast is this bit of benign braggadocio, which contains not so much as the faintest hint of the sorts of childish and obnoxious animadversions about education systems, economic hardships, and military conquest to which we routinely are subjected by some of the more vocal folks in Big Ten country; to wit: "Looks like we get to Punk 2 teams from Tennessee." That, of course, is inoffensive garden-variety fan trash talk, to which no reasonable person could take umbrage, yet not two hours passed between the expression of that sentiment and the posting of a respectful examination of the "very talented" Volunteers, with which another Bruin fan concurred. In short, we have every reason to believe that the interactions between the Georgia and U.C.L.A. fans would be hallmarked by fierce yet classy competition, which is as it should be.)

Unless, of course, somebody brings up this yutz, then all bets are off.

If all that isn't enough to convince you that a Georgia-U.C.L.A. football series is a good idea, this sure should be. I, for one, am prepared to run the risk that the local ladies will prove distracting to our players in order to pair up the two teams most likely to feature as attractive a combination of wholesome co-eds as you are apt to see outside of an Ole Miss intra-squad scrimmage conducted with several sororities in attendance. (Contrast that with, say, a match-up between Arizona State and Florida, many of whose gals appear to be more than a little on the raunchy side . . . which, come to think of it, may explain why Doug is so looking forward to the Tempe trip.)

It's a natural fit---Georgia and U.C.L.A., that is, not Doug Gillett and raunchy women (Doug just has bad luck with nice girls)---which is why the subject has come up before both in the blogosphere and, apparently, in the athletic offices, as well. Bruin fans respect Georgia and Bulldog fans respect U.C.L.A.'s program in return. This is good for Georgia, good for U.C.L.A., good for the Pac-10, good for the S.E.C., and good for college football.

While I know of at least one fan who will be thrilled if such a series comes to pass, we won't be gearing up fully for getting the Bruins on the Bulldogs' schedule right away, since Georgia is pursuing a fourth straight national gymnastics title and U.C.L.A. is bound for its third consecutive final four. Once the winter sports are done and spring is completely sprung, though, SB Nation's Georgia and U.C.L.A. weblogs will be teaming up to find a way to further the growing trend towards transcontinental interconference understanding by persuading the universities in Athens and in Westwood to square off on the gridiron in the near future.

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Thanks, Kyle

I'll readily admit to being a newer college football fan. I wasn't raised into a family of sports fans--and I'm still fairly convinced that neither of my parents have ever watched a college football game. While I became a casual Oregon fan in the mid 1990s, my fanaticism didn't materialize until the early part of this decade when I went to college.

When I "took Les Miles to task" last summer, everything that is bad about sports reared its ugly head. I'm throwing terms like 'redneck' around. You rightfully took me to the woodshed for that. And, dammit, you made me think.

I'm not the kind of person who throws something like that around, so why would a football discussion make me do it? Moreover--how is that fun?

What makes college football the best sport in the world is not just the game and the pagentry (which are both great) but also the debate. And we can devolve into namecalling, or we can actually have an intelligent debate. Now, I'll freely admit that its a lot like philosophy in that there is no absolute truth and you're not likely to change most people's minds, but we strive to do so nonetheless.

In any case, was I going to change anyone's mind by calling them a redneck? No--I was responding to ignorance with ignorance and merely feeding the problem. This is college football, and the proper way to solve any dispute is with great debate.

There is a lot of ugly sides to fandom in sports right now. Honestly, it is something that my alma mater has been accused of from time to time. And while the debate and discussion is what makes part of college football so great for us--for a large segment of the fan population, blind support of their team and fans is supported with unjust and plain mean-spirited antagonism of other fans is what floats their boat. And while I generally admonish these fans I was teetering--if not crossing--that line. Certainly, the Oregon State jokes or Huck the Fuskies chants are fine--but what cause does anyone have to throw blind slanders or personal insults at complete strangers just because they are fans of other teams.

You're a voice of reason in the blogosphere, Kyle, and do a good job of taking the high road. You give criticism where it is due--but always do so in a respectful and thought provoking manner. And you made me stop to consider my own attitides and both my writing and my general experience as a fan is much better for it.

I eagerly anticipate our cross sectional matchups with Tennessee and Georgia, and hope that other SEC schools will follow in scheduling a home and home with my Ducks. I also hope that you will grace us with your presence in Eugene during that game. Win or lose, lets have a beer afterward. Its on me.

Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks Blog

by Addicted to Quack on Apr 4, 2008 12:29 AM EDT 0 recs

Thanks For The Love, Mayor.

I would love, love, love UCLA-UGA in the Rose Bowl. If it happens then I'll be the first to invite y'all out for a great time in Cali. And no baby-makin' excuses this time, either.

Although my GF is a UCLA grad, so that could get a little tricky. Eihter way, bring it.

Even better, Mayor- get me a Cal-UGA game over in Bezerkeley or a Stanford-UGA game down in Palo Alto, and I'll name my firstborn TKK- Boy or girl: whatever. If you can make that happen, then you will be my hero for all time.

by Kanu on Apr 4, 2008 4:04 AM EDT 0 recs

Cal-UGA

I'm all for a trip out the LeConte trail, and I'll gladly take any excuse to visit one of my best friends, who makes her home in SF. And I can promise I won't get lost in the sleazier fringes south of Market: I was never terribly comfortable in leather, anyway. And I'll stop there, lest I sully Kyle's family-friendly blog further.

by NCT on Apr 4, 2008 9:18 AM EDT up 0 recs

Oh, and Damon's onto you...

2008 Arizona State-Georgia

2010 Colorado-Georgia

2014 Oregon-Georgia

Forget the Big 11, just keep comin' out West.

Love it.

by Kanu on Apr 4, 2008 4:07 AM EDT 0 recs

I wonder why.....

.....this non-conference scheduling thing is such a big deal in the first place. Isn't it just another futile attempt that Team X's fan will use just to justify their unshakable belief that their team is better than yours? Isn't this why we have the BCS computers? Scheduling (for me) seems like it should be a direct result of the head coach's and AD's philosophy. If they want to schedule four cupcakes, let 'em. If that team ends up undefeated and misses out on the championship game because of their SOS factored into the computers, then it's their own fault. I'm not saying that the BCS is perfect, nor even that I like it (which I don't - for the simple fact that it's only designed to give us the top TWO teams).

Now, I like seeing big-time OOC match-ups as much as the next guy, but to a certain extent, I just don't see why it's that big of a deal.

By the way, thanks for the mention, Kyle. I'll try to get something new up to replace that rant about higher education. Hopefully I'll find you tomorrow sometime around Sanford!

Go Dawgs!!!

Cale Self, Graduate Teaching Assistant - University of Georgia, Adjunct Professor - Emmanuel College

by allhailcale on Apr 4, 2008 9:48 AM EDT 0 recs

becasue we want to see good matchups

they are simply the best entertainment. Nobody wants to watch Alabama play The Citadel or USC play UC-Davis. We want to see Oregon-Georgia, USC-Ohio State, LSU-Oklahoma, Texas-Florida, etc. Watching BCS powerhouse hang 75 on Directional State U doesn't make for entertaining television*.

* The above doens't apply to Mihcigan.

Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks Blog

by Addicted to Quack on Apr 4, 2008 10:12 AM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah, they just want to see the Duck hang 50 on us

If there's anything the last year taught us, good match ups can be hard to come by. Michigan Oregon was supposed to be teh Suxzors!1!! but it absolutely blew. Kentucky beat national champion LSU, as did Arkansas. Ohio State mauled everyone, only to be mauled in the final game. USC lost to friggin Stanford.

The OOC scheduling is going to get worse for everyone before it gets better. There's too much money at stake with bowl games on the line. Look at the K-State embarrassment, dropping Fresno and Pat Hill's glorious mustache for some D1-AA non-three-peat-national champ. Until the BCS actually starts rewarding teams for difficult schedules then its never going to change.

By the way, Kyle, as a fairly reasoned member of the Big Ten Blogging community I must take some umbrage to the assertion any conference is easier to deal with than we are. Certainly we have our noise makers, but the same can be said for any conference. We are well reasoned, civil folk out here in the Middle West. Perhaps you're forgetting the armistice we signed last year.

Don't throw out the coop because of a bad egg or two. When the Dawgs make a middle west trip of any kind, we'll welcome you with open arms.

by Maize n Brew Dave on Apr 4, 2008 6:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

I hope you noticed, Dave . . .

. . . that I not only qualified my statements (e.g., "some Big Ten bloggers"), but I cited you (and linked to you) in two separate postings as an exception to that rule.

I would agree that the criticisms we hear from the Midwest are, like the criticisms you hear from the Southeast, the statements of a vocal minority, although many such observations are offered by prominent people (e.g., S.E.C. coaches such as Les Miles, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, and a few particularly influential Big Ten bloggers).

Unfortunately, it is in the nature of linking and excerpting that something gets lost in the translation. The import of my previously-quoted comment was that, while Pac-10 fans generally had better reasons for finding some S.E.C. fans annoying (e.g., "Onepeat! Auburn was the people's champion! The Pac-10 is a girly-boy finesse conference with no defense!"---statements which are clearly nonsense---and "Ohio State is 0-9 against the S.E.C.! Speed kills!"---statements which, while misapplied, are factually accurate---hardly are comparable), my experience with Pac-10 bloggers of openly declared team affiliations has been uniformly positive, while my experience with Big Ten fans has had its ups and downs.

You most assuredly are among the ups, as are the fine fellows from Black Heart Gold Pants, The M Zone, Black Shoe Diaries (the occasional commenter excepted), and many, many more. I tried very hard not to paint with as broad a brush as the one with which I unfairly had been tarred and I apologize if I failed in that objective. No offense was intended to the myriad of Big Ten fans who are not to blame, most definitely including you.

Although Georgia's efforts to schedule games with Cincinnati, Michigan, and Notre Dame have met with no success, I would be happy to see the Red and Black take on the Maize and Blue, but, at this point, I don't believe it is going to happen.

by T Kyle King on Apr 4, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

No need to apologize my friends

It appears I should apologize, as upon a second reading of my comment, the tongue-in-cheek intent did not come through particularly well. I always appreciate the linking, especially to the civility piece which is one of my favorites, and my intent was to offer a little humor from the guilty. I'll be the first to admit that we middlewesterners can be a tad abrasive from time to time. Who am I kidding, sometimes a trapped rattlesnake has a more pleasant demeanor. Your piece was on point, no offense was taken from it or intended from my comment towards either you or Dave at Addicted to Quack, which is still the best site name on the internets.

by Maize n Brew Dave on Apr 5, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

Dave

the Michigan joke was very much in jest. I thought we had a great exchange last season, and hopefully we'll meet again soon (Rose Bowl, anyone?)

Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks Blog

by Addicted to Quack on Apr 4, 2008 11:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

I have only one question

And since you've kindly noted that I attempt to keep my questions reasonable, I shall ask only this: what's SC, chopped liver?

I know we don't have a stadium in an upscale suburb adjacent to a golf course (it's no coincidence that the USC President's House, or PresRes if you like, is in nearby San Marino), as opposed to a, hmmm, more urban environment which would make traditional SEC tailgating much harder. But rather like ASU - Georgia, or indeed UCLA - Georgia, there's much to said about commingling the fairer of our students and alumni.

As for the football, getting back to what's important, I think most SC fans would like to see a USC - Georgia game, if the pre-Rose Bowl selection chatter was any indication. At the rate that Coach Richt has the Dawgs going, it would have to be a better game than the Arkansas home and home, or Auburn for that matter.

by DC Trojan on Apr 4, 2008 3:22 PM EDT 0 recs

Pete Carroll: Do not want. Cannot Beat.

Cause none of us want any part of Pete Carroll. We don't want to wake up one day and see that his Facebook status is:

"Feeling good; damn we beat the crap out of the Dawgs yesterday. Goin' surfing with triplet brasilenas: yeah!"

In all seriousness, we would all LOVE to play SC. First beer's on me, DCT.

by Kanu on Apr 4, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

You never know

The Dawgs are for real... plus, if the scheduling took a while and Kyle and SMQ are right that SC is starting on a net downward trend, then the time could be ripe for an ass-whupping - which is a glorious part of the college football tradition.

I'll cheerfully put in for the second round as well, but don't you Jim Beam drinkers start eyeing the AH Hirsch reserve bottle...

by DC Trojan on Apr 4, 2008 8:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

Pac-10 and SEC

I played in the SEC as an undergrad and then earned my MA at Southern Cal, so I've been asked to take part in this feud countless times. If the people involved in the debate are completely partisan, I won't get involved because it's silly. I've been to Big Ten country, too, and they always have ridiculous arguments against the SEC, Pac-10, Big-12, etc. I remember after Alabama lost 40-39 in OT to Michigan in the Orange Bowl I was in Ohio and some fat redneck told me, "I knew the Big 10 was too tough for y'all."

Dumbest thing anyone ever said to me. Chris Samuels was the Outland Trophy winner at left tackle for us that year. Didn't give up a sack for maybe two years; dominated future NFL Defensive Ends for three years. He missed that game to have his knee scoped and the two tackles playing in his place combined to commit eleven (maybe twelve) of our Orange Bowl record eighteen penalties. Without Samuels, our best OL, captain, and highest drafted player, we lost to Michigan when our kicker missed an extra point in overtime.

Will someone explain to me how this means the Big 10 was too tough for us? If Samuels had played, the Outland Trophy winner and number three pick in the April draft, he would not have committed a dozen penalties and the game would not have gone to overtime because we would have won in regulation.

But I'll forgive that Big Ten fan for that comment because, as I knew at the time, he had not attended any college (let alone a Big Ten or SEC university) and he was not very smart.

I think the same can be said of the "my conference is the best" argument. We truly can't say, because football is not static. A team has to execute; if they don't do so, they will lose regardless of their opponent. I personally believe that LSU would have beaten USC in 2003, but USC would have worked Auburn in 2004. What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. Maybe LSU would have beaten USC if they'd played in 2004, but LSU only beat Oregon State that season because Alex Serna had a terrible game. What does this mean? Nothing. A game of football is entirely dependent upon execution. Coaches must call good plays and their players must execute.

If we could magically play 100 games between the Pac-10 and SEC neither conference would win more than 55% of the games. That's just the way football is.

As a player, I never bought it. Most coaches don't either because football is not bred in one particular region, and arguing that the SEC is better simply because it is the SEC is illogical. A friend of mine who favors the Pac-10 once created a spreadsheet comparing the SEC and Pac-10's out-of-conference scheduling, win/loss record, bowl record, and the number of players drafted. Pac-10 teams lost more OoC games against schools from BCS-conferences, but they also played many more. The SEC had more players drafted and a better bowl record, but they have more teams.

For all his work, the data was unconvincing. There's simply no way to tell because even if an SEC team beats a Pac-10 team, that's only one solitary game. Maybe the Pac-10 team was beat up from a previous game; maybe they had a crappy game plan; maybe their quarterback threw an uncharacteristic, costly interception; maybe a kicker had a bad day; maybe a stud tailback had a sore toe; maybe a difference-maker was injured and his replacements did things to lose the game that he would not have done. Even with the SEC team's victory in this game, I still wouldn't be convinced that the SEC team was better.

But then again, I've played and coached a lot of football, and know that games are more often lost than won so I'm never quick to crown any team king. You play a game between two teams ten times, you'll get ten different results. Very rarely is one team dramatically better than another. Almost never is one conference dramatically better. Thinking so overshadows the camaraderie, competitiveness and sportsmanship that makes football so great to play and coach.

by Bamagrad on Apr 5, 2008 10:35 AM EDT 0 recs

It seems

like people are always searching for a way to prove they are better. Many use football for this purpose, and maybe they should stop. Enjoy the game for spirit of competition, for your school or state, but don't go overboard. We're all human; we all put our pants on the same way; our team could lose in football to the worst team in the MAC if they don't execute.

Hell, I've been on scout teams that beat the crap out of the first offense during team scrimmage before. I'm convinced that any team can beat any team.

by Bamagrad on Apr 5, 2008 10:40 AM EDT up 0 recs

Couldn't have said it better myself!

The only sad thing I find is that all the players and coaches know this because they have actually played the game, but in this era of the BCS, all of this conference woofing regarding superiority is what truly influences pollsters and since we are determining the best as a result of public opinion, this fan and conference woofing supported by the networks isn't going to go away.

This is simply why I believe the playoff proposal I have put together would solve all of this and allow the championship to be determined on the field, within the normal 12-13 game schedule, which would save the bowl games at the same time.

Thanks for the article Kyle, I believe we have finally gotten to the point where a passionate fan of college football (if they read all of the links in your article - it took me two days to read it all) can understand why we need to remove the BCS and determine all of this on the field...and I'm not talking about an NFL styled playoff, but a system that would be truly unique for college football and save the history and tradition of the game.

"A Regular Season Bracketed Playoff - Truly Making Every Game A Playoff in College Football While Upholding The Tradition of the Bowls!"

by bcsbusters on Apr 7, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up 0 recs