Figuring out an adjusted schedule in a pandemic — something which might look good on paper but could easily be wiped out if COVID-19 doesn’t cooperate — is something no sportswriter in America figured s/he would be doing when the 2019 college football season ended in mid-January.
Yet, here we are.
We know that any schedule the Pac-12 puts out — likely at the end of July, in a few weeks — could be worth absolutely nothing if the pandemic gets worse and college football is forced to shut down for the fall. All of this could be for naught.
There is a unique psychological dimension to an activity one knows could be rendered meaningless if the course of events does not cooperate. It is like an artist making a sculpture out of organic materials, or a painter having to work outside in an art competition, with rainclouds 10 minutes away.
There is no emotional attachment to this column and other related columns this week on the Pac-12’s soon-to-be-released schedule, precisely because these ideas might be rendered moot by the pandemic.
We have to at least put out these ideas, however, so that if we somehow are able to play the Pac-12’s schedule (the same goes for the other Power Five conferences), the details are properly arranged.
So, for what it’s worth, here is the biggest question surrounding the schedule the Pac-12 eventually lays out:
Will the short-distance (divisional) games be placed early or late in the schedule?
Obviously, the schedule could be mixed, but the larger point is to bring forth the question to the schedule makers before they release their final version.
It’s a big one, and players throughout the Pac-12 ought to be consulted if this is done right. Precisely because players — coaches, too — need to be consulted on this matter, I’m not going to lay down a declaration on what the conference should do.
Yes, I do think rivalry games ought to be early on the schedule, not late, but that’s one game. The broader answer to this question can remain intact even if a rivalry game is played earlier on the schedule.
Here is the heart of the matter: Would teams and coaching staffs feel more comfortable getting the longer plane flights out of the way first, and then finishing the season with shorter commutes, or would they like to play their division (shorter-distance) games first, leaving the longer flights for later in the season, after they have gotten (somewhat) used to dealing with COVID-19 safety procedures?
The reasoning behind playing the non-division (longer-distance) games first: If Pac-12 schools can handle the more difficult logistical situations in late September and early October, that would give them confidence they could complete the full conference schedule, which is the big-picture aspiration of Pac-12 schools and all FBS schools.
The reasoning behind playing the division (shorter-distance) games first: If the season does have to be halted in early November, league schools will have played all their divisional games. While a full-length season certainly could not be played in the spring under such a circumstance, college football could potentially have a one-game spring showcase: the conference championship game. No playoff, no bowl games, but each conference decides its champion — with only one spring game — and NFL evaluators get a good final look at draft prospects.
It’s a weird, piecemeal, ad-hoc scenario… but a conference champion would be decided.
Under the circumstances, not bad.
Two different thought processes, two different pathways.
One way seeks the ultimate result of a full season. The other way tries to emphasize divisional play and offering a path toward a conference championship in a truncated season.
Both ideas have merits… but which will the Pac-12 choose — if any?