Tonight, the Washington schools take their national rankings down to the Northern California, looking to steal a few Pac-10 road wins.  While the visitors with the gaudy records and little numbers next to their names might appear to be favored this weekend, it would be a major upset if either school managed to pull off the Bay Area sweep.

Winning on the road is always tough, and winning on the road in the Pac-10 is even tougher.  Just ask ESPN’s Andy Katz, who writes in his blog (quotes in italics):

The Missouri Valley, like the Pac-10, shows just how tough it is to win on the road this season.

The Pac-10’s unique geographical distribution allows for convenient 2-game road trips to be grouped into ‘pods’, so Cal could play at Arizona on a Thursday night and at Arizona State that Saturday night.  While any road trip can be treacherous, and all but the best teams go on the road hoping to just steal one game, none of the trips are more treacherous for visitors than the swing through Northern California.

I’ve looked at the home records for each of the Pac-10 teams over the last 10 years, discounting the rivalry games, which are a different animal altogether (notwithstanding the strange things that happen when rivals play, teams often only play one game that week, have substantial support on the road, and often can sleep in their own beds).  Over this time period (which includes Cal spending two years playing at the Oakland Arena while Harmon Gymnasium was being renovated into Haas Pavilion), the Bay Area has proven the toughest place to get a win, and almost impossible to get a road sweep.  How tough?

Cal’s record : (56-24) .700
Stanford’s record : (66-14) .825
Overall Pac-10 opponents winning percentage in the Bay Area : (38-122) .238

While Cal may be relieved to finally have ended 13 years of futility in Maples, it should be noted that 4 other Pac-10 teams (Arizona State, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington) all have current losing streaks of at least 10 games in Palo Alto.

Here’s a breakdown of how each team has fared in Northern California over the last 10 years:

Arizona (12-8) .600
UCLA (9-11) .450
Arizona State (5-15) .250
USC (3-17) .150
Washington (3-17) .150
Oregon (2-18) .100
Oregon State (2-18) .100
Washington State (2-18) .100

Only Arizona has a winning record, and UCLA is the only other team with a respectable showing.  Every other team has fared dismally.  And not only is it difficult to win here, but it’s almost impossible to come away without a loss.  In the past 10 years, it’s only been done 8 times, 5 times (predictably) by Arizona, twice by UCLA, and once (improbably) by Arizona State.

In fact, even with two Top 25 teams coming to town, we should expect both Cal and Stanford to come away with at least one victory.  Only three times in the past 10 years has Cal gotten swept at home, and only twice has Stanford suffered the same fate.  In that span, they have never gone winless over the same weekend.

How does this compare with other road swings in the Pac-10?  Here’s the home records of the five ‘pods’ over the last 10 years.

Bay Area (122-38) .763
Arizona (109-51) .681
Los Angeles (103-57) .644
Oregon (80-80) .500
Washington (72-88) .450

Clearly, the Bay Area is the toughest place to win.  Arizona is tough almost entirely because of UA, who has gone 70-10 at home over this span, while Los Angeles is the only other ‘pod’ where both teams have winning records at home.  On the other end of the spectrum, Washington has been relatively easy almost entirely because of Wazzu’s dismal home record, going 23-57 over the last 10 years.

There are a number of factors that lead to making Northern California a tough place to win, chief among them the fact that both Cal and Stanford have had sustained success, but I won’t attempt to separate their influences.  Surely the packed gyms and rowdy fans have had something to do with this, as had (until recently) the ridiculous bouncing floor at Maples.  Also contributing is the fact that teams can’t concentrate on one team, like they can against Arizona, because neither team is the pushover that Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State and, to a lesser extent, USC, has been.  Teams can’t simply lay it out and give Stanford their best shot because they’ve got to turn around and play a tough Cal team two days later, and vice versa.

Suffice it to say, I’ll be at Haas tonight and Saturday, and I expect that we’ll pull of at least one upset this weekend.  Hope to see you there too.  Go Bears!

        ——– 

One final nugget, also from Andy Katz:

The Big 12 and the Pac-10 reached a scheduling agreement, not agreement on a conference vs. conference challenge, according to the Pac-10.

Remember, any home Big 12 game can be on ESPN, but the Pac-10 home games will be Fox-owned.

Here’s the press release, which includes the full schedule for next year.  Looks like Cal gets a home game with Missouri, to be returned in 2008.

Because I’m not a huge college basketball fan, and I don’t know anything else about other college sports, I decided I’d take a look at a few (very early) preseason 2007 rankings and analyze where we are and whether we’re fairly ranked.

Mark Schlabach’s 2007 rankings:

1.  USC
2.  Florida
3.  Michigan
4.  West Virginia
5.  Wisconsin
6.  Oklahoma
7.  Virginia Tech
8.  Texas
9.  Ohio State
10.  California
11.  Arkansas
12.  Nebraska
13.  LSU
14.  Penn State
15.  Texas A&M
16.  Auburn
17.  Georgia
18.  TCU
19.  Tennessee
20.  UCLA
21.  Rutgers
22.  Wake Forest
23.  Boise State
24.  Alabama
25.  Louisville

"Why: Despite losing Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year Marshawn Lynch, the Bears return a plethora of skill players on offense. DeSean Jackson is a big-play threat at receiver and punt returner. Quarterback Nate Longshore was much-improved in his first season as a starter, and Justin Forsett and freshman James Montgomery are in line to replace Lynch.

Why not: For starters, the Bears open the 2007 season against Tennessee and must fare better than in the ‘06 opener. Cal must replace all its key parts on defense — tackle Brandon Mebane, linebacker Desmond Bishop and cornerback Daymeion Hughes. The transition will be easier if the NCAA grants another year of eligibility to cornerback Tim Mixon, who missed all of 2006 with a knee injury."

Rivals.com:

1.  USC
2.  Michigan
3.  LSU
4.  West Virginia
5.  Florida
6.  Ohio State
7.  Virginia Tech
8.  Oklahoma
9.  Texas
10.  Wisconsin
11.  Louisville
12.  Georgia
13.  Nebraska
14.  Auburn
15.  California
16.  Arkansas
17.  Tennessee
18.  Penn State
19.  Rutgers
20.  Florida State
21.  Texas A&M
22.  Notre Dame
23.  Hawaii
24.  Boston College
25.  Clemson

"The Golden Bears lose much of their firepower with the decision of running back Marshawn Lynch to leave early for the pros. But Justin Forsett has proven to be a more-than-capable replacement. He returns in the backfield along with quarterback Nate Longshore, who settled in and finished with 3,021 passing yards and 24 TDs. Longshore’s favorite target, DeSean Jackson, also is back and should gain more national recognition as a junior. The offensive line has three starters back. The unit that will need the most attention is the defense, which loses six starters - including decorated lineman Brandon Mebane and All-American corner Daymeion Hughes."

Stewart Mandel (only his top ten):

1.  USC
2.  LSU
3.  Florida
4.  Ohio State
5.  West Virginia
6.  Wisconsin
7.  Michigan
8.  Louisville
9.  Texas
10.  Virginia Tech

"(Plus look out for: Rutgers, Georgia, Boise State, Penn State, UCLA)"

Bruce Feldman’s blog (not rankings, Vegas odds on the 2007 BCS champion):

USC 5/2
Michigan 13/2
Florida 7/1
Texas 10/1
West Virginia 14/1
LSU 15/1
Oklahoma 17/1
Arkansas 19/1
Ohio State 28/1
Nebraska 38/1
Auburn 46/1
Notre Dame 47/1
Rutgers 52/1
Louisville 52/1
California 67/1
BYU 67/1
Georgia 73/1
Tennessee 99/1

"The Cal price intrigues me, especially since the Bears get USC up there. I’m also surprised West Virginia is so much further down than Michigan."

First, a couple of quick thoughts:
- We’re unanimously higher than Tennessee.  I’m going to take that to mean that everyone thinks we’re going to beat Tennessee in our season opener.
- USC is also unanimously no. 1, but we’re unanimously second in the Pac-10.
- LSU and Florida seem awfully high for teams that are breaking in new quarterbacks next year.  Not everyone is Colt McCoy.  I mean, before there was Nate Longshore, there was Joe Ayoob.  Joe Ayoob.
- I’m not sure how to feel about Rutgers having better odds to win the national title than Cal.  I love ‘em both, but…you know?
- Also, I’m not sure what to make of Mandel not even putting us in his "Teams to watch for" list.  If it’s a list of teams that might be better than expected, and better than this past year, ok.  If it’s meant to be a mishmash of teams that should slot in right after the top 10 in some order, we should definitely be in that group.

So the general consensus seems to be that we’ll be ranked somewhere from 10-15.  It also seems like the general feeling that we can take away from this is that everyone sees the same reason for concern with next year’s Cal team as everyone else.  The departure of Marshawn will leave something to be desired out of the running game (although it’s not likely to be a whole lot), and on defense we lose Mebane, Bishop, and Hughes, and await with bated breath the NCAA’s decision on whether Mixon will be given a medical redshirt year.

I’d say all of those concerns are valid in theory, but the reality is that Mebane and Bishop weren’t outstanding for most of the year.  We have outstanding depth at linebacker, so while we may not have any single player of Bishop’s caliber, it seems likely that most of his production can and will be replaced.  Mebane is a trickier issue because it’s difficult to really quantify the effect that a defensive tackle has on a game, but we’ve done a good job of recruiting stellar DT prospects as well, including 4-star recruit Derrick Hill out of Oakland last year.  There’s going to be something of a step back, no question about it, but it seems that it wouldn’t be out of line to expect next year’s defense to play, at the very least, nearly as well as it did last year.

Of course, nearly as well as it did last year means next year we’ll end up where we ended this year.  Where’s that?  14.  So is our preseason ranking fair?  I’d say it is.