CU not feeling expansion

[Guest bendsinister]

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_18834617

[Guest Highlander72]

Sure, why not avoid 16? We're all taking in money hand over fist and this current setup is one that will be beneficial for CU long term. The fans are craving games at UW, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, SC, UCLA. I expect CU to dig in their heels here. Rightfully so.

 

Now personally I wouldn't mind if we went to 16 BUT they have to do something schedule'wise. A Pac 8 division and a Big 8/SWC division where the two hardly ever get premium games in the primetime areas isn't going to cut it.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

Pod scheduling would solve this problem easily.

 

This whole expansion thing across college sports is starting to tick me off...the thought of abandoning college sports actually crossed my mind...I'll see how that goes.

[Guest clpp01]

I love all the expansion rumors. It helps pass the time between the end of March Madness and the start of college football which before these past couple years was extremely boring.

[Guest Highlander72]

Pod scheduling would solve this problem easily.

 

This whole expansion thing across college sports is starting to tick me off...the thought of abandoning college sports actually crossed my mind...I'll see how that goes.

 

I'd be a fan of this in two regards: Ditch OSU and any talk of Texas Tech. F those guys. Find a way to incorporate KU & Mizzou instead. Now that would be awesome from a fan perspective. Other two of course would have to be OU/UT.

 

2nd, pod scheduling. It makes too much sense and it's exciting. Now, I don't know if this would happen. Scott seems innovative but he likes his simplicity at the same time. A cut and dried East vs. West might really appeal to him. It doesn't for me though and until concessions are made, I won't be in favor of 16.

 

BTW, don't give up on college football. CU is on the march back up.

[Guest operaman]

Sure, why not avoid 16? We're all taking in money hand over fist and this current setup is one that will be beneficial for CU long term. The fans are craving games at UW, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, SC, UCLA. I expect CU to dig in their heels here. Rightfully so.

 

Now personally I wouldn't mind if we went to 16 BUT they have to do something schedule'wise. A Pac 8 division and a Big 8/SWC division where the two hardly ever get premium games in the primetime areas aren't going to cut it.

 

That is why they need to go with the North/South alignment. Simply take CU and Utah and move them to the current North Division and then add the Oklahoma and Texas schools to the current South Division. This would continue to give Colorado access to California (albeit Northern California) and the Pacific Northwest. Also, travel would virtually be the same for the North and South Divisions, as the farthest trip in the South (UCLA to Oklahoma State) would be just over 1400 miles while the the farthest trip in the North (Washington to Colorado) is about 1300-1400 miles (depending upon how you drive there). Also, the schools in a potential Pac-16 South would be separated from each other by only one state: New Mexico. It would be the same in the North: the Pacific Northwest/Northern California schools would be separated from the Mountain schools by one state: Nevada. Have a look at the divisions and a couple maps showing the farthest trips in each division:

 

Pac-16 North Division

California

Colorado

Oregon

Oregon State

Stanford

Utah

Washington

Washington State

 

Pac-16 South Division

Arizona

Arizona State

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Texas

Texas Tech

UCLA

USC

 

Washington to Colorado Map

 

UCLA to Oklahoma State Map

[Guest Bone Crusher]

opreaman,

 

There's no way the NW schools + CU will ever support that format and it's repeating the Big 12's mistakes.

[Guest ASUsparky]

opreaman,

 

There's no way the NW schools + CU will ever support that format and it's repeating the Big 12's mistakes.

 

You could probably bet on the Zona's and Utah disapproving as well.

[Guest MrBug708]

It would limit the exposure but it would make the North bracket a cakewalk. Could you imagine if you missed USC, Texas, and Oklahoma in the same year?

[Guest Bone Crusher]

It would limit the exposure but it would make the North bracket a cakewalk. Could you imagine if you missed USC, Texas, and Oklahoma in the same year?

 

If that's the case, there should be some double digit win teams from the North playing in the CCG.

[Guest operaman]

opreaman,

 

There's no way the NW schools + CU will ever support that format and it's repeating the Big 12's mistakes.

 

How exactly would it be repeating the Big 12's mistakes? The Big 12's biggest mistake was UNEQUAL REVENUE SHARING. That is not an issue in the Pac-12. Also, the North Division would not be totally cut off from California recruiting (Northern California Schools) as the Big 12 North was. If the Pac-16 were to move a 10- or even 11-game conference slate, schools in the North Division would play a game in Texas or Southern California EVERY SINGLE SEASON. Why would CU, Utah, and the Northwest Schools not support the format? What else would they want that they would not be getting?

[Guest BeaverDan]

How exactly would it be repeating the Big 12's mistakes? The Big 12's biggest mistake was UNEQUAL REVENUE SHARING. That is not an issue in the Pac-12. Also, the North Division would not be totally cut off from California recruiting (Northern California Schools) as the Big 12 North was. If the Pac-16 were to move a 10- or even 11-game conference slate, schools in the North Division would play a game in Texas or Southern California EVERY SINGLE SEASON. Why would CU, Utah, and the Northwest Schools not support the format? What else would they want that they would not be getting?

 

The south teams would not approve because all of the power would be in the south. Can you imagine trying to get through the murderer's row of OK, UT and U$C?

[Guest ASUsparky]

How exactly would it be repeating the Big 12's mistakes? The Big 12's biggest mistake was UNEQUAL REVENUE SHARING. That is not an issue in the Pac-12. Also, the North Division would not be totally cut off from California recruiting (Northern California Schools) as the Big 12 North was. If the Pac-16 were to move a 10- or even 11-game conference slate, schools in the North Division would play a game in Texas or Southern California EVERY SINGLE SEASON. Why would CU, Utah, and the Northwest Schools not support the format? What else would they want that they would not be getting?

 

Your proposing to put USC, OU and UT in the same division. When you have USC, Oklahoma and Texas in 1 division, why should people care about the other division? You would need to split those 3 in separate divisions in order for something like that to be plausible.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

That is why they need to go with the North/South alignment. Simply take CU and Utah and move them to the current North Division and then add the Oklahoma and Texas schools to the current South Division. This would continue to give Colorado access to California (albeit Northern California) and the Pacific Northwest. Also, travel would virtually be the same for the North and South Divisions, as the farthest trip in the South (UCLA to Oklahoma State) would be just over 1400 miles while the the farthest trip in the North (Washington to Colorado) is about 1300-1400 miles (depending upon how you drive there). Also, the schools in a potential Pac-16 South would be separated from each other by only one state: New Mexico. It would be the same in the North: the Pacific Northwest/Northern California schools would be separated from the Mountain schools by one state: Nevada. Have a look at the divisions and a couple maps showing the farthest trips in each division:

 

Pac-16 North Division

California

Colorado

Oregon

Oregon State

Stanford

Utah

Washington

Washington State

 

Pac-16 South Division

Arizona

Arizona State

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Texas

Texas Tech

UCLA

USC

 

This would get a grand total of 6 votes: Arizona, Arizona St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, and Texas Tech.

 

USC, UCLA, California, and Stanford would never vote for this alignment because it would get rid of the annual California rivalry games. They fought to keep the California Rivalry games this last year when alignment was being discussed. Why do you believe that they'd all of a sudden agree to relegate these games to once every 4 years? So, you lose 4 votes from there.

 

No team in the North is going to agree to be in a division with half of the number of TV Households as the other division, and be cut off from the two biggest recruiting grounds in the Conference in Southern California, and Texas. A north-south split would put somewhere around 20 million TV Households in the south. However, it would only put about 12 million TV Households in the north. An east-west split would put 16.5 million households in the West, and 15.5 million households in the north. So, you'd lose an additional 6 votes (Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, Washington St., Colorado and Utah) there.

 

A north-south alignment gets a maximum of 6 votes.

[Guest RogueDuck]

It will be original and new, or nothing. Bank on it, all these other possibles are just a joke.

[Guest operaman]

This would get a grand total of 6 votes: Arizona, Arizona St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, and Texas Tech.

 

USC, UCLA, California, and Stanford would never vote for this alignment because it would get rid of the annual California rivalry games. They fought to keep the California Rivalry games this last year when alignment was being discussed. Why do you believe that they'd all of a sudden agree to relegate these games to once every 4 years? So, you lose 4 votes from there.

 

No team in the North is going to agree to be in a division with half of the number of TV Households as the other division, and be cut off from the two biggest recruiting grounds in the Conference in Southern California, and Texas. A north-south split would put somewhere around 20 million TV Households in the south. However, it would only put about 12 million TV Households in the north. An east-west split would put 16.5 million households in the West, and 15.5 million households in the north. So, you'd lose an additional 6 votes (Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, Washington St., Colorado and Utah) there.

 

A north-south alignment gets a maximum of 6 votes.

 

Um, no they wouldn't. You clearly don't understand what I am proposing. I was also proposing an 11-game conference schedule. This would allow for all of the California Schools to keep their annual rivalry games every season. They would simply make the games primary crossover games, while the 11-game schedule would allow for the California schools to still schedule 2 rotating opponents. It would essentially be the same schedule that Pac-12 uses now with the addition of two more conference games to account for the four new members. Also, if 16-team super conferences lead to a College Football playoff system, what is the point of playing additional non-conference games that potentially make you conference look weak when compared to other leagues?

 

Also, with an 11-game conference schedule, the teams in the North Division would play four conference games against the opposing division (like they do now). It would be set up in a way that would guarantee at least one game in either Texas or Southern California every season for teams in the North Division. Let's use Utah (my school) in a hypothetical situation. Let's say that in the first year of the Pac-16, they draw USC at home and UCLA on the road (because Utah gets UCLA at home and USC on the road this year). Because the Utes get a game in Southern California the first year, the other two schools that they would draw from the opposing division would be Oklahoma (on the road) and Oklahoma State (at home). The next season, they would by default draw Texas at home and Texas Tech on the road, while also playing Arizona at home and Arizona State on the road. The next season, they would get Texas Tech at home and Texas on the road, while playing Oklahoma at home and Oklahoma State on the road. In the final year of 4-year rotation, the Utes would get UCLA at home and USC on the road, while getting Arizona State at home and Arizona on the road. Teams in the North would play a game in Southern California every four years and a game in Texas every two years on average under this scenario. Recruiting would not be a problem.

 

Finally, why does it matter where households (and TV sets) are located geographically in a conference that has equal revenue sharing? The Pac-12 is NOT the Big 12. If we were, the California schools would be WAY better off than everybody else athletically and financially (like the schools in the Big 12 South).

[Guest clpp01]

You could probably bet on the Zona's and Utah disapproving as well.

It would be a killer schedule for them having USC, Texas and Oklahoma on the schedule every year but I don't think they would vote against it. Not that it matters because the NW schools would not vote for it and I don't think it would take much for them to get Utah and Colorado to vote with them.

[Guest FountainofUte]

Um, no they wouldn't. You clearly don't understand what I am proposing. I was also proposing an 11-game conference schedule. This would allow for all of the California Schools to keep their annual rivalry games every season. They would simply make the games primary crossover games, while the 11-game schedule would allow for the California schools to still schedule 2 rotating opponents. It would essentially be the same schedule that Pac-12 uses now with the addition of two more conference games to account for the four new members. Also, if 16-team super conferences lead to a College Football playoff system, what is the point of playing additional non-conference games that potentially make you conference look weak when compared to other leagues?

 

Also, with an 11-game conference schedule, the teams in the North Division would play four conference games against the opposing division (like they do now). It would be set up in a way that would guarantee at least one game in either Texas or Southern California every season for teams in the North Division. Let's use Utah (my school) in a hypothetical situation. Let's say that in the first year of the Pac-16, they draw USC at home and UCLA on the road (because Utah gets UCLA at home and USC on the road this year). Because the Utes get a game in Southern California the first year, the other two schools that they would draw from the opposing division would be Oklahoma (on the road) and Oklahoma State (at home). The next season, they would by default draw Texas at home and Texas Tech on the road, while also playing Arizona at home and Arizona State on the road. The next season, they would get Texas Tech at home and Texas on the road, while playing Oklahoma at home and Oklahoma State on the road. In the final year of 4-year rotation, the Utes would get UCLA at home and USC on the road, while getting Arizona State at home and Arizona on the road. Teams in the North would play a game in Southern California every four years and a game in Texas every two years on average under this scenario. Recruiting would not be a problem.

 

Finally, why does it matter where households (and TV sets) are located geographically in a conference that has equal revenue sharing? The Pac-12 is NOT the Big 12. If we were, the California schools would be WAY better off than everybody else athletically and financially (like the schools in the Big 12 South).

 

I like the idea of an 11-game conf schedule, but I still thing East/West is better. It's easier to remember for football fans nationally. And at 11 games, as far as Utah is concerned, we're hitting all the regions in one season that we need. If we go 16, I support 11 conf games.

 

Besides, the way the PAC-12 has started out OOC this year, we may not want to "take our skills" too far beyond the west coast. It's looking ugly.

[Guest MrBug708]

If you make it 11 games, you might as well take the PAC-16 from any sort of BCS title game consideration

[Guest operaman]

I like the idea of an 11-game conf schedule, but I still thing East/West is better. It's easier to remember for football fans nationally. And at 11 games, as far as Utah is concerned, we're hitting all the regions in one season that we need. If we go 16, I support 11 conf games.

 

Besides, the way the PAC-12 has started out OOC this year, we may not want to "take our skills" too far beyond the west coast. It's looking ugly.

 

How hard is it seriously for football fans to remember the difference between North/South and East/West (unlike "Legends" and "Leaders")? For crying out loud, it would be the exact same alignment that we have now, other than Utes and the Buffs would be in the North. The University of Utah and the University of Colorado are much farther North than current North Division teams Cal and Stanford are, yet they somehow are in the Pac-12 South Division. Is it really that hard to remember? This alignment would also satisfy everyone's needs. Utah and Colorado would play the majority of their road games on the West Coast (No Cal, Oregon, and Washington), while they would have guaranteed games in Southern California or Texas virtually every season. In my earlier thread, I showed how Utah would get games in Northern and Southern California or Northern California and Texas EVERY year. What exactly else does this alignment not offer that any other potential alignment would? And who's to say that the South Division would have all of the power football-wise? Just because the division would have Oklahoma, Texas, and USC doesn't necessary mean they would be the better division. Utah has played in and won two BCS games in the last 10 years. Oregon played in the freaking national title game last year after playing in the Rose Bowl the year before. Stanford won the Orange Bowl last year. Washington and Colorado both have national championships and conference championships/major bowl victories (Washington claims four National Championships and has won 15 Pac-10 titles and 7 Rose Bowl Titles).