CU not feeling expansion

[Guest operaman]

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

 

Not if the 11-game schedule is a precursor to a College Football Playoff system.

[Guest MrBug708]

Im not going to bother holding my breath there

[Guest dunstvangeet]

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).

And no team is going to agree to goto a 11 game schedule. It hurts the conference as a whole and actually prevents things. That would destroy any semblence of any sort of OOC schedule, making it no more than 1 game possible OOC. That means that there will be no more marques matchups of cross-conferences. USC and Stanford would not play Notre Dame.

 

Furthermore, each additional game means that there's a guarantee of 8 additional losses by the conference. So, moving it from 9 games to 11 games means that the conference will guarentee that they take 16 more losses.

 

Your schedule hurts the conference significantly, especially in terms of perception. The SEC is considered tough because they schedule light and therefore inflate their records. It looks a whole lot better to have the bottom of your conference be a 4-8 team, rather than a 1-11 team.

 

The conference will not goto a 11-game schedule.

 

And frankly, if you think that where the people is in the division doesn't matter, then why didn't you propose the same thing with an east-west split?

[Guest operaman]

And no team is going to agree to goto a 11 game schedule. It hurts the conference as a whole and actually prevents things. That would destroy any semblence of any sort of OOC schedule, making it no more than 1 game possible OOC. That means that there will be no more marques matchups of cross-conferences. USC and Stanford would not play Notre Dame.

 

Furthermore, each additional game means that there's a guarantee of 8 additional losses by the conference. So, moving it from 9 games to 11 games means that the conference will guarentee that they take 16 more losses.

 

Your schedule hurts the conference significantly, especially in terms of perception. The SEC is considered tough because they schedule light and therefore inflate their records. It looks a whole lot better to have the bottom of your conference be a 4-8 team, rather than a 1-11 team.

 

The conference will not goto a 11-game schedule.

 

And frankly, if you think that where the people is in the division doesn't matter, then why didn't you propose the same thing with an east-west split?

 

First off, it is likely that Notre Dame would not be able to play USC and Stanford in the era of 16-team conferences anyway. The Irish would probably have to join one of the 16-team leagues as well, which means that they would not longer have the non-conference schedule flexibility to schedule a USC or a Stanford as they have in the past.

 

Also, while each additional conference game guarantees 16 additional losses for the conference, it also guarantees 16 additional wins as well. And so what if it does? The whole point of 16-team conferences is to force a College Football playoff system. It would not matter if your conference were to have "additional losses" as you say because the conference champion would get an automatic berth into the playoffs. If the conference champion truly is the best team in the country, they would be able to prove it on the field REGARDLESS of their record. Teams would finally be able to prove ON THE FIELD who the best really is and not have to rely upon the biased and flawed COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION to try to do the same thing.

 

The reason that I did not propose the same thing for an East/West split is because the four Mountain Time Zone schools will not vote in favor of expansion if they are relegated to an East/West split. If 75% of the current Pac-12 schools don't vote for conference expansion, it does not happen. One of Colorado's main reasons for joining the Pac-12 is their huge alumni base on the West Coast and the opportunity to consistently play and recruit there. Also, Arizona and Arizona State are not going to willingly vote to separate themselves from the fertile Southern California recruiting market, which is where they get a great deal of their recruits. These opportunities would become extremely diminished under a proposed East/West split. Especially if they continue to play a 9-game schedule. It is highly unlikely that the Mountain Four would vote in favor of expansion under that scenario. I was looking at realistic scenarios that 75% of the members of the conference would theoretically be in favor of.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

First off, it is likely that Notre Dame would not be able to play USC and Stanford in the era of 16-team conferences anyway. The Irish would probably have to join one of the 16-team leagues as well, which means that they would not longer have the non-conference schedule flexibility to schedule a USC or a Stanford as they have in the past.

 

Also, while each additional conference game guarantees 16 additional losses for the conference, it also guarantees 16 additional wins as well. And so what if it does? The whole point of 16-team conferences is to force a College Football playoff system. It would not matter if your conference were to have "additional losses" as you say because the conference champion would get an automatic berth into the playoffs. If the conference champion truly is the best team in the country, they would be able to prove it on the field REGARDLESS of their record. Teams would finally be able to prove ON THE FIELD who the best really is and not have to rely upon the biased and flawed COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION to try to do the same thing.

 

The reason that I did not propose the same thing for an East/West split is because the four Mountain Time Zone schools will not vote in favor of expansion if they are relegated to an East/West split. If 75% of the current Pac-12 schools don't vote for conference expansion, it does not happen. One of Colorado's main reasons for joining the Pac-12 is their huge alumni base on the West Coast and the opportunity to consistently play and recruit there. Also, Arizona and Arizona State are not going to willingly vote to separate themselves from the fertile Southern California recruiting market, which is where they get a great deal of their recruits. These opportunities would become extremely diminished under a proposed East/West split. Especially if they continue to play a 9-game schedule. It is highly unlikely that the Mountain Four would vote in favor of expansion under that scenario. I was looking at realistic scenarios that 75% of the members of the conference would theoretically be in favor of.

And the four Northwest schools, as well as the Four California Schools will not vote for a North-South alignment, as well as Colorado and Utah will not vote for a north-south alignment as you've laid it out. Your proposal is dead-on-arrival. A east-west alignment would get at least 12 votes. Your east-west proposal would get a total of 6 votes.

 

You seem to be willing to screw over the Northwest schools in order to give Arizona and Arizona State whatever they want again. You're willing to make the conference unstable by putting all the population (and therefore all the power) in the south, instead of balancing the population between the east and west. And then you're going to take away any sort of scheduling flexability for teams to play significant OOC games by making an 11-game conference.

 

Your proposal is dead on arrival.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

It seems to me that CU fans in general could warm up to a Pac-16 East Division with the Arizona schools, Utah, both Oklahoma schools, KU, and MU. If the cohesiveness and chemistry of the Big 8 returns in this division, CU fans will ultimately be happy with that East Division and I believe the other schools in that division would feel the same way.

 

It's becoming clearer that UT is not coming to the Pac-12 and Texas Tech probably won't come as well since they might prefer to stay behind in a new Big 12 conference that is very Texas-centric akin to the old SWC or the WAC becoming the new SWC with UT going indy. The LHN will air five UTSA games.

[Guest FountainofUte]

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).

 

It makes no sense to have USC, OU, UT and even UCLA in one division. It just doesn't. Culturally and historically the East/West is the obvious way to go. I'm not saying I like it, but it's intuitive and obvious and isn't really worth discussing other alternatives.

 

But what needs to be addressed is everyone getting to each region of the conference with regularity. That means either pods, or more conference games. I'm fine with either, but prefer more conference games. At 11 conf games, you don't miss any team for more that two years, and you're playing at their house every four years. Every college kid will get to play each team no less than twice in his four years, with one at home, one on the road. I think that's fine. As a fan, I'm totally content with that.

 

Also, I think Bug gives zero credit to pollsters that they will take our schedule into account. You think we won't get a team to the NC because of that!? We'll be fine. If one of our teams deserves it, they'll get into that game. That's the least of my worries.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

This billboard is up near Houston

 

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

But what needs to be addressed is everyone getting to each region of the conference with regularity. That means either pods, or more conference games. I'm fine with either, but prefer more conference games. At 11 conf games, you don't miss any team for more that two years, and you're playing at their house every four years. Every college kid will get to play each team no less than twice in his four years, with one at home, one on the road. I think that's fine. As a fan, I'm totally content with that.

 

 

From an East division perspective would'nt a West/East division split satisfy the need to visit each region regularly? Half the West would be composed of California and the other half from the NW, with two cross division games i would assume that every Eastern division team would play a CA and NW team every year and play in the NW and CA every other year.

[Guest mccuisinart]

But what needs to be addressed is everyone getting to each region of the conference with regularity.

Which is impossible in the Pac16, so it's never going to happen. Superduper conferences are a fairy tale. The BigXII is not dissolving and Oklahoma is not coming West. There are no other candidates for the Pac12, and everybody is going to be laughing at the SEC with that 3 inch goiter on their neck, (otherwise known as a thirteenth team).

[Guest MrBug708]

I think everyone wants socal more than norcal

[Guest ERock]

I think everyone wants socal more than norcal

 

SoCal is the hotbed of HS talent in the PAC and obviously you don't get exposure to those recruits if you don't play USC & UCLA.

[Guest calfan11]

Zipper the schools into different divisions. Play two out of division rivalry games for a total of 9 games (7+2). For example:

 

Larry Division:

Cal

USC

Oregon State

Washington

Utah

Arizona State

Oklahoma

Texas Tech

 

Scott Division:

Stanford

UCLA

Oregon

Washington State

Colorado

Arizona

Oklahoma State

Texas

 

So the two out of division rivalry games for Cal would be Stanford and UCLA. For Oregon, the two games would be Oregon State and Washington. For Oklahoma, the two games would be Oklahoma State and Texas. ETC. If you are going to fork over money for a PAC-16 regional network, you want it to be worth it. This allows you to not only follow your division but the entire league. You get more football. You can follow your tv partner quietly. It also allows each school access to each market. I am not saying the divisions have to be this way but you get the idea. Then if they win their division they could meet their in-state/nearest rival in the championship.

[Guest Mano]

Zipper the schools into different divisions. Play two out of division rivalry games for a total of 9 games (7+2). For example:

 

Larry Division:

Cal

USC

Oregon State

Washington

Utah

Arizona State

Oklahoma

Texas Tech

 

Scott Division:

Stanford

UCLA

Oregon

Washington State

Colorado

Arizona

Oklahoma State

Texas

 

So the two out of division rivalry games for Cal would be Stanford and UCLA. For Oregon, the two games would be Oregon State and Washington. For Oklahoma, the two games would be Oklahoma State and Texas. ETC. If you are going to fork over money for a PAC-16 regional network, you want it to be worth it. This allows you to not only follow your division but the entire league. You get more football. You can follow your tv partner quietly. It also allows each school access to each market. I am not saying the divisions have to be this way but you get the idea. Then if they win their division they could meet their in-state/nearest rival in the championship.

 

 

I don't like schedules where teams never play each other outside of the CCG. Doesn't feel like you are in the same conference when you will play some teams on average once in 64 years.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

Zipper the schools into different divisions. Play two out of division rivalry games for a total of 9 games (7+2). For example:

 

Larry Division:

Cal

USC

Oregon State

Washington

Utah

Arizona State

Oklahoma

Texas Tech

 

Scott Division:

Stanford

UCLA

Oregon

Washington State

Colorado

Arizona

Oklahoma State

Texas

 

So the two out of division rivalry games for Cal would be Stanford and UCLA. For Oregon, the two games would be Oregon State and Washington. For Oklahoma, the two games would be Oklahoma State and Texas. ETC. If you are going to fork over money for a PAC-16 regional network, you want it to be worth it. This allows you to not only follow your division but the entire league. You get more football. You can follow your tv partner quietly. It also allows each school access to each market. I am not saying the divisions have to be this way but you get the idea. Then if they win their division they could meet their in-state/nearest rival in the championship.

Will never happen. If the PAC-12 didn't go with the Zipper, then the PAC-16 definently won't go with it.

[Guest RogueDuck]

Funny a Cal fan brings up the zipper, because from all reports it was the 4 Cal schools that killed any chance of a zipper.