This guy thinks that the "Pac-16" is coming soon.

[Guest operaman]

One more move and Big 12 is over

[Guest Bone Crusher]

I think the key is if Pitt declines to seek an invitation to the Big 12. Those Big East schools who have football programs in the football conference could find this as a great opportunity to get rid of the non-football schools.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

I'm still cool about the Pac-16 but with pod scheduling or 11 conference games (unlikely at this point) where each program will get to play in California, the NW, Mountain schools, and SW every year.

 

Larry Scott still needs to have the NCAA allow pod scheduling so we do not have to rotate pods every two seasons which will be confusing to the casual sports fan.

[Guest RalphieSpeaks]

I'm still cool about the Pac-16 but with pod scheduling or 11 conference games (unlikely at this point) where each program will get to play in California, the NW, Mountain schools, and SW every year.

 

Larry Scott still needs to have the NCAA allow pod scheduling so we do not have to rotate pods every two seasons which will be confusing to the casual sports fan.

 

There is going to be so many articles coming out over the next few months it is going to make last year look relatively calm. The fact is that the Pac 12 and Larry Scott hold all the cards although every article out of UT is going to try and make it look like UT can do whatever they choose.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

There is going to be so many articles coming out over the next few months it is going to make last year look relatively calm. The fact is that the Pac 12 and Larry Scott hold all the cards although every article out of UT is going to try and make it look like UT can do whatever they choose.

 

That is the Longhorn M.O.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

I'm still cool about the Pac-16 but with pod scheduling or 11 conference games (unlikely at this point) where each program will get to play in California, the NW, Mountain schools, and SW every year.

 

Larry Scott still needs to have the NCAA allow pod scheduling so we do not have to rotate pods every two seasons which will be confusing to the casual sports fan.

 

I do not see the upside in a rotating pod schedule, it's messy,complicated and has little benefits. In a West/East split regional and historic rivalries are maintained, there is a cohesive coference schedule that make it possible to build rivalries and to have a true conference identity, there are clear division winners who will meet in a CCG. Why should the orginal PAC-8 especially the California schools agree to pod scheduling?

[Guest Bone Crusher]

I do not see the upside in a rotating pod schedule, it's messy,complicated and has little benefits. In a West/East split regional and historic rivalries are maintained, there is a cohesive coference schedule that make it possible to build rivalries and to have a true conference identity, there are clear division winners who will meet in a CCG. Why should the orginal PAC-8 especially the California schools agree to pod scheduling?

 

Let's review about the pod scheduling. We will do a CU schedule in the Pac-16.

 

This means CU plays the three Mountain schools, two from each region which is CA, SW, and NW.

 

Year one (Year two is opposite of year one)

 

UA

@ASU

Utah

@USC

Cal

@OU

TT

@UO

WSU

 

Year three (year four is opposite of year three)

 

UA

@ASU

Utah

@UCLA

Stanford

@UT

Okie State

@UW

Oregon State

 

That means CU gets one trip to California every year in addition to one trip to the NW and to the SW. A lot of Texas recruits would still visit Norman and Stillwater as well.

 

IE Bruin,

 

Texas Tech and Oklahoma State already have a heated rivalry and OU-TT is very close to the tipping point in that regard. This pod scheduling will still allow the Mountain schools to develop rivalries with each other.

 

The biggest unknown is Utah and the SW schools but CU & OU fans have been going at it for years plus CU fans don't like UT as well. The TT-CU series is deadlocked in a tie and has been a good series since both schools were in the same conference.

 

Plan B is to go to 11 conference games and that could mean a new TV deal at possibly TWICE the new TV deal we just signed. UT won't be able to complain about $$$ for a long time. We would need to add one or two more regular season games and I can see that being done.

 

And the best bowl game I ever saw was USC-Texas in that fateful Rose Bowl game. Would I want to see another USC-Texas game? I would say YES!!!

[Guest superdeluxe]

. Why should the orginal PAC-8 especially the California schools agree to pod scheduling?

 

 

Pod schedule keeps the newbies happy.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

I do not see the upside in a rotating pod schedule, it's messy,complicated and has little benefits. In a West/East split regional and historic rivalries are maintained, there is a cohesive coference schedule that make it possible to build rivalries and to have a true conference identity, there are clear division winners who will meet in a CCG. Why should the orginal PAC-8 especially the California schools agree to pod scheduling?

As usual, you're wrong.

All that a divisional format accomplishes is to have one conference and one grouping of "new comers".

It does absolutely nothing to build any kind of conference identity and would ultimately result in a dissolution of the PAC 16.

Texas would chomp at the bit and push the envelope with no USC counterbalance.

The lack of any kind of cohesion among the conference members, and the outcast status of the newcomers would guarantee the collapse of the PAC16.

Not "if" but "when".

 

If all you PAC'ers ever wanted was the old 8 then you should never have expanded. You don't expand in order to go backwards.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

Pod schedule keeps the newbies happy.

Pods keeps the conference together. Money isn't enough to do it by itself.

[Guest Mano]

I do not see the upside in a rotating pod schedule, it's messy,complicated and has little benefits.

 

It would give every team in the conference an annual trip to California, and a biannual trip to Texas. It also builds the conference, as every team would play every other team at least half the time. Really not rocket science to figure out either.

 

In a West/East split regional and historic rivalries are maintained, there is a cohesive coference schedule that make it possible to build rivalries and to have a true conference identity, there are clear division winners who will meet in a CCG.

 

The biggest rivalries get maintained in the pod system. If you go to an east/west split it is basically two conferences with a playoff game - pretty much like Big X vs. Pac with annual Rose Bowl. What is the point of expanding and then not playing the new teams? Why would Oklahoma and Texas want to join if they don't get to play any west coast teams?

 

Why should the orginal PAC-8 especially the California schools agree to pod scheduling?

 

For the good of the conference? It also would give the California schools added exposure to the fertile Texas recruiting.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

Pod schedule keeps the newbies happy.

 

That is what I am talking about. CU fans on AllBuffs are having a hard time seeing through the same lens as you. The pod scheduling will mean every single Pac-16 school outside of California will have one trip to California EVERY YEAR. The same goes for every Pac-16 school going to Oklahoma/Texas once every year for exposure to Texas recruits. There is enough talent within the Mountain school footprint out there and every Pac-16 school outside the Mountain schools will visit those schools every year. Same goes for the NW schools as well.

 

I know that this might end up being rough on CU for a few years as they adjust to playing OU or UT every year but when it comes to the conference as a whole group, it would be awesome.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

Let's review about the pod scheduling. We will do a CU schedule in the Pac-16.

 

This means CU plays the three Mountain schools, two from each region which is CA, SW, and NW.

 

Year one (Year two is opposite of year one)

 

UA

@ASU

Utah

@USC

Cal

@OU

TT

@UO

WSU

 

Year three (year four is opposite of year three)

 

UA

@ASU

Utah

@UCLA

Stanford

@UT

Okie State

@UW

Oregon State

 

That means CU gets one trip to California every year in addition to one trip to the NW and to the SW. A lot of Texas recruits would still visit Norman and Stillwater as well.

 

IE Bruin,

 

Texas Tech and Oklahoma State already have a heated rivalry and OU-TT is very close to the tipping point in that regard. This pod scheduling will still allow the Mountain schools to develop rivalries with each other.

 

The biggest unknown is Utah and the SW schools but CU & OU fans have been going at it for years plus CU fans don't like UT as well. The TT-CU series is deadlocked in a tie and has been a good series since both schools were in the same conference.

 

Plan B is to go to 11 conference games and that could mean a new TV deal at possibly TWICE the new TV deal we just signed. UT won't be able to complain about $$$ for a long time. We would need to add one or two more regular season games and I can see that being done.

 

And the best bowl game I ever saw was USC-Texas in that fateful Rose Bowl game. Would I want to see another USC-Texas game? I would say YES!!!

 

That looks like a great schedule for Colorado, do you think the Pac 8 is going to let the newbies waterdown the history between the California and Pacific NW teams in order to give them more access to CA and so they could develope games with MTN and Big 12 schools? not going to happen.

 

I understand that Colorado does not want to be associated with the former B12 schools but 5 of the 8 teams in the East would be from the old B12 so there is already history, plus Colorado also shares history with Utah and AZ schools.

 

USC and Texas will play each other every once in a while, plus when they are both good enough it will be a really special game in the CCG. We do not need a pod system to recreate a Rose Bowl experience.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

Pod schedule keeps the newbies happy.

 

I think enough has been done to make them happy, it is time we reward the original Pac 8.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

As usual, you're wrong.

All that a divisional format accomplishes is to have one conference and one grouping of "new comers".

It does absolutely nothing to build any kind of conference identity and would ultimately result in a dissolution of the PAC 16.

Texas would chomp at the bit and push the envelope with no USC counterbalance.

The lack of any kind of cohesion among the conference members, and the outcast status of the newcomers would guarantee the collapse of the PAC16.

Not "if" but "when".

 

If all you PAC'ers ever wanted was the old 8 then you should never have expanded. You don't expand in order to go backwards.

 

Again, the one grouping of newcomers would not exactly be new as 5 of the 8 are former B12, the AZ schools and Colorado would get a raw deal. I do not see how throwing out establish history and rivalries is a good for conference identity, why throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

With four superconferences I do not see the Pac 16 dissolving, unless every conference starts te devolve into smaller conferences again, which would be fine.

 

The Pac expanded to keep up with the current and future college football landscape not to create new rivalries, by expanding to 16 it always the Pac to go back to its' roots and history and evolve at the same time, its a win-win, afterall it is still the Pacific Conference with its own history before expansion.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

Pods keeps the conference together. Money isn't enough to do it by itself.

 

Pod systems do not keep the conference together it waters it down, why would it be good for a school like Cal or Stanford to lose games with Washington or Oregon in order to play Okie State or Texas Tech or even Utah, why try to force rivalries and create history when it already exist.

 

also, imagine the headache that will happen when there will be three or four teams with the same records and different conference schedules with two will be chosen for the CCG. In a West/East split there is a round robin division schedule that will result in two undisputed division winners who will meet in the CCG.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

Billy Luicci (A&M) insider is tweeting that OU gets a PAC-12 invite without Texas. It's possible we have a PAC-15 for a brief time.

[Guest Highlander72]

We had these discussions leading up to the Pac 12 expansion with everybody wanting what they wanted, everybody upset. Larry Scott to the ball and hit it out of the park splitting North South, two cali teams in each team yet protecting the Cali rivalry.

 

I'm not sure how the situation is going to work but I have full faith that Larry Scott is going to do what's in the best interest of the conference WHILE also providing the most entertaining, exciting brand the Pac 16 could produce. With that being said and folks clamoring for a playoff, i could see where Scott would want to make something TRULY revolutionary and capitalize on that opportunity. If you create the POD format, you could make the 4 divisions like a mini-NFL setups where they play round robin. You protect your divisional match ups while also rotating the schedule. Playing in three time zones between Cali to Texas, I think it would be important to build the brand and the rivalry between all the schools instead of making the Pac 16 really just two conferences within one where teams on either side rarely meet. It is a duty tasked to Larry Scott to make the Pac 16 as a whole the most exciting brand of football and drive intrigue up. I am more than confident he will be up to the task.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

It would give every team in the conference an annual trip to California, and a biannual trip to Texas. It also builds the conference, as every team would play every other team at least half the time. Really not rocket science to figure out either.

 

 

 

Again how does playing every other team at least half the time build the conference and at the same time you are diluting already existing rivalries. Lets at least be honest here this is good for the newbies and not for the Pac 8.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

The biggest rivalries get maintained in the pod system. If you go to an east/west split it is basically two conferences with a playoff game - pretty much like Big X vs. Pac with annual Rose Bowl. What is the point of expanding and then not playing the new teams? Why would Oklahoma and Texas want to join if they don't get to play any west coast teams?

 

Wow thanks, you are willing to let us keep our primary rivals, losing games with our tradition conference foes to gain games with Texas or Oklahoma every once in a while is not a good tradeoff.

 

Basically a two conference split with a playoff game is a good thing, it perserves history while progressing at the same time.The point of expansion was not to create new conference matchups, it was to generate more money to create more conference stabiliy. Oklahoma and Texas will want to join because they want to be in a stable conference with academic standards, and they will get to play on the west coast because there will still be 9 conference games with two coming from the other division and all of the Pac 8 are on the Westcoast, also there will be a pot of gold at the end of the tunnel when the CCG is played every year in LA.