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

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

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

 

The pod system is not good for the conference it is good for a few schools, if California schools want exposure to the fertile Texas recruiting then schdule OOC game with Texas Schools like UCLA does, they do not have to break up the conference.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

You can't just say "screw half the conference" and expect schools to just take it.

If you want the PAC 8 then secede and return to the PAC 8.

If conferences can't form some sort of identity with 16 then that is too many teams.

The PAC will not survive by going back to the old conference. If that little trick could work then the SWC would reemerge.

Despite all the talk about the old SWC, I don't see that coming back anytime soon, and I doubt very seriously if the PAC8 comes about again.

Bank on either one of two scenarios: First, a North / South divisional split (not ideal IMO), or second, a pod system that allows more of the conference to interact.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

You can't just say "screw half the conference" and expect schools to just take it.

If you want the PAC 8 then secede and return to the PAC 8.

If conferences can't form some sort of identity with 16 then that is too many teams.

The PAC will not survive by going back to the old conference. If that little trick could work then the SWC would reemerge.

Despite all the talk about the old SWC, I don't see that coming back anytime soon, and I doubt very seriously if the PAC8 comes about again.

Bank on either one of two scenarios: First, a North / South divisional split (not ideal IMO), or second, a pod system that allows more of the conference to interact.

1. There will be no "Pod Scheduling" in the way that you want it, because it would require significant changes to the NCAA. Current NCAA regulations require a 2-divisional format, with a round-robin within each division, and frankly this is the best way to determine a champion. We were looking at various alignments last year when it came there, so. So, we're left with 2 options: 2 permanent divisions (which is what it will be), and then a rotational thing based upon 4 pods. The latter requires things that would not go well with Larry Scott, who wants a simple alignment that people can follow year after year. He doesn't want an alignment where the person has to stop and think, "Is this team part of this division this year, or the other division this year." That is the reason why there will not be a rotational pod system.

 

2. There will be no North/South divisional split either. That would severely unbalance the divisions and ultimately lead to a breakup of the conference, with the south dominating the conference in terms of power and other things. Most of the North-South split I've heard basically throws Colorado and Utah to the North, while putting the 4 new teams in the South. That divisional lineup gets no more than 6 votes (the 4 new schools, and Arizona and Arizona St.). Not one of the Northwest Schools, and not one of the California Schools would vote for it. Neither would Colorado or Utah. And Larry Scott wouldn't even begin to propose it, because it would severely unbalance the conference.

 

Here's where you'd lose the votes:

 

A north-south split would ultimately cut the North teams from either fertile recruiting ground of Texas or Southern California. This would lose at least 6 votes in Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., Colorado, and Utah. I also have California and Stanford voting against it, but this would be the secondary reason for them, and not the Primary one.

 

A north-south split would also get rid of the California Rivalries that California fought for and got during the last time. This would mean that California, Stanford, USC, and UCLA, who hold these rivalries dear, would vote against it.

 

There ultimately is only an East-West split.

[Guest clpp01]

There ultimately is only an East-West split.

And everything we have heard from the mountain schools says they wont agree to cutting themselves off from California.

[Guest RogueDuck]

Honestly If UU and CU don't like the two div original and new 8, then they can join the MWC. What other choice do they have? I bet you UT and OU will want it two div, and not pods.

[Guest clpp01]

Honestly If UU and CU don't like the two div original and new 8, then they can join the MWC. What other choice do they have? I bet you UT and OU will want it two div, and not pods.

So do you propose we make the Pac-12 even more unstable then the Big-12 currently is?

[Guest Highlander72]

Honestly If UU and CU don't like the two div original and new 8, then they can join the MWC. What other choice do they have? I bet you UT and OU will want it two div, and not pods.

 

Just running with this thought, Big 10 would take them. Great academic school. good sports programs. Cu would have options. We are positioned nice regionally where we always be alright.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

And everything we have heard from the mountain schools says they wont agree to cutting themselves off from California.

And that is the only indication that will work. A north-south split will get a maximum of 6 votes (you'd need at least 12 for a 3/4ths vote). Northwest, Colorado, Utah, and the California Schools will not vote for a north-south split. If you have an alignment that would work for north-south, I'd love to hear it. But I also think that you're over-estimating what the Mountain Schools will vote against. I have a hard time believing that they'd veto a east-west split due to them not having 1 extra game against a California school, when they'll make significant enroads into the Texas Recruiting ground. Remember, some of the most dynamic players in the PAC-12 come from Texas. I can name 3 players that are completely changing the league that are from Texas - James Rodgers, LaMichael James, and Darron Thomas. But what you're suggesting is that because the Mountain Schools don't get everything that they want, then they'll vote against it?

 

An east-west split is where it will be.

[Guest RogueDuck]

CU is well thought of, you are right the Big 10 would probably take you, but then you are cutting yourself off from California AND Texas recruits. Here is my question, do you really think if Scott says hey, you guys are back with your traditional conference teams - your rival Nebraska, and we can now guarantee another 10mill a year if we bring in Texas, OU, OS and TT. Do you really think your AD is going to get mad and vote against this? I think CU knows they can win being in the same conference as Texas and OU, and I don't think your coaches or AD will care. I'm sure you guys would get a guarantee of playing in California every year, so you still can sell that to recruits.

[Guest Highlander72]

We could all get up in arms over this but Scott will have a great scheme which will be beneficial for all 16 teams, maximizes their locations and markets, yet makes the brand exciting, fun to watch and the talk of the college football. I think totally separated two divisions where they hardly ever play each other won't do that. Larry has hit on everything thus far so no reason to doubt that he'll botch this next deal and he'll do it sans the bias all fans will have for their university.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

Ridiculous.

 

The NCAA rules would stay exactly the same in spite of the advent of the Super Conference? Nothing would change?

I'd bet the ranch that is wrong.

 

Do you honestly think that 1/3rd of the conference would just sit back and have this shoved down their throats?

 

This is going to be a North / South split if the divisional format comes to fruition.

 

Pods is the most natural and inclusive arrangement, and I maintain that it will be this system that prevails.

[Guest Highlander72]

To be honest, I think fans are getting up in arms over nothing right now. 1. it isn't a guarantee this is happening. 2. It's not a guarantee it will be east vs west. 3. It's not a guarantee that bylaws or whatever archaic NCAA rules cannot be changed. They've never been challenged so I imagine it is still too early to say. Scott will have to define what he wants to do, and create a plan of action for that.

[Guest clpp01]

Ridiculous.

 

The NCAA rules would stay exactly the same in spite of the advent of the Super Conference? Nothing would change?

I'd bet the ranch that is wrong.

 

Do you honestly think that 1/3rd of the conference would just sit back and have this shoved down their throats?

 

This is going to be a North / South split if the divisional format comes to fruition.

 

Pods is the most natural and inclusive arrangement, and I maintain that it will be this system that prevails.

 

The N/S split would have 8 votes against it as the NW wouldn't want it and the Cal schools would vote against it due to not maintaining annual games against every other Cal school.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

The N/S split would have 8 votes against it as the NW wouldn't want it and the Cal schools would vote against it due to not maintaining annual games against every other Cal school.

Yup. I still think pods is the answer.

The East/West would have at least four votes against it.

This is not majority rules.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

Ridiculous.

 

The NCAA rules would stay exactly the same in spite of the advent of the Super Conference? Nothing would change?

I'd bet the ranch that is wrong.

 

Do you honestly think that 1/3rd of the conference would just sit back and have this shoved down their throats?

 

This is going to be a North / South split if the divisional format comes to fruition.

 

Pods is the most natural and inclusive arrangement, and I maintain that it will be this system that prevails.

1. As far as your North-South split, what teams will be in the north, and what teams will be in the south? And if it's the alignment that certain people have proposed as follows:

 

North - Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., California, Stanford, Colorado, Utah

South - USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.

 

That alignment will get a maximum of 6 votes (including the 4 newbie votes). Why should the other 10 teams have this alignment shoved down their throats by Arizona and Arizona St. just so that they get their game in California, instead of Texas?

 

There is absolutely no way to make a North-South divisional format work. Mark my words, There is no way to make a North-South Divisional format work. East west, even if what you say is true and the 4 Mountain schools will vote against it (which I'm not sure about), gets 12 votes easily. The North-South alignment gets 6 votes max: Arizona, Arizona St., Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.

 

The East-West divisional alignment balances the divisions within 1 million TV Households. California, Oregon and Washington have approximately 1 million more TV households (16.5 million, versus 15.5 million) than Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas. That creates a viewer base for both of the divisions, instead of putting all the viewers in one division (which a north-south division alignment would do). The North-South alignment puts somewhere around 20 million TV households in the South, and only about 12 million in the north. No team in the North division would vote for this alignment, because it means that the South division has all the viewers, and therefore all the power in the conference. So, you lose 8 votes right there. Also Larry Scott would not even start to suggest this. Just as he didn't push for the Cali-Zona alignment last time, because it would put all the viewers in the South.

 

The North-South divisional alignment destroys the California Rivalries, which will mean that no California team will vote for it. They fought for their rivalries last divisional split talk, and got them. Why would they all of a sudden reverse themselves on this, and go for a north-south divisional lineup that will destroy these rivalries this alignment? Like I said, why should these schools bend over and take it for Arizona and Arizona St. to get what they want? Are you actually afraid that you're going to be asked to do what the Northwest schools did this last time, and actually compromise on divisional alignment for the better for the conference.

 

As far as the Pod, you're making a very big assumption there: that the NCAA will change their regulations to allow this to happen. That is a big assumption, because the NCAA didn't change their regulations for us when we were looking at divisional lineup this last time. Also, a Pod-setup would do 1 thing: there would be a significant chance (75%) that there will be a team within the conference that neither of the teams in the championship game played. This isn't just a possibility, it will happen more times than not. Ultimately, a championship game (or tournament) should be between teams that have actually played, between them, every team in the conference. Your alignment means that more times than not, this will not happen.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

This division of teams will be worked out before expansion gets green lit.

 

There will be an impasse if the original PAC 8 tries to declare that the split would be East / West.

 

Expansion will be vetoed if it comes down to E/W.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

Pods is the best system and has the most upside.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

Yup. I still think pods is the answer.

The East/West would have at least four votes against it.

This is not majority rules.

Actually, the North-South would have 10 votes against it. You might be able to get it down to 8 depending upon the alignment, but...

 

The Texoma pod will probably vote against anything that doesn't keep their 4 schools in the same division.

 

The California pod will vote against anything that doesn't keep their 4 schools in the same division.

 

Any team in your North division would ultimately vote against it because it would put all the population in the South.

 

So, the only way to do a divisional lineup is to put the 4 California schools in one division, and the 4 Texoma schools in the other. This ultimately spreads out both the population, and keeps the Rivalries.

 

So, you can either put the Northwest Pod in with Texas, or in with California. The Texas would increase travel costs with the Northwest and Texoma schools unfairly. It would basically create to where the Northwest and Texoma would have higher travel costs than what the Four Corners and California schools have. Plus both the Northwest and California I think would like to continue the old PAC-8.

 

That means that we go with Northwest and California in one division, and Texoma and Four Corners in the other.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

Ultimately, you're not going to see a pod-system. It's too confusing for the casual fan. There have been 16-team conferences before, and the NCAA didn't change anything to allow a non-round robin in there. I have serious doubts that the NCAA would change it's rules to allow your preferred alignment. A nice-easy East-West split is what will happen. And ultimately, I don't think that you'll see the Four Corner Schools vote against it. The Four Corner schools will ultimately do what's best for the conference, not just what's best for them. Ultimately, expansion with the 4 Texoma schools will mean more money for all conferences (currently, conference gets $250 million a year, divided among 12 schools equally, making $20.83 million per school. I've heard estimates for 1st and 2nd tier rights to be as much as $30 million per school per year). That doesn't include anything having to do with the PAC-16 networks, which would probably bring in another $10 million per school a year.

 

Are you telling me that the Arizona Schools would vote against more money, just because they don't get California? You've gotta be kidding me.

[Guest clpp01]

Ultimately, you're not going to see a pod-system. It's too confusing for the casual fan.

I don't see how it would be confusing for casual fans as the pods would be created on a geographic model. You would have a west division with the northwest pod and the california pod and an east division with the mountain pod and plains pod.

 

As far as the Pod, you're making a very big assumption there: that the NCAA will change their regulations to allow this to happen. That is a big assumption, because the NCAA didn't change their regulations for us when we were looking at divisional lineup this last time. Also, a Pod-setup would do 1 thing: there would be a significant chance (75%) that there will be a team within the conference that neither of the teams in the championship game played. This isn't just a possibility, it will happen more times than not. Ultimately, a championship game (or tournament) should be between teams that have actually played, between them, every team in the conference. Your alignment means that more times than not, this will not happen.

Last year never stood a chance because the Pac was simply going to 12 and the there were already several different conferences at 12 in a straight 2 division set up. Once one conference goes to 16 then the others will make the jump as well and once you have 4 maybe 5 conferences at 16 teams each then you could see the NCAA making an adjustment to the rules.

 

If we were allowed to go to a pod system you would simply see a tie breaker be used to determine the division champion between the two pod winners

West Division

NW: Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St

Cal: California, Stanford, UCLA, USC

 

East:

Mountains: Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah

Plains: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech

 

Tie Breaker:

1. Head to Head

2. Divisional Record

3. Record vs. common opponents

4. BCS ranking (or whatever replaces the BCS if it no longer exists)