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

[Guest dunstvangeet]

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.

 

 

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)

There would be 2 ways to do a pod-system. One of them would require significant changes to the NCAA, changes that I do not agree with (since it would make a 75% chance that there would be a team that neither of the teams that are in the CCG play). That would be reducing the number of "Divisional" games to 5, and not requiring a round-robin within the division. It would require significant changes from the NCAA in order to do it and still keep our CCG. But ultimately, I don't agree with it because it would have teams that neither team that's in the CCG played.

 

The only other way to do a pod system is to set up a rotational pod system, where for instance...

 

YEAR 1: Northwest & California, vs. Four Corners & Texoma

YEAR 2: Northwest & Four Corners vs. California & Texoma

YEAR 3: Northwest & Texoma vs. California & Four Corners

 

That is the format that is confusing.

 

This is the only Pod system that would work under current rules, and I seriously doubt that the NCAA would change them to allow a championship game without round robins within the division. Furthermore, I wouldn't support the change.

[Guest clpp01]

There would be 2 ways to do a pod-system. One of them would require significant changes to the NCAA, changes that I do not agree with (since it would make a 75% chance that there would be a team that neither of the teams that are in the CCG play). That would be reducing the number of "Divisional" games to 5, and not requiring a round-robin within the division. It would require significant changes from the NCAA in order to do it and still keep our CCG. But ultimately, I don't agree with it because it would have teams that neither team that's in the CCG played.

 

The only other way to do a pod system is to set up a rotational pod system, where for instance...

 

YEAR 1: Northwest & California, vs. Four Corners & Texoma

YEAR 2: Northwest & Four Corners vs. California & Texoma

YEAR 3: Northwest & Texoma vs. California & Four Corners

 

That is the format that is confusing.

 

This is the only Pod system that would work under current rules, and I seriously doubt that the NCAA would change them to allow a championship game without round robins within the division. Furthermore, I wouldn't support the change.

IIRC that is what the WAC did and is also why it failed.

 

Something the NCAA could do is grant the Pac-16 a waiver similar to what they gave the MAC and then modify it to allow an evenly balanced conference to replace 1-2 divisional games in favor of cross-divisional to allow the Pac to play a conference championship game even though teams wouldn't play every team in their division. If they granted that then you could see a straight east/west split and the conference would simply schedule games like there was a pod system in place.

[Guest dunstvangeet]

IIRC that is what the WAC did and is also why it failed.

 

Something the NCAA could do is grant the Pac-16 a waiver similar to what they gave the MAC and then modify it to allow an evenly balanced conference to replace 1-2 divisional games in favor of cross-divisional to allow the Pac to play a conference championship game even though teams wouldn't play every team in their division. If they granted that then you could see a straight east/west split and the conference would simply schedule games like there was a pod system in place.

MAC got a waiver because of unbalanced divisions. They had 13 teams. There was absolutely no way to schedule a round-robin within the division with either 8 games. There's a way to schedule a round robin within the division with 16 teams.

 

Let me do a little bit of math for you.

 

MAC West had 7 teams. With a 8-game schedule, that would be 6 divisional games, and 2 cross-over. With 2 cross-over, you'd have 14 points.

MAC East had 6 teams. With a 8-game schedule, you'd have 5 divisional games, and 3 cross-overs. That is 18 points. So, the only way to do it would be having 2 additional divisional games in the east... That would bring it down to 14 points. but you'd have repeats.

 

In fact, a 13-team schedule is impossible to schedule for unless you have 12 games and have a full round robin. This is what the MAC was dealing with. There is no indication that the NCAA would allow the waiver without this mathematical impossibility to occur. That is the reason why the MAC got the waiver. And come to think of it, they may have gotten that waiver revoked now that UMass is playing in the West for Football. I'd have to check future schedules, since UMass doesn't join the football schedule until next year. When that happens, I think the MAC is going to a round-robin within their divisions, and then either 2 or 3 cross-over games.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

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.

 

I do not think that Scott or the rest of the Pac will let the tail wag the dog on this issue, nobody is getting "screwed" in the West/East split and when the time comes the Mtn schools will fall in line. The Pac 8 made concessions and sacrifices to get Utah and Colorado into the conference, now you want the Pac to further waterdown the conference and break up more traditions in order to meet the Mtn schools preferences, colorado and Utah have benefitted greatly from the Pac12 and will benefit in the East division of the Pac 16.

[Guest I.E. Bruin]

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.

 

finally, a voice of reason in this thread

[Guest Chad Sexington]

I do not think that Scott or the rest of the Pac will let the tail wag the dog on this issue, nobody is getting "screwed" in the West/East split and when the time comes the Mtn schools will fall in line. The Pac 8 made concessions and sacrifices to get Utah and Colorado into the conference, now you want the Pac to further waterdown the conference and break up more traditions in order to meet the Mtn schools preferences, colorado and Utah have benefitted greatly from the Pac12 and will benefit in the East division of the Pac 16.

Not at all. The world simply changed. That means it is not the same.

You don't go forward by going backward. There will be no PAC 16 if it is comprised by the PAC 8 and The Rest.

The Northwest schools get their rivalries. The California schools get theirs. The Southern Plains schools get theirs.

It's the Mountain pod that is robbed of it's rivalries.

No one will accept the California and Texas divisions. It is not in the interest of the overall health of the conference.

In the Pod system, all teams have access to all of the areas.

It's not good enough to say, in effect, "welcome to our conference, now get lost". It won't fly.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

finally, a voice of reason in this thread

Everyone here seems to be attempting to be reasonable in presenting their views.

Disagreeing with someone is not the same as being unreasonable.

You should already know that.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

I do not think that Scott or the rest of the Pac will let the tail wag the dog on this issue, nobody is getting "screwed" in the West/East split and when the time comes the Mtn schools will fall in line. The Pac 8 made concessions and sacrifices to get Utah and Colorado into the conference, now you want the Pac to further waterdown the conference and break up more traditions in order to meet the Mtn schools preferences, colorado and Utah have benefitted greatly from the Pac12 and will benefit in the East division of the Pac 16.

 

CU and Utah would benefit from recruiting in Arizona & Texas in addition to California. CU is already hitting Texas hard...don't know about the Utes so far.

[Guest Chad Sexington]

CU and Utah would benefit from recruiting in Arizona & Texas in addition to California. CU is already hitting Texas hard...don't know about the Utes so far.

UTAH has been going hard in Texas for many years now. Our Sugar Bowl QB is a Houston native.

We have about 20 Texas kids on the roster now. Kyle has always said that he wants a quarter of the team from each of California, Texas and UTAH and the last quarter from various other places.

[Guest FountainofUte]

What does everyone think of going to 11 conference games if we go to 16 (and assuming East/West divs is the only thing that makes real sense)? It would be a brutal schedule, but it would also be a dream schedule.

 

Everyone gets to TX and CA every year. You play all seven in your division and four in the other. That gives everyone one "tune up" game for game one, then the ultimate gauntlet begins. Everyone would take their lumps, but whoever emerges as the top two are definitely looking BCS-bowl worthy.

 

Personally, I'd rather see more games against the great teams in our conference than playing more pointless non-conf games.

 

Also, if FBS starts moving toward super conferences, the NCAA is going to have to make some rule changes to account for this new dynamic. Such as:

-Allow for a 13-game season, letting the super conferences play an 11-game conf schedule, and still have two OOC games--perfect for one "tune up" and one marquee (e.g. Oregon vs. LSU).

-Allow for pod scheduling and conference semi-final games pitting pod champions after the reg season with winners moving to the CCG. It's practically the playoff we've all been wanting; (well... the one I've been wanting).

[Guest clpp01]

I do not think that Scott or the rest of the Pac will let the tail wag the dog on this issue, nobody is getting "screwed" in the West/East split and when the time comes the Mtn schools will fall in line. The Pac 8 made concessions and sacrifices to get Utah and Colorado into the conference, now you want the Pac to further waterdown the conference and break up more traditions in order to meet the Mtn schools preferences, colorado and Utah have benefitted greatly from the Pac12 and will benefit in the East division of the Pac 16.

If the Northwest and LA schools giving up 1 game against a Pac-8 school is considered a sacrifice then what would you call what the Arizona schools stand to "sacrifice"?

[Guest Chad Sexington]

If the Northwest and LA schools giving up 1 game against a Pac-8 school is considered a sacrifice then what would you call what the Arizona schools stand to "sacrifice"?

You were never accepted by them, and everyone knows that.

Just as we never will be accepted by them.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1260128

 

Sources saying that the LHN can be reworked for the Pac-16. I'm not sure how that would work but we will have to see about that.

 

But Chip Brown tweeted as it sounded like OU has already made its mind up to move to the Pac-12 and UT will go where OU goes.

[Guest FountainofUte]

You were never accepted by them, and everyone knows that.

Just as we never will be accepted by them.

I'm afraid you're right.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

You were never accepted by them, and everyone knows that.

Just as we never will be accepted by them.

 

Whipping those schools will be necessary.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

There are rumblings that there will be NO pod scheduling system if we go to 16 teams.

[Guest FountainofUte]

There are rumblings that there will be NO pod scheduling system if we go to 16 teams.

I'm telling all of you: the way to appease all is to increase the amount of conference games.

 

Someone tell me why this doesn't work?

[Guest Wazzup]

Not at all. The world simply changed. That means it is not the same.

You don't go forward by going backward. There will be no PAC 16 if it is comprised by the PAC 8 and The Rest.

The Northwest schools get their rivalries. The California schools get theirs. The Southern Plains schools get theirs.

It's the Mountain pod that is robbed of it's rivalries.

No one will accept the California and Texas divisions. It is not in the interest of the overall health of the conference.

In the Pod system, all teams have access to all of the areas.

It's not good enough to say, in effect, "welcome to our conference, now get lost". It won't fly.

 

Not to pick nits, but the "Mountain Pod" doesn't lose its rivalries... Arizona and Arizona State would. Colorado kinda "gains back" its rivalries and Utah doesn't seem to really have a dog in the hunt either way... they lost their big rival when they left BYU behind. The voices and opinions that I am personally most interested in hearing are those of Arizona and ASU.

 

I don't really like an East/West split, but then again, I really don't give a rip about having Oklahoma/Texas as part of the PAC either. If getting "more money" solved all problems, the BIG12 wouldn't be on the verge of breaking up right now. If you don't like the idea of the "Mountain pod" being in the eastern division, then you should probably encourage your school to vote NO on expansion. An NCAA waiver, while possible, should not be counted on. If memory serves, I believe that both the BIG-10 and the BIG12 have applied for waivers at different points, and both were denied..

[Guest Wazzup]

If the Northwest and LA schools giving up 1 game against a Pac-8 school is considered a sacrifice then what would you call what the Arizona schools stand to "sacrifice"?

 

 

You were never accepted by them, and everyone knows that.

Just as we never will be accepted by them.

 

 

I'm afraid you're right.

 

 

You Utes seem to have a complex. Not only were you accepted by "us", but we INVITED you!

[Guest DenverUte]

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1260128

 

Sources saying that the LHN can be reworked for the Pac-16. I'm not sure how that would work but we will have to see about that.

 

But Chip Brown tweeted as it sounded like OU has already made its mind up to move to the Pac-12 and UT will go where OU goes.

Interesting article. Would like to see Texas left behind, as I still believe they are a cancer to whatever conference they are a part of. I wonder if KU, KSU, Baylor & ISU stay the Big 12, by inviting the 10 teamsfrom the MWC, and maybe Utah State and Louisiana Tech from the WAC. I think this makes sense as MWC & WAC don't have reputation Big 12 does (even though all the teams responsible for the reputation would be in other conferences).