Guest clpp01 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 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? It hurts the Pac when we play more conference games then anyone else. While the Pac is playing that extra conference game the SEC and Big-10 are getting fat off the likes of Middle Tennessee State and Eastern Illinois. Only possible way the Pac increases the 9 game conference schedule is if the NCAA increases the length of the season or more likely the creation of a playoff to determine the national championship that way we won't be penalized by the voters because we aren't afraid of competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sine of the Devil Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 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. To put it bluntly - it sucks. I think fans at both AZ schools hate this arrangement. I think many are missing the point of our objection. You can argue about benefits of TX recruiting all you want and I think a good case can be made that we might even benefit. The real issue is we have little in common with those schools or that part of the country. I think people forget there is an entire state between us and them. We don't work, vacation or go to school with TX or OK. On the other hand the social, business and academic ties between AZ and CA are everywhere. I think it's convenient of the PAC 8 to clams all these old rivalries and treat us as outsiders. It seems over 3 decades in a conference should count for serving, and maybe the others should work to minize the impact on AZ. Also, this sacrifice being claimed by the PAC 8 is a joke. We sacrificed games against longtime rivals too. Not to mention they are not even comparable in severity or length (1year?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest clpp01 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 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). In that case I think the Kansas schools would go to the Big East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FountainofUte Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 It hurts the Pac when we play more conference games then anyone else. While the Pac is playing that extra conference game the SEC and Big-10 are getting fat off the likes of Middle Tennessee State and Eastern Illinois. Only possible way the Pac increases the 9 game conference schedule is if the NCAA increases the length of the season or more likely the creation of a playoff to determine the national championship that way we won't be penalized by the voters because we aren't afraid of competition. I'm at the point where I don't care to have the Utes or the PAC play the "inflate our status" game that the SEC excels at. If voters want to penalize us for playing a more entertaining, competitive schedule, fine. What's the point of building up this huge, badass conference if we're never going to play each other? Seriously? Going to 16 changes everything. Drastically. If we're going to do it, we need to realize that it's a brave new world and we need to throw the old one out. If we're going to play by the old rules, then let's just stay at 12. But if we're going to 16, we need to treat it like the reboot to the old system that it is. By going to 16, we're basically creating our own quadrant of a college football playoff. So we might as well really know who our champion is that we're sending to the post season. The other conferences that go to 16 will likely follow suit. And if they don't Larry Scott should call them out at every opportunity. We need to change the conversation and not let the polls or other conferences determine what the the PAC does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mccuisinart Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 There are going to be a lot of unhappy ute fans out here that will be sad that they won't be able to return all that merchandise they bought with pac-12 logos on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chad Sexington Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 There are going to be a lot of unhappy ute fans out here that will be sad that they won't be able to return all that merchandise they bought with pac-12 logos on them. Nah, all that stuff just became collector's items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wazzup Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 To put it bluntly - it sucks. I think fans at both AZ schools hate this arrangement. I think many are missing the point of our objection. You can argue about benefits of TX recruiting all you want and I think a good case can be made that we might even benefit. The real issue is we have little in common with those schools or that part of the country. I think people forget there is an entire state between us and them. We don't work, vacation or go to school with TX or OK. On the other hand the social, business and academic ties between AZ and CA are everywhere. I think it's convenient of the PAC 8 to clams all these old rivalries and treat us as outsiders. It seems over 3 decades in a conference should count for serving, and maybe the others should work to minize the impact on AZ. Also, this sacrifice being claimed by the PAC 8 is a joke. We sacrificed games against longtime rivals too. Not to mention they are not even comparable in severity or length (1year?). These are the opinions that need to be voiced and that Larry Scott needs to hear. The real reason that the PAC-8 discussion is occuring has nothing to do with "never accepting" the Arizona schools. The Arizona schools are an integral part of the conference and no one wants to cast them off into the east. However, the original 8 are willing to sacrifice Arizona because... wait for it... NO ONE wants to play in Texas and Oklahoma! Roll that concept around in your brain for a minute and let it sink in. We are considering an expansion by adding teams that NO ONE wants to play. Not the original 8, not the Arizona schools, not Colorado, who already tried to ditch these schools, and apparently not Utah either. The take home message is that if we don't really want them, we shouldn't act against the best interest of the members of our own conference just for a few additional dollars. Selling-out is not a good reason to expand. Sometimes the best move is to leave a few chips on the table and go home happy. Texas is like the attractive woman at the bar tempting you into cheating on your family. You know its not a good move, that it will end badly and mess up everything you've built, but oh, she looks SO good right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I.E. Bruin Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 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. No, but your solution of creating pods, breaking more traditions, upsetting 3/4 of the conference and changing NCAA rules just so every region has access to each other is unreasonable. It's a 16 team conference!!! Not everyone is going to have ties to everyone, that's not possible, so why break the ties that are already established just so the Mtn schools can have more access to California. Someone else already asked this question but what rivalries would Utah be losing? And Colorado would be gaining their rivals. ...And just because I disagree with your take does not make me wrong, so get off your high horse. Yes AZ schools would get a raw deal, but I am sure some accomodations will be made for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest -AC- Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Well, espn is blowing up this morning... The news of the PAC16 is getting more frequent. Saying Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, and Texas Tech is looking very real... They follow up that story by showing how weak the PAC12 has been on this opening weekend. Classic espn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bendsinister Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Yea, as if anyone except OU and Texas were good in the old Big 12... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CalHawk Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Well, espn is blowing up this morning... The news of the PAC16 is getting more frequent. Saying Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, and Texas Tech is looking very real... They follow up that story by showing how weak the PAC12 has been on this opening weekend. Classic espn... Can someone point me to a link where all these stories are coming out today? I only see the same ones that were there late last night. I get on these boards and I'm seeing reference to "done deals" and LHN to become a four school network. I'm not saying it might be true, I just don't see the "new" links expanding on what was said last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bone Crusher Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1260448 Texas state legislators are now getting involved and are telling Texas to tell OU to slow things down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest clpp01 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1260448 Texas state legislators are now getting involved and are telling Texas to tell OU to slow things down. Until it comes from someone other then Chip Brown then I'm not buying it as anything but a scare tactic to try and keep A&M from leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ASUsparky Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Well, espn is blowing up this morning... The news of the PAC16 is getting more frequent. Saying Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, and Texas Tech is looking very real... They follow up that story by showing how weak the PAC12 has been on this opening weekend. Classic espn... Yep, they are trying to keep the "iron" hot for the story. ESPN knows that most will forget about all of this hubbub with the Big 12 once we started playing, so they kept the story at the top of their front page the whole weekend. ESPN blows up a lot of things. Last years PAC 16 talks were just the same, ESPN kept jumping to false conclusions. Do you remember the summer of Brett Favre in 2008? ESPN literally put camera's in his house and bugged all the buildings in Hattiesburg just to spy on Brett. The constant headlines were along the lines of this: monday: Favre says he's retired. tuesday: Favre goes to the gym wednesday: Favre eats a banana thursday: Favre buys groceries friday: Favre likes the color green saturday: Favre takes a dump sunday: Favre hints at coaching high school football monday: Packers contact Favre tuesday: Favre says he isn't interest wednesday: Favres facial hair gets shaved thursday: Favre says Aaron Rodgers is a good QB friday: Favre flys out of Mississippi, on his way to Vegas. saturday: Favre returns from Vegas and says he got a phone call from Packers ball boy. just rinse and repeat for about 3 or 4 months, ESPN was covering him like the OJ murder case. This Big 12 fiasco is getting somewhat the same type of coverage, not exactly though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest clpp01 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 FWIW With the inner workings of Texas politics in the background, there is always a chance that Texas’ plans could be forced to change. The Web site Orangebloods.com reported Sunday night that the university was being told to slow things down by local lawmakers. But the State Senator Judith Zaffirini, the chairwoman of the Senate Higher Education Committee, said in a telephone interview Sunday that the Senate had no plans to get involved in conference expansion. A hearing before the Texas legislature’s House Committee on Higher Education about Texas A&M’s potential move to the SEC was canceled. Zaffirini said she saw no potential political roadblocks for a Texas move to the Pac-12. 'I don’t see that happening at all at this point,' she said. 'I have absolutely no intent of calling a hearing at this time. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/sports/ncaafootball/texas-is-key-player-in-pac-12s-expansion-outlook.html?_r=1&ref=sports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bone Crusher Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 FWIW http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/sports/ncaafootball/texas-is-key-player-in-pac-12s-expansion-outlook.html?_r=1&ref=sports And that is from Pete Thamel of the NYT...I'd say Chip Brown would be more on the mark than Thamel. Aw screw it...let's kick OU & UT's rears once they come in the conference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest clpp01 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 And that is from Pete Thamel of the NYT...I'd say Chip Brown would be more on the mark than Thamel. Aw screw it...let's kick OU & UT's rears once they come in the conference! Chip Brown is the mouthpiece for the Longhorn agenda. Even with the standards the NYT carries I wouldn't go as far as to say that Brown is the more credible of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chad Sexington Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 No, but your solution of creating pods, breaking more traditions, upsetting 3/4 of the conference and changing NCAA rules just so every region has access to each other is unreasonable. It's a 16 team conference!!! Not everyone is going to have ties to everyone, that's not possible, so why break the ties that are already established just so the Mtn schools can have more access to California. Someone else already asked this question but what rivalries would Utah be losing? And Colorado would be gaining their rivals. ...And just because I disagree with your take does not make me wrong, so get off your high horse. Yes AZ schools would get a raw deal, but I am sure some accomodations will be made for them I have heard all of this before, it seems eerily familiar. There has only ever been one 16 team conference, flung afar from Honolulu to Tulsa. It was a mess and ostensibly fell apart because of the "Old Rivalries" argument. I'm not trying to change NCAA regs, the conferences are. I'm fine with 12, but that quaint little notion seems it will receive only specious consideration. If everything changes in the world of CFB, then the way it is governed will necessarily adapt. Old regs will be insufficient to deal with new realities. Anyone positing a Quad or Pod scenario is looking for a way for an entire 16 team conference to interact. Anyone declaring for a two division system is looking for a way to hold onto tradition. Neither position is unreasonable. It simply that one is forward looking and one is backward looking. That's all. West coast teams will not get greater exposure in the east and eastern or inland teams will not get the exposure in the west. Who would not want to be able to have exposure in the largest number of mega markets possible? You won't get that with two divisions. You will get that with four Pods. Only the west coast matters? It's that line of thinking that left the PAC as an also ran among the bigger leagues. Now the PAC has the initiative and the momentum. If you want to put the brakes on, just go back to the old way of doing things. I can tell you that there will be no conference identity if the PAC goes backward to "The Eight" and "The Rest". If other conferences follow suit, that is not a formula for future stability. Either everything is new or everything is old. Mixing them will create only turbulence. Warm air and cold air. Oil and water. Hang onto nostalgia and tradition, and that's what you'll get and the era of Super Conferences will consequently be short lived. As to UTAH losing tradition, the only teams in our new arrangement that we have played more than 30 times in our entire history are Colorado, which we have not seen since 1962, and Arizona. Other than that UTAH gave up it's old 60, 70 and 80+ year rivalries to come to the PAC. For a shitload of money and a higher profile, granted, but we still gave up our tradition in the bargain. Fact. PS - I'm not on a high horse. I am advocating my position. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest soonerjimmy Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Word is spreading here in OK that we are heading out west, so I thought I would get involved in the conversation. Everyone here is assuming that an East/West format is impending. We have heard nothing about a pod schedule, though it sounds intriguing to me. I also like the idea of expanding the conference schedule by one game. I hate the compulsory cupcake game in the non-conference anyway. OU has played a number of pretty tough teams in the non-conference over the years (and a bunch more that were tough games when they were scheduled). We have home and homes against, Ohio State, Tennessee, Notre Dame, & LSU in the next few seasons, and I have no idea how those games will be affected by the new conference situation. Anyway, I am hopeful that we head out west and I am optimistic about the future of a Pac-16 conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chad Sexington Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Word is spreading here in OK that we are heading out west, so I thought I would get involved in the conversation. Everyone here is assuming that an East/West format is impending. We have heard nothing about a pod schedule, though it sounds intriguing to me. I also like the idea of expanding the conference schedule by one game. I hate the compulsory cupcake game in the non-conference anyway. OU has played a number of pretty tough teams in the non-conference over the years (and a bunch more that were tough games when they were scheduled). We have home and homes against, Ohio State, Tennessee, Notre Dame, & LSU in the next few seasons, and I have no idea how those games will be affected by the new conference situation. Anyway, I am hopeful that we head out west and I am optimistic about the future of a Pac-16 conference. Nice to have a Sooner voice on the board. Welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.