It appears the University of Colorado will like the news when the future of the expanded Pac-12 Conference is announced Thursday at the presidents' meetings in San Francisco. Momentum is headed toward these policies, according to multiple sources around the conference:

• Colorado and Utah will join the Arizona and Los Angeles schools — Southern California and UCLA — in a South Division, with the Bay Area schools joining the Oregon and Washington schools in a North Division.

• The league will have equal revenue sharing, after a threshold is met, with concessions to the Los Angeles schools. According to The Seattle Times, the presidents will approve a proposal giving USC and UCLA $2 million more per year than the other 10 schools until the broadcast revenues reach a certain level, at which point the 12 schools would divide revenues equally.

• The inaugural football championship game will be held in the stadium of the highest-seeded division champion.

While the decisions aren't yet firm, logistics point to Thursday's meetings being little more than a rubber stamp of negotiations that have been held over the past few weeks. The presidents meet in the morning, and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has set a late-morning news conference.

http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_16382545

Jon Wilner with report after today's PAC-10 President's meeting with details of their alignment and revenue sharing decisions at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... s-official

I know I'm happy with the result. Preserving rivalries is a large part of what college football is all about. It's bad enough that we lost Iowa-Wisconsin (after Saturday).
This brings a satisfying conclusion to the 2010 round of CFB realignment. Thanks for your contibutions.

This divisional alignment puts the 4 newest members in one division (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah). Perhaps they are leaving the door open for expanding east again with four more (Texas, Oklahoma and two more), then reuniting the old Pac-8 in one division.

Right, but wouldnt Texas et al try to get with the LA schools if they agreed to join (in a division with USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Texas, Oklahoma and 2 eastern schools....North would be UW, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal, Stanford, Utah, Colorado)

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I see the notable points you conveyed above. I expect all non-LA, PAC12 schools want competition with Los Angeles campuses as much as will be available each year.

If hypothetically, Texas and Oklahoma and whomever joined the PAC12 and ended in a division with USC and UCLA and the Arizona schools, it could ultimately end up being a strong south division and a weaker northern division. Surely, the goal is to reach reasonable balance. Modeling after the B12's soon-to-be ended north-south divisions may not be a good idea, even if each division is to be 8.

Of course all this is unpredictable, since an Oregon, or Utah, or Washington could be a sustained dominant power and perhaps take down Texas or USC regularly, for example. That said, it's not just W/L records, but searching for certain balances with attendance, media promotions, recruiting access, etc. Sixteen teams and one division ending up being so much stronger than the other? Split arguments may energe rather quickly, particularly if the PAC16 was a lone mega-conference.

I like the new PAC12 divisional design. I seriously doubt new schools shall be added anytime soon.

I agree, sec03. Expect no further expansion of the Pac-12 - or the Big 10 for that matter - for years. What action there iis should be with the unsettled conferences: MWC, Big East, Big 12, etc.

There is a LOT of upset in the Northwest with this alignment. People are concerned about their schools getting more limited face time in Los Angeles.

I'd have joined them if it wasn't for the WAY it happened. Larry Scott arrived and moved some minds, we can talk about Texas still maybe joining down the road, and the Pac will probably take the less stoic route for a while. It'd be curious to see what happens with TV packages and the like.

I honestly think this was the best possible outcome.

Nobody wanted the "zipper" (I have to think ACC fans think it's stupid by now...)

SOMEBODY had to end up not playing the LA schools every year.

I realize the NW schools do a ton of recruiting from SoCal, and that will be hurt ot some degree, no doubt.

Then again, look at the up-side. If you are going to assume USC and UCLA will be fairly dominant teams in the future (and both have gone stretches where they were sort of average, especially UCLA), the NW schools might have an easier path to the conference championship game.

But I REALLY think this equal revenue sharing is a big win for the NW schools. The extra money to pour into facilities, coaching staffs, etc. will go a LONG way to compensate these schools for some potential loss of exposure. Somewhere I saw a post regarding an interview with the Wazzou AD, and he was most interested in the revenue distribution - so I'm thinking he came away happy....

And we make such a big deal of this divisional thing.... football is the ONLY sport where it applies.

If a PAC-12 network comes about, it might increase exposure to where you don't have to be playing the California schools to be on TV.

Perhaps, but equal sharing can lead to future problems. Does ANYONE think Washington St. deserves to be at the same table as even all other current 9 schools? It's different in the SEC where it's fairly balanced in value. What the Pac-10 did was split the money makers, the 4 CA schools who have the alumni bases and have the top 2 Pac-10 markets. I mean, do you think anyone would really mind if Washington St. was pushed out for New Mexico? Not that it will happen, but WSU is so far below the other schools it just seems odd that the Pac-10 would go so reaganomics and hope for some trickledown action to help the baby hueys like WSU.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

YES. Washington State ABSOLUTELY deserves to be at the same table. They ARE a member of the conference in god standing, and were actually arguably the best football team as recently as about 2004.

Every conference HAS to have a top and bottom sports-revenue-producing school....
Big Ten - Northwestern
Big XII - Baylor or Iowa State
SEC - Vandy
ACC - Wake....
throw them out, and another school wil take their place as the bottom sports-revenue-producing school.

To have a healthy conference, you want a degree of competitive balance.

I cannot watch baseball anymore. The sport desperately needs a salary cap to fix the revenue disparity.
Why do so many people outside of NY hate the Yankees ?
For me, it's the way they build their team.... anytime they suck, they go and plunder some other team by offering millions to their star player.... ALREADY they are talking about pursuing Cliff Lee....
I grew up watching the Pirates with Clemente and Stargell....
Why would anyone now go watch a Pirates team that has a payroll that is less than 1/5 of the Yankees ?
They can not possibly compete.
Go listen to Mike & Mike some morning - Yankees, Red Sox (only because they seem to be the Yankee's "competition", more Yankees..... Unless they finally get eliminated, they can never shut up and behave as though there are other teams in MLB.

MY POINT - too big of a revenue disparity leads to a rdiculous lack of balance of power, and a lousy product for the fans. If you favor the opposite, let's get rid of about 100 of the FBS schools and
just have what we had in the 1970s - EVERY YEAR without fail the top teams were (in some order):

Indy - Penn State, Notre Dame
SEC - Alabama, LSU
Big ten - Michigan, Ohio State
SWC - Texas, Arkansas
Big 8 - Nebraska, Oklahoma
PAC - USC, UCLA

Oh yeah, a few other teams had brief runs (Pitt, Houston, Auburn here and there), but no conference had any depth of competition whatsoever. If you have a huge revenue disparity, you'll be headed back to that situation.

Oh, hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

If the Pac-12 wants its domain name, it has to go through Tupac

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

This is a most humorous development....

I'm pretty sure Tupac Shakur got whacked in Vegas (?) some years ago.
One of my former work-mates semi-astute in Gangsta' Rap genre told me the name Tupac was derived from "packing 2 weapons" - catchy !!!
Maybe the Pac-12 could go to "TwelvePac".

Not being very astute in the matters of the gangsta' genre myself, could someone on this board elucidate whether Biggie Smalls or his successors might hive acquired the rights to Tupac's domain names ?
If not, maybe Larry Scott can acquire them from Danica Patrick and the GoDaddy folks in 6 months....

Article out of Salt Lake discussing Utah's transition to PAC 12 at http://www.ksl.com/?sid=15280457&nid=635

And the Pac-10 gets paid:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6471380

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942