PAC-12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1406

JPSchmack wrote:

That's fine for a scheduling model.

But the Pac-16 MUST have two divisions of eight.

NCAA Rule 17.9.5.2 (c) says that conferences of 12 or more members may divide into two divisions of six or more and hold a championship game between division champions.

They can't just have one division of 16 and send the top two to the conference championship.
They can't just have four divisions of four and send the top two records to the conference championship.

There's no rule saying they have to play a round-robin in the division, so they could SCHEDULE with their pods. but they must have two divisions, and they have to send a team from each division to the conference championship game.

Pretty sure it broke it down East/West see how OU's scheduling of the AZ/Mtn schools is different than the CA/NW schools. I really like this model it keeps rivalries intact save the false ones between AZ/LA and it makes it impossible for three undefeated teams to emerge, and above all it's pretty balanced. UT will play USC or Oregon but not both every year and they will play UT or OU but now both and everyone gets a trip to either TX or LA every years how is this bad? I've seen the problems with the WAC switch divisions pod model but this is totally different. Quinn FSA anyone talk me out of this if I'm crazy...the only schools that will fight this are the AZ/Mtn ones and I think Utah could be tempted with AAU status (with UT now in the mix).

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 881

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

JP look at my post. it clearly shows that there are 2 divisions of 8 each year. They just rotate who the 8 will be in each of the 2 each year. It's nothing new. We did it in the WAC.

tkalmus wrote:

Pretty sure it broke it down East/West see how OU's scheduling of the AZ/Mtn schools is different than the CA/NW schools. I really like this model it keeps rivalries intact save the false ones between AZ/LA and it makes it impossible for three undefeated teams to emerge, and above all it's pretty balanced. UT will play USC or Oregon but not both every year and they will play UT or OU but now both and everyone gets a trip to either TX or LA every years how is this bad? I've seen the problems with the WAC switch divisions pod model but this is totally different. Quinn FSA anyone talk me out of this if I'm crazy...the only schools that will fight this are the AZ/Mtn ones and I think Utah could be tempted with AAU status (with UT now in the mix).

Sorry, I have a habit of reading something online at a media site, or see it on ESPN TV; then log in here and jump in to the discussion and not mention that I saw it on TV or read online, misleading you into thinking I was referencing something you said.

I was referencing the report on ESPN, ESPN.com, Orangebloods, the Austin Statesman, etc that the pod-system would have:

the TOP TWO teams go to the conference championship REGARDLESS OF POD.

That can't happen per NCAA rules. They have to make two divisions.

Once again, you guys are smarter than the media (and possibly the ADs in the Pac-12/16

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

JPSchmack wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

JP look at my post. it clearly shows that there are 2 divisions of 8 each year. They just rotate who the 8 will be in each of the 2 each year. It's nothing new. We did it in the WAC.

tkalmus wrote:

Pretty sure it broke it down East/West see how OU's scheduling of the AZ/Mtn schools is different than the CA/NW schools. I really like this model it keeps rivalries intact save the false ones between AZ/LA and it makes it impossible for three undefeated teams to emerge, and above all it's pretty balanced. UT will play USC or Oregon but not both every year and they will play UT or OU but now both and everyone gets a trip to either TX or LA every years how is this bad? I've seen the problems with the WAC switch divisions pod model but this is totally different. Quinn FSA anyone talk me out of this if I'm crazy...the only schools that will fight this are the AZ/Mtn ones and I think Utah could be tempted with AAU status (with UT now in the mix).

Sorry, I have a habit of reading something online at a media site, or see it on ESPN TV; then log in here and jump in to the discussion and not mention that I saw it on TV or read online, misleading you into thinking I was referencing something you said.

I was referencing the report on ESPN, ESPN.com, Orangebloods, the Austin Statesman, etc that the pod-system would have:

the TOP TWO teams go to the conference championship REGARDLESS OF POD.

That can't happen per NCAA rules. They have to make two divisions.

Once again, you guys are smarter than the media (and possibly the ADs in the Pac-12/16

I believe some of them go to our sites for info to tweet or write. MWC board was actually warned by the MWC office about our expansion talk. We must have been close to the mark, or right on it when we said no f*cking way is USU and SJSU getting in our conf. right now.

westwolf · **Posted:** Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:36 am

After what the Pac 12 went through last Fall to put together divisions & scheduling, I doubt you'd get enough votes for expansion unless the 4 Cali schools play each other EVERY year. Don't they need 9 positive votes?

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3811

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

JP look at my post. it clearly shows that there are 2 divisions of 8 each year. They just rotate who the 8 will be in each of the 2 each year. It's nothing new. We did it in the WAC.

Comments like that make me scared.

Sorry Trey, I'm not a fan of pods. I think schools and conferences need to evolve their thinking and look at the word "conference" in regards to 16 schools, as a business and sharing a brand like "Pac-16". Like AL and NL under MLB brand. Because AZ and ASU gaining Texas every year is a huge blessing and at least partial comp for "losing" CA. But in the end, AZ and ASU would always be associated with Texas and the southwest...which Arizona is part of. Compete at a high level, you get championship games likely ag. CA schools (1 in 4 schools in "Pacific" division would be from CA). Not to mention an annual game vs a CA school.

As long as people think that all schools in a conference NEED to play each other so often and share the same territory, it's bound to fail at 16. Because there is a small portion of the business that needs rivalries. And if you're division changes EVERY year, ow are the casual fans supposed to know what to expect? Rivalries and strong businesses are built on consitency.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3811

westwolf wrote:

After what the Pac 12 went through last Fall to put together divisions & scheduling, I doubt you'd get enough votes for expansion unless the 4 Cali schools play each other EVERY year. Don't they need 9 positive votes?

Yes, 9 votes. CA schools clearly went above and beyond last year. It's something that we can only hope is a model for other schools to follow. The CA schools did get a minor financial concession, just so they could use it to quell any alum complaints (since the actual $ was low, but the principle remains: once people here you're getting somethign others aren't, they assume you came out on top...even if it's a small amount).

So maybe you're right...maybe the CA schools gave too much and wouldn't need to. Then again, it's the CA schools that have the strongest grasp of the economic benefits and are actually easier sells when you present them with a strong business model. But I wouldn't be surprised if awful pods did exist and STILL the 4 CA schools were split (like LA/AZ, SF/Mountain).

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

like I said yesterday, if we go to pods, in 10 or 20 years the schools my decide it was better the old way w/ 8-10 team conf. and split again. I'd shoot the NFL commish if the Packers went from the NFC North to the West and got rotated every year. Some years being in the AFC north. Pods are dumb. I don't know how the Pac got dumber after 1 year. At least last year it was gonna be the Pac 8 and the other 8.

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1406

THESE AREN'T ROTATING PODS, I'm not sure I can say it any clearer...

EVERY YEAR the East will be TX/OK/Mtn/AZ and the West will be LA/SF/OR/WA.

Each will play their pod members and two from their in division pod every year, they just won't play the other two...until next year the East and West divisions stay the same EVERY YEAR, NO ROTATING. You guys all have good arguments, but it negates the facts.

The WAC was really REALLY bad, I get it but it rotated the divisions which made it confusing much like the ACC zipper does, but this does not do that. The WAC also split long time rivals and broke up series that had been regularly played for years. I looked up all the "in conference" rivalries in the PAC16 so here you go...

USC-Stanford and UCLA
UCLA- UCLA and Cal
Cal- Stanford and UCLA
Stanford- USC and Cal

Washington-Washington St and Oregon
Washington St- Oregon St and Washington
Oregon- Washington and Oregon St
Oregon St- Washington St and Oregon

Arizona- Arizona St
Arizona St- Arizona

Colorado-Colorado St opps I meant Utah
Utah- BYU and Utah St opps I meant Colorado

Texas-Oklahoma and A&M opps I meant Texas Tech
Texas Tech- Texas and Oklahoma St
Oklahoma- Oklahoma St and Texas
Oklahoma St- Texas Tech and Oklahoma

Wow, this is perfect for the pods, no rivalries broken at all...the 3-2-2-2 works. It guarantees the schools from TX/OK and the NW that they don't have to take but 1 long trip (even in basketball w/ travel partners) each year, and it guarantees that everyone gets a game in TX/SF or LA/OK every year which make access to recruits better for everyone (but UT/USC) and everyone (but the AZ schools) only has to travel to the high altitude Mountain schools (upset city) every other year. And on top of all of that you would play home and home with every school in a 4 year period.

If you go to straight division models then you'll never be able to play home and home with everyone in four years. If you do 9 conference game (most likely) you'd play everyone in your division each year which is 7 games leaving only 2 games with the other division. That would take 8 years to play everyone, and to me that suck. Straight 8 division won't help conferences "evolve their thinking and look at the word 'conference' in regards to 16 schools, as a business and sharing a brand like 'Pac-16'. Like AL and NL under MLB brand." this divides them into basically two separate conferences that shares and name and revenue only, while only scheduling 2 OOC games and a post season game together.

Once again this is not the WAC or even the ACC, I really do want to understand why yall hate this idea so much but I can't find a cohesive argument besides "been there done that it sucked".

Why is having pure East/West divisions with pods to maintain rivalries, provide better access to recruiting grounds, limit travel requirements, and allow student to play everyone in their conference over a 4 year career bad?

Please if you have read this take time and look at it before you respond.
http://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/19/2 ... #storyjump

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

they need to have it set up 8/8 every year so that you play everyone on the side of 8 you're on per ncaa rules. so if you don't play everyone in your group of 8, it violates the ncaa rule.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3811

You can call it whatever you want, Trey. But if a school doesn't play all of it's division members, all 7 of them every year, I'm out. For 16 to work, conferences need to be 2 separate conferences under a single umbrella brand. Pods kill that. A student needs to know that every year either a division school will be visiting their school that year or they are on the road to play school B that year. We don't have a modern day example of it not working. But long term, there need to be rivalries at least close to what exists now (you play your division schools every year)

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

Quinn wrote:

You can call it whatever you want, Trey. But if a school doesn't play all of it's division members, all 7 of them every year, I'm out. For 16 to work, conferences need to be 2 separate conferences under a single umbrella brand. Pods kill that. A student needs to know that every year either a division school will be visiting their school that year or they are on the road to play school B that year. We don't have a modern day example of it not working. But long term, there need to be rivalries at least close to what exists now (you play your division schools every year)

You're out? How bout the NCAA is out. Their rule states you don't have to play cross over games but you have to play all of the teams in your div. plus you can only have 2 div. plus you can't have 2 from the same div. play in the title game. plus you can't have semi finals, like the winner of each quad.

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1406

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

they need to have it set up 8/8 every year so that you play everyone on the side of 8 you're on per ncaa rules. so if you don't play everyone in your group of 8, it violates the ncaa rule.

So if the rule gets changed then you'd be okay with it...?

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

tkalmus wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

they need to have it set up 8/8 every year so that you play everyone on the side of 8 you're on per ncaa rules. so if you don't play everyone in your group of 8, it violates the ncaa rule.

So if the rule gets changed then you'd be okay with it...?

NO, F*CK PODS. In every way F*CK THEM

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3811

In other news, you kids get off my lawn and turn down your rock and roll music, and don't drink my Sarsaparilla Soda.
http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basket ... -decisions

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 881

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

they need to have it set up 8/8 every year so that you play everyone on the side of 8 you're on per ncaa rules. so if you don't play everyone in your group of 8, it violates the ncaa rule.

tkalmus wrote:

So if the rule gets changed then you'd be okay with it...?

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

You're out? How bout the NCAA is out. Their rule states you don't have to play cross over games but you have to play all of the teams in your div. plus you can only have 2 div. plus you can't have 2 from the same div. play in the title game. plus you can't have semi finals, like the winner of each quad.

17.9.5.2
(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;

The Pac-16 scheduling model violates NCAA rules.

They would have to do a zipper format, with two cross-over games.

You could take eight pairs and divide them up, and have the cross-over games be:
UCLA-USC vs Stan-Cal
OK-OKST vs UT-TTU
Ariz-ASU vs CO-UT
UW-WSU vs ORE-ORST

Then everyone goes to California once a year, but the Left-side never goes to Texas (they go to Oklahoma) and the right side never goes to LA, they go to the Bay area.

That's not going to make everyone happy.

PAC-12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

Who is online