PAC-12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1035

46566 wrote:

The question (if the previous news is true) is how long tell the 16 team league self destructs. I personally think 14 teams are the max for football conferences. In a 16 team league it's possible that 3 teams can be undefeated. How will they determine who goes to the conference championship game? I think this will eventually cause allot of problems for the BCS and the bowl system.

As if the BCS didn't have problems already...

Honestly does it matter if three teams are undefeated in a conference? Odds are it'll never happen but IF it did just pick the best two by BCS rankings and have them play it out, this happened to OU/Texas/Tech in 2008 and OU got to go the the B12 CCG and the BCS NCG while Texas got a consolidation Fiesta Bowl and Tech got a non BCS Cotton Bowl...is that fair? Auburn/USC/Boise St/TCU have all gone undefeated and were shut out of a NCG...is that fair? No but honestly it doesn't mean this won't work, I doubt it.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:15 pm

ESPN was saying the pods were the 4 new ones, NW, Nor Cal & Utah/CO, So Cal & Azs

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1035

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

ESPN was saying the pods were the 4 new ones, NW, Nor Cal & Utah/CO, So Cal & Azs

Really? That's interesting have a link? I thought the Cali schools wanted to keep their rivalries at all cost...

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:25 pm

Pac still has problems w/ UT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/sport ... .html?_r=1

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:27 pm

tkalmus wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

ESPN was saying the pods were the 4 new ones, NW, Nor Cal & Utah/CO, So Cal & Azs

Really? That's interesting have a link? I thought the Cali schools wanted to keep their rivalries at all cost...

no link, espn, andy katz I think

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1035

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Pac still has problems w/ UT

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/sport ... .html?_r=1

Andy Staples tweet https://twitter.com/#!/Andy_Staples/sta ... 3439315968
"Realignment update after getting some feedback from those who know: Pump the brakes on Tex/Pac-12. Might happen. Not imminent."

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3757

tkalmus wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

ESPN was saying the pods were the 4 new ones, NW, Nor Cal & Utah/CO, So Cal & Azs

Really? That's interesting have a link? I thought the Cali schools wanted to keep their rivalries at all cost...

Pods are pointless. Why bother. It's not like the Pac16 would be able to have a 4 team playoff...so the "pods" woudl still have to be two 8 school divisions in order for 2 to rise to the top. What, do you just say "top 2 schools regardless of pod play for the championship"? When the scheudle would be all over the place and up in the air? Just hate the idea.

Suck it up CO, UT, AZ and ASU.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:42 pm

Quinn wrote:

tkalmus wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

ESPN was saying the pods were the 4 new ones, NW, Nor Cal & Utah/CO, So Cal & Azs

Really? That's interesting have a link? I thought the Cali schools wanted to keep their rivalries at all cost...

Pods are pointless. Why bother. It's not like the Pac16 would be able to have a 4 team playoff...so the "pods" woudl still have to be two 8 school divisions in order for 2 to rise to the top. What, do you just say "top 2 schools regardless of pod play for the championship"? When the scheudle would be all over the place and up in the air? Just hate the idea.

Suck it up CO, UT, AZ and ASU.

The pod thing is also running on espn bottom line, just the part of the newbs being 1 of the 4. Yes pods suck I know I was in one. They don't do a 4 team play off. The "east" would be 2 pods and the "west" would be 2 pod, they'd rotate them every year, half the west would be in the east the next year.

Notsellingjeans · **Joined:** Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:35 pm **Posts:** 16

You can't have a PAC-16 without pods. It only exists in fantasy conference mockups.

We know that this entire thing is being driven by money and self interest, not 'fairness'. Those of you who want the two true divisions are thinking about the fairness of a conf cg. Meanwhile Scott us thinking, 'what will get the rest of my membership on board?'

With pods, everyone gets to travel to california once per year. That's a huge thing to promise recruits. You ask Arizona, asu, col, and Utah to give that up AND face the brutal ok, oks, ut gauntlet every year...what is their incentive to say 'yes'? They would be agreeing to a systematic disadvantage for the next 20 years. No one willingly signs on to these terms: 'I want to be the Orioles/Rays to your Yankees.'

The beauty of the pods is that they protect the biggest annual rivalry for each team, make for equitable travel, equitable recruiting, and it ensures that every four years you've played a 'home and home' with every team in the conference. As it should be. Some of these mockups with 20 teams where you go 50 years and never face one of your 'conference' opponents...I don't agree with that. You have to breed familiarity and rivalry. The pac's pods would do that with all 16 teams by ensuring you face every opponent in a two year period.

Notsellingjeans · **Joined:** Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:35 pm **Posts:** 16

The Cali schools won't be thrilled about splitting their pod but really you need to preserve Stan-cal, and USC- ucla . The others in that rivalry might be more special if they are every other year anyway.

Notsellingjeans · **Joined:** Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:35 pm **Posts:** 16

The other good thing about pods instead of eight team divisions is you make it more likely that the two best teams meet in the cg. Several times in the last ten years the two best teams in the big 12 were clearly in the same division. Yet only one could go to the cg, so instead of an amazing rematch on neutral turf in the cg, fans get a less compelling cg - a blowout where the juggernaut that emerged from the big 12 south goes against a 2-3 loss team from the big 12 north.

If ok and ut are clearly the two best in the conf, the pod system allows them to face each other in a cg on neutral turf. One of them has one loss, against the other, who is undefeated. but they are both bcs top 6.

You want to protect the potential of that scenario being your cg. That's better than a crappy 3 loss team squeaking through the weak division, only to get rolled by the heavy favorite from the strong division in the cg.

westwolf · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:57 am

There's the alignment conundrum: pods are better for scheduling in the Pac## but less equitable for determining a champion. How do you break ties between division winners if they have not played each other? That's the beauty of the 6 team divisions.

dbackjon · **Joined:** Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:50 pm **Posts:** 267

Quinn wrote:

tkalmus wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

ESPN was saying the pods were the 4 new ones, NW, Nor Cal & Utah/CO, So Cal & Azs

Really? That's interesting have a link? I thought the Cali schools wanted to keep their rivalries at all cost...

Pods are pointless. Why bother. It's not like the Pac16 would be able to have a 4 team playoff...so the "pods" woudl still have to be two 8 school divisions in order for 2 to rise to the top. What, do you just say "top 2 schools regardless of pod play for the championship"? When the scheudle would be all over the place and up in the air? Just hate the idea.

Suck it up CO, UT, AZ and ASU.

Why should AZ/ASU suck it up any more than the CA schools?

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 467

dbackjon wrote:

Quinn wrote:

tkalmus wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

ESPN was saying the pods were the 4 new ones, NW, Nor Cal & Utah/CO, So Cal & Azs

Really? That's interesting have a link? I thought the Cali schools wanted to keep their rivalries at all cost...

Pods are pointless. Why bother. It's not like the Pac16 would be able to have a 4 team playoff...so the "pods" woudl still have to be two 8 school divisions in order for 2 to rise to the top. What, do you just say "top 2 schools regardless of pod play for the championship"? When the scheudle would be all over the place and up in the air? Just hate the idea.

Suck it up CO, UT, AZ and ASU.

Why should AZ/ASU suck it up any more than the CA schools?

Because the California schools can actually compete with the WA/Oregon schools. Those 4 won't stand a chance against UT and OU most years.

I too don't like the pods, nor do I understand why you would bother. Like you said, they can't have a 4 team playoff at the end of the year (or maybe they will? Petition coming?). As it stands now, 2-8 team divisions. It's not like it's hard to divide the conference. Pods make sense in D-II's Pac West. Not here.

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7059

Jon Wilner blog article with more details on Texas/PAC 12 situation at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -alignment

PAC-12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

Who is online