PAC-12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

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

In addition to the Wilner article freaked posted, also of note:

* Missouri IS on the Pac-12 radar
* Pac-14 WILL happen at least (with Oklahoma and Oklahoma St)
* Holdup on Texas/TexasTech joining is still the LHN situation. There is no way around it according to Pac12 officials: Texas WILL have to give into LHN demands (beyond the renaming) in order for the Pac12 to approve. Pac-12 is ready to expand to 14 or even 16 with or without Texas. With texas, it will be 16 for sure. Without Texas, Pac-12 might wait...but
* If the move to 16 were to happen without Texas, there is a small shot that Missouri and Kansas would be brought in for the awful pod system to be with Oklahoma and OSU.

* Also, per jon, Oklahoma and USC would be the "premiere" programs so they will be split up the most to ensure a better chance of USC vs Oklahoma in championship games.

westwolf · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:01 am

Wilner describes a 16 team conference set up similar to the way the WAC tried to operate years ago: four pods aligned into two changeable 8 team divisions. The problem occurs if 2 teams in the same division have the same record but didn't play each other, which could happen half the time. That would be like the Big 10 season when Ohio State and Iowa were undefeated in Big 10 play but hadn't met that year. Unsatisfying, and the WAC blew apart. No easy solution though.

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1492

Well, they could do the scheduling differently (but using Pods).

The pods could be moved around through 3 different pod-pairings every 2 years.

Each "pod-pairing" constitutes an 8-team division, and you are forced to play the other 7 in your division + maybe 1 each form the other 2 pods.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:58 pm

tute79 wrote:

Well, they could do the scheduling differently (but using Pods).

The pods could be moved around through 3 different pod-pairings every 2 years.

Each "pod-pairing" constitutes an 8-team division, and you are forced to play the other 7 in your division + maybe 1 each form the other 2 pods.

Example of how pods word

2012
West
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona St.
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St.
East
Oregon
Washington
Oregon St.
Washington St.
Cal
Stanford
Utah
Colorado

2013
West
Oregon
Washington
Washington St.
Oregon St.
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona St.
East
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.
Texas
Texas Tech
Cal
Stanford
Utah
Colorado

and keep rotating, They might never allow all 4 CA schools together in a year that way everyone plays CA every year

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1492

Although Jon Wilner's article made it sound like your year 1 above is not permissible, since it loads up the one division with OU, UT, USC, UCLA.
(presumably having two years where you have a "killer divison" and a "pansy division").

Oregon would obviously not characterize it as such, but there would be a tremendous imbalance, based on history.

So this may be a challenge to make everyone happy.

I just thought PAC-8 and Southwest (the newbies) is so much simpler.
One has the SoCal recruiting hot-bed, the other has Texas.
Texas might actually be deeper in recruits, depends on the year....

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:37 pm

tute79 wrote:

Although Jon Wilner's article made it sound like your year 1 above is not permissible, since it loads up the one division with OU, UT, USC, UCLA.
(presumably having two years where you have a "killer divison" and a "pansy division").

Oregon would obviously not characterize it as such, but there would be a tremendous imbalance, based on history.

So this may be a challenge to make everyone happy.

I just thought PAC-8 and Southwest (the newbies) is so much simpler.
One has the SoCal recruiting hot-bed, the other has Texas.
Texas might actually be deeper in recruits, depends on the year....

They need to think again, either have 2 div of 8 or have power heavy pods or cave and let all 4 CA schools in a pod.

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

And pods are what will kill so much of college sports. I'm writing something now about how so many people in the media covering conference expansion come across as fuddy-duddies. Face it, most are basketball and football writers who don't have the experience in understanding that college sports if NOW just a business.

Because these writers often focus on lost "rivalries".

And pods, or the current 12 team divisions in the P12, ACC, Big Ten end up being all about greed. Rather than go with building rivalries (usually via geographic splits) there is the greed of each school.

Because the conferences want to go to 16 because of the money, but they are too afraid to so what needs to be done: to create (2) 8 school conferences for sports that operate under the "parent company" of a single conference banner.

The Pac-12 should be:

Pacific Division: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU
Southwest Division: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona St.

A year ago, CO and UT weren't even in the Pac-10...can't miss something you never really had. For Arizona and ASU...yes, you give up LA...but you gain Texas as well as Oklahoma, CO, Utah regions. In the long run, schools need to look to the future, to form stability. There are 4 schools in CA...so if you have 7 divisional games per year and only 1 game against the other division, you will at least play a CA school 4 times every 7 years, likely a schedule where you travel to CA every 1-2 times during most 4 year spans.

Just think Pods are a bad way to go. Rivalries, the crutch by the opponents of realignment, will be gone...even more than they are now under the poor 6/6 divisions we see in the B10, P12, ACC.

So there is rarely a time when you can make a business decision that is great AND do MORE to build STRONGER regional rivalries. Yet the conferences don't seem to get it.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:00 pm

Ask the Gang of 5 from the WAC if pods work? It broke up old WAC rivalries so the MWC was formed, Fresno, Hawaii, UTEP got left out and flashy UNLV was brought in so the MWC powers that be could do hookers and the MWC tourney in Vegas. :twisted:

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

Quinn wrote:

And pods are what will kill so much of college sports. I'm writing something now about how so many people in the media covering conference expansion come across as fuddy-duddies. Face it, most are basketball and football writers who don't have the experience in understanding that college sports if NOW just a business.

Because these writers often focus on lost "rivalries".

And pods, or the current 12 team divisions in the P12, ACC, Big Ten end up being all about greed. Rather than go with building rivalries (usually via geographic splits) there is the greed of each school.

Because the conferences want to go to 16 because of the money, but they are too afraid to so what needs to be done: to create (2) 8 school conferences for sports that operate under the "parent company" of a single conference banner.

The Pac-12 should be:

Pacific Division: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU
Southwest Division: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona St.

A year ago, CO and UT weren't even in the Pac-10...can't miss something you never really had. For Arizona and ASU...yes, you give up LA...but you gain Texas as well as Oklahoma, CO, Utah regions. In the long run, schools need to look to the future, to form stability. There are 4 schools in CA...so if you have 7 divisional games per year and only 1 game against the other division, you will at least play a CA school 4 times every 7 years, likely a schedule where you travel to CA every 1-2 times during most 4 year spans.

Just think Pods are a bad way to go. Rivalries, the crutch by the opponents of realignment, will be gone...even more than they are now under the poor 6/6 divisions we see in the B10, P12, ACC.

So there is rarely a time when you can make a business decision that is great AND do MORE to build STRONGER regional rivalries. Yet the conferences don't seem to get it.

Logistically you are 100% right 8/8 split works the best...

But yes rivalries, and recruiting matters, if they go 8/8 the AZ schools could get a permanent rivalry with USC/UCLA but then CO/Utah would be pissed...

I like the pods, for football it mean only 1 trip to the Mtn's (which is upset city w/ the altitude) every other year and 1 far away trip to WA/OR or TX/OK, and access to AZ, LA, SF, and TX for recruiting for everyone...plus if you go 8/8 you physically can't play home and home with everyone in fb in a 4 year career and that means something especially to me. I would be super pissed if I played football for 4 years and never got to visit the Rose Bowl, Colosseum, Seattle, ect... The pods will fix this...

I get the MWC broke off from the WAC due to this system but the WAC was weak when they didn't get AQ status and the PAC is strong no way anyone leaves it so if you can get the 9 votes (or less depending on CU and Utah's status) to expand I don't see this stopping them. The OR and WA schools gave up LA and the AZ and Mtn school will have to but at least they get access to Texas.

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

Great post on Pod scheduling
http://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/19/2 ... #storyjump

Cocky70 · **Joined:** Sat Sep 17, 2011 4:21 pm **Posts:** 9

For a visual of the everchanging landscape, Here's a graphic of what could be the new PAC 16:

pizzapizza123 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:26 pm **Posts:** 15

Love or Hate pods this is unfortunately now a business and the biggest sports business (the NFL) has pod scheduling of sorts....

A big enough business that Stanford and CAL are even selling out in allowing second rate academic schools into the PAC after hearing for years they would never allow the CAL St schools in due to second rate academics...

And a East/West split might very well get the AZs, UT, and CO to block expansion....

There is a huge cultural divide between all of the current PAC 12 schools and the prairie schools and I do not think the AZ schools what to be stuck hanging out with them and CO also has way more in common with so cal than TX/OK...

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 851

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.

seanbo · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:39 pm

From part of my SEC post, slightly edited

With the PAC threatening Texas with Kansas and Missouri, Texas Tech has to be beginning to sweat because I believe that the PAC would rather have Kansas than them and with the PAC being in the position of power, big brother may not be able to save them. After Oklahoma and Oklahoma State join the PAC, I can see the PAC invite Kansas similar to the way they invited Colorado last year to block Baylor. Then the PAC can turn to the 'horns and say if you don't want the sixteenth spot, we're asking Missouri. Believe me Texas will say "uncle" and Texas Tech will be in either the Big12/Big East with Baylor or in the MWC.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon Sep 19, 2011 11:10 pm

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.

PAC-12 Realignment & Expansion Thread

Who is online