Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by sackman, Jun 18, 2010.
woelk quoted bohn as saying it was a condition of the move to the pac-12 so they could reconnect with the alumni base
"Demand" has such a Texas-like quality. I'm sure that he expressed a strong preference to the in the south division. Who knows if he was promised anything or not.
Interesting. I'm not sure I like that kind of thing. I would have hoped we could have suggested it or made a request as opposed to making it a condition of the move. We'd be reconnecting with our alumni regardless.
Every school wants to keep ties to SoCal. I can understand the upsetness if some schools are lumped into a north division.
Honestly, I don't really care if we're in the North or the South, the kicker is the Pac 10 cannot centralize all the power of CA in one division. Doing so will create the exact same situation that CU just got out of from the Big 12.
Pac 10 seems like a conference which is all about fareness. There is nothing fair about centralizing all the CA teams in one division. Split north and south, play 9 conference games. Have the championship game in SoCal so everybody has a chance to get exposure. This is what should be done.
from ESPN blog:
"Earlier in the week, it appeared a North-South divisional split was
the plan. In fact, Colorado AD Mike Bohn apparently believes this
lineup -- with Colorado in the South -- was promised to him before the
Buffaloes agreed to go west and leave the Big 12. Scott said, however,
that no decision has been made on the divisional lineup."
"We know what [Colorado] wants," Scott said. "[The North-South split]
is not part of our contract [with Colorado]."
Seems the NW schools may be balking at North/South. However, what
really is the alternative? With two divisions and 12 teams, everyone can't
play in SoCal every year.
Its been reported that Oregon STate is upset about it but the other 3 coaches in the North don't really care. I think its a flawed argument, CU recruited California and Texas just fine under Mac and we didn't exactly play in those states every year (although they did play Texas, Baylor and Stanford in the nonconference during those years). Supposedly Oregon and Oregon State have been recruiting TExas pretty well and last I looked they don't play any Texas schools every year.
I'm very happy that the Buffs are aligned with the South, which obviously includes USC and UCLA, but not sure how much it matters if, indeed, 9 conference games are played. Only two conference teams will left out per season.
I believe we told the Pac-10 that if they were going to put us in a North division with all the CA and AZ schools in the South, that we were not interested.
I don't believe that for a second. There's no way in hell Bohn would have walked from the deal had Scott said "ummmm, no Mike, you'll be in the North". No. Way. In. Hell. And he shouldn't have.
We'll just have to disagree. If the Pac 12 got set up exactly like the Big 12, it would have had the same problems. Why leave?
Part of me hopes that we are in the Southern division, if there is one. However, I would certainly understand the move to make the divisions ACC-like.
Exactly. For everybody to have a game in SoCal every year, $C and UCLA would have to play a total of 11 home conference games every year. No way that happens when they'll play a maximum of 18 conference games total (assuming there's no more than a 9 game conference schedule...)
You couldn't be more wrong. Wullf at WSU thinks the Bay Area is good enough for WSU, but that is just WSU small thinking again.
But Cal and Stanford have voiced their strong opposition for the N/S division too.
There are 4 schools in the Northwest and 4 in CA. What do they want up there? A 8 team division and then a 4 team division for the newbs and zonas? Two of the original 8 are going to get left out of the SoCal division no matter what you do. The best is just keep NorCal together with the Northwest schools and the rest are in the South.
It is just not the NW schools. Cal and Stanford have voiced their opposition too.
Each geographical school will be in opposite divisions. 5 games in the division, 1 game vs your geo rival (CU's will be UU) and 2 or 3 games vs others in the opposite division, rotating misses.
Every school will have equal presence in all of the geographical areas.
What is the alternative? CU and UU could be paired in the same division with the Oregon and Arizona schools. Would you go for that?
Another solution, in my mind, is to split up the Cali schools -- but not how you think:
So there, you have teams basically lumped together by geography. Then, give each team a locked cross-division opponent (to save Cali rivalries; then just mesh the others together however) and you're good.
So you're suggesting group the Washington schools with California schools, skipping over Oregon? I would love it (born and raised in Colorado, live in Phoenix, family in Portland) but how does that make any sense? It makes a lot more sense to create geographically close rivalries, and a north/south split is the most logical, whether it's us and Utah with the northwest schools or the southwest schools.
No matter what you do somebody is going to be less than happy. Everyone wants to play in S. Cal for recruiting or have SC playing at their place to sell tickets, with 12 schools it can't be done so somebody gets left out.
To me the North South as has been proposed seems to make the most sense but I can see how the schools that lose their S. Cal games might object, especially since the PAC has been around for so long and these games have been part of their football culture since before many of the fans were born.
The conversations between the league and CU have been ongoing in at least an informal manner for a long time, I doubt that Bohn tried to make any ultimatums but he doubtless made suggestions and tried to lay out the advantages to those suggestions.
In the end I think we will end up with something very close to the north south proposal since there is not much out there that makes more sense. At the same time I think that this is an indication of why we are much better off in the PAC, each teams concerns get listened to and decisions are made for the good of the league, not for specific members who try to push their agenda down everyones throat.
The North-South makes too much damn sense. It maintains all the important conference rivalries, and if they rotate 2 team pods for the north where they play two of the 3 pods each year with a split of say (USC,UA), (UCLA,CU), (ASU, UU) that rotates to a new pod every two years, then the north teams will be playing a road game in SoCal 4 out of every 6 years.
Genius! Be sure to e-mail Mike Bohn about this. I'm sure both Arizona schools would support your idea!
The alignment that is gaining the most traction is the 'Zipper' concept, where each geographical team is in opposite divisions. Just for an example"
West (or Coastal or whatever):
East (or Mountain or whatever):
5 games in your division, 1 game vs your geographical rival and 2 or 3 games vs teams in the other division, rotating the misses.
Every team will have EQUAL presence in all markets.
The N/S alignment I have seen here will NOT be approved by the NW schools, Cal and Stanford.
I'm fine with this. woohoo so Cal and Nocal!
You know, I guess I will. Thanks!
This works for me.
Separate names with a comma.