Nope. What it means is that when they go a certain direction after doing over a decade of research on the topic, it's worth paying attention. Especially when the alternative is to follow the failed Big 12 blueprint.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Pac-12 division update
- Thread starter OKCBuff
- Start date
Nope. What it means is that when they go a certain direction after doing over a decade of research on the topic, it's worth paying attention. Especially when the alternative is to follow the failed Big 12 blueprint.
GoBruinz
Member
Alternately you follow the SEC blueprint -- Geographic division (East/West), one dedicated cross-over game, and equal revenue sharing. They have probably proven (even moreso than the Big 10) that they know how to succeed both financially and on the field.
ko_leos
Well-Known Member
IMO, to set the priorities right, revenue sharing is waaay more important than division alignment. If in the B12, we had an extra 5mn/year, I think we would have long seen better facilities, coaches, etc. If the other schools in the B12 North had the extra money too, it would have strengthened their programs as well. This may have stopped the collapse of the B12 conference, or at least slowed it.
Not to say that division alignment is not important, but as long as we get to go to Cali at least 3 times per 2 year, I think we have won out already.
Not to say that division alignment is not important, but as long as we get to go to Cali at least 3 times per 2 year, I think we have won out already.
Not to mention that if the P10 decides it wants to expand again in a few years, the conferance alignment would probably change again. So no matter how it turns out, theirs going to be some unhappy campers. Bohn gets to cast a vote on this in October, so if we didn't have a say in this things might be different. The revenue share plan will be better in the P10 than where the Buffs are now. Give it some time for things to shake out, it could be worse.
The Big 12 didn't fail because of divisional alignment. As for competitive balance, those things are all cyclical, look at how the North schools were the power of the conference for so long.
First, it should be 2 cross-over games. With a 9-game conference slate (SEC plays 8), it makes a ton of scheduling sense to have the 5 divisional games, 2 fixed cross-over games, and a 2/4 year rotation for the other cross-over matchups.
Consider this, though. Let's say we do the "zipper" with the 2 fixed cross-over games. Based on the East/West relationship of the paired universities, you'd end up with the following:
West: UCLA, Stanford, Oregon State, Washington, Arizona State, Utah
East: USC, Cal, Oregon, Washington State, Arizona, Colorado
Then, to use UCLA as an example, you'd play USC and Cal every year, your 5 divisional games, and the other 4 teams every 2 of 4 years.
What's nice about this is that it protects the regional rivalries, is very closely balanced for media markets, is very closely balanced for competitiveness, and ensures that every program makes a trip to every geographic area of the conference at least 3 out of every 4 years.
To me, all of those factors are easily trumping whether someone in New York (who probably couldn't name all 12 teams anyway) is able to intuitively understand the divisional alignment.
Edit: This is very close to the "Pac-12 Cooler" idea. The basic graphic looks like this, with the teams on the same horizontal line always playing rivalry matchups and the teams on either side of the dark vertical line representing the 2 divisions. I'd just change the divisions based on the east/west zipper:
LINK
Yeah. The 3 best programs when the conference formed were Colorado, Kansas State and Nebraska. Strange how within 1 recruiting cycle (5 years) all 3 of us had fallen on hard times while Texas and Oklahoma became dominant. Must be a coincidence how the conference looked one way through 2001 and a different way from 2002 to now.
NashBuff
CSU Knob-Slobberer
I can spend a weekend at my grandparents in Nampa, ID and then drive to the Oregon schools and WSU. Time to get serious about the planning but can't do jack until the schedules are released.
I wouldn't put all of the blame on division alignment. Nebraska lost TO and we lost Mac, we each replaced those coaches with garbage. At around the same time Texas picked up Mack and then a few years later Oklahoma gets Stoops. If Nebraska hires Mack and we hire Stoops, while Texas gets Solich and Oklahoma goes for Slick's bs, North continues to dominate imo. Maybe over time the alignment takes us down, but I just don't buy that everything can be blamed on the alignment.
OKCBuff
Well-Known Member
Here's the other thing to consider: market sizes.
Now, I don't have them all in front of me, but in a Pac-12 North, you'd have Seattle, Denver, Portland and Salt Lake in the mix. Those are all top 50 markets. In the Big 12 North, you had Denver, KC and St. Louis (barely; it's a Big 10 town too). So, from a pure people standpoint, there are many more people in a Pac-12 North the Big 12 North. That will help keep a balance, even though the Pac-12 South will have bigger markets overall. But in the Big 12, virtually ALL of the major markets were in Texas. At least in the Pac, Denver, Phoenix and Seattle balance out the Cali markets.
Now, I don't have them all in front of me, but in a Pac-12 North, you'd have Seattle, Denver, Portland and Salt Lake in the mix. Those are all top 50 markets. In the Big 12 North, you had Denver, KC and St. Louis (barely; it's a Big 10 town too). So, from a pure people standpoint, there are many more people in a Pac-12 North the Big 12 North. That will help keep a balance, even though the Pac-12 South will have bigger markets overall. But in the Big 12, virtually ALL of the major markets were in Texas. At least in the Pac, Denver, Phoenix and Seattle balance out the Cali markets.
@ White - no one is saying that divisional alignment is the only reason for the competitive imbalance. But you and others are looking at it the wrong way. Those against it only have to show it's a factor that contributes to a problem that will kill a conference. The onus is on those defending geographic alignment to convincingly argue that it's a non-factor.
@ OKC - Denver, Phoenix and Seattle are certainly stronger than Denver, Kansas City and St. Louis. They definitely draw some water. But I don't think you realize how big the LA and SF media markets are. #2 LA has 5.7 million tv households. #6 SF has 2.5 million. That blows away the Texas markets of #5 Dallas-Ft. Worth (2.5 million) and #10 Houston (2.1 million).
#12 Phoenix, at 1.9 million, cannot be paired in a single division with LA and SF. When we're talking about the other big markets, they are big by most standards with #13 Seattle (1.8 million), #16 Denver (1.5 million) and #22 Portland (1.2 million)... but they add up to over 1 million less tvs than LA alone. Then there are all those ancillary CA markets that will follow an all-CA division and you're adding in #20 Sacramento (1.4 million) and #28 San Diego (1.1 million) along with all of the smaller CA markets.
In short, what I'm saying is that a South Division of USC-UCLA-UA-ASU-Stan-Cal would ridiculously dominate conference media. On balance, it's at least as tilted as the Big 12's North-South alignment was.
@ OKC - Denver, Phoenix and Seattle are certainly stronger than Denver, Kansas City and St. Louis. They definitely draw some water. But I don't think you realize how big the LA and SF media markets are. #2 LA has 5.7 million tv households. #6 SF has 2.5 million. That blows away the Texas markets of #5 Dallas-Ft. Worth (2.5 million) and #10 Houston (2.1 million).
#12 Phoenix, at 1.9 million, cannot be paired in a single division with LA and SF. When we're talking about the other big markets, they are big by most standards with #13 Seattle (1.8 million), #16 Denver (1.5 million) and #22 Portland (1.2 million)... but they add up to over 1 million less tvs than LA alone. Then there are all those ancillary CA markets that will follow an all-CA division and you're adding in #20 Sacramento (1.4 million) and #28 San Diego (1.1 million) along with all of the smaller CA markets.
In short, what I'm saying is that a South Division of USC-UCLA-UA-ASU-Stan-Cal would ridiculously dominate conference media. On balance, it's at least as tilted as the Big 12's North-South alignment was.
OKCBuff
Well-Known Member
Nah, I do, Buff (grew up in Cali), but it's still a much better distribution between divisions compared to the Big 12. Splitting up the Cali teams and locking them into cross-division games played in mid-October would solve the market-size matter, as LA and SF would both fall into both divisions. Throw Cal and UCLA in a Pac-12 East with CU, UU and the AZs and USC and Stanford into the West and I think that solves most of the major problems and allows every team a California road game annually.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
The article did state that the Cali-zipper format was still a viable option.
I'm in favor of that, hands down.
USC, Stanford, Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado
UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State, and Washington State
It is balanced competitively, market-wise, and a "locked" game could be scheduled between divisions for the CA schools to continue playing each other (USC-UCLA, Cal-Stanford). The only compromise you are asking the State of Cali to make is losing an "annual" USC-Cal and Stanford-UCLA game, which would still be possible every couple of years with the rotating schedule.
Everyone is "in" SoCal equally and the conference headquarters are not located in "one division" backyard.
This would make a California based Championship Game in "neutral" territory.
If the "Cali-Zipper" is too confusing for the general public to memorize the division (the ACC problem), then put the NorCal schools in the NW not CU/Utah. That would at least make more geographic and market sense. Besides, Boulder and Salt Lake are not that much "more" north than San Francisco and Berkeley? Maybe call it East/West then since Bay Area "looks" more west than LA.
I'm in favor of that, hands down.
USC, Stanford, Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado
UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State, and Washington State
It is balanced competitively, market-wise, and a "locked" game could be scheduled between divisions for the CA schools to continue playing each other (USC-UCLA, Cal-Stanford). The only compromise you are asking the State of Cali to make is losing an "annual" USC-Cal and Stanford-UCLA game, which would still be possible every couple of years with the rotating schedule.
Everyone is "in" SoCal equally and the conference headquarters are not located in "one division" backyard.
This would make a California based Championship Game in "neutral" territory.
If the "Cali-Zipper" is too confusing for the general public to memorize the division (the ACC problem), then put the NorCal schools in the NW not CU/Utah. That would at least make more geographic and market sense. Besides, Boulder and Salt Lake are not that much "more" north than San Francisco and Berkeley? Maybe call it East/West then since Bay Area "looks" more west than LA.
OKCBuff
Well-Known Member
Well, in a nine-game format, you could have five in-division games, two locked-in cross-division opponents and then rotate the other four teams in the other division every two years. Basically, you split the Cali schools in half and make them each other's cross-division locked rivals. It would give a presence to each division in each side of California and all four teams could still play each other annually.
The only issue then would be where to place those rivalry games -- keep them at the end and chance the statistically-odd chance of a Cal/Stanford or USC/UCLA redux the following week OR put both of those games in mid-October and feature them as big games in the mid-season.
Sources tell Orangebloods.com Pac-10 North division will be Was, WSU, Ore, Ore St., CU and Utah. South will be Cali and Arizona schools.
http://twitter.com/#!/ChipBrownOB/status/25313157071
http://twitter.com/#!/ChipBrownOB/status/25313157071
Now he's an authority on the PAC?
I thought we were done having to hear crap from this jackass
I should start a twitter feed like that.
I'll use "sources tell me" for everything I say. It would make it look like I'm dialed into the situation even if my "sources" are things other journalists have written, message boards, ouija boards, or **** I hear on my way to get a burrito.
I'll use "sources tell me" for everything I say. It would make it look like I'm dialed into the situation even if my "sources" are things other journalists have written, message boards, ouija boards, or **** I hear on my way to get a burrito.
Getting ready to be, he knows in about 3 years the Mack will be done.
NashBuff
CSU Knob-Slobberer
http://www.denverpost.com/cu/ci_16148147
Looks like it's most likely the North/South split but Wilmer is talking about pods...I think the pod idea is epic fail.
Looks like it's most likely the North/South split but Wilmer is talking about pods...I think the pod idea is epic fail.
BuffaloChuck
Member
The revenue split should give Colorado all it wants. Why should it have to earn anything? We're here to help THEM - they need to give us money even though our TV revenues won't be worth beans. Why should that make any difference? This is the Big 12 all over again - making programs earn their keep. Ridiculous!
Gotcha, I thought some were placing all of the blame for how the Big 12 worked out on divisional alignment. I guess I just don't want to hear 10 years down the road if we get placed in the north division that we had no chance from the get go. Hire the right coach and we're set. I'm tired of excuses for why we suck.