Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Timbuff10, Jun 11, 2010.
yeah I saw some post on shaggybevo pushing for 4 pods, a semifinal game between the top 4 teams and then a championship game.. that would be kind of sweet if that happened.
I would rather go to Tucson, Phoenix, and SLC every year than the round robin through Texas and OK. Still hate the idea of expanding beyond 11 or 12, but if it brings in that much more money then I guess that is how it is.
I'm really hoping for the 4 team pod scheduling, too. It will bring in a good variety of teams and create some rivalries with other schools in our "pod". The NFL has had this type of scheduling for years and its worked well.
Every time you post this opinion, the bigger chance this actually has of happening.
I read/heard that with typical 8x8 conference schedule we would play the other 8 once every 7 years and with the pod schedule we would play them every 3 years. I vote pod.
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Just a guess -- I think Utah is the likely 16th PAC member. A & M could take the slot if they wanted it but they're intent on being part of the SEC, so the question is really whether the SEC will decide to let A & M in.
My hunch is that the SEC will let A & M in because it gives them a presence in the Dallas/Houston/San Antonio media market, besides the need to act pro-actively during a fluid situation. Utah would then be offered entrance if that comes to pass.
There's a lot more I could say here but I think I'll just wait and see how events develop. I like the idea of the PAC adding Utah (for various reasons) more than the idea of adding A & M, even though A & M bring in more revenue because of their ability to pull more interest from crucial Texas media markets (although the other Texas schools do this, too, but not the Houston market as much -- apparently).
You are correct. Assuming that when you play teams from the other division you do it in back-to-back years in order to do a home and away series.
That would result in 2 years on / 6 years off for games against the other division and 1 home game avery 8 years. Pod format give you 2 years on / 2 years off and 1 home game every 4 years. I can't imagine that anything except the pod system would happen. These aren't dumb people setting up the conference configuration.
If I was Tech I would be lobbying hard to be part of an aTm package to the SEC. They wouldn't be left behind and would be a much more natural fit for the SEC, fortifying the SEC presence in Texas and providing a natural rival for aTm. I respect aTm for being honest to what they are...which is 180 degrees from Pac X culture.
What do you make, then, of the rumors that the SEC is favoring Miami, FSU, GT, and WVU? It seems they are clear in naming their favored puppies.
OU and A&M will get invited to the SEC. College Station is a very short distance from Louisiana, and has played alot of SEC teams in nonconference.
Public Enemy #1
Other than FSU none of those teams offer anything. GT already has left the conference before.. Miami isn't a fit academically for the SEC..
SEC is going to want new markets if they are going to expand. Va Tech and the state of Texas are two areas they want most. If they could add UNC they would take that too.
I do not deny that it would make sense to expand their market, and that is why someone in virginia would be a good idea for them. I agree that tech has an edge over the mountaineers with respect the pizazz that the SEC seems to favor, and would be a better fit than WVU.
I do not think that expansion alone is what is driving the SEC. If so, FSU offers nothing new, nor would UNC, but we agree they would likely snap them up.
This AM, Joe Castiglione was promising Sooner fans that they would bear a SEC affiliation; yet as of this afternoon, that idea is bust. That was a key opportunity for the SEC to expand their market, and they passed. I cannot express how onery this development made UBT.
I think the Aggy may want to consider in these next three days that a tangible offer by the PacX may be better than the hope of an invite by the SEC. They are hardly the anchor of the B12S, and one of the anchors was given a "no, thank you" despite their traditions, records, and money making abilities. Why would they go for the third or fourth best in the south division?
I think the SEC will try to go 2 East and 2 West.
East: Virginia Tech and Florida State
West: Texas A&M and Oklahoma State
Really, I only care about the West since it effects CU. I believe that at the end of the day Oklahoma has almost zero interest to part with the Longhorns and says "No" to the SEC. Next best thing for the SEC is OSU, which delivers some TVs in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, a natural rivalry with Texas A&M, great facilities, and a major upgrade to SEC basketball. Texas A&M is similar -- (Houston market) and all the other OSU points. Both will play an annual rivalry game against OU and UT, respectively, in order to make this happen.
(For our Pac 16, this removes a couple repetitive media markets, gives us the two Top 10 all-time football programs with the bigger local and national followings, and allows us to add Kansas with its #32 Kansas City market as well as Utah with its #31 Salt Lake City market. The Pac 16 becomes even stronger.)
Nik - if it shakes out that way, I agree that would be the best possible situation for the strength of the PacX. I would think that the SEC would have favored an OU/Texas pair, instead of the smaller stepchildren. If they were set on expanding, Lord knows Okie was angling for it. Why allow another conference to snap them up if interested all along?
I have long wondered if TCU-Texas A&M would be something the SEC would go after. Two teams in Texas (Houston and DFW presence) very good overall sports programs and cultural "fits" with the SEC. Jerryworld would do back flips to host TCU games vs LSU, Arky, Bama, etc.
Jerry would flip so long as they continued to show HIM the money - at the expense of the fans. It is a beautiful facility -- make no mistake. But he charges top dollar for it.
I think the issue for OU is that they need that Red River Rivalry game to drive recruiting in Texas. But it's death by scheduling to play UT every year on top of a SEC conference slate. UT has made it clear that they also need to keep that game in place every year and don't want it out of conference for the same reason as OU. Since UT is in the driver's seat, they get to pick the conference. UT doesn't like the SEC due to the image they want to project as an academic institution. Therefore, they pick the PAC (Big 10 was less connected, too cold, and wouldn't bend as much on taking UT's friends). OU's cool with the PAC because California recruiting has become vital to its success.
PAC wants UT so badly, it's willing to bend on OU's academics, though it's not hard to do because they're the #1 program in the history of college football. Texas Tech is harder, but they're a west Texas geographic bridge for the conference, they've made a major academic commitment, and it's worth it to appease the state politicians. They're in. Oklahoma State was almost a deal breaker due to academics, not bringing a new media market, and not sharing cultural affinity with the rest of the PAC. However, the PAC was willing to look the other way in order to get UT and OU. Texas A&M has the academics and graduate research the PAC likes, brings a ton of revenue and excellent athletic programs. But the culture clash is tough for both sides to swallow. Texas A&M will go to the PAC if it has to. The PAC will take them but not feel totally comfortable.
Bottom line is that I think it shakes out that OSU and TAMU break away from their "little bro" status to join the SEC and everyone ends up the better for it. I don't know that this is going to happen, but it is what should happen.
(Sorry for the long post.)
Its all good - being a Buff grad, I am quite capable of reading, even if the message is more involved. :thumbsup:
The question I have is this: if OU's academics are suspect, how do you explain that Oklahoma has more Rhodes Scholars per capita than any other school in the US? The premier weather program in the US? And research dollars that CU could respect? I really do not think OU had to be overlooked academically.
I think that when you get the "top of the pyramid" in comparing large research universities you begin to start splitting hairs.
The Pac-10 values the AAU membership and that entails having professors that are in the National Academies, high numbers of doctoral degrees awarded, and several other factors.
IMO, OU is gaining ground "academically" but so are other schools "ahead" of them and it just takes some time to get that national respect academically. However, if Oregon State and Washington State can be members of the Pac, then surely OU can.
Pretty simple on Oklahoma: Not in the top 300 of the ARWU rankings and not an AAU Member. Those would be the 2 key academic evaluations it has been reported that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are looking at. Pac 10 wants to increase its academic prestige, not compromise it. (Pac 10: 7/10 members were Top 100 ARWU worldwide and 7/10 were AAU members.)
ARWU comparison: Stanford #2, Cal #3, UCLA #13, Washington #16, Colorado #34, Texas #38, USC #46, Arizona #77, Utah #80, Texas A&M #88, Arizona State #94, Oregon State #101-151, Oregon #201-302, Washington State #201-302, Kansas #201-302, Oklahoma #303-401, Texas Tech #303-401, Oklahoma State (not in top 500), Baylor (not in top 500)
AAU members: Arizona, Stanford, Texas A&M, Cal, UCLA, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, USC, Texas, Washington
This is why the Pac's top targets were Colorado and Texas. Texas A&M was only a #3 because it's a cultural misfit, but they're very strong in everything else. PAC would love to go to a Pac 12 with only CU and UT added. We bring the best media markets, great athletic traditions (elite with Texas), and top academics. Everyone else is a strategic compromise.
Correction, current Pac-11 AAU members: Arizona, Cal, UCLA, CU, Oregon, UW, Stanford, USC. 8 of 11 ain't bad... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities
Good information, gentlemen. I do understand where exactly you are coming from.
Really, why do you all think UT still has power to dictate things?? All indicators point to that the BigXII will indeed fall apart with all the former members then scrambling to get acceptance in another conference, somewhat a take what you can get routine. I believe the Pac11 :saythat: has the upper-hand and can tell UT/OU to leave Tech/OSU behind if they wish to join, because there will be some degree of desperation from those schools. Where else are they gonna go? UT has stated no interest in Big10/SEC and with Neb/CU already gone, their proposed network with a still intact BigXII seems futile. MWC? No way in hell.
I get that Nik says that Tech is "on the rise" in academics, but that does not happen overnight and is not even a guarantee. OSU? Makes even less sense with academics in consideration.
So, say the Pac11 straight up invites UT/OU only, legislature from both states would be immensely stupid to cockblock those schools from acceptance into Pac10 if their lil brothers don't come along, everyone suffers in the long run. It's really just a bluff IMO.
Bring in Utah and academic standards for the conference are not compromised. I mean, that is what the Pac11 preaches the most, right?
Thanks for the correction, Fred. And welcome aboard!
(I missed Arizona on the AAU Member list because they were listed as "The University of Arizona" instead of "University of Arizona" so they weren't alphabetized like I expected. Apologies for leaving them off to any Cat fans who may be reading this.)
And rep to Fred, who was getting some anyway solely for having the least creative username ever. :smile2:
From what I've heard, we're fooling ourselves by believing that UT, OU, OSU and TT are going anywhere but the Pac-XX. Stop with the other nonsense, this will very likely happen. If A&M goes to the SEC, I'd take KU over Utah. They're a former Big 8 school, a proven BCS conference member, provide the KC market and are no further from Boulder than Salt Lake. I don't understand being enamored with Utah.
I think we're all just having fun speculating. I've got very little argument with what you posted.
I guess the thing that may tip the scale in Utah's favor over Kansas is that adding the Utes is an expansion of the Pac 10. Adding Kansas is making it more like a selective merger of Big 12 teams with the Pac 10. There's also the geographic issue of linking the conference together without a huge fly over space. Finally, if they are looking at a pod system, UA/ASU/CU/UU makes a lot more sense than UA/ASU/CU/KU (or TT in our pod w/ KU/UT/OU/OSU). I believe those issues will ultimately decide things in Utah's favor should A&M bolt for the SEC.
If we get the pod system with UA, ASU and UU, I would be thrilled beyond belief.
I would too, and so would every Ute fan. That would be a solid, solid pod. A good group of like-minded, regional schools. We're crossing our fingers over here on the other side of the Rockies. It's going to be a long weekend.
Separate names with a comma.