Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Mike Bohn " Most likely setup for Pac 16 would be 4 pods"

Sportsfan101

Well-Known Member
instead of 2 divisions. He said this on 9News' Overtime on Sunday night. If so, we need Texas to join Pac 16. We won't be in same pod, and we'd benefit from a lot more Texas $$$$. If this is true, the way I'm looking at realignment / Pac 16 has totally changed.
 
This is counter to what Kevin Weiberg had said earlier.

Are you sure that he said 4 pods INSTEAD of 2 divisions, or that 4 pods would makeup 2 divisions (rotating every couple of years)?
 
He said that 4 pods were favored because "you get to play more teams more regularly" or something like that. He specifically mentioned pods and contrasted them to divisions, and didn't mention anything about a pod within a division.
 
Sportsfan101 said:
He said that 4 pods were favored because "you get to play more teams more regularly" or something like that. He specifically mentioned pods and contrasted them to divisions, and didn't mention anything about a pod within a division.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is a "technical" thing, but why not call them 4 divisions?

4 pods implies that you have groupings that move together within the conference format, between divisions.

MrFrumpylane said:
Larry Scott said that inconference play will be "revolutionary".
Click to expand...

He also said that they would review petitioning the NCAA to allow a CCG with only 10 members.

I'm not knocking the attempts, but some of those things are not currently possible without some major overhauls to the NCAA bylaws.

I would be happy with a "pod rotation" so that we can have better access to the Cali market.

Revolutionary could mean playing 10 in-conference games, or even playing Home and Home games against rivals IN THE SAME SEASON.

Something like:

Pod A: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal
Pod B: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Pod C: Arizona, ASU, Utah, CU
Pod D: Texas, TTech, OU, OSU

Pods A&B form Division 1 for two years, with Pods C&D forming Division 2.

CU would play their interdivisional opponents once each: AZ, ASU, UU, UT, TT, OU, OSU for a total of 7 games. Then we would play the 3 "pod partners" once again, switching from home/away. That will total 10 games in conference and would increase the value of the TV package significantly.

The lack of intra-dvisional games would be minimized by having the Pods rotate every 2 years (to allow for home/homes to even out) so that each school gets to play every Pac-16 school every 6 years, but kick-starting (or deepening) intense rivalries within the "pods". Travel costs would be minimized, and the need to find "cupcake" payout games would be minimized in the OOC games.
 
ScottyBuff said:
This is counter to what Kevin Weiberg had said earlier.

Are you sure that he said 4 pods INSTEAD of 2 divisions, or that 4 pods would makeup 2 divisions (rotating every couple of years)?
Click to expand...

If your BR report is right about not being able to have a championship game unless there are two divisions where all division members play each other would suggest (1) they are not planning on having a championship game at all, and perhaps are really thinking that two BCS slots might be possible or (2) they are going to do a mini-playoff where winners of each pod play each other (based on two pods per division) and winners of those games play each other in the championship game, and more importantly, that this second situation would pass NCAA muster.
 
wsp4820 said:
If your BR report is right about not being able to have a championship game unless there are two divisions where all division members play each other would suggest (1) they are not planning on having a championship game at all, and perhaps are really thinking that two BCS slots might be possible or (2) they are going to do a mini-playoff where winners of each pod play each other (based on two pods per division) and winners of those games play each other in the championship game, and more importantly, that this second situation would pass NCAA muster.
Click to expand...

That is the current NCAA bylaw for the CCG. The "semifinal" games would NOT be exempt (meaning they would count against the 12 game max), but you can't currently have 4-team divisions, so the "pod format" would have to be done in-division, unless the NCAA agrees to changes, as you state.
 
ScottyBuff said:
That is the current NCAA bylaw for the CCG. The "semifinal" games would NOT be exempt (meaning they would count against the 12 game max), but you can't currently have 4-team divisions, so the "pod format" would have to be done in-division, unless the NCAA agrees to changes, as you state.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the conferences will be able to force the NCAA's hand on these issues so that the NCAA can keep control over other things (e.g. whether walk-ons can have free meals). The rules regarding CCGs are completely arbitrary (IMO, anyway) right now, so maybe NCAA will be willing to back off on its stance.
 
wsp4820 said:
I wonder if the conferences will be able to force the NCAA's hand on these issues so that the NCAA can keep control over other things (e.g. whether walk-ons can have free meals). The rules regarding CCGs are completely arbitrary (IMO, anyway) right now, so maybe NCAA will be willing to back off on its stance.
Click to expand...

Maybe a concession to stop the lobbying of allowing CCG for conferences under 12 members?
 
fyi:

17.9.5.2(c):
a conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division
Click to expand...
 
MrFrumpylane said:
That is such a rad idea. I'd be down if our rival was Utah, but it ends up being KU or TT, I'd be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Even for just one rival that would be cool, I was thinking that we would play our whole pod as a home/home each season. Utah, Arizona, and ASU. (or however it works out).
 
With Pods, you don't need divisions. The 4 pod winners enter the conference playoff with the #4 seed playing at the #1 seed and #3 playing at #2. Winners play for the title at the championship game neutral site.

Obviously, this assumes the NCAA changes its rules to accommodate a 2-round conference playoff and a potential 14th game prior to a bowl. Shouldn't be a big deal. The NCAA already allows that many games in one circumstance (if a team plays a roadie at Hawaii, it can play a 13 game regular season).
 
Pods just make too much sense. Otherwise you would have a home game against the teams in other 8 team division once every 16 years if it were in a 7 + 2 split I believe which is just ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top