What's new
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-10 Dealbreaker?

You mean like the BIg 12 did for OU and Neb so they could play every year?


Simple geography and common sense tells me California schools will not be split up.. Now you guys who want to continue in fantasy land and try to somehow separate the California teams and put CU in a division with USC is fine with me.. Just don't expect it ever to happen.

Whats funny is you're just as ignorant as everybody else here abotu this. You don't have a clue what they would do, just like we don't. Thats why it's fun to have these discussions. But you have a serious problem if you truly think you know what they are gonna do. Get a life!
 
i don't think the p12 will be broken into any divisions unless that is a ncaa rule. i know you need 12 for a conf. champ game, but why can't they just take the top 2 conference records?

what you'd do then, in order to keep everyone reasonably happy is each team would play its rival annually (CU would be paired with utah and the rest are obvious). every team woud play 9 conf. games like now and you'd rotate thru the 10 non-rival conf. opponents equally and annually so you'd only miss 3 teams a year. and you'd never miss your rival. this way, no one is split away from the socal teams and there is not a perceived weaker sister division either.

that's how you do it.

:yeahthat:

Best idea yet. There's no need to have divisional alignments. If you want to still have a championship game you can, just take to the top 2 finishers in the standings. That would result in a more representative CCG anyway.
 
It seems to me there are certain rivalries in the Pac 10 they cannot distrub. USC/ UCLA, Cal/Stan, OU/OSU, UW/WSU, AZ/ASU will probably have to be played every year, so that will drive the divisions, if it happens.

My guess would be:

Div 1:
AZ
ASU
USC
UCLA
Cal*
Stanford*

Div 2:
UW
WSU
OU
OSU
CU*
Utah*

It is possible the * teams could swap places (i.e. CU/UU swap places with Cal/Stan) but it's hard to see those current rivalries get split up in different divisions.
 
i don't think the p12 will be broken into any divisions unless that is a ncaa rule. i know you need 12 for a conf. champ game, but why can't they just take the top 2 conference records?

what you'd do then, in order to keep everyone reasonably happy is each team would play its rival annually (CU would be paired with utah and the rest are obvious). every team woud play 9 conf. games like now and you'd rotate thru the 10 non-rival conf. opponents equally and annually so you'd only miss 3 teams a year. and you'd never miss your rival. this way, no one is split away from the socal teams and there is not a perceived weaker sister division either.

that's how you do it.

This.


Or what I said earlier, which was basically the same thing. No "divisions" are required, IMO.
 
All the schools in the PAC 10 want to make more money that is why all this started. That is the reason CU will be invited and the reason there will be no sacred cows as far as rivalries go.
 
All the schools in the PAC 10 want to make more money that is why all this started. That is the reason CU will be invited and the reason there will be no sacred cows as far as rivalries go.

I totally disagree. The rivalry games will never go away. They'll manufacture a "rivalry" game between CU and UU, and keep all the rest of the in-state rivalry games intact. I think Cal/Stanford have been playing each other for like 100 years. Neither school would allow that to be thrown away. Same for USC/UCLA, UO/OSU, etc.
 
If you are The California schools what is going to make you more money: keeping the state to yourself or getting UW and CU back to national prominence?
 
If you are The California schools what is going to make you more money: keeping the state to yourself or getting UW and CU back to national prominence?

This is the major difference with the Pac vs the Big 12. UT makes more money if it has a Texas-loaded division, because it dominates media and recruiting in the state of Texas. None of the California schools can say that about its home state. Further, the Big 12 was set up so that a voting block of the big revenue programs can dominate discussions. In the Pac, everything has to be unanimous so Washington State's interests are protected to the same extent as USC's. It may be harder to get something done in the Pac, but when they decide on something it will be equitable to all conference members.
 
If you are The California schools what is going to make you more money: keeping the state to yourself or getting UW and CU back to national prominence?

You're missing the point. No one (except Jimmy) is saying they want to keep the state to themselves. They are saying that there is no way a Pac-12 works if you start breaking up the USC/UCLA, Cal/Stanford, etc. rivalries. I think that's why the zipper thing mentioned above may make sense. But, if you think Cal and Stanford, for example, are going to agree to anything that even slightly messes with their rivalry, you are mistaken IMO.
 
The zipper idea wouldn't compromise the major rivalries if the your rival is on your schedule every year anyway, right? Plus the potential of having a USC/UCLA, or Cal/Stanford etc CCG matchup would be pretty compelling.

The fact that Plati is openly discussing the idea in his column speaks volumes IMO.
 
You're missing the point. No one (except Jimmy) is saying they want to keep the state to themselves. They are saying that there is no way a Pac-12 works if you start breaking up the USC/UCLA, Cal/Stanford, etc. rivalries. I think that's why the zipper thing mentioned above may make sense. But, if you think Cal and Stanford, for example, are going to agree to anything that even slightly messes with their rivalry, you are mistaken IMO.

My post was in response to Jimmy. It just doesnt make sense to put all the Cali schools in one division, remeber they are going to need a unanimous vote to expand and it really doesnt make the conference stronger. As for the major rivalries I agree those are safe because it makes the conference more profitable.

I cant wait for this to happen.:thumbsup:
 
i don't think the p12 will be broken into any divisions unless that is a ncaa rule. i know you need 12 for a conf. champ game, but why can't they just take the top 2 conference records?

what you'd do then, in order to keep everyone reasonably happy is each team would play its rival annually (CU would be paired with utah and the rest are obvious). every team woud play 9 conf. games like now and you'd rotate thru the 10 non-rival conf. opponents equally and annually so you'd only miss 3 teams a year. and you'd never miss your rival. this way, no one is split away from the socal teams and there is not a perceived weaker sister division either.

that's how you do it.


:yeahthat:
 
If you are The California schools what is going to make you more money: keeping the state to yourself or getting UW and CU back to national prominence?

That too...

It only works if you keep it as balanced as possible in the recruiting hotbeds. Neither of the above schools will miss out on a minimum of one trip to L.A. per year, and most years twice (3 out of 4, that is):nod:

Unless of course there are 14 or 16 teams:wow:

San Diego would be a great place to watch the team. Would SDSU ever possibly be a Pac destination? Or would an increased athletic budget due to the new TV contract money allow them to become the next TCU?
 
I think Plati had some good comments in his latest Platitudes, regarding the myriad of issues that factor into CU joining the PAC 10. But I think they break down to 2 real issues:
1) Money
2) Division Alignment

I think the money issue, while multi-faceted (travel, alumni support, tv deal, penalty for leaving the Big 12, etc) is one that can be quantified and determined to be acceptable or not.

The Division Alignment issue, not so much. Do we turn the deal down if it means a North division of us, Utah, UW, WSU, OU and OSU? Are we even in position to turn down a deal if offered?

If the Big 12 starts coming apart at the seems, then our leverage with the PAC 10 weakens, but since we are bringing a tv market that will increase the payout to all teams, do we have the leverage now to get a division alignment that puts us with the California teams?

They've written this up in the local papers up here a couple of times. There is no way the NW teams would allow the Pac10 to expand in such a way that makes a North division. The schools up here rely on southern CA too much for exposure and recruiting. One article I saw suggested a mix with rivalry games. That would mean USC and UCLA are in different divisions but still play each other each year (UW/WSU, OU/OSU, etc). This would allow each team to have games each year in socal and/or az.

Basically the division alignment issue is a deal breaker for most of the teams in the Pac10 so we don't need leverage.
 
The need for everybody to play in SoCal every year makes this whole thing extremely complicated. Basically it means that U$C and UCLA both have to be on everybody's schedule every year, if you're going to have a home-and-home schedule (which you really have to for fairness sake). The problem is, U$C and UCLA can't play 11 conference games every year. Somebody isn't going to be playing them. Which makes it damn near impossible to guarantee that the one game a team will play against one of those teams will be in SoCal. Will teams be satisfied by the promise of a game against a SoCal team, even if it's on the road, with the promise that the exposure of the game in the SoCal market will somehow be enough?

Somebody is going to have to give on something here. If the old Big 8 schools had insisted every one of them had to have a game @ either Texas or aTm every year, it never would have worked. They accepted the fact that their Texass exposure some years would mean a game at Baylor, which obviously means less to recruiting in Texas than a game in Austin.
 
To end the speculation: a two-division format is required for any conference to host a championship game:

Negotiations led Yoder to settle on a provision allowing exempt championship games in any conference with at least 12 members and two divisions. Amid no fanfare, the 1987 NCAA Convention approved the measure, Proposal No. 125.

A Simple Idea Gives Birth To A Frenzy


Thinking outside the box

The SEC’s expansion in 1992 set the wheels in motion for a championship game since there were too many teams for an inclusive schedule to decide a league champion. Former SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer was familiar with an NCAA rule allowing conferences of 12 or more members to pit division winners in a championship game.


The rule’s roots actually are in Division II. The original proposal was No. 125 at the 1987 NCAA Convention, sponsored by the Division II Steering Committee on behalf of two leagues at the time large enough to operate in a divisional structure. And since it was 1987 — 10 years before the Association federated its governance — when a federated piece of legislation was proposed, all three divisions voted on it regardless of whether it affected them. Thus, the 12-institution rule became law for Division I as well.


Kramer said the biggest obstacles to adopting the championship game were to decide upon a division alignment and convince institutions to give up some of their traditional rivalries to accommodate the new slate. The league agreed on an eight-game conference schedule that allowed traditional nonconference rivalries such as Florida-Florida State, Georgia-Georgia Tech and South Carolina-Clemson to be retained.

Playoff payoff
 
Somebody is going to have to give on something here. If the old Big 8 schools had insisted every one of them had to have a game @ either Texas or aTm every year, it never would have worked. They accepted the fact that their Texass exposure some years would mean a game at Baylor, which obviously means less to recruiting in Texas than a game in Austin.

Actually the Baylor game is probably better for recruiting because it's half way between Austin and DFW. It's easier to fly into Dallas and tap into the metroplex's abundant college prospects. The Dallas area has a lot more BCS talent to choose from than the Austin area. It's not that Austin/Roundrock/Pflugerville is devoid of talent, either. But college recruiters are going to be spoiled by choice either way, and might actually come away with a win when travelling to Waco.
 
Actually the Baylor game is probably better for recruiting because it's half way between Austin and DFW. It's easier to fly into Dallas and tap into the metroplex's abundant college prospects. The Dallas area has a lot more BCS talent to choose from than the Austin area. It's not that Austin/Roundrock/Pflugerville is devoid of talent, either. But college recruiters are going to be spoiled by choice either way, and might actually come away with a win when travelling to Waco.

No way it's better. People have to be watching the game for it to matter. Like if we played SMU, Rice and Tulane. Compared to playing UT and LSU, that does very little for recruiting.
 
No way it's better. People have to be watching the game for it to matter. Like if we played SMU, Rice and Tulane. Compared to playing UT and LSU, that does very little for recruiting.

It's pretty much a moot point, anyway. CU has been in the B12 for over a decade and hasn't exactly reaped the benefit of recruiting Texas to the same degree as Mizzou or KU or the Okie schools.

Having a coaching staff with strong ties to Texas high school programs is a more important factor than whether the B12 south game happens to be played at Bayor or UT.

Let me bring this back to the Pac-10 discussion. The comparison of USC/UCLA versus A&M/UT is a flawed analogy due to geographical considerations. In SoCal, the talent is in the LA basin. You have to get to LA to recruit LA kids. Not many coaches are going to be recruiting San Diego or Palm Springs on a football weekend in LA. The nearest Pac-10 school to the bruins/Trojans are not within driving distance.

In Texas, the talent is predominantly in and around Houston and DFW. Austin is a hell of a long way from both if these metro areas. A trip to Waco or College Station brings you closer to a larger talent pool than a trip to UT. Besides, a trip to Austin gives the visiting school a 93% chance of a beat down. CU would do better recruiting in Austin when the Longhorns are playing on the road, like what Hawk was doing during the rose bowl.

Anyhow, CU has been in the B12 for over a decade and simply has not been able to exploit their trips to Texas and have demonstrated more than anything else a case of missed opportunity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skid... agree it's pretty much moot on Texas. Keep building relationships and we'll pull our 2-5 kids a year from Texas. With more success on the field, the quality of the prospects we land will only go up. And I don't think it matters whether we're in the Big 12 or not. When we were a top 10 program and in the Big 8, we pulled as many Texas kids as we do now despite going against the SWC. LA's the key area for us and a move to the Pac can only help. I love the thought of Hagan going into LA with his cred and being able to sell CU as a Pac 12 program.
 
Is there any reason to believe that this whole scenario is anything more than speculation?

Yes. The fact that the Pac 10 has publicly stated that they're looking to expand gives creedence to the entire discussion. This has a much different feel than what we have had in the last few years. CU isn't coming out and saying "no, we're 100% committed to the Big 12", either. Bohn's remarks have been decidely vague on the subject.
 
Is there any reason to believe that this whole scenario is anything more than speculation?

Yes. The fact that the Pac 10 has publicly stated that they're looking to expand gives creedence to the entire discussion. This has a much different feel than what we have had in the last few years. CU isn't coming out and saying "no, we're 100% committed to the Big 12", either. Bohn's remarks have been decidely vague on the subject.

Add to that the fact that Plati has actually come out and commented on the speculation, and also did nothing to say that CU had no interest in the idea...
 
This is a done deal guys.

I wouldn't go quite that far. There are issues to be worked out. Particularly financial consideration. At the end of the day, I do believe that both parties (Pac 10 and CU) are interested in each other. I think they'll work it out, but it will be interesting to see how it eventually plays out.
 
I wouldn't go quite that far. There are issues to be worked out. Particularly financial consideration. At the end of the day, I do believe that both parties (Pac 10 and CU) are interested in each other. I think they'll work it out, but it will be interesting to see how it eventually plays out.

Dont forget the Allbuffs server is being relocated to Cali. That has to be more than a coincidence.
 
I wouldn't go quite that far. There are issues to be worked out. Particularly financial consideration. At the end of the day, I do believe that both parties (Pac 10 and CU) are interested in each other. I think they'll work it out, but it will be interesting to see how it eventually plays out.

They better get them worked out...I'll be a happy resident of San Diego or Seattle in 2012/2013, baby!:thumbsup:
 
So if it is a done deal, what is the time table on this thing if/when it happens. I think I heard this summer sometime... Is there a date that depends on some TV contract or something like that, maybe a big12 deadline on cash payouts?
 
So if it is a done deal, what is the time table on this thing if/when it happens. I think I heard this summer sometime... Is there a date that depends on some TV contract or something like that, maybe a big12 deadline on cash payouts?

The date I'm hearing is July 1 for CU to file it's intent to leave the conference.

As for the idea of scheduling a game every year in So Cal, I'm not sure that's terribly important. Two out of every three would be fine by me, so long as we also get a game in No Cal every two out of three years. There's a lot of very good players in the Bay Area, too.
 
Back
Top