PAC-10 Dealbreaker?

[ScottyBuff]

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 invitation (if any) would come by July 1, 2010 preferably. CU has to give notice to the Big 12 and the shorter the notice, the bigger the penalty. The NCAA works on a July 1 fiscal year start date and all the contracts stop/start typically on that date as well. The Big 12 bylaws, the TV contracts, etc.

The Pac-10 currently has all of their TV deals expire after the 2011-12 school year. Negotiations for their new TV contract are typically done in the spring of the year they terminate. However, if the Pac-10 is serious about starting up their own TV network, they would be working on that well ahead of time. If they have a verbal commitment from their targeted schools it will help them in negotiating with cable carriers in the respective markets and national TV broadcasters as well.

The implied actual start date for any new members to compete athletically in the conference would be Fall semester 2012.

 

[Timbuff10]

Can't wait to hear this anouncement then! Bring on July!

 

[UrbanaBuff]

I love the UW as much as the next guy, but are you stuck in '91? Outside of one good season under Tiuasosoppo, the Huskies haven't been nationally relevant in almost two decades.

That's nothing against UW, I just think homerism is clouding your judgement. That all said, I would be happy if we landed in a divison with Washington and Oregon, as I think those two are the most similar to CU.

USC-Washington is the closest thing to Texas-Oklahoma West of Texas.

Washington will play in L.A. every year or the deals off... (no worries, so will CU)
...

 

[UrbanaBuff]

As someone already mentioned, the zipper is intriguing for the possibility of landing rivals in the CCG, a la USC/UCLA. Furthermore, since only 5 games would be divisional, that leaves 3-4 more to be intra-divisional, thus allowing teams to play their regional rival as well as a few more conference foes.

Either way, I'm in favor of no divisions. Simply implement a rotating round-robin schedule. Take the two highest finishers, with tie-breakers if necessary.

 

[Buffnik]

Either way, I'm in favor of no divisions. Simply implement a rotating round-robin schedule. Take the two highest finishers, with tie-breakers if necessary.

Earlier post confirmed the NCAA rule that a conference must have divisions in order to have a conference championship game.

 

[sackman]

I think you can get pretty creative in how you split up the divisions. Even though they need divisions for the CCG, there's nothing that says how many games have to be played in the division.

 

[absinthe]

I f you have 2 6 team conferences and 9 conference games you could play everyone in your division and 2/3rds of the other division every year.

 

[Razorbuff]

Wouldn't be hard to split up the divisions. SEC does it, you play your 5 divisional games, and 3 from the other division. Of those three, you have a permanent opponent from the other division, and rotate the rest of the schools through. If there is a concern about a loss of a rivalry who would it be from the P-10 if a north and a south division were created? UW and USC? If so make that the permanent game. Not too tough to solve.

 

[sackman]

Wouldn't be hard to split up the divisions. SEC does it, you play your 5 divisional games, and 3 from the other division. Of those three, you have a permanent opponent from the other division, and rotate the rest of the schools through. If there is a concern about a loss of a rivalry who would it be from the P-10 if a north and a south division were created? UW and USC? If so make that the permanent game. Not too tough to solve.

The problem is that everybody in the "not USC or UCLA" division would want to have one of those teams as their "every year" opponent. If it's a North/South thing, then either UO or UW is going to have a sh!t fit if they're not playing USC every year. Plus, we still don't know where CU and UU would fall in this mess. We're a lot closer to ASU and UA than we are to any of the other schools. Does that put us in the "south"? Then what about Cal & Stanford? It can get tricky, but I suspect that they'll get it worked out in some fashion that pisses off everybody evenly.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I f you have 2 6 team conferences and 9 conference games you could play everyone in your division and 2/3rds of the other division every year.

Playing 9 conference games puts the Pac 10(12) at a competetive disadvantage versus the other BCS conferences, so I see this going away with any expansion. If other BCS schools get to schedule 4 OOC cupcakes every year, then Pac schools should have the same option.

 

[Razorbuff]

The problem is that everybody in the "not USC or UCLA" division would want to have one of those teams as their "every year" opponent. If it's a North/South thing, then either UO or UW is going to have a sh!t fit if they're not playing USC every year. Plus, we still don't know where CU and UU would fall in this mess. We're a lot closer to ASU and UA than we are to any of the other schools. Does that put us in the "south"? Then what about Cal & Stanford? It can get tricky, but I suspect that they'll get it worked out in some fashion that pisses off everybody evenly.

Ha, yeah they will. Arkansas had a nice yearly game with Tennessee that was becoming a big rivalry, but when the SEC went to its current format we lost it... we dealt with it, if the Pac 10 expands everyone will deal with it as well. Will be interesting to see how it works out.

 

[NW Buff]

Ha, yeah they will. Arkansas had a nice yearly game with Tennessee that was becoming a big rivalry, but when the SEC went to its current format we lost it... we dealt with it, if the Pac 10 expands everyone will deal with it as well. Will be interesting to see how it works out.

This isn't about rivalries, well, not just about rivalries. It's about recruiting. The NW Pac10 schools all have to have the pipeline to SoCal open. There is no way they would give up the exposure. It's not something the schools can just deal with.

Here are a couple of links...

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...0-expansion-imagining-the-six-team-divisions/
http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2010/02/pac-10_football_how_does_confe.html

 

[sackman]

After giving it at least five minuts of serious thought, I've come up with this (It *should* work)

Div 1 Div 2
USC UCLA
UA ASU
Stanford CAL
Oregon OSU
WSU UW
CU UU

Each team plays all the teams in it's own division, it's "rival", and two teams from the other division every year. Just cycle through the schedule. Each non California team would have at least one, and sometimes more, games in California every year.

 

[NW Buff]

After giving it at least five minuts of serious thought, I've come up with this (It *should* work)

Div 1 Div 2
USC UCLA
UA ASU
Stanford CAL
Oregon OSU
WSU UW
CU UU

Each team plays all the teams in it's own division, it's "rival", and two teams from the other division every year. Just cycle through the schedule. Each non California team would have at least one, and sometimes more, games in California every year.

A few of the beat writers up here have floated this. It's called the zipper proposal and I think it is the only thing that would work.

 

[absinthe]

After giving it at least five minuts of serious thought, I've come up with this (It *should* work)

Div 1 Div 2
USC UCLA
UA ASU
Stanford CAL
Oregon OSU
WSU UW
CU UU

Each team plays all the teams in it's own division, it's "rival", and two teams from the other division every year. Just cycle through the schedule. Each non California team would have at least one, and sometimes more, games in California every year.

Its a good thing you are here no one else could have thought of anything like that:
http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread.php/45017-PAC-10-Dealbreaker?p=626109&viewfull=1#post626109

 

[Liver]

Its a good thing you are here no one else could have thought of anything like that:
http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread.php/45017-PAC-10-Dealbreaker?p=626109&viewfull=1#post626109

sacky is the joe biden of allbuffs. i kid. i kid.

 

[sackman]

Oy. STFU all of you. I don't have time to read through all of your drivel.

 

[absinthe]

Playing 9 conference games puts the Pac 10(12) at a competetive disadvantage versus the other BCS conferences, so I see this going away with any expansion. If other BCS schools get to schedule 4 OOC cupcakes every year, then Pac schools should have the same option.

I agree that it would put the teams at a competitive disadvantage but I bet it would be a huge pull for TV and TV dollars, besides they play 9 games already.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

To end the speculation: a two-division format is required for any conference to host a championship game:

I don't know what the reasoning is behind the requirement for 2 divisions, but whatever that reason happens to be, you can't convince me it makes any sense.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I don't know what the reasoning is behind the requirement for 2 divisions, but whatever that reason happens to be, you can't convince me it makes any sense.

Who knows what it was, from the articles that I read there really wasn't much thought about the impact that rule would have on college sports. Even the conference that pressed for the rule and drafted it up didn't end up using it. It sat dormant and "forgotten" until the SEC's commissioner discovered it and put it into play.