Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by OKCBuff, Sep 22, 2010.
Booooo back to the mack10 :lol:
This reeks of the Big 12 all over again. I hope Bohn let's Scott know that.
I hope they do split TV money evenly, though.
Out of the frying pan, into the fire. FTS.
I'm leaning more towards the North Division for the Buffs since we have more of a history with UW and UO...I believe we will build a history with the Beavs and Cougs. The idea is to build more rivalries and the Buffs keeps their idenity the same as it was in the Big 8 and Big 12 when we were winning...running the football. My biggest fear is that if the Buffs go to the South, the Buffs are going to have to be more of a passing team just like under Neushiel and epic fail under Hawkins. Big Mac's first CU teams were passing teams and how did that work out before he switched to the wishbone?
We have recruited from California for many years and that will only get better so simply putting the Buffs in the South for the sake of recruiting doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
We will face both Arizona schools every year for sure. I think the best plan is to have the NW schools have two protected games (one SoCal and one NorCal) agianst the California schools. They have been together for far longer and they should stay together as much as possible. Those Arizona schools have had to deal with those long flights to the NW and the same could be said about the NW schools to Arizona.
We can recruit in Arizona as well and we have had some good players from that state over the years.
Let's focus more on tradition than recruiting because once we start winning big again, recruiting and donations will take care of itself.
I agree with that...that alone could make any divisional makeup a moot point.
Not sure how I feel about any of those scenarios. I think they have to go to a pod system unless they want to put CU and Utah in separate divisions. NashBuff made some good points, recruiting will take care of itself as long as we start winning. Equal revenue sharing is key though - convenient that now there are 12 teams, that the LA teams can get outvoted...
I'm not surprised, honestly. We're going from a Texas-based league to a California-based league. Y'all were surprised about this happening? The Pac might have wanted CU for a long time, but it doesn't mean they're going to capitulate on everything to one of the newbies. I figure the North/South divisions and three-pod scheduling setup is the best we can possibly do. Looking at it objectively, it solves most of the major issues. I'd much rather be with the AZ and SoCal schools in a division, but the Cal schools are too intertwined and have too much power.
We're all about to find out if the master we don't know is better than the one we do.
So long as we play nine conference games and get one in so-cal and one in NorCal every year I'll be happy.
:yeahthat:QUOTE=absinthe;711916]So long as we play nine conference games and get one in so-cal and one in NorCal every year I'll be happy.[/QUOTE]
Ugh, I really dislike the idea of that proposed N/S split. Setting up for a repeat of the Big12 failings.
I don't see how we would get 2 conference games in CA every year unless we're in the same division as the 4 CA schools, which certainly won't be the case.
I don't have a problem with the North/South alignment, that's a natural fit. Like OKC said, this is a Cali-based league, and they won't be able to please each school to their liking.
Sounds fine to me. For those of you who thinking we are getting the shaft, we will absolutely have our hands full every year with Oregon, Washington & Utah in our division. Even OSU is tough lately. Good competition from top to bottom in the 12Pac.
There are a lot of ways this could (will) be different from the Big XII set-up, even in a North/South split scenario with CA/AZ in the South and WA/OR/UT/CO in the North. First, there will likely be revenue sharing despite what the LA schools (mine included) want. I think it's fair. Secondly, there will be 9 conference games, which equates to more CA exposure no matter how you split it. My guess is that the Pac 12 will also have dedicated "rivalry" games unlike the Big XII, which shoved OU-Nebraska out the window.
However, I also think the N/S with California zipper alignment is intriguing. So it could be North/West: Oregon schools, WA schools, plus Cal and UCLA. South/East: CO, UT, AZ schools plus USC and Stanford. That way everyone gets an LA team and Bay Area team in their division. With a dedicated rivalry game, UCLA-USC would still be annual, as well as Cal-Stanford.
It's nice to read about a different perspective...I'd like to know what the other Pac-12 fans think of the division issue.
I could live with this too.
I like the East-West zipper approach. I don't remember where I saw it before but you basically draw a line dividing each pair of rivals and put the eastern one in the east and the western one in the west. You end up with:
East: Washington State, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, Arizona, and Colorado
West: Washington, Oregon State, Stanford, USC, Arizona State, and Utah
This has a pretty good competitive balance, the rivalries are preserved, and everyone gets a pretty even slice of the geographical pie. It's also a lot easier to remember than just tossing rivals into opposite divisions arbitrarily.
Only problem with that scenario, if you could call it one, is that some of the obvious "dedicated rivals" are in the same division (CO and UT, AZ and AZ St., Wa schools). So maybe, instead of playing a rival every year from the other division, CU (e.g.) would just rotate that extra game versus the other division teams.
If it comes down to the CA&AZ schools together, I think that it could be even for competition if:
- revenue is split evenly, everyone gets the same piece of the pie
- Oregon & Phil Knight continue to spend money and invest in their program
- OSU continues it's upward trend
- CU & Wash get back to their form of 15-20 years ago
- Utah continues with their current trending
Competition wise, especially at the beginning of the conference, should be good with both Oregon schools and Utah leading the charge for the North. The hope would be that CU & Wash get back on track. Not sure what to think about Wash St but I don't see much there.
For the South, I would have to hope that Harbaugh goes to Mich or anywhere else and Stanford drops back down. The other CA schools have no excuse to not be good. USC should be great (after their probation is served), Cal and UCLA have no excuse not to be good. The AZ schools look to be rising.
If this is the division split, then I'm even more in favor of the championship game being held at the campus. Keep it away from LA or AZ.
Well, you can just call it a "dedicated cross-over game", with UCLA-USC and Cal-Stanford being the obvious dedicated "rivalry" games. The rest you would have a dedicated cross-over game with a specific team in the other division (similar to the SEC). I think the SEC does dedicated cross-over games so they could maintain the Tennessee-Alabama rivalry. The rest are not really "rivals" but they play the same cross-divisional opponent every year.
I'm really not a fan of the true "zipper" format, since it would make remembering who is in each division more difficult for the rest of the country (the ACC is kind of a mess in this perspective -- who is in the Coastal conference? Who is in the Atlantic conference? Who cares?).
I like it too. A big plus in us joining the Pac is connecting with our fan base and alumni in CA. To me the competition angle is secondary. We NEED to have exposure in CA to continue to grow our base.
I think it's important that CU, UU, UA and ASU all play each other every season.
Beyond that, I don't care how they structure it. Just give me the regional rivalry games.
And do a fully equal revenue share.
Let's not dismiss what WSU's AD did for the Ducks when he was there. It will be a step up in competition but more exciting.
That is exactly what I am thinking. The Arizona schools and the NW schools with two California schools every year would just be perfect.
But I'm not sure that's going to be the case if they don't zipper this thing. I still don't know what the issue is against the zipper. It makes a ton of sense. It's not geographically pleasant to the eye, but it maintains traditional rivalries and grants access to every team to every part of the conference every year. What's not to like about that?
You answered your own post. You need some kind of reason to care about a division besides there it is - otherwise why not have a division with teams in Portland ME, Portland OR, Miami, and San Diego? A geographically-based rivalry makes the most sense. With the given teams, the NW schools belong together and the Arizona schools fit best with the So Cal schools. So what to do with the newcomers and the No Cal schools? I think that's the only question to answer, keeping California together makes the most sense geographically, although living in Phoenix I'd like to see the Buffs in town every other year. I just think the zipper makes for a ridiculous division rivalry.
Another rivalry the SEC wanted to preserve was UGA-Auburn, the Deep South's oldest rivalry.
The Big 10 has been the smartest conference with maximizing revenue. So when they organize divisions based on competitive balance rather than geography, I think everyone needs to pause and take note. Equal revenue sharing is another thing that has made that conference (and the SEC) work so well.
Just because the Big 10 has been the best at maximizing revenue doesn't necessarily mean that they have the best ideas when it comes to divisional alignment.
Separate names with a comma.