Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by SteelCity Buff, Oct 15, 2010.
USC can suck it. Hopefully the Presidents will vote the same way the AD's vote and CU gets into the south with USC and UCLA. As long as we are in a division with at least 2 california schools I'm. If Scott and the other folks cave and put all the Cali schools together the league will be lopsided within 4 years and we are back where we started. Just substitute Oregon in place of Nebraska
As long as they get to play Stanford/Cal USC and UCLA every year, then they'll sign on off on it. They aren't "pissed" about the divisions, just the scheduling if they don't get a guaranteed game against al CA schools.
I wonder what the 7-5 breakdown was. You know CU and Utah were in the 7, and the four NW schools had to be also. That leaves 1 AD from the CA/AZ schools that "broke ranks", let's hope that his President feels the same way. My guess is that either Arizona or Arizona State feels it could compete better with CU/Utah rather than Stanford/Cal?
I don't care what USC thinks.
i want equal revenue sharing
Wouldn't surprise me if it was Stanford. They really hate it when USC or anyone else tries to bully them. They may have a smaller AD, but they've got more money and prestige overall.
I'm torn on all of this. My gut reaction is to keep us opposite of USC, which is the only historical juggernaut. You know they will be back on top, if not under Kiffin, then eventually. Rather play them as least as possible.
The proposed North is a cake walk. Stanford and Cal are historically weak, and they'll slink back down into oblivion before long. OSU and Wazzu are soft too. So it will be Oregon and Washington, assuming the Huskies can get their act together.
Given that they will still get to play cal and Stanford every year, I have no idea what they are bitching about.
I have no problem with USC fighting for their best interests. The nice thing is there are 12 equal voices that will decide what is in the conferences best interests. Not everybody will think it is perfect, but I think people will be happy once the dust settles and after a few seasons have occured and the world didn't end.
Condoms aren't happy? good.
I want to play in LA every year, that would be huge, but would rather visit Portland/Seattle
The thing about the rose bowl is that it is not on campus so that sucks. What other pac 12 schools don't have the stadiums on campus?
USC and that is it. All of the rest are on campus.
Technically USC does not have a stadium on campus. It's across the street and belongs to the County of LA. But do agree that the rose bowl being in Pasadena, 25 miles from Westwood, makes going to games tougher for FUCLA fans.
They could have stayed/played in the Coliseum like they did for decades, but wanted their own venue. I don't think most UCLA fans mind going to the Rose Bowl. I've never heard if they do.
As long as we get the money without spending any, that's all that's important. Equal revenue sharing will do that. We won't have to spend much, we won't bring much in, so we should get huge profits with this move. Spending little, getting lots is definitely the great thing about our move to the Pac-12.
Separate names with a comma.