Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Timbuff10, Jun 7, 2010.
Yeah, what he said.
I believe this option was shot down by the Pac10 already. No?
They aren't crazy about it but its not completely off the table.
I believe that's what that Chip guy who writes for the Orange said. But sometimes it's hard to understand him since he's talking with Deloss Dodds' **** in his mouth.
Seriously, I don't think it's been reported by anyone else. Other reports are that the Pac-16 proposal garnered the most interest because it was worth the most money (by far). And that Larry Scott has unprecedented support and trust from the current Pac members to orchestrate the right deal for the conference. CU-UU isn't off the table, it's just not Plan A any more.
They only want us if the get the financial jugernaut that is UT. UT only goes if OU and A&M are part of the package. Its a tough spot to be in.
Plan B has been scary most times, but I just might enjoy it this time.
That was one of the rumors but who knows who started it. Texas?
I don't think the pac-10 expands if it doesn't get the 6.
While I hate to say it, I don't think that UU-CU is compelling enough to the Pac10 for them to do it.
I thought the PAC 10 said they would stand pat before they added only 2 teams.
I would expect you will have a pretty good idea come this Monday. I think most of the pertinent details of NU to the B10 will be out by then. The aftermath will be fun to watch.
But a CCG will undoubtedly increase the value of the TV contract, no?
They want UTs $130mm athletic budget in their fold along with all the eyeballs in the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio TV markets. They want a CCG and they probably want to start a Pac 10 network.
One thing is for certain; in the end the haves and have nots will get even further apart.
I was a lot more excited about the CU & Utah rumor than the six team rumor. With the six team move, we essentially move to the Big XII South with, maybe, one trip to Cal every year. Kind of bums me out.
Depends on how they set up the "pods" system.
If it's like this, I won't mind so much:
Pacific A: USC, UCLA, Cal Stanford
Pacific B: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Pacific C: Colorado, Texas Tech, Arizona, Arizona State
Pacific D: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
- 9 conference games per year
- 3 games against your own pod
- 4 games against 1 of the other 3 pods
- 2 games against 1 of the other 3 pods
This way, you play everyone in your pod every season and all other teams on an every-other-year basis. Playoff for the conference championship is 2 rounds. Semi-finals would be the four pod winners, seeded by overall conference finish with the #1 seed playing a home game against #4 / #2 playing a home game against #3. Winners play a neutral-site championship game.
As long as it's this (which I have seen mentioned by some reputable sources in some form), then I have no problem with the expansion. What I don't want is to be in an 8-team division where CU plays all 7 teams every year and then plays 2 teams from the other division. In that setup, we'd only play the other division teams once every 4 years. All indications are that setup is not the way this is going.
That above scenario would be the awesome
You put us in the softest "Pod" there. I like it. I can't see a better way to arrange the "pods", but ours would be soft compared to the others.
edit: You think both UT and OU would want to have to be in the same pod? I assume they'd want to play each other yearly, but to have 2 of the top 3 teams in the same pod?
I'm still hoping ND takes the Big 10 offer, leaving NU and MU in the B12, the TX schools stay put and the Pac 10 adds CU and UU to get a CCG, swapping BYU into the B12 to replace CU. Long shot? Probably, but that is my hope.
Thanks for the explanation. That would be much more plapable.
I had the same questions you did. But this is how I've seen it laid out to ensure rivalry games (high tv ratings) and the best travel partners (cost and attendance). I suppose they could "zipper" the coast teams as well as the southwest teams, but it gets clunkier and you'd have things like USC and UCLA missing each other some years.
I think if ND goes to the Big 10 (which I hope they do), then that could be the end of the conference movement assuming the Big 10 stops at 12 teams, which is what the rumors are in the talks between ND and the Big 10. Because then NU/MU wouldn't be receiving offers to go to the Big 10, which means that UT won't be interested in leaving the Big 12. And I just don't see the Pac-10 expanding by only 2 with us and Utah, because their main expansion target is UT.
We're not hearing jack from the Pac 10. All we're hearing is stuff from this Chip Brown douche. If the 6-team deal falls through, the Pac is in a precarious position. They need 12 teams for a CCG. They want an expanded presence in another time zone. They want more media markets. The only one saying the 2-team expansion is off the table is Chip Brown, from what I can gather. That doesn't mean anything to me. I suspect that the 6-team expansion is their ideal, but when faced with a scenario where they are losing market share and a strengthened MWC barking at their heels, they'll add CU and UU.
Their main expansion target was never UT until UT went to them for their "backup" plan.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. But I don't think that CU and Utah would add enough of a market-share and TV revenue increase to justify slicing up the revenue 12 ways instead of 10 and come out that much ahead, if at all. SLC is a decent-sized market but the Pac-10 still wouldn't be completely solid there because of the presence of BYU. And we all know that Denver is a pro sports-dominated market, so who's to say how much of a gain the Denver market would really be for the Pac-10?
All good points. But if the Pac 10 gets used by UT, they may react and expand anyway, and to a lesser degree, so they don't look like chumps. The Pac 10 has put their cards on the table, coming up empty might be too much for Scott to bear, do not understimate the power of ego and the desire to save face.
The PAC wants UT and their dominance over the Texas media markets throughout the state as well as their national name. Logically they will put all their efforts into making that happen so that is the face they put on.
Trouble is that for UT joining the PAC in the format that is being proposed doesn't change much for them to the positive. They are still playing the same Big XII south teams they always have, they replace at least one OOC game they control for an out of division game in the PAC that they don't control meaning one less cupcake on the schedule, one less guaranteed home game, and less revenue since they can pay some no-name school a relative pitance to come in and get pounded instead of having to distribute revenue based on the conference formula.
Bigger is that the PAC will not let Texas dominate TV money distribution and even bigger with a PAC media package including a PAC network there is no space for a Texas network. The Texans have to decide if they can make more money joining the PAC with its national media appeal and take their share or stay with a more regional Big XII and take the lions share of a smaller media package.
If Texas decides to go the PAC route then the only question is does the PAC hold their ground and insist on CU and the Denver market or do they buckle under and take Baylor. If Texas decides to stay in the Big XII then the PAC still has to make some decisions. They can talk about standing pat but then looking at the money that would be generated by a conference championship game is very appealling. Again it wouldn't be Texas but if they go to a conference network adding Colorado and Utah adds a lot to the market reach of the network.
At this point I think odds are that Texas will decide to stay put a kill the six team expansion, then the PAC will take a little time but then extend the invite to CU anyways along with one other school, most likely Utah. If Mizzou, Nebraska, and CU all bail on the BigXII the Texans may actually be happier because they then go to work forming SWC ver. 2 raiding the MWC and the C-USA for Texas schools as well as maybe Tulsa. With this bunch Texas, OU, and aTm could be the elephants in the room and take the majority of the wins, money, and attention and the others would be happy just to be along for the ride.
Anyone not happy with the situation would be free to look elsewhere in a market that doesn't have a lot of options to go to. ISU, OSU, KSU and even Kansas get screwed in the deal but for UT that's no big problem. Of those only KU might have real options to look for greener pastures because of their basketball power.
The Baylor thing has pretty much been put to bed so far as I can tell. That was nothing more than a bunch of noise. It never made any sense to begin with.
Totally agree. The Pac 10 has no title game and the worst TV deal in the BCS - their business model becomes less and less viable as compared to other conferences that are growing. I don't believe for a minute that Plan B is off the table.
Carolina... is your avatar Shania Twain??
Separate names with a comma.