I believe this option was shot down by the Pac10 already. No?
I believe this option was shot down by the Pac10 already. No?
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.
I don't think the pac-10 expands if it doesn't get the 6.
This gives the pac a championship game now and the ability to add four more schools in the future when/if UT and OU figure out how to cut ties with their little brothers.
:yeahthat:
While I hate to say it, I don't think that UU-CU is compelling enough to the Pac10 for them to do it.
:yeahthat:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Their main expansion target was never UT until UT went to them for their "backup" plan.
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.
This.
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.
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.Their main expansion target was never UT until UT went to them for their "backup" plan.
This.
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.
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?