Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Sep 13, 2011.
shocking that UT wants an unbalanced alignment in their favor. This is what UT does. sigh.
Rest is worth reading also, btw. Sounds like Oklahoma is hell bent on leaving.
So - I don't totally understand that. How can Tex want all the B12 teams, plus UU, ASU, and UA in the East division, yet they get to be in UCLA and USC's division?
We're already seeing UT trying to push around other members. If the P12 caves to any of their demands, giving them an unfair advantage, then it is the beginning of the end for the conference.
Yup. And they are like velociraptors testing the Pac-12's defenses. No equal revenue? Then we want our own network for 3d tier rights. Not that? Then we want special scheduling allowances. And so on and so on until they find a crack. Once they get special rights, then USC will want something special, and then etc and so forth. Ugh.
If Texas wants to play in Southern California every year, they should schedule Cal Poly in out of conference for an away, away, away, away, away, away series for the next 5 years.
Let 'em go Indy.
There is no benefit to the Pac in having Texas join.
Texas is looking out for Texas' interests. Nothing wrong with that.
When Colorado joined the league, we wanted an annual game in S. California, too.
so texas should get one, but OU shouldn't?
Don't believe I ever said that. I am sure OU would like a game in Southern California every year, too.
They'd prolly lose that game too.
everybody wants a game in So Cal every year -
I suppose this is a good sign that POD scheduling would be preferred
San Louis Obispo isn't really in Southern California.
CU worked a similar deal, I'm not sure why it's different when Texas does, except that Texas is a pain-in-the-ass and already sits on a very fertile recruiting ground.
Pac-16 South: UT, TTU, OU, OSU, UA, ASU, USC, UCLA
Pac-16 North: CU, UU, Cal, Stanford, UO, OSU, UW, WSU
I don't see the North schools voting for that crap.
If we gotta go to 16, I could live with that arrangement.
In the end, I still believe that UT ends up in the ACC.
Why are we even considering expanding?
Same as being in the Big 12 North. It's a conference killer.
2 8 team divisions would suck for whoever is in the North. If everybody has 7 division games, that's going to leave 2 games a year against the opposite division. That means you'd play at each road site in the other division once every 8 years, which means a game in SoCal once every 4 years. When CU and UU were coming in, the north schools made it very clear that getting to play in SoCal was a big priority for them. The old north schools are going to fight like hell against that kind of alignment, and it would suck like hell for us to get booted to the north just to make way for the new refugees. But splitting off the old Pac-8 into one division and the rest into another would be even worse for us, since we would be locked out of California entirely every other year.
Pods are the best system for us, and they're the best system for the schools in the north. If UT wants to insist on a realignment that favors them over almost all the existing Pac-12 teams they can go **** themselves.
All the power then resides in the South. Sound familiar? Before we know it, they'll be having the Pac 16 offices moved to Dallas and the CCG games played there.
We need to do everything humanly possible to keep UT the hell out of the Pac.
Yes, let's put all the big money schools in one division and put all the power there. That always works out well.
Agreed. The ACC craves football legitimacy. I think the LHN will be less of a sticking point in the ACC. It gains UT access to elite recruting grounds too. I think they're a bettwe cultural fit as well. There is also less of a problme integrating them into a division because the ACC is not aligned in a N/S or E/W format.
Not exactly true, but pretty close. UO is one booster away from making it 100% true.
First I don't see OU accepting OSU in a different division without the guarantee of a yearly game. Second, I don't see the NW schools - especially Oregon - agreeing to not making it to LA at least every other year. Third, the California schools already threw a fit about their traditional rivalries being broken by the North-South Division and now there is a scheduling concession that includes cross-divisional California rivalry games every year.
Not that I couldn't live with being outside of the Texas division, but I just don't see everyone else being good with it without some significant concessions.
I don't see the northwest school accepting this either. CU and UU won't either.
*You mis-read. There are two OSUs. Okie Lite in the South and Whoregun Lite in the North is what I meant.
OSU = Oregon State. Notice there were actually two "OSUs", one in each division.
In the end, who cares? Stay at 12. It's the perfect number. I am confounded as to why we are even considering expansion at this point.
Somebody remind me again why UT isn't going to the SEC? Seems like a much more natural fit all the way around.
The Big 12 North died because there aren't enough players to recruit out of the North to sustain 6 teams. Nebraska is able to recruit nationally due to tradition. Our recruiting suffered in Texas, where it was never really stellar, to being off the map, especially after the recruiting restrictions were put in place. Mizzou and KU made inroads in to recruiting Texas, but that pipeline was never big enough to match OU and UT, in both prestige and # of games played in Texas. If they divide the conference SoCal/Texas the Pac16 North would be even worse than the Big 12 North in about 5 years.
Separate names with a comma.