The Hypothetical Pac-10 & Big 12 Merger Breakdown--Is The Super 16 A Good Thing?
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 6:19 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintThe current rumor: Broken by Chip Brown at Rivals, who is pretty well-respected (click here to keep on following SBN's storystream of the expansion news). Hinted at by Chancellor Birgenau, a rumor that's now slowly starting to filter through the pipeline--the Colorado AD has also been led to believe something akin to expansion talks is occurring (HT yearsago)
The specifics: Six Big 12 teams (Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech) would be invited to join the Pac-10. These six teams would form what I'll go ahead and call a Big 8 division with Arizona and Arizona State. The original Pac-8 teams (Cal, Furd, Oregon & Oregon St, UCLA & USC, Washington and Wazzu) would constitute their own division and would most likely play each other every year, in addition to probably one or two conference games with the Big-8 division.
The snags: One team (Texas A&M doesn't want to do it; their original inclination, if expansion was necessary, was the SEC). The Big 12 cancelled a news conference for yesterday and has one scheduled for Friday, making one think that if there's something big in the works, there's group discord that needs to be resolved. The Furd could veto the plan based on academics, like they did in 1994 when they blocked Texas and Texas A&M from joining the Pac-10 as they searched for a new home outside the Southwest Conference.
The perks: A television network for the super conference, similar to what the Big Ten has with the Big Ten Network and what the SEC seems to have with its mondo distribution deal with ESPN. Would almost certainly become at least the third most powerful conference in the country and the dominant power east of the Mississippi, with the possibility of supplanting the Big Ten and competing with the SEC every year to turn out BCS title contenders. Bigger local audiences for the conference would entail larger TV revenue. In short, must be the money.
So, those are the big issues. Now, let's just say this does happen, so I can write a thousand to two thousand words on it. How would it work for the conference, and more importantly for us, what will it all mean for the Golden Bears? Examination, piece-by-piece after the jump.
What are your thoughts on the sixteen team conference? Please let us know in the comments--weigh in with your objections, observations, or analysis.
What the Big 8 Division would look like: In terms of traditional matchups, not much would change. The Big 12 South would be losing five of the six schools (with Colorado the lone participant from the Big 12 north), so many of the traditional rivalries would stick in place. In terms of traditional powers, not much changes either--Texas and Oklahoma would likely be vying every year for the division crown, and would almost certainly earn a trip to whereever the conference championship game is played.
What the Pac 8 Division would look like: Very little changes here. The winner still has to fight their way through USC and pray they don't draw a Texas or Oklahoma in their Big 8 conference matchup. No round robin schedule would mean the teams in this conference would have to hope their Big 8 draw is favorable so they don't pick up an extra loss against their traditional divisional opponents. (it goes the other way of course--teams in the Big 8 don't want to be facing USC, Oregon, or any of the dominant Pacific powers in a particular year).
Distance, not academics, the main drawbacks. The Furd was being terribly snobbish in 1994 and it's a decision I have to disagree with in retrospect. Texas's academic stature is much higher than some of the current Pac-10 schools like ASU, Wazzu, and OSU; to keep them out with that rationale is beyond hypocritical.
No, the main problem is distance. How do you get teams to agree to a half-cross country trip every year, assuming each team decides on one home and one road game against the other conference (i.e. the most ideal format for scheduling)? Will that keep teams away from the table?
Nine conference games? There seems to be a lot of thought toward playing all seven opponents in the division, in addition to another two. That would preserve the current nine conference regular season schedule the Pac-10 currently has in place, and that no other big conference dares to try.
Could it usurp the SEC? In a traditional sense, no. You can't substitute passion with sheer bulk of numbers. On the other hand, you'd have plenty of teams vying for national attention that it'd be impossible to ignore the conference's best teams (as has happened in the past with the Big 12 & the Pac-10. A merged conference gets the best teams better pub and more opportunities to showcase themselves on the big stage. We could see plenty of SEC-Super 16 matchups to decide who's #1 every early January.
What about basketball? A 16 team conference is pretty tough to navigate. You'd imagine the divisions would still play their home/away series (so 14 games), and then another four to six would be set aside to face teams on the other side of the conference. The Pac-10 tournament is already pretty meaningless except for TV revenue and building up resumes. A Super 16 tournament could become very weighted and very pointless
Where's the conference championship game at? Dallas Cowboys Stadium is too far west. Qwest Field is too far north. Invesco Field is too cold. Candlestick Park sucks for everyone to get to. So on and so forth.
As stated in the earlier Pac-10 conference championship game post we made, it seems like rotating sites makes the most sense from a fairness standpoint, but when's college football ever been fair? We'll probably end up with a warm weather solution, with San Diego, LA, Glendale and Dallas the likeliest sites.
More on the television deal. The Big 12 renegotiates its TV deal with Fox next year, as does the Pac-10. Fox has shown interest in a bigger contract for an expanded Pac-10, along with providing their own TV network so that no game is ever missed for the fans of the teams in the conference. It would also provide the conference with more incentive for ESPN to showcase its games on national television in the best spots, since it's very likely one or two national championship contenders will emerge from the 16 team monolith on sheer volume alone.
The national TV network ensures maximum exposure for not just football, but the conference itself--plenty of programming could be shown spotlighting the best of every sport. With rich traditions like that present in the Pac-10, who knows how many non-revenue sports that could help out.
The winner goes to...what bowl? Traditionally, when a Big 8 school wins its conference crown, it ends up in the Fiesta Bowl if they won their conference, not the Rose Bowl. While Pasadena is still the paradiso of prizes for any college football team besides the national championship, it's not a given the winner of this conference ends up parading their way down Colorado Blvd.
More BCS bowl bids? The super conference would definitely have the added benefit of being more likely to provide an actual BCS at-large. While that probably isn't high on the agenda of most fans, an at-large bid could provide teams that perform well but don't win the conference crown a chance to get a berth to a big time bowl. If the winner of the conference championship game rotates between the Fiesta and the Rose Bowl depending on their preferences, then the runner-up or at-large bid could take the other bowl if they're more worthy of it than other conferences.
Of course, we all hope this is just one step closer to the mythical college football playoff we've all been seeking, where the best team from many a super conference duke it out for a true national championship, but I'm guessing we're still a decade or two away from something that obvious happening...
As for Cal? You thought dealing with USC every year was tough enough to get to the Rose Bowl. Now even if we win the new Pac-8 division, Cal (or any other Pac-10 school) will end up with a reward of probably Texas or Oklahoma in the conference championship game. Ouch. An awful one-two punch to get to the end.
Still, you have to beat the best to be the best, so it doesn't seem like too much of an upgrade in difficulty from the already arduous round robin schedule. The Golden Bears still have to take care of business in their neck of the woods before going out and worrying about any conference championship. They'll still have to win seven or eight conference games, with the only caveat being they'd have to make sure the last win they get is on the first week of December.
This is a lot of analysis and speculation based on a plan that hasn't even formulated. But it's safe to say Larry Scott has us all talking about a conference that had become a "USC and Nine Dwarves" stereotype over the past decade. Now? The Pac-10 can't be taken lightly anymore. They're swinging first and planning on bringing everyone along for the ride, Super 16 or no Super 16.
182 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is it wrong that if this happens I feel bad for Colorado. They seemed so excited and anxious to join the Pac-10. To break away from the Texas – Oklahoma axis. To be able to leave behind the other Big-12 north schools, and trading hanging out in fly-over country for hanging out on the west coast. To find schools that are equally as liberal and open minded as Boulder. To reconnect with its large California based alumni. Then, they do get invited to the Pac-10, but they get lumped back in with Texas and Oklahoma. They still travel to the plain states, only the plain states farther away. They don’t reconnect with their California alums. All they really gain is one guaranteed game on the west coast per year. That and money. The money should make them feel better.
If you’re going to feel bad for anybody, feel bad for the Big 12 teams that won’t be able to find a conference if this happens. This move could destroy football at Baylor, Iowa St., Kansas and Kansas St.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I have a hard time really caring about those schools. Kansas is going to be fine. I’m sure KU and Mizzou will go to the Big Televen.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, if the Big 10 added 5 schools, they could just as easily grab Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and Nebraska. Kansas has an iffy football history and limited TV cache. The bottom line is that somebody is getting screwed and I think it’s a shame that maximizing revenue has become the single driving force in college football.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Why would they pick Rutgers over KU? I know Rutgers is near NYC, but big deal. Very few people in NYC give a shit about Rutgers.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
According to wikipedia, the 2009 population estimate for NJ was 8.7 million. Kansas? 2.8M million.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Whoops thought I deleted that M! Oh well. Point is getting NJ > getting Kansas.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
How many people in NJ watch Rutgers sports vs. how many Kansans watch KU?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Say 10% of Kansans and 5 % of NJ. That’s still 280,000 vs. 435,000.
The discrepancy would have to be on the level of 20% vs. 5% for Kansas to be the better pick.
I think 5% is generous and 10% is stingy. Also KU has a lot more national appeal as well, especially (OK, well, mostly) in basketball.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
This
KCMO is quite close to Lawrence.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, consider recrutiing. NJ produces a whole lot more football and basketball recruits than Kansas.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
The fact that people in NYC dont watch Rutgers is irrelevant. It would put their games on in that market as the primary game in that region, thus greatly increasing exposure.
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
by Fire Starkey on Jun 4, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed. Wisconsin and other BigX schools that arent Michigan, Ohio State, or PenState would salivate to have their game v. Rutgers be in the NYC market.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I don’t really buy this. You don’t need Rutgers to get the Big10 network on TVs in NYC. Especially if Syracuse goes to the Big 10..
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
this
there are a lot of alums, but Rutgers is pretty irrelevant to most NYC media and people, for that matter.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 4, 2010 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
rutgers is gaining momentum
They averaged 49,000+ last year. They are getting more press coverage. Big profile games against Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan could be what they need to break out. But you’re right it is a pretty hard market to crack. The reason why the Big 10 network would invite a Rutgers is to get their channel on the basic package. Right now the Big 10 network is on a pay tier along with Fox sports.
it’s a shame that maximizing revenue has become the single driving force in college football.
Has become? I’m not sure that’s an actual development, as in…..it’s always been that way, it’s just more obvious now.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
True. I just find it more depressing as it gets more blatantly obvious
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
that's fairly clear in the background of the Rose Bowl too
but I think the magnitude of the dollars now, especially for state schools in an era of declining funding, is a lot more important.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 4, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
thank you for including a suitable poll option
If, and only if, the Pac-8 ends up as a division with a round robin, I hate this less than other Pac-120 ideas. The increasingly-irrelevant regular season “division” games will still seem interesting, and it looks like the Big Game could be played in November at the end of the “division round robin”, which is a slight improvement. Baseball will probably not look a lot different, since the Bears have been playing Big 8/SWC-type schools in nonconference play and no one seems to care much about a conference championship as opposed to making the CWS.
I even remember a heady time when there was a 20 team super conference, with a championship game and everything. It was called the Rose Bowl. But I welcome change and our new TV network overlords, so here’s to the Viagra Wonder Bread Pac-120 Championship Bowl Game in Pasadena brought to you by Allstate. This time it’s personal!
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
BCS Bowls
Regarding BCS bowls, ideally I would like each division to be guaranteed a BCS bowl berth, the winner of the Pac-8 goes to the Rose, while the winner of the Big-8 goes to the Fiesta (or the Cotton if it moves to the Cowboys stadium and gains BCS status). Ideally, as a Pac-10 fan, that is what I would want, though I don’t believe it will happen. A Pac-16, complete with teams that have filled 7 of the last 14 slots in the national title game, might hold enough clout to warrant this, but probably not since the BCS would like to maintain as much game flexibility as possible to ensure generating the most appealing possible match-ups. Furthermore, it would set a dangerous precedent other leagues would try to capitalize on (SEC and Big-10). My concern is not getting two BCS bids, as I would think that becomes a given (out of 16 teams, two are bound t be pretty darn good).
Therefore, if the Pac-16 retains only one guaranteed BCS bid (as is most likely), I would speculate that it is the Rose Bowl, and not some sort of rotation with the Fiesta. The Rose Bowl is frankly higher profile, and in a more attractrive destination, meaning the Big-XII south would be more willing to forego the Fiesta for a spot in the Rose, while I see no Pac-10 school willing to relinquish the Rose for the Fiesta.
Somewhat related
But my concern would be the current limit on two BCS bids per conference. Assuming the proposed scenario, it could certainly happen that 4 teams finish the regular season with 1 loss or better. (Two teams undefeated and two with one loss in the round robin, one team with one loss from the CCG.
How often that might happen is up for debate, but Texas and OU are elite programs, Oregon is exploring its potential, Washington could be on the road back, and of course there is the USC giant. Not to mention Cal, OkSt, UCLA, and OrSt. There are a lot of good teams with good coaches in this proposed set-up.
As a Texas alum and Austin resident, I think I have some perspective here that others may find valuable (or not).
A couple of points:
*Texas wants the Big 12 to stay together if financially possible. Why? Because they effectively rule it and don’t have to share as much of their revenue with other members as they would in the Pac 10 or Big 11. That said, $20 million a year guaranteed from the TV deal (with possibly/probable escalation upwards a la the Big 11 tv history) would be tough to walk away from. Only joining the Big 11 would come close financially.
*Texas would like A&M to stick with them but if push come to shove, they’ll cut ties with the Ags post haste. A misconception I noted on the Golden Nuggets thread is that many here seem tot think A&M is Texas’s main rival. That’s incorrect, Zero U is. A&M is Texas’s traditional whipping boy and didn’t become truly relevant until the 80’s and 90’s. They’ve faded away again as well and are considered something of an afterthought (albeit an annoying, inbred and stupid one) to us UT alums.
*Texas would like to be independent but its looking like its just not feasible. Not enough cash.
*Texas and Notre Dame are currently joined at the hip. There has been a lot of talk between the 2 school’s athletic departments and I think Texas is seriously considering the Big 11 but only if Notre Dame joins as well.
*Academically, Texas has been improving by leaps and bounds. They’ve spent a lot of money on professors in the past 15 years or so (including snagging a couple from Cal I believe). In my opinion, Texas will be at or close to on par with Cal and UCLA academically within 10 years. I think being affiliated with the Pac 10 is very attractive to them.
Something is going to happen as I think Colorado to the Pac 10 and Mizzou and Nebraska to the Big 11 are all but done deals IMO. I don’t think the Big 12 will be viable after 2011 so its just a question on where the remaining Big 12 Big Dogs go. And it all hinges on what Texas decides to do.
Just my 2 cents…
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
Texas in the SWC
Weren’t they sort of like the Yankees in the AL? In other words, they think of their rival as OU, but Tech and A&M think of them as their biggest rival? That’s always how I pictured it.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 4, 2010 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions
How about this one? Texas and Oklahoma are like Duke and UNC, and A&M is like Maryland.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Poltics will have a lot to do with any decision
Texas politicos will try and force the queersteers to take teams with them just like they did when they wanted to go it alone in the Big8. Okie politicos will not let OU go to a conference without Okie St. and the same holds true for Kansas and Kansas St. Iowa St. has already started their lobbying. They’ll get their congressmen and senators involved as well. No one wants to be left out.
And doesn’t the PAC 10 need a 10-0 vote to approve such a deal? I’d really be surprised if that happened without some severe arm twisting.
No one considers A&M a rival.
Rose Bowl dreams... *SIGH*
I would think that Cal has the best chance of making a Rose Bowl in the Pac-10 as it exists today, either via winning the conference outright or finishing 2nd and qualifying for a BCS bowl while the conference winner gets bumped up to the national championship.
I don’t think there is any way that Pac-8/Big-8 division winners could be “guaranteed” BCS slots, so most likely only the winner would get one ticket. And they would probably make some sort of deal to rotate the champion to the Rose and Fiesta bowls for a couple years before phasing that out to some other sort of configuration.
So Cal might win the Pac-8 division one year and then have to face UT or OU for a play-in game that may NOT be the Rose Bowl. Wow.
I’m a big fan of the current format where you play everyone in your conference and then winner take all. Seems like a much better way to determine a champion vs. divisional play where two teams play different schedules and then meet on a (sometimes) neutral field for a conference championship game. But the deep pockets that drive television don’t agree, so I would say Cal should hope that the Pac-10 makes the best deal possible for a super-conference format so we continue to have exposure. And this 16-team merger sounds like the best thing presented so far.
Look at it this way...
With this type of setup, whatever bowl Mackie whines about in the future wouldn’t have an impact on Cal going to Pasadena…
UFF DA! california golden blogs!
Think of all the opportunities to beat him, though!
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I was hesitant about the expansion, because I was concerned about mucking up the round robin and trading in a home game with USC at some point for a home game with Colorado.
But this plan, conditionally, seems better to me. We maintain most of the round robin, essentially trading the Arizona schools for new and fresh opponents. I mean a lot of people are saying “Why didn’t we get this team? Why didn’t we get that team?” But now we are getting new games each year with schools we rarely see. That seems interesting to me. And we still get to face the Arizonas from time to time.
Trading Arizona and ASU for cool Texas teams seems like a plus for me. It’s all rumor and innuendo at this time.
But my thought is that if the Pac10 didn’t know what was going to happen when they sent the invites, they wouldnt make a big public deal out of it. Maybe Im wrong, but youd think somebody woulda called ahead and figured it out!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Jun 4, 2010 7:16 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Trading Arizona and ASU for cool Texas teams seems like a plus for me.
This is pretty much what I like about it. Damnit, we agree.
me too
UofA and ASU haven’t been in that long anyway, and games against the semi-Big 8 schools would be interesting on a regular basis.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 4, 2010 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, trading the Arizona schools works for me.
What’s crazy about this whole thing, is that it’s very far-fetched, but has a lot of traditionalism about it. It brings back the Pac-8, and parts of the old SWC. It keeps a lot of what people like, while adding a crapload of TV money and conference game money.
This is easily the best expansion idea that’s been tossed around. Hopefully it can happen, but I’m not getting my hopes up yet (OK, I am getting my hopes up, but I’m trying not to).
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
i am so shocked right now.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Totally agree Twist
"It's on the ROOF, oh yeah, one hundred PROOF, oh yeah....."
by TKE Prytanis 79 on Jun 4, 2010 5:43 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Hmmm… man, you make a pretty good case. I do like the idea that we keep all our traditional rivalries and basically keeps the Pac-10 complete. And we’d still play the Arizonas every few years or so.
One thing that bums me out is that even if we beat USC and Oregon and whatnot, we’d still have to face Texas or Oklahoma to earn a conference championship. I suppose a divisional championship is still nice, but… and of course there’s the whole other discussion of bowl games… hmmm.
But you’re right, it is still interesting, and we do play some new teams. And to be fair, we probably challenge ourselves more playing new teams – but at the same time, there are new juggernauts we have to struggle to even compete with.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I think you have to imagine scenarios where even if we win the Pac-8 and lose the championship game because of the perceived strength of such a mega conference we would almost certainly be sending the championship winner to the NC every other year (ala SEC—see two loss LSU), which actually means in most year the “consolation prize” would be the Rose Bowl. NOT BAD AT ALL.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 6, 2010 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Avi, great work, I enjoyed reading your points. Minor quibble:
the dominant power east of the Mississippi,
Dallas Cowboys Stadium is too far west.I think you meant west and east, respectively?
As far as academics, I think Texas could hack it, but some of those other schools are fairly suspect — I’m looking at you, Oklahoma State!
Magellan shakes his head in disgust, Avi.
UFF DA! california golden blogs!
by Maisbikkja on Jun 4, 2010 7:53 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Gulf of Mexico
"It's on the ROOF, oh yeah, one hundred PROOF, oh yeah....."
by TKE Prytanis 79 on Jun 4, 2010 5:46 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Okie St chemistry is not going to cut it.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
are they really any worse that Oregon State or Arizona State
Arizona State is a running joke, and Oregon State is firmly entrenched in tier 3.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
I hope this happens because our conference needs the $$$ in order to be competitive in the tv market. More exposure via tv equals better national street cred and more of a chance to have on the field success translate into better rankings and better bowls.
I don’t like the trend towards super-conferences, but it’s already happened and it’s unlikely that you can put the genie back in the bottle now.
Firm-jawed and ready to extract the Poisonous Fangs of Communism
I like this plan if I get two huge concessions:
1) If this is a ‘two division of 8 teams’ situation, I think the division winner should solely be decided by record within the division round robin. If we want to play one or two games against the other division, just count them as required non-conference games. It’s insane that one team would have to play Texas while the other team gets Arizona St. That’s insanely unfair.
2) The winner of the ‘Pac-8’ gets to go to the Fiesta Bowl and the winner of the ‘Big-8’ gets to go to the Fiesta Bowl. The Championship game is just for national championship reasons. I don’t want Cal to finally beat USC and Oregon in the same year, crush Stanford, then lose the Rose Bowl because we had to play a stupid extra game against Texas.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
you could get the same result by:
1 keep the pac 10 as is
2 keep the Big 12 as is
3 agree to some hardwood challenge type out-of-conference games
4 have the winner of the Pac-10 and Big-12 play in the semi finals of the national championship tournament
5 agree to negotiate a tv deal together to make lots of money
and point four is kind of a bonus anyway. Point 5 seems to be the key element of the activity in any event.
I think this may be what the real negotiations amount to if key players get cold feet about expansion or blowing up the Big 12.
jh
Point 5 is the key. The money would come from the television network. Having both the states of California and Texas, is a terrific base from which to develop a network.
But I also see this as an opportunity for the Big-12 south teams to drop some dead weight (Baylor, Kansas St, Iowa St) making the network more lucrative for all. If the Big-12 is going to lose earners Missouri and Nebraska, the makers to takers ratio becomes skewed, and moving to a new conference enables them to drop the takers.
Yeah, which is why I find the relationship a little silly. Having a 16 team conference basically means finding a true champion isn’t the goal. The goal is to make as much money as possible on your way to crowning a pseudo champion.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
finding a true champion isn’t the goal. The goal is to make as much money as possible on your way to crowning a pseudo champion
…how long have you been watching college football?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
(I mean it jokingly, if that’s not clear, but yeah, I think that point is spot on, but can be applied very, very far into the past, too)
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I was just talking about the Pac-10, which does a great job of crowning an undisputed champion. Nationally, it’s a joke of course.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Yep, and the Pac-10 gets penalized for it. Trust me, I’m completely on board with doing things the right way. Unfortunately, nobody else in a decision making role is….
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Best conference realignment scenarios would be 12 teams
Round Robin is definitely the best way to do it. I think with 12 teams per conference you could still do a RR. The problem of course is logistics and money, but from a sheer determining a NC standpoint, 6 12-team RR conferences would be the best way. But won’t happen. This is probably second best.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
12-team RR means pretty much no non-conference games, then. Would you also institute a playoff from the champions of the 12-team leagues?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I like the idea a lot, because it doesn’t much upset the feeling of the Pac-10 for me, with all the teams I care about staying in the Pac-8. However, I think it would be the end of our Rose Bowl dreams. Forever. And that makes me sad (though it may be less painful to not even hope).
I agree…this seems like the probability of Cal playing in the Rose Bowl will substantially decrease. That is the sad and frustrating part.
However, won’t all this realignment force the BCS to reorganize or become irrelevant? Maybe that is the point of this whole exercise? For some bowls (e.g. Fiesta and Rose) to break away from BCS and re-negotiate/re-align with the “super conferences”.
The Rose Bowl cache has been spoiled by the BCS, and the Fiesta could not have been happy with last years lineup (TCU v BSt)
right now, we have to beat USC, Oregon, and Oregon State to win the Conference. and we are struggling just to do that. In this Super Pac-16 Conference, we beat all of them and we can only win the Division! Then we have to beat Texas and/or OU to win the Conference and get to the Rose Bowl.To me, that seems like we had just won the BCS Championship Game… but no, thats just to win the Conference.
But the game match-ups seem a lot more fun and interesting tho.
that's OK
I’m sure as they keep tweaking the BCS it will become ever more irrelevant.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 4, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
the rose bowl I mean
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 4, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
For some bowls (e.g. Fiesta and Rose) to break away from BCS and re-negotiate/re-align with the "super conferences".
That would actually be awesome. The rebel in me would love to stick it to the BCS and have the bowl games just do what they want because they can get awesome matchups and make their money.
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
God I hope this goes through
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
BTW, Avi, they’ve made these great things called airplanes to help one get from Point A to Point B.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
turkey, atomsareenough, and since1997 never told me about this?!??!?!?!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Non revenue athletes could lose a lot more money from the extra flights.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
But the revenue sports are going to make a lot more money to make up for it!
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not a fan of the idea
- Road to the Rose Bowl way too murky.
- What about all the other sports that don’t have the cash that b-ball and football do? Gets way too convoluted, and too expensive for those teams (travel-wise).
- Pac-16 basketball tournament?? Like someone said (was it Rags?), the Pac-10 tournament is basically pointless now, that huge 16-team tournament would be even more so.
- Academically sketchy. Texas, obviously, is no problem – great academics there. But Texas Tech? Oklahoma State? I dunno. But hey, I’m happy to be proven wrong if they’re academically bomb and I just don’t know it.
Of all the expansion ideas, the one that includes Colorado and Utah and forms a Pac-12 is by far the best one. Add to that the proposed Pac-12/Big-12 media collaboration, and it’s all good.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Is it a rising tide raises all boats sort of situation? If this brings tons of new cash into the schools, then maybe that cash will go to the non-revenue sports?
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Potentially, sure. it’s a question of how much money actually comes in. Would it be a huge amount more? How much of it would be used for continued expansion of monied programs? Will it actually trickle-down? Hard to say.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Have to disagree
That would be all well and good if the Big-12 didn’t dissolve. With these rumors and the money to be made that is looking more and more likely by the hour. If the Big-12 gets carved up and all we get is Colorado and Utah, then there has been a colossal failure that will impact the Pac-12’s competitiveness and revenue for decades.
I’m not a fan of just making moves to make money, but unfortunately in the NCAA you have to make money to stay relevant and to win. The Pac-10 is nearly irrelevant nationally now because of the way things have progressed. Staying in a holding pattern will only damage it’s future.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Realignment reflects a consolidation of power
This is a BOLD move by the Pac-10 and one I strongly endorse.
It’s clear that money, greed, fame, fortune, and BCS national championships are driving schools towards becoming more competitive. Everyone wants a slice of the pie that is only getting bigger and tastier (thank you Cable TV). One way or another this type of consolidation is going to happen. Why? Because people outside of a team’s hometown don’t give a rat’s butt about that team unless they are winning lots of games or are fun to watch/marketable (sometimes coinciding with city population—Georgia, sometimes with tradition—Nebraska).
This type of move makes ALL the teams in the Pac-10 marketable and relevant, which is a real boon not only for OSU, WSU and UA, but also for Cal which gets even more brownie points now (as does UCLA, Oregon, UW, Furd, & ASU). The only team this really hurts I think is USC (from a winning games and NCs standpoint). But they stand to get a LOT from a revenue standpoint. BIG bucks for USC when they play in Texas and OK (merch, recruits, etc).
What I find MOST fascinating??
This is the first step stone to a legitimate national champion (playoff or not). This is going to set in motion 16 team conferences (probably 4 majors) that will create a defacto mini playoff. We are only a small step away then from a 4 team playoff and then an 8 team playoff (to appease non-power conference D1 members—and congress who will flip out).
This will also move us one step closer to scheduling parity (the biggest mayhem causing statistical variable) and even out the stupidity that are the polls (and hopefully eventually abolish them).
So I am all for this only because it means progress. But I would be VERY cautious. This WILL NOT WORK TO THE PAC-10’s ADVANTAGE WITHOUT TEXAS!!!!!
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Since the championship game is now a +1, I think the Rose Bowl should belong to the Pac-8 Div/Expanded Big10 Div A, the Fiesta Bowl should belong to the Big-8 Div/Expanded Big10 Div B, and the Sugar Bowl and Orange Bowl, and Cotton Bowl (which should be made into an extra BCS game) should be given to an Expanded SEC, remnants of the Big East and ACC, and at-larges.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
No way the SEC and ACC go for that…TWO guaranteed big money games for everyone else? Now if you dissolve the Big East that may work.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
It’d be 3 games, if you add the Cotton Bowl…I was just looking at it though, and If you have 4 major conferences with 16 teams each (Say, SuperBigPac, Extra Big 11+5, Expanded SEC, and BigACCEast), that could work… But then I tried gaming it out and the most reasonable scenario left the BigACCEast conference 14 teams, making it by far the weakest in football, and Baylor, K-State, and Iowa State are left out entirely.
That could work though, if you gave 2 bids each to SuperBigPac, Extra Big 11+5, and Expanded SEC, and left 1 bid for the BigACCEast and 1 at-large. I think that would probably be pretty fair, too, unless the BigACCEast suddenly got a lot better.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I think if things went down quickly and Notre Dame didn’t jump on the bandwagon with the Big Televen+5 they could be left out in the cold and end up joining said BigACCEast, which would round it out. Also possibly that Rutgers stays put.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions
In my scenario, The big Televen+5 would get KU, Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, and WVU, and Rutgers would stay in the ACC/East. If ND joined the ACC/East, that would help matters.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
New York
I think Big 10 wants a New York market though, which most likely means Syracuse (how they think that is going to help is a whole other delusional fantasy of theirs).
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Syracuse is really a basketball school though, and I can’t really imagine them leaving the Big East for the Big Ten. There are some good posts over at the SBN ’Cuse blog from a while back weighing the arguments pro and con:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2009/12/15/1202040/five-reasons-syracuse-will-go-to
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2009/12/15/1201715/five-reasons-syracuse-wont-go-to
Also interesting:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2010/4/19/1430983/the-big-east-will-not-exist-in-2013
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Unbalanced Schedule
Problem with an unbalanced schedule, let’s say Cal and Stanford play the Pac 8 evenly but Cal draws Texas and Oklahoma while the Furd gets Colorado and Texas A&M. Not exactly fair. The current setup (in both Football and Basketball) ensures everyone plays everyone else an equal number of times and so the final result can’t help but be completely fair. Not so with an unbalanced schedule.
Simple solution
Divisional record = divisional champion. So, if Cal is in 1st place at 6-1 in the Pac-8 and ‘Furd is just behind at 5-2, it wouldn’t matter that Cal went 0-2 vs. the Big-8 division while ’Furd went 2-0, Cal would be the divisional champion, and would go to any conference championship game.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, its almost as if the conference record doesn’t matter, it is the divisional record that does. The non-divisional conference games are a glorified OOC series match-up reminiscent of the conference matchups they have in basketball. More importantly it should yield at least one or two great match-ups a year, which would then be broadcast over the Pac-16 network. Some may say what is the point if they don’t mean anything, but this is college football, and although every win may not matter, every loss certaiinly does. Plus, it’d be fun to have some material for the inevitable back and forth that would arise as to which division is better.
As you mentioned, it would matter from the perspective of getting better TV deals and sharing the revenue. Even if they don’t count in the division standings, those inter-division games would still generate some damn good ratings.
On the other hand, this could also be accomplished by the Pac-10 and Big 12 partnering on a joint TV network and agreeing to a sort of “non-conference series” similar to the basketball series. Could be that this will still happen even if the full-on merger doesn’t. At the very least, partnering on a cable TV deal makes sense.
I can think of two potential reasons to merge and not ally.
1) Allows the incoming Big-XII schools to drop the schools of Baylor, Kansas St and Iowa St from the pool of schools receiving revenues from the Pac-16 network, thus making it more lucrative. (Kansas by itself might be beneficial because of basketball, but in all likelihood the state government forces K-state to go with Kansas, and the state of Kansas doesn’t have enough people to make both schools beneficial to the television network)
2) They are allowed to stage, what would be a highyl watched and anticipated conference championship game. If the Pac-10 plus Colorado and Utah would net 10 million for the conference, I’d imagine the Southwest/Pac-8 conference title game would net at least 17 million.
Agreed — merging also just makes everything easier. You negotiate TV deals as one, schedule games as part of one conference, and so forth.
However, it’s also true that much of the desired goal could be accomplished without merging if the merge doesn’t happen. Hopefully the Pac-10 leadership is already thinking about the idea of a shared network if this doesn’t go through. (Probably they are.)
BTW
The Big10 also wants Texas:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bigtenexpansion
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
With A&M and Tech, that means Big 11 becomes 14 without expanding into NY. Who could they take with the last two spots to make it work? I would think that TX alums would want OK leaving one last spot. Maybe ND or Mizzou? Who gets screwed and pissed off in this scenario and do they have money? That’s what will end up forcing these decisions. (Which is why the Big-12 raid by the Pac-10 is so brilliant).
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Unequivocally NO
I do not like expansion. NOT UNTIL CAL GOES TO THE ROSE BOWL.
In other words, Go Bears!
Fortunately however, Mr. Scott won’t hold the rest of us hostage to fulfill the needs of Royrules.
UFF DA! california golden blogs!
It’s been a long time.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't know if you guys have come across this yet
But this piece from the guys over at Maze N Brew is hilarious, check it out!
UFF DA! california golden blogs!
by Maisbikkja on Jun 4, 2010 2:27 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
Oh man, that is gold.
The Iowa State bit cracked me up.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
hahaha REC'D
Make it green!!
This might need its own Fanshot.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
for real? I haz a sads. I posted that in the dbd and no cares, it gets posted here and is made green. I feel rejected, and am in need of a hug.
by chowder on Jun 4, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
FWIW, I was gonna reply to this post with “OLD”, because I’d already seen yours in the DBD and enjoyed it.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
OMFG
/Iowa State rolls up in motorized wheelchair, dressed in cheerleader uniform/
This line had me laughing inappropriately at work
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
How would basketball work?
Do you play old Pac 8 twice and the new kids once in division play?
Big East basketball scheduling is just a big mess where everyone plays everyone else randomly. I doubt the existing Pac-10 teams would stand for that (for example, Cal not playing UCLA in hoops?). More likely we’d get a divisional setup with double round-robin within the division, and then some rotated games with the opposite division.
Iowa State Issued a Letter to its Alums
We believe the Big 12 Conference is the perfect fit for Iowa State University. We are committed to our membership in the Big 12, and we are optimistic that the conference will remain intact. However, we also recognize that the long-term viability of the Big 12 Conference is not in our control – it is in the hands of just a few of our fellow member institutions.
Iowa State and several other members of the Big 12 Conference are especially vulnerable under some of the re-alignment scenarios currently circulating, particularly one involving expansion of the Pac-10. We are doing everything in our power to represent the best interests of Iowa State in these discussions, but we also are sensitive to the huge uncertainty that has been created and recognize that the situation could evolve in directions that are not aligned with our interests.
http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2010/06/04/ames_tribune/sports/doc4c0951e944459305138917.txt
Sounds rather gloomy for them.
Duh. Iowa State is practically a non-BCS team. including them has always been a glaring error in the Big-12 creation. But sorry if you don’t bring competition, tradition, fans, or money to the table you get uninvited.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions
It wasn’t so much that Iowa State was ‘invited’ as that they’ve been affiliated with some of these schools since Iowa State joined the old Big Eight (then the Big Six) in 1908.
Of course, in all that time, they’ve never won an outright conference title, and they’ve only shared it twice (with Nebraska in 1911-12).
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
How does this look?
SuperBigPac
California
USC
Oregon
Oregon State
Arizona
Arizona State
Washington
Washington State
UCLA
Stanfurd
Texas
Oklahoma
Texas Tech
Texas A&M
Oklahoma State
Colorado
Big11+5
Iowa
Penn State
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Illinois
Indiana
Wisconsin
Purdue
Northwestern
Minnesota
Kansas
Nebraska
Missouri
West Virginia
Pittsburgh
SEC Plus
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Arkansas
Mississippi
Alabama
LSU
Auburn
Vanderbilt
Kentucky
South Carolina
Mississippi State
Georgia Tech
Kansas State
Cincinnati
Louisville
BigACCEast
Clemson
Boston College
Florida State
Wake Forest
NC State
Maryland
Duke
Virginia
Virginia Tech
North Carolina
Syracuse
Connecticut
Rutgers
South Florida
Notre Dame
Miami
Originally I had Miami in the SEC, and had left Notre Dame and K-state out altogether, and BigACCEast was a 14-team conference, but this iteration includes both ND and KSU. The only teams left out are Baylor and Iowa State.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
Yeah, I’d guess so. Originally I had the BigACCEast at 1 bid and 14 teams, but with 16 teams and Notre Dame, they’d have to have 2. We’d probably need to upgrade the Cotton Bowl to BCS status so that there are enough at-larges.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
The SEC is not interested in expanding.
They’re top dog and they like the way they have it.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
You think they’d stand pat with 12 teams if there were 2 other 16-team mega conferences, and some good ACC/Big East schools ripe for the plucking?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
They have the best TV contracts and earn the biggest TV revenues. No conference expansion will change that.
I’d be very surprised if the SEC decides to expand. The super conferences would really have to alter the dynamic of who earns BCS title bids and who gets the best TV deals before the conference decides to change things up.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Would they have the biggest/best contracts and revenues in the face of SuperBigPac and Big11+5, though?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Is the SuperBigPac or Big11+5 going to have a 15 year, 3 billion dollar deal with ESPN & CBS?
Even the Big 10 makes only $22 million in TV revenue, barely a tenth of what the SEC gets from TV rights.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm, actually, that doesn’t sound right. I thought the Big 10 and SEC were on a more level playing field.
But definitely the SEC would still edge out the SuperBigPac with the new contracts.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions
The article says $2 billion. That translates into about $11M/year per school per year.
According to this article, a Big Ten school like Illinois got $6.5M last year from the Big Ten network, and $14.9M total from TV. Maybe when you add “other TV” in, the average SEC school will be over $15M, but it doesn’t look like an order of magnitude or anything.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, according to Wilner of all people, the average SEC school got $17.3M last year, but I think that includes EVERYTHING, includes bowls and stuff. Which is actually less than the $19.9M that Illinois got.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
If this actually happens as the Pac10 hopes, itll force the SEC to do something. The Pac10 is being REALLY aggressive here. I mean REALLY aggressive. The SEC could not sit back and watch this and do nothing.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Why? The SEC is in a comfortable position with their mega deals with ESPN & CBS and they keep on earning BCS title bids. Expansion isn’t going to change the demand for SEC football, nor its ability to produce championship contenders. In their minds, they’re the superconference.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Itll be a domino effect. If this happens, the BIgX will pick up some schools, the Big East will pick up some schools. I think itll force the SEC to re-evaluate what is going on and see if any changes are necessary. They want to be #1, right? Their egos FORCE them to be #1 essentially. They are the SEC! Can they just sit back and do nothing while all the other conferences around them improve substantially?
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
That is the opposite of everything that I read, which is that they want Florida State and Miami, and want them quite badly. The Big 10 currently dwarfs the SEC in payout/school.
Hmm. Link?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 4, 2010 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Expanding the SEC and keeping Clemson in the ACC
makes zero sense. Clemson would easily be on the of the SEC’s targets for expansion. Culturally, they’re a much better fit in the SEC than Louisville or certainly Cincy would be. There’s no reason the SEC would take them over Clemson. Swap Clemson with Louisville, West Virginia with Cincy. That makes a lot more sense.
Also, the SEC probably has zero interest in expanding, but if push came to shove, that’s how I see them approaching it.
Good point about Clemson. I was trying to keep WVU-Pitt together to keep the Backyard Brawl in conference.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 5, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
OMFG
I don’t see the SEC taking Cincinnati. Louisville is also a stretch, the only motivation the SEC has in expanding is increasing it’s market. I can’t see how GT, KSU, Cincinnati and Louisville add market value. GT only marginally if at all. Also from what I hear KU wants KSU with it. Nebraska and Mizzou to the SEC might be intriguing. Arkansas is practically already up in Missouri’s butt
Cincinnati and Louisville are pretty big cities. They’d add more than WVU would, for example. GT is located inAtlanta, plus they already have a rivalry with Georgia. I’d originally had Miami slated for the SEC, which I can pretty easily imagine… but seriously, who could the SEC realistically add that would fit AND expand their market?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
but seriously, who could the SEC realistically add that would fit AND expand their market?
Exactly.
Cinci is a big city in an expanded market. But they already have presence in Kentucky and in Atlanta. I don’t see how slicing up the pie with more pieces without making it bigger benefits the SEC. They’d have to poach from the ACC in markets where they have no presence. That means perhaps going as far north as Maryland/Virginia, etc
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 4, 2010 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
The SEC commissioner has said the SEC already has the most widely distributed television deal in the country, therefore they don’t need to expand to new tv networks (espn effectively gave them a national tv deal), rather they are interested in creating the best product to sell. That means grabbing the best teams that are available.
Yeah, that’s sorta what I was thinking.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, you can shuffle it around a bit, maybe put Virginia/Va Tech in the SEC and leave Louisville/Cincinnati in the BigACCEast. Maybe sub out Miami for Ga Tech or something. I think the SEC, considering that they’re already in good shape, would be happy consolidating their markets and creating good matchups.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 4, 2010 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
GA Tech used to be part of the SEC
They’d be part of any equation that involved the SEC expanding. Same with Clemson. Those would be the first two schools the SEC went after. The SEC really could care less about expanding their geographic footprint, because as someone mentioned, they effectively have a national TV agreement. All they’d be looking for is cultural fit if they’re even remotely interested in expansion.
Louisville and Cincy in the SEC makes zero sense. Not happening.
I figured Louisville might make some sense, considering its rivalry with Kentucky. I probably should’ve picked Ga Tech and/or Clemson before Cincy though, you’re right.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 5, 2010 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Adding Rose Bowl Champions
Texas and OU bring in 3 Rose Bowl Championships.
Great to see you posting here HKMHRNS#1. Even though your handle leads me to believe you are a Texas fan, we won’t hold that against you here. Hope to see you posting around here more often HKMN!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Even though your handle leads me to believe you are a Texas fan, we won’t hold that against you here.
He’s a liar. Yes we will. How do you feel about the University of Richmond, though?
by Missing Barry on Jun 4, 2010 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You’re just jealous because we won a D1 Football National Championship recently!
by Missing Barry on Jun 5, 2010 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Thoughts from a Colorado fan
Friend of mine at CU had this to say:
Moving to the Pac10 “East” in the 6 team addition would be rough for us, now we’ve effectively moved to the Big 12 South, plus the Arizona schools. Instead of stepping out of the shadow of schools like Texas, we’re getting even closer. It might force our athletics to raise their standards, but I don’t have confidence that we could consistently compete in that Division.
I’ve got all sorts of problems with this idea
Hadn’t thought about this from CU’s point of view – they pretty much get screwed in this deal, competition-wise. If all the other schools agree to it, they’d probably have no choice but to go along or get left behind, but for them the road only gets tougher in this scenario.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Isnt Boise State leaving the WAC for the MWC? That’ll open up a spot for Colorado right there! Go Buffs! Beat Louisiana Tech!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
My co-worker in the cubicle right next to me is a CU alum, and we talked about it and basically agreed that CU would get pretty much screwed, except for the more money and occasional West Coast games part.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 5, 2010 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
