Pac-10 near consensus on new divisions

#3
#3
droski said:
not having the california schools together is complete and utter garbage.
Click to expand...

- look at the big 12: texas was allowed to run the show, everyone else in the conference resented them for it, and the conference fell apart
- it's fair to give every team in the conference "access" to california for recruiting
- since they're going to play 9 conference games, each team will have 5 division games, 2 annual crossover rivals, and 2 rotating crossover games - so all the california teams will still get to play all the other california teams every season
- by putting them in separate divisions, it's possible to have 2 california teams against each other in the pac12 championship game

imo, it's a smart move to listen to the other schools in the conference rather than pandering to the fans of the california schools
 
#4
#4
so you are giving Cal and Stanford a far harder road to the championship (since they could have to play the regurally strong so cal schools twice in a season to win the pac-10), oregon and washington far easier (since they will play usc and ucla less and only play both 1 out of 3 years), all so that oregon and washington get better recruiting? With 4 pac-10 schools they'll get plenty of games against california teams if they put all the california schools together. as for pandering to the california schools the 4 california schools are the core of the pac-10. they started the pac-10. USC has played cal and stanford longer than they have played ucla.
 
#5
#5
droski said:
so you are giving Cal and Stanford a far harder road to the championship (since they could have to play the regurally strong so cal schools twice in a season to win the pac-10), oregon and washington far easier (since they will play usc and ucla less and only play both 1 out of 3 years), all so that oregon and washington get better recruiting? With 4 pac-10 schools they'll get plenty of games against california teams if they put all the california schools together. as for pandering to the california schools the 4 california schools are the core of the pac-10. they started the pac-10. USC has played cal and stanford longer than they have played ucla.
Click to expand...
Actually, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State and Cal were the original members of the PCC which was essentially the direct precursor of the AAWU/Pac-8.

And putting all the California schools in one division would be a huge long-term competitive disadvantage for the north. It would probably lead to the same result as the Big 12; it would likely mean the end of the conference in the long term.
 
#6
#6
milohimself said:
Actually, Washington, Oregon, Oregon State and Cal were the original members of the PCC which was essentially the direct precursor of the AAWU/Pac-8.

And putting all the California schools in one division would be a huge long-term competitive disadvantage for the north. It would probably lead to the same result as the Big 12; it would likely mean the end of the conference in the long term.
Click to expand...

how would it be any more of a competitive disadvantage then it was before we expanded to 9 conference games? washington seemed to do just fine not playing usc and ucla every year. and how is playing cal and stanford every year going to help southern california recruiting exactly? in reality by doing this you play USC and UCLA LESS than you would before since they'll be playing their division PLUS cal and stanford every year.
 
#8
#8
droski said:
so you are giving Cal and Stanford a far harder road to the championship (since they could have to play the regurally strong so cal schools twice in a season to win the pac-10), oregon and washington far easier (since they will play usc and ucla less and only play both 1 out of 3 years), all so that oregon and washington get better recruiting? With 4 pac-10 schools they'll get plenty of games against california teams if they put all the california schools together. as for pandering to the california schools the 4 california schools are the core of the pac-10. they started the pac-10. USC has played cal and stanford longer than they have played ucla.
Click to expand...
Please tell me you are not trying pass UCLA, who has been good about twice in the last 20 years, as a strong program.
 
#9
#9
hatvol96 said:
Please tell me you are not trying pass UCLA, who has been good about twice in the last 20 years, as a strong program.
Click to expand...

They've won the pac-10 more times than any program, but USC. The #1 factor in recruiting by far is location. It's highly likely that the #1 team in the pac-10 at any given time will be either ucla or usc (obviously far more likely to be usc for a lot of reasons). I imagine sooner or later ucla will make a decent hire and at least challenge for pac-10 championships. If you are looking at a 20+ year timeframe there is no question the winners of this are washington and oregon and the big losers are cal and stanford.
 
#10
#10
droski said:
They've won the pac-10 more times than any program, but USC. The #1 factor in recruiting by far is location. It's highly likely that the #1 team in the pac-10 at any given time will be either ucla or usc (obviously far more likely to be usc for a lot of reasons). I imagine sooner or later ucla will make a decent hire and at least challenge for pac-10 championships. If you are looking at a 20+ year timeframe there is no question the winners of this are washington and oregon and the big losers are cal and stanford.
Click to expand...
Notre Dame has a bunch of National titles. The past is over, just like UCLA's program. They're meaningless.
 
#11
#11
hatvol96 said:
Notre Dame has a bunch of National titles. The past is over, just like UCLA's program. They're meaningless.
Click to expand...

I bet kelly will have ND in bcs bowls before long, but that is another conversation.

UCLA is still in LA and LA will still be the center of west coast recruiting for years to come and they will continue to benefit from it. They've had a lot of nfl players over the years btw. Of course only ucla would be stupid enough to hire someone like slick rick that has ran two other proud programs into the ground.
 
#13
#13
Then it's an institutional problem with UCLA if they're not good at football. They simply can't or won't hire a good staff to win.

Troy Aikman ain't walkin through that door.

Stanford is going to go right back to where they were once Harbaugh leaves. You've said it yourself, droski, that the Farm refuses to pay top dollar for a football coach and basically places little to no value on having a successful football program.

I don't know how long Tedford will be at Cal and what the long term prospects of that program are.

If there's any BCS program I would feel comfortable saying they are going to be bad forever, it's Washington State. Who knows if Washington can ever compete for another national title.

Oregon State performing at their absolute best is a perennial 8-4 type of program, and that's where Mike Riley has them now. It appears the folks in Corvallis are ready to give him the lifetime contract any season now, and he's a perfect fit. But should he get fired or leave, OSU will suck.

The Ducks position as a so-called "national power" is precarious right now, no word on how long they'll be in power.

Bottom line, based on history, you swap Cal/Stanford for Utah/Colorado between the divisions, and the North is basically dead meat in the long term. Depending on what happens with the TV contracts, I guaran-damn-tee it would mean the death of the Pac-10, not unlike what is about to happen to the Big XII.
 
#14
#14
if you think cal and stanford will suck in the future why would having utah and colorado in your division kill the north?
 
#15
#15
Colorado is going to suck as much in the Pac-12 as they have in the Big XII.

Utah being a top-15 ish program for the better part of the last decade has been more a function of having some A-list coaches in Urban Meyer and Kyle Wittingham. They are typically not much more than a .500+ish program the rest of the time.

In the new conference, the California and Arizona schools have the biggest natural recruiting advantages. You can't put them all in the same division.
 
#17
#17
The state of Arizona produces a touch more HS talent than Washington on an annual basis and has proximity to California and Texas.
 
#18
#18
Fine then put them in the north division. seperating the california schools is idiocy.
 
#19
#19
I liked the "zipper" idea better.

And yeah, the California schools have developed solid rivalries between all four, but whichever division gets all four is simply going to have too much power over the other division.
 
#20
#20
zipper idea is certainly superiot to this idiocy. the california schools already have the power (tv rights etc) and will continue no matter where they are. and they want to be together. don't be surprised if it still happens anyway.
 
#22
#22
I don't see anything wrong with this division compared to any others, eventually people are gonna play some football.
 
#23
#23
will5 said:
I don't see anything wrong with this division compared to any others, eventually people are gonna play some football.
Click to expand...

Use the Big XII as a precautionary tale. Uneven divisional splits and TV contracts are going to lead to the dissolution of that conference. These things matter.
 
#24
#24
milohimself said:
Use the Big XII as a precautionary tale. Uneven divisional splits and TV contracts are going to lead to the dissolution of that conference. These things matter.
Click to expand...

i really dont' understand how it's uneven since all the northwest schools have both been more recently successful than stanford and cal. even WSU won the pac-10 in 2001. i dont' see any noticable difference between colorado and utah and ua and asu either.
 
#25
#25
Split the Cali schools up. Don't have much problem with that.

Could be worse. You could have the UF, FSU, UM situation.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top