It’s official: Pac-12 here we come!
(Written by kencraw)
Well, ironically, the “Pac-12” part isn’t official, no new name has been officially chosen, but the fact that the conference will have 12 teams, the traditional 10 plus Colorado (announced last week) and Utah (announced officially today), is official.
Other than that, we don’t know a whole lot yet.
One thing we do know is that the conference HAS NOT decided on how to split the divisions. This is a bit of a surprise considering the information that had Colorado AD indicating they had been promised that they’d be part of the Pac-12 South with the AZ and southern Cal schools. However, from what I’m reading, people have been over-stating the confidence of that fact.
I suspect this is a bit of the telephone game. Larry Scott indicated to the Colorado AD something like “he’ll push for it” or “it’s the most likely case” and the Colorado AD told his contacts that “it’s what I wanted and they are agreeable” and that got morphed into “Colorado was guaranteed it”. Or some similar scenario. Since there’s no official quote from either the Colorado AD or Scott, it’s hard to take those indications as gospel.
We also don’t know for sure there will be a conference championship game (although there will be) or whether the Pac-10 will setup their own TV network (I’d say it’s got a 70% likelihood). Additionally we don’t know if there will be 8 or 9 conference games. We also don’t know what year Colorado will be joining, although it’ll either be 2011 or 2012.
What we do know is that Utah will join in 2011, and that indicates that it’s likely that there will be an attempt to have Colorado come at the same time, however the Big-12 leaving early penalty might impact the decision away from what the Pac-12 would like.
I think I’ve said my peace on what I think is best for the conference, and if Cal can get in the South, my mind will rest easy with what has happened, even if I’m not a big proponent of it. We’ve gained two quality programs and although I’m no big fan of it, the benefits of a conference championship game are hard to ignore. However, if we end up in the North, I’ll be grumbling about it for a long time to come.
More, including possible extended grumbling, to come… (I’m sure)
June 18th, 2010 at 8:27 am
Unless there is a zipper, we’ll be in the North. I like the zipper, it’s a good idea because you’ve guarenteed each team the same 6 games every season, and round robin of the other 6 schools rotating every three years.
Comeon Larry Scott, keep on adding: UTEP, NM, MI and KS! Let’s keep the dream alive!
June 21st, 2010 at 9:14 am
Don’t assume Cal/Stanford will be in the North. USC and UCLA have a lot of influence. Back in ’78 (when Ken and Ken’s brother were very young), USC was the force to add AZ and AZ St to the Pac 8. In fact, they said we’re never going to Pullman or Corvallis if the Pac 8 does not expand.
USC got its way then, and they will now.
The USC alumni count on that San Francisco trip EVERY year. Also, USC has played Cal more than any other team and value northern California recruiting (De La Salle). And UCLA, they want to play Cal every year — the Cal game almost fills up the Rose Bowl.
I see USC and UCLA rallying to stay with the Bay Area schools — and they have the most influence. I don’t think Colorado can trump the four California schools — the power and money of the Pac 10.
June 21st, 2010 at 9:23 am
When I heard that nothing was decided yet on the split, I saw that as a good sign for Cal in the south. The most likely scenario where Cal would be in the North was if it was a necessary concession to get Colorado to join. Since it wasn’t, it’ll allow time for the traditional power brokers in the conference to make sure the 4 California schools stay together.
Said another way: Fast decisions = bad. Slow decisions = good.
Going back to the Pac-10 expansion, if I remember correctly, other than one’s rival the only teams that were guaranteed to play each other every year were the California teams (or was there a similar Northwest agreement to ensure UW and Oregon played each other)?