Worst case scenarios
(Written by kencraw)
Well, it appears my worst fears have come to pass. Texas has declined the offer to join the Pac-10, thereby killing any chance of any other major Big-12 team from heading our way either. That leaves 3 likely possibilities:
- Pac-11: The “default” answer at this point is that nothing else happens, leaving the Pac-10 with 11 teams now that Colorado has officially joined.
- Pac-12 and Cal in South: The Pac-12 picks up one other team, everyone is assuming it’ll be Utah, but there are some other possibilities that could be pursued, particularly if Utah turns us down. In either case, the assumption is that the conference will be split north/south and Cal and Stanford/the new two with Colorado are the border teams. For this scenario, we’ll assume Cal and Stanford end up in the South and the new two end up in the North.
- Pac-12 and Cal in the North: Same as above but Cal and Stanford end up in the North and the new two end up in the South.
In my opinion, all three of these are a downgrade over what the conference has now, and only option #3 is anything but a disaster.
For what it is worth, both Denver and Salt Lake are at higher latitudes than Cal and Stanford, although they’re admittedly close (Berkeley is just south of latitude 38, Stanford is just north of lat 37 and Denver and SLC are north of 39 and 40 degrees respectively. To define close, by comparison Portland, Oregon is at 45 and LA is at 34). But as we all implicitly know, latitudes are likely to be one of the last things to decide the split up.
Here’s what I see as the “storyline”. When the teams met for their annual conference, the question of expansion came up and both the Pac-16 and Pac-12 were discussed. In the end both were approved. I’m absolutely confident that both Cal and Stanford were very clear that for the Pac-12 situation that they wanted to be in the South with USC and UCLA. The only question is whether Larry Scott talked them out of it. His point of course would be that we’d be far more likely to attract new teams if we paired them with USC and UCLA.
What’s the answer to whether Larry Scott talked them out of it? Nobody knows for sure, but the Colorado fans seem to think that they’d be paired with USC and UCLA. However, that could easily just be their hopes influencing their thoughts as much as any real info.
It also could be that no promises were made to Colorado, meaning they’d be put in the North if possible, but Larry Scott is keeping the USC/UCLA pairing in his back pocket for negotiations with Utah or whichever team makes team number 12. It might be that Colorado wasn’t insistent, but the next team will be.
So it’s very possible that the answer isn’t even known by insiders like Scott.
In either case, the Pac-11 stinks, stinks, stinks like replacing a toilet with a failed wax seal. Colorado by itself just isn’t worth the lost symmetry and all that made the Pac-10 awesome and we don’t gain anything meaningful like a conference championship game or a notably easier schedule. While the Pac-12 offers something more, a conference championship game and not having to play our difficult full round-robin, being paired with the north will stink worse than the Pac-11.
The north will get less respect and it’ll actually be the more difficult division, particularly if the UW rebound continues apace and UCLA can’t put it together. Plus we’ll lose out on our yearly games versus USC and UCLA. Sure the other teams don’t care about that as much as we do, but there’s no other way to look at it than Cal and Stanford are getting the shortest straw of the group.
Put Cal in the south and it’s closer to an equal situation as the current setup. Obviously we gain a fair amount in the conference championship game and the TV revenue upsides, but I like the round-robin myself. There’s ups and downs to either equation.
But think about this: What’s clear is that neither the north nor the south really want these two new teams. They both want Cal and Stanford. What does it mean when nobody wants the two teams that are supposedly brought in to improve the conference? Doesn’t that say something about whether this is inherently a good deal?
In any case, let’s just hope that scenario #3 works out because everything else is a significant downgrade from where I sit.
June 15th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I’d blame Justin Forsett, but that’s just too easy.
I know we welcomed Colorado to the Pac-10, but why can’t we kick them out? It’s almost worth the $10 million that they’d have to pay the formerly Big 12 to send them right back.
June 15th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
What do you think of Jon Wilner’s idea of the “zipper?” Where the two rivals are split into seperate divisions. That way we play the 5 teams in our division, and 4 from the other division with one being the rival.
For sake of argument make it:
UW,UO,Cal,UCLA,UA,Colorado
WSU,OSU,Stan,U$C,ASU,Utah
We’d play all in our division, Stanfurd and 3 others.
I think this makes more sense because that way every team travels to So. Cal at least once a year. If you move the northwest schools out of So. Cal they lose out on all of those recruits.
June 15th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Nick, the zipper is not the worst idea Wilner’s ever had (now THAT would be an action packed top-10 list), but I’ve heard no word indicating anyone is thinking that way. If I had to list my priority ranking, it would go like this:
#1 North/South w/ Cal in south
#2 Zipper
#3 North/South w/ Cal in North
Oh, and for the zipper, what you have is exactly the zipper I’d like, minus I’d like to substitute ASU for UA in our division. If we were going by geography, the zipper would be this:
West:
UW
OSU
Utah
Cal
UCLA
ASU
East:
WSU
Oregon
CU
Stanford
USC
UA
And yes, Cal is west of Stanford, but I’d be OK with that one too.
June 15th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Ken, with 8 conference games likely each team would play three from the other division, so an LA team is likely to happen every year. Is there any way that Cal already has something in place to play the LA schools every year or at least UCLA?
June 15th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Yes, that is likely, no matter what the system, that we’d get to play one of them every season. But I’m kinda fond of playing both of them every season. I go back and forth on this, but at this juncture I’d rather play USC every year than UCLA. That could change by the next time someone comments.
June 15th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Under no scenario are the additions of Colorado and Utah worthy of ruining the simplicity, symmetry, and logic of the current round-robin format. I wasn’t necessarily supportive of the Pac 16 as proposed, but I understood that it made sense from a conference & cash money perspective–enough sense that I wouldn’t complain about the change. But I’m hard pressed to justify changing things to account for the addition of these two teams. I guess an argument could be made regarding conference championship game TV money, but it’s not really going to sway me.
I think Texas made Larry Scott look like a chump and now our conference will be less because of it.
June 15th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
The problem with keeping the CA teams together was the problem with the Big 12 North no one outside of the Big 12 cared. No one will care about the Northwest schools and the 2 new teams. I love the Pac 10 and I almost don’t care who wins that division.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:30 am
I think we should still totally go for 16 teams, and rub it in Texas and the ten team Big 12’s face. Let’s be honest, that sweatheart deal they did is great for Texas, but terrible for the conference in the longrun.
I mean if the future of college athletics is the 16 team super conference, let’s just invite some other people to the party. Here are the 5 schools I propose:
– University of Kansas – I mostly want them for basketball, they’re Colorado’s new rival (as their old rival was Nebraska). We’d pick up the valuable Kansas City Market, and would give us a Raiders/Broncos/Chiefs thing.
– University of New Mexico – They’re our bridge state. We’re already in AZ, and if we pick up that territory, we’re doing better than most presidental candidates.
– University of Texas El-Paso – They’re New Mexico’s longtime rival. And it gets us into the Great State of Texas (GSoT). Plus if this works out, it’ll be salt in Austin’s wounds that UTEP scooped them.
– New Mexico State – no one really cares about them, but they’re rivals with both UNM and UTEP. They’re kind of like Wazoo like that.
– University of Nevada Reno – They go to a crap bowl game like every year. That’s kind of the reason we let the Arizona schools in.
Then we divide the conference up into these two sub-conferences:
– Pac-8: WA, OR, CA
– Wild West: AZ, NM, UTEP, KA, CO, NV
The great thing about it is that all those schools (aside from Kansas) would be easy pickings and wouldn’t spurn us. If Kansas was a jerk, we just invite Utah instead and act like we never invited Kansas in the first place. Sure, for the first couple of decades, the Pac-8 would just own the Wild West, but by say 2030 or so, if we do our work in cultivating them and bringing them up to our standard (like we did with the AZ schools), it’ll totally be worth it. Trust me.
Even Justin Forsett would think this is a great idea.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:43 am
I would also be willing to take Hawai’i instead of Nevada.
Let’s be honest, we all need more excuses to go there.
June 16th, 2010 at 9:53 am
It’s not the worst idea Bro, but you lost me on New Mexico State and UN-Reno. New Mexico has had some success over the years, but NMSU has sucked for all eternity and that’s even in the WAC and not a BCS conference. UNR has come a long way, but one just can add too many non-BCS quality teams and make your BCS conference credible.
Yes, Hawaii as a swap for UNR would help, but why wouldn’t we take Utah before NMSU?
that would leave the 8 as:
Full-BCS:
Arizona
ASU
Kansas
Colorado
BCS quality:
Utah
Low-end BCS quality:
Hawaii
UTEP
New Mexico
Another team to consider is TCU, although that violates the Pac-10 rule on no religions schools. If we would drop that rule, both BYU and TCU would really round out the list of possible teams.
In either case, it feels a little on the weak side no matter what we do there and I’d like to see at least 5 established BCS conference teams in the division, plus Utah, so that we’re only adding two lower quality teams. That would be pretty credible.
FWIW, I don’t see Kansas taking us up on the offer.
June 16th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
What you’re missing is that with those teams joining the Pac-10, they become established BCS conference teams. Aside from NMSU, they all regularly go to bowl games which is not something people in Inglewood, Tuscon or Pullman can say.
The key in my mind is to bring “rivarlies” into the conference. I mean let’s be honest, aside from your rival leaving collegiant athletics altogether, you’d rather be in a conference that features them. That’s why NMSU gets the nod over Utah in my book. We’re not bringing any of Utah’s rivals into our club, so what loyalty do they have to us once we’ve given them that street cred?
The only reason to add Hawai’i is that everyone likes going to Hawai’i. If I was a recruit deciding between USC and Texas, and USC said “oh and by the way, we go to Hawai’i every other year” I’d probably go with USC even with the bowl ban just for the free trip. Plus isn’t there that Hawai’i exemption where teams are allowed to schedule an extra game a season, as long as it’s in Hawai’i? That’s more games, and more money. And people like money. If Hawai’i was a Pac-10 school, they’d do a LOT better at recruiting, and they’d get a LOT more respect.
June 16th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I’m not sure about this, but I think the Hawaii extra game rule only applies to non-conference games.
June 17th, 2010 at 8:53 am
I agree that Texas blew it for the other OK/TX schools. The Longhorns got a good deal, but Tech, A&M, OK & OK State got hosed. The ten team conference hurt all the teams except Texas.
I also agree that a 16 team conf is the future. TCU is my first pick because it brings in the Dallas TV market. Kansas is great, but that will require bringing in K-State. If the Pac 10 gets Kansas, then Missouri should be easy. This brings in the St. Louis market. So those are my four teams: Kansas, K-State, TCU and Missouri.
Let’s destroy the not-so-Big 12.
June 17th, 2010 at 10:13 am
I like that set of four Rick. Unfortunately that ‘C’ in TCU is apparently a big no-no for our beloved Pac-10.
That said, one argument for leaving those midwesterners alone is that there’s some sort of cosmic justice in the fact that the Big-10 has 12 teams and the Big-12 has 10 teams. BWAHAHAHAHA!