SI’s Stewart Mandel outlines his thoughts on how the Pac-10 and Big Ten (names subject to change) will form their divisions once they reach full 12-team strength.
He brings up an interesting (and probably fatal) flaw in the “zipper” model proposed by some for the Pac-10. Given the history of the league (such as last year’s Civil War game, or previous USC/UCLA matches), putting rivals in opposite divisions and then pitting them against each other at the end of the regular season could set up replay games one week later for the conference championship.
Meanwhile, he makes the case that, despite being the Big Ten’s easternmost team, Penn State may end up in the West division.
Of course, this is all going to be moot in a few years when Texas and the Seven Nine Dwarves fall apart, the Pac-10 and Big Ten become 16-team superconferences, and we have to re-align all over again.
Slotting Penn State in the West decision would drive me nuts; just switch them with Northwestern and ignore the slight imbalance.
As for the Pac-12 alignment, I am okay with the proposed split, but I want the rivalries with Stanford and Cal preserved such that USC still has the weekender.
[The “zipper” plan is] a sensible idea, and it would solve the Northwest/L.A. dilemma
This isn’t really true, though. Take Washington. Let’s put the Huskies in the same “zipper” division as USC, and the opposite division from UCLA. So, you play the Trojans every year… but that game is only IN Los Angeles every oher year.
Meanwhile, how often would the Huskies visit UCLA? Well, if we assume an eight-game schedule, with Wazzu are your guaranteed cross-division game, you play 2 of the other 5 cross-division teams each year. That means it takes five years to complete a home-and-home with each team. So you’d get 7 games in L.A. every 10 years (5 at USC, 2 at UCLA).
What about a nine-game schedule? That makes the math a bit harder. You play 3 of the other 5 cross-division teams each year, so it takes three years plus one game to complete a home-and-home. Put another way, over the course of 10 years, you’d play 30 games against those five cross-division teams, 6 against each team — 3 home, 3 away. So that’s 8 games in L.A. every 10 years (5 at USC, 3 at UCLA). FWIW, you’d also get 8 games in the Bay Area every 10 years.
Compare that to a nine-game, North/South setup. With four cross-division games and no annual cross-division rival, you would complete a home-and-home circuit of the other division in just three years… which means you’re in L.A. two out of every three years. So that’s, uh, 6.6667 games in L.A. every 10 years. 6.66667 is fewer than 8, granted, but we’re talking about a difference of four games every three decades. Point is, it’s not like the zipper division means you’re always visiting L.A. and the North/South setup means you never getto go.
And of course, you get 10 games in the Bay Area every 10 years under the North/South scenario, for a total of 16.6667 games in California (versus 16 in the 9-game zipper scenario).
I am okay with the proposed split, but I want the rivalries with Stanford and Cal preserved such that USC still has the weekender.
This is impossible. You can’t “preserve” the weekender as an annual event under the proposed split. Think it through, do the math, play with the schedules — it just can’t work, not without creating far greater absurdities than Penn State in the Big Ten/Twelve West Division, and REALLY screwing the Northwest schools in the process. You’d have to give each team TWO guaranteed intradivision “rivals,” which would reduce the number of “non-rivalry” intradivision games to 2 per year. This would completely screw the Northwest schools, unless perhaps one of them is lucky enough to be designated as a “rival” of UCLA (but UCLA would presumably want Cal and Stanford as its “rivals” too), in which case only three out of the four Northwestern schools would be screwed.
Meanwhile, an even bigger problem is that there AREN’T any natural intradivision “rivals,” under the proposed split, outside of USC/UCLA/Cal/Stanford. So you’d be setting up bizarre and nonsensical guaranteed games like… Arizona vs. Oregon every year? Arizona State vs. Wazzu? Buffaloes vs. Beavers? Utes vs. Huskies? What?!? Those are fine games, don’t get me wrong, but what basis is there for making them guaranteed annuals “rivalries”? None.
The only “solution” to the Weekender problem is to put Cal and Stanford in the South, and Colorado and Utah in the North. I oppose this for obvious personal reasons, but it also won’t fly because it would be the ultimate insult to the Northwest schools (and Colorado and Utah). It’s like, hey guys, welcome to the Pac-12, now go sit at the kids’ table. Not only are we keeping you out of Southern California once every 3 years, but we’re limiting your access to NORTHERN California, too! At that point, you might as well call it the Cool Pac-10 (South) and the Ghetto Pac-10 (North).
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Face it: the Weekender as an annual event is dead. It will happen 2 out of every 3 years. For two-thirds of 4-year students at USC, they’ll get three Weekenders in their college career; the unlucky one-third will miss out in both their freshman and senior years. Bummer.
In “non-weekender” years, I imagine there will either be an Arizona/Arizona State “weekender,” or a Colorado “weekender” (the latter is not really driveable, unfortuantely, so I’m guessing the Arizona schools will take up the mantle — which means USC needs to lobby for a November game and/or a night game in Arizona those years, because trust me, you don’t want to be at an afternoon game in Phoenix or Tucson in the middle of the afternoon in September or the first half of October).
Hell an EVENING game in Phoenix isn’t fantastic either in October…
One advantage of the zipper from the California schools standpoint is you could preserve unofficial rivalries between Stanford and USC and Cal and UCLA as yearly events.
Seriously though, the only thing thats going to keep everyone happy (except Texas of course) is a complete collapse of the Big 12 and the formation of the Pac-16 with a Pac-8 west conference.
except Texas of course
You mean “except Texas and Brendan Loy”
Pac-16 with East/West divisions = USC at Colorado once every 8 years
Pac-12 with North/South divisions = USC at Colorado every other year
So what if we settle for one cross-division rival? Then USC could have Stanford, fUCLA could have Cal. Everyone else can pick a cross-division rival or choose to have no cross-division rival and just rotate among the full division.
Dude, you could just FLY to LA for a game or two a year. I can’t imagine flights between Denver and the L.A. area are THAT expensive.
Everyone else can pick a cross-division rival or choose to have no cross-division rival and just rotate among the full division.
I’m not going to do the math or play out the scenarios because I don’t feel like getting a headache, but I’m pretty sure you’ve gotta have EVERYONE have the same basic scheduling structure, or else all hell breaks loose for the schedulers. Thus, “choose to have no cross-division rival” is not an option. And if everyone had “one cross-division rival,” we’d have such sterling “rivalries” as:
USC-Stanford
UCLA-Cal
Arizona-Oregon
Arizona State-Oregon State
Colorado-Washington [the “We Hate Neuheisel” Bowl]
Utah-Wazzu
Oh the POMP! The PAGEANTRY! What great rivalries!
Moreover, this wouldn’t actually solve the problem. It’s basically the same math as comparing David’s L.A. scenarios: instead of 6.666667 Bay Area Weekenders every 10 years, USC would have 8 Bay Area Weekenders every 10 years (5 Stanford, 3 Cal). Granted, that guarantees every 4-year student will have at least 3 Weekenders during their time at ‘SC, but it still ruins the annual nature of the tradition. And, what do we sacrifice to achieve that modest accomplishment? We either make a mockery of the concept of “rivalries,” or we throw a massive (and I think possibly insurmountable) monkey wrench into interdivisional scheduling (if some teams have “rivals” and some don’t).
Furthermore, and most importantly of all, this would mean that, instead of playing in L.A. twice every three years (66.67%), the North schools (other than Stanford) would play in L.A. three times every five years (60%). I really cannot say this enough:
Not. Gonna. Happen.
I know the Weekender is nigh sacred to us Trojans, but I’m sorry, in the grand scheme of things, it’s just not important enough to be something that the Pac-12 is going to pull out all the stops to save, given the logistical hurdles.
The Weekender is dead. Long live the Weekender.
Dude, you could just FLY to LA for a game or two a year.
Oh, right, because air travels with little kids is so easy?!? 🙂 And “inexpensive” … HA … the flights might be relatively cheap per ticket, but try buying FOUR (or even three) tickets each way, and throw in all the other attendant costs of traveling with little ones, and try to keep a weekend trip anywhere under $1,000, or even $1,500… I dare you. 🙂
On the other hand, I can drive to Boulder in 30-45 minutes, and my gas budget barely even notices the difference.
Who said anything about bringing the kids? You have plenty of baby sitters in town! 🙂 Plus in a few years they won’t be so little, and who knows, by then Loyette might think “footballl is booooooring daaaad, I wanna go shooooping with my frieeeends” 😉
The 12-Pac is only adding 2 schools, who will be in the same division. Therefore really only 4 schools in the East division would be greatly affected. I could see USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford easily keeping their regular routine, with let’s say, 8 conference games. That would keep all the Cali rivalries as-is, then 3 “East” teams in rotation every other year. Of course, if the 12-Pac keeps 9 conference games per year, then we’re talking about only 2 teams left off the regular sched who would get played every other year.
The Weekender, the Cross-Town, the Civil War, Cal-Stanford, and most importantly the Apple Cup, will all be preserved. Although if Larry Scott left Washington St. off the conference schedule entirely, would anyone notice? Would anyone complain?
@Sandy, as Brendan has pointed out, the idea that the four California schools would get to keep playing each other every season is dead on arrival. Setting that up would require making LESS games in California available to all the other teams. You are ALREADY stretching things with the four northwest schools by denying them yearly SoCal games, but making those games even more sparse? Good luck with that.
The Weekender, the Cross-Town, the Civil War, Cal-Stanford, and most importantly the Apple Cup, will all be preserved.
All of the above is true except The Weekender. It will NOT be preserved as an annual event. This is just not a debatable point, guys. There isn’t enough impetus outside of USC fans (and maybe UCLA fans? I don’t know how much they care about their Weekender) to preserve it, and in any case, it CAN’T be preserved, it simply CAN’T, short of Stanford and Cal being in the South Division with USC and UCLA, which necessarily relegates the North Division to total kids’ table status, and would be totally unacceptable to the Washington and Oregon schools AND the new members, Utah and Colorado. You’re denying the undeniable if you think there’s any feasible way the Bay Area Weekender(s) can be preserved as an annual event in any functional Pac-12 that would be even marginally acceptable to all 12 members. Again, I simply cannot say this enough: Not. Gonna. Happen.
USC w/ 9 conference games per season
2012
UCLA
Stanford
Cal
Oregon
Oregon St.
Washington
Washington St.
Arizona
Utah
2013
UCLA
Stanford
Cal
Oregon
Oregon St.
Washington
Washington St.
Arizona St.
Colorado
It doesn’t seem difficult at all. Utah’s schedule would look like this in 2013
Arizona
ASU
Colorado
Oregon
Oregon St.
WSU
Washington St.
Stanford
UCLA
Doesn’t seem difficult at all with 4 Cali schools that can be alternated annually (2 per season) on a 9 game conference sched. That makes 5 divisional games and 4 inter-divisional games. There are only 2 teams per season left out of any Cali team and they pick them up the following the year.
I assure you I have no insider knoweledge on this, so if it ends up being exactly this, I didn’t cheat, but I see the 12-Pac being broken into 2 divisions the Fruit and Nut division and broken out like this:
Fruit
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington St.
Nut
Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Oregon St.
I really don’t see how the Fruits can’t continue with their home and away weekenders, while at the same time playing with 4 Nuts (2 home and 2 away) per season. Quite frankly, looking at this, I think maybe I should forward this proposal to Larry Scott right now.
Yeah, cause that makes PERFECT sense Sandy, now you’ve pissed off Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Utah, Oregon AND Oregon State, plus sizeable amounts of Washington fans by not having us regularly play Oregon. And it makes bucketloads of sense to have UW/WSU skip traveling to two incredibly close rivals in Oregon and Oregon State (likewise for those two and UW and WSU).
Let me repeat this in no uncertain terms possible, preserving the Weekender is about as low on the totem pole of factors in the division generation as it can be.
If Larry Scott walked into the meeting and presented the idea of keeping the California schools together to preserve the weekender he would be laughed out of the room, or, if they think he’s really serious, lynched by the non-California AD’s.
Okay, let me try this one more time. There are two Iron Laws here:
1) A divisional setup that puts USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford all in the same division will be unacceptable from the perspective of the six teams in the other division, as it would limit their access to California and ghettoize the North Division (the “kids’ table” effect).
2) Unless USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford are all in the same division, the “Weekender” CANNOT be preserved as an annual thing, for purely logistical scheduling reasons.
3) Preservation of the Weekender is not sufficiently important to anyone except USC (and maybe UCLA) fans — not even the teams or athletic departments, we’re just talking about the fans here — for the Pac-12 leadership to even consider doing #1 despite all the problems it would cause. And again, #2 is impossible. Therefore, again:
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Brendan, there is one setup that I don’t think you have considered at all that would make a lot of sense and split this baby pretty well for most parties. The idea is to have three pods of four teams: The Northwest schools; the California schools; and the schools from the Four Corner states. Each team would play the three teams in its pod, and play three teams from the other two pods, every year. The conference championship would match the top two finishers in the conference. This setup would preserve the regional rivalries and give the non-California schools sufficient access to California recruiting territory.
I don’t believe the pod system would work under current rules, a championship game requires two division winners currently. The Pac-10 can petition for a rule change, but then they may not need to do divisions at all, although they might internally do pod based scheduling I. That situation anyway. It likelydepends on whether or not there is much support for a rule change, although the Big Ten might also be interested in not having to deal with divisions.
“I. That” == “in that”
Hmm. The pod system is an interesting idea. You’re right that I hadn’t considered it at all; indeed, I’d never heard it proposed before. But it could lead to some very messy tiebreakers to determine who plays in the championship game, in those scenarios where the tied teams haven’t played each other. It largely resolves the scheduling issues we’ve been discussing, but arguably does so at the expense of competitive balance and a fully rational setup to determine a champion.
Good point there David, I hadn’t considered aligning in two divisions but doing a pod schedule vs. straightforward division-based scheduling. So for instance, you could have the California and Arizona schools in the Southwest division, and the other schools in the Northwest division, but instead of doing full round-robin division play plus 3 or 4 cross-division games, they could do the following:
– Oregon and Washington schools play full round-robin per pod concept,
– Ditto for California schools,
– Ditto for Four Corner schools,
– Then play 3 games from each of the other pods.
I forgot to finish with, of course, the division winners then go on to the conference title game.
I don’t think a round-robin conference title tournament is going to happen, and if not, we’re back to the tie-breaker system which makes divisions and division champions pointless, may as well just have no divisions with 12 teams playing and take #1 vs. #2 with the current tie-breaker system.
Now if they do the zipper thing, you get Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Stanford, USC, and Colorado in one division and Washington St., Oregon St., Arizona St., Cal, UCLA, and Utah in the other. Everyone still keeps their rival USC-UCLA, Oregon-Oregon St., etc., which leaves space for 3 alternating inter-divisional games which essentially will make for games vs. 3/5 of the opposite conference, therefore the Weekender would be preserved for the most part, MAYBE missing out every 3 years, and maybe the USC-Cal game would continue to be permanent, therefore USC still plays the left-over 4 teams, 2 teams every other season, which aint’ bad. And the weekender lives, as I’m certain it will.
The problem with the zipper is it increases travel in a lot of cases AND it makes it tough to set up rivalry games at the end of the season since that sets up a chance of immediate rematches.
if they do the zipper thing…the Weekender would be preserved for the most part, MAYBE missing out every 3 years
This is true under the North/South division system! The Weekender would happen 2 out of every 3 years. All the zipper thing does is make it 4 out of every 5 years instead of 2/3.
Sandy, if they are going to split up the conference into a zipper, UCLA and Cal are going to be grouped with Washington. Washington and Cal are the only two continous members of the confernece and have a history dating back to the early century. While not a true rivalry in any sense, it is way more logical to keep them together, along with Oregon and UCLA. Not to mention I think it sets up a better competitive balance to have SC and Oregon in opposite divisions. I’d have to run the numbers, but I bet over the last decade UW, UO, Cal and UCLA vs Stanford, USC, OSU and WSU would have pretty similar conference records when combined.