Was just about to post this. Boggles the mind why the zipper which solves all those problems is not being considered based on a marketability concern. I’d rather go back to the Pac10 if these divisions are what happens.
Brendan Loy
Come visit us in Colorado and we can talk it over. I’ll give you a sympathetic ear. AND THEN WE CAN GO TO THE USC GAME!!!! WOOOOO!!!!!!
🙂
David K.
Real solution is to stick the new schools with WSU and OSU. Zipper the NW :D. (sorry Brendan)
David K.
He just posted a HUGE update. The AD’s only needed simple majority to pass the proposal to the CEO’s, but the final CEO vote has to be 9 or more.
“I’ve been told by the league office that a simple majority was required for the ADs to pass legislation to the CEOs, but it will take nine CEOs (75%) to approve the division alignment.”
Please let the CEO’s hold out for a zipper!
Sandy Underpants
I don’t see the problem with these divisions. Unlike the Big-12 and SEC, each Pac team plays pretty much everyone in the conference minus 2 each season. There won’t be years between match-ups, the most 2 teams won’t play each other is 1 season out of 7. So what, who cares? I can live missing Oregon St. or Arizona for a season. Remember that up til about 2006, the Pac-10 didn’t play every team in conference in the regular season, there was always 1 school left off, so it’s not like this new format is tanking some long-held tradition.
Brendan Loy
“the most 2 teams won’t play each other is 1 season out of 7”
I’m not sure where you’re getting this number, Sandy, but it appears you’re not paying attention. With each team playing every other team in its division, there are only 4 interdivisional dates, to be split among the 6 teams in the other division. If we assume no guaranteed annual interdivisional “crossover” games (i.e., no guaranteed UCLA-Cal, USC-Stanford), that means each team will play each team from the other division 4/6 times per year (the numerator is the number of interdivisional open dates on the schedule, the denominator is the number of teams competing for those dates). So in other words, each team plays each interdivisional foe 4 times ever 6 years, or twice every 3 years — meaning they miss each other 1 season out of 3, not 1 out of 7.
If you add in guaranteed crossover game(s), it gets worse for the non-crossover interdivisional matchups. With ONE crossover game, you’ve got 5 teams competing for 3 schedule slots, so 3/5, 3 times every 5 years — meaning they miss each other twice every 5 years, or once every 2.5 years if you prefer. With TWO guaranteed crossover games (thus preserving all the annual California games), you’ve got 4 teams competing for 2 slots, so 2/4, or 2 games every 4 years, a.k.a., a game every other year. So, the teams that aren’t crossover rivals, and aren’t in the same division, miss each other once every 2 years (again, every other year). Not once every 7. Big difference.
David K.
Simple way to tell whether the divisions are reasonable or not. If you put the SoCal schools with the NW schools, and put the NorCal schools with the Mountain schools, would the Mountain schools agree to it? What if you gaurenteed california crossover games in that setup. Would the Mountain schools be happy about it?
Plane flights to SoCal from the NW aren’t appreciably longer than to NorCal, so travel isn’t an issue. Same with from the mountain states to NorCal. Seems like its not a problem right? Right? Huh, the Mountain schools don’t seem to be happy with my proposal. Wonder why…
JD
Obviously very late to the comment party on this thread, but I note with interest how he lumps the Arizona schools in with “the newcomers.”
The Pac-10 was created 33 years ago and has been in existence twice as long as the Pac-8 was (according to the Seattle Times timeline) – and they’re still acting like Arizona and ASU are some sort of interlopers?
Brendan Loy
Hahaha, I had the same thought today. Hilarious. Only in the Pac-8, er -10, er -12.
David K.
Except for the pesky detail that the Pac-8 have been playing together nearly continuously since USC joined in 1928 and most of the schools longer than that. So yeah, 82 years vs 33 is rather different. Like Grandfather/Grandson different. Utah and Colorado are the great grandchildren of the conference.
Brendan Loy
You gotta admit, though, it’s still funny that schools which have been in the conference for more than three decades are considered “newcomers.”
David K.
We reffered to the house I moved in to when I was 10 as the “new house” for the past 20 years, we lived there twice as long as the old house. It’s all relative.
Was just about to post this. Boggles the mind why the zipper which solves all those problems is not being considered based on a marketability concern. I’d rather go back to the Pac10 if these divisions are what happens.
Come visit us in Colorado and we can talk it over. I’ll give you a sympathetic ear. AND THEN WE CAN GO TO THE USC GAME!!!! WOOOOO!!!!!!
🙂
Real solution is to stick the new schools with WSU and OSU. Zipper the NW :D. (sorry Brendan)
He just posted a HUGE update. The AD’s only needed simple majority to pass the proposal to the CEO’s, but the final CEO vote has to be 9 or more.
“I’ve been told by the league office that a simple majority was required for the ADs to pass legislation to the CEOs, but it will take nine CEOs (75%) to approve the division alignment.”
Please let the CEO’s hold out for a zipper!
I don’t see the problem with these divisions. Unlike the Big-12 and SEC, each Pac team plays pretty much everyone in the conference minus 2 each season. There won’t be years between match-ups, the most 2 teams won’t play each other is 1 season out of 7. So what, who cares? I can live missing Oregon St. or Arizona for a season. Remember that up til about 2006, the Pac-10 didn’t play every team in conference in the regular season, there was always 1 school left off, so it’s not like this new format is tanking some long-held tradition.
“the most 2 teams won’t play each other is 1 season out of 7”
I’m not sure where you’re getting this number, Sandy, but it appears you’re not paying attention. With each team playing every other team in its division, there are only 4 interdivisional dates, to be split among the 6 teams in the other division. If we assume no guaranteed annual interdivisional “crossover” games (i.e., no guaranteed UCLA-Cal, USC-Stanford), that means each team will play each team from the other division 4/6 times per year (the numerator is the number of interdivisional open dates on the schedule, the denominator is the number of teams competing for those dates). So in other words, each team plays each interdivisional foe 4 times ever 6 years, or twice every 3 years — meaning they miss each other 1 season out of 3, not 1 out of 7.
If you add in guaranteed crossover game(s), it gets worse for the non-crossover interdivisional matchups. With ONE crossover game, you’ve got 5 teams competing for 3 schedule slots, so 3/5, 3 times every 5 years — meaning they miss each other twice every 5 years, or once every 2.5 years if you prefer. With TWO guaranteed crossover games (thus preserving all the annual California games), you’ve got 4 teams competing for 2 slots, so 2/4, or 2 games every 4 years, a.k.a., a game every other year. So, the teams that aren’t crossover rivals, and aren’t in the same division, miss each other once every 2 years (again, every other year). Not once every 7. Big difference.
Simple way to tell whether the divisions are reasonable or not. If you put the SoCal schools with the NW schools, and put the NorCal schools with the Mountain schools, would the Mountain schools agree to it? What if you gaurenteed california crossover games in that setup. Would the Mountain schools be happy about it?
Plane flights to SoCal from the NW aren’t appreciably longer than to NorCal, so travel isn’t an issue. Same with from the mountain states to NorCal. Seems like its not a problem right? Right? Huh, the Mountain schools don’t seem to be happy with my proposal. Wonder why…
Obviously very late to the comment party on this thread, but I note with interest how he lumps the Arizona schools in with “the newcomers.”
The Pac-10 was created 33 years ago and has been in existence twice as long as the Pac-8 was (according to the Seattle Times timeline) – and they’re still acting like Arizona and ASU are some sort of interlopers?
Hahaha, I had the same thought today. Hilarious. Only in the Pac-8, er -10, er -12.
Except for the pesky detail that the Pac-8 have been playing together nearly continuously since USC joined in 1928 and most of the schools longer than that. So yeah, 82 years vs 33 is rather different. Like Grandfather/Grandson different. Utah and Colorado are the great grandchildren of the conference.
You gotta admit, though, it’s still funny that schools which have been in the conference for more than three decades are considered “newcomers.”
We reffered to the house I moved in to when I was 10 as the “new house” for the past 20 years, we lived there twice as long as the old house. It’s all relative.