The Austin American-Statesman‘s latest update on conference realignment reveals that Oklahoma is apparently dead-set on going west to the Pac-12, but Texas is still weighing three options: Pac-12, ACC, or independence. None of that is hugely shocking if you’ve been following this story, but this nugget is very important:
The ACC is willing to talk about a unique conference format that has intrigued Texas. Instead of divisions, the conference could be divided into four pods, with each pod containing four teams, to aid scheduling. …
[T]he Pac-12 has been in discussions about using a pod system as a way to divide the conference too. … Texas isn’t in love with the thought of playing in a division that includes none of the Los Angeles-based teams.
But [pod scheduling is] not what’s on the table right now.
“Texas really isn’t happy with the way the Pac-12 would like to align the conference,” a well-placed source said. “They want to put all the former Pac-8 schools in one division and group all the former Big 12 schools (assuming Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech join) with Utah and the Arizona schools.”
Texas wants to be in the same division as UCLA and Southern Cal, which would be tougher, but it would also guarantee the Longhorns a trip to Los Angeles every year. Think recruiting.
Everyone will want to be in the same division as UCLA and USC, including Colorado, Utah and the Arizona schools, who — if they vote as a bloc — have the ability to block expansion altogether if they know they’re going to be ghettoized into the Pac-16 East (a.k.a. the Big XII Leftover Division). Texas, of course, can also single-handedly “block” further expansion (at least from 14 to 16) if they’re unhappy with the proposed divisional setup, by simply declining to join. So I really think this issue is underrated as a stumbling block on the road to the Pac-Superconference.
That said, whereas some sort of elaborate “pod” system might be attractive to the ACC as a way out of its confusing “Atlantic” and “Coastal” divisions (the setup that served as a cautionary tale which convinced the Pac-12’s Larry Scott not to adopt “zipper divisions” in the first place), the Pac-12 is going to be more skeptical. Still, as I suggested on David’s post, I think some form of pod system — either with conference semifinals, or a stupid situation where you get two “division” champions without everybody having played everybody else — is ultimately what will happen if the Pac-12 expands to 16, because resistance to the East/West split from the non-Pac-8 schools will just be too great to overcome.
If the Pac-12 just expands to 14… I don’t know. You could conceivably force Utah into the North to make room for the Oklahomas in the South; the Utes alone can’t stop expansion, and they arguably have the least room to complain, having just been airlifted into the BCS by virtue of their Pac-12 invite. But that would also make the divisions look awfully unbalanced competitively (once USC recovers from sanctions, anyway), disturbingly like the old Big 12 North/South split, especially if you assume that Stanford will soon fall to earth and Oregon isn’t going to be a Top 5 team forever (as those programs’ histories tend to suggest). Meanwhile, just as importantly if not moreso, this solution would massively reduce the entire North division’s L.A. access and/or force the end of the double California cross-division games, unless the conference regular-season schedule is expanded to 10 games, which seems implausible. So I’m just not sure how that would play out.
Ultimately, structurally, I really think 16-team superconferences, and probably 14-team ones as well, require some sort of pod system to work. Otherwise they aren’t really conferences at all, just two loosely affiliated 7- or 8-team divisions. But how you then fairly determine a champion becomes very tricky.
Slightly off subject….but did you see where after two games the team with the highest scoring average in the entire country is…………………………Washington State!!!
I have also seen stories where Texas does not want to travel to the west coast (at least to the Northwest) very often which is why there has been some suggestion that Texas and the ACC might get together. (Only one time zone difference to the East Coast…but two time zones to the west.)
Since we all know that Texas can generally get just about anything it wants maybe the solution is for the entire state of Texas to move from the Central Time zone to the Mountain Time zone….and maybe they can bring Oklahoma with them too.:)
@Kenneth – True, but the Cougars have played so far the worst team (or one of the worst) in the FCS, Idaho State, and one of the worst teams in FBS, UNLV. Lets see how they are doing after this week when they face an actual decent opponent. Actually the Cougs have an incredibly easy first half, they follow up SDSU with UCLA and Colorado.
David, I almost couldn’t resist (but ultimately did) saying something in the post along the lines of…
“This solution [moving Utah to the North, putting the Oklahoma schools in the South] would massively reduce the entire North division’s L.A. access — but surely they’d be okay with that ‘for the good of the conference,’ if it was the only way to secure Oklahoma and make expansion happen, right David K.?”
A cheap shot, I know. 🙂 Mostly kidding.
An East/West split WILL happen if we go to 16. I continue to think you overestimate the chances that the Mountain four schools would vote to block expansion if the Pac-8 were for it. Pissing off the bulk of the rest of your conference with selfish behavior is bad thing. For example LOOK AT THE BIG XII. Its one thing to push for your interests, its another to stick your fingers in your ears and just shout no all the time. Besides, if the opportunity to get Texas and Oklahoma was present and the Mountain 4 were blocking it, whats to stop the Pac-8 from dissolving the conference and reforming with Texas/Oklahoma four and NOT the others, then (if they wnate dto get to 16, reinviting THEM). Yes its technically possible for those four schools to vote that way and they may even WANT to vote that way, but the consequences would be severe.
Also the Pac-East ghetto? Really? Come on you can’t be serious. I realize that the Mountain four have reasons to want to stay tied to the West coast, but Texas is one of the hotest recruting grounds in the country, at least as good as Southern California, and Oklahoma is probably a good complement to Northern California. From a competitive and recruiting based standpoint the Pac East would be well balanced with the Pac West.
An East/West split, as I said is balanced, geographically, competitively, recruit wise, etc. It makes the most obvious sense from a “can people understand who is in what division standpoint”. Larry Scott won’t cave to Texas demands, this isn’t the Big XII and Texas won’t be in the drivers seat.
So given that an East/West split is by far the most likely out come it means one of two things will happen
1) A simple East/West split with 7 division games, and cross games by region. in other words an East division team plays its division members plus one each from the Northwest and California on a rotating basis. This ensures that the east schools at least have some contact with California schools every year. Its not everything they want, but it is the easiest setup and fulfills all the other criteria that Larry Scott laid out he preferred in the previous division split. AND it preserves the California school round robin preference.
2) A simple East/West split with 5 division games and 4 cross over games, using Pod schedules. Essentially a 3-2-2-2 setup. And by setting up pairings in each region you can ensure that the East schools are playing an L.A. school every year, a NorCal school every year etc. The problem here becomes the division champion. You’d be missing 2 of your 7 opponents, not exactly ideal.
Actually I think I may have a compromise solution that COULD work. Its sort of a hybrid approach to the above two.
Two divisions, East/West with a 6 – 3 divisions/cross-division schedule setup.
Essentially you would play everyone in your region. Three out of four from the other region in your division, and 3 out of 8 cross division games. It’s slightly less access for the cross division games, BUT missing only one team from your division in any two year cycle reduces the chances of championship conflicts, the Pac-10 used to do it.
If there is a compromise I think thats the most likely at this point.
Larry Scott won’t cave to Texas demands
In which case Texas can just not join. They can go to the ACC instead, or go independent.
Texas will already be giving up the Longhorn Network to join the Pac-12. And there, I agree that Larry Scott won’t cave on that, because it’s fundamental to the Pac-12’s business model. But the divisional alignment and (especially) scheduling setup are not nearly as fundamental. And I strongly suspect Texas will not be willing to sign up for a divisional alignment they don’t like at the same time that they’re giving up the LHN. At that point, they would judge the price of admission to the Pac-12 to be too high. So Texas will demand some sort of concession, or they won’t join the conference. If Larry Scott wants them, he’ll have to play ball. You can say “Larry Scott won’t give in to Texas demands,” but that’s just another way of saying “Larry Scott will refuse to negotiate, and Texas will go elsewhere.” This is not a binary discussion with only two options, “Texas gets absolutely everything it wants and becomes a tyrant just like in the Big 12” and “Texas gets nothing it wants but meekly joins the Pac-12 anyway.” There are multiple options in between those extremes, and one of the in-between options is what will happen.
As for the Pac-12 ejecting the Mountain/Arizona 4 and replacing them with the Red River 4, there’s a word for that, and it’s called “breach of contract.” Could it happen? Sure, anything can happen if there’s enough settlement money on the table. But barring a settlement, the ejected schools would have a massive, and meritorious, lawsuit (which means any settlement would need to be massive). So what you’re discussing is a MUCH MUCH MUCH more drastic step than you are acknowledging. The “threat” of a step that the Pac-12 cannot legally make will not deter the Mountain/Arizona 4 from demanding that the new conference alignment/schedule be reasonably acceptable to them. They will know that they can’t get everything to be exactly the way they want, but they will insist on a compromise, not an imposed solution that they hate. You can say that being tied to Texas is just as good as being tied to California, but they obviously don’t feel that way, and it’s their opinion of what in their self-interest that matters, not yours or mine.
You can say over and over and over and over again that you think East/West is the only viable solution, and everyone will just need to take their medicine, recognize it’s the best solution, and deal with it. But repeating that mantra doesn’t mean it will happen. Everyone will act in what they view to be their own self-interest. Maybe I’m misjudging their calculations of that self-interest, but I don’t think I am — and what I’ve read about Colorado’s take, the Arizonas’ take, and now Texas’s take, supports my position. They aren’t going to go quietly into that Pac-16 East/West night in which they have almost no access to Southern California (playing there once every four years is like scheduling an occasional non-conference rivalry). They’re going to fight, and they’re going to extract some concessions, or expansion isn’t going to happen. Period.
What form those “concessions” will take, is another question, and I don’t feel nearly as confident of the answer — just that there will be some answer. One of the scheduling setups you’ve proposed (“pods” by any other name) may well be the concession. So your thinking isn’t all that far off. But you’re really underestimating the chances of it happening, in my judgment. I would say some form of compromise solution is at least 2 or 3 times more likely than your preferred straightforward East/West split, which is what the Pac-8 schools want and what nobody else wants.
CORRECTION: “breach of contract” is not a word, it’s a phrase. 🙂
Anyway, one point of clarification…
This ensures that the east schools at least have some contact with California schools every year.
Just so everyone is clear on what this means, a sample eight-year rotation for an East school would look like this:
2013: at Oregon, vs. Cal
2014: vs. Oregon, at Cal
2015: at Oregon State, vs. Stanford
2016: vs. Oregon State, at Stanford
2017: at Washington, vs. UCLA
2018: vs. Washington, at UCLA
2019: at Washington State, vs. USC
2020: vs. Washington State, at USC
So, like I said, they’d visit Southern California once every 4 years.
Or, if you’re Texas, you could join the ACC (which will let you keep the LHN and also probably give you whatever divisional setup you want), then schedule rotating non-conference home-and-homes with USC, UCLA and San Diego State over the course of each six-year cycle, and be in Southern California every other year. Do you think any of those schools would say no?
The price of getting Texas to join the league will not be zero.
P.S. For the Mountain and Arizona schools, the above-described setup is 4 times less Southern California access than they have now. Compare that to the Northwest schools, which went from annual SoCal access in the Pac-10 to every-other-year access in the Pac-12. You’re asking the Mountain/Arizona schools to take a hit that’s twice as large as the one that infuriated you last summer.
You might think it should happen, but that doesn’t mean it will happen. I’m telling you right now, it won’t. If it does, I owe you two beverages of your choice on the occasion of the first Washington @ Colorado game you travel to. 🙂
Yes, I’m asking them to take a hit of access to California because SOMEONE has to and in return they get access to the recruiting regions of Texas. In other words its something for something, not something for nothing like the NW schools got the last time around.
What are your alternatives? A 3-2-2-2 setup that makes little sense from a division standpoint and complicates division finishes? A north south that complete repeats the failures of the Big 12?
The PNW and Cali schools have been affiliated together for over 80 years now, there are close academic, research and athletic ties. Splitting them up further will face stiff opposition from ALL OF THEM. It also makes no sense geographically as the travel distance from Seattle to Austin is huge. Absolutely EVERYONE wants to get as much time with the Cali (in particular SoCal) schools, but not everyone can, so you start going with the logical options. There IS no ideal setup, no obvious solution that will please everyone but an East/West setup is the least complicated, still balanced, easy to understand outcome. Of course people will have complaints but unless they have a better alternative, you have to go with SOMETHING.
The only alternative I see making any headway would be the compromise solution I proposed in my last post above, skipping one team in your division each year. It throws the proverbial bone to the East schools by increasing their access to the West, but is still mostly evenly split and round robin.
BTW, on what grounds would the 8 schools leaving to form a new conference merit breach of contract? Is there something that mandates that schools have to stay in a conference until everyone decides they can leave? Precedent would seem to say otherwise, look at the formation of the Mountain West for example.
What are your alternatives?
It’s not about me, David. This has nothing to do with me, or “my alternatives.” It’s about the Arizona and Mountain schools, and about Texas. You’re asking the Arizona and Mountain schools to make what I believe they will view as an unacceptably large, unacceptably disproportionate sacrifice in order to secure a result (namely, expansion to 16 teams) that, at the end of the day, is still only an option, not something they are required to agree to. Likewise, you’re asking Texas to join a league it doesn’t have to join, on terms that I believe they will view as making the choice to join not preferable to their alternatives (ACC, independence). If you could point me to reporting that indicates the Texas or the Arizona/Mountain schools would be okay with a pure East/West setup, I’d re-evaluate, but so far, everything I’ve read confirms my instincts that they are not going to be okay with this at all.
If there were no viable alternative to a pure East/West setup, and thus these teams’ choices were a) to make what they will believe are unacceptably large, unacceptably disproportionate sacrifices in order to make the Pac-16 happen, or b) prevent the Pac-16 from happening, they would choose b). I realize you think that’s not a viable option. I’m telling you, I believe that they will view your proposal as not a viable option. You refuse to acknowledge that this is a possibility, so you rule out non-expansion and say “what’s your alternative?” But non-expansion is absolutely a possibility, no matter how compelling your arguments against it might be. The status quo is always a possibility when a consensus or supermajority is require to change it. Heck, just look at the political debate in Washington, where maintaining the status quo on our path to long-term fiscal ruin is “not a viable option,” and yet there is no solution in sight because a solution requires political consensus or supermajority. The status quo is always the default setting, and as such, can never be ruled out. Often, everyone agrees that the status quo, but there’s disagreement on how to change it, so the status quo prevails by default. That could happen here. And you act like everyone will just blame the Arizona/Mountain schools, but they would certainly blame the others for not playing ball. There’s always blame and recriminations to go around in such situations. You don’t think Larry Scott will work his butt off to avoid that? I do, and that requires compromise — not forcing the Pac-8’s preferred scenario down the other schools’ throats.
So, I believe there is very little chance of a pure Pac-16 East/West setup with no scheduling concessions to the East schools. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I think it’s extremely unlikely to happen, because it involves requiring a group of teams — who have the ability to prevent it from happening — to accede to what they will view as unacceptably large, unacceptably disproportionate sacrifices. You can bash them for that all you want, and characterize the Northwest schools’ decision last year in such a way as to make them look bad. I think you’re being unfair and myopic in how you view that issue in comparison to this one, but neither of us is going to convince the other on that, and at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what you or I think, it matters what the 4 schools (5 counting Texas) with the ability to block this plan think. I’m telling you, they are not going to see it your way (and they aren’t going to care about what the Northwest schools did — if the NW schools behaved in a manner adverse to their self-interest, well, that’s their problem). I’m making a prediction, not a value judgment. Whoever you or I think is right or wrong, the chances of a pure Pac-16 East/West split with no scheduling concessions are very low, in my judgment.
Instead, some kind of pod scheduling / incomplete divisional scheduling / semifinal setup will happen (or expansion won’t happen at all). It might look like one of your compromise proposals or it might look a little different, but something like that is what is most likely to happen, for better or worse.
BTW, on what grounds would the 8 schools leaving to form a new conference merit breach of contract?
With the caveat that this is just speculation and not legal advice 🙂 … I believe a court would very easily see through the ruse that they’re “forming a new conference” when what they’re doing, in reality, is reconstituting their old conference and kicking the undesirables out — and THAT would certainly be a breach of contract. To have any chance avoid this result, they’d have to — at a minimum — completely drop the “Pac-12” brand and adopt a totally new name. Given Larry Scott’s obsession with branding and marketing, that alone should tell you how unlikely this result is. (For that matter, they’d probably have to fire Larry Scott! The Pac-12 by any other name, with the same commissioner and conference leadership, is still going to viewed by the courts as fundamentally being the Pac-12.) And even if they did all that, they’d face a serious threat of very expensive litigation with, at best, an uncertain result. Again, anything is possible, but what you’re discussing is a thermonuclear option, not something to be casually thrown around to prove that, well, of course Utah and Colorado and the Arizonas can easily be pressured into accepting an otherwise unacceptable deal. It’s not that simple.
The other thing with the pod scheduling would be doing a rotating 3-4-1-1 setup, with rotating divisions. Confusing? Certainly. But a Pac-16 has the most natural 4 team pods possible, and you could guarantee each team would get a game in LA every three years, and presuming 2 Texas schools, each team would play in Texas once every 3 years as well. The California, Northwest, and Red River schools would play their natural rivals every year, and there wouldn’t be the issue of 2 undefeated teams in a conference. Plus, it’d give the Pac16 an opportunity to come up with more absurdly arrogant division titles than Legends and Leaders*
*Hint: This is not possible
That actually makes a fair amount of sense. It obviously goes against Larry Scott’s desire to keep it simple with straightforward geographical divisions, but that may just be impossible in a 16-team world. And at least the basic unit would remain intact — the four pods — so the only thing people would have to remember is which pod is in which division each year. That’s arguably easier to remember than which of each of the 6 or 8 rival pairs is on which side of the “zipper,” or which 6 ACC schools are “Atlantic” and which are “Coastal.” You only really have to remember 1 or 2 data points instead of 6 or 8.
Obviously “don’t expand” is an option, and its an option that according to reports the Pac-12 schools all favor right now. But IF expansion becomes a likely/desired scenario because of the rest of the machinations in college football and IF Larry Scott and the Presidents (or most of them at least) believe that expansion to 16 is necessary and beneifical for financial and long term competitive reasons then it will happen unless, as you say the Mountain 4 block it. In which case they will be seen as acting in bad faith as members of the conference putting their own interests far above those of everyone else. That will not bode well, especially if its in defiance of what the majority, original 8 members belive is in their best interests long term. I can not imagine the MT 4 schools, especially Utah and Colorado who are COMPLETELY new to the picture being so myopic as to shoot down what is percieved to be a financial and strategically necessary move based soley on the idea that they may have some football schedulign/division concerns.
Obviously Texas can do whatever it wants, but if it wants into the Pac-16 it will have to give on a lot of things. Maybe thats too much for DeLoss Dodds to aquiesece to and it kills them joining the Pac-16, but then they are giving up on the advantages too. Stable, premiere conference. Huge upside in revenues and infrastructure. Academic affiliations, etc.
You continue to act as if all schools view being grouped with Texas as a punishment. If thats true, why do so many people WANT to be in that region? Why does the SEC want to add Texas A&M? Recruiting in Texas is a huge advantage. The problem for the Big XII has not been that Texas is a member, its that Texas calls all the shots. In a Pac 16 East, Texas would have no more power than Colorado or ASU. They wouldn’t be able to get away with the crap they pulled in the Big XII so the major disadvantage of being grouped with Texas is gone, only the benefits remain.
Also I realize its not about “YOU” personally, but YOU are putting forth arguments as to why it has to be one way, so YOU have to provide reasons why that would happen. So far you have explained why you think the Mountain 4 schools would be upset by East/West split, but haven’t articulated what the outcomes are except to say “concessions” or no expansion. So what concessions do you see as reasonable? What scheduling concessions are sufficient? If 16 happens not everyone is going to get to play the California schools as much as they want, so you have to come up with logical, reasonable solutions to how an outcome might be achieved.
Fortunately we have a template that we consider in how it was handled in the Pac-12. Priorites were to make easy to remember, comptitively balanced divisions and one scheduling concession was made for the California schools because of their unique history and position of power in the conference.
Now you are arguing that four schools without long term history or a strong position should be able to draw out similar strong concessions for themselves? Concessions that would necessitate upsetting the easy to remember, competitively balanced aspect of this all? I don’t think that is even remotely likely to occur.
Rotating divisions would be a huge hassle, especially when the divisions involved the NW schools and the Red River schools. The travel would be a pain in the ass.
…being so myopic as to shoot down what is percieved to be a financial and strategically necessary move based solely on the idea that they may have some football scheduling/division concerns.
There you go again, downplaying the gravity of the concerns. Allow me to rephrase:
“…to shoot down what Larry Scott and the schools who favor expansion will argue is a financial and strategically necessary move based on the fact that they, and they alone, are being asked to reduce their Southern California access to 25% of its present level, while the Pacific Northwest schools see their access increase to 200% of its present level, in return for an uncertain increase in revenue during a down economy, and access to Texas, which they view as inferior to access to California.”
It’s all about the framing. The way I’ve described it appears, based on the available evidence, to be how they see it. That’s what matters.
So far you have explained why you think the Mountain 4 schools would be upset by East/West split, but haven’t articulated what the outcomes are except to say “concessions” or no expansion.
That’s incorrect. I’ve stated repeatedly what I think might work. Re-read plz, I don’t have time to repeat myself.
…one scheduling concession was made for the California schools because of their unique history and position of power in the conference. Now you are arguing that four schools without long term history or a strong position should be able to draw out similar strong concessions for themselves?
Wait, I thought this was the Pac-12, the anti-Big XII, the league where all teams are created equal, and nobody has a “unique…position of power”? Suddenly Utah and Colorado and the Arizonas — the latter of which has been in the conference since BEFORE YOU OR I WERE BORN — aren’t in a “strong position” vis a vis the Pac-8 schools, because of “history”? Okie dokie, that’s not inconsistent at all.
If 16 happens not everyone is going to get to play the California schools as much as they want
Under your solution, the Northwest schools would double their Southern California access, from 50% of years to 100% of years. The Arizona/Mountain schools would have their access reduced by a factor of four, from 100% of years to 25% of years. But yeah, let’s obscure that reality by saying “everyone” will have to compromise. ‘That’s a “compromise” John Boehner and the Tea Party would love.
You continue to act as if all schools view being grouped with Texas as a punishment.
No, I continue to act as if the schools in question (not “all” schools) view being grouped with Texas as inferior to being grouped with California, because that’s what the reporting on the issue indicates, including in some cases their own public statements. If you have evidence to the contrary, as I said, I’ll reconsider my position. But the fact that you purport to believe that Texas access is equal to California access, or that the SEC (which has no conceivable avenue to California access) covets Texas A&M, has no bearing on anything. What matters is what Colorado, Utah and the Arizonas think. They appear not to agree with you.
IF [conditions are ripe and it appears necessary, then] expansion…will happen unless, as you say, the Mountain 4 block it. In which case they will be seen as acting in bad faith as members of the conference putting their own interests far above those of everyone else. That will not bode well, especially if its in defiance of what the majority, original 8 members believe is in their best interests long term.
One more rephrase:
IF expansion is to happen, a fair and balanced scheduling arrangement that doesn’t virtually cut off the entire eastern half of the conference off from California will happen unless, as you say, the Pac-8 prevents it. In which case they will be seen as acting in bad faith as members of the conference putting their own interests far above those of everyone else. That will not bode well, especially if it’s in defiance of what the Arizona and Mountain schools, with their much-trumpeted “equal rights,” believe is in their best interests long term.
Yet again, it’s all about the framing of the issue.
Everybody’s looking out for their best interests, David. Everybody. The Pac-8 schools don’t get to trump the Arizonas & Mountain schools by saying “WE’RE THE PAC-8! WE’RE KIND OF A BIG DEAL!” Or, if they do, they everything you claim about the Pac-12’s uniquely egalitarian nature is a bunch of crap. You can’t have it both ways.
Rotating divisions would be a huge hassle
Obviously. There are no perfect solutions. But there are solutions that are likely to be viewed by some schools as grotesquely unfair and unacceptable and by other schools as ideal, and then there are solutions that nobody will love but nobody will hate. Pro negotiating tip: assuming reasonably equal bargaining power and reasonably competent negotiators, the latter kind of solution is the only kind that has any chance of happening.
You continue to act as if the Arizona/CO/UT schools are getting nothing in exchange for losing access to California. You are wrong, getting access to Texas is something big. it may not be 1:1 trade, but its certainly not 1:100 either. Further, yes the historical ties will play into this, and yes even though Arizona and ASU have been in the Pac10 for along time, it is relatively short. CU and Utah even more so.
Of course they are welcome to complain, just as the NW schools did when the divisions were being planned out las time, but in the end what happened? What Larry Scott wanted to happen. Why? Because he has shown that he knows damn well what he’s doing when you look at the Pac-10/12 as a whole. The schools have allready shown they will defer to his judgment, why would that change now.
Propose a solution that fights into Larry Scotts past behavioral patterns that solves the problem. It can even have a little stretch room in it. You won’t find one. The BEST the East schools can hope for is a 6-3 schedule model that gets them games against the LA schools 6 out of 8 years and games in L.A. 3 out of 8. Geographically, comeptitively, and ease of understanding wise there is really no alternatives that make sense especially given what we have seen of Larry Scott in the past regarding expansion and divisional alignment.
I also think there is aboslutely zero chance of the Pac-16 getting less revenue per team in a revised contract short of a complete collapse of western civilization as we know it. The first contract was negotiated in a down and shaky economy, sports values are still high and going up, with no sign (or reason) to see them go in the other direction.
BTW Jon Wilner agrees with me for whatever thats worth:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/13/pac-12-football-the-latest-on-expansion/
“Despite grumbling from Colorado and others, Scott will have the votes he needs to add the Oklahoma schools.”
“*** If Texas ultimately comes aboard with Texas Tech — and that’s the only way TTU is getting in, by the way — then the league will split into the two eight-team divisions sketched out in the spring of 2010 (with Utah filling Texas A&M’s slot).
My sense is that those divisions would be somewhat akin to the American and National leagues:
There would be inter-division play, but to a certain extent they would exist independently — intense focus on your own group of eight, paths occasionally crossing with the other … and then the championship game collision, of course.
I’d also imagine the the conference office would open a eastern branch, probably in Dallas.”
I’m with David on this one, and quite adamantly. I think Brendan correctly gauges the self-interest of each school involved, but completely misses the weight that ought to be assigned to any one school’s self-interest vs. the others. Indeed, Texas wants to play in Southern California every year, and I guarantee you that will carry far more weight than any whining by Colorado for that same level of access (which they currently have), because Texas is a far bigger prize. But at the end of the day, USC, OU, and Texas all in the same division is disastrous, and the only simple model that works relatively well for everybody is the simple East-West split. I personally think the 3-2-2-2 pod scheduling is the best option and that missing two games in your division isn’t that big of a deal, but the 7-2 format is quite workable. The Pac-16 setup will be slightly less favorable to the Mountain schools than the current division alignment, but the benefits for all of the sports far outweigh the loss of access to Southern California for one football game a year.