Reply With Quote
The plains pod is by far the best it is a mother er.
One thing no one is talking about is how bad ass the pac 16 would be in baseball.
Do the current pac 12 schools have wrestling programs if not how would that work out for OU and osu?
We're the luckiest school in America.
The plains pod is by far the best it is a mother er.
One thing no one is talking about is how bad ass the pac 16 would be in baseball.
Do the current pac 12 schools have wrestling programs if not how would that work out for OU and osu?
Big-10 likes having high academic-types as well as all-around programs. Northwestern really adds nothing, and Rice, while a bit far south, helps gain a foothold into the Houston market, and they are a tremendous academic ins ution. On the down low, the Pac tried to get Rice instead of Tech. You may think I'm crazy, but I'm not. I told DoK about it a week ago via PM.
Several do, although I've heard many rumblings about the programs being cut. But ASU has a strong program.
Saw an alternate Pod structure on ESPN this morning:
Plains and Northwest are the same, but rather than a solely CA pod, the SoCal schools are paired with the Arizona schools and the NoCal schools are paired with Utah and Colorado.
I like this for basketball a lot, and it helps keep Arizona's football recruiting strong, as this means every year Arizona has either two in-CA games or one in-CA game and one in-Plains game. Sucks to always have to play USC, but I'd prefer it to the other pod for recruiting, because it helps with exposure, which should help bring in a better coach. Recruiting potential is more important than a weaker schedule to a good coach.
Oregon State has a strong wrestling program. We finished 2nd in the Pac-10 last year.
Nope.Rose Division:
Texas
Oklahoma St.
Arizona St.
Utah
USC
Stanford
Oregon St.
Washington
Fiesta Division:
OU
Texas Tech
Arizona
Colorado
Cal
UCLA
Oregon
Washington St.
The draw of this for Larry Scott is a potential USC/Texas le game. This doesn't happen with them in the same division. I can guarantee if a division happens, which it won't, that USC headlines one, and Texas headlines the other.
Also, and its probably BS, but I'm now hearing rumblings of a Pac-20, where Rice/TCU and Kansas/K-State are added.
The Pacific Division
Arizona
Arizona State
Cal
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Washington
Washington State
The Plains Division
Colorado
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Rice
TCU
Texas
Texas Tech
Utah
Again, if Rice was really that attractive a market, they would be in a bigger conference already.
It's very possible if we do end up with 4 16 team conferences that Rice is left out.
Not crazy if you have a link.On the down low, the Pac tried to get Rice instead of Tech. You may think I'm crazy, but I'm not. I told DoK about it a week ago via PM.
A Pac-18 with 3 divisions of 6 makes more sense, imo.
If the Big10 wants Missouri, they might need to hurry. With the ACC seemingly having set themselves up to avoid getting raided by the SEC, Mizzou is a prime candidate for SEC #14.
Also, Kansas is an AAU member. Big10 wouldn't need to make any concessions on academics if they added them. K-State is another story.
If the Big 10 stay put while SEC and PAC go 16, will that really be a bad thing for them?
Probably not. At least not in the short term.
They have it pretty good right now, I just wonder where the pressure would come from to go to 16.
I doubt the big10 would consider it pressure, but I'm sure the ACC/SEC/Pac would be trying to persuade the big10 into expanding just so they can have a superconference playoff.
I understand, but some think with the increased funds from being in a major conference, Rice athletics would improve, and every conference likes to have a high-academic cake-walk to both improve academic rates/perception and schedules. Not saying they eventually get the invite, but they've been mentioned.
I do, but it's premium content for a board I moderate for, so access is limited to subscribers beyond paraphrased word of mouth.Not crazy if you have a link.
The idea is that Larry Scott wanted Texas/Oklahoma only for football, Rice for academics and Kansas only for basketball. That was his ideal.
The three division things doesn't really work.
It wouldn't work because of headliners (USC and Texas in same division), but this would be ideal:
Pacific North
Cal
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahom State
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Washington
Washington State
Pacific South
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Rice
Texas
Texas Tech
UCLA
USC
Utah
It adds the academic idea in Rice and the basketball ideal in Kansas. Each division has schools from California and the plains, good compe ive balance in both Football and Basketball.
Dallas Morning News put together a realignment widget which you may or may not find entertaining........
http://res.dallasnews.com/graphics/2011_09/realignment/
How is that?
I think you could definitely have 3 headliners for three divisions, in Texas, USC, and OU.
But the problem would be figuring out a conference champion.
Mentioned by Big 10 officials?
Doubtful any type of serious consideration was given.
Who quoted Larry Scott on this ideal?I do, but it's premium content for a board I moderate for, so access is limited to subscribers beyond paraphrased word of mouth.
The idea is that Larry Scott wanted Texas/Oklahoma only for football, Rice for academics and Kansas only for basketball. That was his ideal.
This. Only way is top-overall BCS ranking of the three division winners gets a bye, then winner of first game vs. that bye team.
But that's pretty convoluted.
Colin Cowherd said on his radio show today that Texas was still flirting with the Big 10.
Probably just smoke or Texas trying to leverage the best deal they can with the PAC-12
Why would USC and UT be in the same division?
I was thinking OU, Okie st, Tech, UT, AZ and ASU.
Conference championship game participants could be determined by whomever has the higher BCS standings......like what happened in the Big XII in 08.
Like I said, I mentioned them as a team that would make sense for their ideals.
Pac insider who broke news on these meetings and parameters over a week ago. The insider is well-respected with ties to the LA schools and is a booster of Arizona.Who quoted Larry Scott on this ideal?
He said Scott's ideal wasn't just for football, but wanted to expand the conference's overall prestige and brand. Adding a top-flight academic ins ution and baseball program in Rice brings a lot, plus the in with the Houston market, and adding a blue blood in Kansas to join UCLA, Arizona and Texas gives the Pac 4-top-20 schools year in, year out. The hope was the Pac could leverage need into getting Oklahoma without State and Texas without Tech, but obviously politics has won out. My guess is this talk of 18/20 teams is specifically to add these two schools. Chances are some of the same politics could require Kansas to bring State with them, at which point to add Rice, a fourth additional team is needed, enter a lesser-religious TCU (although not sure this works) or, and this is me talking, maybe Missouri if the religious affiliation of TCU is deemed to much to look past. Missouri brings quality academics, and good programs, plus an untapped market.
That 08 conclusion was controversial, though.
The problem with the two-division, 9-team league is you can't go West/East, as the original 10 west are geographically linked in five tandoms, while just 4 of the 8 Eastern (or recently added) teams are, with Colorado, Kansas, Rice and Utah all being geographical wildcards. It makes sense to split them up, and not one of the original 5 tandoms.
I suppose one way to do this is
West: Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
East: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, Texas, Texas Tech
But this removes Arizona schools from traditional rivalries, and separates California from everyone, which isn't what is being discussed/been agreed upon. In order to spread the CA wealth around, it needs to be even pods, or that North/South, but you cant' do even pods with 18 teams, and the North/South doesn't meet the idea of the potential USC/Texas le game.
it was controversial, but understandable, because OU was at that time a hotter team than UT, even though UT had actually put together a better body of work through the entire season, and had a tougher SOS.
i still think that the two most deserving teams (prior to the outcome of the NC) was OU and UT for the national championship game, as both of them had one loss against top 5 opponents, while Florida lost to an unranked team. Also, OU and Texas both had tougher strength of schedule ranking than Florida did prior to the NC game.
ugh i so wish there was a playoff system...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
