Pac-10 looking more at North/South divisions, Utah to be in the north
by JazzyUte on Aug 30, 2010 7:58 PM MDT
in Football
Email
PrintIt appears the Pac-10 is now favoring a North/South split for its divisions for the future twelve team conference. This is pretty surprising news because it looked like the conference was leaning toward the zipper format that gained popularity over the past couple of months.
The current plan would put Utah in the same division as Colorado, the Washington and Oregon schools, while the South Division would couple the California schools with Arizona and Arizona State.
Personally, I don't like the idea of having all the California schools together in one division. I think it consolidates the power in the south and creates an unbalanced conference that ultimately might find itself in the state of the current Big 12 - where one division thoroughly dominates the other.
Of course, the P-10 is ready to force concessions to appease the northern schools and that could come via television scheduling and potential changes in television revenue.
Obviously this is not set in stone and it won't be until October that things are finalized. But it does appear one thing is clear - the Pac-12 will have a nine game schedule. That does not seem to be up for negotiation.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
N/S horrible idea. We must use zipper.
This would be awful. Neither Utah, Colorado or the NW schools really care about eachother. They want to play games in California and Southern Cal in particular. The zipper is exactly as fair for everyone as far as being in a different division from your natural rival. Everyone has equal acess to every region. We don’t need a situation where it is the CA strong division and relevant division against the have nots. Scheduling concessions? Give me a break. Even revenue concessions can’t fix an idea that could destroy the conference. Big 12 all over again. Recruiting will take major hits and the whole thing is just gonna be ruined if we go down this dangerous path.
dont like cal schools together either
the north south idea is acceptable if the two nor cal schools are in the north, with CU and UU in the south, i thought this was a condition of CU joining the PAC?
UW Oregon?
Am I the Only Ute fan that wants to be in the same divison with Washington and Oregon? But I would be very nervous about having all the California schools together. It could end up like the Big 12.
I wouldn't mind it if the California schools weren't dominating the other division.
I think the comparison to the Big 12 is apt because the historically strong P-10 teams would make up the south division.
Now while I understand Oregon is very good and Washington is on the upswing, beyond those two programs, I’m not sure I see much more added growth between OSU and Wazzu. I think Oregon State is about as good as it’s ever going to be. They’ll consistently be a solid P-10 team that pulls off an upset every now and then, but probably won’t take it to the next level and become a consistent national player. Neither will Washington State (which, right now, is in the pits).
In the south, though, there are programs with established success and more open avenues to potential success. Arizona State, I’ve always believed, is a sleeping giant with their location and the fact they’ve got a fairly solid football history to build on in Tempe.
UCLA won’t be down forever. SC will always be a team capable of recapturing its dominance. Cal and Stanford are every bit as good as Oregon State.
So I see a scenario where the power leans more toward the south and it shifts the conference more toward the Big 12.
Remember, the Big 12 wasn’t always lopsided like it currently is. Texas and Oklahoma had down years (especially when the Longhorns first joined the conference). At that time, the late 90s, Colorado was still a factor, as was Kansas State and Nebraska was still riding a dominant stretch from 1995 to 1997. But you knew Oklahoma and Texas would rise again and that maybe Colorado and Kansas State would falter a bit. Especially Kansas State, whose success is only tied to one coach.
Sure enough, Kansas State regressed greatly in the final years of Bill Snyder and so did Colorado after the debacle known as Gary Barnett.
But that’s my point. Over time, the power shifted greatly to the south when the most tradition rich programs in the conference (outside of Nebraska) found their mojo again. Well SC will find its mojo again and so will UCLA. I expect Cal and Stanford to only get better. Arizona is looking up and Arizona State sooner or later is going to get their act together.
The potential in the south is far greater than the potential in the north. Even if Utah and Oregon and Oregon State play top-level football. Oregon State has produced two ten-win seasons in program history (2000 and 2006) and God knows how long it’ll take Washington State to get back to the level where they’re even remotely close to their Mike Price days.
Ideally, the zipper format works because it doesn’t create these factions where one division will overshadow the next.
To me, this is set up for failure. The northern schools could see a hit in recruiting and over time, that will create a gap between the two divisions. I mean, right now, only the Oregon schools are consistently the best teams in that current division (I exclude Utah because we’re unknown at this point). That’s sketchy when you put them up against SC and Cal and Stanford and the potential of UCLA.
But we’ll see. I have a hard time imagining any AD from the potential northern schools accepting this.
Agreed
I agree with everything you’re saying. I grew up in the northwest so I would love it if Utah ended in the same divisions. I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Ideally in my mind, the Zipper model with UW, Oreg, Utah in the same divison. Having USC would be great but to me isn’t a must.
I think you're underestimating the North Division
Oregon fan here. Thought I’d chime in.
North:
Washington has just as much or even a better chance at a return to prominence than UCLA. Washington has world class facilities and have had great recruiting classes lately. OSU doesn’t need to get better they need to maintain what they’ve done lately, as they’ve been on the cusp of the Rose Bowl the last two years (would have won the conference had they won the Civil War last two years).
WSU, well they’re going to suck for a long time probably.
Colorado will be better once they rid of Hawkins as their coach and hire someone competent. They have won a national championship in football and are actually 16th all time in wins, so the potential is there for them to be a top-tier team. They should also benefit from better recruiting in Cali once they are in the conference.
UO and UU should both be good teams.
South:
Stanford has been really up and down in the recent past, currently they’re doing well, but who knows how long Harbaugh will stay there.
UCLA haven’t been a factor in the Pac for a while. Until they actually perform and win some games, potential is all they will have. This won’t be the year they turn it around.
UA was all ready to fire Stoops until they did well last year, but I don’t think they can consistently finish in the top half of the Pac. It’ll be interesting to see how they do this year.
Jeff Tedford is an awesome guy if you ever get to meet him, but Cal has yet to take that last step and win the conference. Their facilities suck, however they’re finally going to upgrade their stadium soon (it literally has a crack in it because it sits on top of a fault line).
USC should be good for the near future.
ASU is tough to predict. They have the potential to be a good football school, but need to become more consistent. They will suck this year most likely and that’s not going to help them in regards to their future.
The zipper is just stupid. Hey here’s an idea, let’s make sure the most important rivalry game for each school doesn’t count toward their division record! Brilliant! I mean it’s worked out so well in the ACC that it just can’t fail, right (it hasn’t worked in the ACC FYI. It’s been a miserable failure)? Who cares if anyone outside the conference has any idea what division the schools are in.
Separate the schools geographically. Teams will still have games in Cali all the time for recruiting purposes. If the North ends up weaker overall, that just makes it easier to win that division. USC has received the lions share of attention lately in the Pac anyway and that hasn’t hurt the parity of the conference. I don’t think the Norcal schools should be able to just whine their way in to the South division without some concessions, but I think either way the splits should be pretty equitable.
by KitIsh on Aug 31, 2010 12:08 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
And good luck against Pitt
I’ll be rooting for you guys this year, our soon to be conference brothers.
Not really trying to underestimate anyone.
Really.
But I see t he future of the P-12 lying in the South Division with Oregon and Washington being the true threats up there.
Like I said, I think OSU is about as good as they’ll ever be. That isn’t a shot at them, of course. But there are limits to some programs and their success is often not greater than a set average, no matter how much you try.
Washington State, even at its finest, was never really a consistent team. I believe up until their stretch of ten-win seasons at the end of the Mike Price era, he followed every winning season with a losing one. I guess there is some consistencies there, right? heh
But that’s my point. The potential for the North isn’t as high as the South and I think you can agree with me. Outside of Oregon and maybe Washington, none of those programs in the current North (not including Utah or Colorado) have dominated over a prolonged period of time (at least in the modern history).
In the South, though, I see things a bit differently. For starters, you’ve got the largest markets in the P-10. L.A., the Bay Area and Phoenix. Markets that are now less likely to cover the P-12 North if California teams are not associated with the conference. It makes sense, of course, because the focus on the South is always going to be about the division race.
The more exposure in California the better. Sure, we’ll get games against California teams, but we really won’t be competing with any of them in a division race. That’s where we’ll be with the North. The biggest market there is Seattle and we don’t really recruit up there.
Beyond that, I think it’s easier to become a strong program in a larger area – especially when the recruiting pool is in your backyard. UCLA is meh right now, but they’ll get it turned around. They have to solely because it’s hard to imagine a program that large, with all its tradition, being down for so long. Good programs stagnate and struggle. They go through a few coaches before they find the right fit – but once they do, look out. I mean, I watched the Ohio State/ASU Rose Bowl from 1997 on the Big Ten Network and that was a completely different Buckeyes team.
Back then, they were something like 1-6 in BOWL GAMES under Cooper and though they weren’t awful, they were hardly in contention for a championship. Cooper finally wore out his welcome and was fired three years later. Enter Jim Tressel and their program has pretty much owned the Big Ten since.
I’m not saying UCLA is on the cusp of that type of resurgence, but they certainly have the tools needed to reemerge as a Pac-10 player.
Now you’re right about ASU. But the potential, again, is huge. If that program can somehow take off, I think the P-10 South will go three or four teams deep and dominate the conference discussion – just how the Big 12 South currently does in regards to the North.
It doesn’t mean I think the programs there won’t surprise or can’t be consistent. Surely I’m not giving up on my Utes! But the exposure, nationally and in the biggest markets, will always be centered around the California schools because, after all, that’s where all the power is consolidated.
Not exactly the dream scenario.
I think if they’re going to split North/South, they break up the California schools. Keeping them all in the same conference, IMO, is going to hurt all P-12 North teams.
You have an ally here!
In the interest of full disclosure I am most interested in this model for selfish reasons. Since I live in the Pacific Northwest this model would make it much easier for me to see games.
However, this model does make logistical sense.
1.) By having all of the CA schools in one conference you can assure them they will play each other every year which has been a big source of contention.
2.) All natural rivals stay in the same division so you don’t run the risk of them playing each other on rivalry week and then the following week in the championship.
3.) If we go to a 9 conference game schedule that means every year we play 4 teams from the other division. Simple odds tells me that you can schedule a game in CA every year. In some cases you will have 2 games a year in CA and in very rare circumstances (once every 8 years you will not have a game in CA.) I know that is an important market but that isn’t going to hurt us especially since we seem to do fine already not playing the CA schools every year. SDSU and SJSU don’t count.
4.) Teams always go through cycles so even if one division may be top heavy that will change hands over time. It always does.
I think this is the best idea and I can’t wait to only have to drive 10 minutes to see the Utes in Husky stadium vs. 13 hours to go to RES. I love RES and can’t wait to go to the TCU game this year but driving through Idaho in the middle of fall isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.
Like I said, my concern isn't with playing in California.
We will. It’s about getting more exposure in So. Cal. Of course, we’ll get more via being a P-12 member than we ever did as a MWC team, but I feel we’d get far more if we were in a division with the So. Cal schools.
What happens when a conference splits into divisions like this is that most markets tend to focus on the conference their team is playing in. It makes sense, because it’s the most important to that region. Seattle and Portland and SLC and Denver will talk more about the North than L.A. and the Bay Area.
We’ll be an afterthought, I fear, for most of the season since we’re not in the division race with those So. Cal schools.
Plus, I do have issues with consolidating the powers in the south.
But we’ll see.
Careful what you wish for
You could get more exposure in the Pac-12 South as another team that always loses to USC*, and never makes it to the CCG. Do you think that would help your program?
Unfortunately, for the last decade or so, ALL pac-10 teams not named USC* are afterthoughts, from a national persepective. I mean, welcome to the party, there is room in our boat for both you and the Buffs.
*cheaters
GREAT!!
If you ask me that is the best possible scenario. Assuming there is a conference championship game, who cares how strong the other division is? If Utah is in the weaker of the 2 divisions, they will have a better chance of winning the division and advancing to the conference championship game. I think this is the best way the alignment could have gone for the Utes.
I think the fear is that, over time, it'll show...
We’ll still face tough southern teams. So it isn’t like we’ll be constantly feasting on weak northern programs over and over again. The schedule isn’t going to consistent of nothing but Washington States.
So the best case scenario is that Utah stays competitive with those southern teams and wins when it’s favorable for them (home game, or if the teams are equally talented). However, over time, the talent level might begin to shift greatly toward the other programs.
The Big 12 comparisons is a legitimate comparison because for a long, long time, the Big 8 was dominated by what consists of the current Big 12 North teams.
Look at the Big 8 champions from 1980 up until the conference formed in 1996:
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Nebraska/Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado/Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Nebraska
Okay, so through that whole stretch, Oklahoma won a Big Eight championship five times. Their last was in 1987. Throughout the 90s, the conference switched between Nebraska and Colorado. Oklahoma was going through its dark times and Kansas State was probably the third most powerful program in the conference.
Then the Big 12 forms and look how rapidly things shifted (first championship game in 1996):
Texas
Nebraska
Texas A&M
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Colorado
Oklahoma
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Texas
Early on, the conference was competitive between the north/south. Kansas State, Colorado and Nebraska were still producing seasons very close to what they saw in the 1990s.
However, as time went on and the powerful southern teams began to rise, the conference shifted greatly. Since K-State’s conference title in 2003, no Big 12 North team has won.
That’s not a coincidence, IMO. I think you’ll find that many Big 12 North teams have problems with the divisions as they currently are and it’s a big reason why Colorado decided to bolt for the P-10.
At first, I don’t expect it to be an issue. But if the power consolidates in the south, then things can rapidly change.
But we’ll see.
We in Cali really want to play the other CA schools every year.
Now, that doesn’t mean that we have to be in the same division. The Pac12Cooler.com plan would suit me just fine. It is a full zipper with 2 permanent cross-over games, where those crossover rivals are the 2 schools from the same region as you not already in your division (with the regions being PNW, Cali, and MountainZona.)
It would involve 5 divisional games, 2 permanent cross-overs and 2 out of the other 4 schools for a 9 game schedule.
The resulting distribution of games would be every single school playing an average of 3 schools from each of the three regions each year. Obviously that means everyone plays their regional neighbors every year as you can’t play yourself.
Now, as a Stanford fan, my interests would be served by a N-S CaliZona division, except for the fact that I have no particular desire to play the Zonas more than the other 6 schools.
As for saying that rivalry games would be neutered by having them be inter-divisional matches, there is a simple way to solve that. Determine division champions using the full conference record, not just the divisional record. The possible inequities of such a scheme are obvious, but it is a clear way to make the rivalry games matter more.
I really hope you Utes don’t feel slighted by the desire of the Cali schools to play each other every year. If it was up to some of us we would play an 11 game round-robin with no CCG. But that’s never going to happen. We simply care about each other more than anything.
Welcome to the Conference of Champions. I’ll be cheering for you this year. Beat Pitt.
Go Stanford, Beat kal.
Understood
It’s a lot to ask you guys to change up. However, if you create a system of haves and have nots? The conference will fall apart after a few seasons, a la the Big 12.
The PAC-10 is pretty even in the N/S for now.
I think Utah is pretty much just happy to be in the conversation. It would be nice to be in the southern division, with trips to LA every year, but I don’t think this is any commentary on which division will be more or less competetive. I think Utah, Oregon, and OSU will be the 3 better schools in the North and USC, CAL, and Stanford will be the better schools in the south, obviously with changes involving WA and UCLA, and occasionally the other teams.
I don’t think this will hurt Utah’s recruiting, nor Oregon’s or Washingtons, or anyone in the North. I actually think this allignment would make the most sense, and no one really knows how things will change. The South may become more dominant, but so may the North. It all depends on a million different factors, only 2 or 3 of which involve recruiting trips to LA, or USC being the most popular school in the conference. I don’t even think the market-sizes will make that big of a difference, with the California markets being obviously bigger.
I think Utah needs to just worry about becoming a full member of the conference, and winning a conference championship and a Rose bowl in their first 2-3 years.
If that happens, I don’t foresee any problems with recruiting for a while. Nothing that we can’t bounce back from at least.
I don't pour beer on Max Hall's family often, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.
I hate it for a variety of reasons.
9 conference games is a mistake. That’s the sort of thinking that marginalized the PAC 10. Every school except maybe WSU and CU in the PAC 12 will make more money having an extra OOC game so that they can have 7 home games or room for a big OOC game. Plus, 9 games means 6 more losses for top teams, which means fewer ranked teams at the end of the year. I’ve done this analysis on BlockU before, but last year the PAC 10 would have had 4-5 ranked teams if they’d played an 8-game schedule instead of 9. They would have been considered one of the toughest conferences in the country, instead of one of the weakest.
Second, it reeks of the mistakes of the Big 12. The Big 12’s recruiting goldmine is Texas, the PAC 12’s recruiting goldmine is CA. If you have a “california division” and a “not california division”, the NCD schools will progressively lose recruits to the CD schools. It may not be apparent immediately, but it will happen and it will cause problems.
Personally, I like the true zipper. But if we’re going north and south, then it needs to be either NW+NoCal and AZ+SoCal+Mtn or the “CA zipper” with NW+one NoCal + one Socal and AZ/Mtn + other NoCal + other Socal.
I also like the idea from Pac 12 Cooler, although (as I mentioned) I hate 9 games.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
Pac 12 cooler sucks
Implement that, and major rivalry games are not even in the same division. It dilutes the rivalries. And worse, to avoid playing the same foe in a conference championship game a week later, you’ve got to play your rival in mid-October. Ask Michigan and Ohio State fans how wonderful that possibility is. No, the Pac-12 Cooler is a Fail.
Utah has minimal leverage.
I was disappointed when I saw this, but it had been one of the most discussed scenarios. Utah probably doesn’t have much leverage as the teenager at the adults table. Personally, I would rather switch the divisions of Nor Cal schools and mountain schools. Utah?Colorado in the South, Cal/Stanford in the North. This splits the largest markets, and the California schools, keeping the financial power spread out. They could still have automatic annual crossover games and then two random ones.
The writer explains there would be scheduling concessions but what exactly does that mean? There are only so many games in a season and opportunities against the LA teams will be limited. Would the additional TV revenue be equal in value, as exposure in the largest markets?
It’s going to be tricky any way you slice it. I like having four OOC games too. I agree that having that ninth conference game is a bad idea because it equals more guaranteed losses. The problem is everyone wants to play in Southern California. The SEC has it right with eight conference games and then four home games against cupcakes to pad the records.
I agree on the unbalanced divisions.
Utah and Oregon will decide the PAC 10 for the next few years.
I like this, as it preserves the California and NW rivalries. How I didn’t think of this before amazes me.
I think the miscalculation was overestimating the NW schools insistence in playing in LA.
I like it!
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
No dog in this fight,
but I fail to see how it is bad for Utah that you’d only need to win one game against the best team from the South to make a BCS bowl instead of being better than them over the course of the season. Regardless of the setup, y’all are going to get a huge increase in exposure to California recruits. It’s the northwest schools that have something to lose. That’s not your problem – they’re the enemy.
by GwinnettGamecock on Sep 2, 2010 12:31 AM MDT reply actions
I actually really like a north/south division
I’d personally prefer to watch us play Oregon and Washington every year as opposed to the prophylactics and UCLA. I don’t know that either position will inherently give is better opportunity. Inherently we’re going to have stiff competition for a conference crown no matter the divisions.
The B12 North being weaker is not an inherent thing in my view. Football is cyclical and the north has been in a down cycle. That doesn’t mean it would have stayed that way forever.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
