The PAC 10 expansion groundswell

[Surfah]

It is almost like someone expressed that idea 1 post before Triplet.

See my edit smart ass.

[TripletDaddy]

See my edit smart ass.

sizzle already mentioned this earlier today or maybe last night. No at large berths, simply take the two best records in each superconference to play for the conference championship.

Great sleuthing on the oregon board in figuring out such a complex puzzle.

[Surfah]

sizzle already mentioned this earlier today or maybe last night. No at large berths, simply take the two best records in each superconference to play for the conference championship.

Great sleuthing on the oregon board in figuring out such a complex puzzle.

Well depending on how the schedules play out that would put some teams at a disadvantage I'd think.

[Mormon Red Death]

A rumor on an Oregon board is that you would play the 3 teams in your POD then 2 from each of the other PODS (I'm not sure why PODS is all caps). Then the two teams with the best records would play in the champ game.

In theory you could end up with Utah/Colorado or a different rivalry game playing the last week of the season then the following week for the champ game then.

Why not? The B1G could have that with Tosu and Michigan right now. The old big 12 could have had that (Nebraska and Oklahoma play then play again).

[TripletDaddy]

Well depending on how the schedules play out that would put some teams at a disadvantage I'd think.

absolutely. Which weakens the entire reasoning behind super conferences. Apart from money, not sure what strategic advantage is found in putting 16 teams in one conference.

but that is what these teams seem to want. The SEC wants to keep adding tougher teams, not weak teams. in doing so, it becomes tougher to win out, but they seem fine with that. My guess is that as we have seen, the media is much more forgiving of a loss in the SEC than elsewhere. So perhaps the other supers are trying to buy that sort of padding.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

sizzle already mentioned this earlier today or maybe last night. No at large berths, simply take the two best records in each superconference to play for the conference championship.

Great sleuthing on the oregon board in figuring out such a complex puzzle.

You should be worrying about future Big West basketball battles.

[Omaha 680]

LOL @ pods. They're confusing and they make intraconference rivalries even more nonsensical. I don't know which would cause the PAC more headaches and alienate fans more: a ridiculous pod system or banishing all the newbies (post 1978) to an East Division.

That said, being a part of the madness is better than being left out.

[TripletDaddy]

You should be worrying about future Big West basketball battles.

Why? that is all hypothetical. I'm worried about what is real and right now the only thing on my mind is the WCC.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Why? that is all hypothetical. I'm worried about what is real and right now the only thing on my mind is the WCC.

I am planning a return to the Galen to see if the stat girls are still hard at work this winter, I'll miss the idea of them in the Pac 1X.

[Paperback Writer]

A rumor on an Oregon board is that you would play the 3 teams in your POD then 2 from each of the other PODS (I'm not sure why PODS is all caps). Then the two teams with the best records would play in the champ game.

In theory you could end up with Utah/Colorado or a different rivalry game playing the last week of the season then the following week for the champ game then.

They might set up divisions - old Pac8 and then everyone else in a different division. And also set up pods and schedule around that as stated. Then the winner of the PAC-8 and the winner of the other divison play in the CCG. The problem with not having divisions and just pods is the tie-breaking might be complex. Suppose there's and undefeated USC in one pod and a 2-loss Utah, a 2-loss Oregon, and a 2-loss OU in the other pods with no clear tie-breakers. Who plays USC in the CCG? With divisions, 2-loss Oregon is eliminated and then there just has to be a tie-breaker with 2-loss Utah and 2-loss OU and that is not as complicated as a three-way.

Plus the old Pac 8 get to identify themselves as such even if the NW schools don't play all the California schools every year.

[Mormon Red Death]

They might set up divisions - old Pac8 and then everyone else in a different division. And also set up pods and schedule around that as stated. Then the winner of the PAC-8 and the winner of the other divison play in the CCG. The problem with not having divisions and just pods is the tie-breaking might be complex. Suppose there's and undefeated USC in one pod and a 2-loss Utah, a 2-loss Oregon, and a 2-loss OU in the other pods with no clear tie-breakers. Who plays USC in the CCG? With divisions, 2-loss Oregon is eliminated and then there just has to be a tie-breaker with 2-loss Utah and 2-loss OU and that is not as complicated as a three-way.

Plus the old Pac 8 get to identify themselves as such even if the NW schools don't play all the California schools every year.

The old Pac-8 wasnt the pac-8 until 1964 (oregon and osu joined). they became the pac-10 in 1978. Why does everyone think there is all this "we have to get back to the old pac-8"? Why would the cali schools care more about the oregon or Wash schools over the Arizona schools?

IMO Pods make the best sense. If you are the NW schools in the pod you would play one game in Cali, one game in Rocky states and one game in either texas or Oklahoma every year. For recruiting that is pretty good. If you need more Cali or Texas games there is several other teams in those states that would be more than happy to have you come play at their stadiums.

[TripletDaddy]

The old Pac-8 wasnt the pac-8 until 1964 (oregon and osu joined). they became the pac-10 in 1978. Why does everyone think there is all this "we have to get back to the old pac-8"? Why would the cali schools care more about the oregon or Wash schools over the Arizona schools?

I don't know how it will ultimately play out but the fact that you asked that question shows your lack of familiarity with the PAC. Your googling skills also illustrate that.

[U-Ute]

Reminds me of the old WAC-16.

[Scorcho]

.

I imagine the reason that the PAC-12 needs to react quickly to the expansion of the ACC is simply because of geography. The Big 10 has a luxury that the PAC does not. It sits in the middle of the country and is not really impeded by location. And because of it's prestige, I can't imagine another conference poaching a school from the Big 10.

With rumors of several Big 12 teams reaching out to the Big East, ACC & SEC, if Scott doesn't move quickly the more valuable schools will be taken.

I believe the reason that the ACC moved so quickly is because they are threatened by the SEC, and possibly the Big 10. There have been several rumors that the SEC is looking at Clemson or Florida St. And the Big 10 has been rumored to be looking at a few ACC Schools as well.

Larry Scott needs to be proactive in the Superconference race, the Big 10, and SEC have the luxury of sitting back and cherry picking whom they like.

[Mormon Red Death]

I don't know how it will ultimately play out but the fact that you asked that question shows your lack of familiarity with the PAC. Your googling skills also illustrate that.

What about the old Pac-8 is so intriguing? Why do the Cali Schools love the NW schools more than Arizona schools? What do the NW schools have in common with the Cali schools that the Ariz schools don't?