Did Block/Guerrero Sign Off On A 12-Pac UCLA Schedule Without All California Schools?
by Nestor on Jun 16, 2010 7:53 PM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
Larry Scott has let Utah in the conference and apparently it is going to be split up in North-South division like this:
North
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California
South
UCLA, Southern Cal, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Apparently the Pac-10 is going with this arrangement because according to the Denver Post that is how Colorado preferred it:
Playing in a south division instead of a north with the Bay Area, Oregon and Washington schools was a must for Colorado to accept an invitation. Its largest out-of-state alumni base is in southern California.
"That is a huge boost for us," Bohn said. "The southern division for the University of Colorado provides many opportunities that are keys to reaching our alumni to our recruiting and to enhance media exposure that connects best to the Denver market."
As cool as it is to have the Buffs in our conference, it is kind of unseemly to have a newbie dictate a conference that wouldn't exist without Southern Cal and UCLA. I wonder if Gene Block and Dan Guerrerro signed off on this arrangement because if they did, they should be held accountable for helping destroy the identity of this conference.
Let's note two of glaring issues that stick out right away:
- The arrangement essentially ensures that UCLA and Southern Cal will never play a game again with a Rose Bowl on the line. From now on that game will basically be about getting into the Conference Championship game and that is about it. So much for "tradition."
- The arrangement will also take away our annual Bay Area trip to either Stanford or California in favor of annual trip to either Boulder or Salt Lake City. So much for making sure those thousands of Bruin alums who live in the Bay Area get to see at least one UCLA football game per year. So much for keeping all those students in mind who always circle the annual game in Bay Area as the biggest road trip of the season.
It is difficult to imagine a UCLA football season without having both Stanford and California on the schedule. That wouldn't be much of a "Pac-10" or whatever conference. So I sure hope the report above is not true and that the final arrangement break down something along the "zipper plan" which would at least preserve the traditional rivalries while ensuring the four California schools are kept together.
Interestingly Avinash from California Golden Blogs think that the North-South alignment helps Southern Cal and UCLA:
The biggest beneficiaries athletically have to be USC & UCLA. The two schools no longer have to make their dreaded northwest stops to the Oregon schools every year (and now with Washington rising, they don't have to worry about them either until the conference title) and who knows what happens with their Bay Area ties. Utah would be their most daunting challenger, but it's a far cry from the madness of Autzen or Husky Stadium. Both of those schools with their vast Los Angeles and Southern California recruiting pools are in prime position to dominate their division if they have the coaching to make it work.
The biggest losers have to be us (well the Furd too, but no one cares about the Furd). We do have to make the northwest stops, and even though we've won at every one of those stadiums the past decade, those are FAR tougher places to play than the LA schools or the Arizonas. We've only won once in Autzen, and we haven't won in Seattle since 2005.
But the biggest issue for us would be the dissolution of our traditional matchups with USC and UCLA. If we move to an eight game conference schedule, there's no way we'd play each other every year anymore. A nine game schedule allows for flexibility (maybe play both of them with one flex opponent, or one of them alternating years?), but the mere possibility of losing these rivalries would be a tough pill to swallow. The Northwest schools will want their LA matchups too, and there just aren't enough games to go around. Someone is going to lose in this scenario, and Cal could be hurt.
Also from SoCalOski:
Losing the annual Ucla and $C games each year is exactly why I felt expanding to a Pac 12 would be two steps forward and one step back. Those are at least as traditional a rival for us as Furd, and aside from geography, possibly almost as intense.
The idea that we would skip playing them on certain years is just a travesty, and simply not worth the conference expansion. You young-uns may not realize it now, but sometimes tradition actually is more important than money and exposure.
Hopefully the rumors of locking in the SoCal schools each year and rotating the other scrubs are true. I honestly don’t give a wet slap about missing a game against the Zonas or the new kids. They never were rivals. But Ucla and $C are.
So they are not all that excited about this either. Even though Avinash thinks it helps us, I am not sure if that advantage is really worth it at the expense of tradition. Pac-10 is not Pac-10 for UCLA without having all California schools on schedule every year. That makes zero sense.
I know lot of Bruin alums who are going to be incredibly upset if we miss out on annual Bay Area trips to take on either California or Stanford and instead hang out in front of 40,000 something Utes in Salt Lake City. Talk about destroying the identity of true Pac-10 conference. If Gene Block, a former Virginia administrator with not a lot of experience with West Coast football culture signed off on this possibility, he should have to answer tough questions during his next Bay Area alumni function.
This not only impacts the alums, it also impacts the students. I remember while we were students, we relished the annual road trip up to Berkeley or Palo Alto. If this reported arrangement is a reality that is all gone. That is not good at all.
We are going to need some detailed explanation from Dan Guerrero and Gene Block about their reasoning behind going along with any such plan (if this turns out to be a reality). The heart of college sports is all about tradition. When that is thrown away there won't be much to distinguish it with its stale and soulless professional counterparts. We will need explanation from UCLA officials why they didn't push for something like the "zipper plan" which reportedly didn't have much "traction" among Pac-10 officials.
As for Larry Scott, he better come through with a TV contract that justifies this kind of screwing around with conference makeup. Not only he has to come through with a monster TV K, he will also have to show sustained and discernible growth in next 5 seasons. If the results are mixed, he will forever be tagged as the tennis dude from Harvard, who ruined the Pac-10 conference (after all it was another Harvard guy - Al Carnesale - who was directly responsible for screwing UCLA football with hiring of Karl Dorrell). You can see why we don't trust those guys all that much.
GO BRUINS.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Block is a Stanford alum
and also got secondary degrees at Oregon, so he should know what the Bay Area and the Pac 10 in general means to UCLA.
by maccabita4life on Jun 16, 2010 8:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Not just that
I want to go to UW. Knowing that it’ll be less than every other year is complete BS. I know it’s not the same as the Bay Area trip, but that stadium is great as is the atmosphere.
absolutely
and I am personally also dreading this arrangement and I talked to a Cal alum whose a friend from hs and he said he can’t imagine not playing us every year.
Not so fast
It’s entirely possible that the California schools will demand an addendum that all the intrastate games are played each year. In that case I think these divisions would be in the best interest for the conference to remain balanced (and not suffer the imbalance of the Big XII) while still preserving the rivalries,
Also to consider: there must be a decision on whether division championship is decided only by games within the division or by the full conference record. In the former case, being in a division without USC would be even more of a travesty as the game would often be meaningless. I’d much rather have an annual game against USC that might decide the division title than a chance at a game every now and then that may decide the championship game. Apply all of the above for the Big Game, as well.
What the F is this?
Larry Scott just whores our conference to a newbie that brings nothing to the table. He went from ballsy aggressive dealmaker to whimpy pushover in a matter of 2 days. What the fuck is goin’ on here? I didn’t sign up for this lame ass alignment. We just went from Big 16 to WAC 2.0. Awful.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Jun 16, 2010 8:16 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Hrm
The plain fact of the matter is that Larry Scott was hired to shake things up. For the past several years many (but not all) Pac-10 fans have been clamoring for additional exposure and respect from the other major conferences. While we all love the traditions and rivalries, some say it doesn’t mean much if you can’t compete for championships.
Personally, I was fine with the Pac-10 because we were so unique amongst the other BCS conferences. I must agree, though, that we were on the brink of irrelevancy with the prospect of other conferences combining. Will two extra schools change that? Somehow I get the feeling this is only the beginning of some major changes over the next several years. It makes me sick, but it was inevitable…greed wins out again.
Brink of irrelevency
I see this deal as the deal that pushes us over the brink. Instead of raising the perception of the new members, it lowers the perception of the existing ones. We are headed toward becoming the WAC/MWC.
That's just absurd
Adding the strongest team from the MWC obviously makes the MWC weaker. The movements out of the Big XII have clearly made that conference weaker. And now the Pac-10 is on the brink of not being a major conference? A couple teams changing conferences have completely destroyed major conference sports in the West?
Utah and Colorado may not be Texas, but (with the possible exception of Colorado basketball) they fit right in the middle of the conference.
by SuperBruinMan on Jun 17, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Welcome to the Turbulent '70's.
Let’s protest the war. Let’s sit in until the administration caves in and give us our demands. I don’t actually remember what those demands were.
What I remember is that the passion was very strong, and the administration was very impassive. It’s harder to maintain passion than it is to simply ignore it. Eventually, we went back to class, then graduated, and forgot the whole thing.
There’s a lot of passion here, but why should you think the administration either at the school level or at the league level give a rat’s rear end about what students or alumni think? This is a commissioner driven thing. His mandate was to increase revenue, and by golly that’s what he’s going to do. He knows what is best for all the schools collectively, and he’s sorry if that steps on the toes of a few dissidents who are never satisfied about anything.
And after a while, we’ll forget about this, too, and wonder why we got so excited. We love our new commissioner and our new league. We’ll just work harder, because all animals are equal (except that administrators and league officials are more equal than others.)
If it happens this way,
this really pisses me off. So, Mr. Scott, you’re going to discard decades of intra-state rivalries, redefine the words “north” and “south,” and do so because one of the new teams, located a zillion miles east and a fair amount north of Cal and Stanford, wants to be considered “south”?
If this is so, I say bring back Tom Hansen. He may have done nothing, but at least he followed the primary rule: Do no harm.
2 suggestions
IF true we should:
1) Protest. We should be lobbying OUR AD to protect our interests. Been to one CU game at the Rose Bowl. Fun like when Tenn came. But not the same passion as any of the COAST schools. Who wants to be part of the Desert 6??
2) Demand WE schedule a complete PAC 12 schedule: I would rather play CAL, Stanfordn Oregon and UW each year than SD State, Rice and even Tenn. Others can do what they want but UCLA should want to play the CA schools BOTH years!
The best part of the thought of the PAC 16 was that our division was going to be the old PAC8.
This has me so agitated I am posting from my cruise!
Be sure to let Danny boy know we care. Everyone!
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Jun 17, 2010 1:33 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
2 suggestions
IF true we should:
1) Protest. We should be lobbying OUR AD to protect our interests. Been to one CU game at the Rose Bowl. Fun like when Tenn came. But not the same passion as any of the COAST schools. Who wants to be part of the Desert 6??
2) Demand WE schedule a complete PAC 12 schedule: I would rather play CAL, Stanfordn Oregon and UW each year than SD State, Rice and even Tenn. Others can do what they want but UCLA should want to play the CA schools BOTH years!
The best part of the thought of the PAC 16 was that our division was going to be the old PAC8.
This has me so agitated I am posting from my cruise!
Be sure to let Danny boy know we care. Everyone!
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Jun 17, 2010 1:37 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Accountability
Dear Gene and Dan,
Look, you don’t know me and I don’t actually know you. But you’re in charge of running, respectively, my alma mater and it’s athletic programs, so unfortunately, I’m stuck with you both. It’s all well-and-good that you’ve invited some new kids to the party, but I’d like to know what the f**k happened when it came to how the conference would be divided.
You see, I’m a loyal alum. I donate every year, whenever you send your emails, letters, and calls. I’ve visited campus on 99% of my trips to Southern California, and on every one, I’ve made sure I stopped in the store in Ackerman and bought some UCLA gear. I’ve bought tickets to football and basketball games whenever the Bruins are in town.
And that’s the problem. I’m a Northern California Bruin alum. I’ve been to every football game our boys in blue and gold have played in Berkeley or Palo Alto since I graduated. I’ve been to all but two Bruin basketball games in the Bay Area. And now you’ve cut me out. You gave the keys to this tennis executive and let him run wild, destroying the tradition of our conference. So now, I don’t get to see UCLA football every year. Gee, thanks. I’m glad you’re looking out for us alum in the northern half of the state.
Maybe I could deal if we weren’t playing Stanford every year, but to not play Berkeley? I mean, did you two forget about the first two letters of UCLA? We’re a UC first. Despite the hippies, annoying fans, and insufferable arrogance of being older, Berkeley is a UC campus too. And now, we can’t play them on an annual basis.
So, what I want to know, as an alum who donates money to the university, what you’re going to do about this situation. It’s simply un-f**king-acceptable. I’m down with this Utah and Colorado deal, although it looks like your Serena Williams Lovin’ Man Boy pulled the trigger without doing the due diligence on the revenue. But, to divide up the four California schools? Not. Down. With. That.
The two of you need to pull your heads out of your ass. No, I’m serious. You need to get on the phone with that cheating scumbag moron Garrett across town. It’s time to start throwing the collective weight of the Southern California schools around, Texas-Big XII style.
In other words, this division alignment is bullshit and I want to know why I should give UCLA a single dime while you two mental midgets are at the helm.
Sincerely,
Disgruntled NorCal Bruin Alum
by Bellerophon on Jun 16, 2010 8:38 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Why is CA less important than TX?
I liked the PAC 16 idea (the Texas deal that feel through) in part because it could set up the old PAC 8 as one of the divisions. It was keeping tradition in a sense while also modernizing it to keep up with the idea of the championship game, presumed more exposure with Texas, etc. While not perfect , it seemed to my mind to be a decent attempt to balance everything.
The PAC 12 seems to not have any respect for tradition. Remember the PAC 16 idea had to include as many Texas schools as possible to be considered. Texas did not want to break up the state and Scott caved and even took CO to cut off Baylor (supposedly that was the reason for the early announcement). Now California is going to be split in half without a fight? Also most UCLA students are in state but not all are from Southern California. This was a great chance for many to go home, watch their Bruins after they moved “back home”, etc. and cheer their Bruins. Why is that being denied?
UCLA must come to the Bay Area every year
Bruin Bash at either the Stanford or Cal Game is a fund raising event for Bay Area Bruins, and the proceeds goes towards our endowment. Bay Area Bruins would like to keep giving out scholarships!
It’s also great exposure to help us compete against Cal in getting admits to choose UCLA over Cal. I was getting the feeling with our improving football team we could get more students headed towards UCLA.
Bruin Bash
If I’m not mistaken, it’s pretty much the biggest fundraiser. Being able to hold only one per year = less scholarships from BAB. It also means less engagement with alumni.
Outside of Southern California, the Bay Area is the largest UCLA alumni organization. Disconnecting with them, from a UCLA perspective, seems disingenuous at best. The Bay Area football game is pretty much the only one I can easily make, and making this an every-other-year event blows.
Go Bruins!
by Harsha on Jun 16, 2010 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Freesia
How closely are you tied to the Bay Area alums? You think it is possible to get the organizers of those groups write to Block and Guerrero and then post it on BN>
I'll poke around my emails and see who would be a good contact
I’m more active with the college fairs, but I’ll see who I can email.
I know the president of the Bay Area Bruins. If you’d like to contact him regarding this, you can private message me, I’ll pass on his contact info.
Go Bruins!
When we had a rotating conference schedule
there was a stipulation that Cal and Stanford were always in the rotation. That meant, effectively, the only teams that UCLA skipped in the conference schedule were not from California.
If this North/South break does occur this way (and I have to admit, I’m not the biggest fan of this), I’m sure a similar rule would exist to ensure that Stanford/Cal/USC/UCLA always played each other every year. I think this is lot of commotion about something that’s never going to occur (ie, there’s no way Cal/Stanford/UCLA/USC don’t play each other every year). I think people need to calm down about that. Just because they’re in separate divisions doesn’t mean they’ll rotate out. As an example, look at Georgia and Auburn. Georgia never rotates Auburn off its SEC West schedule because they are traditional rivals. So I wouldn’t freak out about the schools going to separate divisions. They’ll always rotate in Stanford and Cal, and then we’ll play one (or two) other teams from the North division.
RE: no longer playing with a Rose Bowl on the line; true enough. But that hasn’t prevented plenty of other conference rivalry games remaining just as important (Georgia/Florida in the SEC East, Oklahoma/Texas in the Big-12 South, Alabama/Auburn in the SEC West). Just because it’s only for ‘the Championship game’ doesn’t really reduce its import, IMO.
Advocating the zipper plan makes even less sense if you want to retain the traditional importance of rivlarly games; the zipper plan could lead to a situation where a rivalry week game can become a duplicate of the championship game – and both the teams have already clinched their place in the championship game – thus rendering the rivalry week game completely pointless.
I hope you're right about the Cal Rotation Stipulation
But I wouldn’t say there’s no reason to freak out. If anything, the outrage will make sure that this stipulation doesn’t fall through the cracks.
Agree it's a possibility
but I guess the point I wanted to make was – just because the schools are in separate divisions doesn’t mean they can’t play each other every year. I suspect that would get done.
All that said, I’d prefer a divisional format that kept all the California schools in one division.
Also, the only paper reporting this as a ‘condition of Colorado’s entry’ was the Denver Post. Might I remind everyone that when the invitation was extended to Colorado last week, everyone thought there was going to be a Pac-16, and that Colorado would be in the Big-12 South division (ie, not in the same division as the SoCal schools). So I’m not sure how playing in the Pac-12 South division was a ‘must’ for Colorado before accepting a bid, given that when they did accept the bid, they had no idea they wouldn’t be in a division with the Big-12 south.
IE, I’m pretty sure the Denver Post is full of it.
I'll wait for an official word
As noted, why would the CU AD have a deal when they were about to get shipped to the Texas + AZ conference
I can't imagine Cal or Stanford are thrilled about this potential either.
I know for a fact Cal jacks up ticket prices for the UCLA and USC games. That’s a lot of potential $ gone for their programs.
Also, as is the on-going struggle for me, I can’t seem to find a good attendance figures. But I suspect attendance is higher at these games. (At some point I think I’ll have to compile my own database on this so I’ll actually have facts.)
Go Bruins!
Not enough games to keep everyone satisfied
Assuming that the conference returns to an 8-game schedule (something that I would be surprised not to see happen), there will not be enough games to either 1) keep both Cal and Stanford in permanent rotation, or 2) play the rest of the other division sufficiently.
If an agreement is reached to allow the California schools to play each other every year, that would only leave 1 game/year for UCLA/USC against the Northwest schools, and likewise 1 game for Cal/Stanford against the AZ/new schools. Using UCLA as the example, the Bruins would begin their scheduling commitment with 5 games against its division opponents, plus games with Cal and Stanford.
If the Pac goes to 8 games, this would only leave 1 game on the schedule in which to fit the Oregon and Washington schools. We would only get to play those schools once every 4 years, taking 8 years to complete a home and home with the conference. If the conference schedule remains at 9 games (which I am told the coaches/football people do not want), preserving a complete California matchup does become easier, allowing 2 games/year against the NW schools – playing them every other year, and completing a home-and-home every 4 years.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. It seems that the conference’s football coaches (and athletic depts?) really prefer an 8 game schedule to the current 9 game, but the consequences of making it happen will piss off plenty of people: Either the California schools do not play one another every year, or the northwestern schools lose access to Southern California (playing in LA only twice in an 8-year period). While retaining the 9-game schedule may not be ideal from a competitive standpoint (And by losing the round-robin with expansion, the logic of the 9 game setup is lost in any event), it could make preserving the California rivalries possible, while keeping the Oregon and Washington schools somewhat happy (keeping an LA team on their schedule every year, and LA trips every other year).
formerly bruinhoo
Well then you know what that means?
Swap the mountain schools for the Bay Area schools. There. Problem solved.
And one other thing
I know that swapping mountain for Bay Area doesn’t satisfy this supposed “deal” with CU, but you know what? If they don’t like it, then they can leave, and go back to the Big Tex conference, hat in hand and tails between their legs. You can be sure Utah would do whatever it took to get CU to agree to our terms, because without CU, we have no reason to keep Utah, and their invite goes up in smoke as well. Doesn’t Scott know that he’s capitulating when he’s in a position of power here?
These newbies will agree to our terms and like it or they can go back where they came from. Simple as that.
I would like to keep games against cal, washington, oregon...
on side note, is that photo from the stanford game this year? That was a pretty killer game for us (the band), the seats were awkwardly positioned and our march in took a huge amount of time and energy.
I believe it is
If I could zoom in on that shot, I could probably see my dad and I in there.
formerly bruinhoo
The band (at least while I was there)
always does a road trip to the Bay Area. It’s one of the most memorable times of the year. I still remember ‘bus surfing’ on the 5, standing on the armrests with my head out the exit/vent on the top of the bus. Ahh…good times. For this and so many other reasons, cutting us off from the Bay Area schools is complete BS.
In the immortal words of the pin I got while an undergrad: Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
In reply
I know lot of Bruin alums who are going to be incredibly upset if we miss out on annual Bay Area trips to take on either California or Stanford and instead hang out in front of 40,000 something Utes in Salt Lake City. Talk about destroying the identity of true Pac-10 conference.
I don’t think it’s going to sting that much. Last years average attendance at Stanford was only 41,436 (which was a huge improvement for them). Utah’s average attendance was 45,155 (their capacity is 45,017).
When that = about 10-15k more than Stanford's typical (non-Cal/ND rivalry) attendance
That’s going to sting for us, and suck for Stanford.
formerly bruinhoo
We've been kicked out of the Pac-8
So now $c and us are paired with the non-Pac 8 schools. It feels like we are the leftovers or something. Do they not have any sense of tradition? Why do we have to leave the Pacific to play our games (going east)? I hate this. And don’t they know that the Berkeley-UCLA rivalry is important as well? People knowing about the pac are running this. I loved how we were the only major conference that actually had a champion because we played everyone…and in basketball twice. What does this do to basketball? Letting the outsiders dictate this is horrible. Is there any way to pass on all of these comments to anyone who is deciding…or shall we gather and protest with Cal students (they are great at protesting). I know Fox said they’re stubbornness can out live the passion. But, revenues do come from students and alumni as well.
Go Bruins!
Horrible
Colorado may have almost allowed us to break even on TV deals. With Utah we are another WAC Conference. Horrible. This can’t be the end game. I have to believe there is still the hope that Texas and its buddies will be coming into an 18 (now) team conference. At least LA’s only pro football team is still in our division.
Bleeding powderkeg blue and gold for 55 years. Go Bruins!
i don't think you understand
the zipper plan. It would have split each local pairing into different divisions, such as:
WSU/OS/Stan/USC/Utah/ASU
Wash/UO/Cal/UCLA/Colo/Ariz
For UCLA, they’d then have Cal in the same division, and have USC as a protected rival. They’d still not be tied into Stanford every year, so they’d still not have what they want.
Given the divisions as (apparently) agreed on, should UCLA get Cal (and USC get Stanford) as a fixed rival, they’d be in the same position as the zipper (annual games with Cal and USC, 2 games against Stanford per 5 years), but they’d be trading being division-mates with Washington and Oregon for being mates with Utah and ASU.
Of course, if it’s two divisions with ZERO fixed non-division rivalries, it’s worse for the LA / NorCal rivalries, but I can’t believe the four CA schools would possibly agree to such a deal… right?
I’m still thinking that the league makes a 9-game slate, and protects BOTH annual matchups with the Bay Area schools for USC and UCLA, and then rotates the rest. Of course, that’s pure conjecture at this point.
I emailed Larry Scott about it and he said “i expect to be discussing the divisions tomorrow after the press conference, but not before.”, so we’ll be getting answers soon, and I’m guessing they’ll be ones the four CA schools are happy with. If not, it’s only going to cause serious problems down the line; if the rest of the league pisses those four off, then it substantially destabilizes the league and creates a serious risk that they secede and do their own thing eventually. Certainly not inevitable, but it massively reduces the margin of error that the Pac-12 experiment has.
umm
I understand the spite bit, but that’s crazy talk. I wouldn’t be surprised if the four CA schools (possibly along with the two AZ ones) had informally chatted about the possibility of breaking off (and subsequently inviting Washington, possibly Oregon too), and trying to create a trimmed down power league with Texas and some of their buddies.
IMO the Pac-12 experiment gets a few years to succeed, but if it doesn’t, it could completely blow up.
why cant we
just have 10 conference games and two out of conference?
you can't have 10 conference games because
of a few reasons:
1) it makes every team’s schedule tougher, and NO ONE EVER gives the league credit for even nine games. 10 just makes that problem worse.
2) Teams like to have the flexibility to schedule interesting OOC games without making the whole schedule bloody murder, or to simply schedule creampuff bodybags to inflate the W/L records, or to schedule OK teams in 2:1 or paycheck games.
I was looking forward for a Pac 16,
but a Pac 12 doesn’t sound good anymore. I say we give CU back.
I am very unhappy with this.
Frankly I just hate this idea. I don’t want UCLA to be in any Pac 10 South. That just destroys the whole tradition of the Pac 8/Pac 10. Even Arizona and Arizona St. are not traditional Pac 8 schools. It would be like playing in the old WAC Conference. I want to play Oregon and Oregon St. and Washington as well as Cal and Stanford with whom we have decades and decades of rivalries. And I could care less about Colorado. We have absolutely no tradition whatsoever of playing them, and what do they really bring to the table? Overall they have been one of the weakest teams in the Big 12 in football and basketball. Only Iowa St. clearly ranks below them in the Big 12 north. TV, money, whatever, there is nothing that justifies this.
This is especially awful for us. At least the Northern schools would be playing exclusively all former Pac 8 schools and keeping at least most of their traditional rivalries. Other than SC we’re giving up all our other traditional rivalries. While the north would stay mostly true to past tradition we would be part of a the new WAC East.
what a shame
i understand that nothing stays the same but my kids love the bay area road trips… This sucks!
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
has anyone else confirmed this but the denver post?
the ESPN article sources the denver post story.
Maybe it is just wishful thinking on colorado’s part.
The conference should be California and Arizona in one block, and the other states in another block. It makes sense culturally, traditionally and geographically.
by silverlakebruin on Jun 17, 2010 9:24 AM PDT reply actions
Note the links
Ted Miller posted with his own source that other plans were not gaining “traction” among Pac-10 officials (that was independent of the Denver Post report).
Sorry, just learned the CRN said at LAAC
that nothing has been decided on how they will allign, or if it has, nobody has told him about it.
by silverlakebruin on Jun 17, 2010 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree
Keep the PAC the same, why mess with tradition. All of the PAC schools are a tradition… Send CU back and sure as heck don’t bring Utah in. What are we the WAC now. The only teams to benefit from this crap ass aliance is Utah and CU… Definantely no PAC schools. I’m a BRUIN but I graduated from Wazzu and sorry I look forward to our games every year… I hope that Scott isn’t a complete idiot…I say we inundate them with emails and calls, let our opinions be heard…
by Michelleucla69 on Jun 17, 2010 9:52 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
But guys, you're not thinking clearly
You’re forgetting that we’re promised $20 million a year. It would have been foolish to do all this frenzied activity unless we were going to get $20 million a year. UCLA can do a lot with $20 million a year. I know it’s going to be $20 million a year, because that was what everyone said way, way back a long time ago (last week) when all this started. You can’t ignore $20 million a year. That’s enough money to make changing some traditions and alignments worth while.
And exposure. Wow. I’m sure that UCLA will go straight to the top of the polls now, because we have exposure. Why I’ll bet most of our coaches had never heard of Colorado or Utah. No one imagined that there were any good players there. But now that we’ve added Colorado and Utah, think of the exposure we get. (But keep this quiet. None of the other schools in the new, bigger, better, Pac 12, know that there are good players in Utah and Colorado. We want to go in and get them all, which we should easily be able to do with this exposure.
And last but not least, we couldn’t wait to expand. If we waited, we would be left behind. It’s like you hear on TV from the car dealers – if you wait, you’ll lose out because the sale is ending. There will never be another sale, ever. And there was one and only one orbital window to shoot at, and it would never be back. If we don’t expand now, we are totally screwed. Our league will wither. Our guys will all run a step slower. We won’t be able to look anyone in the eye. We will be just a forgotten, deprived waif. (I’m starting to get teary here, ladies and gents. You’ll have to give me a second.)
Whew. That was tough. Fortunately, we were saved by our dauntless commissioner, who saved the day. Last week, a nothing, weak, wimpy Pac 10, but today – whooeee! A powerhouse. We’re the Pac 12. We have added perennial powerhouses Colorado and Utah. I can’t wait for them to come to the Rose Bowl. Get your seats early, folks, because those games are sure to sell out. I can’t believe we lucked out and got those two schools. I feel exactly like I did when CTS filled an open Offensive Coordinator position with the single, most sought after guy ever. The guy everyone wanted. The guy who’s picture was shown in the dictionary next to “Offensive Genius.” Yep, I’m talking about Jay Norville (or was it Debra Norville? I can’t remember.)
What a coup. The entire galaxy wanted Utah and Colorado, but we got them. Can you imagine the looks of envy the next time Scott walks into a meeting of commissioners? (“Psst. Steve. Who’s that good looking guy with the confident smile?” "Him, oh, he’s none other than Larry “Superman” Scott. He’s just the guy who managed to snag both Colorado and Utah. That’s all he is.")
This is football heaven. The is all anyone could want. $20 million a year per school. A great TV schedule. Great exposure. I can’t understand why you think it’s more important to drive to Berkeley once every two years and drink beer than to have $20 million per school.
Good post Fox 71
Good post! I love the Pac 10 conference the way it is. This is throwing 60 + years of tradition down the toilet and for what? Maybe if it was to incorporate Texas and Oklahoma there would be a good argument. But for Colorado? Give me a break. I’m so mad about this that I’m not even sure that I’ll renew my football season tickets after this next year.
In the REAL world
Money trumps tradition every time! The good ole boys from UT played Mr. Larry Scott, and he was not smart enough right then to back off when they wouldn’t dance with him. Now he has left himself only the two ugly girls to dance with, Colorado and her sister Utah. Not only that but he is forgoing the chance to dance with all the other beautiful ladies on the north side of the hall. Part of dealing is knowing when to hold your cards and when to play, I think Larry just busted, but we will see if he has an ace up his whatever.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
