It appears increasingly likely that the Pac-10 will split into six-team North and South divisions once Utah and Colorado join the league.
...six-team North and South divisions once Utah and Colorado join the league.
...six-team North and South divisions...
...North and South divisions...
...North and South...
I'll just leave this here.
almost 2 years ago
Tydides
33 comments
10 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Take a look at the NBA and NHL
The Jazz and Nuggets are in the….NORTHwest division with Portland. The Colorado Avalanche are in the NORTHwest division. Why are we trying to redraw the map?
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Jun 16, 2010 10:43 PM PDT reply actions
Perfect!
Paul is right. If North is truly North and South is truly South, how many eyes are going to be on the North games? If this is all about TV revenue (as it is and should not be), the best games will be those between the LA and SF area teams — the two biggest media markets in our conference. And, those games are not “automatic” every year.
Now that we are in this mess, they want to redirect the compass to make sure the Bay Area teams prop up the low fanbase, smaller market teams with which they’ve been lumped.
What really pisses me off is that UCLA and sc, two of the founders of the Pac 8, are now in with 4 newbies. I want to play Cal and Stanford (BOTH) every year.
I have very fond memories of traveling to the Bay area away games on what we used to call “all Cal weekend”.
And, those rivalries mean something to me.
Just when you think this deal has hit the bottom, they take out the shovel and dig a little deeper.
sjh
B-B-B-B-But
To hear the apologists talk about it, smaller media markets don’t matter. All you need is competitiveness, and the apologists say that Utah should have no problem competing in the new conference no matter who they play, so why wouldn’t people be interested? Right, guys? Right? That’s the bill of goods they were trying to sell me, so they should have no objection with how I, no, Mother Earth, has drawn the lines.
Looking at the map again
If you divide it East-West, then you have five schools west of LA and five east of LA, and since the trogans are east of us…
Leaving it up here
Because if we bump it on home page it will get bumped down. I wish there was a way to keep bumping up fanshots like we can do with fanposts. But don’t have that functionality.
T- May be you can turn this into a short fanpost as well?
Re: Cal/Stanford
I’m pretty confident that any arrangement will ensure that UCLA plays AT LEAST Cal every year (if not both Cal and Stanford). The way I understand it, scheduling-wise, the Pac 12 will have a few approaches it can take. Starting with the assumption that every team plays every other team in its division, that’s 5 games, which leaves 3-4 additional conference games against the other division. There are then a few approaches for determining those games. The Big XII used to have each team play a home-and-home against three other teams, alternating who those other three teams are. I doubt the Pac 12 would do this. What the SEC originally did was have two designated teams that you always played – in UCLA’s case, we’d want to always have Cal and Stanford. Then, the remaining 1/2 games would rotate among the other schools (the Washington and Oregon schools). This was later adjusted to only having one designated team, and I’m assuming UCLA would be paired up with Cal, given the historical relationship, putting Stanford into a rotation.
I think it goes without saying that all four California schools feel strongly about playing each other annually, for purposes of rivalry and history, not to mention recruiting and the ability to connect with fans in the other half of the state. I don’t imagine that the collective will of UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal – who really probably are the most powerful voices in the conference – will be ignored.
I really really hope
The divisions get divided up as indicated above… I like to have road games I can drive to. I’ll go to every road game in AZ or Norcal, but SLC…Boulder? That’s a bit more difficult to swing on an annual basis.
Does it have to be...
Eight North and and South? If not, how about and East/West division letting Utah, WSU, Colorado and the AZ schools all play in the sand box together? I guess this won’t fly anyway, but it would help our NorCal Bruin brothers..
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
A true East/West split would put the dividing line right through LA
That’s kind of poetic
by Gen2Bruin1987 on Jun 17, 2010 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
As much as I'd love to send $C to the desert...
I think our rivalry is too important. I’d hate to see that go away.
I may work with the Waves, but I'm still a Bruin!
If such a split were to occur
guaranteed there’d be a provision that rivals still schedule eachother every year.
If I remember correctly.......
Back in the good old days, when we played 11 games a season, if I remember correctly, we use to play an unbalanced schedule. We would play all the California schools, and then not play one of the other schools up North or in Az. That gave us 8 Conference games and 3 OCC games.
Why can’t we go back to something like that? The one reason I was against Conference realignments was that it would have destroyed long time rivalries and yearly games that students and alumni have come to live for. Some of these games have been going on for ages. I just can’t see UCLA not playing ‘Furd, Cal and the Trogans every year. I just don’t buy tradition be damned it’s all about the $$$$$$.
We lived without playing a team fom the North or ‘Zona every year, we can do it know and throw in a game from one of the newbies while we are at it. Maybe I’m a geezer but I go all the way back to UCLA and the single wing and I love the tradition, that’s what makes college football so special. Lose tradition and all you have is the NFL with colleges and not cities representing the teams.
Bruin Hair is Everywhere!
The old arrangement meant
That the NW schools did not play a so-cal school in so cal once every 6 years. With 9 conference games, having to play 5 games in your division + Cal & Stanford would be 7 total, then there would only be a 50% chance a NW school would get to play a so-cal school in so cal.
So while they were ok with only playing a so-cal school in so-cal 5 out of 6 years, they’re not ok with playing us only once every 2 years.
Louisiana Tech is in the WESTERN Athletic Conference
I’d just like to point that out.
I Hate Your Ducks
Maybe we can join the NHL
Everybody makes the playoffs. And think of the exposure we would get in Edmonton.
Atlanta, Charlotte and New Orleans were all in the NFC West
At least St Louis is on the correct side of the Mississippi River, barely.
formerly bruinhoo
This is all about football
but what about basketball? Do we even care if we ever play Utah or Colorado?
West is right, East is up, down is North, uhh, wait...
I didn’t know Señora Ross taught geography, too.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
Two six-team divisions
is natural in terms of play-offs, certainly. If they align as two sixes, I really hope they look at Ty’s map. This alignment makes so much sense, which is precisely why I fear they’ll choose a different alignment. Common sense always seems to take a back-seat to money.
But, does it have to be two six-team divisions? Three four-team divisions creates a natural divide, both geographically and rivalry-wise.
Pacific North: UO, OSU, UW, WSU
Pacific South: UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford
Pacific East: UA, ASU, Utah, Colo
This would guarantee games against each of your division rivals every year, with a mix of out-of-conference games, guaranteeing games against each of the other teams at least every other year. Of course, you’d have to figure out a way to arrive at a conclusion at the end of the season. Also, it could create an inherent unfairness in divisions, if dominant teams got to play in a cup-cake division.
Come on, guys. Make it easy on yourselves. Look at the map above. Remember, as ucla717274 reminds, it’s not just about football. Give us a two-division alignment as above, an alignment that respects history, preserves rivalries, minimizes travel, and doesn’t defy common sense.
The good part about a 12-team league is that you could also have four three-team divisions.
My own preference is for 12 two team divisions. You would play a double elimination tournament against your division, then go into the playoffs. The possibilities (and the revenue to be generated) seem endless.
Being in a two-team division
with $uc would be like being married to someone who combined the qualities of Bernie Madoff, OJ1, and Paris Hilton.
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
Your traditional rival would be in a different division, because as you know the Pac-12 is all about tradition, and would want to preserve the traditions of the past. We would probably want to have our elimination games against Wazzou or someone like that. It’s not just revenue involved – think of the exposure we would get up in the Pullman area.
Have we got a new name for our new league yet?
I’ve been thinking a lot about this. We’re so geographically diverse that we really want use any sort of directional or regional name. The number of teams in the league seems to be in a permanent state of flux. Our new commissioner Larry Fine, I mean, Larry Scott has made it clear that he’s thinking out of the box about just about everything, so why not about the name of the league.
My first thought was Edsel, but that’s been taken.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
