Should we? I say yes

I say yes, too....What the hell will Cal have in common with Texas?....or Okie State....oh god save us!......now where to I cast my veto?

definitely... I would rather go back to the Pac 8 if that happens

BT, I like your moniker and your thinking. Seriously, if the 4 California schools band together on this, the conference will have to do the right thing. It's not even about just continuing to play each other. It's also about not sacrificing scheduling flexibility because all the conference schools want access to California. Guess what, being in California is an advantage. We're not flaunting it ala Texas, but we sure as hell aren't going to put ourselves at a disadvantage either. I'd prefer a PAC-8, SW split, but I could also live with a pod system if our pod was Cal, Stan, UCLA, USC. Anything else, and I'd be in favor of the 4 California schools withdrawing from the whole deal. I don't think any other conference alignment would be better than the 4 of us going it alone. Let Larry Scott chew on that for awhile.

Bear_Territory;573904 said:

---

If Cal schools don't play each other should we veto PAC 16

---

It's a certainty. Not even any question about it. For the same reason that if the Four Stooges come over they will play each other each year as well.

Agree. Not even a question. Who cares about Utah and Colorado? I would certainly forgo the additional 10 million per year to keep the SC thing going.

The other issues that are not addressed - what about baseball, hoops, water polo, etc. How is this all going to work out? Each team plays each other once and switches home and home every other year?

The NCAA will have to deal with a lot of issues with the super-conferences.

Oski87;573946 said:

---

Agree. Not even a question. Who cares about Utah and Colorado? I would certainly forgo the additional 10 million per year to keep the SC thing going.

The other issues that are not addressed - what about baseball, hoops, water polo, etc. How is this all going to work out? Each team plays each other once and switches home and home every other year?

The NCAA will have to deal with a lot of issues with the super-conferences.

---

Thats if the super-conferences dont leave the NCAA

Why would they? The NCAA has a 10 billion contract for basketball, which pays for everything else they do. No one wants to go off and pay the players which is one of the ideas. They want the ability to call them students athletes and then not pay the workers comp claims or the medical, etc. They are not stupid. The NCAA has the exemptions, not the Pac 16.

Oski87;573962 said:

---

Why would they? The NCAA has a 10 billion contract for basketball, which pays for everything else they do. No one wants to go off and pay the players which is one of the ideas. They want the ability to call them students athletes and then not pay the workers comp claims or the medical, etc. They are not stupid. The NCAA has the exemptions, not the Pac 16.

---

+1. If there was a positive rep button, I would have clicked it.

Oski87;573962 said:

---

Why would they? The NCAA has a 10 billion contract for basketball, which pays for everything else they do. No one wants to go off and pay the players which is one of the ideas. They want the ability to call them students athletes and then not pay the workers comp claims or the medical, etc. They are not stupid. The NCAA has the exemptions, not the Pac 16.

---

Good point, but I'm guessing the NCAA will have to change their rules regarding 4 team pods and championship games

Bear_Territory;573966 said:

---

Good point, but I'm guessing the NCAA will have to change their rules regarding 4 team pods and championship games

---

Do you even know how the NCAA is constituted? And how NCAA regs are proposed and come into existence?

Do you even understand why the NCAA exists?

Oski87;573962 said:

---

Why would they? The NCAA has a 10 billion contract for basketball, which pays for everything else they do. No one wants to go off and pay the players which is one of the ideas. They want the ability to call them students athletes and then not pay the workers comp claims or the medical, etc. They are not stupid. The NCAA has the exemptions, not the Pac 16.

---

The NCAA tourney also pays for a lot of the overhead for schools/conferences that don't make a thing. super conferences leaving would destroy the tourney and the NCAA, so the NCAA will have to play very nice to the super conferences.

It seems in both sides interest to stay put, but there will have to be some accommodations made and NCAA has far more to lose.

The idea that super conferences couldn't easily get couldn't get non profit status for a new league is BS. Even most BCS lose money on college athletics - excess money is used to fund non-rev sports and schools that have positive football revenue also have total loses on the entire AD. Not sure how one can argue that 'full cost' scholarships would invalidate that (though giving that to full complements non-rev sports isn;t a great move if the school has to subsidize athletics).

FiatSlug;573974 said:

---

Do you even know how the NCAA is constituted? And how NCAA regs are proposed and come into existence?

Do you even understand why the NCAA exists?

---

nope

We should veto Texas in any case. Longhorns will wreck the PAC the same way they did the Big-12.

Scott will make sure the scheduling, pods or dvisions issue come only after the Pac has expanded, just like he did with Colorado and Utah joining the Pac.

I meant not just the non-profit status but the actual laws, rulings, etc that the hundred years of NCAA stuff has created. I am not sure how that would transfer over, if at all. And I doubt that anyone wants to deal with it. The NCAA is not in the way of the big conferences, anyway. They are supporting this move as a revenue generation process to get more money into athletics. I am sure they are all for it.

FremontBear;573983 said:

---

We should veto Texas in any case. Longhorns will wreck the PAC the same way they did the Big-12.

---

Still on the fence about taking other teams though. Kinda think that if pac veto's texas, it should just commit to stay at 12. no one else is ever taking those teams as a package.

If the Big Ten isn't moving, it really isn't all that necessary to expand. SEC is doing it to renegotiate TV contracts. Same with ACC.

Plus we all know Texas will put the word out and whore itself around if it's looking to move at anytime in the future.... so it definitely won't be a surprise.

ColoradoBear1;573991 said:

---

Still on the fence about taking other teams though. Kinda think that if pac veto's texas, it should just commit to stay at 12. no one else is ever taking those teams as a package.

If the Big Ten isn't moving, it really isn't all that necessary to expand. SEC is doing it to renegotiate TV contracts. Same with ACC.

Plus we all know Texas will put the word out and whore itself around if it's looking to move at anytime in the future.... so it definitely won't be a surprise.

---

I'm pretty sure there is no way we turn down OU/OSU if the apply....like you said, the ACC will probably get to 16 first from everything I've read, they want to do it fast...we may be 2nd but you know how limited we are geographically. If we don't jump on the Okie schools at the very least we may really end up with the dregs....If several other conferences go to 16 than we'll be left hanging, and further behind for TV contracts etc when they are due plus possible bowl tie-ins... the more I think of Texas the more I don't like them even though they'll have limited power here and we have 8 schools that will tell them to STFU.... but we pretty much have to take the Oklahomas...otherwise, hello Fresno St, Nevada, Montana etc.....

Then how can you make the assertion that the NCAA will have to change its rules on pods and conference championship games?

Cal_Fan2;573996 said:

---

I'm pretty sure there is no way we turn down OU/OSU if the apply....

---

I pretty much agree with that, but would the Ok's go SEC if we denied them or try to keep the B12 together.

what if scott could make a secret agreement to revisit the OU idea if things in the b12 were still bad in 2014 and the new BCS contract is being worked out.

But yes, it seems like it has to happen now to be certain.

And I've stopped caring about most of the bowls though. while tv can be beamed anywhere and have national appeal in the regular season (and hence make $$$), bowls need fans from both schools and due to geography, it's not all that good for the pac 12. would be great to have 3-4 great bowls and then the rest can be fight hunger type events for all I care. maybe if more than half the freaking BCS conference teams didn't make bowls, then fans would travel better to all of them that were still left after the crap ones were cut.

Actually putting the b12 into its grave will make p12 bowl games that much worse because it's hard to get SEC/ACC to travel this far west and vice versa with the pac to the east coast. maybe we can give CU their LA games by having the UCLA bowl as a game for eastern division teams to beat on UCLA (though for tradition's sake it can't be in the Rose Bowl Stadium).

Rather not have Texas period -- too many headaches. And if we lose traditional rivalry games in CA, then we should certainly veto. Suggest we should veto anyway.

JSML;573987 said:

---

Scott will make sure the scheduling, pods or dvisions issue come only after the Pac has expanded, just like he did with Colorado and Utah joining the Pac.

---

He will make promises to the new teams about scheduling that screw us and Stanford over,and then as only 2 of 16 TEAMS WE WILL BE OUT OF LUCK.

poD SYSTEM WILL BE TERRIBLE.

Bear_Territory;573904 said:

---

Should we? I say yes

---

If California is split, we should absolutley veto.

California schools should have veto'd the split in the Pac12 too... **** Utah and Colorado. They brough NO tradition to the Pac12, they have no natural rivals in the Pac12, etc.

LafayetteBear;574230 said:

---

Re the OP's question, there's no way the California schools won't continue to play each other, so the question is, IMO, moot. But in the highly unlikely event we couldn't play each other each year, I would say that yes, we should vote against it.

---

I agree. A wise old boss once told me, "Don't cry until you're hurt." We need to pay attention, but there seems to be quite a bit of angst over something that might not even be an issue.

Phantom, I get it that you don't like Utah and CU in the league, but do you agree that the conference needs to expand given the way things are progressing with other conferences? If so, then who SHOULD be added other than them and the Okla and Texas schools?