The fact that they are in the Pac12 now is ridiculous.

We need them to be replaced or augmented with a natural rival (ie CSU or BYU), or replaced completely.

BYU is already an issue, CSU does not belong in the conference, so we should just expell both of them and pick up a better option...



Bottom line, getting rid of Utah and Colorado should not be off the table. Getting replacements could make the divisions a lot more palatable.

That sounds easy enough. Figure out the particulars and get back to us, PhantomFan.

That wouldn't cause instability...not at all....

Who do you replace them with? Baylor and TCU?

I think a bigger problem is how in the world will the PAC name stay alive, if a good portion of teams no where near the Pacific are in the conference. Do we steal the WAC label?

SacCityBear;574231 said:

---

The fact that both fanbases think their school has the right to veto expansion because it might not be in their best interest while simultaneously calling Texas arrogant conference destroyers pisses me off. They have all the ego with none of the value.

---

So basically you're trusting Larry Scott with expansion now. Are u saying he erred in adding CU and Utah? And so what if CU is against adding Texas. They never said they were against expansion - just a particular team. I don't care what their previous position was. They're allowed to change their minds aren't they?

Phantomfan;574229 said:

---

The fact that they are in the Pac12 now is ridiculous.

We need them to be replaced or augmented with a natural rival (ie CSU or BYU), or replaced completely.

BYU is already an issue, CSU does not belong in the conference, so we should just expell both of them and pick up a better option...



Bottom line, getting rid of Utah and Colorado should not be off the table. Getting replacements could make the divisions a lot more palatable.

---

And Texas A&M should immediately be replaced in the SEC because they have no natural rival. Let's ignore media markets and common sense completely!

jankoski;574235 said:

---

Who do you replace them with? Baylor and TCU?

I think a bigger problem is how in the world will the PAC name stay alive, if a good portion of teams no where near the Pacific are in the conference. Do we steal the WAC label?

---

I'm partial to Pac-West myself. Or simply The West, since we'd pretty much own the west.

That's still putting the cart ahead of the horse at this point.

Phantomfan;574229 said:

---

The fact that they are in the Pac12 now is ridiculous.

We need them to be replaced or augmented with a natural rival (ie CSU or BYU), or replaced completely.

BYU is already an issue, CSU does not belong in the conference, so we should just expell both of them and pick up a better option...



Bottom line, getting rid of Utah and Colorado should not be off the table. Getting replacements could make the divisions a lot more palatable.

---

Is there some way we can get you replaced?

Everyone complaining about Utah and Colorado sound like jealous step siblings fighting for attention for daddy's (Larry Scott) love

I'd also recommend euthanasia for WSU. They add nothing and are too far away from good coffee.

GinFizzBear;574252 said:

---

Is there some way we can get you replaced?

---

+1 ^

I think Utah and Colorado are a lot more compatible with the "old" Pac 10 culture than any of the other schools being floated about.

Phantomfan;574229 said:

---

The fact that they are in the Pac12 now is ridiculous.

We need them to be replaced or augmented with a natural rival (ie CSU or BYU), or replaced completely.

BYU is already an issue, CSU does not belong in the conference, so we should just expell both of them and pick up a better option...



Bottom line, getting rid of Utah and Colorado should not be off the table. Getting replacements could make the divisions a lot more palatable.

---

I like both schools. I think they'll both do the conference proud. It would be nice if they didn't feel entitled to California before winning a conference game though. And that even if they are in a Pac16 East w/ Texas and OU, they'd still be in the most interesting, profitable, and in many years best conference in football, with access to two of the best recruiting hotbeds nationally.

BeachyBear;574267 said:

---

I think Utah and Colorado are a lot more compatible with the "old" Pac 10 culture than any of the other schools being floated about.

---

I agree. I will say Oklahoma has been interested from day 1, despite Norman not seeming too Pac10-ish outwardly (as opposed to A&M whose blood frothed at the thought). Austin also fits pretty well with Pac10 culture, though I'm not sure about UT itself.

Phantomfan;574229 said:

---

so we should just expell both of them and pick up a better option...

---

What have they done to justify expulsion? Help us get a brand new fat TV contract? Help position us so that we are on the attack in this round of realignment rather than on the defense? Colorado President Bensen made some ill advised comments which Larry promptly rebuked him on. But those comments were simply a result of a justifiable fear on their part that they would treated like a snack bite for the new (potential) entrants. I'm confident that once it is explained to them that this will not occur, they'll be on board.

Cal84;574317 said:

---

What have they done to justify expulsion? Help us get a brand new fat TV contract? Help position us so that we are on the attack in this round of realignment rather than on the defense? Colorado President Bensen made some ill advised comments which Larry promptly rebuked him on. But those comments were simply a result of a justifiable fear on their part that they would treated like a snack bite for the new (potential) entrants. I'm confident that once it is explained to them that this will not occur, they'll be on board.

---

+1

There is way too much freaking out going on about this potential expansion, especially since:

1. We don't know exactly which teams will be invited.
2. We don't know what the divisional alignment will look like.
3. It's very unlikely that any plan will be approved that stops the annual rivalry games between the California schools.

Chill out everyone. The Pac-12 is in a position of strength, and Larry Scott is a good negotiator. The likelihood of us getting screwed in a new Pac-16 is not high.

drunkoski;574329 said:

---

"The likelihood of us getting screwed in a new Pac-16 is not high."

we already got screwed by the pac-12 divisions. no reason to think larry is going to not screw us this time around.

---

Hmm, we got to keep all of the California games and probably got put in an easier division. Did we really get screwed?

I know you're talking about being at a competitive disadvantage because we have to play USC and UCLA every year. But this is what the Cal administration and the majority of fans WANTED. There is no way to have those games and also have an easier path (on average) to a conference title; you have to pick one.

drunkoski;574329 said:

---

we already got screwed by the pac-12 divisions. no reason to think larry is going to not screw us this time around.

---

Problem is easily solved. Cal/Furd/Oregon/OregSt/Wash/WSU band together and agree to vote for admitting the Four Stooges only if the conference is structured as P8/everyone else. End of problem. Hell even SuC and fUCLA go along with that.

Only thing that worries me a little is that the chancellors of Cal et al seem to pay no attention to athletic conference alignment. It's almost as if it's beneath them to worry about non-academic matters. More probably they're a bit scared of wading into an arena that they have little knowledge of and fear making themselves into a laughing stock like OSU's Gee last year. And the ADs of the schools by themselves have neither the authority nor the gravitas to arrange that kind of alliance.

Phantomfan;574229 said:

---

The fact that they are in the Pac12 now is ridiculous.

We need them to be replaced or augmented with a natural rival (ie CSU or BYU), or replaced completely.

BYU is already an issue, CSU does not belong in the conference, so we should just expell both of them and pick up a better option...

Bottom line, getting rid of Utah and Colorado should not be off the table. Getting replacements could make the divisions a lot more palatable.

---

Disregarding the fact that Colorado and Utah are going nowhere (and no one with a serious opinion is contemplating kicking them out of the Pac12), why is their addition ridiculous? We certainly improved our tv deal after adding them.

Why does it matter to you that "natural rivals" be added to the conference? Having pairs of teams from the same state is not a tradition worthy of preserving; I'd argue that the Pac-8's history of doing so is what has left us with two schools that I truly do wish weren't part of the Conference, WSU and Oregon State. Colorado and Utah are from adjacent states and may very well develop into rivals, and with their addition the Pac-12 owns every important market west of the Rockies except for Vegas.

There simply aren't many good options in the west for expansion. You've already acknowledged that CSU and BYU aren't worthy. Who should be added instead?

SacCityBear;574327 said:

---

Yes, I am saying that.


Actually, they are absolutely against expansion. They are just even more against adding Texas.


Mercenaries added for the money are not allowed to turn around and say the money is enough after a year because they don't want to give up their sweetheart alignment deal.

---

Well realignment is all about getting the best deal possible. - especially when it comes to Big 12 teams. We're gonna have a conference full of mercenary teams. Just in case you didn't know. Lol

drunkoski;574357 said:

---

actually there is a way. you put colorado and utah in the north division and keep us in the south division. and it's not an easier division if you have to play ucla and usc EVERY YEAR to win it. remember it goes by total conference record and not head to head in the division.

---

I would argue that the current alignment is, at best, a minor disadvantage as compared to the one you described. It could actually provide an advantage in certain years anyway: we lose to USC in regular season, but still get another shot to beat them for the Pac-12 title. That can't happen if we're in the same division. Besides, putting all of the CA schools in one division was a non-starter for the northwest schools anyway.

This is not "getting screwed." This is "getting something slightly less than your ideal, but still pretty close."

2ndQtrBear;574350 said:

---

Why does it matter to you that "natural rivals" be added to the conference? Having pairs of teams from the same state is not a tradition worthy of preserving; I'd argue that the Pac-8's history of doing so is what has left us with two schools that I truly do wish weren't part of the Conference, WSU and Oregon State. Colorado and Utah are from adjacent states and may very well develop into rivals, and with their addition the Pac-12 owns every important market west of the Rockies except for Vegas.

---

Yep, Oregon and Washington are rivals. Texas and Oklahoma are rivals.

We have wanted to add Colorado for many years. Many have thought it is compatible with the rest of the Pac. So many of our kids have matriculated through Boulder and enjoyed the hell out of it. There is a very strong connection between California and Colorado. Don't underestimate the power of easy, inexpensive airfares to ski resorts as a real draw to this school and to Utah.

What other school would you recommend to take Utah's place? Certainly not Nevada or UNLV; nor, NMex or NMS; not Idaho, Montana and not BYU for unwillingness to play on Sunday. Boise is only going to remain a powerhouse for as long as certain players remain or Chris Peterson departs. Frankly, I'm not enthused about adding Tex Tech or OK St, but if they're connected at the hip with Tex and OK what are you going to do.

The money is a big pull. But for some reason I see this acquisition period breaking down in the future in the same way companies used to buy up other companies even though they were lacking in symbiosis. Eventually, things went back to the way they were and the conglomerates of the 70's and the 80's failed.

LafayetteBear;574240 said:

---

So your thesis is a return to our Pac 8 roots? (We all know there is no chance of that happening.) To the not quite so old Pac 10? (How are ASU and AZ any less "ridiculous" as members of the Pac?)

Cal, and every other school, desparately needs the additional revenue that these larger conferences, conference championship games, occasional Thursday and Friday night games, and other newfangled features of CFB bring with them. Without this new revenue, we are cutting a whole lot of non-revenue producing sports.

As long as we can continue to play 'Furd, SC and UCLA each year, I can live with whatever new arrangement Larry Scott comes up with. (I would also hope, and expect, that future participation in a Rose Bowl is at least a theoretical possibility under the new arrangement.)

---

On one hand, ASU and Arizona are ridiculous to have around. Most Pac fans have thought that from the time we got the Pac10 name.

However, the MAJOR difference is that they are both in the same state, both have an ACTUAL rival in the conference, and both have been in the conference longer than a year.


We would have a conference of natural rivals, extended rivalries and then utah and Colorado who just exist as the 15th and 16th team.


WHY NOT kick (both or one of) them? We could add a real rival, or a real rivalry...College football IS tradition. It makes its money on tradition. It is simple as that. The Pac has an opportunity to pick up a tremendous collection of teams, and the better the collection, the more money and prestige we get...

So, the real question would be, why keep the two teams that are the weakest, have the least tradition, cross state non rivals, and newest, when we COULD ditch them and pick up stronger teams...


Moreover, the drama that kicking them would cause now would only be slightly worse than the drama that the ACC, Big 12, Pac12 and SEC are already creating.



Basically, getting the best deal for Cal might involve ditching Utah and Colorado, so it should be an option as far as we are concerned.

2ndQtrBear;574350 said:

---

Disregarding the fact that Colorado and Utah are going nowhere (and no one with a serious opinion is contemplating kicking them out of the Pac12), why is their addition ridiculous? We certainly improved our tv deal after adding them.

Why does it matter to you that "natural rivals" be added to the conference? Having pairs of teams from the same state is not a tradition worthy of preserving; I'd argue that the Pac-8's history of doing so is what has left us with two schools that I truly do wish weren't part of the Conference, WSU and Oregon State. Colorado and Utah are from adjacent states and may very well develop into rivals, and with their addition the Pac-12 owns every important market west of the Rockies except for Vegas.

There simply aren't many good options in the west for expansion. You've already acknowledged that CSU and BYU aren't worthy. Who should be added instead?

---

Sorry, I have trouble taking your opinion as "serious" when you are completely ignorant of the Pacific conference's history. You lose a LOT of credibility when you claim that the Pac8 added OSU and WSU because they were in-state rivals. You MUST be kidding.

Not only were (what would become) WSU and OSU in the PCC from 1915 and 1917 respectively, OSU was a FOUNDING MEMBER!

Since 1915 OSU has only been outside of a "Pacific" conference for a combined 3 years. Cal and OSU have been in the same conference for 93 years. Cal and WSU have been in the same conference for 89 years... Hardly in line with your claims.



BTW, "Natural rivals" refers to rivalries that happen with or without conference affiliation. Teams like USC and Cal, Cal and UCLA, Stanford and Cal, Michigan and Ohio State, Utah and BYU Army and Navy, etc. They do not have to be in the same state, but the rivalry is based on something that naturally occurred, not manufactured by conference affiliation (ie Oregon Cal).

It is a simple idea, and a HUGE (indisputably so) reason for College Football's massive appeal and fan base.

CubanPete;574983 said:

---

They seem happy to be here without the natural rivalry. Perhaps a rivalry between the two will emerge.

---

Colorado and Utah are already old rivals. I'm sure the two schools wouldn't mind renewing it. Maybe one of the board resident Buffs can chime in on this.

CU is a great research school and Utah is nothing to snicker at either. They are better academic fits in the Pac than a couple of longtime members. The thought that either must also come along with an in-state rival (BYU and CSU) or stay home entirely is ridiculous.

Colorado is a great fit for the Pac 12 and Boulder might be one of the best road trips in the country let alone conference. The also won a national title in 1990 and were beasts in 2000. I expect they are working fervently to regain that.

Utah actually won a national title very recently and just beat BYU by 40-something points so they are not a weak sister in conference. They also made it to the Final Four (finals?) in hoops about ten years ago under Rick Majerus.

So both schools can say they've done a lot more than Cal, WSU, OSU, ASU, etc., and they hold their own athletically and academically as well.

Plus that game we just played in Boulder (yes I'll agree both teams are scrappy but not elite teams), showed folks a lot. All of the Buff players and fans were class acts. What a gametime atmosphere it was! The Buffs won over a lot of Pac 12 fans in their sincere display of good sportsmanship right there, and Cal matched it.

I'm happy with the addition of both teams, particularly Colorado, which opens up a fairly strong Denver media market from a dollars and cents perspective.