Both we and Stanford sit south of Boulder and SLC.
We play USC and UCLA every year in football anyway.
What's the reasoning.
I'm confused.

Don't use logic when you're trying to rationalize decisions made by the Pac-12.

Wasn't the reasoning that the Pac10 wanted CU and Utah for the TV markets but the schools would only join if they could be in the South so they'd be guaranteed to play USC/UCLA and improve their visibility for SoCal recruiting? That, coupled with Stanford deciding that a season-ending game with Notre Dame whenever possible was more important than the Big Game have thoroughly eff'd up the football scheduling. And we won't talk about the night games. That 2015 OT win against ASU was great, but it took a week for my body temp to get back up to normal.

IIRC, all the schools wanted the chance to recruit in CA, and to play football in CA every year. By having Cal/'furd in the North and ucla/$C in the South, every single Pac-12 team plays at least one game in CA every year.

Things will get back to normal when we're in the Pac 16 West.

75bear;842858748 said:

---

Things will get back to normal when we're in the Pac 16 West.

---

Or we could go with quadrants, but going back to the old PAC-8 would be nice.

Quote:

---

Wasn't the reasoning that the Pac10 wanted CU and Utah for the TV markets but the schools would only join if they could be in the South so they'd be guaranteed to play USC/UCLA and improve their visibility for SoCal recruiting?

---

Correct. The Mountain schools would only join if they they were assured of benig in the south.

Big Dog;842858838 said:

---

Correct. The Mountain schools would only join if they they were assured of benig in the south.

---

What does it say about the Pac 10/12 when schools like CU and Utah are able to negotiate demands like that?

The mountain schools basically rejected the zipper alignment, which would have kept all four California schools together. I personally don't think the additions have been very helpful.

Jeff82;842859045 said:

---

The mountain schools basically rejected the zipper alignment, which would have kept all four California schools together. I personally don't think the additions have been very helpful.

---

Amen! The Conference shouldn't have let Utah and Colorado basically dictate the terms of their entry. Neither of them, frankly, adds that much to the Pac-12.

We needed the two mountain schools in order to reach 12 (which is the number that permits a conference championship game in football, which was crucial for TV). I agree, however, that there is no reason that we should have allowed them to dictate anything. If Utah didn't like being in the North, they could go pound sand in the Mountain West, or Big Sky or whatever. And CU could stay in the dying B12. I'm sure we could have found other suitors.

Quote:

---

What does it say about the Pac 10/12 when schools like CU and Utah are able to negotiate demands like that?

---

Larry Scott promised BiG-type television revenues....

Big Dog;842859190 said:

---

Larry Scott promised BiG-type television revenues....

---

The interest just doesn't seem to be there. The conference championship games don't get big ratings typically. The SEC had 11M for their game and the Big 10 had 9M for theirs. But the PAC-12, ACC and Big 12 all were in the 5-6M range. The most-watched games were mostly regular season games, with none of them being PAC-12 games:

1: 16,841,000 for Michigan at Ohio State on Nov. 26, 2016 on ABC
2: 11,093,000 for Alabama vs. Florida on Dec. 3, 2016 on CBS
3: 10,945,000 for Notre Dame at Texas on Sept. 4, 2016 on ABC
4: 10,385,000 for Alabama at LSU on Nov. 5, 2016 on CBS
5: 9,286,000 for Louisville at Clemson on Oct. 1, 2016 on ABC
6: 9,189,000 for Wisconsin at Penn State on Dec. 3, 2016 on FOX
7: 8,964,000 for Ohio State at Wisconsin on Oct. 15, 2016 on ABC
8: 8,455,000 for Texas A&M at Alabama on Oct. 22, 2016 on CBS
9: 8,354,000 for Ole Miss vs. Florida State on Sept. 5, 2016 on ESPN

UrsaMajor;842859059 said:

---

We needed the two mountain schools in order to reach 12 (which is the number that permits a conference championship game in football, which was crucial for TV). I agree, however, that there is no reason that we should have allowed them to dictate anything. If Utah didn't like being in the North, they could go pound sand in the Mountain West, or Big Sky or whatever. And CU could stay in the dying B12. I'm sure we could have found other suitors.

---

It is certainly annoying that Utah/CU got to dictate anything, but I this ignores some realities. As you note, we needed two more teams to (1) get a championship game, and (2) expand the conference footprint to maximize tv households for the P12 network. You'll recall the P10 went hard after Texas and perhaps Oklahoma. At times it seemed imminent, but in the end we swung and missed. This forced the conference to scramble, because TV contracts were coming up and we did not have a lot of time to complete expansion so that we could negotiate a better TV deal.

Colorado had no incentive to leave the Big-12 if they don't get something in return. Utah had incentive, but could have also gone to the Big-12 - the Big-12 had also just lost Nebraska that year and likely would have considered Utah. So if we tell Utah and CU, you're in the North and you're not guaranteed an annual game in CA, they might say "No thanks." And then what options are we left with? BYU? SDSU? No great options, in terms of what we needed (expanding the footprint; BYU's no-Sunday game is reportedly a non-starter for the P12). So, CU and Utah did have some leverage.

grandmastapoop;842859275 said:

---

Colorado had no incentive to leave the Big-12 if they don't get something in return. Utah had incentive, but could have also gone to the Big-12 - the Big-12 had also just lost Nebraska that year and likely would have considered Utah. So if we tell Utah and CU, you're in the North and you're not guaranteed an annual game in CA, they might say "No thanks." And then what options are we left with? BYU? SDSU? No great options, in terms of what we needed (expanding the footprint; BYU's no-Sunday game is reportedly a non-starter for the P12). So, CU and Utah did have some leverage.

---

Scott could have pushed to include Baylor instead of CU. That would have had a much greater chance of actually happening because cutting Baylor out was not the best way to smooth things out with the good ol boys in TX. There was truly a huge worry in Colorado that they would be left out and relegated to the MWC. Scott just thought he could get it all done with the rest of the B12 and CU.

Interesting article from 2010, that still rings true to day IMO:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2010/06/pac-10_insider_addition_of_uta.html

The addition of CU and UU didn't really add any money in the end. The CCG is nice, but the real money from 12 teams vs 10 was having FB and BB inventory to create the P12N. And guess what, that's not producing (I'm not going to say under performing, because it's on par with what should have been expected, but with much higher expenses). The 10 team Big 12 is making a decent amount more per school than the Pac due to the CCG being allowed at 10 teams, and the pie is split 10 ways not 12. Not saying the P12 is terrible, but it's not the best in terms of geography.

I still think Nebraska and Colorado are better off with some form of the B12/8 as the distances they now travel are incredibly lengthy as compared to before. Once the TV money dries up, I expect a return to more regional conferences because the amount travel just isn't justifiable (even now, teams are losing a ton of money on charters because the airline industry is doing quite well and has few empty planes).

Anyway, as this is the basketball board, I'll also mention there is no North in hoops. All teams rotate evenly.

ColoradoBear1;842859285 said:

---

Anyway, as this is the basketball board, I'll also mention there is no North in hoops. All teams rotate evenly.

---

Yes but Cal and Stanford now see years where they have no Socal trip in hoops which takes away the one in-season opportunity to play in front of SoCal recruits. Other teams lose their Bay area trip as well, also a hoops recruiting hotbed.

Had we added a Texas school or schools at least that would have opened up opportunities in recruiting there for the then-current Pac10 teams. The recruiting prospects in Utah and Colorado don't remotely compare.

What's wrong with being in the north?
If we were to draw up a list of most desirable group of six I'd take:
Furd
Ucla
USC
Oregon
UW

The P12 and the North/South split in football is just part of the ever changing landscape in revenue sports. I think there will be a lot more change in years to come. Since it's a nice day here at beachedbear's house, I pulled out my cloudy, yet famously unreliable crystal ball... Here's what popped up....

1. Influence of cable based sports networks will be diminished (if not gone). As ESPN changed what ABC/NBC/CBS did with college sports, their own demise started with conference networks. The ease of internet streaming is just starting to disrupt this influence. All of this will be historical footnotes before 2026.
2. Conference alignment will continue to change and also diminish. Historically, conference alignment supported scheduling, regional rivalries and bowl game exposure. Currently, all of those items are a distant second place to TV revenue sharing. In the future, 'conferences' will be softer 16-24 team alignments trying to survive the changes.
3. College Football may deconstruct back into a two-tier system of 60 top programs and 'maybe' another 60 programs. Marginal programs will continue to discontinue their football programs and there will be no more than 3 're-established' or new college programs over the next 40 years.
4. College Basketball will continue to morph dramatically as one-and-done rule is eliminated, TV revenue dries up, NCAA tourney morphs and overseas/minor league professional options expand.
5. Following the 'Millenial' demographic boom in 2038, the influence of revenue sports will diminish at all universities. Larger universities will retract the current level of expenditure on Football and Basketball (along with decreasing revenue) and return their level of influence to those of other collegiate sports. Smaller universities will discontinue football and not compete with larger programs in basketball as often. The concept of mid-major will be a thing of the past.
6. The online educational revolution will change what college affiliation means as students will be affiliated with not ONE, but various credentialing insititutions. Determining what school a student attends becomes irrelevant and sport teams evolve into random pick-up games.
7. Finally, the rainbow LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ revolution will eliminate the concept of gender from sports and all facets of culture as we know it. Title IX will fade and all competitive sports will become gender fluid. Soon after, the concept of rules in sports and competition will also fade. The end result will be fields of naked students running, throwing, tickling and dancing in front of stadiums full of drones with webcams. All sports will become a big non-stop ecstacy fueled rave watched by millions.

:gobears:

ps BeachedBear may have started cocktail early today.

concordtom;842859320 said:

---

What's wrong with being in the north?
If we were to draw up a list of most desirable group of six I'd take:
Furd
Ucla
USC
Oregon
UW

---

Cal and Stanford are the only teams in the North that play UCLA and USC every year in football. Since those are arguably 2 of the strongest teams in the South, the Bay Area schools are at a disadvantage in comparison to the other schools in the North who generally only play one of the SoCal schools each year. That extra South game potentially eliminates a match up with a weaker South division school.

Additionally, of the 5 teams you list, 4 are top teams in the Pac 12 (and Washington might be considered the favorite in the North this year). Cal would have an even tougher time if that were our bracket.

ColoradoBear1;842859285 said:

---

Scott could have pushed to include Baylor instead of CU. That would have had a much greater chance of actually happening because cutting Baylor out was not the best way to smooth things out with the good ol boys in TX. There was truly a huge worry in Colorado that they would be left out and relegated to the MWC. Scott just thought he could get it all done with the rest of the B12 and CU.

Interesting article from 2010, that still rings true to day IMO:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2010/06/pac-10_insider_addition_of_uta.html

The addition of CU and UU didn't really add any money in the end. The CCG is nice, but the real money from 12 teams vs 10 was having FB and BB inventory to create the P12N. And guess what, that's not producing (I'm not going to say under performing, because it's on par with what should have been expected, but with much higher expenses). The 10 team Big 12 is making a decent amount more per school than the Pac due to the CCG being allowed at 10 teams, and the pie is split 10 ways not 12. Not saying the P12 is terrible, but it's not the best in terms of geography.

I still think Nebraska and Colorado are better off with some form of the B12/8 as the distances they now travel are incredibly lengthy as compared to before. Once the TV money dries up, I expect a return to more regional conferences because the amount travel just isn't justifiable (even now, teams are losing a ton of money on charters because the airline industry is doing quite well and has few empty planes).

Anyway, as this is the basketball board, I'll also mention there is no North in hoops. All teams rotate evenly.

---

I'm not saying it was the perfect deal or that it was even the best deal available. I'm arguing that saying "Why the hell should we have allowed them any say when we had all the power," ignores the realities of the situation.

grandmastapoop;842859351 said:

---

I'm not saying it was the perfect deal or that it was even the best deal available. I'm arguing that saying "Why the hell should we have allowed them any say when we had all the power," ignores the realities of the situation.

---

I personally think that it was the demands of the NW schools not being cut off from CA that had more weight than CU. CU didn't have much power in the end due to the risk they get left in the MWC. Again, that was very real once Nebraska left and Texas was looking too. The NW schools had the power to scuttle the whole thing. In the end, I'm guessing the LA schools didn't care because they still got their traditional FB games, but who knows? They had to give up extra money for equal revenue sharing, which was also not set in stone. But in all of it Cal and Furd truly did not have much power. So it really is who is the 'we' in this thing allowing anything?

BeachedBear;842859331 said:

---

7. Finally, the rainbow LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ revolution will eliminate the concept of gender .... All sports will become a big non-stop ecstacy fueled rave watched by millions.

:gobears:

ps BeachedBear may have started cocktail early today.

---

Very funny, BB
I can see that your crystal vision got better as you typed and typed.
Cheers to you!

:beer:

75bear;842858748 said:

---

Things will get back to normal when we're in the Pac 16 West.

---

The best thing about the Pac 16 is that it's the inevitable next step before returning to the old Pac 8

ColoradoBear1;842859368 said:

---

I personally think that it was the demands of the NW schools not being cut off from CA that had more weight than CU. CU didn't have much power in the end due to the risk they get left in the MWC. Again, that was very real once Nebraska left and Texas was looking too. The NW schools had the power to scuttle the whole thing. In the end, I'm guessing the LA schools didn't care because they still got their traditional FB games, but who knows? They had to give up extra money for equal revenue sharing, which was also not set in stone. But in all of it Cal and Furd truly did not have much power. So it really is who is the 'we' in this thing allowing anything?

---

That's my recollection as well. All reporting at the time attributed most of the resistance to an all-California division coming from the NW schools. I do recall that some CU sources said they were promised the South Division but I never read it as a condition of them joining.

Why is this thread in the basketball section?

Quote:

---

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.

---

http://www.denverpost.com/2010/06/16/utah-headed-toward-joining-pac-10-with-colorado/