Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: Why is Cal in the Pac 12 North anyway?

  1. #1

    Why is Cal in the Pac 12 North anyway?

    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.
    Last edited by NewYorkCityBear; 08-05-2017 at 11:28 AM.

  2. #2
    Don't use logic when you're trying to rationalize decisions made by the Pac-12.

  3. #3
    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.
    Last edited by HearstMining; 08-04-2017 at 10:32 PM.

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    Things will get back to normal when we're in the Pac 16 West.

  6. #6
    Golden Bear Strykur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    5,197
    Quote Originally Posted by 75bear View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dog View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    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.

  12. #12
    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....

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Dog View Post
    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

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMajor View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by grandmastapoop View Post

    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/pac10/201...on_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.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •