Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News has a new blog post with updates on the Pac-10/Pac-12 realignment and other conference issues. Particularly interesting are the following:
The “zipper” plan is gaining traction thanks to a number of factors, including:
– The Northwest schools’ reluctance to give up games in the L.A. area
– The California schools’ desire to stay together
– Not mentioned but likely obvious is the desire of the mountain schools to be included with the L.A. schools as well.
The zipper would basically provide the solution that is the least bad to the most people. Not anyone’s ideal, but not screwing any particular set of schools enough to make it unacceptable.
One variation on the previously discussed zipper would be a partial zipper that only splits the California schools. UCLA and Cal with the Northwest schools, USC and Stanford with the Mountain schools.
I still think the most likely outcomes are either a pure zipper (UW, UO, Cal, UCLA, UA, Utah vs. WSU, OSU, Stanford, USC, ASU, Col) or a north-south alignment that splits the California schools. A north/south split that groups the NW schools and the two new schools is going to be dead on arrival because you will get overwhelming disapproval from that entire grouping.
In conclusion, we can all blame this on Texas for screwing up the Pac-16 plan, which would have avoided the whole issue completely. Curse you, Bevo!
[Bumped. -ed.]
One variation on the previously discussed Zipper would be a partial Zipper that only split the California schools. UCLA and Cal with the Northwest schools, USC and Stanford with the Mountain schools.
That makes a lot of sense, actually, though I’d put USC and Cal in with the mountain schools and call that “East”, and fUCLA and Stanford with the Northwest schools and call that “West”. However I still want to see each school be able to have at least two regularly scheduled rivals from the other zipper, that way USC always plays fUCLA and Stanford.
The advantage of keeping UCLA and Cal together (and Stanford and USC together) is the same as keeping UW and Oregon together in a zipper, you keep the secondary rivalries going on a regular basis outside of any additional schedule shifting. Plus UCLA and Cal are both UC schools, and Stanford and USC are both private, so grouping them makes some sense that way as well.
Of course the problem with a Zipper is what to call them. East and West are kinda misleading.
They should totally go with named conferences like Hockey instead of the regional names like every other sport. My recommendations are the The Marinovich and the McNown conferences. Of course, they could come up with the Donahue and the Carroll or McKay. That way the powers that be aren’t forced to look like dopes by going North-East vs. South-West. So boring.
How about Fire and Ice? If you group UW, OU, Cal, UCLA, U of A, and Colorado together in one set, and WSU, OSU, Stan, USC, U of A, and Utah in the other set, you’ve split them into teams whose primary colors are in the warm and cool branch of the color wheel. I suppose you could be lame and just go Blue and Red, but Fire and Ice are so much cooler!
Or how about Shock and Awe? Thunder and Lightening? Yin and Yang? Rock and Roll?
I still wish we had been the Pac-16. Surf and Turf would have been great names!
David, I think you missed the part about having two guaranteed rivalry games with teams in the other division. That eliminates the need to keep Cal and fUCLA (and alternatively USC and Stanford) in the same division.
As long as Colorado is in USC’s division, I’m fine with whatever. For instance:
THE BRENDAN LOY DIVISION
Colorado
USC
THE NON-BRENDAN LOY DIVISION
Utah
Washington
Wazzu
Oregon
Oregon State
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona State
Seems perfectly balanced to me. 🙂
I didn’t miss it, I just don’t think its a realistic expectation. You are talking about making seven of the nine games in each grouping completely fixed. In order to do that for the California schools you have just decreased again the number of opportunities for the other schools to play in the L.A. area. It’s essentially slapping a pod scheduling system on top of the zipper. In order for the divisions to work, everyone is going to have to give a little bit. The NW schools and mountain schools are all going to have to give up on gaurenteed games in the LA and/or Bay area every year and the California schools are going to have to give up on playing all three in state rivals every year. While any system is possible up until they settle on one, the more a system favors one group over another, the less likely I think it is to make it through to the end.
As the article states, a straight up zipper is the only one that helps ensure the most balanced solution for everyone, where no one can rightly claim that they were treated any better or worse than anyone else. The more inequality you build into a system the more likely you are to see it fracture as we saw in the Big 12 (and continue to see). At this point i’d be very impressed if Larry Scott was able to sell something other than either the straight zipper or a North/South with the California schools split.
Good points David, but in my scenario, each NW and mountain team is guaranteed one visit to a CA team, one home game with a CA team, and on a rotational basis, an opportunity for a third game against a CA team either home or away. That’s not too bad.
I still think the most likely outcomes are either a pure zipper (UW, UO, Cal, UCLA, UA, Utah vs. WSU, OSU, Stanford, USC, ASU, Col) or a north-south alignment that splits the California schools
This phrase could describe either the “partial zipper” (which splits the California schools in a non-geographical way) or the North-South split with Cal/Stanford in the North and USC/UCLA in the South. Which do you mean?
I certainly agree that putting the Northwest & Mountain schools in the North is dead on arrival. I don’t think there’s any doubt that a North-South split would involve the NorCal schools in the North Division. But I can see how a partial zipper would be better from the Northwest schools’ perspective, and I don’t have a big problem with it. I’d rather be in the same division as Cal than Stanford, but I understand why it makes more sense to group UCLA with Cal.
Meanwhile, Andrew’s “guaranteed games against both Cal and Stanford so we preserve the Weekender, which nobody cares about except fans of the California teams” solution continues to be completely unrealistic and WILL NOT HAPPEN. As I’ve already pointed out, this sort of double-rivalry setup ONLY makes sense for the California schools; none of the other schools would have any natural out-of-division rivals, let alone TWO of them. And you can’t create a rational, balanced schedule if only the California schools have a double-rival setup. I really cannot be emphasized enough how completely implausible this solution is.
P.S. Ignoring Andrew’s fantasy of a Weekender-Preserving Double Rival setup, who would be the non-California schools’ cross-division rivals in the partial zipper setup? They’d each need to have one. USC has UCLA, Cal has Stanford, obviously. And then… what?
Arizona-Oregon
Arizona State-Oregon State
Colorado-Washington
Utah-Wazzu
Or something like that?
Brendan, I meant a split of the CA schools as in Stanford/Cal with the NW schools, USC/UCLA with the mountain schools.
As for the double rival thing, basically what it amounts to is pod-scheduling, super-imposed on a zipper division.
First, you’d do the zipper. Then you gaurentee pods are always playing each other. The remaining two games you schedule one a piece against the other pods.
For example, assuming the Fire and Ice zipper I mention above, here’s what UW’s setup would look like (with division opponents starred)
EVERY YEAR GAMES
Cal*
Ore*
Ariz*
Col*
UCLA*
WSU
OSU
Rotating opponents (two per year)
USC
Stan
ASU
Utah
Essentially you’d play each of those last four teams twice in a four year period, meaning only one game AT USC every four years for the Dawgs.
Meaning in any given 4 year period you’d get 3 games in the Bay, L.A and Arizona but only 1 in Utah (or Colorado depending on which way the split is set up).
When I break it down that way it doesn’t come out as bad as I first thought, maybe Andrew is on to something here. The only big complaint I could see is that it gives the California schools gaurenteed games in each others region every year, which definitely is a recruiting advantage, but it may not be significant enough considering they are all in the same state to begin with. I could see this being sold to the conference AD’s by Scott, especially if he sells it as “we do this for four years then we take another look and shuffle things up if it looks like there are problems, and heck we’re hoping by then we’re the Pac-16 by then anyway and the problem goes away!”
What David said.
I was just talking to Jay Barasch at lunch today (he’s in town) and he proposed the same thing — two divisions and three “regions” superimposed on top of each other — and yeah, it makes a lot of sense. I haven’t heard it proposed before. It’s the first and only viable proposal I’ve heard to keep the L.A. and Bay Area schools together. Of course, it wouldn’t solve the problem of the main cross-zipper rivalry games being the week before the championship game, but Jay thinks those should just be moved to earlier in the season, which I honestly don’t have a big problem with. USC-UCLA in October? Sure, whatever. Hell, hold it annually on my birthday. 🙂
I don’t want to see the rivalry games moved TOO early in the season, i’d say make them either the third or second last game, and make sure the last game is a division game.
On this very blog, 3.5 weeks ago, I said the same thing David K. said in post #11 and everyone including David K. told me it was ludicrous, impossible, and “Not gonna happen” (in bold!!!). Strange how impossible can become reasonable in less than a month. Must be the heat.
http://www.brendanloy.com/lrt/2010/06/divisional-thinking/#comments
yeah, i wasn’t going to propose moving it very much earlier in the season.
the problem with the second to last week is that that’s thanksgiving weekend, which is when USC-Notre Dame is every other year. If that could be moved, it would be a great weekend for rivalry games. Otherwise, an early to mid november weekend would be a great weekend for the rivalry weekend.
(This might even be good for the pac ten, to do its intrastate/intracity rivalry games on a weekend when the attention of the nation is not so split amongst rivalry games all over the country)
I also propose awarding championship banners for regions as well as for divisions, to make those regional games even more important. (the northwestern pac ten schools already award a northwest championship – i would give that official status as well as institute a “Golden State Trophy” and a “Four Corners Cup” for the other two regions.
My proposed division setup is as follows:
Division 1: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, USC, Arizona State, Colorado
Division 2: Washington State, Oregon State, Cal, UCLA, Arizona, Utah
Since we’re moving the traditional rivalry games earlier in the season, i would use that last regular season weekend for the matchups between the pairs of teams who were in both the same division and same region. For Instance, given the way I set up the divisions, that last regular season weekend would pit: Washington vs. Oregon, Stanford vs. USC, Arizona State vs. Colorado, Washington State vs. Oregon State, Cal vs. UCLA, and Arizona vs. Utah
These games will almost always have some importance for determining both divisional championships and regional championships. They will also quickly develop into very heated rivalries, with the importance and timing of those games. (some already are quite heated, e.g. Washignton vs. Oregon and Cal vs. UCLA)
@Jay, they rivalry games need not all be on the same weekend. USC and UCLA could be a week earlier for example.
Like I said to Sandy, I think its more likely that UW, Oregon, Cal and UCLA are grouped together. Cal and UCLA because they are both UC schools and have an unofficial rivalry. Oregon and UW because of their unofficial rivalry. UW and Cal because of distant history and UW and UCLA because of Rick Neuheisal 🙂 Heck thats a good reason to add Colorado into the same division (which would iritate Brendan to no end). UW, Colorado AND UCLA in one division? Its the Rick Neuheisal reunion tour!
The only reason I can see grouping UW/Oregon with USC/Stanford is the Sarkisian connection, but maybe I’m missing something in your reasoning?
My money is on the following:
UW, Oregon, UCLA, Cal, Colorado, Arizona
USC, Stanford, OSU, WSU, Utah, Arizona State
As for the in division rivals as the final game, I like it. UW vs Oregon at the end of the season playing for a championship birth sounds like a great game to me.
@ Sandy, you’re right, it didn’t seem like a workable idea at the time, but I don’t think anyone anticipated that the California schools were as interested in staying together as it sounds like they are. It’s still possible it could face resistance from the non-California schools, but if its pitched as a four year, we’ll take a look again after that time plan it might be possible.
BTW, while your zipper plan sounds less crazy, your moonlanding stuff looks even more crazy with this picture.
My money is on the following:
UW, Oregon, UCLA, Cal, Colorado, Arizona
USC, Stanford, OSU, WSU, Utah, Arizona State
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
#panic
Sandy, you did NOT propose the same thing. Your comment was not premised on “zipper” divisions (or if it was, you didn’t make that at all clear). We were talking about scenarios where the Northwestern schools were all in the same division, which means they have no natural cross-divisional rivals. The “preserve the Weekender by giving each team 2 cross-divisional annual rivals” idea ONLY makes sense if you have zipper divisions (since each team then has 2 “regional” rivals in the opposite division). Also, you said 8 conference games instead of 9.
David, I put Washington/Oregon/Stanford/USC in the same division for a few reasons:
1. Balance. I know as well as anyone that the Pac Ten is the most fluid of all conferences, but if the Trojans are in the opposite divisions from BOTH of the two other remaining pac ten schools with a degree of success at the same time as USC’s recent dominance (Cal and Oregon) as well as BOTH of the two pac ten programs with historical prestige other than USC (Washington and UCLA), you’re going to get enormous cries of bias. At least you put Utah with USC (you didn’t have to, given your argument), but that’s not going to be enough to counter the “USC rigged” argument against your plan.
2. Sarkisian is just as much of a reason to do USC/UW as Neuheisel is to do UCLA/UW. I honestly don’t think that kind of thinking is going to play that much of a role in this.
3. The strongest rivalry that the pac ten has at the moment, other than rivalries in the same region, is USC/Oregon. If it needs to be broken up, it will be, but other things being equal, my guess is that the Trojans and Ducks rivalry is protected.
4. I didn’t want to put all the “X State” schools in the same region, and all the “University of …” schools in the other division, the way you did. I broke those up a bit more.
Your reasoning is sound, Jay, but I think your regional setup would inspire cries of “imbalance” just as David’s would inspire cries of “rigged for USC.” If you look at the six “natural rival” pairs, Division 1 contains most of the teams that are perceived as being generally stronger:
Washington > Wazzu
Oregon > Oregon State
USC > UCLA
ASU > Arizona
And, since most people erroneously assume that BCS > non-BCS automatically, throw in Colorado > Utah in terms of public perception. At best, those teams would be seen as equal; nobody is going to take seriously the theory that Utah adds major heft to Division 2 (even if they should).
The main exception is Cal and Stanford, as Bears > Drunken Trees. But a split that’ll basically be seen as 5-1 (or 4-1-1) isn’t a very good recipe for perceived “balance.” If David’s system would be seen as rigged for USC, yours would be seen as rigged for Cal. Granted, there aren’t whole legions of haters looking out for “pro-Cal bias” like there are with USC, but still.
P.S. If you flip Arizona & ASU, and maybe Washington & Wazzu, your setup probably avoids those gripes. I do like keeping USC and Oregon together, particularly if Cal is going to be with UCLA, as seems likely.
@Jay
Oregon State has had more success in recent years than Cal, especially against USC. The Beavers are 80-45 over the past 10 seasons. Cal is 71-53 over the same decade span. OSU has finished in 2nd place for the Pac-10 both of the past two seasons. OSU and USC in one group, Cal and Oregon in the other. If you do USC and Oregon in the same group you are keeping the top two programs together, thats unbalanced right there. USC and Oregon have to be split, which means USC and OSU are in one group, so Cal and Oregon should be in the other, which automatically puts UW and UCLA in that group. I’ll do a more thorough examination of the teams over the past decade when I get home tonight and see if that clears things up any.
Brendan:
flipping washington/wazzu would definitely better balance the divisions in my setup, but i think keeping washington and oregon together given their rivalry is more important. Arizona/ASU i think are pretty equivalent in terms of prestige, both recent and long term, so i’m not too concerned about which of them is where, in terms of competitive balance.
Given Cal’s lessure stature than USC, putting UCLA and Utah in the division with them should quiet conspiracy theorists, whereas Utah and Oregon State would NOT quiet pro-USC conspiracy theorists…
one other reason why I don’t like David’s plan:
5. In nearly every rivalry pairing, his first division (UW, Oregon, UCLA, Cal, Colorado, Arizona) has better travel destinations than the second (USC, Stanford, OSU, WSU, Utah, Arizona State). The first has Seattle, Eugene, The better side of LA (I’m a trojan, but i’m not a fool), Berkeley, and Boulder, whereas the second has the Palouse, Corvallis, Palo Alto, the worse side of LA, and Salt Lake. The only pairing where you could even argue that the second division has the better end of it is Tempe/Tuscon, and even that’s debatable.
I really doubt that the split will be as lopsided as that in terms of Pac Ten places people will or will not want to visit.
David:
Whether supported or not by the teams’ records, the reputation is that Cal is a much more elite program than Oregon State.
I think you need to have either Cal or Oregon in USC’s division to quiet conspiracy theorists. Utah would be enough to be a counterbalance for the other division, but it would not be enough as the only other elite team in USC’s division, if Cal and Oregon are on the other side of the zipper.
Cal obviously won’t be in the same division as USC, for obvious reasons. So it has to be Oregon. Which makes sense, given the rivalry between the two.
Utah will then be placed with Cal as the counterbalance. And you won’t see any cries of conspiracy theory, or at least you won’t see nearly as much as you would with your division setup.
Washington and Oregon have to be kept in the same division.
Arizona and ASU should swap divisions in my plan. Eugene and Corvallis are equally crappy towns.
The problem with your argument is that I don’t think that anyone will buy that Cal is really an elite program, they are like the Zags, too many near misses for anyone to really believe they are super elite anymore.
Utah, USC, Oregon State and Stanford, along with Arizona is not an easy division. You only have perenially awful team, WSU. Just ask USC fans how easy they think a trip to the division title will be if they Trojans have to keep playing Stanford and Oregon State every year.
If anything a Cal, Oregon, UW, ASU, Colorado, UCLA division is probably goign to be seen as biased towards the ducks given recent history.
David: I am a USC fan – actually, I’m a USC alum.
I know that there’s no such thing as an easy game in the pac ten. But it’s the reputation i’m concerned about here.
Oregon State, Stanford, and Utah don’t have the name prestige to be considered worthy competitors with USC for a division title, even though you and i both know they would compete with USC perfectly well.
USC’s modus operandi has been to lay down for games which should be a cakewalk for them. From 2002 to 2008, only one pac ten team which was ranked at the time of the game has beaten USC. That was Oregon in the year that they would have won a national title if not for Dennis Dixon’s injury (bad with remembering which year is which). Just because Stanford and Oregon State have been the beneficiaries of games that USC should, by all rights, have won, but didnt, doesn’t mean they’re worthy of putting in a division with USC while Cal and Oregon are on the other side of the zipper.
and the fact is that Cal is seen nationwide as on the next tier of pac ten teams after USC, along with Oregon. They’re certainly seen as being better than Oregon State or Stanford.
Having lived within the past few years in North Carolina, New Mexico, and Colorado, i can tell you that Cal definitely has that level of reputation
I don’t think that nationwide perception is going to play in to the seperation of teams into divisions, I think actually competative balance will be a bigger factor because the people making the decisions are the AD’s and administrators of the Pac-10. They know that Oregon State is a highly competetive program, and that Stanford has become one while Cal is a perenial middle tier team despite the hype.
Data!
Here’s the order of teams (based on overall win/loss %) over the last 5 years in the Pac-10
1. USC
2. Oregon
3. Cal
4. OSU
5. UCLA
6. ASU
7. Ariz
8. Stan
9. WSU
10. UW
If you break up the divisions as follows:
1, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 2, 3, 6, 8, 9 you get a total (of the rankings) 27 and 28 (so you could easily flip the 5/6 place teams.
That would give you
USC, OSU, UCLA, Ariz, UW vs. Ore, Cal, ASU, Stan WSU
Couple problems, UCLA/USC and Cal/Stan are in the same divisions. If you swap the bottom 3 of each grouping you get
USC, OSU, ASU, Stan, WSU vs. Ore, Cal, UCLA, Ariz, UW
AKA what I posited above 🙂
How about over 10 years?
1. USC
2. Oregon
3. Cal
4. OSU
5. UCLA
6. ASU
7. WSU
8. Ariz
9. Wash
10. Stan
Using the initial split above you get:
USC, OSU, ASU, WSU, Stan vs Ore, Cal, UCLA, Ariz, UW
AKA what I posited above 🙂
Incidentally as Brendan pointed out, the idea that Oregon and USC would be in the same division is going to be nearly impossible to sell to the conference members.
I think its a given that Oregon and USC are going to be in opposite divisions.
Next, the idea that you’d have the non-traditional rivals as your season ending game is a great one. Which means that Stanford/USC, Oregon/Wash, and UCLA/Cal are all grouped together.
Which means that Cal and USC can’t be together, and USC Oregon can’t be together.
So you get UW, Oregon, Cal, and UCLA in one group. USC, Stanford, OSU, and WSU in the other.
Now destination wise you have a point, the UW group is nicer. If you group Colorado and ASU with USC et al you add Denver to that mix, helping it a bit.
Plus that grouping would make Brendan happy. AND you’d get all the schools with S’s together (Stan, USC, OSU, WSU, ASU)
So USC, OSU, ASU, WSU, Stanford, Colorado
and UW, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, Arizona, and Utah
I think the mountain schools could end up in any configuration, but it probably would be easier to molify Colorado by pairing them with USC vs UCLA.
If that’s really the division setup, be prepared for everyone east of the rocky mountains to scream bloody murder about it.
There’s not a single other team in USC’s division that anybody who isn’t a close follower of the Pac Ten would give any respect to. All the other teams in the conference they’d be willing to grudgingly call respectable (Cal, Oregon, Utah) are on the other side of the zipper.
I don’t think it’s going to be hard to sell Pac Ten teams on being in a division with Oregon and USC. Those two schools (especially USC) are also games that bring in a lot of revenue when you host them.
Given your rankings of the pac ten teams above, using my plan you would get
FIVE YEAR RANKINGS
Division 1: 1+2+6+9+10 = 28
Division 2: 3+4+5+7+8 = 27
(Numbers are the same whether you are using 5 year rankings, or 10 year rankings)
So don’t tell me that just because you’re preserving the rivalry between USC and Oregon, you can’t make balanced divisions.
okay, the numbers aren’t the same – sorry
the analysis i posted was using your ten year numbers
Who cares what the rest of the country thinks? The decision makers here are the Pac 10 AD’s who will do what’s best for the or schools before giving one iota of thought to perceptions outside the conference. And again, there is absolutely zero chance of USC and Oregon ending up in the same division. You don’t put the top two teams in the same division and call it balanced. The numbers you use show an absolutely lopsided division with the two best and two worst programs in one group.