UPDATE: Jon Wilner talked to Pac-10/12 commissioner Larry Scott after today’s meetings and it sounds like, as predicted, no decisions were made. Either that or everyone is being tight-lipped about it until the CEO’s meet in two weeks. Looks like you still have some time to lobby for the USC/Colorado division, Brendan.
Original post from 10/05/2010:
We are fast approaching the day when Brendan will find out whether the Trojans will be regular visitors to Colorado, or just occasional guests in the Rocky Mountain State. Although the division split probably won’t be decided until the Pac-12 CEOs meet in two weeks, it’s likely they will start to take final shape at this week’s meeting of the Athletic Directors. There are three big issues on the table (and undoubtedly numerous less high-profile ones as well): a conference championship game, revenue sharing, and most important to most of us, the divisional split. For reference, Jon Wilner (who was the brains behind the original zipper idea, but whose AP ballot votes are questionable at best) posts his take on all three, with betting odds as to the outcomes.
First up is the easiest of the three, a conference championship game. Whether or not they will vote in favor of playing one is an absolute no brainer, as it’s one of the main reasons for moving to a 12-team conference and creating divisions in the first place. The only real issue is where to play it: home field of the higher-ranked team, or a neutral site. With Colorado joining the conference next season along with Utah, there’s a much shorter time frame for playing the first championship game. The general feeling around the blogosphere seems to be that next season will be a home-site game in order to ensure a sellout and give the league time to lay down the groundwork for a neutral site. Possible candidates that have been rumored for a possible (eventual?) neutral site include Seattle, Glendale, San Diego and San Francisco.
Second is revenue sharing. Right now, teams who get more TV appearances get a larger piece of the pie, which is advantageous to the L.A. schools but harder on smaller market schools like WSU and OSU. Many schools have wanted to move to an equal revenue sharing model (like the Big Ten) but USC and UCLA along with Washington have held enough votes to keep the model as is. Given the recent troubles the Big 12 suffered, in part due to revenue disparity, along with a change in leadership at Washington which seems to favor equal sharing, it looks like the momentum is swinging that way. The addition of two new schools also means that instead of three votes to block a change, there needs to be four, so even if Washington sticks with its SoCal counterparts, it’s not likely that things would stay the same.
Third, and the most contentious, is the divisional split.
– The simplest option from a geographic/recognition standpoint would be a North/South split with the California and Arizona schools in the South and the Northwest and Mountain schools in the North. No way do the latter six agree to this.
– The more complicated plans involve splitting up division rivals (the Zipper). Larry Scott isn’t a fan of this because it’s harder to follow (a la the ACC’s divisions, although the NFL has seemingly random splits in some divisions and does fine). The California schools aren’t a fan because it means they wouldn’t play each other every year.
– Then there is a zipper plan with regional scheduling pods, a.k.a. the Pac-12 Cooler. This would guarantee a cross-division game against two regional rivals, so essentially all the NW schools would play each other every year, all the California schools every year, all the Mountain schools every year. This solves the California problem, but not Scott’s objections.
– Then there is a North/South split with the Bay Area schools in the North and the Mountain schools in the South. This might involve a scheduling concession to the California schools to keep them playing each other every year, but that would mean fewer trips to LA for the Northwest schools. With a nine-conference-game slate, the LA schools would have only 2 free games a year to play the Northwest schools, meaning trips to LA every other year, while EVERY OTHER SCHOOL in the conference would get annual trips to L.A. I’m guessing that one isn’t so popular with the NW schools.
– Finally, there would be a North-South split/California Zipper. UCLA and Cal in the North, USC and Stanford in the South. It’s a little more geographically confusing, but means more frequent games in California for the Northwest schools, and keeping them on par, scheduling-wise, with the Arizona and Mountain schools.
Once again, a big “screw you” to Texas for making this whole mess possible by not buying in to the Pac-16. That split would have been easy, Pac-8 West and Big-12 + Arizona + Utah East.
I don’t understand how the “North-South split/California Zipper” solves anything. You’d still need to schedule two interdivision California games per year in order to satisfy those schools. Certainly, at a bare minimum, you have to schedule Cal-Stanford and UCLA-USC, but that would mean no annual USC-Cal or UCLA-Stanford, and meanwhile the Northwest school still have one less opportunity to play the California schools. I suppose that means it’s a compromise, of sorts, but it’s certainly not a panacea.
The NW schools would have less opportunity to play the CA schools, but so would the new schools and the Arizona schools. Its one thing to allow the CA schools to continue to play each other, being in CA allready the recruiting advantage of playing each other isn’t as big a deal. And if revenue sharing is equal the money isn’t an issue. But a setup where ONLY the NW schools get half as many games in So Cal as every other team? No way is that a good thing.
I know it doesn’t make any sense geographically, but why not the CA schools plus the two new ones in one division and everyone else in the other. I would guess that in any given year those two divisions would be roughly evenly matched, keeps the standard rivalries and all the intra California rivalries. It comes at the expense of the NW and AZ schools getting to play in CA as much as they do now, but you could solve that by having the CA schools play more inter divisional games (but still end up with less than the current 9 divisional games) than everyone else. If you did that the CA schools could argue they should get more revenue, but then they are probably already going to do that anyway, so might as well try and get something for the cash right?
Should the Pac-10 create a network equal revenue sharing is as close to a no-brainer as possible. Indiana – Indiana! – got TWICE as much TV revenue as Texas last year. Even without a network, with what’s happened in the Big 12 there’s a strong motive to keep everyone happy, yes even Washington State.
And a big “screw you, too” for wanting the Conferencepocalypse.
How is that set up any better than the North/South with the AZ schools in the south?
Like I said, the only equitable way I can see a split happening is to have a Bay Area and SoCal school in each division. Full on Zipper (which I think is best) or just zipper the CA schools.
Or a north south split with the bay area schools in the north but no guaranteed games against the so cal schools, but that’s not likely to make anyone happy except the mountain and az schools.
What wrong with the projected confrencepocalypse?
Just put Colorado in USC’s division and let the other chips fall where they may. 🙂
So if they go with a Zipper and Utah is in the division but not Colorado are you moving to Mormon-land?
@Brendan, you mentioned it on Twitter, but theres not enough room there to explain so I’ll do it here. I think the odds of USC and Colorado ending up in the same division are not great. The only scenario I can see that happening is the North/South split with the bay area schools in the north. If they go with a zipper here’s the way I think it breaks down.
First you don’t want to put the two worst schools in the same division, so Colorado is in Division A and WSU is in division B. That means that UW is in division A and Utah is in division B.
Second, you want to keep the non-traditional major rivals together .
That means you have UCLA and Cal in the same division, USC and Stanford in the same division and UW and Oregon in the same division. This matters somewhat less if you go with a zipper + pod scheduling, but I’m still guessing they go with this if there is a zipper.
So now we have four groupings of schools
Group 1: UW, Oregon, Colorado
Group 2: WSU, OSU, Utah
Group 3: Cal, UCLA
Group 4: Stanford, USC
We have to combine 1 + 3 or 4 and 2 + 3 or 4
Well UW and Cal are the only two schools that have been cotinuously in the conference together since its inception back in 1915. Absent other factors there would be history keeping those groups together so you’d end up with
1+3: UW, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, Colorado
2+4: WSU, OSU, USC, Stanford, Utah
The Arizona schools could be split either way, thats less of an issue, so lets say Arizona in the first group and ASU in the second.
Oh look, its the Pac-12 Cooler setup.
You can play around with the setups using this Flash site:
http://theorynine.com/media/games/pac10creator
It has some estimates on competitive balance when you do so. The Pac-12 cooler setup gets a 92/100 on competitive balance and I can’t come up with a zipper alignment that does better than that. The assumptions they make on competitive balance could be off, but they do feel right to me.
You know, the Inland/Coastal model — with USC as an “inland” team so everybody’s got an L.A. school in their division (and so I get to see them every other year, natch) — actually does surprisingly well, despite having CU and Wazzu in the same division:
http://theorynine.com/media/games/pac10creator/#/7,12,1,2,4,10%7C9,11,3,8,6,5
99 for competitiveness, 100 for rivalries, 92 for geography. Overall, a 100!
The downside for USC: it’s separated from all the California schools. The upside: notwithstanding the 99 competitiveness score, that looks like a reasonably easy path to the title game.
I’m Brendan Loy and I approved this
messagedivisional alignment (for purely selfish reasons).“First you don’t want to put the two worst schools in the same division, so Colorado is in Division A and WSU is in division B.”
“despite having CU and Wazzu in the same division”
I think this is a very narrow view that focuses too much on the recent shortcomings of these teams. There are the usual suspects in terms of successful college football teams every year, but a lot of it is cyclical. Colorado was a national power throughout the 80s and 90s, and won the Big 12 championship in 2001. Washington St was in the Rose Bowl against Michigan in 1997. In five years, everything could change again. It’s ridiculous to call them the “two worst teams” in terms of division alignment, as if it’s some kind of eternal truth.
That said, I imagine the intention is to avoid something like the current Big 12 North-South inequality, but I think most of that has to do with recruiting bases and the arrangement/concessions the conference made with Texas from the start.
I agree that keeping CU and Wazzu separate is, at a minimum, certainly not the “first” thing the decision-makers will be worried about. I’m not sure they’ll give it any consideration at all, for the reasons kcatnd articulates, or if perhaps they’ll view it as preferable, but they certainly aren’t going to prioritize it ahead of the Northwest schools’ issues re: access to California, the California schools’ desire to play each other, the importance of maintaining rivalries, divisional “branding,” etc. etc. The entire framework of the conference isn’t going to buillt from the initial premise that CU and Wazzu MUST be kept separate at all costs.
By the way… the Pac-10 Cooler gets a 92 for competitiveness, 100 for rivalries, and 66 for geography from that Flash site.
Flip Stanford & Cal, and it gets a 100, a 100, and a 67. And since the Cooler plan involves regional scheduling pods, this wouldn’t deprive UCLA and Cal of playing each other.
Having flipped Stanford & Cal, you can then also proceed to flip the Washington schools and the Mountain schools, thus keeping Colorado & Wazzu separate but putting the Buffaloes in USC’s division… and guess what… still a 100, a 100 and a 65. Yeah, Washington’s in a separate division from Oregon, but again, who cares, you still play them every year because of the regional pods.
At a glance, I think those divisions actually “look” right, in terms of competitive balance:
ZIPPER A: USC, Cal, Washington, Oregon State, Arizona State, Colorado
ZIPPER B: Oregon, Utah, UCLA, Stanford, Arizona, Washington State
The only problem is the ACC problem — nobody knows who’s in what division. But that’s really a problem with any Zipper plan, notwithstanding the clever arguments of the Cooler advocates. “All the ‘States’ and private schools and, uh, Utah … you know! the reddish schools!” is not something that the casual fan is going to remember.
My guess? All this sound and fury will signify nothing. Larry Scott doesn’t like the Zipper; ergo, it won’t happen. We’ll get Cal and Stanford in the North Division, with the Northwest schools. SoCal, Arizona and Mountain schools in the south. No special guaranteed crossover games for the California schools. They’ll have to live with only playing each other 3 years out of 4. And the Northwest schools will have to live with limited access to L.A. as compared to the AZ/Mountain schools, but they’ll at least have a foothold in California every year. Nobody will be totally happy (except me), but that’s why they call it compromise.
Certainly i’m not saying that the WSU/Colorado split is what the decision will hinge on, i’m saying that if they go with a Zipper then it makes sense to split them as I did. You did better than me by flipping some schools I hadn’t, so kudos on that, but your assuming that pod scheduling happens. I also don’t think that “Scott doesn’t like it so it won’t happen” is true. I think it makes it less likely, but Ihave to imagine he is a smart guy and would be willing to accept it if its what makes the most schools the least pissed off.
If you are going to go with the Zipper and you want to try and make it as simple as possible for people to remember it makes sense to keep the UC schools together. Which means USC and Stanford together. It makes sense to keep Oregon and Washignton together, therefore you have WSU and OSU together. The color of the schools argument may seem silly, but I think it really does make sense especially if you go with calling the divisions the Blue and Red divisions. Who is in what division? Well look at their primary school color? Is it closer to red or blue? Other than Colorado its pretty straightforward which school is in which division.
The primary concerns are competitiveness, rivalry games, and recognizeability from an overall standpoint. The primary concern for each school outside of California is access to California. The primary concern for the California schools is games against the California schools. It may not be how things work out but it seems to me that the Blue/Red zipper (with or without pod scheduling) hits most of these key points. Throw in pod scheduling and you keep the CA schools happy without disadvantaging the NW schools compared to the Mountain schools.
Of course you are right that the decision might end up being a Norwest/Southeast split with no scheduling concession. I just don’t see how a scheduling concession for the CA schools works in that scenario. But I think its the one scenario where you get what you want, Colorado and USC in the same division. So i guess we know what kind of e-mails you are sending comissioner scott 🙂
A couple of notes:
1) You can’t put Colorado on the level of WSU — both programs have had their ups and downs and are currently downtrodden, but based on infrastructure and resources, you clearly have to consider Colorado far above WSU. If you want a cellar-dweller to go with WSU, you’d have to pick OSU. Currently they are fairly competitive, but across all the sports, they are right down there with the Cougars when it comes to infrastructure and resources.
2) USC-Cal is every bit the rivalry that USC-Stanford is. I’m not sure about fUCLA-Stanford being as strong as fUCLA-Cal, but it’s not that far behind either.
You’re on crack. How many football national championships are in Zipper A? How many in Zipper B? And traditionally, USC>fUCLA, Cal>Stanford, ASU>Arizona, Colorado>Utah. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Again, Not. Gonna. Happen. Ain’t no way the California schools take the shaft on both equal revenue sharing AND weakening the traditional rivalries.
Ha, I forgot, Washington>WSU. The only one where Zipper B is stronger is Oregon>OSU.
“Again, Not. Gonna. Happen. Ain’t no way the California schools take the shaft on both equal revenue sharing AND weakening the traditional rivalries.”
Then it has to be a zipper, because there is no way the NW schools are going to agree to having half as many LA games as EVERYONE else.
I mean seriously, you might as well just have the North division be the Northwest schools and put everyone else in the South if you are going to do a NW/SE split AND California games with everyone.
Incidentally both Cal AND Stanford have pushed heavily for equal revenue sharing for years. The hold outs have been USC, UCLA and UW. Since UW is no longer likely in the later group I don’t see how your point about the California schools not agreeing to revenue sharing makes sense.
If there isn’t a zipper, then the California schools aren’t goign to get to play each other every year, there’s just no way to make it happen.
The way I’d order and score the Pac-12 by way of competitiveness is as follows:
Marquee programs (i.e. you’re Bama or Florida)
0 USC*
Should-be marquee programs (you’re LSU or Tennessee)
+1 Oregon
-1 fUCLA
-1 Colorado
-1 Washington
-1 ASU
Middle-tier programs (you’re Auburn, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Ole Miss)
+1 Utah
+1 Stanford
0 Cal
0 Arizona
Bottom-tier programs (you’re Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, or Kentucky)
+1 Oregon State
0 WSU
Marquee programs get 4 points, should-be marquee programs get 3 points, middle-tier schools get 2 points, and bottom-tier programs get 1 point. You then add or subtract according to the above to account for recent performance (last five years or so).
*This year, last year, sanctions, and Paul Hackett era notwithstanding.
David, I like the cooler concept myself (zipper w/ pod scheduling), but the way I see this playing out is, the California schools are either going to be split by North-South or zippered, and everything else is going to be regional (Larry Scott won’t go for a full zipper, but he may go for a CA zipper to placate the NW schools).
So here then are your rough possibilities:
1) NW + Bay Area, Mountain / Desert + SoCal
2) NW + CA Zipper A, Mountain / Desert + CA Zipper B
Play around with the CA schools all you want, it’s almost definitely going to be one of the above two scenarios.
Frankly, I really don’t see the problem with Option 1. The Bay Area is a huge media market and recruiting pool, and you don’t have to come all the way down to LA every year to reap the recruiting benefits since Bay Area vs. NW games will be on TV in LA. Really, the NW schools whining about having a trip to SoCal doesn’t make sense to me. What would be unfair is if the NW schools and the Mountain schools were in the same division — then that would be an unfair lack of access to California. But as long as you can get to the Bay Area every year, that should suffice.
SoCal is higher profile, higher media, and higher recruiting. I agree that you don’t need to go to L.A. every year which is why i’m more than happy with zipper + pod scheduling. I do not agree that the NW schools would be happy with a situation where they are the ONLY teams who don’t get to the LA area every year.
Ask the mountains schools if they’d give up annual games in the bay area for annual games in the LA area. The answer is yes.
I do not agree that the NW schools would be happy with a situation where they are the ONLY teams who don’t get to the LA area every year.
Well, there are three non-CA regions, so obviously one of them would get left out. The NW not having access makes the most sense, first and foremost because of geography, but also because Oregon and U-Dub are the closest to being counterweights to USC and fUCLA from a media branding and recruiting perspective. The NW schools can live without frequent access to SoCal far easier than can the Mountain or Desert schools.
Imagine for a moment that it was the Pac-8 with no California schools. How would you align the teams? Which teams would survive and be competitive, and which schools would slip into mediocrity and mid-major status? IMO, the list of strongest to weakest would work itself out to look like this:
1) U-Dub
2) Oregon
3) Colorado
4) ASU
5) Utah
6) Arizona
7) OSU
8) WSU
However, OSU and WSU are the weakest schools even with direct access to CA because of their limited resources and rural locations, so really you should ignore them in this ranking. So taking this into account, if one region is going to get the shaft, the NW is the one region most capable of succeeding with less access to CA than the other schools.
Even if thats true you are basically asking the northwest schools to give up something and gain little while asking the rest of the schools to give up nothing. If there is a NW/SE split with gaurenteed games for the CA schools, then the mountain schools sacrifice nothing, the CA schools sacrifice nothing, the NW schools sacrifice. Where is the incentive for the NW schools to agree to such a setup where they are the only ones giving up something?
If i’m the AD of any of the northwest schools i’m willing to accept four possible alignments.(in order of preference)
1) NW + SoCal vs Bay + Mountain: The dream setup that would never happen.
2) Zipper (with or without pod scheduling
3) NW + 1 Bay Area + 1 So Cal /Mountain + 1 BA + 1 SoCal
4) NW + Bay Area vs Mountain + SoCal, no gaurenteed california games.
The first one is a non-starter because of geography. The remaining three? No one is at a disadvantage, equal access to both parts of CA in scenarios 2 and 3, reasonably equal in scenario 4.
Now if you are willing to go with scenario 3, why not scenario 2? Is zippering just the Cali schools any less confusing than zippering the whole conference?
The first one is a non-starter because of geography
It’s also a non-starter because of competitive balance. USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, OSU and WSU on one side, and on the other… the Arizonas, Cal & Stanford, Utah & Colorado? LOL! That Flash site gives it a 34 for competitiveness. But hey, at least it would be easy to name the divisions: “the Pac-6” and “the Kids Table.” 🙂
Andrew, I like your point system, though I feel like Oregon State and Utah should get +2, or at least +1.5. And maybe Colorado and Washington get -1.5… sorry David. Also not sure about Stanford’s +1. They’re good now, but have we all forgotten how much of a badge of shame it was, just 3 years ago, to lose to them? Stanford was awful, awful, awful in the very recent past.
Now if you are willing to go with scenario 3, why not scenario 2? Is zippering just the Cali schools any less confusing than zippering the whole conference?
Yes. The zipper logic in California can be very obvious: private schools on one side, state schools on the other (the schools’ colors also help — reddish on one side, blueish on the other); or “West vs. East” (Stanford and fUCLA; Cal and USC).
Zippering the other states gets confusing. North / South? West / East? Coast / Mountain? No matter how you do it, there are a couple of schools that don’t fit the scheme well.
Brendan, I waffled quite a bit on OSU and could see giving them +2, but I can’t give Utah more than +1 until they prove themselves against a BCS conference slate.
For Washington, I think you have to asterisk the Gilbertson / Willingham years; taking that out of the equation, in their current constitution, they are playing like a middle-tier program (likely to win at home, unlikely to win on the road).
Colorado is a tough call. I really think they will benefit strongly from the move to the Pac-10, and their wins over Georgia and Hawaii give the hint that they’ve turned the corner. A lot of folks are knocking Dan Hawkins, and I’m still not convinced he’s going to take the Buffs to the promised land, but it’s very possible he’s on a Mike Stoops trajectory with that program (Stoops needed 5+ years to make Arizona respectable).
As for Stanford, they are definitely middle-tier, and Harbaugh has them playing at +1. Until Harbaugh leaves, they are playing closer to a marquee program. And from a conference balance perspective, you also have to overweight Stanford due to the fact that they are the strongest athletic department in the country and are absolutely loaded financially.
Also regarding Colorado and Washington, you have to look at it like this: If you make them -2 or -1.5, you’re essentially putting them at the bottom of the middle tier or at the lower tier. Well, ask yourself this: Would WSU beat Hawaii, Georgia, or Syracuse? Probably not. Colorado and U-Dub, probably yes.
Fair enough.
Of course, the biggest flaw in your system is that you dared to compare the Pac-10’s “tiers” to the SEC’s “tiers.” As we all know, this is nonsense, because the SEC is the best conference in the country from top to bottom (what’s that you say? the entire “bottom” sucks? shhh, don’t confuse me with facts), it has no bad teams (pay no attention to the SEC East & Mississippi schools behind the curtain), and IT’S A WAR!!!! Why, Oregon wouldn’t go .500 playing an SEC schedule week-in, week-out. I know this to be so because
JesusTebow told me so.🙂
Your right Brendan, Oregon wouldn’t go .500, they would go 1.000 against those SEC pansies 😉
“Would WSU beat Hawaii, Georgia, or Syracuse? Probably not. Colorado and U-Dub, probably yes.”
Probably? I’m pretty sure we DID beat Syracuse. We also beat USC 😀
David, I think you kind of missed the reference point; I named teams that Colorado and Washington played (and beat) this year.