Nothing is official yet, but my day of rejoicing may be near:
Pac-10 athletic directors weren’t able to arrive at a consensus during two days of meetings last week in San Francisco, but a compromise is in the works, according to multiple sources.
The conference would like to have a north-south split of two six-team divisions, instead of a “zipper format” that would divide the conference on an east-west alignment of every rivalry.
The schools in the Northwest will sign off on a north-south split, but want Stanford and Cal to be in their division instead of Colorado and Utah to ensure a foothold in recruiting-rich California. [Presumably Colorado and Utah also want this. -ed.]
However, the California schools would rather stay together, which would mean UCLA and USC being with Stanford and Cal. Add southern schools Arizona and Arizona State, and the South not only would have all of California, but also a historical competitive advantage, even if the current standings show the Oregon schools atop the conference.
One source said the league has to do what’s best for the overall conference, not just for the individual interests of a few schools. And to a number of the members, splitting the four California schools is a must.
If a compromise is reached, Cal and Stanford would be placed in the North division with Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State. The South division would be UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State and new members Utah and Colorado, formerly of the Mountain West and Big 12, respectively.
YAAAAAY!!!! USC IN BOULDER EVERY OTHER YEAR!!!! WHEEE!!!!!!!!
Of course, nothing is official yet. *knock on wood* But it sounds like that’s the direction things are moving in. Indeed, if the Zipper has been definitively rejected, then I don’t see how else things can shake out, since putting Utah and Colorado in the North Division would piss off, well, the entire North Division — and more broadly, create the perception (fair or unfair) of a Pac-12 Real Teams Division and a Pac-12 Kids Table Division. So I think it’s gotta be NorCal + Pacific Northwest and SoCal + Arizona + Mountains.
This apparent outcome is exactly what I predicted last week:
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.
That last point is still up in the air, and it sounds like each school may get a single crossover game — presumably UCLA-Cal and USC-Stanford. (Just what we need: more games against Stanford. Why not schedule an annual trip to Corvallis, too? Ugh.)
I don’t know whether the other eight schools would also get crossover games — ASU-Oregon State in the Erickson Bowl? Washington-Colorado in the Ex-Neuheisel Bowl? Wazzu-Colorado in the Toilet Bowl? — or whether they’d do a 4-out-of-6 nonconference schedule while the California schools do 3-out-of-5 plus 1. I’m not even sure if the mixed schedule concept (crossover games for me, but not for thee) is mathematically/logistically possible, actually.
Anyway, looking at this from a parochial Southern California perspective for a moment: assuming they do indeed put the NorCal schools in the North, and assuming they guarantee a single cross-division game for the California schools as part of the “compromise,” that would mean USC plays Stanford (and UCLA plays Cal) 3 out of 5 years, just like they play every other North school (except their “rival”) 3 out of 5 years. So, USC would visit Cal 3 times every 10 years, in addition to visiting Stanford 5 times every 10 years (i.e., every other year). Same thing in reverse for UCLA. So, there’d be a Bay Area “Weekender” 4 times every 5 years. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Then again, I’m biased: I want a biannual Boulder Weekender. 🙂
P.S. What would this mean from a Pacific Northwest perspective, in terms of access to SoCal — and, perhaps more importantly, competitive balance vis a vis the other teams’ access to SoCal? Well, the Arizona and Mountain schools would have a trip to SoCal every year, because they’re in USC and UCLA’s division. The Bay Area schools would have a trip to SoCal 4 times every 5 years, as noted above. The Pacific Northwest schools? Well, with USC and UCLA each having 3 interdivisional open dates per year — once the UCLA-Cal and USC-Stanford crossover games are accounted for — that would presumably mean each Pacific Northwest school plays each SoCal school 3 times every 5 years, and thus plays at each SoCal school 3 times every 10 years. Combine the two SoCal schools, and you’re looking at 6 games in SoCal per decade, or 3 every 5 years. Unfair disadvantage in recruiting compared to the rest of the conference? Perhaps. Cripplingly so? Probably not. This is a compromise, after all, so nobody is going to be completely happy. And when you factor in the NorCal visits, you’re looking at 8 trips to the state of California every 5 years, which is identical to what the Arizona and Mountain schools get — it’s just that 62.5% of their California visits are to SoCal, while 62.5% of the Northwest schools’ California visits are to NorCal.
This, though, is why the notion of double-crossover games for the California schools in a North-South setup (USC-Stanford and USC-Cal every year, and the same for UCLA) is a non-starter. If you did that, the Pacific Northwest schools would only be visiting SoCal 2 times every 5 4 years, while every other school in the conference would have annual trips to SoCal. In other words, everyone else would get twice as many SoCal games as the Oregons and Washingtons. That’d be totally unacceptable to those Northwest schools, for obvious reasons.
A “California Zipper” (presumably USC and Stanford in the South, UCLA and Cal in the North, or — ruining my Boulder dreams — vice versa) with double-crossover games (so the California schools all play each other every year) is the only other potentially viable compromise, since it would give each Pacific Northwest school 7 7.5 trips to SoCal every decade (5 to the “North” SoCal school, 2 2.5 to the “South” SoCal school), identical to what the Arizona and Mountain schools would have. Only the NorCal schools would have annual trips to SoCal, and really, the recruiting fortunes of a school in California don’t rise and fall based on “access to California.” All things considered, this seems like a pretty good compromise for all concerned — but given Larry Scott’s reported aversion to “zipper” models, and desire to maintain geographically sensible divisions for “branding” purposes, I don’t see it happening. I think it’ll be the basic North/South split with NorCal in the North and a single California crossover game.
P.P.S. The California Zipper + double-crossover model is potentially the worst-case scenario for me, if USC gets placed in the opposite division from Colorado, because it would mean the Trojans visit Boulder once every four years, instead of every three years (as under the straight North-South model with all the California schools in the South and no crossover games) or every 3.333 years, i.e., three times a decade (as under a full-conference zipper with a single crossover game, if USC and Colorado are split).
However, if this model were to be chosen, I suspect USC would be placed in Colorado’s zipper. I assume, first of all, that USC would be paired with Stanford, and Cal with UCLA, since the public/private thing makes some logical sense and thus helps with divisional branding. So, here’s what you’re looking at:
NORTH: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
SOUTH: Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado
UNDECIDED: USC & Stanford, UCLA & Cal
So, which California pair do you put in the South? USC & Stanford, or UCLA & Cal? For long-term competitive balance purposes, I can’t imagine USC being placed with Oregon and Washington. Who is the elite team in the South, then? UCLA? Utah? Colorado? (Ha!) I think you’d have to put USC in the South, as a counterweight to Oregon (currently) and Washington (historically). So, I’d still get my biannual Boulder games, even under this scenario. I think.
This is not an unreasonable arrangement. I still think the zipper was a better set up for diversity of opponents, getting to travel to all regions semi-annually, etc. but this one is probably easier to divide up. The idea that you could do this AND keep the Cali schools playing annual matchups was the one that didn’t make sense.
I imagine for scheduling you’ll play one team from each pairing in the other division a year. Say UW will play USC, Colorado, Arizona for two years, then switch to UCLA, Utah, ASU for two.
“This is a compromise, after all, so nobody is going to be completely happy.”
Uh no, if you gaurentee crossover games for the CA schools AND split them into seperate divisions, even if its only one cross over, the only group really compromising are the NW schools. The Cali schools are ALMOST compromising and the Mountain schools are getting exactly what they want.
You can’t do a north south split AND annual California cross division games, it just doesn’t work and I can’t see any way that the NW schools would buy in to it. if they do its a huge mistake. You don’t get competitive balance OR please 1/3 of your conference.
Uh no, if you guarantee crossover games for the CA schools AND split them into separate divisions, even if its only one cross over, the only group really compromising are the NW schools. The Cali schools are ALMOST compromising and the Mountain schools are getting exactly what they want.
No — the Cali schools ARE compromising, because they want to ALL continue playing each other EVERY year, which requires either that they be in the same division or that they have TWO crossover games. Meanwhile the Pacific Northwest schools are getting less access to California than they would ideally want, but more than they’d get under a true geographic North-South split, or under a double-crossover setup. Just because you think you’re giving away too much in the compromise doesn’t mean it’s not a compromise. You obviously feel more passionately about the issues affecting your school than you do about the issues affecting other schools. I’m sure some USC fan, AMLTrojan or whoever, is going to come in here and that NO, NO, NO, the annual Weekender is an absolute MUST!
(As for the Mountain schools, sure, they’re getting a pretty sweet deal, but that’s more a happy coincidence than anything else — it’s not like Colorado and Utah are these unstoppable, Texas-like behemoths who are rolling over everyone through sheer force of will and ruthless negotiating tactics. Somebody’s gotta be in the South Division, and it just happens to make sense for the conference as a whole if it’s them.)
P.S. The desire by UCLA and Cal to continue playing each other annually (I’m not sure if USC and Stanford really share this desire in quite the same specific way) is akin to your desire to keep playing Oregon annually, even though Wazzu is your designated rival. Obviously that’s not an issue if all the Northwest schools are grouped together, but if some proposal were being floated that split UW from UO and didn’t include a crossover game, would you just sanguinely accept that? That’s what you’re asking the California schools to do by having zero crossover games. They want 2, you want 0… I’d say 1 is a compromise pretty much by definition. Whether it’s a fair compromise is open to debate, but it’s certainly a compromise.
@Brendan
Oregon isn’t the recruting and media market that California is, so no I don’t think Washington wanting to keep playing Oregon falls into the same level. It also doesn’t cause everyone else to get what they want EXCEPT for 1/3 of the conference.
And yes, I suppose by definition its a compromise, but its a weak one, a very weak one. The NW schools want annual access to BOTH parts of California, at least they want a game each year against a team from each region, and to play in each region every other year. In particular they REALLY want access to L.A. (as does everyone).
I have to crunch the numbers, but unless Cal makes up for the annual games against UCLA by playing USC LESS often than the 4 northwest schools do (and vice versa for Stanford and UCLA) it means the NW schools not only get less access to LA than the Mountain Schools, they also get less access to L.A. than the NorCal schools. In other words, the PNW schools get the shaft.
So we’ve gone from a compromise which really screws 6 of 12 teams, to a compromise that really screws 4 of 12 and kinda annoys 4 of 12. How is it a compromise when 4 of your six schools are getting shafted one way or another? If, IF UCLA/Cal and Stanford/USC are guarenteed crossovers the only possible way to balance it out for the Northwest schools would be to have USC/Cal and UCLA stanford be less frequent than normal. Even still I don’t think it works out, because the NW schools will still get the bad end of the deal.
The only way, ONLY way I can see something like that playing out is if Scott is able to convince the NW schools that this is a VERY short term setup (i.e. 4 years and they re-evaluate/hopefully expand).
David, you’re not internalizing my point about Oregon. You’re still looking at it from YOUR perspective (“recruiting and media market” blah blah). I’m asking you to look at it from THEIR perspective (in which the rivalry is paramount). I’m not asking you to change your position, but I want you to understand what you’re asking UCLA and Cal (and to a lesser extent, USC and Stanford) to concede. You’re basically saying, “You guys should give up playing an annual rivalry game, and you should be totally OK with doing that, and not insist on anything in return, because it’s for the greater good.” And what I’m saying is, hypothetically, suppose someone told you that Washington and Oregon needed to give up their annual game on the same basis. I realize that, in reality, there’s no recruiting issue with Washington and Oregon. But there again, you’re looking at it from your perspective, not theirs. What I’m saying is, hypothetically, if someone told you that, for whatever reason, other schools’ needs and desires require that Washington and Oregon give up their annual game (just as you’re telling UCLA and Cal that other schools’ needs and desires require them to give up their annual game), would you say… Okay! Cool! Fine with me! Or would you say something that falls somewhere along the spectrum between “Well, okay, maybe, but what are you willing to give me in return?” and “HELL NO!”?
As for crunching the numbers, I did that in the post:
Those are the numbers. They’re better than the proposed split with double-crossover games (in which case you’d get half as many SoCal games as the AZ/Mountain schools), and of course better than a North/South split with all California schools in the South. They’re worse than your proposed alternative. They’re… again… a compromise.
Obviously, the notion of certain California schools playing each other less often (USC-Cal once every 4-5 years or whatever) is a non-starter, so that discussion is useless. The only alternatives to this NorCal-to-the-North-with-one-crossover compromise are: to split the California schools with no crossover games (this is 0% of what the California schools want, so that’s a “compromise” in which they’re giving up everything and getting nothing), to keep the California schools together in the same division and totally screw over the PNW (this is 100% of what they want and 0% of what you want), or to do the California Zipper with either 1 or 2 crossover games (which puts the PNW on equal footing with AZ/Mountain in terms of California access, and gives you either 7.5 or 8 games in SoCal per 10 years, instead of 6, while also giving the Cali schools, rather than the AZ and Mountain schools, 100% of what they want — but also giving Larry Scott substantially less geographic/branding cohesiveness than he wants, which is why it probably won’t happen).
The NW schools want annual access to BOTH parts of California
And the Southern California schools want rainbows, unicorns, and daily blowjobs, but you can’t always get what you want…well, maybe at UCLA you can get the daily blowjobs, but that’s another story. 😛 In a 12-team conference, unless you intend to play an 11-team round-robin plus one non-conference game, everyone CAN’T have “annual access to BOTH parts of California.” Even with full zipper divisions, you wouldn’t have this. It’s just not mathematically possible.
With the Zipper you absolutely would have annual access to both regions as you would PLAY a team from both regions each year. You wouldn’t play IN So Cal every year, but you would be gaurenteed a game there every other year. Now you are looking at much less than that.
Further, yes I realize the California schools giving up playing each other every year is conceding something, but its not conceding nearly as much as the Northwest schools agreeing to play in SoCal less than all 8 other conference members. The Northwest schools are giving up the most and gaining the least. I understand what the California schools want, but wanting to play each other every year doesn’t have the same recruiting and revenue impact as it does for the northwest schools. Being IN California they allready have an advantage, and being in a larger media market they have another advantage. Add in regular games in the biggest media market and you’ve now increased that advantage at the expense of the NW schools. In order for a compromise to truly work it needs to be reasonably equitable. It may not be possible for it to be completely equal for all parties, but it should be as close as you can get. The zipper was the MOST reasonable compromise in that EVERYONE got at least some of what they want.
A North/South split with Bay Area in the north is saying to the NW schools, look it makes no sense to group you with the two LA schools, but we will group you with the other California schools, and you’ll have at least a game against the LA schools at least every year (on average). Which, you are right, is better than a true North/South split.
However, a North/South split with California crossovers either partial or full is saying to the Northwest Schools, ok fine, you get annual games in California but you don’t even get annual games against atleast one of the SoCal schools. Everyone else does, just not you!
If the California schools want to keep the annual rivalries they should be voting for the only equitable arrangment that lets that happen, a zipper (pod scheduling). We know at least one of the Northwest schools also likes that idea (Oregon States AD is on record) and I can’t imagine the other three wouldn’t love a chance to play an LA school annually. Of course the Mountain Schools are ok with a North/South split, they get to keep annual LA games, but if Larry Scott wasn’t being so bone headed about opposing the zipper (allegedly) I can’t imagine they would have much traction to push against it even if it means fewer SoCal games for them, i mean really, are you going to be sympathetic to schools who are expecting preferential treatment rather than equal treatment? I don’t think so.
David (and to a lesser extent, Brendan), is it not enough to have equal revenue sharing? The California schools are totally getting the shaft on revenue-sharing; destroying the California schools’ rivalries that go back to the early 1900s is overkill. Seriously, if U-Dub and Oregon are getting equal revenue, then let the conference alignment fall where it makes the most sense from a competition, geography, and rivalry perspective. Can you imagine if the SEC teams fought over having an annual trip to Florida or LSU (the two states in the SEC that produce the most high school talent), or the Big Ten schools fighting to have access to Michigan and Ohio State (ditto)? The thought is absurd.
Also, Brendan, where do you come off with the implication that the USC-Stanford rivalry is somehow less than the fUCLA-Cal rivalry? That makes zero sense to me. If I had to order them, the most heated rivalry would be USC-Stanford, then fUCLA-Cal, then USC-Cal, then fUCLA-Stanford.
@AMLTrojan
If the four California schools are getting the shaft on equal revenue sharing, then they have the four votes to stop it. Actually if you paid attention you’d know that Cal and Stanford have been pushing for it for years, the hold out outside of L.A. has been Washington. All you have to do to look at the Big 12 to see what happens when you don’t act as a conference of equals. Is it any wonder that the Big Ten who DO have equal sharing is such a stable and desired conference? As for rivalries, um, Cal and Washington have been together the longest you do realize that right?
The let it fall where it lays theory would give EXACTLY what people are saying will happen, from a competitive and equitable standpoint, Cal and Stanford in the North, Utah and Colorado in the South.
If the California schools are so important then why don’t they leave and form their own conference? Oh thats right, because they need the other Pac-10 schools and fortunately their leadership isn’t as arrogant as you.
Pingback: cute Charlotte Russe bag? | Popular bags
NO, NO, NO, the annual Weekender is an absolute MUST!
How about three divisions? California, NW, and “Other”. Sure, the odd number of divisions isn’t helpful, but with three games per division, it’s reasonably equitable. With three in-division and two in each of the others, you could do some goofy shit with a playoff.
@Doc. Sorry NCAA rules don’t allow that, besides, how do you have a championship game between three divisions?
David, the Big Ten is “a stable and desired conference” because they have by far the largest media market and geographic coverage (in states and population, if not in square miles). Occam’s razor.
I know very well Cal and Stanford prefer equal revenue sharing, but the point I am making is that they need to play some poker here and threaten to hold up revenue sharing along with the Southern California schools unless they can keep the California rivalries. The California schools as a block can control the destiny of the conference, and they should sit down together and do exactly that.
As far as who needs who, absolutely everybody needs each other in the Pac-12, but the other schools need the California schools more than the California schools need U-Dub et al. Ergo, the California schools ought to throw their weight around.
Some inside scoop here:
Anyone wanna guess who the 7 in favor were vs. the 5 opposed? Also, it’s nice to see Haden officially supporting the 5-2-2 concept. I wish I could get a scoop on where the fUCLA, Stanford, and Cal ADs stand.
“Ergo, the California schools ought to throw their weight around.”
Which leads to resentment and bitterness, which leads to problems down the line. Great plan. Like I said, if the weekender is so important to the California schools then they should push for the Zipper. Doing a 5-2-2 conference rotation significantly disadvantages the Northwest schools, who basically get NOTHING in return for giving up annual games in L.A. while everyone else gets what they want. Where is the compromise?
As for the votes, the mountain schools obviously all voted in favor, so thats four of the seven. Determining the other votes would require knowing what the options were, was this 7-5 in favor vs doing a true north south? If so then I imagine the California schools voted against, along with maybe WSU who might actually like the idea of Colorado in their division?
@Brendan – Just saw your last update with the California Zipper. You’d have Cal/UCLA in the North, USC/Stanford in the South for the reasons you mentioend (competitve balance), plus there is a bit more history between Cal and Washington (and Oregon) as original founding members of the conference.
Incidentally under a California zipper I would have no problem with scheduling concessions for the Cal schools because it wouldn’t put the NW schools at a disadvantage relative to the Mountain schools.
David, you’ve never convincingly elucidated why annual games in LA are so important under a equal revenue-sharing scenario. I mean, we’re not exactly demanding annual games in Seattle, Pullman, Eugene, or Corvallis, so why do you want annual games in So Cal? We want annual games against our rivals (fUCLA, Cal, and Stanford), and for everyone else, let the chips fall where they may. By that logic, you should be happy to play the NW schools every year, and that’s that.
And don’t even try to say you need to get down to SoCal for recruiting purposes. That makes a mountain out of a molehill. So long as you are in the same conference and rotate through all the schools occasionally, that’s good enough.
You can deny it all you want but recruiting is a big part of it. Getting down there occasionally when every other school in the conference gets down there annually is a big deal, the amount of exposure, the ability to sell kids on the idea of playing in front of friends and family, familiarity with your program, these are important. If you don’t think those games are important for recruiting it just shows that you don’t understand how recruiting actually works. I do. Without going in to specifics I have spent time with members of my extended family who are involved in Pac-10 football and recruiting and playing those games down there annually is a big deal. If as many talented recruits came out of the Pullman, Eugene or Corvallis area I’d say it was equally important to play there, but honestly they don’t. Look at any Pac-10 teams roster and you will see a sizeable portion of Californians, particularly Southern Californians.
In addition, there is the question of exposure from TV. Even with equal revenue sharing the SoCal schools get on TV more often traditionally than other programs (especially OSU and WSU). Playing those teams means you are likely to be on TV too. Not playing them means less TV. Even if that money is shared equally, the screen time and exposure is not. Obviously there is no scenario where every team is going to get the same exposure, but again you are asking the NW schools to agree to a “compromise” that gets them even less exposure while gaining absolutely nothing out of it.
I understand and sympathize with the desire of the California schools to continue playing each other annually, i’m not saying that desire should be ignored. But you are trying to argue that the solution of a Northwest/Southeast split plus gaurenteed California crossover is somehow not basically giving the WA and OR schools the shaft, and thats bullshit. What are the Mountain schools getting? Everything they want. What are the California schools getting? Everything they want. What are the Northwest schools getting? Access to NorCal, extremely limited access to SoCal. Seriously, what is in it for the Northwest schools to agree to such a setup? There is no upside for them. They would actually be better of with Utah and Colorado in the North because it would mean MORE frequent trips to SoCal than with the proposed setup with crossovers. Of course now half the confernece is unhappy, so its still a bad idea.
The only equitable system that allows the California schools to keep their annual rivalries is a zipper. Any other system creates a haves/haves not setup that is bad for conference longevity. There is a reason the Big 12 failed and there is a reason the Big Ten is putting Michigan and Ohio State in sperate divisions.
Responding to your first two paragraphs, Nebraska does just fine recruiting in California without access to So Cal. Same with Oklahoma, Boise State, and a lot of other teams. Alabama does just fine without guaranteed access to Florida, while Tennessee survives without access to Louisiana. As far as “exposure”, that’s a pretty weak factor to include when divining potential conference alignments.
As far as the Rocky Mountain schools getting everything they want, that’s not exactly true. They are the most disadvantaged by location and lack of natural rivalries / tie-ins (plus Colorado loses guaranteed access to Nebraska and Texas). They are willing to forgo that given the opportunity to be a part of the Pac-10, but it’s a significant factor nonetheless. As for the Arizona schools, they’d probably be fine in any scenario except some bizarre alignment that pairs them with the NW schools but not the Rockies and California.
I prefer the zipper as well, but I don’t see how 5-2-2 supremely screws the NW when Washington and Oregon are supposed to be powerhouses in and of themselves and can control the Seattle-Portland metro areas when it comes to exposure and recruiting.
As for the Big 12, it failed because of revenue sharing problems and Texas dominating conference decisions. Allowing the California schools to keep their rivalries does not upset the apple cart when revenue is shared equally and everyone has a roughly equal say in the conference future.
As for the Big Ten alignment, that decision is being driven purely by revenue growth and the inability to arrange the conference in any geographically sensible fashion and still maintain competitive balance.
Andrew, i’m not saying it won’t be possible to recruit in SoCal, i’m saying they will be at a competitive disadvantage relative to the rest of the conference. Nebraska gets recruits, sure, but they aren’t competing in the same conference as schools who get lots of recruits from SoCal. SoCal is not a major pipeline for any of the schools you mentioned, it is for the Northwest schools and you are asking them to agree to give that up and gain nothing in return.
The mountain schools are disadvantaged? How is Utah disadvantaged by becoming a BCS school and gaining a recruiting step up over BYU? They even get to keep that rivalry. Colordao allready LOST its rival to the Big Ten, moving to the Pac-10 doesn’t cost them anything except some early exit money. In fact they gain alignment with a conference that is more like them, with universities they allready collaborate with more than their current conference AND get out of the shadow of Texas’s iron fisted control of the remainder of the Big-10 and significant revenue disparity. Now they come in to the Pac-10 and get the thing they most want of all, annual access to SoCal. Arizona gets to keep its annual access to SoCal. Stanford and Cal get to keep it too. The PNW schools? trips to SoCal at most once every three years. 1/3 as often as everyone else. What do they gain? Nothing. Again, its all about equitability and balance.
How does giving the California schools exactly what they want at the expense of other schools equal giving everyone an equal say in the conferences future?
If we were getting exactly what we want, you wouldn’t be getting our cut of the revenue we bring in from TV appearances. So what do you want, our money or our talent base? We don’t want to give you access to both, you’ve got plenty to work with already in the Puget Sound region, plus more than equal access to Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific islanders.
equal access to Alaska
Indeed. Washington can see Russia from its house!
(But seriously: there’s football talent in Alaska??)
An occasional prospect here and there — same with Canada. I should also point out, Seattle is the urban destination for pretty much everything west of Minnesota and north of Idaho. I know there isn’t much up there in places like Montana and such, but U-Dub ought to be able to own those states recruiting-wise. Schools like Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin seem to get by just fine with their geographically limited access to recruiting resources, so why does U-Dub need SoCal so dang bad?
Andrew, again, please stop making the claim that ALL the California schools want to keep the current revenue model, barring a dramatic change in position its what Stanford and Cal have pushed for for YEARS. USC and UCLA want it, and they would in effect be giving up something, but they have little choice in the matter due to the numbers. The divisions could end up with a true north/south split and the revenue sharing would still have the votes to change.
Second, again, i’m acknowledging that recruiting will still be possible, your being obtuse and claiming that I think it won’t. It will, however, definitely but the NW schools at a disadvantage compared to the other conference schools. Thats just plain obvious. Playing in talent rich SoCal at 1/3 frequency as the other eight schools is a disadvantage. Why should the NW schools agree to that? What do they get in exchange?
USC and UCLA want it, and they would in effect be giving up something, but they have little choice in the matter due to the numbers.
I suspected you’d say this, David. But it completely moves the goalposts and changes the nature of the topic under discussion. What we’ve been talking about is what you think is a fair or unfair compromise, not what can or can’t be forced through by the tyranny of majority (or supermajority, as the case may be). You can’t remove a critical aspect of the compromise from the fair/unfair analysis by saying, “That doesn’t count because they don’t have the votes to stop it anyway.” Maybe not, but it still needs to be analyzed on the fair/unfair spectrum. You concede the entire argument by admitting, “they would in effect be giving up something.” Yes, they would, and therefore it’s part of the “compromise” and has to be considered.
By your logic, if conference divisions (unlike revenue sharing) can be determined by a simple majority — as I gather is the case — then Andrew should simply respond, “The Pacific Northwest schools want access to L.A., and they would in effect be giving up something [by not getting such access], but they have little choice in the matter due to the numbers” because they’re outnumbered 8-4. This is exactly the same thing as what you’re saying about USC and UCLA. But it’s an utterly nonresponsive argument if we’re talking about fair vs. unfair.
You can’t have it both ways: EITHER we’re talking about fairness/unfairness, irrespective of what can be rammed down this or that group’s throat under the voting rules, in which case both the L.A. schools’ compromise re: revenue sharing AND the Northwest schools’ compromise re: SoCal access must be weighed and considered … OR we’re talking about pure Machiavellian machinations and bean-counting, in which case neither the L.A. schools nor the Northwest schools are really “giving up something” because “they have little choice in the matter due to the numbers,” and the discussion ends because there’s really nothing to talk about beyond acknowledging that revenue sharing can be rammed down the L.A. schools’ throats, unfavorable divisions can be rammed down the Northwest schools’ throats, and that’s the end of it.
Revenue sharing is only part of the compromise if its being considered together with re-allignment. If revenue sharing changes are going to happen regardless of how the division split goes down then, no, they shouldn’t factor in. Consider the following scenario. The Pac-12 gets a waiver from the NCAA for two years to hold a conference championship game without dividing into seperate divisions. If revenue sharing would be changed this year, then it doesn’t really factor in to the decision, or is at best a side issue.
Now, clearly none of us are sitting in on the meetings so we don’t know how this is all going down. You could be right that revenue sharing discussions are being coupled with divisonal allignment discussions. You are also assuming, btw that divisional alignment can be set witha simple majority, which may not be the case. I don’t know if the Pac-10 bylaws even consider a case like that, but they DO have a clause for revenue sharing, and the required votes to change it is more than 75% in favor.
Further more, its not simply about fairness/unfairness from the perspective of any one school, but also whats good/bad for the conference. Equal revenue sharing is arguably a good thing as evidenced by the stability of the SEC and Big-Ten, and the instability of the Big-12. Obviously the LA schools want as much money as they can have, but from the perspective of the good of the confernece it seems to be a no-brainer to change the revenue sharing model.
And there in lies the difference. USC/UCLA wanting to keep the revenue model the same is good for them, bad for the conference.
UW/OSU/UO/WSU wanting to have as close to equal access to LA as the rest of the conference is not only good fot them but also good for the conference. We know what happens when you split part of your conference from the biggest source of media and recruit exposure available. Throw in the fact that you are also taking away the third largest source of exposure (Phoenix) and its even worse.
You are asking me to accept the idea that the creation of a group of four have-not schools is fair AND a good thing for the conference. I think thats ridiculous. Andrew is acting like its a no brainer and that everyone should just give in to the California schools demands, and that is some how equitable. I understand WHY the California schools want what they want, i understand why everyone in the conference wants what they want. But some of the demands are more reasonable than others. Some of the demands make better sense for the conferences long term health than others.
On top of all that, what are USC and UCLA losing? Are they going to lose money? In two years will they be getting LESS money than they get now? Far from it, they will be getting more, just like everyone else in the conference. Its not as much more as they would like but it IS still more. On the other hand the NW schools aren’t giving up recruiting access to one area, but gaining more somewhere else, they are just losing access period.
One change would create a more equal conference, the other would make it a less equal conference. You really think those are the same types of compromises? At best you could accurately say that UCLA and USC are losing a little but keeping alot. UW and UO aren’t goign to gain much from equal revenue sharing, they might lose some same as USC, OSU/WSU definitely benefit there, but they ALL lose the exposure/recruiting in SoCal. So fine, UCLA/USC aren’t getting EVERYTHING they want, but pretty damn close. Everyone else is getting everything they want. The NW schools? Getting very little of what they want. From the perspetive of both the NW schools and the conferences long term health, gaurenteeing the california crossover games is a clearly unfair setup. Equal revenue sharing is a more fair setup.
I am totally repeating myself here, David, but go back to what I said earlier:
I know very well Cal and Stanford prefer equal revenue sharing, but the point I am making is that they need to play some poker here and threaten to hold up revenue sharing along with the Southern California schools unless they can keep the California rivalries. The California schools as a block can control the destiny of the conference, and they should sit down together and do exactly that.
What part of that paragraph didn’t you understand?!?
The only other comment I’ll make is that the NW group of schools would become a group of “have-nots” if they didn’t have totally equal access to So Cal as the other schools. That notion is simply laughable — and risible to boot. First off, revenue-sharing makes the dollars equal for everybody. Second, U-Dub (due to their dominance of the NW media market and the largest metro region in the NW, Seattle) and Oregon (due to Phil Knight’s largesse) could never, ever be in danger of becoming “have-not” schools. As for WSU and OSU, they are have-not schools wth major disadvantages no matter how you slice and dice the Pac-12.
You don’t think significantly less access and exposure to the single most important recruiting region in the conference isn’t a major disadvantage for the schools put in that position? Really? Again I point out that you apparently know nothing about recruiting. Is it possible to get recruits from SoCal without playing there annually? Sure. It’s a hell of a lot harder though, and when you are competeing on a regular basis with teams that DO get those recruits or have a much better chance to get them, that makes it even more difficult.
I understand why you are being so boneheaded here, you are an SC fan who only cares about whats best for SC, but thats not a reasonable position to be in if you are trying to have a discussion about the entire conference. Putting 1/3 of the conference at a competitive disadvantage, pissing off their fan base and administrations is not good for the long term health of the conference. I’m not sayin the California schools should just roll over and sacrifice their own interests here, either, which you seem to believe. I’m merely pointing out that the supposed “compromise” of the 5-2-2 setup isn’t a compromise at all for 8 of the 12 teams, its only asking the 4 NW schools to give up things and give them nothing in return. An un-equitable arrangment like that is not good FOR THE CONFERENCE.
Let me reiterate, again, that I AGREE with you that the idea of the California schools getting annual games together is a big deal to them. Of COURSE they want to keep it. I don’t want them to have to give it up, which is why i’ve long been an advocate of teh Zipper which would allow them to do so. But I’m not going to pretend that the proposed 5-2-2 setup is somehow even remotely fair. You are basically asking me (and the rest of the NW) to give in to whatever California wants and like it. To which we collectively say screw you.
Pingback: World Wide News Flash
Pingback: Pink Lace Dress
Pingback: Pink Lace Dress