RT @ChipBrownOB: Sources close to the Pac-10/Big 12 merger say the new super conference will push for two BCS bids because the B12 will be losing theirs.
RT @ChipBrownOB: Sources close to the Pac-10/Big 12 merger say the new super conference will push for two BCS bids because the B12 will be losing theirs.
A lot keeps being made of the cultural differences between the Big 12 South schools and the Pac-10. Ann Killion rips the Pac-10 for “willingly sacrificing its image in mad dash for more cash”, while her colleague Michael Rosenberg loudly ponders, “Who wins when Texas, Arizona State and Stanford are all in the same league?… I don’t see how putting Texas and Washington State in the same league makes this enterprise more compelling for anybody.” What they are conveniently ignoring is that this new “Pac-16” will ultimately feel more like the old Pac-8 and SWC / Big 12 South conferences than anything radically new. Arizona and ASU are relative latecomers to the Pac-10 and will fit in seamlessly with the former Big 12 South schools, as will Colorado. The Eastern Division will feel like a modified Big 12 South or old SWC, while the Western Division will be exactly like the old Pac-8. And if both divisions get BCS bids, what’s not to like?!? How can any traditionalist be upset with this arrangement? The Pac-8 schools go back to playing a Pac-8 schedule, with one or two good cross-division games a year; the Big 12 South plays a schedule very similar to what they would’ve played in the Big 12, except they’ll play the Arizona schools instead of Baylor and some Big 12 North creampuff, along with some tantalizing cross-division games with the Pac-8 division.
Again, what’s not to like? These journalists are totally missing that a Pac-16 both empowers these schools financially and restores a semblance of tradition — all while creating some new exciting conference matchups that beat whatever the Big 12 South has had to offer.