(10-12-2016 01:47 PM)goofus Wrote: (10-12-2016 12:00 PM)YNot Wrote: (10-12-2016 11:50 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: (10-12-2016 11:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: I think the most obvious move is for the PAC to add the four Texas schools.
Utah and Colorado arent afraid of Texas Tech, Baylor and TCU. What they are afraid of is Oklahoma and OSU dominating their division.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app
I thought they were afraid of missing out on games in California if too many more schools are added.
Exactly. Because of this, I don't see how the PAC could make a Texas/Oklahoma division work unless there was full CCG deregulation. A 9-game 3-2-2-2 schedule would work well for everyone, but it wouldn't be possible to then have a PAC championship game under the current rules and restrictions.
And forget rotating pods to make up 8-school divisions. I don't think there's any way that non-California legacy PAC schools would agree to not have any PAC football games in California for 2 years. But, may be there is a way to stack the schedule to make it work...??
There is a way to make it work under the current rules. This was much discussed in old realigment threads. The key with the 3-2-2-2 format is don't assume the teams in the same pod would be in the same division. Then you can set up rotating divisions where half your podmates are always in the other division but you still play your podmates every year.
So if you put the 4 california schools in 1 pod, they will play each other every year. The other schools will play each Califonia school 50% of the time and 50% each year.
It's a lot easier than that. Make a PAC North and PAC South.
PAC North: Wash, WSU, Ore, OSU, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Colorado
PAC South: UCLA, USC, Ariz, ASU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, UT
This is the fear about Oklahoma, they are basically an Alabama on hiatus. Its very possible that if Stoops were to leave and they brought in the next Nick Saban they'll spend a decade at the #1 spot.
If you're Utah and Colorado why would you want to be beat down by Oklahoma every year? Texas schools to put the deal on B1G level I can see that.
If that original six pack deal went down where Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M all joined the PAC it adds 3 super dominant football programs. TAMU is no longer in the picture. I think the smaller programs in PAC football would be fine with Texas and three relative dwarfs (Tech, Baylor, TCU) joined. I'm not saying those 3 aren't good, of course they are solid as Texas P5 programs but they'll never be Alabama strong.