(01-24-2017 03:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way the PAC would turn down OU, OSU, UT, TT IMO. No Way. But again you keep forgetting that for the BIg 12 to break up the OU/UT relationship will have just gone through a divorce so any scenario where they both go the same direction is unlikely.

I don't know, though. Is Texas enough to bring three other schools the PAC wouldn't take? And, let's not sugar-coat it...the PAC turned down Oklahoma. Who cares if State was with them...if OU is a "chaser," or as much as we think they are, they'd be in that conference.

When it really comes down to it, I think B1G-PAC will eventually happen, and Rice will be a part of it on one of the sides. Heavily pushed and driven by the Big Ten, I doubt USC and Stanford stall the darn thing for good. And, both conferences want to be in Texas. I doubt one gets to it and the other twiddles its thumbs. The Big Ten wanted both Texas and A&M...again, I doubt they take just nothing.

If you prefer to look at it that way so be it. Oklahoma was supposedly turned down as a pair with OSU. Things have changed dramatically since then. The B1G and SEC have outperformed the PAC in every way imaginable and there is no reason to believe there won't be a significant money gap which will continue to widen if the PAC does nothing.

The PAC and Big 12 are a match made in heaven as they each have what the other needs and also have a reason to work together to avoid falling further behind.

I have no doubt Rice could be in play but I think it will be with the B1G instead of the PAC. PAC needs help athletically and financially with the network Rice fixes neither of those problems. PAC already has great recruiting territory and no local competition so that is also not in favor of Rice.

But from the B1G perspective Rice is a perfect fit. B1G has plenty of huge schools but they lack excellent recruiting grounds, especially in the West. The real question is what would it take for the network to get paid in the state of Texas. I don't know if Rice is enough for that to be the case. Maybe they have alumni who would make some serious donations to improve athletics to a respectable level. Maybe Houston and Rice would be enough to make a difference.

(01-24-2017 05:59 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:59 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 11:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

Kind of lost in the decision to allow the Big XII to hold a CCG with 10 members was the concurrent decision to not allow conferences to make their own rules regarding divisions and selection of CCG participants. IMO, that decision may have quashed further realignment within the P5 conferences.

Three of those five conferences now have 14 members. The ACC appears to have been isolated in their desire to pursue alignment models (like pods) that didn't require balanced divisions with a full divisional round robin. Once the Big XII got the CCG it wanted, the ACC had no allies in their quest.

With the current rules in place, expansion to 16 teams becomes less attractive for those three conferences, which might otherwise have vied for a few of the more desirable Big XII schools. It also makes it harder for the PAC to expand into Texas to enhance its network, since they would probably need to add four schools from that region in order to attract any of them. And if a PAC 16 were to try to align with the 8 coastal schools all in the same division as part of an expansion, they probably wouldn't be able to find a ninth vote from among the other four existing members.

So the Big XII didn't just gets its CCG, they got significant immunization from poachers. That tells me the P5 wants to stay at five, and the networks do too.

Where does that leave the PAC? At the status quo for the foreseeable future, at least membership wise. What remains is the possibility of seeking a business arrangement with the Big XII to expand the network that the PAC owns into the only P5 region that doesn't yet have one.

Umm the Big 12 is able to choose if they wanted divisions and choose who they picked which teams play in the CCG. You might want to go back and look at this. Essentially the Big 12 was able to choose how they determined who played in the CCG. IMO that opens the door for realignment and options for conference to look at alternative setups.

The ACC has 14.9 members so in reality there are only 2 conferences with 14 members. 10, 12, 14, 14, 14.9. 14 is not ideal and not the goal anyone was looking for IMO.

I believe the Big 12 and PAC talked about more than just a scheduling alliance when they spoke last football season.

Maybe you should be the one going back and looking at what options the Big XII was given. No doors were opened by these decisions.

While 14 may not be the goal anyone was looking for, I have no knowledge that anyone had any different goal, or that the three who ended up with 14 are satisfied with what they have. The only thing we can be sure of is that the P5, which could have agreed to allow more than 2 divisions, explicitly chose not to allow it.

You made the claim that new rules restrict how conferences can determine who plays in the CCG which will hinder further expansion.

I pointed out that the Big 12 was not restricted and was able to choose if they wanted to have divisions and allow those champs to play in the CCG or to not have divisions at all and use another method for choosing who is in the CCG.

Again, there are not 3 conferences with 14 members. ACC messed that up with Notre Dame. You have 15 members for many sports in the ACC and 14.9 in football.

Again you are missing the point. Conferences can choose not to have divisions at all if they want to. Conferences with no divisions will likely be the future so they can get more premier matchups. We've seen the B1G and ACC struggle with this moving teams as has the SEC with Missouri in the East.

We all know 14 is not the end game. You can pretend otherwise and also pretend that the ACC has 14 members but you would be wrong, again.

Things change in college football, that is certain.

I made no such claim. What I said was that the conferences decided not to change the existing rules which prohibit conferences with 12 or more members from having more than two divisions when they adopted the new rule dealing with conferences with fewer than 12 teams.

If the Big XII chooses not to have two 5-team divisions, then they have only one other option if they want to hold a CCG. They would have to continue to play a full round robin of all conference members and then match the two teams with the best regular season conference record in the CCG. They don't get to choose some other way of picking the participants.

And, of course, you can say again - you can say it as many times as you want - that the ACC has more than 14 football members. It doesn't make it true. I understand that your strong bias against Catholics in general and Notre Dame in particular lead you to make this silly claim. But as has been explained many times on this forum, you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

Here is a fact. Conferences with 12 or more members may choose to have no divisions at all, if they want to have more flexible scheduling options. But if they make this choice, then they are not allowed to stage a Conference Championship Game. Personally, I see no evidence yet that any P5 conference is willing to do this. Perhaps you have some inside information the rest of us don't have.

P23570-
Ken D is right. Everything in his response is spot on.

As for divisional alignment, the BigXII got permission to hold a CCG with ten members, and they get to choose whomever they want for the CCG as long as they play a round robin.

That last part is sort of an important technicality. The NCAA couldn't force the BigXII to have division champs play because the BigXII could just continuously redefine divisions to put the top 2 in separate divisions while still fullfilling rThe round robin divisional requirement. The larger conferences can't do this. I also think it's a big reason the BigXII stayed at 10.

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I personally think the PAC will be adding 6 to keep existing divisions the same.

I don't think that would happen. For the CA schools there is no value in preserving the current divisions if we can't also preserve the protected cross-overs that the 4 CA schools have with each other. And those cross-overs would put real strain on cycling through not only the current opposite division, but also a third division of newcomers.

(01-24-2017 07:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I personally think the PAC will be adding 6 to keep existing divisions the same.

I don't think that would happen. For the CA schools there is no value in preserving the current divisions if we can't also preserve the protected cross-overs that the 4 CA schools have with each other. And those cross-overs would put real strain on cycling through not only the current opposite division, but also a third division of newcomers.

The four California schools could be put into the same division. Simply, a "Texas" division and a "California" division. Schools like California because it is a fertile recruiting area. Houston could fill 30 schools' rosters. Texas is as fertile as they get.

California Division

USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Colorado
Utah

Texas Division

Texas
Oklahoma
Arizona
Arizona State
Oklahoma State
Houston
Kansas
Texas Tach

Now, where do you wish to put the remaining schools?

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State

The ACC has 15 members and a partial in football. ND plays a partial schedule. They have more than 14 members. I have no idea what you dont' understand about that but you are free to your opinion. There are only 2 p-5 conferences with 14 members, that is a fact. as nothing to do with catholics so I have no idea where that came form . Likely past butthurt which is why you are being so argumentative. Try to hide it better next time. LOL.

Like I said, the only thing sure in college football is change. If you want to pretend it's impossible for any further changes to take place so be it. I think there will be more changes including expanding the playoff and more conferences than just the ACC going beyond 14 members. Some of us feel that 14 members is not the end goal. It's really not ideal and I think everyone knows it, just a matter of who goes that route first to make the change. The ACC did but only to 15 which is really a weird spot, much like the B1G at 11.

The mistake you keep making is looking at history to tell you the future. Just becasue that was the way it was done in 2016 does not mean that it's the way it will be in 2020. Just look at all the changes from stipends for athletes, Nebraska and Rutgers being in the same conference, the playoff, etc.. Lots of changes recently so there is no way to be sure what will happen moving forward.

BTW you did say that the current rules for determining a CCG will prevent further realignment. You can pretend otherwise but its' right there for anyone to read.

(01-24-2017 07:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I personally think the PAC will be adding 6 to keep existing divisions the same.

I don't think that would happen. For the CA schools there is no value in preserving the current divisions if we can't also preserve the protected cross-overs that the 4 CA schools have with each other. And those cross-overs would put real strain on cycling through not only the current opposite division, but also a third division of newcomers.

This wont' be about the 4 cali schools. It's about schools like Colorado and Utah or Arizona and ASU who have no interest in playing in a Texoma division.

No way they agree to adding 4 Big 12 schools and then putting ASU, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado in the East Division. No way.

How exactly would you see that working?

(01-24-2017 07:12 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  P23570-
Ken D is right. Everything in his response is spot on.

As for divisional alignment, the BigXII got permission to hold a CCG with ten members, and they get to choose whomever they want for the CCG as long as they play a round robin.

That last part is sort of an important technicality. The NCAA couldn't force the BigXII to have division champs play because the BigXII could just continuously redefine divisions to put the top 2 in separate divisions while still fullfilling rThe round robin divisional requirement. The larger conferences can't do this. I also think it's a big reason the BigXII stayed at 10.

Hardly. Its' not difficult to see that the ACC has more than 14 members. I have no idea why someone wants to pretend the ACC, SEC, and B1G ahve the same number of members but it's absolutely not true. One of the stranger arguments I have ever seen on realignment to be honest with you.

The rules will evolve as more conferences go past 14 members. Just a matter of time.

This is like arguing that people will have to have traditional cable or satellite to watch ESPN. That changed just like this will. Just a matter of time.

The Big 12 is not going to stay at 10 members forever just like the ACC is not going to stay at 15 and the SEC is not going to stay at 14. Try thinking a few years out instead of pretending that what's true today will be true in a a few years.

According to Wiki there are 15 moembers, LOL.


Atlantic Coast Conference
(ACC)
Atlantic Coast Conference logo
Established 1953
Association NCAA
Division Division I FBS
Members 15
Sports fielded 27[1] (men's: 13; women's: 14)
Region
South
South Atlantic
East South Central
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
New England
Midwest (except football)
East North Central (except football)
Headquarters Greensboro, North Carolina
Commissioner John Swofford (since 1997)
Website http://www.theacc.com

(01-24-2017 08:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  The ACC has 15 members and a partial in football. ND plays a partial schedule. They have more than 14 members. I have no idea what you dont' understand about that but you are free to your opinion. There are only 2 p-5 conferences with 14 members, that is a fact. as nothing to do with catholics so I have no idea where that came form . Likely past butthurt which is why you are being so argumentative. Try to hide it better next time. LOL.

Like I said, the only thing sure in college football is change. If you want to pretend it's impossible for any further changes to take place so be it. I think there will be more changes including expanding the playoff and more conferences than just the ACC going beyond 14 members. Some of us feel that 14 members is not the end goal. It's really not ideal and I think everyone knows it, just a matter of who goes that route first to make the change. The ACC did but only to 15 which is really a weird spot, much like the B1G at 11.

The mistake you keep making is looking at history to tell you the future. Just becasue that was the way it was done in 2016 does not mean that it's the way it will be in 2020. Just look at all the changes from stipends for athletes, Nebraska and Rutgers being in the same conference, the playoff, etc.. Lots of changes recently so there is no way to be sure what will happen moving forward.

BTW you did say that the current rules for determining a CCG will prevent further realignment. You can pretend otherwise but its' right there for anyone to read.

Really? Why don't you show me where? And when you find what you think I said, you will see that what I actually said is different.

I have been clear in saying that the ACC has 14 members in football. That is an incontrovertible fact. Notre Dame is not a member of the ACC for football. Period.

You are clearly confused and argumentative. You are certainly free to use "LOL" as a childish attempt at an insult. Your use of "butthurt" is similarly adolescent. If I thought for a minute you wanted to have a serious, adult discussion, I would be happy to accommodate you. But I won't indulge your childish behavior any more. Goodbye.

(01-24-2017 09:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  The ACC has 15 members and a partial in football. ND plays a partial schedule. They have more than 14 members. I have no idea what you dont' understand about that but you are free to your opinion. There are only 2 p-5 conferences with 14 members, that is a fact. as nothing to do with catholics so I have no idea where that came form . Likely past butthurt which is why you are being so argumentative. Try to hide it better next time. LOL.

Like I said, the only thing sure in college football is change. If you want to pretend it's impossible for any further changes to take place so be it. I think there will be more changes including expanding the playoff and more conferences than just the ACC going beyond 14 members. Some of us feel that 14 members is not the end goal. It's really not ideal and I think everyone knows it, just a matter of who goes that route first to make the change. The ACC did but only to 15 which is really a weird spot, much like the B1G at 11.

The mistake you keep making is looking at history to tell you the future. Just becasue that was the way it was done in 2016 does not mean that it's the way it will be in 2020. Just look at all the changes from stipends for athletes, Nebraska and Rutgers being in the same conference, the playoff, etc.. Lots of changes recently so there is no way to be sure what will happen moving forward.

BTW you did say that the current rules for determining a CCG will prevent further realignment. You can pretend otherwise but its' right there for anyone to read.

Really? Why don't you show me where? And when you find what you think I said, you will see that what I actually said is different.

I have been clear in saying that the ACC has 14 members in football. That is an incontrovertible fact. Notre Dame is not a member of the ACC for football. Period.

You are clearly confused and argumentative. You are certainly free to use "LOL" as a childish attempt at an insult. Your use of "butthurt" is similarly adolescent. If I thought for a minute you wanted to have a serious, adult discussion, I would be happy to accommodate you. But I won't indulge your childish behavior any more. Goodbye.

(01-24-2017 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  Kind of lost in the decision to allow the Big XII to hold a CCG with 10 members was the concurrent decision to not allow conferences to make their own rules regarding divisions and selection of CCG participants. IMO, that decision may have quashed further realignment within the P5 conferences.

LOL, Now what???

I've tried to be as nice as I could but arguing how many members the ACC has has gotten old for me as well. Anyone can see that there is a game requirement for the 15th member of the ACC conference. Sorry but you are still wrong. Epic fail on your part but like I've said all along you are entitled to believe the ACC has 14 members. The rest of us know the only p-5 conference with 14 members are the SEC and B1G. Big 12 has 10, PAC has 12, and ACC has 15. Glad we got that straight.

If LOL makes you more butthurt than you already are so be it. Sounds like a common problem with you as the catholic comments you brought into the discussion. I'm guessing something I said in the past has offended you and since being offended is the national pastime on the internet you obliged by having a ridiculous argument about the number of schools in the ACC. LOL. Try to control you emotions better next time.

BAck to the topic, expect changes moving forward. I do not think there is one p-5 who is absolutely 100% happy with the current setup. Missouri in the East division makes no sense. The B1G is badly unbalanced and always will be. The ACC has 15 members which does not work unless you go to 3 divisions. The PAC knows they have to do something if they want to improve the network's financial performance. The Big 12 certainly isn't happy with the 10 team RR and rematch CCG. And that's not even getting into the playoff being expanded. Like I said lots of potential for change out there. Never say never.

Kinda ironic you calling me childish when you are acting emotionally based on past comments and essentially sticking your fingers in you ears and sticking your tongue out at this point. Thanks for the entertainment.

Just looked and saw that you had neg repped me in the past. LOL. Like a woman. Dude let it go. No reason to get so upset about something you hold a grudge. I can tell this is personal to you.

Certainly not the same for me.

(01-24-2017 08:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 07:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I personally think the PAC will be adding 6 to keep existing divisions the same.

I don't think that would happen. For the CA schools there is no value in preserving the current divisions if we can't also preserve the protected cross-overs that the 4 CA schools have with each other. And those cross-overs would put real strain on cycling through not only the current opposite division, but also a third division of newcomers.

This wont' be about the 4 cali schools. It's about schools like Colorado and Utah or Arizona and ASU who have no interest in playing in a Texoma division.

No way they agree to adding 4 Big 12 schools and then putting ASU, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado in the East Division. No way.

How exactly would you see that working?

I don't.

But neither will forcing the CA schools apart. And if those are the only options, we simply won't expand.

Sooooo p23570, for clarification, are you saying Notre Dame is the 15th member of the ACC in all sports? You seem to be conveniently omitting the fact that Notre Dame is still a football independent.

I mean it says it right there in the wiki you sited. And last time I checked this entire discussion is about college football realignment.

So for football the ACC has 14 teams and in the other major sports the ACC has 15 teams.

If you said that in a previous post and I missed it, I apologize. Just wanted to clarify

(01-24-2017 08:27 PM)chess Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 07:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I personally think the PAC will be adding 6 to keep existing divisions the same.

I don't think that would happen. For the CA schools there is no value in preserving the current divisions if we can't also preserve the protected cross-overs that the 4 CA schools have with each other. And those cross-overs would put real strain on cycling through not only the current opposite division, but also a third division of newcomers.

The four California schools could be put into the same division. Simply, a "Texas" division and a "California" division. Schools like California because it is a fertile recruiting area. Houston could fill 30 schools' rosters. Texas is as fertile as they get.

California Division

USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Colorado
Utah

Texas Division

Texas
Oklahoma
Arizona
Arizona State
Oklahoma State
Houston
Kansas
Texas Tach

Now, where do you wish to put the remaining schools?

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State

Well, that's easy. The old PAC-8 would make a lovely division (Washington, Washington St., Oregon, and Oregon St being added to the "California" division). That would mean the other division would be Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Colorado, along with Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St. being added to the "Texas" division.

(01-25-2017 02:35 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:27 PM)chess Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 07:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I personally think the PAC will be adding 6 to keep existing divisions the same.

I don't think that would happen. For the CA schools there is no value in preserving the current divisions if we can't also preserve the protected cross-overs that the 4 CA schools have with each other. And those cross-overs would put real strain on cycling through not only the current opposite division, but also a third division of newcomers.

The four California schools could be put into the same division. Simply, a "Texas" division and a "California" division. Schools like California because it is a fertile recruiting area. Houston could fill 30 schools' rosters. Texas is as fertile as they get.

California Division

USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Colorado
Utah

Texas Division

Texas
Oklahoma
Arizona
Arizona State
Oklahoma State
Houston
Kansas
Texas Tach

Now, where do you wish to put the remaining schools?

Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State

Well, that's easy. The old PAC-8 would make a lovely division (Washington, Washington St., Oregon, and Oregon St being added to the "California" division). That would mean the other division would be Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Colorado, along with Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St. being added to the "Texas" division.

Might sound "easy" but I think Colorado joined the PAC to play more Pacific games, and to a lesser extent, get away from the Austin/Norman drama

Sure, everyone wants UT, but that division works a whole lot better without the UT/OU drama. Makes for a classic rivalry game, but maybe better kept OOC?

Now let's revisit the rotating quads from the old WAC 16 and see if it can be scheduled to accommodate everyone's desires/needs... ready set go...

(01-25-2017 09:05 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Now let's revisit the rotating quads from the old WAC 16 and see if it can be scheduled to accommodate everyone's desires/needs... ready set go...

The PAC-16 will never go for a complex scheduling format like the rotating pods. Ultimately they'll go for a very simple schedule. The reason is simplicity.

When the PAC-10 went to PAC-12, people had actually worked up a zipper-split format, where each media market would be split into 2 different divisions. Each team would play against their division, and then play 2 guarenteed cross-overs (giving each one of the 4-team pod games against eachother), and then play one of the other two teams from each pod. Therefore, giving us a 4-year rotation schedule (between homes and aways), playing each pod. The PAC-12 didn't go for it, saying it was too complex, and not easy to understand which division each team was in. They won't go for a rotating pod system (which ultimately has teams switching divisions).

The fact is that all California schools will be in one division (there's no way to do the four schools playing eachother any other way). The Northwest schools will likely be in that division. Each of these schools have been associated with eachother since at the latest, 1928 (in the old Pacific Coast Conference, which the PAC-8 eventually came from). That means that the Four Corners schools will be with the Texhoma schools.

I do think Championship game rules would need to change to make further expansion beyond 14 teams more likely. Currently you can have up to 26 teams in a conference and still play a championship game, but that would involve both divisions playing all 12 intra-division teams during the regular season, and not only playing no non-conference teams, but also no cross-division teams, which no conference is obviously going to do.

No conference has gone beyond a 9 game conference schedule, and I don't see that changing. Even going from 8 to 9 is taking some time for several conferences, and they may never do it unless the regular season is expanded again.

I don't think any conference wants to have less than 2 cross divisional games per team so a 9 game schedule caps at two 8 team divisions and a 8 game conference schedule caps at two 7 team divisions. You can't have three (or more) divisions with the current championship game rules. The WAC did try to rotate divisions every 2 years but that didn't work for them. It's possible another conference may try that, but I don't think it's very likely.

Being able to have conference semifinals would certainly allow conferences to expand further into more divisions allowing for better rotation of playing cross division teams. Changing that rule could certainly happen eventually, but I'm not sure how likely it is in the near future.

In regards to those questioning the number of teams in the ACC, it is technically 14 for football. Norte Dame does play a partial 5 game schedule but those games are not counted as conference games for the determining standings, nor is Notre Dame eligible for the Championship Game. I do understand calling it a 14.9 (or any other fraction) team conference to acknowledge the scheduling agreement, but it's not really necessary.

(01-24-2017 11:14 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:46 PM)p23570 Wrote:  This wont' be about the 4 cali schools. It's about schools like Colorado and Utah or Arizona and ASU who have no interest in playing in a Texoma division.

No way they agree to adding 4 Big 12 schools and then putting ASU, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado in the East Division. No way.

How exactly would you see that working?

I don't.

But neither will forcing the CA schools apart. And if those are the only options, we simply won't expand.

That's it in a nutshell. The requirements of annual play between the California PAC schools and continued California presence for the NW and SW schools are more set in stone than the B1Gs requirement for academics/AAU status.

When the PAC went to 12, it brought in two additional votes against an eastern division. The PAC16 basically went out the window when Utah and Colorado joined without the Texahoma 4.

A PAC18 is out the window unless the CTZ 6 are really a separate conference with no games against the PAC-12 schools. Because, if nobody noticed, the PAC already plays 9 games and all 9 are needed to maintain annual play between the Cali schools and the minimal amount of SoCal exposure for the NW schools. There's no room for additial cross division games.

I think it's much more likely that the B1G would just acquire 8-10 PAC schools (including all 4 California schools) and make that a semi-autonomous B1G division.

And people think I'm joking, but I'm not about UCSD. That's the only school that would provide ASU, AZ, CU, and UU a SoCal anchor for an east division and be academically acceptable to Cal/Furd.

The PAC could schedule at 14 if one of the additions were UCSD. UCLA and USC would alternate between the East/West divisions playing all 3 cross division games against the other Cali schools when in the East. Really the only feasible PAC expansion is UCSD (to get the NW and SW school votes) plus Texas to make it financially and athletically worth while.

(01-25-2017 12:06 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The requirements of annual play between the California PAC schools and continued California presence for the NW and SW schools are more set in stone than the B1Gs requirement for academics/AAU status.

Utah and Colorado have only been in the Pac for a few years, so nothing is set in stone with respect to them.

It is true that, as a practical matter, any 4 members can block Pac-12 expansion because it takes 9 yes votes to expand. But reports around the time that the Oklahoma schools asked to join indicated that there would have been enough yes votes if (and only if) UT was included in the group that would be joining.