(08-23-2013 02:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 12:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 11:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 02:33 AM)john01992 Wrote:  psu needs a true rival but i dont think RU is the answer. i think MD-RU is the way to go

If you mean true rival as in one that gives them a run for their money, then as of now it seems like Rutgers is that program more so than Maryland. We will see this year what Maryland can do, some folks are picking them as a surprise team in the ACC. I certainly hope that proves to be true but Penn State regularly has raided the State of New Jersey for some of it's top talent. Their is a true rivalry just simmering underneath the surface for those two programs and their followings.

i believe that RU is under rated and that will show during b10 play however psu-RU is not gonna happen.

MD may not be ideal for psu, but those two schools have tons of history, so regardless of whose better, MD gets the nod. psu/msu are also looking for natural b10 end of year partners so they would be another good option. but the best option is UNL. two top 10 programs who lack a true conf. rival. its a win win. the way i see it RU-PSU as an end of year rival is far from the best option for psu & the b10

Nebraska will end up with a continued pairing with Iowa or they will get put with Wisconsin while Iowa and Minnesota resume their end of season rivalry. If Wisconsin doesn't have Minnesota then they need Nebraska and that end of season rivalry game would quite often be the deciding factor in the West division hunt.

I think PSU's choices are MSU, Maryland and Rutgers. If Maryland fits best out of that trio then that works. I am not as familiar with the culture in that area in terms of past relations. I have done some looking into Rutgers but I will admit I havn't done much of the same for Maryland. The Rutgers story just interests me.

UNL & the teams you mentioned fit geographically but they really need a program of equal strength more than anything. iowa, minn, wisky just simply dont cut it.

while RU is a good option geographically and athletically, MD is one of psu's traditional rivals along with syracuse, pitt, & wvu. a lot of people dont know that but those are penn states 4 biggest rivals. psu just had an ego issue which stopped those teams from playing psu for the last 20 yrs, but the SU, pitt, & MD series have all been renewed and with joe pa dying a lot of psu's issues with these teams died as well

Pitting PSU and UNL together in such fashion will cause reverberations through the Big Ten ranks. So who then does Iowa get? They will push for Minny. Who does Wisky get then? Neither NU or Illinois is up to the task and they make for a strong in state rivalry. Push Wisky and MSU? I suppose that makes some sense.

The thing is though, Wisky isn't the Wisky of the past. The are Lineman U. I don't think our current set up in the Big Ten lasts all that long but while it does, Wisky will be a top contender in the West. Having them and Nebraska at the end of the season is a big deal game.

Just the opposite is true of PSU. They aren't exactly the same program that they have historically been either but they have gone in the opposite direction. To top that off, PSU wanted more of an Eastern footprint. Now that we have that, for PSU to push for their last season rival to the farthest West program that the conference has....well that would just be awkward. PSU has Maryland and Rutgers to choose from and that is pretty much it in my estimation.

I like the idea of Penn State/Nebraska as a season ender on paper. The problem is the divisions. They aren't an annual game and thus can't be an annual season ender. If we had gone inner/outer (which I would have preferred), it would have made more sense for that.

(08-22-2013 01:59 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  PAC-12
Arizona/Arizona State
Colorado/Utah
Oregon/Oregon State
Washington/Washington State
USC/UCLA or USC/Notre Dame
Stanford/Notre Dame (every other year)

Note: I was trying to figure out how Cal fit in. It seems most years they play Stanford on traditional rivalry weekend (the week before Thanksgiving), although last year the game was early. They've had buys the last week of the year so I'm thinking the next to last week might be bigger for them. The California games seem to be altered some year to year now to account for the Notre Dame game regardless.

It's not easy, and I get the feeling the Pac-12 office doesn't much like having to accommodate what the California schools want for this weekend, which is:

Cal and Stanford want to play on the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Each school has "Big Game Week" events the week before the game and they don't want that week to be Thanksgiving week. The conference put together a 2011 schedule that had the Big Game that weekend and the schools protested. They ended up that year with the only alternative the conference office offered, playing the Big Game in October.

UCLA and USC want to play the Saturday before Thanksgiving at the Rose Bowl in years when USC hosts ND and on the Saturday after Thanksgiving at the LA Coliseum in years when USC is at ND.

The other Pac rivalry pairs either want to play the Saturday after Thanksgiving or don't mind playing that weekend.

BYU is supposedly going to be part of the "solution" to the Pac's Thanksgiving week scheduling, but not for a few years. BYU will reportedly play at Utah that weekend in 2018, at Stanford that weekend in 2020 and 2022, and at USC that weekend in 2021 and 2023.

(EDIT: BYU is also the "solution" to this scheduling problem in 2014. BYU will play at Cal on the Saturday after Thanksgiving next year.)

That presumably means a T-week game between UCLA and Colorado in 2018. In 2020-2023, who knows. The obvious solution on paper is to play both of the California rivalry games on the Saturday before Thanksgiving and Cal-UCLA on the Saturday after Thanksgiving... but the California schools don't want to play NorCal-SoCal games on that weekend.

(08-22-2013 01:59 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Big Ten
Ohio State/Michigan
Indiana/Purdue
Illinois/Northwestern
Wisconsin/Minnesota
Nebraska/Iowa
Penn State/Michigan State
Rutgers/Maryland

Note: In 2017, Penn State plays Maryland while Michigan State plays Rutgers. There is also talk of flipping it up at least some so we get Wisconsin/Nebraska and Iowa/Minnesota.

The last two make more sense. Wisconsin/Nebraska and Iowa/Minnesota gives you two roughly even matchups of programs on the same competitive level.

(08-23-2013 03:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 02:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 12:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 11:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If you mean true rival as in one that gives them a run for their money, then as of now it seems like Rutgers is that program more so than Maryland. We will see this year what Maryland can do, some folks are picking them as a surprise team in the ACC. I certainly hope that proves to be true but Penn State regularly has raided the State of New Jersey for some of it's top talent. Their is a true rivalry just simmering underneath the surface for those two programs and their followings.

i believe that RU is under rated and that will show during b10 play however psu-RU is not gonna happen.

MD may not be ideal for psu, but those two schools have tons of history, so regardless of whose better, MD gets the nod. psu/msu are also looking for natural b10 end of year partners so they would be another good option. but the best option is UNL. two top 10 programs who lack a true conf. rival. its a win win. the way i see it RU-PSU as an end of year rival is far from the best option for psu & the b10

Nebraska will end up with a continued pairing with Iowa or they will get put with Wisconsin while Iowa and Minnesota resume their end of season rivalry. If Wisconsin doesn't have Minnesota then they need Nebraska and that end of season rivalry game would quite often be the deciding factor in the West division hunt.

I think PSU's choices are MSU, Maryland and Rutgers. If Maryland fits best out of that trio then that works. I am not as familiar with the culture in that area in terms of past relations. I have done some looking into Rutgers but I will admit I havn't done much of the same for Maryland. The Rutgers story just interests me.

UNL & the teams you mentioned fit geographically but they really need a program of equal strength more than anything. iowa, minn, wisky just simply dont cut it.

while RU is a good option geographically and athletically, MD is one of psu's traditional rivals along with syracuse, pitt, & wvu. a lot of people dont know that but those are penn states 4 biggest rivals. psu just had an ego issue which stopped those teams from playing psu for the last 20 yrs, but the SU, pitt, & MD series have all been renewed and with joe pa dying a lot of psu's issues with these teams died as well

Pitting PSU and UNL together in such fashion will cause reverberations through the Big Ten ranks. So who then does Iowa get? They will push for Minny. Who does Wisky get then? Neither NU or Illinois is up to the task and they make for a strong in state rivalry. Push Wisky and MSU? I suppose that makes some sense.

The thing is though, Wisky isn't the Wisky of the past. The are Lineman U. I don't think our current set up in the Big Ten lasts all that long but while it does, Wisky will be a top contender in the West. Having them and Nebraska at the end of the season is a big deal game.

Just the opposite is true of PSU. They aren't exactly the same program that they have historically been either but they have gone in the opposite direction. To top that off, PSU wanted more of an Eastern footprint. Now that we have that, for PSU to push for their last season rival to the farthest West program that the conference has....well that would just be awkward. PSU has Maryland and Rutgers to choose from and that is pretty much it in my estimation.

iowa wisconsin, msu, & minn rotate with each other or pair up. it makes a lot more sense for them to pair up rather than 2 of them getting an odd ball matchup with UNL & RU. MD & ru can pair up along with purdue/iu ilini/nw

problem solved.....

as for the "furthest west" point. i get where you are coming from but UNL/psu ended their season in 2011 and if i may say was a perfect fit for both schools. that should be their end of year matchup.

(08-23-2013 11:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Colorado needs to look West, not East. That is where your culture fits in more with. Of course your fans did not intermingle well with the Nebraska fans.

Utah is a great choice for a rivalry. I also think Colorado needs to try and work with a California school in the same regard. California is probably the best choice of the four programs are much farther along.

I'm interested to see if the UU/CU rivalry heats up when the BYU hiatus kicks in. Unfortunately, joining the PAC also meant reuniting with Arizona and Arizona State which were more recent rivals in the WAC. It may take some time to grow the UU/CU rivalry. On a related note, if we ever lose permission to use the "Utes" name, I'm in favor of the Moose for this reason:

(08-23-2013 06:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 11:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Colorado needs to look West, not East. That is where your culture fits in more with. Of course your fans did not intermingle well with the Nebraska fans.

Utah is a great choice for a rivalry. I also think Colorado needs to try and work with a California school in the same regard. California is probably the best choice of the four programs are much farther along.

I'm interested to see if the UU/CU rivalry heats up when the BYU hiatus kicks in. Unfortunately, joining the PAC also meant reuniting with Arizona and Arizona State which were more recent rivals in the WAC. It may take some time to grow the UU/CU rivalry. On a related note, if we ever lose permission to use the "Utes" name, I'm in favor of the Moose for this reason:

Well, then it might interest you that in my current expansion theory there is one scenario of it where Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado all end up in a single division by themselves. Culturally speaking, that is an awesome arrangement. That will allow a new football power to emerge while allowing all of them a chance to get out of the shadow of the traditional California based domination. That would happen if Houston ended up being the fourth program to be added along with Tech, KSU and ISU. New Mexico or UNLV makes the situation a little more complicated in terms of getting that foursome together, especially UNLV or Nevada.

The reason why this is necessary to consider is because if we have expansion to 16's then we very likely see four divisions in a conference. That means very likely conference tournaments. That means those divisional games are likely kept till the end of the season. That means your end of season match up, which is what is under discussion, would have to come from in your division. I highly doubt Arizona and Arizona State end up in any pairing other than against each other. In terms of a Colorado pairing for you guys in comparison to one with Nevada/UNLV/New Mexico, seems to me the choice would be clear.

So, do you like Houston?

(08-23-2013 07:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 06:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 11:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Colorado needs to look West, not East. That is where your culture fits in more with. Of course your fans did not intermingle well with the Nebraska fans.

Utah is a great choice for a rivalry. I also think Colorado needs to try and work with a California school in the same regard. California is probably the best choice of the four programs are much farther along.

I'm interested to see if the UU/CU rivalry heats up when the BYU hiatus kicks in. Unfortunately, joining the PAC also meant reuniting with Arizona and Arizona State which were more recent rivals in the WAC. It may take some time to grow the UU/CU rivalry. On a related note, if we ever lose permission to use the "Utes" name, I'm in favor of the Moose for this reason:

Well, then it might interest you that in my current expansion theory there is one scenario of it where Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado all end up in a single division by themselves. Culturally speaking, that is an awesome arrangement. That will allow a new football power to emerge while allowing all of them a chance to get out of the shadow of the traditional California based domination. That would happen if Houston ended up being the fourth program to be added along with Tech, KSU and ISU. New Mexico or UNLV makes the situation a little more complicated in terms of getting that foursome together, especially UNLV or Nevada.

The reason why this is necessary to consider is because if we have expansion to 16's then we very likely see four divisions in a conference. That means very likely conference tournaments. That means those divisional games are likely kept till the end of the season. That means your end of season match up, which is what is under discussion, would have to come from in your division. I highly doubt Arizona and Arizona State end up in any pairing other than against each other. In terms of a Colorado pairing for you guys in comparison to one with Nevada/UNLV/New Mexico, seems to me the choice would be clear.

So, do you like Houston?

that will never happen. those schools will flip a **** if they
1. dont get west coast access
2. be regulated to a "new members pod" which will make their division appear as a 2nd class pod

(08-23-2013 07:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, do you like Houston?

Houston. I'm still upset that Houston and Boise weren't added to the MWC prior to the big realignment of a few years ago. I think a championship game would have bumped the visibility of the conference, and UH/BSU were peaking at the right time.

If the PAC ever does expand, my only hope is that it goes to zipper divisions with protected cross division rivals (a zipper-pod hybrid). I live in Phoenix, so a pod with UU/CU/ASU/AZ would be fantastic, but a sort of worst case SDSU,UNLV/UU/CU pod would still be great for travel. I think people are out to lunch with notion of the PAC picking up BigXII leftovers KSU, TTU, ISU, UH or whomever when there's no reason to believe that numerical symmetry will be forced on the conferences, which is the only reason this would ever happen.

(08-22-2013 01:15 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  My guess is that the Vanderbilt/Wake Forest series was partially because they were both the odd man out of conference play with all the ACC-SEC games. With Louisville/Kentucky balancing things out, they can play conference games to end the year and taking a break from each other.

Kentucky-Tennessee had been an established season ending rivalry-will that move to early in the season now?

(08-23-2013 07:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 07:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 06:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 11:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Colorado needs to look West, not East. That is where your culture fits in more with. Of course your fans did not intermingle well with the Nebraska fans.

Utah is a great choice for a rivalry. I also think Colorado needs to try and work with a California school in the same regard. California is probably the best choice of the four programs are much farther along.

I'm interested to see if the UU/CU rivalry heats up when the BYU hiatus kicks in. Unfortunately, joining the PAC also meant reuniting with Arizona and Arizona State which were more recent rivals in the WAC. It may take some time to grow the UU/CU rivalry. On a related note, if we ever lose permission to use the "Utes" name, I'm in favor of the Moose for this reason:

Well, then it might interest you that in my current expansion theory there is one scenario of it where Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado all end up in a single division by themselves. Culturally speaking, that is an awesome arrangement. That will allow a new football power to emerge while allowing all of them a chance to get out of the shadow of the traditional California based domination. That would happen if Houston ended up being the fourth program to be added along with Tech, KSU and ISU. New Mexico or UNLV makes the situation a little more complicated in terms of getting that foursome together, especially UNLV or Nevada.

The reason why this is necessary to consider is because if we have expansion to 16's then we very likely see four divisions in a conference. That means very likely conference tournaments. That means those divisional games are likely kept till the end of the season. That means your end of season match up, which is what is under discussion, would have to come from in your division. I highly doubt Arizona and Arizona State end up in any pairing other than against each other. In terms of a Colorado pairing for you guys in comparison to one with Nevada/UNLV/New Mexico, seems to me the choice would be clear.

So, do you like Houston?

that will never happen. those schools will flip a **** if they
1. dont get west coast access
2. be regulated to a "new members pod" which will make their division appear as a 2nd class pod

You don't understand how a four division conference would work in terms of scheduling. They could very easily still have two games a year against a division of the California schools. Second Class pod? It would get the same access to a conference tournament. If anything it is better than them and would allow them better ability to recruit California as they are a very viable route to that Tournament.

No old school traditional thinking allowed when it comes to revolutionary ideas like this.

(08-23-2013 07:13 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 07:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So, do you like Houston?

Houston. I'm still upset that Houston and Boise weren't added to the MWC prior to the big realignment of a few years ago. I think a championship game would have bumped the visibility of the conference, and UH/BSU were peaking at the right time.

If the PAC ever does expand, my only hope is that it goes to zipper divisions with protected cross division rivals (a zipper-pod hybrid). I live in Phoenix, so a pod with UU/CU/ASU/AZ would be fantastic, but a sort of worst case SDSU,UNLV/UU/CU pod would still be great for travel. I think people are out to lunch with notion of the PAC picking up BigXII leftovers KSU, TTU, ISU, UH or whomever when there's no reason to believe that numerical symmetry will be forced on the conferences, which is the only reason this would ever happen.

The Big Ten, SEC and AAC have very clearly shown their poker hand. They are telling us they are not done with expansion. That is especially the case with the Big Ten that stepped into all the hassles of scheduling a 14 team 2 division conference and they did so with the likes of Maryland and Rutgers.

When the new Division comes around, the PAC will be facing a new kind of leverage that doesn't even exist now. Feel free to think such thinking is representative of me being "out to lunch" but the Big Ten, SEC and ACC are very clear in their intentions. Texas is very clear in their preference too and that is not the PAC.

(08-23-2013 07:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 07:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 07:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 06:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 11:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Colorado needs to look West, not East. That is where your culture fits in more with. Of course your fans did not intermingle well with the Nebraska fans.

Utah is a great choice for a rivalry. I also think Colorado needs to try and work with a California school in the same regard. California is probably the best choice of the four programs are much farther along.

I'm interested to see if the UU/CU rivalry heats up when the BYU hiatus kicks in. Unfortunately, joining the PAC also meant reuniting with Arizona and Arizona State which were more recent rivals in the WAC. It may take some time to grow the UU/CU rivalry. On a related note, if we ever lose permission to use the "Utes" name, I'm in favor of the Moose for this reason:

Well, then it might interest you that in my current expansion theory there is one scenario of it where Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado all end up in a single division by themselves. Culturally speaking, that is an awesome arrangement. That will allow a new football power to emerge while allowing all of them a chance to get out of the shadow of the traditional California based domination. That would happen if Houston ended up being the fourth program to be added along with Tech, KSU and ISU. New Mexico or UNLV makes the situation a little more complicated in terms of getting that foursome together, especially UNLV or Nevada.

The reason why this is necessary to consider is because if we have expansion to 16's then we very likely see four divisions in a conference. That means very likely conference tournaments. That means those divisional games are likely kept till the end of the season. That means your end of season match up, which is what is under discussion, would have to come from in your division. I highly doubt Arizona and Arizona State end up in any pairing other than against each other. In terms of a Colorado pairing for you guys in comparison to one with Nevada/UNLV/New Mexico, seems to me the choice would be clear.

So, do you like Houston?

that will never happen. those schools will flip a **** if they
1. dont get west coast access
2. be regulated to a "new members pod" which will make their division appear as a 2nd class pod

You don't understand how a four division conference would work in terms of scheduling. They could very easily still have two games a year against a division of the California schools. Second Class pod? It would get the same access to a conference tournament. If anything it is better than them and would allow them better ability to recruit California as they are a very viable route to that Tournament.

No old school traditional thinking allowed when it comes to revolutionary ideas like this.

it has nothing to do with "old traditional thinking" but everything to do with branding, marketing, & association. Not every school is equal in a conference in terms of that stuff. colorado wants the association with the cali schools as much as possible. being associated with the AZ schools doesnt give the the same name brand association as stanford. those 4 schools each want to be in a pod with cali schools. to shut all 4 of them out all together would raise hell.

and yes this proposed pod would very well be like labeling them as second class. its saying yeah we want you to join our cool new club but you guys cant sit with us....go sit with the pledges. from a public perception thats what those schools dont want to happen. and im sure thats a big reason why during realignment rd. 2 it was the pac12 that rejected texas. they didnt want to deal with this pod Dilemma. the cali schools want to play each other and the other 8 schools want to play them as much as possible.

i am not making this up. go look at the p12 schedule. each school gets 3 cali schools a year with the 4th cali school rotating in the next year for the non cali members. they did this for that reason

and if there ever was a pod system the pod system would be.....

cu, utah, stanford, cal

usc, ucla, zona, asu

wsu, wash, uo, osu


with the 4 b12 schools as the 4th pod......

tech, ut, osu, ou

and this isnt made up or speculation. this was reported by espn as the pod setup agreement back when texas to the p12 looked like it was gonna happen

(08-23-2013 08:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and if there ever was a pod system the pod system would be.....

cu, utah, stanford, cal

usc, ucla, zona, asu

wsu, wash, uo, osu


with the 4 b12 schools as the 4th pod......

tech, ut, osu, ou

and this isnt made up or speculation. this was reported by espn as the pod setup agreement back when texas to the p12 looked like it was gonna happen

That's fine, if the PAC chose to do it that way instead then that is what the PAC would choose to do. The Texoma-4 though is an outdated concept.

(08-23-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 08:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and if there ever was a pod system the pod system would be.....

cu, utah, stanford, cal

usc, ucla, zona, asu

wsu, wash, uo, osu


with the 4 b12 schools as the 4th pod......

tech, ut, osu, ou

and this isnt made up or speculation. this was reported by espn as the pod setup agreement back when texas to the p12 looked like it was gonna happen

That's fine, if the PAC chose to do it that way instead then that is what the PAC would choose to do. The Texoma-4 though is an outdated concept.

i dont think its outdated. i see the pac adding them or not expanding at all

(08-23-2013 09:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 08:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and if there ever was a pod system the pod system would be.....

cu, utah, stanford, cal

usc, ucla, zona, asu

wsu, wash, uo, osu


with the 4 b12 schools as the 4th pod......

tech, ut, osu, ou

and this isnt made up or speculation. this was reported by espn as the pod setup agreement back when texas to the p12 looked like it was gonna happen

That's fine, if the PAC chose to do it that way instead then that is what the PAC would choose to do. The Texoma-4 though is an outdated concept.

i dont think its outdated. i see the pac adding them or not expanding at all

Good luck with that if expansion happens elsewhere and the Big Ten, SEC and ACC write new rules for the new division that benefit them and not the PAC.

(08-23-2013 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 09:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 08:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and if there ever was a pod system the pod system would be.....

cu, utah, stanford, cal

usc, ucla, zona, asu

wsu, wash, uo, osu


with the 4 b12 schools as the 4th pod......

tech, ut, osu, ou

and this isnt made up or speculation. this was reported by espn as the pod setup agreement back when texas to the p12 looked like it was gonna happen

That's fine, if the PAC chose to do it that way instead then that is what the PAC would choose to do. The Texoma-4 though is an outdated concept.

i dont think its outdated. i see the pac adding them or not expanding at all

Good luck with that if expansion happens elsewhere and the Big Ten, SEC and ACC write new rules for the new division that benefit them and not the PAC.

1) the new division isn't happening any time soon. The P5 still have a lot of mileage to get out of threatening to create a new division without having to deal with the headache of actually forming a new division.
2) it's a pretty big leap from a new division to mandated expansion
2a) no way would the BigXII or PAC join under these conditions, and if they already had joined, it would be grounds for them to leave.
2b) the ACC is going to be complicit in creating a mandate expansion that will spell its demise? You and JRSEC sure think the ACC has gone into self destruct mode.

You're really married to this fantasy mandated expansion idea, but it's not gonna happen.

(08-23-2013 10:22 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 09:09 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 09:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 08:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-23-2013 08:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and if there ever was a pod system the pod system would be.....

cu, utah, stanford, cal

usc, ucla, zona, asu

wsu, wash, uo, osu


with the 4 b12 schools as the 4th pod......

tech, ut, osu, ou

and this isnt made up or speculation. this was reported by espn as the pod setup agreement back when texas to the p12 looked like it was gonna happen

That's fine, if the PAC chose to do it that way instead then that is what the PAC would choose to do. The Texoma-4 though is an outdated concept.

i dont think its outdated. i see the pac adding them or not expanding at all

Good luck with that if expansion happens elsewhere and the Big Ten, SEC and ACC write new rules for the new division that benefit them and not the PAC.

1) the new division isn't happening any time soon. The P5 still have a lot of mileage to get out of threatening to create a new division without having to deal with the headache of actually forming a new division.
2) it's a pretty big leap from a new division to mandated expansion
2a) no way would the BigXII or PAC join under these conditions, and if they already had joined, it would be grounds for them to leave.
2b) the ACC is going to be complicit in creating a mandate expansion that will spell its demise? You and JRSEC sure think the ACC has gone into self destruct mode.

You're really married to this fantasy mandated expansion idea, but it's not gonna happen.

I have a nice box of sand for you.

The new division isn't happening soon? We havnt even had the big meeting yet and they have already said when they would like to see the changed implemented that shall come from it. August 2014, just in time for football season.

It is already determined.

So....how much sand do you need? Arizona has plenty.

He1nousOne, I agree a new division might come (although compromises in the current structure are also possible), but don't expect big changes because of it. The CFP is agreed to at the conference level by all 10 existing conferences and Notre Dame. They intentionally made it a long period so they wouldn't have to deal with questions again soon and it's very unlikely that any structural changes to the post season come before the 12 year CFP deal is up regardless of any NCAA changes.

Beyond that, there has been zero talk of changing rules to allow for conference semi-finals and I think the odds of them coming about in the next few years are almost zero.

(08-23-2013 07:45 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 01:15 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  My guess is that the Vanderbilt/Wake Forest series was partially because they were both the odd man out of conference play with all the ACC-SEC games. With Louisville/Kentucky balancing things out, they can play conference games to end the year and taking a break from each other.

Kentucky-Tennessee had been an established season ending rivalry-will that move to early in the season now?

In 2014 it's still late the season (3rd to last game if I remember right).