(05-09-2017 07:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:51 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Most of those were charter members and in Mississippi the mission of the schools are very similar to those of West Virginia.

Apples and Oranges. The comparison is SEC vs B1G or P12. Inertia bias is not relevant. One does not have to leave one's home, but when one does they prefer to move in with the more compatible group.

SEC perception among faculty is a real issue. 3 of 4 R2 public Universities in P5 are in the SEC. The Big 12 did have steady subtle pressure ( most from Texas) which resulted in Kansas State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia investing to attain R1 status. That has not happened in the SEC.

The solution for the SEC is for a member (Kentucky is the closest) to make AAU and to push the Alabama and Mississippi school to get serious about their research rankings. So far it's all about being Southerners and continuing the stereotype that Southerners rank education lower than sports. That is the choice the SEC is making.

This is a tired line.

Not all schools specialize in the same types of academic areas and not all research is dollar intensive.

For instance, Alabama's most respected program is accounting, which is elite, but how much in the way of research dollars go into accounting?

Your metric is a crude attempt at a one size fits all that at its core is rather, well, stupid and not reflective of how schools compare themselves to one another.

The larger point is that by any reasonable metric, OU as a research institution would rank, at best, somewhere in the middle of the SEC. If OU people feel academically superior to the SEC, they have no reasonable basis for that feeling.

I may have misinterpreted that but I took the overall point to be that the SEC has some kind of stigma based upon this rather nebulous idea of "research," which it appears to mean pure dollars.

My point is simply that not all areas of "research" are cash intensive and thus schools with a bias towards the softer sciences and humanities will of corse appear on paper to lag behind where in reality they will have their peers within the given academic circles.

Those with a softer science focus are not part of the "research elite".

There are other ways to measure a university of course intellectually.

There are Fulbright Scholarships. Level of academic freedom at a university. Nature of the programs offered at the university can distinguish between a low, mid and high tier school. Is the school residential or commuter?

Most of the SEC would be viewed as mid-tier research universities with an emphasis on professional programs.

(05-09-2017 04:03 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 03:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 03:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

The one that counts is Boren. He will decide. The people the President most has to keep happy are the faculty. And no question they would prefer the B1G or Pac-12. Faculty at Nebraska popped the champagne with the announcement, because it meant the academic future of the school we secure. (This is the biggest problem the SEC has, not fans but faculty opposition)

Missouri's entire dance with the SEC and it's going through the motions with the B1G was all about convincing the faculty that the B1G was not in the cards and that the SEC is where they have to go. Everyone in the Big XII was convinced before June 2010 that Missouri was going to the SEC. So what held it up? The faculty senate folks.

Sounds like urban legends. Why would the faculties at these schools care which sports conference the university schools participate in? It's not like conference affiliation has any bearing on who the faculty at OU and Mizzou can and cannot collaborate with on research projects. These universities departments rise and fall based on what the faculty are doing, what connections they have with peers, what kinds of research they do and how well they can sell ideas to obtain research grants.

Salaries to retain the talent is important.

OU and Mizzou aren't getting the research faculty in the door the way you'll find at a B1G schools which really drop money on faculty. B1G schools are competing against the top research schools in the country (UC's, Ivy's, UAA's) for faculty.

So? That's an OU and Mizzou problem - not a conference affiliation problem. OU moving to the B1G doesn't automatically turn the spigots on for big research dollars. Top researchers won't be attracted to OU just because they are now in a different athletic conference. It's nothing more than verbal masturbation to state that B1G membership improves academic quality. If your quality is sh!t, rebranding yourself does not change the fact that your quality is sh!t.

(05-09-2017 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 07:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:51 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Apples and Oranges. The comparison is SEC vs B1G or P12. Inertia bias is not relevant. One does not have to leave one's home, but when one does they prefer to move in with the more compatible group.

SEC perception among faculty is a real issue. 3 of 4 R2 public Universities in P5 are in the SEC. The Big 12 did have steady subtle pressure ( most from Texas) which resulted in Kansas State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia investing to attain R1 status. That has not happened in the SEC.

The solution for the SEC is for a member (Kentucky is the closest) to make AAU and to push the Alabama and Mississippi school to get serious about their research rankings. So far it's all about being Southerners and continuing the stereotype that Southerners rank education lower than sports. That is the choice the SEC is making.

This is a tired line.

Not all schools specialize in the same types of academic areas and not all research is dollar intensive.

For instance, Alabama's most respected program is accounting, which is elite, but how much in the way of research dollars go into accounting?

Your metric is a crude attempt at a one size fits all that at its core is rather, well, stupid and not reflective of how schools compare themselves to one another.

The larger point is that by any reasonable metric, OU as a research institution would rank, at best, somewhere in the middle of the SEC. If OU people feel academically superior to the SEC, they have no reasonable basis for that feeling.

I may have misinterpreted that but I took the overall point to be that the SEC has some kind of stigma based upon this rather nebulous idea of "research," which it appears to mean pure dollars.

My point is simply that not all areas of "research" are cash intensive and thus schools with a bias towards the softer sciences and humanities will of corse appear on paper to lag behind where in reality they will have their peers within the given academic circles.

Those with a softer science focus are not part of the "research elite".

There are other ways to measure a university of course intellectually.

There are Fulbright Scholarships. Level of academic freedom at a university. Nature of the programs offered at the university can distinguish between a low, mid and high tier school. Is the school residential or commuter?

Most of the SEC would be viewed as mid-tier research universities with an emphasis on professional programs.

To make that stament you are affixing a definition to the term research which is highly debateable.

I doubt that a person doing historical research or legal research and writing papers would say what they are doing is any less research than a person researching the human genome.

One certainly doesn't cost what the other does but it is all research.

It's not comparing apples to apples in the way it has been presented in this discussion thus far.

(05-09-2017 08:25 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:03 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 03:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 03:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

The one that counts is Boren. He will decide. The people the President most has to keep happy are the faculty. And no question they would prefer the B1G or Pac-12. Faculty at Nebraska popped the champagne with the announcement, because it meant the academic future of the school we secure. (This is the biggest problem the SEC has, not fans but faculty opposition)

Missouri's entire dance with the SEC and it's going through the motions with the B1G was all about convincing the faculty that the B1G was not in the cards and that the SEC is where they have to go. Everyone in the Big XII was convinced before June 2010 that Missouri was going to the SEC. So what held it up? The faculty senate folks.

Sounds like urban legends. Why would the faculties at these schools care which sports conference the university schools participate in? It's not like conference affiliation has any bearing on who the faculty at OU and Mizzou can and cannot collaborate with on research projects. These universities departments rise and fall based on what the faculty are doing, what connections they have with peers, what kinds of research they do and how well they can sell ideas to obtain research grants.

Salaries to retain the talent is important.

OU and Mizzou aren't getting the research faculty in the door the way you'll find at a B1G schools which really drop money on faculty. B1G schools are competing against the top research schools in the country (UC's, Ivy's, UAA's) for faculty.

So? That's an OU and Mizzou problem - not a conference affiliation problem. OU moving to the B1G doesn't automatically turn the spigots on for big research dollars. Top researchers won't be attracted to OU just because they are now in a different athletic conference. It's nothing more than verbal masturbation to state that B1G membership improves academic quality. If your quality is sh!t, rebranding yourself does not change the fact that your quality is sh!t.

This...

For the most part...

Faculty do not associate or disassociate themselves with schools and research opportunities based on athletic affiliation. To say otherwise is "verbal masturbation."

I think it is often lost in this discussion that we are talking shades of green. When we are talking P5 schools we are talking, collectively, a group of the very best. Even "****" P5 schools have student population scoring in the top 20% of kids nationwide.

To expand on my earlier point, if the SLU Muddogs offered a major researcher $500,000 and a limitless supply of money they would overnight become a hub for whatever it is that researcher is known for. That's common among humanities with smaller less well known schools harboring the nation's best in certain things.

The academic highbrow talk is funny. Big 10 would take OU in a second.

(05-09-2017 12:29 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-would-the...um=twitter

"OU in the Big Ten doesn't sound right.

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan. Those are schools that have little in common with the Sooners. Culturally. Geographically. Historically. Frankly, outside Nebraska (an epic rivalry) and Iowa (Bob Stoops), there's little linking OU to the Big Ten.

But as I wrote the other day, if the Sooners ever leave the Big 12, the Big Ten would be the destination of choice."

If B1G can take something like Rutgers, they can take anything.

Anything is an upgrade from Rutgers.

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

(05-09-2017 05:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:40 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Not quite. They could dominate the west division playing a big name CCG every year not like in the Big XII where they would always play a low ranked or NR team. If KU comes along that division is very much like the old Big 8.

OU, KU, NU, Iowa, Minny, Wisc, Ill & NW. Thats the great plains and upper mid-west. Replace Colorado with Chicago.

A division with those schools would be pretty solid academically and athletically. You upgrade Iowa State with Iowa and K-State with Wisconsin.

From where do most of Oklahoma's out-of-state students come? I would assume Texas, but is there a significant portion from the Chicago area or Kansas-Nebraska-Iowa corridor?

I used to wear my Hawkeye wrestling shirts in Norman and Stillwater at the meets and occasionally someone from Iowa would come up to me and we'd compare notes haha. But no, Iowans don't move to Oklahoma or vice versa. Some people on here keep acting like Oklahoma is like Iowa or Minnesota: not even close. Not in any way. Oklahoma is more like west Texas. No one says y'all in Iowa/Minnesota. I did hear "pop" in Oklahoma though....

(05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

Right now it is slightly acceptable.

It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.

When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.

(05-09-2017 09:29 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:40 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 05:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Not quite. They could dominate the west division playing a big name CCG every year not like in the Big XII where they would always play a low ranked or NR team. If KU comes along that division is very much like the old Big 8.

OU, KU, NU, Iowa, Minny, Wisc, Ill & NW. Thats the great plains and upper mid-west. Replace Colorado with Chicago.

A division with those schools would be pretty solid academically and athletically. You upgrade Iowa State with Iowa and K-State with Wisconsin.

From where do most of Oklahoma's out-of-state students come? I would assume Texas, but is there a significant portion from the Chicago area or Kansas-Nebraska-Iowa corridor?

I used to wear my Hawkeye wrestling shirts in Norman and Stillwater at the meets and occasionally someone from Iowa would come up to me and we'd compare notes haha. But no, Iowans don't move to Oklahoma or vice versa. Some people on here keep acting like Oklahoma is like Iowa or Minnesota: not even close. Not in any way. Oklahoma is more like west Texas. No one says y'all in Iowa/Minnesota. I did hear "pop" in Oklahoma though....

I'm from Oklahoma, and I drink Coke. Even when it's Pepsi.

But yeah, most of it is like Texas. Just don't tell them that.

(05-09-2017 09:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

Right now it is slightly acceptable.

It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.

When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.

Yes they are in separate divisions currently, but they also have a guarantee to be permanent crossover games each year. Any PAC expansion that keeps USC/UCLA and Stanford/CAL in separate division will maintain the crossover guarantee in football.

(05-09-2017 09:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

Right now it is slightly acceptable.

It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.

When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.

East/West isn't possible either. With 14 teams that requires either the Cal schools to drop their mandate to play each other annually or for one of the northwest schools to be placed into the eastern division and neither of those would ever be approved.

At 16 while geographically it would work, in reality the mountain schools would simply veto expansion up front without a guarantee that they wouldn't be shipped off to the incoming Big-12 division.

(05-10-2017 12:14 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

Right now it is slightly acceptable.

It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.

When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.

East/West isn't possible either. With 14 teams that requires either the Cal schools to drop their mandate to play each other annually or for one of the northwest schools to be placed into the eastern division and neither of those would ever be approved.

At 16 while geographically it would work, in reality the mountain schools would simply veto expansion up front without a guarantee that they wouldn't be shipped off to the incoming Big-12 division.

There isn't many ways to make it work for PAC expansion.

Colorado and Utah got in and want to shut the door.

(05-10-2017 12:14 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 04:27 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I like these PAC-14 divisions.

North: Stanford, USC, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU, Utah
South: USC, UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas

OU and USC would be a big national game. Colorado gets OU and KU back on the schedule rivals from the Big 8.

UCLA-Arizona-Kansas would be epic for men's basketball.

Kansas and its 24,000 football crowds is not as much of an issue from the PAC perspective when you've got half empty stadiums around the conference. Oklahoma can more than make up for it because they can deliver fans (in the stands and bring fans out) across the league.

In the B1G you'll be permanent second fiddle to Michiagn-Ohio St playing in that conference, IMO.

Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

Right now it is slightly acceptable.

It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.

When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.

East/West isn't possible either. With 14 teams that requires either the Cal schools to drop their mandate to play each other annually or for one of the northwest schools to be placed into the eastern division and neither of those would ever be approved.

At 16 while geographically it would work, in reality the mountain schools would simply veto expansion up front without a guarantee that they wouldn't be shipped off to the incoming Big-12 division.

That's the thing. A 14-team conference doesn't work. First off, why is USC listed twice? I'm presuming that the northern one is going supposed to be Cal.

So, you have two dynamics there. First off, the Northwest four (Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, Washington St.) took the bullet to make the PAC-12 work with a North-South alignment. They were the four that gave up the most access to the Southern California recruiting market in order to get it to work. Right now, they only play one game down there every 2 years. Presuming that the schedule doesn't change (still a 9-game conference schedule), The Northwest 4, and the PAC-12 would all of a sudden only play in Southern California every 4 years instead, unless you removed the guarentees between the 4 California schools. So, the proposed split that you have would either have 4 votes against it (USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford) if you removed the California guarenteed games. Or you have 5 votes against it (Utah, Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, Washington St.) if you leave those guarentees in there. So, either way, at least a third of the conference would vote against the proposed split.

Now, onto an east-west split. You have to have a balanced conference. The only State to balance out California, in both terms of population and recruiting, is Texas. An East-West proposal would work in the that regard, if you included Texas in that east-west. That would be the only way to get Arizona, Arizona St., Utah and Colorado on board.

Now, the fact is that the PAC-12 had an opportunity to do roughly the same outline that you have right there. The PAC-12 said "No" to that proposal. I don't see how substituting Kansas for Oklahoma St. gets the PAC-12 to say yes.

(05-10-2017 12:44 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 12:14 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

Right now it is slightly acceptable.

It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.

When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.

East/West isn't possible either. With 14 teams that requires either the Cal schools to drop their mandate to play each other annually or for one of the northwest schools to be placed into the eastern division and neither of those would ever be approved.

At 16 while geographically it would work, in reality the mountain schools would simply veto expansion up front without a guarantee that they wouldn't be shipped off to the incoming Big-12 division.

There isn't many ways to make it work for PAC expansion.

Colorado and Utah got in and want to shut the door.

Pod system would work, just have to find a way to convince Texas to join, should be pretty easy.

(05-10-2017 01:41 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 12:14 AM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:20 PM)PGEMF Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 09:16 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Four California schools want to stay in the same division. If they are not happy, PAC-XX will not stay together long.

They're not in the same division right now

Right now it is slightly acceptable.

It is one thing to travel to Colorado. It is the other to travel to Kansas.

When PAC-XX grows to include three time zones, it has to be West-East.

East/West isn't possible either. With 14 teams that requires either the Cal schools to drop their mandate to play each other annually or for one of the northwest schools to be placed into the eastern division and neither of those would ever be approved.

At 16 while geographically it would work, in reality the mountain schools would simply veto expansion up front without a guarantee that they wouldn't be shipped off to the incoming Big-12 division.

Now, onto an east-west split. You have to have a balanced conference. The only State to balance out California, in both terms of population and recruiting, is Texas. An East-West proposal would work in the that regard, if you included Texas in that east-west. That would be the only way to get Arizona, Arizona St., Utah and Colorado on board.

Thing is though that would not get the mountain schools on board. Trading California for Texas is still an unacceptable loss for each of them, their recruiting pipelines are laid in California as well as that is where their largest out of state alumni bases are located whom they wine and dine every visit for fundraising investments. Going into an 8 team eastern division means that each of the mountain schools would only play
1 game against a Cal school per year
1 game in the state of California every 2 years
1 game in Southern/Northern California every 4 years

Just like the Northwest schools would never vote to further restrict their ability access/recruit California so to would the mountain schools vote against cutting themselves off from California completely

B12=Ottoman Empire

Its a matter of time before they fall. How much time could be a guess (5, 10, 20, 50 years)?

If access to CA is getting spread too thin to make most expansion scenarios work, and creative solutions like pods aren't enough to get support from the current members, shouldn't the Pac be considering expanding inside CA too?

(05-10-2017 08:53 AM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  If access to CA is getting spread too thin to make most expansion scenarios work, and creative solutions like pods aren't enough to get support from the current members, shouldn't the Pac be considering expanding inside CA too?

Pods at this time are illegal.

A conference must be two round robin divisions and play for a conference championship. They can't have a 4 team playoff within their conference for a Rose Bowl berth or pick the two highest ranked champs from the 4 pods.