.jpg)
A few quick thoughts on the conference expansion.
First off, I really haven’t been writing about it, simply because I had a gut feeling that the whole process was going to be messy, and it was. Actually, nothing has even been confirmed yet, although all signs point to the Pac-10 officially becoming the Pac-12 with Utah likely to accept the Pac-10’s invitation to join the Pac-10 along with new member Colorado.
Pac-16…We Hardly Knew Ya
For a while, it looked like the Pac-10 was going to quickly become the Pac-16, adding Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado. It would have been a shocking turnaround and one that would likely forever change not only the conference, but the entire college football landscape forever.
For what it’s worth, I had actually been initially apprehensive about the Pac-16. Namely, I thought it may have created more obstacles to Cal ever winning a conference title outright, with having to face Oklahoma and Texas more often than the occasional non-conference game. I know it’s a bit cowardly, but I was envisioning a number of nightmare conference schedules, one that might include playing Oklahoma, USC, and let’s say a wily Oregon State squad en route to again playing one of those teams in the conference championship game. Compare that to the one or two challenge games a school like Ohio State would face before cakewalking into a BCS bowl, and you can imagine why I was a bit hesitant. Throw in the added competition to some recruiting battles, and I was a bit in a wait-and-see mode.
After learning more about the expansion, I thought the pros (the money) far outweighed the risks, and the idea of the Pac-10, I mean Pac-16 becoming a mega conference in the eyes of voters and tv marketshare was far too tempting not to get excited. More games on national tv? Yes, please. Our very own conference network? Mmmm. More than one BCS conference berth?
Please, sir. I want some more?
Alas, it was not to be, as an issue of money and networking deals, along with some questionable politics led to the quick death of the proposed super conference. And many signs point to Texas being the biggest culprit in leading to the Big-12 teams backing out.
Larry Scott – Hero or Fool?
At the thought of the Pac-16, many Pac-10 fans began hailing the conference commissioner Larry Scott as the savior and all that was good in the world. Had the expansion been successful, Scott might have been responsible for one of the biggest moves in college football history, and one that would have greatly benefit the existing conference teams.
With its falling out, and the likely Pac-12 conference, some have criticized Scott for biting off a bit more than he could chew. His ambitious efforts, while admirable, may have been a bit too reckless, with the resulting new conference being a worse situation than what we had.
I don’t buy that. Yes, I do think we fans had the carpet swept out from underneath our feet a bit, but to no fault of Scott’s. I admire his efforts, and it’s obvious the commish has some daring and immediate plans to increase the conference’s viewership, revenue, and exposure. In short, all the things we’d want our commissioner in charge of so that our ADs and HCs can focus on the product on the field.
It’s a bit like seeing a rookie batter step up and be willing to take a hard swing against a slider from a veteran pitcher. Yeah, they missed, but you like to see that aggression and spirit out of your batter, and know good things are ahead for a player who steps up to bat ready to get on base. A few more wild swings though, and it’s a different story. But so far, me likey.
As for the Pac-12?
You know, I’ve got mixed feelings on it. On one hand, while Colorado and Utah aren’t quite the sexy picks that Oklahoma or Texas would have been, they do come with a decent amount of history, competition (after Dan Hawkins is fired at Colorado of course), and tv viewership.
But it’ll take some getting used to moving away from the round robin schedule, which I was a fan of, and the new conference title game that’s likely to await the two new divisions.
This leads me to my biggest gripe which is with the projected six-team sub divisions with Cal grouped with the Oregon and Washington and Stanford. I personally think that despite not having to play USC every year, that Cal was grouped with the tougher and more competitive division of the two.
Also, losing the chance to play both USC and UCLA each year isn’t quite a deal breaker, but still a bit of a buzzkill.
Plus, does the new conference realignment provide enough revenue to outweigh the lost revenue from not playing a full nine-game conference slate?
Again, this is all a bit hard to follow. Stay tuned, and keep your barf bag ready. Just in case.
Read the rest of the post and comments here >>
