|
Post by nabeav on May 16, 2018 7:19:30 GMT -8
Giants vs. Dodgers is a thing. Angels vs. A's? Not a thing. Lakers/Clippers vs. Warriors? Not a thing. Ducks/Sharks? I have no idea if that's a thing.
Kings/Lakers was a thing for about five years when both were good, but it had no staying power. The only reason Lakers/Celtics was a thing was because they were both so good for so long. By the time it got to Kobe vs. Pierce/Garnett/Allen.....I'm not sure how much juice that rivalry had.
|
|
|
Post by obf on May 16, 2018 7:37:48 GMT -8
Giants vs. Dodgers is a thing. Angels vs. A's? Not a thing. Lakers/Clippers vs. Warriors? Not a thing. Ducks/Sharks? I have no idea if that's a thing. Kings/Lakers was a thing for about five years when both were good, but it had no staying power. The only reason Lakers/Celtics was a thing was because they were both so good for so long. By the time it got to Kobe vs. Pierce/Garnett/Allen.....I'm not sure how much juice that rivalry had. I would say Blazers v Lakers rivals any of the series you have above except Giants v Dodgers (haven't people been shived at those games?) Having said that... The real problem was the misalignment of divisions when they first created the Pac-12... If they had put the Washington schools in a different division than the Oregon schools we would want to be sure to get to play UW and WSU every year... It was silly to split the California schools between two divisions. The divisions SHOULD be: North | South | OSU | Stanford | UW | Cal | WSU | USC | Utah | UCLA | Colorado | ASU | u of ho | UA |
I haven't looked at all of the exact lat/longs but I think that even makes more geological sense. That takes care of all the Calif teams needing to play each other every year naturally. Of course, I think in the end that means we play even LESS in California overall
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 16, 2018 7:43:50 GMT -8
Utah and Colorado were expressly sent to the South because had the divisions been laid out as you illustrate, the North would have been perceived as the far weaker of the two. So, they put Utah and Colorado in the South, and protected the decades-old NorCal-SoCal rivalries, which are a big thing, especially to the Bay Area schools. Check out the attendance at Stanford and Cal for the SoCal games, as opposed to the Mt./Oregon/Wash. games.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on May 16, 2018 11:08:05 GMT -8
I thought Utah and Colorado would only join the (then) Pac-10 if they were guaranteed a presence in Southern California every year for football. At least that's the story I heard. Given that, and the giant money we got from ESPN/Fox.....I'm not exactly sure we can complain too much about the current situation.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on May 16, 2018 11:45:25 GMT -8
Utah and Colorado were expressly sent to the South because had the divisions been laid out as you illustrate, the North would have been perceived as the far weaker of the two. So, they put Utah and Colorado in the South, and protected the decades-old NorCal-SoCal rivalries, which are a big thing, especially to the Bay Area schools. Check out the attendance at Stanford and Cal for the SoCal games, as opposed to the Mt./Oregon/Wash. games. I still wish we would have gone with a zipper division, keep all the traditional cross-town rivalries cross-division.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 16, 2018 12:13:47 GMT -8
Giants vs. Dodgers is a thing. Angels vs. A's? Not a thing. Lakers/Clippers vs. Warriors? Not a thing. Ducks/Sharks? I have no idea if that's a thing. Kings/Lakers was a thing for about five years when both were good, but it had no staying power. The only reason Lakers/Celtics was a thing was because they were both so good for so long. By the time it got to Kobe vs. Pierce/Garnett/Allen.....I'm not sure how much juice that rivalry had. I would say Blazers v Lakers rivals any of the series you have above except Giants v Dodgers (haven't people been shived at those games?) Having said that... The real problem was the misalignment of divisions when they first created the Pac-12... If they had put the Washington schools in a different division than the Oregon schools we would want to be sure to get to play UW and WSU every year... It was silly to split the California schools between two divisions. The divisions SHOULD be: North | South | OSU | Stanford | UW | Cal | WSU | USC | Utah | UCLA | Colorado | ASU | u of ho | UA |
I haven't looked at all of the exact lat/longs but I think that even makes more geological sense. That takes care of all the Calif teams needing to play each other every year naturally. Of course, I think in the end that means we play even LESS in California overall Colorado and Utah are further north than California and Stanford. Instead of playing in California three times every two years, that would be reduced to two times every two years. That tends to hurt recruiting. Another problem is that Boulder is more than twice as far away as Berkeley and Stanford are to Corvallis. Oregon State loses out in pretty much every way, if the divisions were organized that way. Plus, historically, the first six teams in the Pacific Coast Conference were California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, and Washington State.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 16, 2018 12:15:48 GMT -8
I thought Utah and Colorado would only join the (then) Pac-10 if they were guaranteed a presence in Southern California every year for football. At least that's the story I heard. Given that, and the giant money we got from ESPN/Fox.....I'm not exactly sure we can complain too much about the current situation. No. Colorado thought that they had that, but I do not think that they ever did. If the Pac-16 would have came about, Colorado would have been in the East. Utah expressly was given no guarantees and took a reduced cut of income in order to join the Pac-12.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 16, 2018 12:21:23 GMT -8
Utah and Colorado were expressly sent to the South because had the divisions been laid out as you illustrate, the North would have been perceived as the far weaker of the two. So, they put Utah and Colorado in the South, and protected the decades-old NorCal-SoCal rivalries, which are a big thing, especially to the Bay Area schools. Check out the attendance at Stanford and Cal for the SoCal games, as opposed to the Mt./Oregon/Wash. games. I still wish we would have gone with a zipper division, keep all the traditional cross-town rivalries cross-division. In my opinion, a full zipper would have been excessive and foolish. It would lead to a lot more travelling for all of the teams outside of California. The only thing that needed to be zippered was California. Put California and UCLA in one division and Stanford and USC in the other. (Or quality balance and put California and USC in one division and Stanford and UCLA in the other.) That way, all of the non-California teams play in Southern California exactly as often, three times ever four years. Instead, every team in the South plays in Southern California every year and every team in the North (outside of California and Stanford) only play each other every other year. As it is, I have grown to love the North/South split. The six most ancient Pacific Coast Conference teams and the other new kids on the block.
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on May 16, 2018 14:19:45 GMT -8
I still wish we would have gone with a zipper division, keep all the traditional cross-town rivalries cross-division. In my opinion, a full zipper would have been excessive and foolish. It would lead to a lot more travelling for all of the teams outside of California. The only thing that needed to be zippered was California. Put California and UCLA in one division and Stanford and USC in the other. (Or quality balance and put California and USC in one division and Stanford and UCLA in the other.) That way, all of the non-California teams play in Southern California exactly as often, three times ever four years. Instead, every team in the South plays in Southern California every year and every team in the North (outside of California and Stanford) only play each other every other year. As it is, I have grown to love the North/South split. The six most ancient Pacific Coast Conference teams and the other new kids on the block. I don't buy that it would have been more travel - at least not of the kind that we don't want. Having a full zipper and cross-town rivalries being cross-divisional would have virtually guaranteed exposure in the pivotal SoCal and Southwest region of the country. Fertile recruiting ground. Quite frankly, playing in the Pac-12 South is an advantage over playing in the Pac-12 North. Nobody wants to go to Pullman in the winter.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on May 16, 2018 14:41:00 GMT -8
In my opinion, a full zipper would have been excessive and foolish. It would lead to a lot more travelling for all of the teams outside of California. The only thing that needed to be zippered was California. Put California and UCLA in one division and Stanford and USC in the other. (Or quality balance and put California and USC in one division and Stanford and UCLA in the other.) That way, all of the non-California teams play in Southern California exactly as often, three times ever four years. Instead, every team in the South plays in Southern California every year and every team in the North (outside of California and Stanford) only play each other every other year. As it is, I have grown to love the North/South split. The six most ancient Pacific Coast Conference teams and the other new kids on the block. Nobody wants to go to Pullman in the winter.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 16, 2018 16:00:14 GMT -8
In my opinion, a full zipper would have been excessive and foolish. It would lead to a lot more travelling for all of the teams outside of California. The only thing that needed to be zippered was California. Put California and UCLA in one division and Stanford and USC in the other. (Or quality balance and put California and USC in one division and Stanford and UCLA in the other.) That way, all of the non-California teams play in Southern California exactly as often, three times ever four years. Instead, every team in the South plays in Southern California every year and every team in the North (outside of California and Stanford) only play each other every other year. As it is, I have grown to love the North/South split. The six most ancient Pacific Coast Conference teams and the other new kids on the block. I don't buy that it would have been more travel - at least not of the kind that we don't want. Having a full zipper and cross-town rivalries being cross-divisional would have virtually guaranteed exposure in the pivotal SoCal and Southwest region of the country. Fertile recruiting ground. Quite frankly, playing in the Pac-12 South is an advantage over playing in the Pac-12 North. Nobody wants to go to Pullman in the winter. A full zipper, though? Oregon State would play in Seattle once every four years. Why would that be beneficial? No one wants to go to Pullman in the winter. But no one really wants to Corvallis in the rain, either. But I love to hate those Huskies and Cougars.
|
|
|
Post by bdudbeaver on May 16, 2018 19:30:48 GMT -8
I'm actually pretty happy with the current scheduling. I do think the games against NW or Pac-12 North should be loaded toward the 2nd half of the season. What I would really like is that the Pac-12 designate one Saturday each season where *every* team plays a conference opponent. And then Vegas has a special deal for hotels that weekend. I would surely fly to Vegas to be a part of that.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on May 17, 2018 7:17:36 GMT -8
I don't buy that it would have been more travel - at least not of the kind that we don't want. Having a full zipper and cross-town rivalries being cross-divisional would have virtually guaranteed exposure in the pivotal SoCal and Southwest region of the country. Fertile recruiting ground. Quite frankly, playing in the Pac-12 South is an advantage over playing in the Pac-12 North. Nobody wants to go to Pullman in the winter. A full zipper, though? Oregon State would play in Seattle once every four years. Why would that be beneficial? No one wants to go to Pullman in the winter. But no one really wants to Corvallis in the rain, either. But I love to hate those Huskies and Cougars. They would play one or the other once every 4 years, depending on how they zipper. If we imagine something like this, with OA's vision of basing it on traditional rival: Champs Total Losers OSU UO UW WSU Cal Stan USC UCLA ASU AZ Col Utah
I think those are pretty well distributed divisions in terms of travel. All teams are required to reach all corners of the Pac-12 region. I think the "Champs" division is stacked hard with USC and UW in the same division, based on current strength but it is no different than most of the Pac-12 era of Oregon and Stanford in the same. Oregon and Stanford could still be forces among the Total Losers, and lets not sleep on Chip Kelly at UCLA.
At any rate, I see no problems with divisions such as this, based on rivalries. You play all you division every year, you play your rival every year, and rotate through the other 5.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 17, 2018 8:35:39 GMT -8
The only drawback would be occasionally skipping WSU, a historical regional rival we should always play.
|
|
|
Post by obf on May 17, 2018 9:49:30 GMT -8
The only drawback would be occasionally skipping WSU, a historical regional rival we should always play. Which puts us right back to where we were in the first place and the california schools trying to preserve all of their regional rivalries causing scheduling annoyances for the non-CA teams... I get that we give up most of the OOC schedule to do it, but.... the only way everyone will be happy is if every conference team plays every other, every year...
|
|