Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
 
Tag:Pac-10 Expansion
Posted on: October 15, 2010 12:07 pm
 

USC AD Pat Haden talks Pac-10 alignment

Posted by Tom Fornelli

The Pac-10 still has a lot of details to work out for the 2011 season when both Colorado and Utah will join the conference.  Really, all we know for sure about the new Pac-10 is that its going to have a conference championship game, 12 teams and two divisions.  Where that conference championship game will be held, or who will be in those divisions, we don't know.

Thanks to USC athletic director, Pat Haden, however, we're beginning to at least get an idea of what the divisions will look like.  The conference athletic directors got together for a meeting last week in which they discussed these matters, and one of the divisional suggestions passed by a 7-to-5 vote.  Though that doesn't mean it will be put into effect.

The plan is to break the conference up between north and south, but that creates a problem for schools in Washington and Oregon who need to keep an imprint in the state of California for recruiting purposes.  So a bit of a compromise has been struck.  Both Cal and Stanford would be placed in the North Division, while the two newcomers to the conference will head south.

Which means the Pac-10 would look like this.

North

  • Cal
  • Oregon
  • Oregon State
  • Stanford
  • Washington
  • Washington State

South

  • Arizona
  • Arizona State
  • Colorado
  • UCLA
  • USC
  • Utah
Which makes a lot of sense, but Haden isn't really all that thrilled with the idea.  He's worried for his life, apparently.

“I told them my alumni will kill me if we don’t play the Northern California schools and have the weekender every year," said Haden.

“I proposed a 5-2-2 model that has us playing the five schools (UCLA, AZ schools and Co/Ut) every year and then have the Northern California schools as part of our regular 2 and then rotate the other two.  We need to play Stanford and Cal.”

Which doesn't seem all that unreasonable.  If the conference is willing to put Stanford and Cal up north so the Oregon and Washington schools can maintain a presence in the state of California, then I don't see why it can't give USC protected rivalries with Cal and Stanford as well.  The problem might come if UCLA asks for the same thing, because then the other four north schools may only get one game in southern California every six years or so.

The final vote will come later this month.
Posted on: September 12, 2010 2:54 pm
 

Colorado not likely to join Pac-10 next season

Posted by Tom Fornelli

The Colorado Buffaloes got a nice taste of what playing in the Pac-10 might be like when they join the conference thanks to Cal as the Bears handed the Buffs a 52-7 shellacking in Berkeley on Saturday.  It was a beating that may have made Colorado think twice about the move, or at least consider delaying it.

Though according to Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott , the odds of Colorado joining the conference in time for the 2011 season aren't good.  In fact, Scott said they're less than "50-50."

"The chances are worse than 50-50," Scott said. "I don`t know how to rank it beyond that. At this stage, we`re planning as though they`re coming in in 2012. In other words, we`ve got an 11-team football schedule for next year teed up."


The uncertainty does provide the Pac-10 with some problems.  They know that Utah will be a member in 2011, but having to wait on Colorado's move means they have to wait on figuring out when and where to have a championship game, and how the new 12-team conference will be aligned.  Which is why Scott says that the Pac-10 has decided to institute a "self-imposed" deadline of mid-October for Colorado to have its decision.

Scott says the timetable may be pushed back, but that it's not likely since the conference needs to plan for a title game and a television schedule.  Scott also said that the Pac-10 is still open to the idea of helping Colorado pay the fee they'd be charged for leaving the Big 12 early.

 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com