Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
OSU, TT and aTm are always going to be second tier schools; even in the Pac16. The question they needed to ask was whether the risk of the new Pac16 would have been worth the risk to their traditional rivalries, their time scheduling and their travel costs.
|
What traditional rivals would any of these schools loose if they went to the pac 10? Oklahoma is loosing Nebraska anyways. Travel cost wouldn't be that much of an issue either as under the proposed pac-16 you would have seen a southwest division of OU,OSU, aTm, UT, TT, CU, AZ, & ASU and a pacific division of UW, WSU, UO, OSU, CAL, STAN, UCLA, & USC. They would have played 7 games within the division then 2 inter divisional games. That means aTm would only have to go to UW (the longest trip in the division) every 8 years.
Quote:
|
Yes, losing Nebraska and the Denver market hurt, but there was no guarantee that the Pac16 network would have equaled SEC numbers, much less B10 numbers.
|
There's sure as hell a better chance of them matching SEC or Big 10 numbers then the current B12 has. The pac 16 would encompass 9 of the 25 larget tv markets in the United States. Los Angeles (2), Dallas (5), Bay Area (6), Houston (10), Phoenix (12), Seattle (13), Denver (16), Sacramento (20), Portland (22)
Quote:
|
Personally, I am not a fan of the Pac10 - U$C inflated their record because they pushed beyond the limits. Outside of them, who does the Pac10 have?
|
USC & Oregon are currently probably the two best programs in the conference. Oregon State, Arizona, & Stanford were all pretty good last year. The Huskies, UCLA, and Cal are all improving. The problem with the pac-10 though is becuase they played a true round robin schedule, everyone beat everyone else up. I'm sure the Big 12 will have fun with that over the next couple of years.