T1B

http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-college-s ... i_16383155

I really hope they're right about CU being in the same division as the LA and AZ schools. It'd be awesome to see the Buffs play here in Tempe every other year, and Tucson's only a two-hour drive. A road trip to SoCal is only 6 hours too, so it'd be the next best thing to living in Boulder.

Everything I've heard says it will be the NoCal, Oregon, and Washington schools in the North, and the SoCal, AZ, and New Guys will be the South.

Stanford and USC have been playing each other since 1905. In fact this is USC's oldest rivalry and probably Stanford's second oldest (after Cal), and interest has increased a lot in the past couple of years with Stanford's re-emergence. It would suck to see this rivalry (Stanford has been playing UCLA for a long time too) go down the drain due to a conference realignment.

From what I hear the north-south split would still leave room for 4 additional "crossover" conference games each season. Hopefully this will allow them to save the natural rivalries between SoCal and NoCal (Cal and UCLA is another old rivalry).

I think the most logical solution is the division split Mike and Dins are talking about, with an annual crossover game. That would allow all the non-California schools (8/12 in the conference) at least one California road trip per season (assuming scheduling is done right), and still would preserve natural rivalries between Cal-UCLA and Stanford-USC.

Dinsdale wrote:Everything I've heard says it will be the NoCal, Oregon, and Washington schools in the North, and the SoCal, AZ, and New Guys will be the South.

Thats fucking stupid and if the California schools agreed to be split up they would be screwing themselves. Plus Stanford and Cal are farther south than Utah and Colorado.
the logical way to split the conference is to put the California schools with the Arizona Schools in the South and put the two mountain schools with the north west schools in the North.
If it is split any other way the California schools should leave the conference.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I think the most logical solution is the division split Mike and Dins are talking about, with an annual crossover game. That would allow all the non-California schools (8/12 in the conference) at least one California road trip per season (assuming scheduling is done right), and still would preserve natural rivalries between Cal-UCLA and Stanford-USC.

the 4 California schools and Arizona in the south, split in to 3 separate groups, the north west and mountain schools also split in to three groups form the northern division.
the groups
USC/UCLA
CAL/Stanford
ASU/UA
UO/OSU
UW/WSU
CU/Utah

Each team will play the other 5 in their division plus 1 of each of the other groups every year, after 2 years they play the other school from that group.

All 6 of the north schools will get a game in LA and a game in the Bay area every other year, stagger them and they will play in California every year.

Dinsdale wrote:Everything I've heard says it will be the NoCal, Oregon, and Washington schools in the North, and the SoCal, AZ, and New Guys will be the South.

wow, welcome to the pac, utah. first year in and already dominating their division?

M Club wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:Everything I've heard says it will be the NoCal, Oregon, and Washington schools in the North, and the SoCal, AZ, and New Guys will be the South.

wow, welcome to the pac, utah. first year in and already dominating their division?

wouldnt Nebraska dominate the entire big 10? what happened the first year Penn State joined the Bg 10?

I also dont think Utah would beat the other 6 schools in that division if that was the division they were to go in to.


If the California schools agree to be split up just to help oregon and washington recruit in California, theyre idiots.
A geographic split is what is best for the conference, Utah and Colorado are both in the northern half of the 12 teams, putting them in the south defeats the north/south split.

SoCalTrjn wrote: A geographic split is what is best for the conference, Utah and Colorado are both in the northern half of the 12 teams, putting them in the south defeats the north/south split.

conflating what you want with what's best for the conference? maybe you have some inside numbers the ad's don't or something.

utah in a division with sc (the s is for "sorry ass remember when"), ucla, colorado, arizona, and asu? i and vegas will take utah.

If geography is at all in play, the new members should play in a "north" division, with the AZ schools combined with the Cal schools.

Regardless, EVERYONE recruits so cal due to the abundance of talent....that fucking ucla is restricted due to strict entrance requirements.... :cry:

From the article I linked to at the top:

The California schools want to continue to play every year in football, which likely lead to a scheduling formula in which teams will play every team in their division every year and play teams in the other division on a rotating basis.

For instance, Colorado would play the Washington and Oregon schools two out of every three years while playing the Bay Area schools only once every three years.

It sounds like they'll take into account the in-state rivalries among the Cali schools, even if they split them up.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:From the article I linked to at the top:

The California schools want to continue to play every year in football, which likely lead to a scheduling formula in which teams will play every team in their division every year and play teams in the other division on a rotating basis.

For instance, Colorado would play the Washington and Oregon schools two out of every three years while playing the Bay Area schools only once every three years.

It sounds like they'll take into account the in-state rivalries among the Cali schools, even if they split them up.

The problem is everyone wants to play the Southern California schools every year in LA and that just isnt going to be possible unless there is an 11 game conference schedule.

We may very well end up having a North and South Division whereby Stanford and Cal are placed with the Northwest Schools, but if you think that alignment is based on fairness and equity uber alles then something simply is amiss. There are two geographical blocks of note in the conference: North=UO, OSU, UW, WSU and South=Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA. The Zona schools were the last of the P10 entrants and the Utah and Colorado additions are the most recent into a revised 12Pac.

History and Tradition are what make a conference...the two with the strongest ties have been the Big 10 and Pac 10. The SEC probably has the most rabid fan base (sorry B10) but that is another story for another time. Primary rivalries will obviously be preserved regardless of how this thing shakes out. Secondary rivalries may be in danger of being relegated to playing second fiddle to overblown concerns (legit mind you but overstated) about the importance of the TV public connecting with the alignment, TV market strength and, of course, the 800 pound gorilla: recruiting.

Nothing makes more geographical sense than Cal/Zona and NW/Newbies. With equal revenue sharing (which is critical IMO after a one year mulligan for the LA schools) unbalanced TV markets are not as big of a deal as it would seem. CA is, along with TX and FL, the most fertile talent pool in the country, but that fact should not outweigh History and Tradition.

Those that wish to make inroads into Cal prep recruiting can get on a plane and fly down and make it happen just like the other schools outside of CA. Heck, Stanford's recruiting network is the largest in the country due to academic standards...do you hear them wining about it? Maybe they should get an extra $2 mill to cover that nut, huh? Do you see anyone advocating the OR schools being put in a separate division from the WA schools?

CA school alumni bases and family ties are an integral part of what makes in state contests special. This is not the same as Iowa vs. Wisconsin...please - - and the Texas debacle in the B12 had nothing to do with a Texas school uprising and everything to do with the Longhorns running roughshod over every other team. USC, in spite of their current struggles, could have tried to do that in the P10 but never did and they had more ammo to do it than UT.

Colorado and Utah should have little say in the matter. Change is inevitable and it is nice to have them come aboard, but their gain is larger than any of the current P10 schools. CA schools appear to be the grouping of institutions being asked to give up the most for the least and they, with all due respect, are the most powerful aggregate in the conference from an academic, marketing, recruiting and even a PERCEIVED quality of play perspective (primarily due to the 'machine' that is, or at least used to be, USC).

Hey, this is a free society and our new comish has a vision. Fight for what you want...that does not mean that the CA schools should not fight for what they want as well.

Slice this complex argument any way you wish...the CA schools should remain as a unified block! After the dust settles, this may not be the case, but, in time, or not, folks may not like the implications as no four schools are closer and no four schools are as powerful within the conference as those in CA. That may not be fair, but that is unquestionably the way it is. The conference may think it is bigger than any school, bigger than any rivalry, bigger than any state and bigger than any coalition, but even with that being said...unity is a strange thing when History and Tradition are subordinated for some and not others.

SoCalTrjn wrote: The problem is everyone wants to play the Southern California schools every year in LA

Just shut the fuck up already! You cannot possibly believe this.

How the fuck do you know what "everyone" wants? Think all the coaches and AD's are clamoring to play sc and ucla on the road every year? Get the fuck over yourself. Newsflash... there are bleach blonds and bolt-ons everywhere. And the rest of the country can enjoy them without running into Hasselhoff or some other washed up has been reality tv reject trying to upsell me the larger fries.

WolverineSteve wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote: The problem is everyone wants to play the Southern California schools every year in LA

Just shut the fuck up already! You cannot possibly believe this.

er, he doesn't want that, magnum. whomever he c&p'd that shizz off wants it. sudden control over basic grammar was out front screaming so you'd know.

word around Boulder is CU will be in the South with Utah and the Zona schools. CU's motivation for preferring the South Div is that CU has a very large SoCal alum base which is speculated will be a big donation boost. CU has more alums in SoCal than the rest of the Big XII states combined (minus CO obviously).

WolverineSteve wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote: The problem is everyone wants to play the Southern California schools every year in LA

Just shut the fuck up already! You cannot possibly believe this.

How the fuck do you know what "everyone" wants? Think all the coaches and AD's are clamoring to play sc and ucla on the road every year? Get the fuck over yourself. Newsflash... there are bleach blonds and bolt-ons everywhere. And the rest of the country can enjoy them without running into Hasselhoff or some other washed up has been reality tv reject trying to upsell me the larger fries.

Most of the players in the P10 come from Southern California, thats a fact. Right now every team in the conference is going to get 1 game in LA infront of all of those potential recruits after the expansion and division alignment some schools wont get those LA games every year. The reason the north west schools want to break up the California schools is so they can still get one road game in California every year and a game in LA every other year. It has nothing to do with beaches, blondes or bolt ons and everything to do with where they are going to get their players.

Correct....

Talk is UCLA & USC will be getting 2 mil annually as an exclusive stipend.

I was in favor of the "zipper" proposal. Where the divisions would be split between traditional rivals, with the rivals playing each other across divisions every year.

Something like this:

Lewis Division
Washington
Oregon State
Stanford
USC
Arizona State
Utah

Clark Division
Washington State
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona
Colorado

The Seer wrote:Correct....

Talk is UCLA & USC will be getting 2 mil annually as an exclusive stipend.

that stipend (1 million each) is part of the conferences revenue sharing and is only until the conference's TV contract equals 150 million or so, with the current contract running out within a year, that amount should be hit with the next one. If the contract does not hit 150 million than each of the other 10 schools will have to take 200k less than they would from an equal revenue share throughout the conference.


Where Larry Scott fucked up on all of this is keeping the 9 conference game schedule. How is the Pac going to ever get to equal ground with the other BCS conferences in bowl bids when the Pac's teams are guaranteed 6 more losses to their collective records than any of the other BCS conferences teams are? USC should play the other schools in their division (UCLA, ASU, UA, Utah and Col) plus Stanford and Cal every year and 1 of the remaining 4 teams from the other division (UW, WSU, OSU, UO)

I still think the California schools should bolt from the conference since they were forcefully split up, Texas and its schools arent too happy with their situation, the California and Texas schools forming a conference with what ever Arizona schools want to join, that would be better than either confernece the schools from those states are in now.

King Crimson wrote:word around Boulder is CU will be in the South with Utah and the Zona schools. CU's motivation for preferring the South Div is that CU has a very large SoCal alum base which is speculated will be a big donation boost. CU has more alums in SoCal than the rest of the Big XII states combined (minus CO obviously).

That because like USC and UCLA they are a bunch of liberal fags.

SoCalTrjn wrote: Where Larry Scott fucked up on all of this is keeping the 9 conference game schedule. How is the Pac going to ever get to equal ground with the other BCS conferences in bowl bids when the Pac's teams are guaranteed 6 more losses to their collective records than any of the other BCS conferences teams are? USC should play the other schools in their division (UCLA, ASU, UA, Utah and Col) plus Stanford and Cal every year and 1 of the remaining 4 teams from the other division (UW, WSU, OSU, UO)

As long as the system continues as a joke, (the beauty contest), immediately all Pac teams should play the game and schedule ridiculous opponents ala the SEC and others. Dignity and honor will not get you into the big money bowl games.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:I was in favor of the "zipper" proposal. Where the divisions would be split between traditional rivals, with the rivals playing each other across divisions every year.

Something like this:

Lewis Division
Washington
Oregon State
Stanford
USC
Arizona State
Utah

Clark Division
Washington State
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona
Colorado

The in state rivalries need to be maintained, USC started playing Stanford in 1905, Trojan and Cardinal fans are not willing to give that up.
The way to have fixed it so the NW schools could go to California more was to put the Cal and Zona schools in one division and the NW and Mountain schools in the other. Then the NW schools would get a trip to So Cal and a trip to No Cal every year while the conference maintains an 8 game conference schedule.

Papa Willie wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote: The in state rivalries need to be maintained, USC started playing Stanford in 1905, Trojan and Cardinal fans are not willing to give that up.
The way to have fixed it so the NW schools could go to California more was to put the Cal and Zona schools in one division and the NW and Mountain schools in the other. Then the NW schools would get a trip to So Cal and a trip to No Cal every year while the conference maintains an 8 game conference schedule.

The SEC works itself out in this shit. Auburn & Georgia started in 1892 - one's in the west, the other in the east - they play every year. It's really that simple. Quit fucking crying.

Jesus, no shit.

Toejam, maybe you should swab your leaky vag and wait til the actual schedules are released before you start ranting about secession. Colorado and Utah just brought your/our conference two sizable media markets and instant CCG revenue, and all you care about is how often you get to play Stanford?

I do agree that eight conference games is plenty if you're adding a CCG to the mix, although with nine, you're more likely to preserve your suddenly indispensable SoCal/NoCal rivalries...

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote: The in state rivalries need to be maintained, USC started playing Stanford in 1905, Trojan and Cardinal fans are not willing to give that up.
The way to have fixed it so the NW schools could go to California more was to put the Cal and Zona schools in one division and the NW and Mountain schools in the other. Then the NW schools would get a trip to So Cal and a trip to No Cal every year while the conference maintains an 8 game conference schedule.

The SEC works itself out in this shit. Auburn & Georgia started in 1892 - one's in the west, the other in the east - they play every year. It's really that simple. Quit fucking crying.

Jesus, no shit.

Toejam, maybe you should swab your leaky vag and wait til the actual schedules are released before you start ranting about secession. Colorado and Utah just brought your/our conference two sizable media markets and instant CCG revenue, and all you care about is how often you get to play Stanford?

I do agree that eight conference games is plenty if you're adding a CCG to the mix, although with nine, you're more likely to preserve your suddenly indispensable SoCal/NoCal rivalries...

with the concession that the So Cal and No Cal teams play every year there is no need to have 9 conference games.

USC would play ASU, UA, UCLA, Utah, Colo, Stanford, Cal and 1 of the other 4 NW schools each year plus 4 OOC games. That schedule is fine, playing 9 conference games when the teams in the other conferences all play 8 has burnt the Pac's ass more than once the last few years and will continue to do so. Scott was hired to bring the Pac up to level with the other 3 big conferences in revenue and bowl bids, a 9 game conference schedule puts the Pac at a level below.

SCT,
I don't think it really makes any difference for USC or Colorado whether we play 8 or 9 conference games. Both of our schools have a pretty solid history of scheduling quality OOC opponents, so it's not like that extra OOC game is gonna be a guaranteed win, by any stretch. Now if you were, say, an ASU fan, I could see the appeal of an extra OOC game. They played two FCS schools in a row to start their season. In comparison, Colorado has only played two games against FCS schools in its history (and, frankly, I'd rather forget them both). I believe USC is one of the only teams that has never played an FCS school (I think ND is another, and that might be it).

I'm in favor of an 8-game conference schedule just for the sake of variety. We're locked into a series with CSU for the indefinite future, so that only leaves two OOC slots to work with every year. SC's in the same boat with ND on the sched every year, and Utah and BYU will probably come up with a similar arrangement.

I don't see your plan working in an 8-game structure though. No way are the OR and WA schools going to be cool with only playing SC and UCLA once every four years.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:SCT,
I don't think it really makes any difference for USC or Colorado whether we play 8 or 9 conference games. Both of our schools have a pretty solid history of scheduling quality OOC opponents, so it's not like that extra OOC game is gonna be a guaranteed win, by any stretch. Now if you were, say, an ASU fan, I could see the appeal of an extra OOC game. They played two FCS schools in a row to start their season. In comparison, Colorado has only played two games against FCS schools in its history (and, frankly, I'd rather forget them both). I believe USC is one of the only teams that has never played an FCS school (I think ND is another, and that might be it).

the conference as a whole gets fucked with a 9 game conference schedule. The pac will guarantee itsself 6 losses to its collective record that other conferences wont have to face. It means fewer teams may become bowl eligible and the conference as a whole will lose money. These other conferences had made the system work for them but for some reason the Pac keeps trying to fight the system instead of working it.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:I'm in favor of an 8-game conference schedule just for the sake of variety. We're locked into a series with CSU for the indefinite future, so that only leaves two OOC slots to work with every year. SC's in the same boat with ND on the sched every year, and Utah and BYU will probably come up with a similar arrangement.

Schedule the way other conferences do, 4 home roster games OOC vs teams that will allow you to play everyone and get sharp for conference games, then 8 conference games and a CCG, it has worked for other conferences, there is no reason to take a risk if the teams youre competing with are not going to take one.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:I don't see your plan working in an 8-game structure though. No way are the OR and WA schools going to be cool with only playing SC and UCLA once every four years.

Who gives a fuck what the OR or WA schools want, those assholes have gotten everything they wanted and have had to give up no concessions.
split up the California schools CHECK!
maintain their rivalries CHECK
keep the new schools out of their division CHECK
revenue sharing with the teams in real media markets CHECK
At this point I think the rest of the conference is done caving to the wants of the NW schools and starts looking out for the best interest of the conference as a whole, that best interest in 8 conference games. If it means that USC only plays at E Eugene or Corvalis, or Seattle or Pullman once every 8 years or those 4 schools play in the Coliseum just once every 8 years, so be it, everyone else has given something up, it's time they give something up too

SoCalTrjn wrote:everyone else has given something up, it's time they give something up too

What, exactly, has USC given up under your scenario? I mean, I get that you'd love to have your cake and eat it too, but the whole "sense of entitlement" routine probably isn't the best route to take. Longhorn out front shoulda toldja...

And just so I'm not misunderstanding, are you saying you want to see USC end their series with ND and schedule a bunch of home games with directional schools and FCS teams?

toejam wins board bitch so often because all he does is bitch. the nw schools getting "everything they asked for" is really just code for "waaaaaaaaah." once the pac were to go down to eight conference games he'd be in here bitching about the the d-1aa schools sc now has to play just to be bowl eligible. seriously, cry some more because you play one more conference game than everyone else while everyone else laments - from the pov of competition - how shitty their season ticket packages have become. and wow, one extra team might get left out of the bowl game because of one less cupcake, which obviously bankrupts the entire conference whenever they can't split that final two million payout less expenses between 10 now 12 schools.

sc wins in this arrangement, hands down. they play the cali schools and get and extra stipend while the commissioner works out a tv deal that's going to double the take they had before the pac 10 had a 12-team power conference to offer the networks.

USC isnt sharing its media market with anyone else but UCLA now, they get an extra stipend on the revenue sharing but they are giving other schools access to their market and the other schools are the ones getting the raise, not USC. Not unless the new TV deal is over 150 mill and still, most of that money will be coming from USCs market. Why should they share their and UCLAs market with the other 10 schools in the expanded Pac conference. Forget equal revenue sharing from the TV deal, split that money up based on the markets each school is in and what sort of viewership each team draws.

USC has never played a 1aa team, thats michigans territory.


And ending the series with ND? I have no problem with that, why should USC continue to let ND make a fortune from NBC by playing on there every other year? All the BCS conference schools should stop playing ND until ND joins a conference or loses their NBC deal because the network doesnt want to pay all those millions for just service academies.

haha, what a jokeshow: revenue sharing based on market share. sure, just as soon as usc goes independent. strike out on your own and see what good that does you.

i-aa schools belong in michigan's footprint because they have to fill three or four home dates every year. it's usc's territory just as soon as the pac goes down to eight ooc games. i suppose that just goes along further with your m.o.: bitching about the setup that saves your ass.

SoCalTrjn wrote:And ending the series with ND? I have no problem with that, why should USC continue to let ND make a fortune from NBC by playing on there every other year? All the BCS conference schools should stop playing ND until ND joins a conference or loses their NBC deal because the network doesnt want to pay all those millions for just service academies.

Fortunately for the school you root for, Pat Haden is possibly 5% smarter than you are.

I still think the California schools should bolt from the conference since they were forcefully split up, Texas and its schools arent too happy with their situation, the California and Texas schools forming a conference with what ever Arizona schools want to join, that would be better than either confernece the schools from those states are in now.

I got an idea, what with Van's erstwhile Big Ten honking, the BTN looking for major TV markets and what such.

USC to the Big Ten. The BTN doesn't get the #1 media market, but the #2 media market isn't a bad consolation prize. As an added bonus, that probably would improve the Big Ten's odds in the Rose Bowl. :P

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:And ending the series with ND? I have no problem with that, why should USC continue to let ND make a fortune from NBC by playing on there every other year? All the BCS conference schools should stop playing ND until ND joins a conference or loses their NBC deal because the network doesnt want to pay all those millions for just service academies.

Fortunately for the school you root for, Pat Haden is possibly 5% smarter than you are.

Upon further review, Schmick may have been right, for once in his life.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footba ... -expansion

Thursday brought news that will affect the beginning of football season as well as the end. Hill told Sporting News that athletic directors have agreed to not sign contracts for nonconference games to be played after the first three weekends of the regular season. Existing contracts will be grandfathered in, but all future nonconference games for the league will be set for September.

Not sure how far into the future a deal is signed for the ND-USC series. I would be willing to venture a guess that the series isn't in any immediate jeopardy. But once the current deal expires, we're in uncharted waters.

But something tells me that USC will still have enough pull that it could keep the series as is if it really wants that. Failing that, Swarbrick will have some significant negotiations ahead with the Big 10 and Pac-12 schools. Playing Michigan and USC in September would be brutal for ND. And ND-USC certainly would lose something in translation if the series moved to September.

The biggest problem with the socialist Scotts plan is the 9 confernce games. Why take that risk when it has burnt the conference in the past and the other conferences arent taking that risk? Dropping ND from the schedule is no big deal, if anything they have hurt USCs SOS the last decade or so and are now no bigger a win than one vs a service academy or mid major team. Hopefully that contract runs out about the same time the new teams come to the conference.
domers may have to replace Stanford on that schedule too, seems that when they dont end the season in LA at USC, theyre in Palo Alto

Colorado and Utah join the Pac beginning next year. NationalChamps.net has ND-USC scheduled through 2016. http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/futu ... future.htm

I don't necessarily take that 100% as gospel truth, but it's certainly possible that the deal is signed that far out. Edit: By way of comparison, ND signed a six-year deal recently with BYU that is not reflected in those schedules.

I heard today that the USC v ND contract runs through 2018, Stanfords isnt as long though. Also heard that the conference formally known as the Big 10 was going to do the same thing, only allow OOC games the first 3 weeks, theyre going to a 9 game conference schedule as well. Notre Dame will have to settle for just 3 games vs Pac 12 and Big 10 schools combined, bout time the conferences start using their collective power on ND

SoCalTrjn wrote:I heard today that the USC v ND contract runs through 2018, Stanfords isnt as long though. Also heard that the conference formally known as the Big 10 was going to do the same thing, only allow OOC games the first 3 weeks, theyre going to a 9 game conference schedule as well. Notre Dame will have to settle for just 3 games vs Pac 12 and Big 10 schools combined, bout time the conferences start using their collective power on ND

By your own admission, that wouldn't even come into play until 2019. A lot can happen between now and then.

Hell, by that time we might even have the seismic realignment that's been discussed.

I had heard wrong, USC's deal with ND runs out in 2016, after that the Irish will have to play SDSU, SJSU or FSU to get a game in California every or every other year.
So long Irish.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Colorado and Utah join the Pac beginning next year. NationalChamps.net has ND-USC scheduled through 2016. http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/futu ... future.htm

I don't necessarily take that 100% as gospel truth, but it's certainly possible that the deal is signed that far out. Edit: By way of comparison, ND signed a six-year deal recently with BYU that is not reflected in those schedules.

I call bullshit on that website. They have ND playing Syracuse at the Meadowlands two straight years in '14-'15 and they have ND vs. MD in DC next season and I don't think that is for another few years.

It's a big conundrum...

As far as Oregon goes, we have two "must play" games -- the Civil War (which no one is talking about altering), and UDub. Those are the two big ones that have over 100 years behind them. And obviously everyone else has 1-2 "must play" games (although the AZ schools just don't have the history and tradition of the other 8) -- USC and UCLA obviouly must play every year, and USC/Stanford is old school.

But it's kind of weird that Colorado and Utah have now been deemed archrivals by default. Everyone else has an archrival based on history, mostly based on geography in that it used to be about where you could get in a day's train ride (did the SEC used to fear trains in the old days, and only travelled by horse and buggy?) -- but CU and Utah (do we call them UU?) really don't have that. But I guess that's the price of a better paycheck in a better conference.

Colorado needs to get its act together in a big hurry, or is going to get doormatted in the Vegetable Grinder.

Have we thanked the Pac sluts for taking off our hands the bankrupt dead weight lately?