USC v. Colorado, Utah

I do not like this one bit.

This means that USC/UCLA will not play Cal/Stanford every year — which, for USC people, that means no weekender every year. That is a great part of our football tradition and it will be a shame if it goes away. The california schools NEED to be grouped together, plain and simple.

And, WHY is Colorado dictating how things go? I mean... the other Pac-10 shouldn't have to make concessions to allow them into the Pac-10. They should do what the original Pac-10 schools say.

I do not like this one bit. This means that USC/UCLA will not play Cal/Stanford every year... all those matchups are important rivalry games. And, for USC people, it means no weekender every other year, which is a really fun part of our football experience. The CA schools need to be in the same division, plain and simple.

And.. what also bothers me is why the heck is Colorado dictating the stipulations? They are coming to the Pac-10, the other Pac-10 schools should not have to bend for them. I hate this expansion stuff.

OK, but I think most USC fans would join UCLA fans in expecting games with both Cal and Stanford each year. First, Cal is UCLA's second football rival after USC, and I think fans of both schools enjoy the games because it's an easy road trip or a chance to see your team if you live out of town.

This blows. I already miss the intensity of playing Oregon and Oregon State (there were some epic games the last five years against them) and the growing strength of Washington.

And it goes without saying that Cal and Stanford were intense rivalries. Colorado and Utah... who cares. And, honestly, did anyone really look forward to the two Arizona games every year?

USC, UCLA, ASU, UA, CU, UU. That means that each of these teams will play one another (5 games) and have 7 other opponents to schedule each year. They will need to schedule at least (3) games against teams from the P12 North (rotating teams each year) which brings their schedule up to 8 games. They can easily schedule Stanford & Cal as part of their remaining (4) opponents left each year for a season total of 10 games. They can then schedule Notre Lame and another at large national opponent for 12 games.

Not so bad.

I don't see how CU could have demanded to be grouped with USC and UCLA. CU accepted its invitation to join the conference when all indications seemed to be that Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and OK State (or at least all mentioned except A&M) would also be joining the Pac-16. While purely speculation, the conventional wisdom was that the former Pac-8 would make up one division and the former Big-12 members plus AZ and AZ State would make up the other division.

How could CU have demanded to be grouped with USC and UCLA in that scenario? Would you somehow be putting the Oregon or Washington schools in with the Texas schools? What the hell is that division going to be named?

Mike, you seem to make a lot of sense there. That has me thinking maybe this won't be the division lineup after-all and it could be (what it should and what is best for all rivals) – USC, UCLA, ASU, UofA, Cal, Stanford in 1 and the Oregon, Wash. and Utah/Co. in the other. Northwest and Southwest.

Lets hope it shakes out like that.

$UC should be happy that they don't have to play Stanford and Oregon State every year. Washington too for that matter.

Not going to happen! Colorado and Utah will go to the North. We need our annaul Bay Area trip and ass kicking or those cretins.

that can't be right. colorado couldn't have enough pull to separate the california pac schools. they form the power base of the conference. i have to assume they requested it but was denied. maybe colorado could demand a game with one of the los angeles schools from the other division every year.

USC and ucla cannot be paired with the arizona and mountain schools over the bay area schools.

The California schools will continue to play each other every year, regardless of which division they are in. The purpose of all this BS is to make more money.