So are the uniforms...This offense is straight off a video game.
Eh, it's about what I expected. Unless something goes BANG, Dennis Dixon-style, Oregon's got a straight shot at the BCS title game.
Well, there's no good neutral site stadiums, from what I can tell. You could have it at a nearby NFL stadium (Seattle, SF/Oak, Phoenix, whatever they used to use in LA) but you run the risk of looking like the ACC during a BC/Virginia Tech (27,360) title game in Florida if you have a game in LA and Oregon is playing Arizona State. And the PAC-10's interest in football from their fans is probably closer to the ACC overall than the SEC or BigInteger.
In that case, you may as well have a home game.
Actually no. Just like no team is the same as it was due to graduation, etc. Too bad Oregon and Boise aren't scheduled this year though, as that would be a lot of fun to see.This is the same Oregon team Boise slapped down in '08 and '09, right?
How do Colorado and Utah come out smelling like roses without any history in this league? How do they get games against UCLA and USC every year? Seems like they are coming out way ahead on this move.As an ASU fan, this Pac Ten scenario is about as good as I could have hoped for. Infinitely better than the monstrosity that would have seen the Arizona schools thrown in with a bunch of Texas and Oklahoma schools if Texas and company had bolted for the Pac. Whew, we dodged a big bullet there.
I haven't seen how the non-division scheduling will work for non-California schools, given that the California schools will have cross-division games every year to maintain their California rivalries. I would guess that would mean a school like ASU would see more of the Oregon and Washington schools than of Cal and Stanford?
I think it really just came down to geography. If you are going by geography, the closest schools to Colorado and Utah are the Arizona schools, and if you put those four together, the only schools that make sense to go with them are the southern California schools. Other than some zipper option or something, the only other likely option I would think would be to put Colorado and Utah in with the Oregon and Washington schools, thereby allowing the 4 California schools to stick together. But I don't think that is as logical a geographic setup. And thinking about how schools would vote, I'd guess the Northwestern schools would prefer at least having the northern California schools in their division than no California schools, and Utah and Colorado would like the setup, so maybe the Arizona schools were the swing votes to make it happen against the opposition of the four California schools.How do Colorado and Utah come out smelling like roses without any history in this league? How do they get games against UCLA and USC every year? Seems like they are coming out way ahead on this move.
It seems to me that it would have been better to go California/Arizona and Oregeon/Washington/Newbies...then just guarantee that each of the Oregon/Washington/Newbies get at least one game in Arizona/SoCal/NoCal each season.I think it really just came down to geography. If you are going by geography, the closest schools to Colorado and Utah are the Arizona schools, and if you put those four together, the only schools that make sense to go with them are the southern California schools. Other than some zipper option or something, the only other likely option I would think would be to put Colorado and Utah in with the Oregon and Washington schools, thereby allowing the 4 California schools to stick together. But I don't think that is as logical a geographic setup. And thinking about how schools would vote, I'd guess the Northwestern schools would prefer at least having the northern California schools in their division than no California schools, and Utah and Colorado would like the setup, so maybe the Arizona schools were the swing votes to make it happen against the opposition of the four California schools.
Kinda different in how it played out in the Big 12, where Texas basically dictated everything. Here the biggest heavyweights, the California schools, didn't get their preferred scenario.
I think it could have gone either way. The 7-5 vote a week or two ago by the ADs in favor of the current configuration shows that the current setup was not a slam dunk.It seems to me that it would have been better to go California/Arizona and Oregeon/Washington/Newbies...then just guarantee that each of the Oregon/Washington/Newbies get at least one game in Arizona/SoCal/NoCal each season.
Actually no. Just like no team is the same as it was due to graduation, etc. Too bad Oregon and Boise aren't scheduled this year though, as that would be a lot of fun to see.
Oh, I know, but it's at least interesting that we have a somewhat direct comparison. Especially since Boise has 20 starters back from last year.
Unless they have a huge 4th, Texas will lose consecutive home games for the first time since 1997. It's 21-6 after 3.