Oregon State football coach Mike Riley talked Pacific-10 Conference expansion Wednesday morning. He went over his thoughts and concerns, and his plan for the division breakup.
The full story will be in Thursday’s GT, but here the bullet points. Here’s the link to the full story with his quotes.
Riley was stunned as the rest of us that the Pac-16 was so close to happening and disappointed when it didn’t work out.
He’s concerned with how the divisions break up because he wants to maintain his annual trip to Los Angeles and the Bay Area for recruiting.
His plan: split into east and west. That means split the Arizona, LA, Bay Area, Oregon and Washington schools and newcomers. Play three crossover games and maintain the rivalry game in that. Then have four nonconference games.
So for example the Pac-10 West would be Arizona, USC, Stanford, OSU, Washington and Utah.
Riley likes Utah as the 12th member. He says everything is a good fit athletically, academically and geographically.
On the USC topic
Riley hasn’t approached any USC athletes who can now transfer due to the NCAA penalties. He doesn’t think he will because his roster is full.
He agrees with the penalties USC faces because of the feeling that rules must be followed. Here’s a link to my Thursday story on this subject.
Riley said there was an emphasis on following the rules out of his NCAA and American Football Coaches Association meetings, and USC was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
People have reminded him he could have been the guy on probation if he took the USC job. Riley, however, said he didn’t even consider it because he didn’t want the job.
HOT OF THE E-MAIL: Pac-10 officially invited Utah today. A press conference will be held Thursday in Salt Lake City with the official decision.
17 comments
mxpx5678 says:
Jun 16, 2010
So in that scenario (pac 10 west) Oregon wouldnt be in the same division, so you would think they would be one of our out of conf. games, that would be interesting, why not keep the rivalry teams in the same conf? a league of Arizona, USC, Stanford, OSU, Washington and Utah. would be really tough for OSU to get out of.
ckirkpatrick says:
Jun 16, 2010
Oregon would a non-division, conference game that is played every year. Then the other two non-division game would rotate with five non-division teams.
If you keep the rivals in the same division, which is probably what's going to happen anyway, teams don't get to visit L.A. and the Bay Area annual, which are big recruiting hubs.
That hurts the OSU, Oregon, WSU and Arizonas of the world most. They are in small populated areas and are out of the way. They need to be able to say to recruits your family can see you play one a year at home, and other things.
mxpx5678 says:
May 18, 2012
What do you see the lineup looking like?
I would think they might just do a North / South thing.
North
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Utah
Colorado
South
USC
UCLA
Arizona
ASU
CAL
Stanford
It would be a bummer to not play in California every year (especially since i live in NorCal) but it would make the most sense.
Also that setup seems to make sense in that the schools are similar that are grouped together, you get your Cal schools and Arizona, then the northwest schools plus the new schools.
ean says:
Jun 16, 2010
The scenarios I have heard are for the North to be OSU, UO, WSU, UW, Cal and Stanford. With the two new teams going to the South w/ the arizona and socal schools
mxpx5678 says:
Jun 16, 2010
That wouldnt be nearly as bad, we would get annual trip to the bay area, and most likely every other year a trip to southern california. Every year you would be playing 4 teams from the other side of the conf. half would be home, half would be away, not so bad.
ean says:
Jun 16, 2010
according to Ted Miller Colorado was promised to be in the South division by the Pac-10.
ckirkpatrick says:
Jun 16, 2010
Not decided, yet, according to Bob De Carolis.
WebTraveler says:
Jun 17, 2010
Remember, Colorado was rumored to jump first because they felt encroachment by Baylor and wanted to reserve their spot. They got their spot, but since Pac 10 was in the driver's seat on this one I really doubt any kind of deal was struck to guarantee where placed…..
ckirkpatrick says:
Jun 16, 2010
Non-major city schools don't like it. In your division grouping, OSU, Oregon and WSU don't get an annual visit to LA or the Bay Area. That's bad for recruiting.
Plus, the popular north-south deal has Utah/Colo, Washington schools and Oregon schools grouped together. Trust me, the north will be looked on as the weaker side.
Unless the north wins the conference title game, it won't get an invite to be the No. 2 Pac-12 school in the BCS.
angrybeaver says:
May 18, 2012
I thought this at first, too, but Oregon is respected nationally and Washington is a sleeping dog–people are waiting to respect them again. Just look at all the Washington love last year with only a slight improvement. Utah…possible people will begin to respect them if they win the conference. Beavs–seems no matter what they do nobody respects them.
mxpx5678 says:
Jun 16, 2010
I agree, i think it is much weaker, i just dont see how else they could divide it up. I don't like the North / South thing, that is just what I imagine they would do. Only other thing i could see is instead of having Utah / Co. in the north they have Cal and Stanford.
beaverpride says:
Jun 17, 2010
Bill Moos was on KJR in Seattle and said that it would be a North/South split because it is important to him to maintain the NW rivals. He talk like that was just the way it was going to be and he was in favor of it. I certainly hope he is wrong, but I can see how WSU would want it that way. The cougs seem to have the least amount of recruiting impact in LA out of all the NW schools. Plus the cougs would have a better chance of competing in a North division than one split down the middle. For schools like UO, OSU and UW that have a better chance of competing with LA schools, the N/S split would not be good.
sdbeav says:
Jun 17, 2010
If they go forward with the North/South deal (with the Bay Area schools in the North) and can guarantee a crossover game at SC or UCLA every other year that wouldn't be terrible. I don't know if it could even work that way because I'm too lazy to chart it. Still I prefer the zipper approach.
RenoNVBeavr says:
Jun 16, 2010
Cliff – any insight if any USC existing players are interested in transferring directly to OS? A highly recruited LB was recently reported by ESPN to wanting to transfer. Let's see, OS needs depth at LB, if not an immediate starter. Has Riley indicated any interest here?
ckirkpatrick says:
Jun 16, 2010
I talked to Riley about that today, and what he said is on the post.
To be more specific, he didn't know all the rules and ruling about USC. He asked me. Then he said OSU is full for this year.
So I don't know if any USC plays have an interest in OSU, but OSU doesn't have an interest as of Wednesday morning.
beavfan05 says:
Jun 16, 2010
The PAC 10 ruled that any player from USC has to sit out a year if they transfer within the conference. They are immediately eligible outside of the PAC10.
angrybeaver says:
Jun 16, 2010
this is true.