It isn’t the biggest news item of Friday’s Pac-12 schedule release, but it certainly merits a column: The Pac-12 didn’t abolish divisions for 2020.
When the ACC announced its schedule days before the Pac-12, the ACC decided to eliminate divisions and adopt the Big 12 model of having the two best teams in the conference play in the ACC Championship Game at the end of the season.
The move was only temporary — for the upcoming season, if it is played — but the larger point is that by showing an alternate way of doing business, the ACC gave itself and its fan base a chance to see a different scheduling format at work. Though only a temporary solution, the act of abolishing divisions for one season gave the plan a chance to be seen and studied.
The ACC did open the door to a future in which there would be no divisions, and in which the Big 12’s “top two” model would have a chance to become standard practice among the Power Five conferences.
The Pac-12 — like the SEC — has chosen not to adopt divisions. That’s unfortunate. We discussed this in late July, noting that since the Pac-12 North has been so much stronger than the Pac-12 South since the formation of a split-division conference format, it only makes sense to have the two best teams play for the title. Obviously, Oregon and Utah were the two best teams in the league last season, so the divisional format didn’t get in the way of enabling the league’s elite to vie for the conference championship. However, that hasn’t always been the case. It is so much easier and more natural to have a top-two model, so that a mediocre Pac-12 South champion (2015 USC was a good example) doesn’t get into the conference championship game.
This was a missed opportunity for the Pac-12.
When have we heard that before? All too many times, unfortunately.