(10-10-2013 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But what everyone tends to forget is nobody is going to take anyone if they aren't getting paid to do it. And the networks therefore will be the determining factor (within reasonable limits) of whether certain schools are economically attractive enough to add. And I have no idea whether the networks would find those teams and their time slots potentially profitable enough to make that happen.

We do have an idea what the networks and consultants think about the value of potential additions to the Pac, though. We know what they've done in the recent past. In 2010, the Pac issued six invitations, but only CU and UT received unconditional invitations. The other four invitations were conditioned on UT saying yes. In 2011, OU and OSU applied to join, and Larry Scott set out to try to do a deal with the Horns to get them to join in. When they couldn't get that done, the Pac CEOs said no, they didn't want OU and OSU without UT.

If we want to entertain ourselves and put on tinfoil hats and spin crazy conspiracy theories about all of this we can (and I realize that's the fuel for many, many threads on this board). Or, we can choose the most likely explanation: The TV guys told the Pac that the only way they'd make more money per school from central time zone additions is if UT is one of the schools joining.

I think its pretty clear from the comments at the time that the Rocky Mountain schools and Northwest schools didn't think OU and OSU were worth the decreased access to California. OU and OSU probably paid for themselves and maybe a little more, but not enough to justify reduced access to California.

(10-10-2013 03:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 01:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  But what everyone tends to forget is nobody is going to take anyone if they aren't getting paid to do it. And the networks therefore will be the determining factor (within reasonable limits) of whether certain schools are economically attractive enough to add. And I have no idea whether the networks would find those teams and their time slots potentially profitable enough to make that happen.

We do have an idea what the networks and consultants think about the value of potential additions to the Pac, though. We know what they've done in the recent past. In 2010, the Pac issued six invitations, but only CU and UT received unconditional invitations. The other four invitations were conditioned on UT saying yes. In 2011, OU and OSU applied to join, and Larry Scott set out to try to do a deal with the Horns to get them to join in. When they couldn't get that done, the Pac CEOs said no, they didn't want OU and OSU without UT.

If we want to entertain ourselves and put on tinfoil hats and spin crazy conspiracy theories about all of this we can (and I realize that's the fuel for many, many threads on this board). Or, we can choose the most likely explanation: The TV guys told the Pac that the only way they'd make more money per school from central time zone additions is if UT is one of the schools joining.

I think its pretty clear from the comments at the time that the Rocky Mountain schools and Northwest schools didn't think OU and OSU were worth the decreased access to California. OU and OSU probably paid for themselves and maybe a little more, but not enough to justify reduced access to California.

OU is as valuable as Nebraska. OU pays for themselves and a little more -- but getting OU alone was not an available option, and the TV value of OU + OSU is the same as the TV value of OU alone. Oklahoma and Kansas are in the same boat in that sense, each state has one valuable TV property but the state isn't large enough to justify adding two schools from that state to any of the top-earning conferences.

(10-10-2013 12:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 09:48 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 09:28 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Why would the Pac 12 expand to 16 with the lower part of the Big12?

Agreed. Without Texas and Oklahoma, there is no "Texoma 4" for the PAC as they would actually be better off standing still. Also, why is it so difficult for people to understand that the PAC Presidents want no conference affiliation with faith based institutions (aka BYU, TCU, Baylor) that do not support unbiased scientific research?

T.C.U. now uses their initials as their public title as opposed to Texas Christian U. because they have virtually divorced themselves from the "faith based" perception and their curriculum has complete academic freedom. I think you can take them off of the list.

They only way IMO that those schools go to the PAC is if the networks wanting Central Time slots pay the PAC enough to make such a move worth it. Otherwise I agree. But what everyone tends to forget is nobody is going to take anyone if they aren't getting paid to do it. And the networks therefore will be the determining factor (within reasonable limits) of whether certain schools are economically attractive enough to add. And I have no idea whether the networks would find those teams and their time slots potentially profitable enough to make that happen.

That's the issue with Baylor and TCU. How much are they worth? Only BYU has the "academic freedom" issue. Although the way it is in academia, academic freedom is getting limited by political correctness at a lot of institutions.

True. The last place I'd go to try to find genuine "unbiased scientific research" would be Berkeley, CA. But since bias is in the eye of the beholder, perception is everything, and it's likely that the likes of TCU et al would have a tougher time getting traction for a PAC invite than a state flagship/land-grant school.