(11-04-2014 06:13 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 05:54 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I can only speak to the Texas A&M piece as I followed Texags.com religiously during that time period (my wife is an Aggie alum). Although most faculty cherished the PAC12, the alumni base and majority of boosters were as pro-SEC as they were prior to the creation of the Big-12. The fact that UT entered negotiations on a PAC-16 without consulting with A&M was the dealkiller for them.

I still think Utah would have gotten in, as would have UT, Texas Tech, and the Oklahoma's to make it 16. The Longhorn network was an ESPN creation to avoid being locked out of 2 time zones worth of football inventory - and it worked.

You are completely correct.

The PAC is a fine academic and athletic league full of excellence in both departments but it just would have been the wrong fit for us. A&M is a big southern flagship/land grant school that belongs with other big southern flagship/land grant schools.

I think that if LHN had not happened then UT/TT/OU/OSU/CU/UU would have joined the PAC.

I think there is a strong chance that Kansas would get picked up by the B1G and possibly Missouri too if they struck before the SEC tabbed them as A&M's partner (in which case I think they would have brought in WVU as our eastern counterpart)

Given only 3 teams would remain at that point (BU/KSU/ISU) and the Big 12 officially dissolved (which means all it's contracts are null and void too) I imagine they would have little choice but to merge with either the Big East or the MWC depending on who could get them the best deals.

The easy thing to do would be to join either the MWC or Big East, but the smart thing to do would be for the top schools in each conference to join up in the Big 12. Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Boise State, BYU, and TCU would make a strong western division. Of the old Big East, I think Cincinnati, USF, and either UConn or West Virginia (depending on if A&M needed a partner in the SEC or not) would still be available. Pair them up with Memphis, East Carolina, and UCF and you've got a really nice 12-team football conference.

I would then hold at 12 and see if any G5 schools separate themselves enough to warrant an invite. Going beyond 12 in the short term would dilute the league more than is necessary.

Here's how I think it would have all ended up after the Pac 16 expansion:

ACC Atlantic:

Boston College
Clemson
Florida State
Louisville
North Carolina State
Syracuse
Wake Forest

ACC Coastal:

Duke
Georgia Tech
Miami (FL)
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Big 12 East:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
East Carolina
Memphis
UCF
USF

Big 12 West:

Baylor
Boise State
BYU
Iowa State
Kansas State
TCU

Big Ten East:

Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers

Big Ten West:

Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin

Pac 16 East:

Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Utah

Pac 16 West:

California
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Washington
Washington State

SEC East:

Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
West Virginia

SEC West:

Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
LSU
Mississippi State
Ole Miss
Texas A&M

I do think the Big Ten and SEC would also try to go after the North Carolina and Virginia schools, but ultimately fail.

(11-04-2014 12:30 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 11:57 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The Big XII leftovers would've merged with the Big East.

You mean members of the AAC and MWC would be invited to the Big 12.

Actually no. It was reported by Bill Self, the A.D. at kansas and others that they were ready to join the BE in a 12/20 team league. That may not have stopped Syracuse and Pitt from bolting but it would have certainly made things interesting

IMO, A&M would have balked about joining the P10 and been replaced with Utah (texas, tech, colorado and ok schools)


A&M and Mizzou off to the SEC(14)

Kansas, k-state, iowa st and tcu to BE (12/20)

Baylor left behind (for now)

Eventually B10 would still go east with rutgers and Maryland. the value of those markets more appealing than the Kansas name

Baylor joins former leaguemates in BE to get back to 12


ACC never one to play nice and say add Temple, attempts to hurt BE and cause friction between FB and non fb schools. They also go to 14 and invite Syracuse, Pitt and UConn (sorry BC)

BE needs 3 more to get back to 12 Memphis, UCF and ECU or Temple (once they convince Villanova its the best option) SMU and Houston also considered but , there would be a too much Texas segment

(11-04-2014 05:42 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  B1G would never take Pitt. It does nothing for them since they already have Penn State. They would take Rutgers, just like they did in real life. Also, I would think the Big 12 would consider Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, and Utah (assuming they didn't end up in the Pac 16) in addition to Houston and SMU.

I don't know about that. That goes back to the faulty assumption that only TV markets matter. Which we know is not true. And even if you did believe that., Penn State alone is not enough for a state so big, especially when not centrally located. Case in point, the Big Ten Network gets much less per subscriber in Western PA than they do closer to Penn State's more popular areas. Sop you can discuss the merits of what Pitt offers the Big Ten, and there are positives and negatives, but being in the same state as PSU, in and itself, would not be a deal breaker. It may have pushed them behind others, but doesn't mean they would have been completely off limits. Even with the Big Ten model.

(11-04-2014 10:15 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 08:12 AM)goofus Wrote:  I have to agree the Big 12 leftovers would attempt to merge with the Big East. But it probably made more sense for the Big East football schools to join the Big 12. The BE football schools were looking to split from the Non-football schools but were looking for a way to keep their BCS status. Joining the Big 12 would accomplish that.

This part is not true. There was never an attempt to do that (both sides needed each other). They simply had an escape clause just in case. Plus at that point, there was no benefit to jettisoning those schools. The two primary assets of the Big East were large markets and great basketball. Those Catholic schools by and large provided the access to the large markets, and were a major part of the basketball. It would have just been one large ass league (12/20)

On NBC channels.

(11-06-2014 11:24 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 10:15 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 08:12 AM)goofus Wrote:  I have to agree the Big 12 leftovers would attempt to merge with the Big East. But it probably made more sense for the Big East football schools to join the Big 12. The BE football schools were looking to split from the Non-football schools but were looking for a way to keep their BCS status. Joining the Big 12 would accomplish that.

This part is not true. There was never an attempt to do that (both sides needed each other). They simply had an escape clause just in case. Plus at that point, there was no benefit to jettisoning those schools. The two primary assets of the Big East were large markets and great basketball. Those Catholic schools by and large provided the access to the large markets, and were a major part of the basketball. It would have just been one large ass league (12/20)

On NBC channels.

For double money than the remaining football Big East school make for all sports.

Markets by themselves don't make a powerful league (see AAC). But the Big East literally had two major assets, that would disappear if the two split. You can believe me or, but all you have to do to confirm it is ask, if they had so little value, why did no one ever seriously consider a split?

(11-06-2014 11:35 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 11:24 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 10:15 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 08:12 AM)goofus Wrote:  I have to agree the Big 12 leftovers would attempt to merge with the Big East. But it probably made more sense for the Big East football schools to join the Big 12. The BE football schools were looking to split from the Non-football schools but were looking for a way to keep their BCS status. Joining the Big 12 would accomplish that.

This part is not true. There was never an attempt to do that (both sides needed each other). They simply had an escape clause just in case. Plus at that point, there was no benefit to jettisoning those schools. The two primary assets of the Big East were large markets and great basketball. Those Catholic schools by and large provided the access to the large markets, and were a major part of the basketball. It would have just been one large ass league (12/20)

On NBC channels.

For double money than the remaining football Big East school make for all sports.

Markets by themselves don't make a powerful league (see AAC). But the Big East literally had two major assets, that would disappear if the two split. You can believe me or, but all you have to do to confirm it is ask, if they had so little value, why did no one ever seriously consider a split?

Oh I know it. UofL was thrilled with the BE and TJ did all he could to save it. For those thinking UofL would have jumped to the ACC if the BE would have kept, Cuse, Pitt, WVU,ND, the C7 and added teams from the Big 12 as well as TCU better think again. TV negotiations coming up and freed up network money/slots from the Big 12 collapse. Don't be so sure about UofL jumping to the ACC.

(11-06-2014 10:26 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 05:42 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  B1G would never take Pitt. It does nothing for them since they already have Penn State. They would take Rutgers, just like they did in real life. Also, I would think the Big 12 would consider Boise State, BYU, San Diego State, and Utah (assuming they didn't end up in the Pac 16) in addition to Houston and SMU.

I don't know about that. That goes back to the faulty assumption that only TV markets matter. Which we know is not true. And even if you did believe that., Penn State alone is not enough for a state so big, especially when not centrally located. Case in point, the Big Ten Network gets much less per subscriber in Western PA than they do closer to Penn State's more popular areas. Sop you can discuss the merits of what Pitt offers the Big Ten, and there are positives and negatives, but being in the same state as PSU, in and itself, would not be a deal breaker. It may have pushed them behind others, but doesn't mean they would have been completely off limits. Even with the Big Ten model.

I've often wondered if Pitt had other obstacles, like Iowa's and Ohio's state governments, because of the strong-arming OSU and Iowa seem to have against other intrastate institutions' wanting in on the conference. I know OSU talked a good game about desiring Pitt, but why does it seem the whole conference is fine with Pitt other than PSU, and that the conference would stiff-arm that institution due to something so, well, petty (I can't believe the whole Big Ten would give into a cranky old coach or just one slimy president). Something never added up with that.

Also, Nebraska's Perlman talks a good game about the AAU membership being so clutch to them, and that they may not have had a place to go. I don't buy that, either. Perlman had Graham Spanier-like cheerleader making the UNL-B1G thing happen. And if the B1G didn't take them, what, like the PAC would really take Utah over Nebraska? Was Rutgers, Missouri, or Pitt really that much more attractive than Nebraska? Maryland wasn't even on the table yet, either.

(11-04-2014 01:23 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 12:30 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(11-03-2014 11:57 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The Big XII leftovers would've merged with the Big East.

You mean members of the AAC and MWC would be invited to the Big 12.

Yes and no. Back in June 2010 when all of this was going on, I remember reading Kansas contacted the Big East if they had any interest in the Jayhawks in case the Big XII folded. TCU was just invited to the Big East a few months before right before their Rose Bowl win. It still had Pitt and Syracuse and the Catholic schools were still in it. What we don't know is if in an scenario where the Big XII was left with 4 schools if they had the power to attract a few Big East and MWC schools or had gone the way of the SWC with the four remaining schools going elsewhere.

I still believe Pitt and Syracuse would've accepted the ACC invite a year later and Rutgers and Louisville would've left as well since a reformed Big XII or an expanded Big East couldn't match what the ACC and Big Ten offered. Probably the SEC would've still gone to 14 with Missouri and West Virginia (since A&M would've been in the Pac-16 East). But we'll never know.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda is just that. But it would've been interested to see what would've happened if the Pac-16 materialized.

Here's some links from back then:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/ucathlet.../10325391/

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...8/26163006

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...8/26163006

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-big-east/

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college...t-7846.ece

Hi UTEPDALLAS, OP here, first off, I appreciate you helping me with this thread. I caught an error you made they may impact your answer. You said:
"Back in June 2010 when all of this was going on, I remember reading Kansas contacted the Big East if they had any interest in the Jayhawks in case the Big XII folded. TCU was just invited to the Big East a few months before right before their Rose Bowl win."
My correction: TCU was invited to the Big East in late September 2010, not a few months before Kansas contacted the Big 12 in June of 2010.
In June of 2010 when the PAC 16 possibility was on the verge of completion, the Big East had 8 schools. They had not invited anyone, though Villanova was poised to become an all sports member bringing Big East football schools up to 9 after their transition up to FBS was complete. With that being said, would you change anything about what you speculate would've happened if the Big 12 lost 6 to the PAC and Big 10 takes Nebraska leaving the "northern 4" ISU, KSU, KU and Mizzou, and Baylor?

I started this thread to gauge what others thought on the subject as I followed it religiously while it was happening all summer of 2010.
My prediction: PAC 16 would've happened if LHN profits are shared with other PAC members: Texas, Texas Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St would've accepted their PAC invites. Texas A&M would've declined and left for the SEC with Mizzou. Nebraska (still an AAU member at that moment) still goes to Big 10. PAC still invites Utah to take A&M's invite. Big 12 loses 8 schools. Their left with 4 of their least powerful schools athletically speaking.--particularity at that moment. The Big East takes Kansas, Kansas St and Iowa St. Baylor, coming off 16 straight losing seasons going into 2010 gets invited to MWC to take Utah's spot, bringing MWC back to 9, they then add Boise St or Houston to go to 10.
The "Power Conferences" under this prediction at the end of summer of 2010:
PAC-Gains 5 Big 12 schools plus 1 MWC school (16)
SEC-Gains 2 Big 12 schools (14)
Big 10-Gains 1 Big 12 schools (12)
Big East-Gains 3 Big 12 schools, Villanova added as full member (12)
ACC-No changes at that time (12)
MWC-Gains 1 Big 12 school, loses 1 school to PAC, adds Boise/Houston. (10)

(11-09-2014 12:25 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  In June of 2010 when the PAC 16 possibility was on the verge of completion, the Big East had 8 schools. They had not invited anyone, though Villanova was poised to become an all sports member bringing Big East football schools up to 9 after their transition up to FBS was complete. With that being said, would you change anything about what you speculate would've happened if the Big 12 lost 6 to the PAC and Big 10 takes Nebraska leaving the "northern 4" ISU, KSU, KU and Mizzou, and Baylor?

This is true. It has always been my belief that "this" was what lead to the Villanova application being rejected. When the Nova invitation was extended (And accepted) it was known full well what Villanova's plan would be. Everyone knew it and was fine. But by the time they presented it, the Big 12 teams were potentially on the table. Accepting Nova meant having up to 13 football teams, so it was easy to "shelve" them by rejecting the plan due to stadium size, even though the plan was initially approved to be studied using the very same method. Hence why Nova was dumfounded, and why the league rejected their proposal. Had TCU already been on the table, the numbers would have been even again, and Nova's plan would have been accepted, because adding them with TCU would give even numbers, and then if the other four were on the table, 14 would work a lot better than 13.

In the end it probably worked out better for Nova. Otherwise they would be in the AAC, which is probably not where they would prefer to be.