(08-09-2015 03:43 PM)CintiFan Wrote: (08-09-2015 11:28 AM)General Mike Wrote: (08-08-2015 11:24 AM)CintiFan Wrote: I don't necessarily disagree with you. Personally, I'd love to see KU and OU in the B1G. I used to watch the Oklahoma - Nebraska game sometimes because I loved the pageantry and rivalry. Adding KU for basketball would be outstanding.
However, by taking those two schools the B1G would essentially concede that either east coast expansion will not likely occur or that the B1G is willing to go past 16 teams. I still think the B1G wants to have a little 'dry powder' for expansion when the ACC GOR nears expiration. I don't think 16 is the max, based on Delaney's statements, but if it is then maybe the B1G waits.
Based on the current scuttlebutt, the next phase of realignment will probably happen in stages, with the Big 12 breaking up first. As a college football fan, I'd like to see 4 relatively balanced conferences, with the conference champs going to the playoffs. So for me, KU and OU to the B1G, and Texas to the ACC as a quasi-independent like ND would be just fine.
If that happens, the Big 12 either disbands or adds second tier teams and clearly drops a notch below P4. That virtually assures the ACC will survive and if the ACC survives, UVA, UNC and Duke will stay in it.
However, I could see ESPN putting some pressure on the ACC to diminish the overlaps in Virginia and North Carolina, in part because both the SEC and B1G covet those media markets. Virginia Tech and NC State would be the candidates to move to another conference - maybe the SEC, maybe B1G or maybe split them - VT to B1G, NC St. to SEC - and have them each pick up a former Big 12 member as the second expansion team.
That approach allows the ACC to can expand into new territories like NYC by picking up UConn and Ohio by taking Cincinnati. It also leaves room to add ND and Texas full-time, if they will do it - and at that point they may have no choice. The SEC and B1G will not allow them to be partial members and if forced to choose, both ND and Texas at that point would pick the ACC.
The result is four relatively competitive conferences, each with a few blue blood programs and a cadre of good schools to back them up.
And just who are you adding to the Pac-12 that have value out west? The Big 12's misfit toys?
Either way, the club is basically going to remain the same. In 1998 when the 6 major conferences of the time started the BCS, there were 63 teams from those conferences that got big boy seats. At the start of the Playoff you have 65 schools with big boy seats. The only team kicked out of the club was Temple/ UConn (depending on how you want to look at things).
The PAC will be OK as is if that's the way it winds up. USC, Stanford and UCLA are top programs. Oregon, Washington and Cal have all been good to great at times. They may wind up as the weakest conference, but still not bad at all.
Your math does not add up. The PAC is currently considered the second strongest conference across the board because of how it's mid tier programs have raised their game. You want to talk about adding some of the "lesser" programs of the big 12 and it being a weakening?
TCU is topping the list as someone that gets sent West due to them already being familiar out there, great past rivalry with Utah. They also have the least amount of history and influence within the big 12, maybe second to WVU in that regard. You take TCU and TTU from Texas and that is not a weakening. You take Kansas State, which is still playing strong with Snyder there, and that is not a weakening. You take ISU which initially looks like a weakening but they have become known for making great games. Just ask Oklahoma State if anyone should look past the Cyclones.
This concept doesn't weaken the PAC. It's just people showing they cannot adapt to change when the situation changes. I have listed plenty of times actual benefits the PAC will gain from these schools, benefits that do not exist for the other three major conferences in contention. You can make some arguments against them but saying they weaken the conference is silly.
They give everyone a game against a Texas school every single year. They give everyone a guaranteed visit into Texas every other year.
Maybe you East Coast guys just cant get this, but my Rutgers friend, lets not get into a school weakening the conference slate of it's new conference ok? Strong programs can be built, proper geography and market location cannot be built.
Four locations in the Central Time Zone for those big name PAC programs to be showcased during the initial kick off every Saturday. Strong insertion into the two biggest States for garnering FBS quality football recruits.
This is a no brainer. All that is necessary is the Networks willing to pay the PAC for this expansion. Sure, the PAC can play up the fact that these weren't their first choices, they can play it up all the way to the bank.
Without taking this opportunity though, they will be much worse off in a decade when it comes to leverage and negotiating position.