(01-21-2017 12:41 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I completely forgot about Bedlam being a politically important rivalry!

Ok, in that case:

OU and OSU to the SEC
Texas to the ACC

That would be an interesting scenario.

Would the PAC then take KU, KSU, ISU, TT, TCU , and Houston?

(01-21-2017 12:44 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:58 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 10:22 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 06:35 PM)p23570 Wrote:  To be realistic OU and UT are not going to be going the same direction if the Bg 12 breaks up.

Boren is going to come out and say that Texas has compromised the value of OU athletics by not being willing to compromise on LHN, expansion, and a conference network. He will paint Texas as the villain and explain how OU has no choice but to look out for it's best interests.

There is no way OU and UT end up killing the Big 12 together. OU is not going to be the bad guy in this. It's very obvious to me that Boren has been laying the groundwork for this to happen on his terms. OU is also not going to leave KU, KSU, ISU, and OSU high and dry unless there is no better choice.

Boren is a politician and if he really is pissed off at UT you can bet he will be talking to the old Big 8 schools and forming alliances for the break and not grabbing a golden parachute and leaving everyone else behind to sue the crap out of OU for killing the conference.

If things cannot be worked out I think the most likely scenario is 6 schools joining the PAC. This is by far the most likely from a political standpoint and quite frankly the PAC needs help almost as much as the Big 12.

The next most likely scenario is OU and OSU heading for the SEC. This involves cutting ties with everyone but at least Boren can say he protected the state (used to be governor) and there is a faction of the fanbase who thinks that might not be a bad setup.

And if things get really crappy OU and KU to the B1G. This is so unlikely it's' hardly even worth mentioning. Would require major political work in Kansas and Oklahoma. Nothing similar has even even been attempted.

The fact is that OU was willing to leave Kansas, Kansas St, and Iowa St. (and Missouri, Baylor, and Nebraska) high and dry, when the PAC-16 was originally going to be proposed in 2010. They were willing to jump to the PAC-16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Oklahoma St.

Four years after this, it was again proposed with Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma St. This was ultimately rejected because of Texas not wanting to give up the Longhorn Network money (the proposal they put forward would have had Texas getting all the money from the Longhorn Network, which would be turned into a PAC-16 network for Texas. This went against the culture of the PAC-12, and was ultimately rejected.) So, if Texas had given up the Longhorn network, and traded it in for a PAC-16 network money, Oklahoma would have gone with them, leaving Kansas, Kansas St., and Iowa St. behind.

I don't think that they'll have a problem leaving Kansas, Kansas St., and Iowa St. high and dry. They were willing to do it before. They were even willing to do it a few years ago, when there were rumors that they approached the PAC-12 to come with Oklahoma St. to go for a PAC-14. The PAC-14 ultimately rejected it.

There is no loyalty in the Big 12. Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. are likely tied at the hip. But beyond that, there is nothing else.

That was a different time and everyone was in crisis mode. This is different and I do not think we can assume becasue something happened that way a few years ago that they will be similar this time.

I know of absolutely no reason that OU, KU, KSU, OSU, and ISU do not want to be in the same conference. It's fun to pretend that is the case but there is no animosity between those schools and from a political standpoint I see a higher likelihood of there being a big move as opposed to just OU and OSU leaving. But you never know.

I think the benefit of the PAC is that OU is still the top dog in the conference as far as football and that is not the case elsewhere.

Another big difference now versus then is the PACN. I think they see that it has not gone as planned and until they can convince Dish to pay up they are stuck not making as much with the network as they had hoped.

No, it wasn't in crisis mode. The original proposal (which almost went through) was before the current round of realignment, and set off the crisis mode. The one 4 years later wasn't really crisis mode either. Oklahoma will go for the deal, and it will happen when the grant of rights expires. Texas's experiment with the Longhorn Network hasn't done really all that well either, and neither has any sort of Big-12 Network either. So, while the PAC-12 networks may not be making as much money as they hoped, Texas and Oklahoma bring trimendous value to those networks.

One other change to the PAC-12 networks is I wouldn't open 2 more networks. I'd actually combine the 6 regional networks into 3, and then open up a 4th to cover Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

You can believe otherwise but it was certainly crisis mode during that time IMO from a president's perspective.

Texas does not own the LHN. Everyone always for gets that and acts like UT can do what it wants with LHN. They cannot. ESPN calls the shots. They have recently made changes to programming so there might be something to that as well.

The PACN certainly has streaming figured out. I know through my sling subscription I get all sorts of thier content. But like you said they can't get paid right now. They need rabid fans who have nothing better to do than get upset when they can't see thier team play and will change TV subscribers to get that content. That is exactly what the Big 12 has. Ugly, overweight, dumb, hillbillies that will rip the dish right off the trailer if they don't' get to watch the game.

I agree on combining the content. A network for 2 schools is a little much.

I can't help but look at how Rice, who is now finally "getting it" with the potential value of athletics and conference affiliation, is sitting outside of the power structure and not think something fishy isn't going on between the PAC and Big Ten. Yeah, Rice applied to the Big XII and MWC were rejected by both, but, seeing Rice out here now...they kind of remind me of Rutgers during that big wave of expansion at the start of the decade.

Like, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years, both the Big Ten and PAC get to 16, and Rice is among the haul between the two of them, from the remnants of the Big XII whenever that thing falls apart, and the "behind the scenes" story creeps out there that there was this "unspoken understanding" that the Big Ten (who I think will take Rice) wouldn't get to sixteen members until the PAC expanded in turn. Like Rutgers back then, we know they're there, fully available and looking to move. But, there they sit. Like Rutgers, I'm sure once Rice is tapped to join the ranks of the majors again, a great gush of compliments and spin about their value and obvious candidacy will be right there coming out of the mouths of people who could have had these words to say years before, but didn't. For a reason nobody will ever officially comment on.

After the PAC turned down the OU-oSu combo and turned away B1G-PAC, I just stopped caring about the woes of the conference. Seriously, hearing them snivel and complain about media revenue...serves them right. That conference thinks of its expansion like a story, and right now, the book is splayed open to a spot but sitting on the table. It can't move forward without Texas. It's likely, still, that Texas will go that way eventually, and take OU AND OSU with them...but the PAC couldn't and wouldn't take #14 and #15 out of order and ahead to #13. Nobody knows why except for those in the PAC.

(01-06-2017 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well just to throw out one idea that I haven't seen kicked around.

Big 10, Pac 12 and Big 12 effectively merge when their contracts all expire in about 7 years. They form two 18 team conferences and do a joint TV Tier I & II TV contract getting a virtually monopoly outside the southeast.

Each conference is broken up into two 4 team and two 5 team "groups." 4 team groups flip to pair with a different 5 team group every two years. So you get your group every year and two other groups home and away over 4 years. With a 9 game schedule you get the 3rd group members home and away every 8 or 10 years depending on whether you are a 4 team or 5 team division.

Big 10
East (4)-Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia
Central (5)-Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Purdue, Indiana
West (4)-Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota
South (5)-Iowa, Iowa St., Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St.
So the divisions would be East-Central and South-West for 2 years, then West-Central and South-East for 2 years. Everyone but Iowa should be reasonably satisfied.

Pac (why keep numbers?)
East (5) Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.
Central (4) TCU, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona St.
West (5) USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Utah
North (4) Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St.
So the divisions would be North-West and East-Central for 2 years, then North-East and West-Central for 2 years. Everyone but TCU should be reasonably satisfied.

The problem of your proposal is that B1G wants to cherry pick their pieces. They want the best pieces on the board.

If B1G is to expand to 18, they don't want Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia. They want Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia and North Carolina. The only compromise is if Texas is not available, Kansas can be the substitute.

(01-21-2017 03:39 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 10:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well just to throw out one idea that I haven't seen kicked around.

Big 10, Pac 12 and Big 12 effectively merge when their contracts all expire in about 7 years. They form two 18 team conferences and do a joint TV Tier I & II TV contract getting a virtually monopoly outside the southeast.

Each conference is broken up into two 4 team and two 5 team "groups." 4 team groups flip to pair with a different 5 team group every two years. So you get your group every year and two other groups home and away over 4 years. With a 9 game schedule you get the 3rd group members home and away every 8 or 10 years depending on whether you are a 4 team or 5 team division.

Big 10
East (4)-Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia
Central (5)-Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Purdue, Indiana
West (4)-Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota
South (5)-Iowa, Iowa St., Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St.
So the divisions would be East-Central and South-West for 2 years, then West-Central and South-East for 2 years. Everyone but Iowa should be reasonably satisfied.

Pac (why keep numbers?)
East (5) Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.
Central (4) TCU, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona St.
West (5) USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Utah
North (4) Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St.
So the divisions would be North-West and East-Central for 2 years, then North-East and West-Central for 2 years. Everyone but TCU should be reasonably satisfied.

The problem of your proposal is that B1G wants to cherry pick their pieces. They want the best pieces on the board.

If B1G is to expand to 18, they don't want Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia. They want Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia and North Carolina. The only compromise is if Texas is not available, Kansas can be the substitute.

Yeah, well the B1G wanted UNC & UVA last time around and they settled for Maryland and Rutgers. Now that's two fine schools that added to the bottom line, but hardly a duo from the dream list.

The Big 10 and the SEC unfortunately can't just snap their fingers and get what they want. FOX and ESPN have to want it as well since they pay for it. Then the schools in question have to want it as well. The Big 12 is where it is because Texas ,and Oklahoma to a lesser extent, can't find unity on a decision between each other, or among their fans, athletic department, and president (academics).

I'm sure that the PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all make a play for the top brands of the Big 12. There will likely be a winner and a loser between the SEC and Big 10 on this matter. The PAC, however, doesn't have to do anything. Even weakened with regards to earnings they are nonetheless protected by geography.

Their rights aren't owned by any of the networks. They, instead, are leased. So FOX will make a play for Texas and OU to the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same on behalf of the SEC. Maybe, if the networks compromise (and they won't) the PAC could come into play for the top brands. We'll see.

(01-21-2017 02:14 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I can't help but look at how Rice, who is now finally "getting it" with the potential value of athletics and conference affiliation, is sitting outside of the power structure and not think something fishy isn't going on between the PAC and Big Ten. Yeah, Rice applied to the Big XII and MWC were rejected by both, but, seeing Rice out here now...they kind of remind me of Rutgers during that big wave of expansion at the start of the decade.

Like, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years, both the Big Ten and PAC get to 16, and Rice is among the haul between the two of them, from the remnants of the Big XII whenever that thing falls apart, and the "behind the scenes" story creeps out there that there was this "unspoken understanding" that the Big Ten (who I think will take Rice) wouldn't get to sixteen members until the PAC expanded in turn. Like Rutgers back then, we know they're there, fully available and looking to move. But, there they sit. Like Rutgers, I'm sure once Rice is tapped to join the ranks of the majors again, a great gush of compliments and spin about their value and obvious candidacy will be right there coming out of the mouths of people who could have had these words to say years before, but didn't. For a reason nobody will ever officially comment on.

After the PAC turned down the OU-oSu combo and turned away B1G-PAC, I just stopped caring about the woes of the conference. Seriously, hearing them snivel and complain about media revenue...serves them right. That conference thinks of its expansion like a story, and right now, the book is splayed open to a spot but sitting on the table. It can't move forward without Texas. It's likely, still, that Texas will go that way eventually, and take OU AND OSU with them...but the PAC couldn't and wouldn't take #14 and #15 out of order and ahead to #13. Nobody knows why except for those in the PAC.

There's been so much written about Rice "finally getting it" since the SWC demise over 20 years ago. They choose not to invest in football. They are in an awful spot now in CUSA with start up programs and still won't put money into recruiting or relax their the recruiting standards. It's more likely they drop football. They are waiting to be "rescued" by any of the P5's but the fact is that even the AAC and MWC have denied them. Big 10? Hahaha

Cheers!

(01-21-2017 12:08 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:14 PM)chess Wrote:  Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten

Pac North

Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
California
Stanford
Utah
Colorado

Pac South

Houston
SMU (Dallas)
Texas
New Mexico
Arizona
Arizona State
Southern Cal
UCLA

The Pac prevents Texas, the university, from having too much power by limiting the number of schools in Texas.

Big XII

Connecticut
Temple
Cincinnati
West Virginia
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida

Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Memphis
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

Why would the PAC take SMU over TCU?
Or New Mexico over OSU?

SMU is located in Dallas. Additionally, Texas leaving the Big XII doesn't kill the Big XII. Texas taking TCU could.

When I think of small population states, New Mexico or Oklahoma State- I just made a pick.

I wonder if Mr. Scott doesn't just swing for the fences and sell the PAC12'S network to ESPN or Fox with the understanding that ESPN or Fox would orchestrate the dismantling of the BIGXII.

It may be a little far fetched but if they could convince ESPN to do it they would essentially have programing coast to coast and in one fell swoop cut down Fox at the knees. Plus it would give ESPN a way to put a torch to the LHN

(01-21-2017 04:20 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 02:14 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I can't help but look at how Rice, who is now finally "getting it" with the potential value of athletics and conference affiliation, is sitting outside of the power structure and not think something fishy isn't going on between the PAC and Big Ten. Yeah, Rice applied to the Big XII and MWC were rejected by both, but, seeing Rice out here now...they kind of remind me of Rutgers during that big wave of expansion at the start of the decade.

Like, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years, both the Big Ten and PAC get to 16, and Rice is among the haul between the two of them, from the remnants of the Big XII whenever that thing falls apart, and the "behind the scenes" story creeps out there that there was this "unspoken understanding" that the Big Ten (who I think will take Rice) wouldn't get to sixteen members until the PAC expanded in turn. Like Rutgers back then, we know they're there, fully available and looking to move. But, there they sit. Like Rutgers, I'm sure once Rice is tapped to join the ranks of the majors again, a great gush of compliments and spin about their value and obvious candidacy will be right there coming out of the mouths of people who could have had these words to say years before, but didn't. For a reason nobody will ever officially comment on.

After the PAC turned down the OU-oSu combo and turned away B1G-PAC, I just stopped caring about the woes of the conference. Seriously, hearing them snivel and complain about media revenue...serves them right. That conference thinks of its expansion like a story, and right now, the book is splayed open to a spot but sitting on the table. It can't move forward without Texas. It's likely, still, that Texas will go that way eventually, and take OU AND OSU with them...but the PAC couldn't and wouldn't take #14 and #15 out of order and ahead to #13. Nobody knows why except for those in the PAC.

There's been so much written about Rice "finally getting it" since the SWC demise over 20 years ago. They choose not to invest in football. They are in an awful spot now in CUSA with start up programs and still won't put money into recruiting or relax their the recruiting standards. It's more likely they drop football. They are waiting to be "rescued" by any of the P5's but the fact is that even the AAC and MWC have denied them. Big 10? Hahaha

Cheers!

That short term reality still holds. We (some of us at Rice, anyway) have recognized the barriers and shortcomings of past athletic endeavors and started turning the boat around. It will take some time and we may, or may not succeed.
Cutter's scenario though is every bit as realistic as Rutgers', and as a fan, it is a dream scenario.
I believe that we are getting entrenched for a long-game that will probably take at least as long to yield results as the B12 GOR takes to expire. At that point, we may be poised to jump to B1G, P12, or a new conference formed by UTexas on their own terms with their own bylaws. (Half strong athletic brands, half easy wins, all strong academics. Think: all AAU-level schools not already in the other P4.)

I think Rice may also be working behind the scenes with helping to build the next generation of what college athletics SHOULD be, and by that I mean should be in the eyes of the University Presidents (especially those in P12, B1G, UT, Kansas, etc). That could end up looking radically different from today's power structure.

At the end of the day nothing would surprise me, from Rice going to P12/16 to dropping out of FBS or football altogether.

Billy's right, it's laughable. And Cutter's right, it's quite possible.
Maybe we'll all get a good belly laugh out of all this some day when we get that golden ticket.

(01-21-2017 05:27 PM)chess Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:08 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:14 PM)chess Wrote:  Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten

Pac North

Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
California
Stanford
Utah
Colorado

Pac South

Houston
SMU (Dallas)
Texas
New Mexico
Arizona
Arizona State
Southern Cal
UCLA

The Pac prevents Texas, the university, from having too much power by limiting the number of schools in Texas.

Big XII

Connecticut
Temple
Cincinnati
West Virginia
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida

Iowa State
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Memphis
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

Why would the PAC take SMU over TCU?
Or New Mexico over OSU?

SMU is located in Dallas. Additionally, Texas leaving the Big XII doesn't kill the Big XII. Texas taking TCU could.

When I think of small population states, New Mexico or Oklahoma State- I just made a pick.

TCU has a legit reputation in the West. That combined with baseball and distancing themselves from the bible school label would seem to give TCU a huge advantage.

You gotta get past the population state thing. The days of adding UMass to get all the cable subscribers in the state to pay up are over.

No offence but comparing New Mexico and OSU is pretty ridiculous. New Mexico is barely competitive in the MW and OSU is one of the better programs in the country at this point. OSU averages 2x to 3x the budget of New Mexico as well. New Mexico's AD is probably more similar to Tulsa than OSU. New Mexico does nothing for the PACN.

(01-21-2017 02:14 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I can't help but look at how Rice, who is now finally "getting it" with the potential value of athletics and conference affiliation, is sitting outside of the power structure and not think something fishy isn't going on between the PAC and Big Ten. Yeah, Rice applied to the Big XII and MWC were rejected by both, but, seeing Rice out here now...they kind of remind me of Rutgers during that big wave of expansion at the start of the decade.

Like, I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of years, both the Big Ten and PAC get to 16, and Rice is among the haul between the two of them, from the remnants of the Big XII whenever that thing falls apart, and the "behind the scenes" story creeps out there that there was this "unspoken understanding" that the Big Ten (who I think will take Rice) wouldn't get to sixteen members until the PAC expanded in turn. Like Rutgers back then, we know they're there, fully available and looking to move. But, there they sit. Like Rutgers, I'm sure once Rice is tapped to join the ranks of the majors again, a great gush of compliments and spin about their value and obvious candidacy will be right there coming out of the mouths of people who could have had these words to say years before, but didn't. For a reason nobody will ever officially comment on.

After the PAC turned down the OU-oSu combo and turned away B1G-PAC, I just stopped caring about the woes of the conference. Seriously, hearing them snivel and complain about media revenue...serves them right. That conference thinks of its expansion like a story, and right now, the book is splayed open to a spot but sitting on the table. It can't move forward without Texas. It's likely, still, that Texas will go that way eventually, and take OU AND OSU with them...but the PAC couldn't and wouldn't take #14 and #15 out of order and ahead to #13. Nobody knows why except for those in the PAC.

I could see them being very interesting for the B1G. I would think schools like Nebraska would love to get a game in Houston every other year to help recruit the area and the academics certainly would interest the B1G brass. Plus it would help even out the cupcake games to make up for Rutgers and Maryland in the East.

Another funny scenario would be the PAC adding Houston and Rice. Put one in each division and be at 14 like everyone else.

It's really is amazing that they don't have an insecure billionaire donor who tries to control the AD. They have all sorts of wealthy alumni. Heck they hosted a Super Bowl at one point.

Rice? Really?

(01-21-2017 10:54 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Rice? Really?

Sounds real weird. Tastes real good!

Rice had all sorts of potential to be a Stanford/Duke type program but they have not been serious about FB or athletics in general since the Eisenhower administration and at this point they aren't getting into a P-conference. That saddens me a little to see an old adversary go out like that but they made their bed decades ago.

People who follow realignment are way more overwrought about this than the PAC is.

There are certain truths that apply to PAC expansion.
1) there won't be a compromise on academics. Utah was a tough academic pill to swallow at top 100 global ARWU and top 50 NSF. The only BigXII/Western G5 schools that top that are UT and Rice (ARWU only). Not IsU, KU, OU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, etc. it's not UT or break just because of market/revenue. It's also UT or break with respect to academics.
2) the NW and SW schools won't give up California access. It's not just recruits. It's prospective students and alumni bases.
3) $20M/yr in TV revenue is peanuts compared to the economics of research funding and alumni/prospective student access. The TV contract is simply not that important in the bigger picture.

The PAC would rather have UCSD and Rice than any combo of schools without UT.

The PAC 10 was willing to take Texas, Texas. Tech, ou and ok state. Academics are nice but post Louisville to the acc anything can happen down the road. I could any combo of big 12 schools minus wvu and Baylor end up in a big PAC 12. I don't really see any mwc schools other than unm have a chance though.

FWIW, the bit I feel about Rice isn't centered on where they could/would go, but about the kind of politics and collusion that may be going on between the Big Ten and PAC-12. Rice, to me, resembles Rutgers in that it's a school with so many academic and geographic upsides, but remains unclaimed. It's not that Rice deserves to be anywhere, but we all see the googly eyes these conferences have for Texas inventory. Yes, UT is the chaser...Rice checks some boxes, too, though.

These moves, the planning takes years. The Big Ten's last expansion, Delany said it was prompted by the failure to execute the B1G-PAC arrangement. No surprises; these things are planned. Whether or not Rice is part of te next set of moves, I think the B1G and PAC move together.

(01-22-2017 11:11 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People who follow realignment are way more overwrought about this than the PAC is.

There are certain truths that apply to PAC expansion.
1) there won't be a compromise on academics. Utah was a tough academic pill to swallow at top 100 global ARWU and top 50 NSF. The only BigXII/Western G5 schools that top that are UT and Rice (ARWU only). Not IsU, KU, OU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, etc. it's not UT or break just because of market/revenue. It's also UT or break with respect to academics.
2) the NW and SW schools won't give up California access. It's not just recruits. It's prospective students and alumni bases.
3) $20M/yr in TV revenue is peanuts compared to the economics of research funding and alumni/prospective student access. The TV contract is simply not that important in the bigger picture.

The PAC would rather have UCSD and Rice than any combo of schools without UT.

You lose all credibility with statements like this.

The PAC is hardly the B1G when it comes to academics. I have no doubt there is some importance there but when you look at the finances of the PAC schools and the income potential for the PACN essentially stuck at only a small fraction of what other networks provide they are in a tough situation. Either accept that they will be running AD's with less $ than other p-5's or do something. The PAC is quite poor, even flagships like Cal are very underfunded as an AD. Nobody realizes that ISU and KSU are richer than Colorado, Utah, WSU, and OrST. Little brother schools like OkST are richer than flagship schools like Cal.

The PAC needs schools with fans who will force cable providers to provide PACN or they will switch to another provider who does. That is what they lack. Rice isn't going to give you that nor are they going to get you "in footprint" for anything more than campus in the state of Texas.

So say the Big 12 blows up and the PAC sits at 12 while the other 3 conference pick the pieces they want. Imagine how far behind the PAC would be at that point.

The reality is if OU and KU join they are both the top brands in the entire PAC. OU would be flagship football and KU as flagship BB what does that say about the PAC's strength?

IMO the PAC needs to get in the Central time zone to play some games when half the country isn't sleeping.

(01-22-2017 11:20 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The PAC 10 was willing to take Texas, Texas. Tech, ou and ok state. Academics are nice but post Louisville to the acc anything can happen down the road. I could any combo of big 12 schools minus wvu and Baylor end up in a big PAC 12. I don't really see any mwc schools other than unm have a chance though.

I agree. On a map New Mexico looks good but they are just another MW AD with a budget in the 30's and 40's where even with some TV money is going to be difficult to compete.

No reason to do that when there are AD's with budgets in the 70's - 100+ budget and legitimate fanbases in the central time zone.

Another option might be working with the Big 12 schools for content on the PACN. Fox owns much of that content now and they might even be a player in a deal like that. With PACN having regional channels it certainly makes this a possibility for there to be a PAC Plains channel.

(01-22-2017 09:27 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:11 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People who follow realignment are way more overwrought about this than the PAC is.

There are certain truths that apply to PAC expansion.
1) there won't be a compromise on academics. Utah was a tough academic pill to swallow at top 100 global ARWU and top 50 NSF. The only BigXII/Western G5 schools that top that are UT and Rice (ARWU only). Not IsU, KU, OU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, etc. it's not UT or break just because of market/revenue. It's also UT or break with respect to academics.
2) the NW and SW schools won't give up California access. It's not just recruits. It's prospective students and alumni bases.
3) $20M/yr in TV revenue is peanuts compared to the economics of research funding and alumni/prospective student access. The TV contract is simply not that important in the bigger picture.

The PAC would rather have UCSD and Rice than any combo of schools without UT.

You lose all credibility with statements like this.

The PAC is hardly the B1G when it comes to academics. I have no doubt there is some importance there but when you look at the finances of the PAC schools and the income potential for the PACN essentially stuck at only a small fraction of what other networks provide they are in a tough situation. Either accept that they will be running AD's with less $ than other p-5's or do something. The PAC is quite poor, even flagships like Cal are very underfunded as an AD. Nobody realizes that ISU and KSU are richer than Colorado, Utah, WSU, and OrST. Little brother schools like OkST are richer than flagship schools like Cal.

The PAC needs schools with fans who will force cable providers to provide PACN or they will switch to another provider who does. That is what they lack. Rice isn't going to give you that nor are they going to get you "in footprint" for anything more than campus in the state of Texas.

So say the Big 12 blows up and the PAC sits at 12 while the other 3 conference pick the pieces they want. Imagine how far behind the PAC would be at that point.

The reality is if OU and KU join they are both the top brands in the entire PAC. OU would be flagship football and KU as flagship BB what does that say about the PAC's strength?

IMO the PAC needs to get in the Central time zone to play some games when half the country isn't sleeping.

Poor? How exactly are you defining poor?

Sure, many of the BIGXII schools have bigger athletic budgets but PAC 12 schools are all about research dollars and their academic endowments.

The majority of the PAC12'S schools are very rich!

If and when the PAC decides to expand, one of it's top priorities will be trying to find schools that fit with their research and academic standards.

Thankfully for them the big 3(UT,OU,KU) in the BIGXII all fit the type of research schools their looking for.