What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

(03-02-2017 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

Interesting. Not sure, however, that PAC would agree to play TCU/Tech in Olympic sports without Texas itself. Also, I wonder how much the religious nature and recent issues with BYU would negate an otherwise feasible and profitable venture.

I also wonder if that option was taken, if other schools would start trying to create that system. Could OK for instance be SEC-football only?

The other issue with this format is that if ND is any indication, going independent for Olympic sports is not as easy as being independent in football only. Thus this scenario might only work if the Big 12 stopped sponsoring football but sponsored other Olympic sports. That could alleviate travel concerns and help with this theory.

(03-02-2017 10:24 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

Interesting. Not sure, however, that PAC would agree to play TCU/Tech in Olympic sports without Texas itself. Also, I wonder how much the religious nature and recent issues with BYU would negate an otherwise feasible and profitable venture.

I also wonder if that option was taken, if other schools would start trying to create that system. Could OK for instance be SEC-football only?

The other issue with this format is that if ND is any indication, going independent for Olympic sports is not as easy as being independent in football only. Thus this scenario might only work if the Big 12 stopped sponsoring football but sponsored other Olympic sports. That could alleviate travel concerns and help with this theory.

Texas could easily park its minor sports in the WAC or in a reconstituted Big 12. Ditto for B.Y.U..

BTW in the other thread here I do think that a Big 10 raid of the PAC is much more likely than anyone might consider. And in that event the Big 12 could certainly snag a few. Furthermore the resulting economic gap between the Big 10 and everyone else might well lead to an ACC/SEC merger of sorts that would likely start as a scheduling and broadcast agreement. Eventually Texas and Oklahoma would have to think about joining that.

It's far from over unless the PAC lands the brands from the Big 12 and I've already pointed out that's simply not likely. ESPN is the only one that could usher in that stability by gaining a % of the PACN and they are feeling the pinch, though not nearly as overblown as the message boards like to proclaim. I just have my doubts that they would want a piece of the least watched college sports network.

(03-02-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:24 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

Interesting. Not sure, however, that PAC would agree to play TCU/Tech in Olympic sports without Texas itself. Also, I wonder how much the religious nature and recent issues with BYU would negate an otherwise feasible and profitable venture.

I also wonder if that option was taken, if other schools would start trying to create that system. Could OK for instance be SEC-football only?

The other issue with this format is that if ND is any indication, going independent for Olympic sports is not as easy as being independent in football only. Thus this scenario might only work if the Big 12 stopped sponsoring football but sponsored other Olympic sports. That could alleviate travel concerns and help with this theory.

Texas could easily park its minor sports in the WAC or in a reconstituted Big 12. Ditto for B.Y.U..

BTW in the other thread here I do think that a Big 10 raid of the PAC is much more likely than anyone might consider. And in that event the Big 12 could certainly snag a few. Furthermore the resulting economic gap between the Big 10 and everyone else might well lead to an ACC/SEC merger of sorts that would likely start as a scheduling and broadcast agreement. Eventually Texas and Oklahoma would have to think about joining that.

It's far from over unless the PAC lands the brand from the Big 12 and I've already pointed out that's simply not likely. ESPN is the only one that could usher in that stability by gaining a % of the PACN and they are feeling the pinch, though not nearly as overblown as the message boards like to proclaim. I just have my doubts that they would want a piece of the least watched college sports network.

Would Texas' ego really allow it to join the current version of the WAC? I have my doubts. Texas vs UMKC doesn't help Texas much, nor does Texas vs. Texas-Rio Grande. (Also, I'm not sure about the DI rules on this sort of thing unless they were not officially members of the conference just happened to have every sport be an affiliate and claimed independence in name only). On the other hand, the WAC would readily accept them, and they would have very little struggle getting the NCAA bid every single year.

Are you saying that the Big 10 would have to raid the PAC 12 first before any school would go from PAC 12 to Big 12? I would think $10 mil extra dollars a year would be worth considering even otherwise.

(03-02-2017 01:38 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:24 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

Interesting. Not sure, however, that PAC would agree to play TCU/Tech in Olympic sports without Texas itself. Also, I wonder how much the religious nature and recent issues with BYU would negate an otherwise feasible and profitable venture.

I also wonder if that option was taken, if other schools would start trying to create that system. Could OK for instance be SEC-football only?

The other issue with this format is that if ND is any indication, going independent for Olympic sports is not as easy as being independent in football only. Thus this scenario might only work if the Big 12 stopped sponsoring football but sponsored other Olympic sports. That could alleviate travel concerns and help with this theory.

Texas could easily park its minor sports in the WAC or in a reconstituted Big 12. Ditto for B.Y.U..

BTW in the other thread here I do think that a Big 10 raid of the PAC is much more likely than anyone might consider. And in that event the Big 12 could certainly snag a few. Furthermore the resulting economic gap between the Big 10 and everyone else might well lead to an ACC/SEC merger of sorts that would likely start as a scheduling and broadcast agreement. Eventually Texas and Oklahoma would have to think about joining that.

It's far from over unless the PAC lands the brand from the Big 12 and I've already pointed out that's simply not likely. ESPN is the only one that could usher in that stability by gaining a % of the PACN and they are feeling the pinch, though not nearly as overblown as the message boards like to proclaim. I just have my doubts that they would want a piece of the least watched college sports network.

Would Texas' ego really allow it to join the current version of the WAC? I have my doubts. Texas vs UMKC doesn't help Texas much, nor does Texas vs. Texas-Rio Grande. (Also, I'm not sure about the DI rules on this sort of thing unless they were not officially members of the conference just happened to have every sport be an affiliate and claimed independence in name only). On the other hand, the WAC would readily accept them, and they would have very little struggle getting the NCAA bid every single year.

Are you saying that the Big 10 would have to raid the PAC 12 first before any school would go from PAC 12 to Big 12? I would think $10 mil extra dollars a year would be worth considering even otherwise.

A reconstituted Big 12 (OSU, Baylor, possibly Houston, KState, Iowa State, etc.) would be familiar enough.

As to having to wait until the Big 10 made a move? Yes. Why? Right now the Big 12 just looks to be way too unstable, and it is. So the Arizona schools would rather have a guaraneteed 21 - 27 million based upon their projections, than what might prove to be a short lived 36 million. But, if the PAC became destabilized they would jump at the Big 12's offer IMO.

I just don't see the PAC taking BYU under any conditions. Sunday play is probably relevant to their view on some level, but I'm betting the brain trust would rather slit their wrists than associate with a conservative religious school. It's not fair mind you, but that's what it comes down to I think. I don't think they'd consider a football-only option.

If the B1G raids the PAC then I suppose things could get interesting. I'm not sure they could grab anyone other than Colorado though. The geography would be awfully limiting in that regard.

Perhaps this?

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Texas Tech = 18

B1G takes Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State, and UConn = 18

ACC takes Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and Tulane = 18

PAC takes TCU, Houston, Colorado State, Kansas State, and UNLV = 16

Only Big 12 school left out is Baylor.

ESPN keeps the LHN to broadcast the SEC and ACC in Spanish.

(03-02-2017 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

1. If the PAC was on the verge of being torn apart in order to keep up with other P5 revenues, I'm sure more than one University President would call Larry Scott and ask him how much they could make if half the Network were sold to either Fox or ESPN to get the subscription fees they are gambling for. Those stress cracks are starting to show with Cal in the financial hole these days.

2. Your example, the west coast liberals adding three conservative schools and those "keep Austin weird"-os?, is a shotgun wedding if I've ever seen one and still doesn't solve the distribution problem.

Here's a new idea, the SEC brings in OU at #15, and let's OU pick who #16 is from a preapproved list of schools after some vetting. So worst case scenario: Oklahoma State. Best Scenario: Texas. Medium: Kansas or West Virginia or some unknown surprise dark horse. Either way, the B12 drops to nine teams and can decide whether to rebuild or bounce ship thus limiting damages against the SEC.

(03-02-2017 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

Cincinnati is a much better market than West Virginia. It opens Ohio to the ACC and makes the conference contiguous again (just like West Virginia).
It has been explained to me that West Virginia is not a candidate for membership in the ACC, therefore of the two (West Virginia and Cincinnati) only Cincinnati is a possible candidate to join the ACC.
If the ACC is to continue to be the only P conference located in one time zone, I would look for the expansion pair of Notre Dame and Cincinnati. If, however, ESPN chooses not to use Texas to secure a piece of the PACN (or just as likely, the Longhorns refuse to go west) I would be looking for Texas to join the ACC with Notre Dame.

(03-03-2017 02:22 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 02:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  What if ESPN keeps both the LHN and a contract with BYU and what if both affiliate with the PAC for football only with the PAC agreeing to take Texas Tech and T.C.U.?

That tacitly gives the PAC 16 football members with two new brands, but the Cougars would not have to play a CFB on Sunday. All other sports are therefore independent. The PAC gets the gravitas they need to get carriage since they own home games against Texas and BYU. They get the Texas market, and the interest of Mormons everywhere without having to fully integrate a religious school into their conference. B.Y.U. and Texas have a road to the playoffs and it doesn't matter what their other sports do.

The SEC moves to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

The ACC adds West Virginia and Cincinnati and Notre Dame remains independent. If the Irish want to join then the ACC chooses between Cincinnati and West Virginia.

The Big 10 can pick up Kansas and another school.

You can fill in your scenario any way you wish. You get the idea. What about B.Y.U. and Texas to the PAC as football only members?

1. If the PAC was on the verge of being torn apart in order to keep up with other P5 revenues, I'm sure more than one University President would call Larry Scott and ask him how much they could make if half the Network were sold to either Fox or ESPN to get the subscription fees they are gambling for. Those stress cracks are starting to show with Cal in the financial hole these days.

2. Your example, the west coast liberals adding three conservative schools and those "keep Austin weird"-os?, is a shotgun wedding if I've ever seen one and still doesn't solve the distribution problem.

Here's a new idea, the SEC brings in OU at #15, and let's OU pick who #16 is from a preapproved list of schools after some vetting. So worst case scenario: Oklahoma State. Best Scenario: Texas. Medium: Kansas or West Virginia or some unknown surprise dark horse. Either way, the B12 drops to nine teams and can decide whether to rebuild or bounce ship thus limiting damages against the SEC.

I like that approach! I like giving OU limited control over choosing #16 as well.

(03-02-2017 10:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I just don't see the PAC taking BYU under any conditions. Sunday play is probably relevant to their view on some level, but I'm betting the brain trust would rather slit their wrists than associate with a conservative religious school. It's not fair mind you, but that's what it comes down to I think. I don't think they'd consider a football-only option.

In the last 5 seasons, BYU football has played 7 of the PAC 12: Utah (x4), OSU (x2), UCLA (x2), Washington, Washington St., Cal, and Arizona.There are future games scheduled with 9 of the PAC 12: Utah, Arizona, Cal, Washington, WSU, USC, ASU, Stanford, and Oregon. The only PAC school not on either of these lists is Colorado.

There are four PAC schools on 4 out of the next 5 season schedules. Also, BYU played a PAC opponent in the Las Vegas Bowl in 6 straight years before BYU left the MWC. BYU also had bowl contracts with the PAC in 2013 (Kraft Fight Hunger) and 2015 (Las Vegas) and played Washington and Utah.

While I'm not holding my breath for the PAC invite, [EDIT] football only is not a "under no conditions" or "slit the wrists" type of scenario.

FWIW, for BYU men's basketball, since joining the WCC, BYU has played 7 of the PAC 12, including Utah(x5), Stanford(x2), Colorado(x2), USC, UCLA, and Arizona.

BYU already plays in the same men's volleyball conference (MPSF) with UCLA, USC, and Stanford. And BYU already participates in indoor track with the entire PAC 12.

Also, if Texas is orchestrating a move to the PAC, I highly doubt it involves TCU or Baylor, but rather Texas Tech and Houston (along with Oklahoma, OSU and/or Kansas).

(03-06-2017 12:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 10:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I just don't see the PAC taking BYU under any conditions. Sunday play is probably relevant to their view on some level, but I'm betting the brain trust would rather slit their wrists than associate with a conservative religious school. It's not fair mind you, but that's what it comes down to I think. I don't think they'd consider a football-only option.

In the last 5 seasons, BYU football has played 7 of the PAC 12: Utah (x4), OSU (x2), UCLA (x2), Washington, Washington St., Cal, and Arizona.There are future games scheduled with 9 of the PAC 12: Utah, Arizona, Cal, Washington, WSU, USC, ASU, Stanford, and Oregon. The only PAC school not on either of these lists is Colorado.

There are four PAC schools on 4 out of the next 5 season schedules. Also, BYU played a PAC opponent in the Las Vegas Bowl in 6 straight years before BYU left the MWC. BYU also had bowl contracts with the PAC in 2013 (Kraft Fight Hunger) and 2015 (Las Vegas) and played Washington and Utah.

While I'm not holding my breath for the PAC invite, [EDIT] football only is not a "under no conditions" or "slit the wrists" type of scenario.

FWIW, for BYU men's basketball, since joining the WCC, BYU has played 7 of the PAC 12, including Utah(x5), Stanford(x2), Colorado(x2), USC, UCLA, and Arizona.

BYU already plays in the same men's volleyball conference (MPSF) with UCLA, USC, and Stanford. And BYU already participates in indoor track with the entire PAC 12.

Also, if Texas is orchestrating a move to the PAC, I highly doubt it involves TCU or Baylor, but rather Texas Tech and Houston (along with Oklahoma, OSU and/or Kansas).

I get that, but it's a huge leap from playing a school to partnering with them.

I'm not knocking BYU at all. I'm saying if the PAC brain trust weren't so snobbish they would have picked BYU over Utah in a heartbeat. I can't see a reason for them to do that unless they simply have a bias.