Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
Author Message
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,097
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 01:14 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  I'd say the ability to host a CCG was a compelling reason to move from 10 to 12. And getting the ball rolling with CU first in order to try to lure Texas + friends while blocking Baylor also made a ton of sense. The move to 14, however, would force the Pac to make some very difficult decisions about its internal alignment because there are only so many games in CA to go around and the four CA schools insist on always playing each other. 14 is much less compelling unless the two additions are Texas and Texas A&M.

The blocking Baylor thing needs to go away. Only in a solipsistic BigXII-centric mindset was this the reason for inviting CU first. CU accepted its formal invitation early because CU and UT were the only schools with invitations that were not contingent on other schools accepting/declining. The PAC presidents had signed off on two expansion options:

PAC-12 with CU and UU.
PAC16 with CU plus UT, TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M^.

As soon as the PAC voted to expand to at least 12, CU had an actionable offer (Utah had obviously already agreed to the terms of either PAC12 or PAC16 membership should it be offered).

TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M invites were contingent on UT joining.

*Scott tried to swap KU in for OKSU at the last minute. This was confirmed to be the reason for his impromptu visit planned to KU.

^A&M was always believed to be headed to the SEC. Utah's invite to the PAC16 was contingent on A&M going to the SEC.

Baylor was never a consideration.
07-07-2017 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I recall reading that it was thought that Baylor was trying to work backdoor politics to be included, as it had done before with the Big 12 itself.

No idea if that is true, just message board posts.
07-07-2017 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GiveEmTheAxe Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 292
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Stanford
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I think of the CU invitation, free of contingencies, as a Baylor-blocking move because it would have prevented a counter-offer of the Pac absorbing the entire BigXII South to reach 16. But yes, we did actually want CU on its own merits too.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2017 02:50 PM by GiveEmTheAxe.)
07-07-2017 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 8,122
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 315
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #24
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 02:15 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 01:14 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  I'd say the ability to host a CCG was a compelling reason to move from 10 to 12. And getting the ball rolling with CU first in order to try to lure Texas + friends while blocking Baylor also made a ton of sense. The move to 14, however, would force the Pac to make some very difficult decisions about its internal alignment because there are only so many games in CA to go around and the four CA schools insist on always playing each other. 14 is much less compelling unless the two additions are Texas and Texas A&M.

The blocking Baylor thing needs to go away. Only in a solipsistic BigXII-centric mindset was this the reason for inviting CU first. CU accepted its formal invitation early because CU and UT were the only schools with invitations that were not contingent on other schools accepting/declining. The PAC presidents had signed off on two expansion options:

PAC-12 with CU and UU.
PAC16 with CU plus UT, TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M^.

As soon as the PAC voted to expand to at least 12, CU had an actionable offer (Utah had obviously already agreed to the terms of either PAC12 or PAC16 membership should it be offered).

TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M invites were contingent on UT joining.

*Scott tried to swap KU in for OKSU at the last minute. This was confirmed to be the reason for his impromptu visit planned to KU.

^A&M was always believed to be headed to the SEC. Utah's invite to the PAC16 was contingent on A&M going to the SEC.

Baylor was never a consideration.

I know we will go round in circles about this but go back and read the articles about the proposed PAC 16 before the invites came out in June, 2010, and Utah WAS NOT in the 6. The 6 were: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Colorado. When A&M and UT hesitated, Utah was quickly invited. Had those 6 all accepted, Utah would've been snubbed. The MWC would still have Utah & BYU probably...or maybe Utah goes to the Big 12. But Utah was an A&M hesitation away from not being in the PAC 16.
07-07-2017 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,535
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 65
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I think you guys are saying the same thing:

UT = Texas
UU = Utah

jrj84105's point is that Utah was ahead of Baylor....or, more to point, that Baylor wasn't really even on the PAC's radar.
07-07-2017 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 417
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #26
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 04:26 PM)YNot Wrote:  I think you guys are saying the same thing:

UT = Texas
UU = Utah

jrj84105's point is that Utah was ahead of Baylor....or, more to point, that Baylor wasn't really even on the PAC's radar.

And "UT" can also mean Tennessee. College abbreviations can be very frustrating.... 03-banghead
07-07-2017 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,521
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #27
Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
Texas and Oklahoma ain't leaving the big 12
At this point Iam thinking realignment in 2025 will not be so huge, only a few teams will move
07-07-2017 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,097
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
So much of the false narrative came from Chip Brown trying (successfully) to paint UT as the good guy.

The first mischaracterization was that greedy Larry Scott looked to kill the BigXII. Larry Scott was hired in 03/09 and had already identified Utah and Colorado as PAC expansion targets by April 2009. Utah didn't have the votes (mix of academic concerns and divisional alignment concerns), but Scott was working on it when UT approached Scott and pitched the PAC16 concept. A&M was pitched by UT as #16, but A&M pres Loftin pretty unequivocally stated that A&M never reciprocated that interest. But they remained in the public eye as #16 at the behest of UT.

Likewise, Baylor wasn't blocked from the PAC16 by intolerant Cal preemptively inviting Colorado. Baylor was blocked from a PAC16 invite because neither the PAC nor OU, OSU, UT, TTU, A&M, nor the media partners wanted them. But it's much easier to just place the blame on those intolerant Cal lefty pinkos.

UT didn't back out because A&M bailed on the PAC last minute. A&M just affirmed the position they had held from the onset. Scott wasn't caught by surprise because he'd been working on the assumption of Utah as #16 from the beginning. In fact, winning PAC president approval for Utah as either 12 or 16 is what allowed Scott to extend Colorado a formal invite as expansion in some form was a done deal. An agreement had been reached on 11-12 with 12 pending A&M declining as expected.

But then UT killed the PAC16 by its 11th hour questioning of the equal revenue sharing and demanding its own network. There was a moment where the PAC tried to land KU instead of OSU (Chip framing it as greed on the part of the PAC12), but I suspect that this was probably at the prompting of UT (another way to scuttle the PAC deal and make somebody other than themselves look like the culprit).

"And now Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas."

Chip's post-mortem on PAC expansion has some truth behind all the spin that is superimposed to make UT look good. One part that I know was true from the Utah side of things was this:
"If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add Utah."

Anyway, UT succeeded not only in getting a sweet Tv deal that permanently hobbled the BigXII conference and killed the PACN's chance at long term viability, but also did it all in a way where they wrote an almost completely false narrative that paints everyone but themselves in a poor light.
07-07-2017 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 1,869
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #29
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 02:51 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 08:36 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 11:42 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Then Texas could trick out its home schedule with Notre Dame, Tennessee, Penn State a bunch of other programs who are no longer in it for the standings.

Wait, what?

They are programs where the supporters are showing up for the institution more so than the product at this point.

There was a time when Penn State was an outsider playing in a 50,000 seater with a chip on its shoulder where it was a fight every week for respect in the rankings.

Now it's just a mega huge program that plays decent football against top flight competition. Championship hunger is no longer there. Fans accept the glory days are in the past but show up because the football is a major event.

It's like these classic names that have raised admission standards which give them the effective talent level of a Northwestern. A Top 10 finish becomes a high water mark when the Alabama's and Ohio State's are laser focused on a national title.

Florida State I feel while past it's peak still has that championship hunger to try and sign the nation's top recruiting class. They'll never take a Northwestern mindset to recruiting.

I was mostly with you until the bold. If you think Penn State isn't trying to win a championship then you must not be paying attention. Penn State fought tooth and nail to avoid any penalties in the Jerry Sandusky decision and have been playing handicapped with the sanctions against them but still was above .500 and made bowls once eligible again. They fought like crazy to be in the playoffs last year instead of Ohio State, who PSU beat.

Florida State won a national championship a couple years ago and you say they aren't trying? I wish Penn State and Liberty would accidentally win a couple! I just can't buy Tennessee or Notre Dame not trying either.
07-07-2017 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I was under the impression that Colorado had a standing Pac 10 invite back in 94 when the Big 8 took in the Texahoma 4, but that Colorado was not really ready to pull the trigger on that offer.

I also can't see where Stanford and Oregon would be accepting of Baylor although maybe not as strident at Cal.

Texas of course would have a standing offer in the Pac, B10, SEC, and ACC.

I would think keeping Baylor away would be always be in the back of any conference's mind. Baylor has had serious issues for decades, the bad stuff recently is not new for Baylor.

Without doubting for a minute that Texas would pull almost anything to further their interests and shot down the move to the P16 for their own benefit, the only three things that UT has not shown the ability to fully control is:

1. A Republican Governor
2. TAMU, and
3. Baylor Politics

Given the political climate in Texas over the past 20 years, the last thing Texas needs is to show their bloody hands regarding cutting Baylor's throat, therefor anything to blame it on anyone else.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2017 09:19 PM by lumberpack4.)
07-07-2017 09:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.