“The group met on a Zoom call to go over a 20-slide deck. But the Pac-12 was only about 15 minutes into its hourlong presentation before USC president Carol Folt spoke up.
“Folte told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it”
Et tu Folte?
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...-expansion
(07-29-2022 09:53 PM)ColKurtz Wrote: [ -> ]“The group met on a Zoom call to go over a 20-slide deck. But the Pac-12 was only about 15 minutes into its hourlong presentation before USC president Carol Folt spoke up.
“Folte told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it”
Et tu Folte?
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...-expansion
Doesn't surprise me, USC has always looked out for USC. It will never come out but I wouldn't be surprised at all if their decision to leave the PAC was made the day OUT announced they were going to the SEC.
Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
(07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
I am talking about this last expansion. The Pac have no one but themselves to blame.
(07-29-2022 10:26 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
I am talking about this last expansion. The Pac have no one but themselves to blame.
Domer you are spot on, the PAC has always had no one to blame but themselves.
I'm going to assume it was something like Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and likely another Texas school.
USC wanted to leave the moment the PAC explored adding some B12 leftovers. Good for them.
Zero need for expansion with schools no one else wanted.
(07-29-2022 10:56 PM)PicksUp Wrote: [ -> ]USC wanted to leave the moment the PAC explored adding some B12 leftovers. Good for them.
Zero need for expansion with schools no one else wanted.
If anyone knows about a school no one else wants it’s a UTEP fan.
(07-29-2022 11:14 PM)cottager Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:56 PM)PicksUp Wrote: [ -> ]USC wanted to leave the moment the PAC explored adding some B12 leftovers. Good for them.
Zero need for expansion with schools no one else wanted.
If anyone knows about a school no one else wants it’s a UTEP fan.
Dont change the subject.
(07-29-2022 09:53 PM)ColKurtz Wrote: [ -> ]“The group met on a Zoom call to go over a 20-slide deck. But the Pac-12 was only about 15 minutes into its hourlong presentation before USC president Carol Folt spoke up.
“Folte told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it”
Et tu Folte?
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...-expansion
And the presidents who wanted to discuss expansion suddenly lost their spines? Or perhaps there wasn’t significant interest. In either case, it looks like it was at least a majority of presidents that shut down that discussion.
NJTerp
(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
Didn’t politics prevent Texas and aTm from moving to any conference without Texas Tech and Baylor in the 1990-94 period?
Wasn’t the Big 8 ultimately chosen because they were the only conference that was willing to take Texas Tech and Baylor?
(07-29-2022 10:26 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
I am talking about this last expansion. The Pac have no one but themselves to blame.
Sounds like you think they could have raided the Big 12, but passed up on the opportunity to do so.
Is that your view? If not, what do you think they should have done?
Question: How can you say the PAC schools have no one but themselves to blame when USC was clearly blocking expansion?
If their mistake was not to expand, and if it was USC in particular that stood in the way of expansion, the PAC remainers may not have "themselves" to blame, since it appears that USC is responsible for a share of the blame.
.
Was the expansion with schools like Nevada or SDSU? This is the only website that thinks that expanding with those schools would have been a good idea that would have deterred USC from leaving.
In fact, part of the reason why USCw might have left is because the PAC was considering such an expansion.
I don’t know what the story was with UT, OU and the PAC in 2010 and 2011, but it’s clear that the PAC really fu*ked up there. Two years in a row.
(07-29-2022 11:28 PM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
Didn’t politics prevent Texas and aTm from moving to any conference without Texas Tech and Baylor in the 1990-94 period?
Wasn’t the Big 8 ultimately chosen because they were the only conference that was willing to take Texas Tech and Baylor?
Not in 1990. Tech had power in 1993 and 1994. There were discussions with the Pac about Texas and Texas Tech (while A&M would go to SEC), but the Pac decided they didn't want Texas Tech. Hence the Big 12.
(07-29-2022 10:26 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
I am talking about this last expansion. The Pac have no one but themselves to blame.
Sounds like you think they could have raided the Big 12, but passed up on the opportunity to do so.
Is that your view? If not, what do you think they should have done?
Question: How can you say the PAC schools have no one but themselves to blame when USC was clearly blocking expansion?
If their mistake was not to expand, and if it was USC in particular that stood in the way of expansion, the PAC remainers may not have "themselves" to blame, since it appears that USC is responsible for a share of the blame.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"
The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that 'people get what they deserve' – that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
.
I remember last year Dave Wanstadt saying his sources at FOX were saying there was a plan in place to split up the Big 12.
If I remember correctly, the plan was the Big Ten would take Kansas and Iowa State. ACC would take WV and ??. PAC was going to KSU, Okst, TT and ??. Guess you can say that plan, if it ever was real, clearly fell apart.
(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote: [ -> ]Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.
They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.
IMO, USC got very angry with the Pac-10/12 about its inability to land Texas, and when Texas decided to leave for the SEC, USC decided to pull a "Texas," and go to the B1G. As usual, UCLA was along for the ride.
(07-29-2022 11:42 PM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t know what the story was with UT, OU and the PAC in 2010 and 2011, but it’s clear that the PAC really fu*ked up there. Two years in a row.
The Rumor was the PAC passed on UT and OU because Texas wanted an unequal distribution of funds; the same reason B12 schools with an option bailed.