from Jon Wilner:
Under Pac-12 bylaws, expansion requires a three-fourths vote of the presidents, meaning eight of the 10 schools would have to approve any new members. (USC and UCLA will not participate in expansion proceedings during their final 18 months in the conference.)
Which schools, if any, might throw a monkey wrench into Curious George's plan?
Will there be an extra cost to keep Oregon and Washington in line?
What might a GoR look like for this agreement?
If Kliavkoff is publicly visiting SDSU and SMU, he probably already has the votes.
The PAC-12 secretly rejected TCU/Houston by an 8-4 vote 18+ months ago, and no one knew until a year later.
How stupid to turn down those two schools. That's where the P(x) really screwed up. I will hate USCLA forever now.
(02-09-2023 08:40 PM)IM Snug Wrote: [ -> ]How stupid to turn down those two schools. That's where the P(x) really screwed up. I will hate USCLA forever now.
Forget TCU/Houston (who would have been great adds) - not being able to nail down Texas/Oklahoma is the biggest miss here.
It’ll be “unanimous” if it happens.
(02-09-2023 08:31 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]from Jon Wilner:
Under Pac-12 bylaws, expansion requires a three-fourths vote of the presidents, meaning eight of the 10 schools would have to approve any new members. (USC and UCLA will not participate in expansion proceedings during their final 18 months in the conference.)
Which schools, if any, might throw a monkey wrench into Curious George's plan?
Will there be an extra cost to keep Oregon and Washington in line?
What might a GoR look like for this agreement?
There won’t be a GOR. Nobody outside the SEC/Big Ten is going to sign one beyond the new Big 12 schools joining the existing GOR which expires in two years, and is separate from the media deal that was extended.
Contracts will be signed based on current members and if anyone leaves the media partners will have the right to review terms, which is pretty standard in the history of conference realignment.
(02-09-2023 08:34 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]If Kliavkoff is publicly visiting SDSU and SMU, he probably already has the votes.
The PAC-12 secretly rejected TCU/Houston by an 8-4 vote 18+ months ago, and no one knew until a year later.
He probably "nearly" has the votes.
There are likely schools on the fence waiting to find out what he comes back with...
Arizona State is a "hell no", meaning they need to go 8-1 with the rest.
I don't think SMU have the votes. They are not even a strong candidate to get in there. They know San Diego State is there, but Boise State is much bmore of a national brand then SMU.
Their academic profile will keep the Broncos out.
(02-09-2023 08:40 PM)IM Snug Wrote: [ -> ]How stupid to turn down those two schools. That's where the P(x) really screwed up. I will hate USCLA forever now.
Many of you folks just dont get it and never will. Whats the point in adding mid-level schools? You needed Texas/OU or Notre Dame. Anything else would have led to the same result playing out now. USC and UCLA still leave and TCU/Houston run back to the Big 12.
(02-10-2023 01:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think SMU have the votes. They are not even a strong candidate to get in there. They know San Diego State is there, but Boise State is much bmore of a national brand then SMU.
Boise State has none chance of even being considered, there is nothing to recruit in Idaho. Fresno State has a better chance, since it has a similar sized fan base but is in California's central valley, with an abundance of athletic and general student recruits.
If Kliavkoff wants a school in Texas, and doesn't care about their actually following (SMU's following roughly equal to UTEP), he should propose Rice. That is a school the Presidents would approve of. If you are going to get a school with no following, but in a major market in Texas, then get one which is on par with the likes of Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern in terms of wealth and academic reputation. They'll suck on the field, but they'll fit right iin institutionally.
(02-10-2023 02:20 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2023 01:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think SMU have the votes. They are not even a strong candidate to get in there. They know San Diego State is there, but Boise State is much bmore of a national brand then SMU.
Boise State has none chance of even being considered, there is nothing to recruit in Idaho. Fresno State has a better chance, since it has a similar sized fan base but is in California's central valley, with an abundance of athletic and general student recruits.
If Kliavkoff wants a school in Texas, and doesn't care about their actually following (SMU's following roughly equal to UTEP), he should propose Rice. That is a school the Presidents would approve of. If you are going to get a school with no following, but in a major market in Texas, then get one which is on par with the likes of Vanderbilt, Duke and Northwestern in terms of wealth and academic reputation. They'll suck on the field, but they'll fit right iin institutionally.
If they go beyond 12, then SDSU/Fresno/SMU/Rice is a good foursome
the votes are in if the Commish is visiting the schools!
If I was a PAC school, I would vote no on SMU without hesitation, no on SDST with maybe a little hesitation.
But at this point, IMO it sure looks like those schools will be invited.
(02-10-2023 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]If I was a PAC school, I would vote no on SMU without hesitation, no on SDST with maybe a little hesitation.
But at this point, IMO it sure looks like those schools will be invited.
SDST to me is the more valuable school among the two of them. Nine out of ten times I take the public.
If you are Zonas and you can move with your eventual conference mate one way or another (SDSU), opening up Texas is a no brainer. Do they mind the BYU connection? Probably not.
I could see the remaining PAC8 going at it alone for even less money, or merging with the ACC.
(02-10-2023 07:35 AM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2023 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]If I was a PAC school, I would vote no on SMU without hesitation, no on SDST with maybe a little hesitation.
But at this point, IMO it sure looks like those schools will be invited.
SDST to me is the more valuable school among the two of them. Nine out of ten times I take the public.
I agree. If the issue was picking one or the other, I think SDST is the better choice.
The Monty Show: The PAC 12 is on tour as Commissioner George Kliavkoff is in Dallas meeting with SMU with an eye to PAC 12 expansion. Does San Diego State have to be included in any PAC 12 expansion to truly make it worth it for TV partners?
Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ZtnrUQ2ww
I’d think California and Stanford are automatic “no” votes with just 1 more “no” needed.