They will get SMU

Singapore Management University

(07-30-2015 05:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  As we all know, the rules that are faithfully followed by every pro-expansion message board poster are:

(1) If a commissioner, school president, athletic director, or coach says that there will be no expansion for the foreseeable future, then he is lying and/or he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

(2) If a commissioner, school president, athletic director, or coach says that there will be expansion very soon, then he is the most informed and best connected guy around and he is totally telling the truth.

So just apply those rules, guys, and carry on as usual.

Well I believe Scott.

Of course that might be because I can look at California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas and see which schools are even PLAUSIBLE as Pac-12 members

The problem here is that Colorado and Utah are automatic no votes in expanding because they don't have a need for the increased competition.

Its just like TCU and Baylor, why would they want to leave the B12 when they are winning there but would be an afterthought in another P5?

The PAC also is almost exclusively limited to West Coast recruiting so it doesn't make sense to go too large because they want to keep the quality of the conference high relative to the MWC. That has always been an issue with the PAC since BYU is a major athletic force out there that is not in the conference. Taking in Utah helped the PAC tremendously giving recruits a PAC option in the intermountain region.

(08-02-2015 12:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem here is that Colorado and Utah are automatic no votes in expanding because they don't have a need for the increased competition.

Its just like TCU and Baylor, why would they want to leave the B12 when they are winning there but would be an afterthought in another P5?

The PAC also is almost exclusively limited to West Coast recruiting so it doesn't make sense to go too large because they want to keep the quality of the conference high relative to the MWC. That has always been an issue with the PAC since BYU is a major athletic force out there that is not in the conference. Taking in Utah helped the PAC tremendously giving recruits a PAC option in the intermountain region.

It's not a "problem" if the PAC doesn't expand, in the first place.

They have most of the biggest schools and most of the college football fan interest within the Pacific and Mountain time zones. They don't need to expand outside those. They're just fine.

(08-02-2015 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem here is that Colorado and Utah are automatic no votes in expanding because they don't have a need for the increased competition.

Its just like TCU and Baylor, why would they want to leave the B12 when they are winning there but would be an afterthought in another P5?

The PAC also is almost exclusively limited to West Coast recruiting so it doesn't make sense to go too large because they want to keep the quality of the conference high relative to the MWC. That has always been an issue with the PAC since BYU is a major athletic force out there that is not in the conference. Taking in Utah helped the PAC tremendously giving recruits a PAC option in the intermountain region.

It's not a "problem" if the PAC doesn't expand, in the first place.

They have most of the biggest schools and most of the college football fan interest within the Pacific and Mountain time zones. They don't need to expand outside those. They're just fine.

Its a problem for those of us who want a 14, 16 or 18 school PAC, IMO.

(08-02-2015 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem here is that Colorado and Utah are automatic no votes in expanding because they don't have a need for the increased competition.

Its just like TCU and Baylor, why would they want to leave the B12 when they are winning there but would be an afterthought in another P5?

The PAC also is almost exclusively limited to West Coast recruiting so it doesn't make sense to go too large because they want to keep the quality of the conference high relative to the MWC. That has always been an issue with the PAC since BYU is a major athletic force out there that is not in the conference. Taking in Utah helped the PAC tremendously giving recruits a PAC option in the intermountain region.

It's not a "problem" if the PAC doesn't expand, in the first place.

They have most of the biggest schools and most of the college football fan interest within the Pacific and Mountain time zones. They don't need to expand outside those. They're just fine.

Its a problem for those of us who want a 14, 16 or 18 school PAC, IMO.

Which schools want into the PAC that aren't already in it and have a reasonable claim to be at that level?

BYU, Boise St, Colorado St?

There's no reason for them to expand into the Central time zone and I don't see any reason for a Central time zone team to want to join the PAC if there were options in the Central and/or Eastern time zones.

(07-30-2015 11:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 05:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 05:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In my personal opinion, the PAC should stick to the Pacific and Mountain time zones. Otherwise, what's the point of calling yourself the PAC conference?

And the Big Ten should have exactly 10 schools and all of them should be in the midwest. Right?

Obviously it doesn't apply to ambiguous conference names, like "Big" and "[number]". The number is especially irrelevant.

But to say you're the "Pacific Conference" and have teams in the Eastern time zone? Or to say you're the "Southeastern Conference" and have teams in the Pacific time zone?

Doesn't make sense.

The PAC was originally named the Athletic Association of Western Universities, so it's just a return to its roots.

(08-02-2015 12:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem here is that Colorado and Utah are automatic no votes in expanding because they don't have a need for the increased competition.

Its just like TCU and Baylor, why would they want to leave the B12 when they are winning there but would be an afterthought in another P5?

The PAC also is almost exclusively limited to West Coast recruiting so it doesn't make sense to go too large because they want to keep the quality of the conference high relative to the MWC. That has always been an issue with the PAC since BYU is a major athletic force out there that is not in the conference. Taking in Utah helped the PAC tremendously giving recruits a PAC option in the intermountain region.

Folks at Colorado and Utah can understand economics just as well as everyone else, it's not complicated stuff. The people that don't make the choices don't have Fanboy mentalities that are all about winning and losing. The people making the decisions are more interested in dollars and cents rather than winning and losing.

(08-02-2015 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem here is that Colorado and Utah are automatic no votes in expanding because they don't have a need for the increased competition.

Its just like TCU and Baylor, why would they want to leave the B12 when they are winning there but would be an afterthought in another P5?

The PAC also is almost exclusively limited to West Coast recruiting so it doesn't make sense to go too large because they want to keep the quality of the conference high relative to the MWC. That has always been an issue with the PAC since BYU is a major athletic force out there that is not in the conference. Taking in Utah helped the PAC tremendously giving recruits a PAC option in the intermountain region.

Folks at Colorado and Utah can understand economics just as well as everyone else, it's not complicated stuff. The people that don't make the choices don't have Fanboy mentalities that are all about winning and losing. The people making the decisions are more interested in dollars and cents rather than winning and losing.

Yes, but it's also never been completely about dollars. Snobbery, arrogance, and elitism are just as important.

(08-02-2015 06:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 06:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem here is that Colorado and Utah are automatic no votes in expanding because they don't have a need for the increased competition.

Its just like TCU and Baylor, why would they want to leave the B12 when they are winning there but would be an afterthought in another P5?

The PAC also is almost exclusively limited to West Coast recruiting so it doesn't make sense to go too large because they want to keep the quality of the conference high relative to the MWC. That has always been an issue with the PAC since BYU is a major athletic force out there that is not in the conference. Taking in Utah helped the PAC tremendously giving recruits a PAC option in the intermountain region.

Folks at Colorado and Utah can understand economics just as well as everyone else, it's not complicated stuff. The people that don't make the choices don't have Fanboy mentalities that are all about winning and losing. The people making the decisions are more interested in dollars and cents rather than winning and losing.

Yes, but it's also never been completely about dollars. Snobbery, arrogance, and elitism are just as important.

*shrug* PAC and B1G schools have earned the right be snobs.

You don't get to join elite academic associations just because you win some football games.

The PAC should stay at 12, but get scheduling agreements with BYU and (newly-independent) Hawaii.

By getting games with BYU and Hawaii, the PAC 12 will increase its quality inventory for FOX and the PAC 12 networks with footprint teams, but without having to directly share any of the $$. It also weakens the MWC competition because you would have both fewer PAC 12 v. MWC games and fewer BYU/Hawaii v. MWC games - because these are replaced by BYU/Hawaii v. PAC 12 games.

At the end of the current bowl contract cycle, add Poinsettia and Hawaii bowls in a scenario that would allow BYU or Hawaii in Poinsettia, Hawaii, or Las Vegas and allow for BYU/Hawaii v. PAC 12 bowl matchups, to occasionally replace the G5 opponent.

(08-03-2015 12:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  The PAC should stay at 12, but get scheduling agreements with BYU and (newly-independent) Hawaii.

By getting games with BYU and Hawaii, the PAC 12 will increase its quality inventory for FOX and the PAC 12 networks with footprint teams, but without having to directly share any of the $$. It also weakens the MWC competition because you would have both fewer PAC 12 v. MWC games and fewer BYU/Hawaii v. MWC games - because these are replaced by BYU/Hawaii v. PAC 12 games.

At the end of the current bowl contract cycle, add Poinsettia and Hawaii bowls in a scenario that would allow BYU or Hawaii in Poinsettia, Hawaii, or Las Vegas and allow for BYU/Hawaii v. PAC 12 bowl matchups, to occasionally replace the G5 opponent.

Great idea!!!
Every PAC team plays in Hawaii every year, but retains all the broadcast rights outside the island. Because of the Hawaii exception, every PAC team gets an extra home game. BYU plays twelve games on the road, and the PAC retains all those broadcast rights as well (BYU is primed for this with the independence given all the road games and the fact that BYU-TV generates no revenue anyway). BYU-TV gets to play replays the next day. Hawaii plays at BYU annually for it's thirteenth game on the mainland (they get 13 games as well as part of the Hawaii exception). This game is played as a lead in to the conference championship game. During the regular season, LaVell Edwards Stadium hosts BigXII member Utah Valley University.

The Big West also wins in this arrangement. an independent Hawaii in fb means they are all but locked up as a full member permanently. They would only leave the Big West for the Pac-12 or the B12

(08-03-2015 12:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  BYU-TV gets to play replays the next day.

This works if the BYU at PAC 12 games are held on Thursday or Friday nights. No way will BYUtv replay the games on Sunday...

as soon as b-12 expands east & pac-12 realizes tex is never joining.
Pac-12 gets Haw & Hous

(08-03-2015 12:48 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The Big West also wins in this arrangement. an independent Hawaii in fb means they are all but locked up as a full member permanently. They would only leave the Big West for the Pac-12 or the B12

I assume from this post that the BW doesn't mind the extra costs and logistics of having all the conferences sports flying to Hawaii?

Seems like it was a California bus league, prior to adding the islands.

(08-03-2015 01:00 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:26 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  BYU-TV gets to play replays the next day.

This works if the BYU at PAC 12 games are held on Thursday or Friday nights. No way will BYUtv replay the games on Sunday...

Fine, you can replay them Saturday night; just make sure the replay is done before the holy ghost falls asleep. :)

Seriously though, I put this in as the extreme version of the independence compromise- Schedule strength and affiliation at the expense of home schedule and potential for winning.

IF the big 12 ever stabilized at 12 with 2 eastern additions, i doubt the pac 12 would have any interest in expanding past 12. In that case, both the big 12 and pac 12 would unite to get the playoffs to expand to 8. Right now it seems the agenda is to carve up the big 12 among the other leagues to get to 4. If you wanted to be somewhat fair and balance things out among school's that could fit into the other leagues, maybe:

Pac 12: OU, OK state, KU, K state
Big 10: Texas and Iowa state
SEC: Texas Tech and WVU
ACC: TCU and Baylor + uconn or cincy to get to 18

I guess if you wanted to be cutthroat, you'd have the acc only add 1 school to get to 16 like the other leagues. The 8 big 12 school's placed into the big 10, pac 12 and SEC would dissolve the big 12 already.

(08-03-2015 01:32 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Pac 12: OU, OK state, KU, K state
Big 10: Texas and Iowa state
SEC: Texas Tech and WVU
ACC: TCU and Baylor + uconn or cincy to get to 18

PAC 12 isn't going to Oklahoma (3.9 million) and Kansas (2.9 million) with four schools and the B1G isn't repeating on Iowa (3.1 million).

I could see this:

Pac 12/or B1G: Texas, Texas Tech, OU, KU
SEC: OK state, K state (or WVU)
AAC: TCU, Baylor, Iowa State, WVU (or OK state/K state)

(08-03-2015 01:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 12:48 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The Big West also wins in this arrangement. an independent Hawaii in fb means they are all but locked up as a full member permanently. They would only leave the Big West for the Pac-12 or the B12

I assume from this post that the BW doesn't mind the extra costs and logistics of having all the conferences sports flying to Hawaii?

Seems like it was a California bus league, prior to adding the islands.

Hawaii is providing $2 million worth of travel subsidies annually ($250k to each member). After Utah State and Idaho left in 2005 the BW was a California bus league until Hawaii re-joined in 2012; they were previously a member in the 80s and 90s in women's sports. Anyone who joins in the future is responsible for their own travel to the Islands. I like the Bows and hope they stay for a long time.

Getting back on track, I'm surprised no one has mentioned UNLV as a Pac-12 target. Las Vegas provides an excellent market and tourist destination, and their basketball tradition is one of the strongest nationally.