I'd love UCSD and Rice. Credibility is overrated anyway.

(01-22-2017 10:24 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:27 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:11 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People who follow realignment are way more overwrought about this than the PAC is.

There are certain truths that apply to PAC expansion.
1) there won't be a compromise on academics. Utah was a tough academic pill to swallow at top 100 global ARWU and top 50 NSF. The only BigXII/Western G5 schools that top that are UT and Rice (ARWU only). Not IsU, KU, OU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, etc. it's not UT or break just because of market/revenue. It's also UT or break with respect to academics.
2) the NW and SW schools won't give up California access. It's not just recruits. It's prospective students and alumni bases.
3) $20M/yr in TV revenue is peanuts compared to the economics of research funding and alumni/prospective student access. The TV contract is simply not that important in the bigger picture.

The PAC would rather have UCSD and Rice than any combo of schools without UT.

You lose all credibility with statements like this.

The PAC is hardly the B1G when it comes to academics. I have no doubt there is some importance there but when you look at the finances of the PAC schools and the income potential for the PACN essentially stuck at only a small fraction of what other networks provide they are in a tough situation. Either accept that they will be running AD's with less $ than other p-5's or do something. The PAC is quite poor, even flagships like Cal are very underfunded as an AD. Nobody realizes that ISU and KSU are richer than Colorado, Utah, WSU, and OrST. Little brother schools like OkST are richer than flagship schools like Cal.

The PAC needs schools with fans who will force cable providers to provide PACN or they will switch to another provider who does. That is what they lack. Rice isn't going to give you that nor are they going to get you "in footprint" for anything more than campus in the state of Texas.

So say the Big 12 blows up and the PAC sits at 12 while the other 3 conference pick the pieces they want. Imagine how far behind the PAC would be at that point.

The reality is if OU and KU join they are both the top brands in the entire PAC. OU would be flagship football and KU as flagship BB what does that say about the PAC's strength?

IMO the PAC needs to get in the Central time zone to play some games when half the country isn't sleeping.

Poor? How exactly are you defining poor?

Sure, many of the BIGXII schools have bigger athletic budgets but PAC 12 schools are all about research dollars and their academic endowments.

The majority of the PAC12'S schools are very rich!

If and when the PAC decides to expand, one of it's top priorities will be trying to find schools that fit with their research and academic standards.

Thankfully for them the big 3(UT,OU,KU) in the BIGXII all fit the type of research schools their looking for.

If this was about endowments and research Rice wouldn't be in C-USA. REalignment is really not about academics, in fact both the B1G and ACC have taken academic outliers during realignment. Schools like WSU are just not that great academically so it's' not hard to imagine Big 12 schools being added.

This is about athletic budgets. The PAC schools require much higher subsidy to operate and even then are quite poor looking at the budgets compared to the Big 12. Most PAC schools require over 10% subsidy while none of the Big 12 schools do.

Research and Academics won't' fix the network.

I see no reasonable scenario where UT ends up in the PAC. In any realignment fantasy we need to keep in mind that this Big 12 breakup would be due to UT not working with OU. Therefore any scenario where OU and UT go to the same conference is unlikely IMO. Boren will come out and say he tried but UT would not budge on expansion or a network. This has put OU at a disadvantage and the Sooners will be looking for a better situation at the end of the GOR. All hell breaks loose again and everyone is scrambling to find a spot.

UT is owned by ESPN via LHN so they will likely protect thier investment by placing them in the ACC with a few friends before letting them leave for the PAC.

Another thing to keep in mind is we know that the Big 12 met with the Pac 12 last fall to discuss a scheduling alliance to strengthen SOS. I'm sure they discussed more than just that.

But all three of those might demand a passenger.

Kansas leaving KSU behind is one thing, and KU has said they can move unattached, but OU and UT are bringing friends. That's the baggage slowing it all down. PAC wasn't thrilled with the Oklahoma duo. Yeah, maybe Texas makes much of it okay, but, I think the quartet of Texas, Tech, OU, and State might not be fully embraced.

It's not hard to talk down Rice for what they don't bring to the table, but, believe me, both the Big Ten and PAC would pray, and maybe even suggest or request, that the partner Texas brings with them is that tiny Ivy-lite in Houston.

I think Texas should be able to move without bringing others, like Aggie was able to do, but even if so, the "dream trio" of UT-OU-KU isn't happening as is for anyone. And, even if there was a fourth that had to be brought along, it wouldn't be shooting the moon with ISU, either.

How the PAC just couldn't take OU and OSU makes me think, despite the PAC almost twice having Texas nearly with them, PAC wasn't going to get them. But, the Big Ten isn't an enemy...would it legitimize that maybe the Texas-ACC arrangement was very much a real thing and close to reality?

(01-22-2017 11:20 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The PAC 10 was willing to take Texas, Texas. Tech, ou and ok state. Academics are nice but post Louisville to the acc anything can happen down the road. I could any combo of big 12 schools minus wvu and Baylor end up in a big PAC 12. I don't really see any mwc schools other than unm have a chance though.

The ACC backfilled. The SEC, B1G, and PAC expanded proactively, and proactive expansion was driven by academics and research. Out of those proactive acquisitions, Maryland, Rutgers, A&M, Missouri, Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska all but Utah and Nebraska are AAU and all but Mizzou and Nebraska are Top 100 ARWU. The PAC could pull a L'ville if they were raided and backfilling, but the PAC isn't getting raided.

I was being a little hyperbolic with Rice and UCSD, but people who point to the Texahoma4 and forget about the OU/OkSU package are going off on crazier tangents.
There are some easy categories for PAC expansion targets
In and can bring some friends
Texas

In on own merits, but no plus one
Oklahoma
Kansas
Missouri

Did Texas say you could come?
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State
Iowa State
Kansas State

G5 with a Lloyd Christmas chance
Hawaii
New Mexico
Colorado St
Houston
Rice

Sorry, not interested
Baylor
TCU
SDSU
FrSU
BYU
Boise

(01-22-2017 10:49 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Most PAC schools require over 10% subsidy while none of the Big 12 schools do.

Research and Academics won't' fix the network.

Read statement 1. Read statement 2. Ponder.

I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

(01-23-2017 12:53 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

jrj, curious for a utes perspective

Do you think UU would find TX recruiting a fair exchange for southern cal recruiting or is SOCAL more important for other reasons like student recruiting?

(01-24-2017 11:19 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  jrj, curious for a utes perspective

Do you think UU would find TX recruiting a fair exchange for southern cal recruiting or is SOCAL more important for other reasons like student recruiting?

It's a good question regarding any of the schools in the mountain and plains states. Colorado looked to California to fill its sidelines, while Colorado State was willing to go east, despite having California schools within its conference.

(01-24-2017 11:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:53 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

I don't think research budgets will be the determining factor on any conference's expansion. Regardless, TCU's should jump considerably when our new medical school opens in August of 2019.

(01-22-2017 10:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  But all three of those might demand a passenger.

Kansas leaving KSU behind is one thing, and KU has said they can move unattached, but OU and UT are bringing friends. That's the baggage slowing it all down. PAC wasn't thrilled with the Oklahoma duo. Yeah, maybe Texas makes much of it okay, but, I think the quartet of Texas, Tech, OU, and State might not be fully embraced.

It's not hard to talk down Rice for what they don't bring to the table, but, believe me, both the Big Ten and PAC would pray, and maybe even suggest or request, that the partner Texas brings with them is that tiny Ivy-lite in Houston.

I think Texas should be able to move without bringing others, like Aggie was able to do, but even if so, the "dream trio" of UT-OU-KU isn't happening as is for anyone. And, even if there was a fourth that had to be brought along, it wouldn't be shooting the moon with ISU, either.

How the PAC just couldn't take OU and OSU makes me think, despite the PAC almost twice having Texas nearly with them, PAC wasn't going to get them. But, the Big Ten isn't an enemy...would it legitimize that maybe the Texas-ACC arrangement was very much a real thing and close to reality?

There is absolutely no way the PAC would turn down OU, OSU, UT, TT IMO. No Way. But again you keep forgetting that for the BIg 12 to break up the OU/UT relationship will have just gone through a divorce so any scenario where they both go the same direction is unlikely.

Rice is great but I think they only make sense in certain situations, specifically the B1G. The B1G doesn't need to worry about the perception of a small school or a non athletic school. They have plenty of those already.

I personally think the PAC will be adding 6 to keep existing divisions the same. Colorado likely does not want to be in a Texoma division and neither do any of the existing members. I think you see 6 central time zone schools added. The 5 old Big 8 schools and either TT or TCU. I tend to lean toward TCU as they would make travel a breeze and have credibility in the West already. Plus they are private so they can make decisions like this without the political fallout public institutions face. For Oly sports simply fly to DFW and play TCU, bus ride to Norman, Bus ride to Stillwater, and fly back to Dallas and on to the West Coast. Instantly you make North Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, part of Missouri, and Iowa in footprint for PACN and Dish is forced to pick up the channel or lose those subscribers. That would be a game changer for the PACN and fix many of the current problems the PAC and the 6 Big 12 members are dealing with.

(01-24-2017 11:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:53 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

Kind of lost in the decision to allow the Big XII to hold a CCG with 10 members was the concurrent decision to not allow conferences to make their own rules regarding divisions and selection of CCG participants. IMO, that decision may have quashed further realignment within the P5 conferences.

Three of those five conferences now have 14 members. The ACC appears to have been isolated in their desire to pursue alignment models (like pods) that didn't require balanced divisions with a full divisional round robin. Once the Big XII got the CCG it wanted, the ACC had no allies in their quest.

With the current rules in place, expansion to 16 teams becomes less attractive for those three conferences, which might otherwise have vied for a few of the more desirable Big XII schools. It also makes it harder for the PAC to expand into Texas to enhance its network, since they would probably need to add four schools from that region in order to attract any of them. And if a PAC 16 were to try to align with the 8 coastal schools all in the same division as part of an expansion, they probably wouldn't be able to find a ninth vote from among the other four existing members.

So the Big XII didn't just gets its CCG, they got significant immunization from poachers. That tells me the P5 wants to stay at five, and the networks do too.

Where does that leave the PAC? At the status quo for the foreseeable future, at least membership wise. What remains is the possibility of seeking a business arrangement with the Big XII to expand the network that the PAC owns into the only P5 region that doesn't yet have one.

(01-24-2017 11:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:53 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

3 divisions of 6 teams and the 2 highest rated division champs play in the CCG.

Absolutely incorrect. Put an OU FB game and a KU BB game on that network along with any ISU FB, BB or WBB game and you will get carried in the Central Time Zone. Fans at those schools in those sports are as crazy as it gets as far as support. They will do whatever it takes to watch their team play.

The PAC has expanded recently and whon interest in expanding beyond 12 like other conference have. The best candidates are in the Big 12. This is hardly made up fantasy.

The PAC is not in a strong position right now with a perceived lack of competitiveness in major sports and a network that has failed to meet even the lowest financial estimates due to not even being carried by major cable carriers. The network is a disaster with no reason to thing it improves until they can force Dish to pay up. Rice and SDSU do not do that in any way. You need rabid fanbases.

The PAC schools are relying more on taxpayers to operate AD's than any other p-5 and even flagships like Cal are flat broke trying to keep up in the facilities race. TV ratings are down compared to everyone else becasue half the country is sleeping when they play and being on FS1 has cost them TV ratings. Football was a disaster with both division champs getting dismantled by better, faster, more athletic football programs with more $, and better facilities. Basketball is a dumpster fire with likely MW level participation in the NCAA tournament.

(01-24-2017 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 11:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:53 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

Kind of lost in the decision to allow the Big XII to hold a CCG with 10 members was the concurrent decision to not allow conferences to make their own rules regarding divisions and selection of CCG participants. IMO, that decision may have quashed further realignment within the P5 conferences.

Three of those five conferences now have 14 members. The ACC appears to have been isolated in their desire to pursue alignment models (like pods) that didn't require balanced divisions with a full divisional round robin. Once the Big XII got the CCG it wanted, the ACC had no allies in their quest.

With the current rules in place, expansion to 16 teams becomes less attractive for those three conferences, which might otherwise have vied for a few of the more desirable Big XII schools. It also makes it harder for the PAC to expand into Texas to enhance its network, since they would probably need to add four schools from that region in order to attract any of them. And if a PAC 16 were to try to align with the 8 coastal schools all in the same division as part of an expansion, they probably wouldn't be able to find a ninth vote from among the other four existing members.

So the Big XII didn't just gets its CCG, they got significant immunization from poachers. That tells me the P5 wants to stay at five, and the networks do too.

Where does that leave the PAC? At the status quo for the foreseeable future, at least membership wise. What remains is the possibility of seeking a business arrangement with the Big XII to expand the network that the PAC owns into the only P5 region that doesn't yet have one.

Umm the Big 12 is able to choose if they wanted divisions and choose who they picked which teams play in the CCG. You might want to go back and look at this. Essentially the Big 12 was able to choose how they determined who played in the CCG. IMO that opens the door for realignment and options for conference to look at alternative setups.

The ACC has 14.9 members so in reality there are only 2 conferences with 14 members. 10, 12, 14, 14, 14.9. 14 is not ideal and not the goal anyone was looking for IMO.

I believe the Big 12 and PAC talked about more than just a scheduling alliance when they spoke last football season.

(01-24-2017 12:59 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 11:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:53 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

Kind of lost in the decision to allow the Big XII to hold a CCG with 10 members was the concurrent decision to not allow conferences to make their own rules regarding divisions and selection of CCG participants. IMO, that decision may have quashed further realignment within the P5 conferences.

Three of those five conferences now have 14 members. The ACC appears to have been isolated in their desire to pursue alignment models (like pods) that didn't require balanced divisions with a full divisional round robin. Once the Big XII got the CCG it wanted, the ACC had no allies in their quest.

With the current rules in place, expansion to 16 teams becomes less attractive for those three conferences, which might otherwise have vied for a few of the more desirable Big XII schools. It also makes it harder for the PAC to expand into Texas to enhance its network, since they would probably need to add four schools from that region in order to attract any of them. And if a PAC 16 were to try to align with the 8 coastal schools all in the same division as part of an expansion, they probably wouldn't be able to find a ninth vote from among the other four existing members.

So the Big XII didn't just gets its CCG, they got significant immunization from poachers. That tells me the P5 wants to stay at five, and the networks do too.

Where does that leave the PAC? At the status quo for the foreseeable future, at least membership wise. What remains is the possibility of seeking a business arrangement with the Big XII to expand the network that the PAC owns into the only P5 region that doesn't yet have one.

Umm the Big 12 is able to choose if they wanted divisions and choose who they picked which teams play in the CCG. You might want to go back and look at this. Essentially the Big 12 was able to choose how they determined who played in the CCG. IMO that opens the door for realignment and options for conference to look at alternative setups.

The ACC has 14.9 members so in reality there are only 2 conferences with 14 members. 10, 12, 14, 14, 14.9. 14 is not ideal and not the goal anyone was looking for IMO.

I believe the Big 12 and PAC talked about more than just a scheduling alliance when they spoke last football season.

Maybe you should be the one going back and looking at what options the Big XII was given. No doors were opened by these decisions.

While 14 may not be the goal anyone was looking for, I have no knowledge that anyone had any different goal, or that the three who ended up with 14 are satisfied with what they have. The only thing we can be sure of is that the P5, which could have agreed to allow more than 2 divisions, explicitly chose not to allow it.

(01-24-2017 12:43 PM)p23570 Wrote:  There is absolutely no way the PAC would turn down OU, OSU, UT, TT IMO. No Way. But again you keep forgetting that for the BIg 12 to break up the OU/UT relationship will have just gone through a divorce so any scenario where they both go the same direction is unlikely.

I don't know, though. Is Texas enough to bring three other schools the PAC wouldn't take? And, let's not sugar-coat it...the PAC turned down Oklahoma. Who cares if State was with them...if OU is a "chaser," or as much as we think they are, they'd be in that conference.

When it really comes down to it, I think B1G-PAC will eventually happen, and Rice will be a part of it on one of the sides. Heavily pushed and driven by the Big Ten, I doubt USC and Stanford stall the darn thing for good. And, both conferences want to be in Texas. I doubt one gets to it and the other twiddles its thumbs. The Big Ten wanted both Texas and A&M...again, I doubt they take just nothing.

(01-22-2017 10:49 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 10:24 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:27 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 11:11 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  People who follow realignment are way more overwrought about this than the PAC is.

There are certain truths that apply to PAC expansion.
1) there won't be a compromise on academics. Utah was a tough academic pill to swallow at top 100 global ARWU and top 50 NSF. The only BigXII/Western G5 schools that top that are UT and Rice (ARWU only). Not IsU, KU, OU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, etc. it's not UT or break just because of market/revenue. It's also UT or break with respect to academics.
2) the NW and SW schools won't give up California access. It's not just recruits. It's prospective students and alumni bases.
3) $20M/yr in TV revenue is peanuts compared to the economics of research funding and alumni/prospective student access. The TV contract is simply not that important in the bigger picture.

The PAC would rather have UCSD and Rice than any combo of schools without UT.

You lose all credibility with statements like this.

The PAC is hardly the B1G when it comes to academics. I have no doubt there is some importance there but when you look at the finances of the PAC schools and the income potential for the PACN essentially stuck at only a small fraction of what other networks provide they are in a tough situation. Either accept that they will be running AD's with less $ than other p-5's or do something. The PAC is quite poor, even flagships like Cal are very underfunded as an AD. Nobody realizes that ISU and KSU are richer than Colorado, Utah, WSU, and OrST. Little brother schools like OkST are richer than flagship schools like Cal.

The PAC needs schools with fans who will force cable providers to provide PACN or they will switch to another provider who does. That is what they lack. Rice isn't going to give you that nor are they going to get you "in footprint" for anything more than campus in the state of Texas.

So say the Big 12 blows up and the PAC sits at 12 while the other 3 conference pick the pieces they want. Imagine how far behind the PAC would be at that point.

The reality is if OU and KU join they are both the top brands in the entire PAC. OU would be flagship football and KU as flagship BB what does that say about the PAC's strength?

IMO the PAC needs to get in the Central time zone to play some games when half the country isn't sleeping.

Poor? How exactly are you defining poor?

Sure, many of the BIGXII schools have bigger athletic budgets but PAC 12 schools are all about research dollars and their academic endowments.

The majority of the PAC12'S schools are very rich!

If and when the PAC decides to expand, one of it's top priorities will be trying to find schools that fit with their research and academic standards.

Thankfully for them the big 3(UT,OU,KU) in the BIGXII all fit the type of research schools their looking for.

If this was about endowments and research Rice wouldn't be in C-USA. REalignment is really not about academics, in fact both the B1G and ACC have taken academic outliers during realignment. Schools like WSU are just not that great academically so it's' not hard to imagine Big 12 schools being added.

This is about athletic budgets. The PAC schools require much higher subsidy to operate and even then are quite poor looking at the budgets compared to the Big 12. Most PAC schools require over 10% subsidy while none of the Big 12 schools do.

Research and Academics won't' fix the network.

I see no reasonable scenario where UT ends up in the PAC. In any realignment fantasy we need to keep in mind that this Big 12 breakup would be due to UT not working with OU. Therefore any scenario where OU and UT go to the same conference is unlikely IMO. Boren will come out and say he tried but UT would not budge on expansion or a network. This has put OU at a disadvantage and the Sooners will be looking for a better situation at the end of the GOR. All hell breaks loose again and everyone is scrambling to find a spot.

UT is owned by ESPN via LHN so they will likely protect thier investment by placing them in the ACC with a few friends before letting them leave for the PAC.

Another thing to keep in mind is we know that the Big 12 met with the Pac 12 last fall to discuss a scheduling alliance to strengthen SOS. I'm sure they discussed more than just that.

I don't really see why Texas would want to move to the ACC.

(01-24-2017 03:08 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  I don't really see why Texas would want to move to the ACC.

I don't see why Texas would want to move anywhere. They are right where they belong.

(01-24-2017 02:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:59 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 12:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 11:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 12:53 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac12 change their tune about ou and ok state now if they were willing to join. TCU isn't a bad outpost for the PAC 12 or acc given thier athletic success and easy access to an airport if other Texas options are off the table...maybe nd would want 1 Texas location if it joined the acc as team 15. I think the thing with the PAC 12 regarding central time zone expansion is given the geography they need to expand to at least 18, 3 pods of 6 or 2 divisions of 9 with the old PAC 8 schools + asu in 1 division. I don't think rice is viable as a p4 member best hope for them is aac

If the PAC changed their mind and wanted OU and OSU, then OU and OSU would be in the PAC right now. TCU has the lowest research budget in all of the P5, lower than most of the sunbelt, and less than 1% of the mean PAC-12 research budget. They are not a PAC-12 type school.

18? The NCAA has no allowance for a postseason semifinal, so I don't know how pods work under the current NCAA rules. PAC expansion to 18 with AZ, CU, and UU locked out of CA gets a no from those three schools and a no from Stanford and Cal who are big sticklers for academics. Also, the PAC network doesn't get carried in the CTZ without UT.

This is all a fantasy propagated by people who seem to think the PAC is a made for TV conference that has no internal politics or brand identity.

Kind of lost in the decision to allow the Big XII to hold a CCG with 10 members was the concurrent decision to not allow conferences to make their own rules regarding divisions and selection of CCG participants. IMO, that decision may have quashed further realignment within the P5 conferences.

Three of those five conferences now have 14 members. The ACC appears to have been isolated in their desire to pursue alignment models (like pods) that didn't require balanced divisions with a full divisional round robin. Once the Big XII got the CCG it wanted, the ACC had no allies in their quest.

With the current rules in place, expansion to 16 teams becomes less attractive for those three conferences, which might otherwise have vied for a few of the more desirable Big XII schools. It also makes it harder for the PAC to expand into Texas to enhance its network, since they would probably need to add four schools from that region in order to attract any of them. And if a PAC 16 were to try to align with the 8 coastal schools all in the same division as part of an expansion, they probably wouldn't be able to find a ninth vote from among the other four existing members.

So the Big XII didn't just gets its CCG, they got significant immunization from poachers. That tells me the P5 wants to stay at five, and the networks do too.

Where does that leave the PAC? At the status quo for the foreseeable future, at least membership wise. What remains is the possibility of seeking a business arrangement with the Big XII to expand the network that the PAC owns into the only P5 region that doesn't yet have one.

Umm the Big 12 is able to choose if they wanted divisions and choose who they picked which teams play in the CCG. You might want to go back and look at this. Essentially the Big 12 was able to choose how they determined who played in the CCG. IMO that opens the door for realignment and options for conference to look at alternative setups.

The ACC has 14.9 members so in reality there are only 2 conferences with 14 members. 10, 12, 14, 14, 14.9. 14 is not ideal and not the goal anyone was looking for IMO.

I believe the Big 12 and PAC talked about more than just a scheduling alliance when they spoke last football season.

Maybe you should be the one going back and looking at what options the Big XII was given. No doors were opened by these decisions.

While 14 may not be the goal anyone was looking for, I have no knowledge that anyone had any different goal, or that the three who ended up with 14 are satisfied with what they have. The only thing we can be sure of is that the P5, which could have agreed to allow more than 2 divisions, explicitly chose not to allow it.

You made the claim that new rules restrict how conferences can determine who plays in the CCG which will hinder further expansion.

I pointed out that the Big 12 was not restricted and was able to choose if they wanted to have divisions and allow those champs to play in the CCG or to not have divisions at all and use another method for choosing who is in the CCG.

Again, there are not 3 conferences with 14 members. ACC messed that up with Notre Dame. You have 15 members for many sports in the ACC and 14.9 in football.

Again you are missing the point. Conferences can choose not to have divisions at all if they want to. Conferences with no divisions will likely be the future so they can get more premier matchups. We've seen the B1G and ACC struggle with this moving teams as has the SEC with Missouri in the East.

We all know 14 is not the end game. You can pretend otherwise and also pretend that the ACC has 14 members but you would be wrong, again.

Things change in college football, that is certain.

(01-24-2017 04:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 03:08 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  I don't really see why Texas would want to move to the ACC.

I don't see why Texas would want to move anywhere. They are right where they belong.

Thanks Capt Obvious.

Texas is in a great situation. They do not want change. They likely do not want to expand. Likely do not want to start a conference network. The same is not true for the other 9 members who likely want at least some if not all of those things.

But Boren has expressed a need for those things moving forward. He has had a plan through all this to make this appear like he did everything he could but UT would not budge. I believe he is setting this up for a final showdown with UT. Either expand at least back to 12 and come up with some sort of a solution to the network issue. Maybe an alliance with the PAC for scheduling and PACN content or maybe something else.

They have 3 years worth of data to show that this current setup gets in only 1/3 of the time. They have data showing them how other conference setups with more members and a CCG improve odds of getting in the playoff. I think what they are working on now is the PACN deal. Figuring out how that relationship might work and which schools the Big 12 could add to help the PACN (BYU, UConn). If Fox is in play then things could get real interesting as they already own some t-3 content and the Big 12 could add a couple of schools for more content.

I could see the Big 12 adding a couple of members and then having those 11 schools participate in a partnership with the PACN and FOX. You still get UT content for the network it would just be road games instead of home games. BYU content would give the Pacific and Mountain time zones the boost they need to get Dish on board with writing checks. Big 12 content in the Central time zone along with BYU is yet another certain way to get Dish on board. And then sprinkle in some UConn BB and WBB content for national appeal and coverage in the NYC/Boston area and you have an interesting mix of content on the PACN from NY to LA with the #1 conference brand in every state in the footprint aside from possibly Iowa and even there it would be nearly half the fans in the state.