Since there have been a number of people on here who have claimed that the Pac-16 was purely media speculation and was never real, there's a pretty intriguing article in The Athletic's new series on realignment with some pretty compelling quotes, including:

Quote:“There were a lot of moving parts. It was an uncomfortable time,” then-Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said. “We had some campus pressure to go to the Pac-10. They had destination cities like San Francisco and Seattle.”

Quote:The next day, on June 13, [Pac-10 commissioner Larry] Scott visited Austin.

“We made (our decision) before he came here, but we heard him out and let him know after that meeting it was something we couldn’t do or wouldn’t do,” Dodds said. “I’m sure it was something he’d have liked to pull off, but it was not in the cards.”

The certainty Dodds speaks with now was not the case for everyone on Texas’ campus. The university’s board of regents was set to meet the following Tuesday, June 15, and those “campus pressures” were still pushing Dodds and Powers to make a move.

(which should put to bed the notion that nobody in Austin was willing to go west instead of east)

Lots of other interesting nuggets in there, including this insightful bit from Dan Beebe:

Quote:Beebe replaced Weiberg as commissioner. He made early attempts to introduce equal revenue sharing and a grant of rights that would prevent members from leaving the conference.

“They decided not to do that. Had we done it then, we could have kept the whole 12 together,” Beebe said. “I was Kevin’s deputy and I had to get everybody to play nice in the sandbox together. I think I might have overestimated my ability to do that.”

If you're interested in reading the whole article, you can find it here.

There should be more as time goes on, which I'm sure will culminate in the UConn move and perhaps a prediction article at the end...

USFFan

I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

Texas and Oklahoma were talking to the Pac-12 in the summer of 2011 once A&M made it clear they wanted to go to the SEC.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ing-source

The ACC wasn’t opposed going to 16, Rutgers and UConn were rumored to be #15 and #16 and five Big XII leftovers would’ve merged with the five Big East orphans.

I can’t believe this was 7 years ago.....how time flies!

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

That article just reaffirms what Ive always said. Texas is more than willing to leverage Pac12 interest into concessions toward a sweeter deal. In the end---they may move---but they arent adding all that travel over 3 time zones for virtually the same money. If they actually make a move (which I dont think they will), the Pac12 is literally the worst option on their buffet table.

Nothing we didn't really know already. Heck A&M nearly went to the SEC and Colorado to the Pac-10 which led to the formation of the Big 12. That they both left to their almost destinations when the B12 was approached by the P10 and B10 comes as no shock. Heck the P10 suspected as much and had Utah ready as an A&M back up.

I increasingly get the impression from all the various stories that Oklahoma State was always used as just a pawn by Oklahoma and not much of a participant in anything, except as a little brother riding along. The Sooners were willing to ditch them for a B1G spot in another rumor.

The B12 is down to the big 2 and the little 8. Where I separate from the Texas wont leave crowd is that Texas looks out for themselves first and foremost. The B12 works for them as long as Oklahoma sticks. But when Oklahoma leaves, it stops working for them, as there is no longer enough left. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia are all more often bottom half of the P5 schools than top --which matches the resources they can affordcommit to it-- and Baylor is middle.

From this perspective Texas has three choices:

1. Follow OU to the B1G or SEC
2. Stay put with the little-8
3. Choose another conference to belong to

Texas has kicked the tires with the Pac-12, and that doesn't work due to travel. They have explored the B1G and that just doesn't fit quite right, although joining OU there would mitigate some of the concerns they have about fitting, since the Red River rivalry would still go on. Similar situation with the SEC, where they would no longer enjoy superior resource advantage and would find themselves in a death match every year to make the playoffs. In both the B1G and SEC they'd no longer be the unquestioned big cheese.

That leaves the ACC. And I think that would work for them. They might even be able to bring TCU with them. It would give them a Notre Dame game every 3rd year, and they'd be with schools where they would still be the biggest cheese, but also have peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They could also likely finish out the LHN deal and so still be on par with the SEC and B1G or close financially.

The Big Cheese works just as well staying put, but replacing Oklahoma is problematic. Texas would likely decide who that 10th school is -- or even if there is a 10th, they may just say nobody, we'll play 8 Football games, allowing everyone to schedule another OOC game. Thinking outside the box, they might even go for a Basketball school instead. Texas would use it's OOC games to build schedule strength.

I think the ACC model is easier and more stable long run.

(07-23-2019 02:23 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Nothing we didn't really know already. Heck A&M nearly went to the SEC and Colorado to the Pac-10 which led to the formation of the Big 12. That they both left to their almost destinations when the B12 was approached by the P10 and B10 comes as no shock. Heck the P10 suspected as much and had Utah ready as an A&M back up.

I increasingly get the impression from all the various stories that Oklahoma State was always used as just a pawn by Oklahoma and not much of a participant in anything, except as a little brother riding along. The Sooners were willing to ditch them for a B1G spot in another rumor.

The B12 is down to the big 2 and the little 8. Where I separate from the Texas wont leave crowd is that Texas looks out for themselves first and foremost. The B12 works for them as long as Oklahoma sticks. But when Oklahoma leaves, it stops working for them, as there is no longer enough left. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia are all more often bottom half of the P5 schools than top --which matches the resources they can affordcommit to it-- and Baylor is middle.

From this perspective Texas has three choices:

1. Follow OU to the B1G or SEC
2. Stay put with the little-8
3. Choose another conference to belong to

Texas has kicked the tires with the Pac-12, and that doesn't work due to travel. They have explored the B1G and that just doesn't fit quite right, although joining OU there would mitigate some of the concerns they have about fitting, since the Red River rivalry would still go on. Similar situation with the SEC, where they would no longer enjoy superior resource advantage and would find themselves in a death match every year to make the playoffs. In both the B1G and SEC they'd no longer be the unquestioned big cheese.

That leaves the ACC. And I think that would work for them. They might even be able to bring TCU with them. It would give them a Notre Dame game every 3rd year, and they'd be with schools where they would still be the biggest cheese, but also have peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They could also likely finish out the LHN deal and so still be on par with the SEC and B1G or close financially.

The Big Cheese works just as well staying put, but replacing Oklahoma is problematic. Texas would likely decide who that 10th school is -- or even if there is a 10th, they may just say nobody, we'll play 8 Football games, allowing everyone to schedule another OOC game. Thinking outside the box, they might even go for a Basketball school instead. Texas would use it's OOC games to build schedule strength.

I think the ACC model is easier and more stable long run.

Pickins is a big donar to Oklahoma State and want nothing to do with the PAC 10. He would use his money to get the Cowboys into the SEC. With or without big brother. Kansas is sure no backup for PAC 12 for football. Kansas State was not on par with the academics. Baylor had their issues with men basketball scandal. Not really another option unless Hawaii or New Mexico as number 16.

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

I read the article, too, and it was well done. As an educator, I appreciate the sentiment of putting students first, but I am calling a bit of BS as it relates to Texas and the PAC. With the possibility of bringing along 5 other Big 12 colleagues, parties that truly want to make it work can find solutions. For example, midweek games could easily be scheduled with schools from the same time zone, and Olympic sports as well as basketball could easily be clustered so that Texas played roadies against Oregon/Oregon State, Cal/Stanford, and UCLA/USC in the same flight over a 3 to 4 day trip, which would result in a reciprocal meeting at Texas where tickets could be packaged and benefit everyone involved.

Yes, it would take some strategy and the networks understanding that PAC games with Texas on the west coast do not need to start at 10:00 pm CST, but it could work if everyone was really motivated. So, I agree with Texas that the student needs issue was important, but it was not insurmountable. It is pretty clear that Tier 3 rights and other autonomy items were the true issue.

(07-23-2019 12:37 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma were talking to the Pac-12 in the summer of 2011 once A&M made it clear they wanted to go to the SEC.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ing-source

The ACC wasn’t opposed going to 16, Rutgers and UConn were rumored to be #15 and #16 and five Big XII leftovers would’ve merged with the five Big East orphans.

I can’t believe this was 7 years ago.....how time flies!

The ACC sure dodged a bullet on that one.

(07-23-2019 10:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:37 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma were talking to the Pac-12 in the summer of 2011 once A&M made it clear they wanted to go to the SEC.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ing-source

The ACC wasn’t opposed going to 16, Rutgers and UConn were rumored to be #15 and #16 and five Big XII leftovers would’ve merged with the five Big East orphans.

I can’t believe this was 7 years ago.....how time flies!

The ACC sure dodged a bullet on that one.

The duel Rutgers/UConn add would definitely have been to secure the market and MSG. Would it have worked is anyone’s guess. Doubt football good football would have been expected. UConn probably keeps rolling after their natty in the ACC.

(07-23-2019 09:28 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

I read the article, too, and it was well done. As an educator, I appreciate the sentiment of putting students first, but I am calling a bit of BS as it relates to Texas and the PAC. With the possibility of bringing along 5 other Big 12 colleagues, parties that truly want to make it work can find solutions. For example, midweek games could easily be scheduled with schools from the same time zone, and Olympic sports as well as basketball could easily be clustered so that Texas played roadies against Oregon/Oregon State, Cal/Stanford, and UCLA/USC in the same flight over a 3 to 4 day trip, which would result in a reciprocal meeting at Texas where tickets could be packaged and benefit everyone involved.

Yes, it would take some strategy and the networks understanding that PAC games with Texas on the west coast do not need to start at 10:00 pm CST, but it could work if everyone was really motivated. So, I agree with Texas that the student needs issue was important, but it was not insurmountable. It is pretty clear that Tier 3 rights and other autonomy items were the true issue.

I can't help but wonder how things might have turned out if the PAC had been more far sighted 25 years ago. Imagine if they had managed to cherry pick both the Big 8 and the SWC when the latter was on the verge of breaking up. Put Colorado in the PAC 14 North (with Cal and Stanford) and Oklahoma, Texas and A&M in the South (with USC and UCLA).

The B1G could have rescued Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to form a logical and coherent Western Division (with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Iowa).

The logical next step would have been for the orphans of both the SWC and Big 8 to merge into a 9 team conference. But when the BCS formed a few years later, that league wouldn't have merited AQ status, and the ultimate merger of the ACC and Big East would have left us with the P4 so many posters long for today.

Oh to have a time machine.

(07-22-2019 11:31 PM)usffan Wrote:  

Quote:The next day, on June 13, [Pac-10 commissioner Larry] Scott visited Austin.

“We made (our decision) before he came here, but we heard him out and let him know after that meeting it was something we couldn’t do or wouldn’t do,” Dodds said. “I’m sure it was something he’d have liked to pull off, but it was not in the cards.”

The certainty Dodds speaks with now was not the case for everyone on Texas’ campus. The university’s board of regents was set to meet the following Tuesday, June 15, and those “campus pressures” were still pushing Dodds and Powers to make a move.

(which should put to bed the notion that nobody in Austin was willing to go west instead of east)

Sounds like the inspiration for what Barron did at Florida State. Don't pay attention to the critics, and don't fully vet your alternatives. Your roots are here, and here they will stay.

(07-23-2019 09:28 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

I read the article, too, and it was well done. As an educator, I appreciate the sentiment of putting students first, but I am calling a bit of BS as it relates to Texas and the PAC. With the possibility of bringing along 5 other Big 12 colleagues, parties that truly want to make it work can find solutions. For example, midweek games could easily be scheduled with schools from the same time zone, and Olympic sports as well as basketball could easily be clustered so that Texas played roadies against Oregon/Oregon State, Cal/Stanford, and UCLA/USC in the same flight over a 3 to 4 day trip, which would result in a reciprocal meeting at Texas where tickets could be packaged and benefit everyone involved.

Yes, it would take some strategy and the networks understanding that PAC games with Texas on the west coast do not need to start at 10:00 pm CST, but it could work if everyone was really motivated. So, I agree with Texas that the student needs issue was important, but it was not insurmountable. It is pretty clear that Tier 3 rights and other autonomy items were the true issue.

First, that comment was from the Texas coach, Mack Brown. But when Texas held their press conference in 2010 announcing they were staying in the Big 12, that was one of the factors mentioned by President Powers. They realized they could make the some money without flying their athletes all around the western US.

Now Texas did have interest in the Pac 12. The discussions in 2010 went quite far. And in 1989, Texas agreed to go to the Pac 12 and was in the process of getting board approval while A&M was going to the SEC. But then Stanford vetoed the admission of Texas. Pac required a unanimous vote at the time. The 1989 info is straight from a book written by Bill Cunningham who was president of Texas at the time and chancellor in 1994 when the Big 12 was formed.

(07-23-2019 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

That article just reaffirms what Ive always said. Texas is more than willing to leverage Pac12 interest into concessions toward a sweeter deal. In the end---they may move---but they arent adding all that travel over 3 time zones for virtually the same money. If they actually make a move (which I dont think they will), the Pac12 is literally the worst option on their buffet table.

Only if it's about money. If it's about playing for and winning national titles then the Pac is a good bet. It's never as hard or as deep (no laughing) as the SEC or the B1G but has plenty of big names that beating still mean something to the casual fan. They would almost always have a easier path to the CFP than if they were in the SEC or B1G.

So if I know Texas (and many here say I don't) I bet the only thing they like more than money is winning titles. Much easier path to that goal in the Pac-1?

(07-23-2019 11:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 09:28 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

I read the article, too, and it was well done. As an educator, I appreciate the sentiment of putting students first, but I am calling a bit of BS as it relates to Texas and the PAC. With the possibility of bringing along 5 other Big 12 colleagues, parties that truly want to make it work can find solutions. For example, midweek games could easily be scheduled with schools from the same time zone, and Olympic sports as well as basketball could easily be clustered so that Texas played roadies against Oregon/Oregon State, Cal/Stanford, and UCLA/USC in the same flight over a 3 to 4 day trip, which would result in a reciprocal meeting at Texas where tickets could be packaged and benefit everyone involved.

Yes, it would take some strategy and the networks understanding that PAC games with Texas on the west coast do not need to start at 10:00 pm CST, but it could work if everyone was really motivated. So, I agree with Texas that the student needs issue was important, but it was not insurmountable. It is pretty clear that Tier 3 rights and other autonomy items were the true issue.

I can't help but wonder how things might have turned out if the PAC had been more far sighted 25 years ago. Imagine if they had managed to cherry pick both the Big 8 and the SWC when the latter was on the verge of breaking up. Put Colorado in the PAC 14 North (with Cal and Stanford) and Oklahoma, Texas and A&M in the South (with USC and UCLA).

The B1G could have rescued Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to form a logical and coherent Western Division (with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Iowa).

The logical next step would have been for the orphans of both the SWC and Big 8 to merge into a 9 team conference. But when the BCS formed a few years later, that league wouldn't have merited AQ status, and the ultimate merger of the ACC and Big East would have left us with the P4 so many posters long for today.

Oh to have a time machine.

Interesting! Perhaps the merged orphan conference would pick up some nearby I-A schools to reach 12. Memphis and Tulane seem like obvious adds. OSU would probably not be a fan of Tulsa. Southern Miss? New Mexico?

(07-23-2019 11:45 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 09:28 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-23-2019 12:09 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I read that article about the Pac16, and the takeaway I got from it was this: Texas A&M had zero interest in the Pac16 idea, Texas wasn't fond of it either due to too much travel for student athletes, but allowed the rumors to go on until ESPN gave them the Longhorn Network. OU's Boren couldn't stand Beebe, so he used the pretense of OU & OSU leaving minus Texas to the PAC to oust Beebe. Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri didn't trust anyone.

I read the article, too, and it was well done. As an educator, I appreciate the sentiment of putting students first, but I am calling a bit of BS as it relates to Texas and the PAC. With the possibility of bringing along 5 other Big 12 colleagues, parties that truly want to make it work can find solutions. For example, midweek games could easily be scheduled with schools from the same time zone, and Olympic sports as well as basketball could easily be clustered so that Texas played roadies against Oregon/Oregon State, Cal/Stanford, and UCLA/USC in the same flight over a 3 to 4 day trip, which would result in a reciprocal meeting at Texas where tickets could be packaged and benefit everyone involved.

Yes, it would take some strategy and the networks understanding that PAC games with Texas on the west coast do not need to start at 10:00 pm CST, but it could work if everyone was really motivated. So, I agree with Texas that the student needs issue was important, but it was not insurmountable. It is pretty clear that Tier 3 rights and other autonomy items were the true issue.

I can't help but wonder how things might have turned out if the PAC had been more far sighted 25 years ago. Imagine if they had managed to cherry pick both the Big 8 and the SWC when the latter was on the verge of breaking up. Put Colorado in the PAC 14 North (with Cal and Stanford) and Oklahoma, Texas and A&M in the South (with USC and UCLA).

The B1G could have rescued Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to form a logical and coherent Western Division (with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Iowa).

The logical next step would have been for the orphans of both the SWC and Big 8 to merge into a 9 team conference. But when the BCS formed a few years later, that league wouldn't have merited AQ status, and the ultimate merger of the ACC and Big East would have left us with the P4 so many posters long for today.

Oh to have a time machine.

there is a lot of revisionist thinking here

aggy was even less inclined to go west 25 years ago

the money to make that happen was a LONG way off

travel including airline travel was a great deal different back then

aggy was 7 years away from AAU membership (and if Stanford was looking down on Texas think of how they looked at aggy)

and even with the "what if" Stanford and others had made the offer or wanted to make the offer that does not change the fact that TV money back then was nowhere near what it is today and the travel expenses for going west would have been much greater relative to TV money (and relative to overall cost of things) and aggy was not looking to go there at all

media coverage would have been terrible for those Central Time Zone teams playing in the Mountain Time Zone and Pacific Time Zone and the Big 10 was not looking to make any big moves either

because CCGs were not looked at as cash cows, overall TV money was much lower, and it was actually the Big 12 as much as anyone that was out there leading in getting media contracts and pushing the payouts of those

with all that reality in mind it would have been very difficult for the PAC 10 to convince Texas or anyone else (other than CU) and especially aggy to go west and it is doubtful that the Big 10 would have immediately decided to move

and the claim that whatever the Big East would have become would not have been a BCS member really has no merit either because they became a member with the schools that they had at the time.....there is zero reason to believe that having some members of the former SWC/Big 8 added to those BE members that got into the BCS would have somehow stopped the BE from getting in the BCS

not to mention that the BCS came from the Bowl Alliance....that came from the Bowl Coalition that both the Big 8 and SWC were a part of along with the Big East

so there is no reason to think that the Big East would have been left out, when it was not left out......but somehow it would have been left out with the addition of Big 8 and SWC members.....that were also coming from Bowl Coalition conferences

not to mention that the whole system was in place because of the BOWL GAMES at the time and less so the conferences because bowl games back then were still bidding to get teams with the exception of The Rose Bowl.....all the others that had a single conference tie in (or that had no true conference tie in) were bidding to get teams and the Bowl Coalition was designed to try and prevent the top teams from not being paired up no matter the conference they were from

The fans in the PAC 12 complained about Colorado being added, but they would riot if they added the Texhoma 4. The fans breathe a sigh of relief that never happened. The fans feel that Boise State is culturally fit even though academics challenge was better than adding Colorado. They would love to have Colorado booted. Maybe pack them to the Big 10? Adding Colorado diluted the conference big time competition wise. Colorado is the PAC 12 version of the Big 10's Rutgers.

(07-23-2019 07:03 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  So if I know Texas (and many here say I don't) I bet the only thing they like more than money is winning titles. Much easier path to that goal in the Pac-12?

Perhaps the ACC would be even easier ... seems like, beat Clemson and you're in.

Of course, the "Longhorns beating Clemson" part might be easier said than done.

(07-24-2019 04:23 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The fans in the PAC 12 complained about Colorado being added, but they would riot if they added the Texhoma 4. The fans breathe a sigh of relief that never happened. The fans feel that Boise State is culturally fit even though academics challenge was better than adding Colorado. They would love to have Colorado booted. Maybe pack them to the Big 10? Adding Colorado diluted the conference big time competition wise. Colorado is the PAC 12 version of the Big 10's Rutgers.

The only thing that PAC 12 fans riot over would be plastic straws at the games, see lack of anger of PAC 12 network distribution

(07-24-2019 04:23 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The fans in the PAC 12 complained about Colorado being added, but they would riot if they added the Texhoma 4. The fans breathe a sigh of relief that never happened. The fans feel that Boise State is culturally fit even though academics challenge was better than adding Colorado. They would love to have Colorado booted. Maybe pack them to the Big 10? Adding Colorado diluted the conference big time competition wise. Colorado is the PAC 12 version of the Big 10's Rutgers.

LOL, fortunately the people who run the PAC 12 have the wisdom that others obviously lack.

(07-23-2019 02:23 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Nothing we didn't really know already. Heck A&M nearly went to the SEC and Colorado to the Pac-10 which led to the formation of the Big 12. That they both left to their almost destinations when the B12 was approached by the P10 and B10 comes as no shock. Heck the P10 suspected as much and had Utah ready as an A&M back up.

I increasingly get the impression from all the various stories that Oklahoma State was always used as just a pawn by Oklahoma and not much of a participant in anything, except as a little brother riding along. The Sooners were willing to ditch them for a B1G spot in another rumor.

The B12 is down to the big 2 and the little 8. Where I separate from the Texas wont leave crowd is that Texas looks out for themselves first and foremost. The B12 works for them as long as Oklahoma sticks. But when Oklahoma leaves, it stops working for them, as there is no longer enough left. Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and West Virginia are all more often bottom half of the P5 schools than top --which matches the resources they can affordcommit to it-- and Baylor is middle.

From this perspective Texas has three choices:

1. Follow OU to the B1G or SEC
2. Stay put with the little-8
3. Choose another conference to belong to

Texas has kicked the tires with the Pac-12, and that doesn't work due to travel. They have explored the B1G and that just doesn't fit quite right, although joining OU there would mitigate some of the concerns they have about fitting, since the Red River rivalry would still go on. Similar situation with the SEC, where they would no longer enjoy superior resource advantage and would find themselves in a death match every year to make the playoffs. In both the B1G and SEC they'd no longer be the unquestioned big cheese.

That leaves the ACC. And I think that would work for them. They might even be able to bring TCU with them. It would give them a Notre Dame game every 3rd year, and they'd be with schools where they would still be the biggest cheese, but also have peers like Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech. They could also likely finish out the LHN deal and so still be on par with the SEC and B1G or close financially.

The Big Cheese works just as well staying put, but replacing Oklahoma is problematic. Texas would likely decide who that 10th school is -- or even if there is a 10th, they may just say nobody, we'll play 8 Football games, allowing everyone to schedule another OOC game. Thinking outside the box, they might even go for a Basketball school instead. Texas would use it's OOC games to build schedule strength.

I think the ACC model is easier and more stable long run.

Your comments about Texas leaving if Oklahoma leaves is where I personally disagree. Texas was in their own Texas-based SWC (a power conference) for 80 yrs before joining up with Oklahoma and the Big 8 in 1996. Texas likes being the big fish, the center of attention, with the power. Texas would be even more the center of attention and the glue that holds the remaining Big 12 together without Oklahoma. Texas isn't a cultural fit (or geographical) for the Pac-12. Same can be said for the Big Ten and ACC. SEC is probably the closest fit, but would TAMU really want to deal with Texas again. I dunno. I think the bigger issue is if Texas goes to another conference they aren't the heart and focal point of that conference but just another member (albeit a big member). Even if multiple members were to leave the Big 12 once more (say the Oklahoma and Kansas schools), the Big 12 would be able to backfill with BYU (football only) and top AAC schools and be just fine (maybe even better in the long-run as they expand outside of their current footprint).