(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

(08-09-2022 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

The schools that can bolt to the Big 10 are going to bolt to the Big 10 no matter what.

PAC should expand with at least SDSU if they have the votes.

The 4 corners schools should leverage their Big 12 opportunity to expand the PAC

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

You can't leave if there's nowhere to go.

(08-09-2022 09:00 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

The schools that can bolt to the Big 10 are going to bolt to the Big 10 no matter what.

PAC should expand with at least SDSU if they have the votes.

The 4 corners schools should leverage their Big 12 opportunity to expand the PAC

No question, any PAC school that can leave for the B1G will leave no matter what.

But others might go elsewhere - independent or nB12 - if the PAC adds G5 schools.

(08-09-2022 09:03 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

You can't leave if there's nowhere to go.

If the Pac added SDSU and Boise then the MWC would likely have an opening lol

Pac-12 expansion would have to be voted on and agreed to by the schools. The conference isn't going to add a school if they other members don't want them.

Why would a school leave the Pac-12 because of adding G5 schools, then turn around and join another conference that added 4 G5 schools?

(08-09-2022 09:17 AM)Glenn360 Wrote:  Pac-12 expansion would have to be voted on and agreed to by the schools. The conference isn't going to add a school if they other members don't want them.

Why would a school leave the Pac-12 because of adding G5 schools, then turn around and join another conference that added 4 G5 schools?

Leave before anyone is added, preferably if the B1G wants them.

As for the Big 12, Those 4 G5 schools are all above the ones being mentioned as possible adds. They might all be dogs but theres differences in breeds.

(08-09-2022 09:21 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:17 AM)Glenn360 Wrote:  Pac-12 expansion would have to be voted on and agreed to by the schools. The conference isn't going to add a school if they other members don't want them.

Why would a school leave the Pac-12 because of adding G5 schools, then turn around and join another conference that added 4 G5 schools?

Leave before anyone is added, preferably if the B1G wants them.

As for the Big 12, Those 4 G5 schools are all above the ones being mentioned as possible adds. They might all be dogs but theres differences in breeds.

Yes. UH was a long time power conference school until the SWC cracked up at a low point in their athletic fortunes. Cincinnati was long a major in basketball and was in the first batch to be invited into the Big East after the ACC raid, so they were BCS for a while. BYU has been a power conference school in everything but conference affiliation. Only UCF is a newbie. And they are one of the two or three biggest schools in the country. Each of the four is tougher to gain admittance to than most of the SEC.

(08-09-2022 09:21 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 09:17 AM)Glenn360 Wrote:  Pac-12 expansion would have to be voted on and agreed to by the schools. The conference isn't going to add a school if they other members don't want them.

Why would a school leave the Pac-12 because of adding G5 schools, then turn around and join another conference that added 4 G5 schools?

Leave before anyone is added, preferably if the B1G wants them.

As for the Big 12, Those 4 G5 schools are all above the ones being mentioned as possible adds. They might all be dogs but theres differences in breeds.

I don't see much difference between Houston and SDSU. Both were market mitigation adds. At least Houston has some sort of pedigree and history with their old SWC rivals and some of the incoming AAC teams. The value of Houston is the Big 12 is primary market access in Houston. Big 12 games in Houston, every week. They might not add much by themselves, they don't carry the Houston market, but they do ensure the Big 12's presence in that market. There is value to the Big 12 in that.

SDSU could do the same for the PAC in SoCal and San Diego. Unfortunately, there are no LA teams that can be added to recoup LA presence for the PAC. SDSU is a good pick and fit, the real quibble becomes do they go to 12 and if so who?

SMU is the next best G5 option. They're paying their players more than P5 Texas programs.

(08-09-2022 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

Bingo. PAC stands pat IMO. The big guys in the conference have no vested interest in expanding.

(08-09-2022 01:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  SMU is the next best G5 option. They're paying their players more than P5 Texas programs.

I’ll stop being a Mack Brown hater now

(08-09-2022 01:19 PM)Owls9878 Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

Bingo. PAC stands pat IMO. The big guys in the conference have no vested interest in expanding.

The PAC is already looking at expansion. They will not discuss schools they are talking to, but they are talking. They have said that any announcement on expansion will be made after the media contracts are done. I laugh when I read that the PAC has a "hoity-toity view of itself." I have never seen that and I several friends from PAC schools that would laugh at that. Not every school is an AAU school. Schools like San Diego State and Colorado State would be acceptable to the PAC. Boise State is a non-starter academically, and their market is of no help. They don't bring a baseball team or men's soccer team. SDSU has a good baseball team and their men's soccer team is already a member of the PAC.

The PAC needs to expand to get back some of their lost inventory. San Diego State is a no-brainer decision. If the PAC does not add them, the Big 12 will. The Big Ten and Big 12 in Southern California would finish off the PAC. As it is, the PAC wants to play football games in the future at SoFi Stadium. One example I heard would be Arizona vs. Stanford at SoFi. That is not going to work when you had a city in Southern California that has no NFL or NBA competition and you decided to pass on them because you have a, "hoity-toity view of yourself." It would be conference suicide to pass on San Diego State.

(08-08-2022 10:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:26 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 02:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  14 with SDSU, Boise, Col St and SMU. Give them all half shares for the first contract.

They have to be worth something collectively on the basis of inventory alone.

IMO that would be a fatal lineup for the PAC, it would denigrate the brand.

How so? Colorado state would be the only one not pulling their weight on the field but at least brings an instate rival game to in conference.

SMU adds new state/big market and alumni with deep pockets. Also 2nd biggest student population for SMU is actually from California. Something like 18% of student body.

Boise adds new state and good football.
SDSU good football and helps hold onto south California market

IMO, adding those schools would denigrate the PAC brand. I think the PAC is clearly more valuable on a per-school basis without those mouths to feed. They bring G5 value to the conference, which harms the conference value.

The PAC shouldn't add them until it absolutely has to, which IMO means not unless more schools leave for the B1G or nB12.

There's also the prestige angle. Really, adding those schools now could trigger existing ones to join the nB12 or beg the B1G for membership by agreeing to cut-rate payouts. I think Oregon/Cal/Washington/Stanford types are more likely to flee if those schools join.

Boise State, SMU and San Diego State does not bring the PAC 12 down. They would get PAC 12 more competitive opponents which could actually bring viewers to watch the best teams playing.

(08-09-2022 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

You are wrong. Big 12 stayed at 10, and you saw what happened to them? Adding Boise State and San Diego State would add excitement to the PAC 12. They need that especially for tv.

(08-10-2022 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 stayed at 10, and you saw what happened to them?

What happened to them?

They were fine at 10 for quite a while, and then when they needed to add more schools, they did so. If they had added 4 more schools earlier, would they be much better off now?

(08-10-2022 01:45 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 stayed at 10, and you saw what happened to them?

What happened to them?

They were fine at 10 for quite a while, and then when they needed to add more schools, they did so. If they had added 4 more schools earlier, would they be much better off now?

Probably not. The example the previous poster should've used was the Pac from a year ago, who could've had any Big 12 school if they wanted, and now will have to settle for MWC/AAC schools.

(08-10-2022 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 12:20 AM)Alanda Wrote:  

completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

You are wrong. Big 12 stayed at 10, and you saw what happened to them? Adding Boise State and San Diego State would add excitement to the PAC 12. They need that especially for tv.

Big 12 stayed at 12 and .... what happened to them? They got to collect fatter CFP and bowl checks because they were only dividing money 10 ways.

Let's imagine if B12 had added say Cincy and BYU in 2016. Do you think that prevents TX and OU from leaving? We'll never know, but I do not.

(08-10-2022 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 08:51 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-09-2022 06:50 AM)Big Foote Wrote:  completely agree that this is not just about revenue per team; in the short run survival of the PAC12 is at stake. That is why I suggest adding 4 teams to stabilize the conference - similiar to what Big 12 did last year.

If Im Oregon, Washington or a handful of the others Id leave before stooping down to adding SD St or Boise.

That's why I think the PAC stays pat.

The PAC has an IMO fundamentally different culture from the Big 12. The Big 12 was always a hot wings and barbecue sauce conference. Inviting low-value G5 to backfill for TX and OU made sense for them, because their standards were "inclusive" to begin with.

But the PAC has a high-end, hoity-toity view of itself. Most importantly, the most valuable remaining schools have an elite view of themselves. If the PAC invites schools like SDSU, Boise, and Colorado State, IMO that makes it more likely that the schools that can bolt will bolt.

You are wrong. Big 12 stayed at 10, and you saw what happened to them? Adding Boise State and San Diego State would add excitement to the PAC 12. They need that especially for tv.

Big 12 stayed at 12 and .... what happened to them? They got to collect fatter CFP and bowl checks because they were only dividing money 10 ways.

Let's imagine if B12 had added say Cincy and BYU in 2016. Do you think that prevents TX and OU from leaving? We'll never know, but I do not.

They would have still left but a 10 team B12 wouldn't be hearing about the AAC raiding them and the B12 maybe no longer existing.

The difference w/ the Pac is they still fear up to 4 teams going to the B1G one day. Which makes the other 4 consider the B12 if the PAC ends up making less money on the next deal vs the B12