(11-23-2014 07:07 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 06:54 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 12:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 12:24 PM)billings Wrote:  wow. Really?

for one the PAC won't accept any non-football members.. what were you on when you dreamt this one up?

-The same was said about the ACC, a conference that wouldn't accept football only members.

-The PAC is having a hard time getting the votes to expand from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State who don't want to give up their California recruiting grounds for games against Texas and Oklahoma. Going the partial member route is one way the PAC can get around this so instead of hurting Cali access you are beefing up non-conference scheduling.

-The PAC has more room than the ACC. They are smaller than the B1G, SEC and ACC so I could see where getting up to 14 in Olympic Sports would put them in that same size category.

-AAC if they really wanted a 16th school would be better served in getting Georgetown, a true replacement for Maryland and Syracuse's main basketball rival than farting around with Texas in a partial basketball situation. Notre Dame olympic to the ACC made sense as a smaller private institution. Texas doesn't fit in with ACC schools outside of the endowment numbers.

Why would the Pac12 accept Texas and Oklahoma without their only important sport?

1) High profile non-conference games for schools like Utah and Oregon State that wouldn't otherwise get them.

2) Help on the bowl front with Texas and Oklahoma as part of the package.

3) Texas and Oklahoma have good basketball an could help in that area for the PAC.

the Pac-12 doesn't need or want partials - they have a nice conference of like-minded schools, in all sports. They don't need Texas divas. If anyone joins the Pac-12, it is on the PAC-12's terms, not the other way around.