(03-29-2020 10:51 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-29-2020 08:47 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  Wait.. Y'all telling me that schools like SC, UCLA, Oregon or UW wouldn't add value to the Big 12? Like the 4pm EST kicks between a UW vs okie light? 8pm EST Texas vs SC.. hell even a 10pm EST game between Oregon and ou? U don't think fans from the EST would watch those? Hell if CO was added.. they could do well at a noon EST kickoff matchup vs TCU/TECH/KSU or let's say a **Neb**

LHN is not some sort of huge obstacle either. Big 12 prides itself on individual 3rd tier rights. With a merger of some sorts that have been discussed on here, I wouldn't be shocked to see multiple offers from networks for those rights. That would dictate whether they all sign off like the rest of the conferences do or continue to sell independently from one another.

Not sure why you have to be on the level of those two other conferences when it comes to payouts. as long as you can keep it within 5 or so mil who cares? Problem is that the Pac is not 5 or so mil behind them. Big 12 is fine as is at 10 schools. Hasn't hurt them from having a school compete in the CFP most times than not.

There are many PAC schools that would add value to the Big12. But no 2 to 6 combination of PAC schools should ever desire to jump to the B12. After the losses of Texas A&M, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado...the B12 has an unstable foundation. Too many of the current B12 members are dependent on the success of UT-Austin and Oklahoma. FSU and Clemson could have jumped to the B12 in 2011 and ensured a higher payout for the next decade...but they remained in the ACC and signed GOR for 16 years.

For PAC schools such as USC, UCLA, Oregon and UW...remaining in the existing PAC configuration and fixing some issues (e.g., revenue sharing, PACN, conference leadership, etc.) is a much better option than moving to the B12.

For PAC schools such as USC and UCLA, their options are broader. They could be involved in creating a new airport conference with the better components of the PAC and B12. These schools can be the foundation for long term stable conference.

Wait.. how is the Big 12 on unstable ground? They are making more money and the ADs aren't the ones making comments about exploring all options. Did you know that with the original Big 12 there was un-equal sharing? That aggy and Nebraska demanded? Did you know that Deloss asked the conference about making a conference channel and Osborne saying no. Then he asked aggy if they wanted to make a Texas network which would air both tier 3 content and they said no because they would do their own? Ever since they left and the old ou AD retired, there hasn't been grumblings about further movement.

Meanwhile SC might as well be 2014-2017 Texas, only difference is there has been an ou, wv, tcu, bu that have stepped up football wise. In the all powerful hierarchy of Pac schools, who has stepped up? Oregon? Utah? Let's not get into basketball or baseball.

I get why Pac looks down at the Big 12.. they see themselves on the same level of the Big or sec.. But the fact of the matter is they are in trouble. SC can't carry that conference alone at this moment.

So whether the Pac stays and hopes that it's Commish can get a HUUUGE deal for the Pac network through someone else, or decides to be the Pac division of the Rust Belt conference.. they are the ones on unsteady ground.. not the Big 12.