(08-02-2022 05:27 PM)hk25 Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:12 AM)Boots Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 10:58 AM)hk25 Wrote:  If they want to survive as a conference (even if a diminished one) they will expand sooner than later and start building up the value of their new members. If they want to slowly fade away into a slow death and slowly get picked apart but future raids they will stay at 10.

Adding more teams wont prevent future raids.

Staying at 10 and getting raided wont prevent adding more members at that time.

If they go to 14....the PAC conference will be in existence in 10 years. If they stay at 10....it very well may not.

So I disagree. If you are at 14-16 and lose 8 schools then you can rebuild from that with backfilling. If you are at 10 and lose 8 schools you are likely done as a conference.

So these schools need to pick their poison. Expand with quality G5s or Potentially no conference in 8-10 years.

That was my thoughts as well, if someone gets promoted to the B1G that is going to happen if the league stays at 10 or expands. The league has a better chance of surviving & will be stronger in the future after a raid if they expand now instead of waiting. The TV$ can be arranged not to hurt the remaining PAC any more than the loss of LA already will.

I also don’t believe TV will let the B1G or SEC get above 20, & maybe not 18. There are ND & a couple from ACC TV want eventually promoted. But past that not any worth $100M+.

If tv truly had their way, I believe they would have both B1G & SEC each cut their bottom 2 & add ND & top 3 from ACC & top tier realignment would be over for a rather long time.

Expansion in the face of potential predation by a more powerful conference is convential wisdom in conference realignment.

But another tenet of realignment conventional wisdom is that if you’re in a standoff with an equally powerful conference, where each side would like to poach the other but neither has quite enough strength to pull it off, you don’t do anything to weaken your position. You don’t, for example, expand with schools that will make your conference less financially and institutionally appealing to your current members.

The Pac-12 is in the unusual position right now of having to deal with both situations concurrently, vis-a-vis the B1G and Big 12 respectively. So which conventional wisdom do they follow? Add MWC and/or AAC schools now to ensure the survival of the conference in the event of losing more members to the B1G in the future, or put off adding MWC and/or AAC schools to prevent giving any members on the fence another reason to jump to a now-more-appealing Big 12?

I think the answer will differ from Pac-12 school to Pac-12 school, and that lack of consensus in and of itself will prevent the Pac-12 from expanding unless and until there’s further B1G predation.