(01-11-2023 01:49 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Pac-12 will probably stay at 10. Washington and Oregon want a max share, and won't sign a meaningful GOR, so will be against expansion. Colorado AD Rick George is very likely also a no vote, as he feels fewer teams increases the chances of CU making the CFP; He expects realistically the Pac-12 (and Big 12 as well, based on his comments) will mostly be a single bid conference in the 12 team 6+6 playoff format. Arizona (who want a SoCal presence) and Utah (Kyle Whittingham has been vocal about how important trips to LA are for recruiting) might like San Diego State, but with three likely no votes lined up means they have an uphill battle to reach the 75% threshold (need 8 votes). You also have to wonder if either Cal or Stanford could accept a CSU school? Maybe reluctantly and only if a really strong case is made about how it helps the Pac-12 in the short term (i.e., this contract) as well as long term. The belief, likely correct, is SDSU will be there in five years should the Pac-12 need them for survival. Other MWC schools are much less attractive; the only reason SDSU is even in consideration is southern California recruiting and market presence. No other MWC provides anything like that.

Gonzaga has no doubt inquired, but what's the Pac-12 interest? Is there a compelling reason to add them? I suspect the interest is maybe stronger in the Big 12, where I see a more compelling case in building a basketball brand.

SMU has been thrown out by writers on the west coast as the most logical. But this has a DavidSt sort of feel to it, mostly based on looking at the map. There hasn't been a single report of any contact, or any name dropping of SMU. If anything comments by some ADs to Wilner and Canzano that the Pac-12 should be looking at Big 12 schools, suggests that there is some remorse at passing on Houston, who really did bring something to the table for recruiting, performance and fan base, a year and a half ago when Kliavkoff was pushing for expansion. SMU for the Pac-12 has a replacement feel to it similar to the AAC grabbing FAU and UNT to replace Houston and UCF.

All these points lead me to think the Pac-12 will sit at 10 this cycle. But they will court San Diego State some, signalling that they are on deck. That the consensus is the TV/media contract is coming first then expansion, says expansion is less likely. All the expansion we have seen this cycle was prior to the media contracts being signed. After the deals are in place, most Presidents and ADs cool off to expansion. I expect the same in the Pac-12.

That's funny, as both would have had 2 this year (and UW would have been 1st out, just bumped by Tulane). So, 5 of the top 13 schools were in the big 12 or Pac, and they still would have gotten 4 schools with USCLA and OUT gone b/c USC would have lost 5 games in the B1G this year.

SMU is the Dallas version of UH, but with a more Pac-like snobby feel to it. And they did show that, when they were winning big in the '80's, they can really bring the Dallas market and much of North Texas. Back when UH was winning big, nobody cared about them. If SMU hadn't gotten the death penalty then they probably would have been more appealing than Baylor or perhaps even Tech to the original Big 12.