(01-26-2023 12:39 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 12:06 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-26-2023 11:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think people are VASTLY underrating how much the Pac-12 schools (outside of maybe Arizona) don't want anything to do with the Big 12, so while a lot of us here can say, "They'll get paid the same or more money in the Big 12, so it's no big deal to move if there are future defections," the reality is that the institutional snobbery combined with sheer pride (e.g. Colorado having to stoop to rejoining the Big 12 that it left or Utah having to ask to join BYU's conference) within the Pac-12 is massive (and once again I'm not talking about Stanford and Cal, but Colorado and Utah and even Arizona State trying to change its image to be more academically-oriented).

I believe it. Also that even with the sinking ship as it appears, if PAC thought very lowly of many of the B12 schools, even someone like Iowa State, no much if anything may have changed regarding that snobbery.

Only the PAC knows who it received applications from after the Texas-OU SEC announcement. I suspect they may have received apps from many, and maybe all of the remainders. That nothing was done, with B12 hurting, THEN after USC-UCLA bolted? There are problems in that conference out there.

The PAC wouldn’t even take an Oklahoma-Oklahoma State package in 2011.


It’s not clear that the PAC really ever valued anybody in the Big 12 except for Texas. Even Oklahoma almost seemed to be considered the cost of getting Texas.

And actually even Texas got rejected by the PAC around 1990, although the PAC finally saw their value 20 years later.

It’s pretty pathetic to go from that mindset to looking at schools like SDSU, SMU, UNLV and God knows who else.

SDSU to the PAC is pretty much a "done deal." Agreement was made months ago. Just waiting until the media deal is finalized before the announcement is made.