Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
Author Message
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 01:14 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  I'd say the ability to host a CCG was a compelling reason to move from 10 to 12. And getting the ball rolling with CU first in order to try to lure Texas + friends while blocking Baylor also made a ton of sense. The move to 14, however, would force the Pac to make some very difficult decisions about its internal alignment because there are only so many games in CA to go around and the four CA schools insist on always playing each other. 14 is much less compelling unless the two additions are Texas and Texas A&M.

The blocking Baylor thing needs to go away. Only in a solipsistic BigXII-centric mindset was this the reason for inviting CU first. CU accepted its formal invitation early because CU and UT were the only schools with invitations that were not contingent on other schools accepting/declining. The PAC presidents had signed off on two expansion options:

PAC-12 with CU and UU.
PAC16 with CU plus UT, TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M^.

As soon as the PAC voted to expand to at least 12, CU had an actionable offer (Utah had obviously already agreed to the terms of either PAC12 or PAC16 membership should it be offered).

TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M invites were contingent on UT joining.

*Scott tried to swap KU in for OKSU at the last minute. This was confirmed to be the reason for his impromptu visit planned to KU.

^A&M was always believed to be headed to the SEC. Utah's invite to the PAC16 was contingent on A&M going to the SEC.

Baylor was never a consideration.
07-07-2017 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I recall reading that it was thought that Baylor was trying to work backdoor politics to be included, as it had done before with the Big 12 itself.

No idea if that is true, just message board posts.
07-07-2017 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GiveEmTheAxe Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 330
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Stanford
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I think of the CU invitation, free of contingencies, as a Baylor-blocking move because it would have prevented a counter-offer of the Pac absorbing the entire BigXII South to reach 16. But yes, we did actually want CU on its own merits too.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2017 02:50 PM by GiveEmTheAxe.)
07-07-2017 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,154
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #24
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 02:15 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 01:14 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  I'd say the ability to host a CCG was a compelling reason to move from 10 to 12. And getting the ball rolling with CU first in order to try to lure Texas + friends while blocking Baylor also made a ton of sense. The move to 14, however, would force the Pac to make some very difficult decisions about its internal alignment because there are only so many games in CA to go around and the four CA schools insist on always playing each other. 14 is much less compelling unless the two additions are Texas and Texas A&M.

The blocking Baylor thing needs to go away. Only in a solipsistic BigXII-centric mindset was this the reason for inviting CU first. CU accepted its formal invitation early because CU and UT were the only schools with invitations that were not contingent on other schools accepting/declining. The PAC presidents had signed off on two expansion options:

PAC-12 with CU and UU.
PAC16 with CU plus UT, TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M^.

As soon as the PAC voted to expand to at least 12, CU had an actionable offer (Utah had obviously already agreed to the terms of either PAC12 or PAC16 membership should it be offered).

TTU, OU, OKSU*, and A&M invites were contingent on UT joining.

*Scott tried to swap KU in for OKSU at the last minute. This was confirmed to be the reason for his impromptu visit planned to KU.

^A&M was always believed to be headed to the SEC. Utah's invite to the PAC16 was contingent on A&M going to the SEC.

Baylor was never a consideration.

I know we will go round in circles about this but go back and read the articles about the proposed PAC 16 before the invites came out in June, 2010, and Utah WAS NOT in the 6. The 6 were: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Colorado. When A&M and UT hesitated, Utah was quickly invited. Had those 6 all accepted, Utah would've been snubbed. The MWC would still have Utah & BYU probably...or maybe Utah goes to the Big 12. But Utah was an A&M hesitation away from not being in the PAC 16.
07-07-2017 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,735
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I think you guys are saying the same thing:

UT = Texas
UU = Utah

jrj84105's point is that Utah was ahead of Baylor....or, more to point, that Baylor wasn't really even on the PAC's radar.
07-07-2017 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 863
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #26
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 04:26 PM)YNot Wrote:  I think you guys are saying the same thing:

UT = Texas
UU = Utah

jrj84105's point is that Utah was ahead of Baylor....or, more to point, that Baylor wasn't really even on the PAC's radar.

And "UT" can also mean Tennessee. College abbreviations can be very frustrating.... 03-banghead
07-07-2017 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,784
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #27
Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
Texas and Oklahoma ain't leaving the big 12
At this point Iam thinking realignment in 2025 will not be so huge, only a few teams will move
07-07-2017 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
So much of the false narrative came from Chip Brown trying (successfully) to paint UT as the good guy.

The first mischaracterization was that greedy Larry Scott looked to kill the BigXII. Larry Scott was hired in 03/09 and had already identified Utah and Colorado as PAC expansion targets by April 2009. Utah didn't have the votes (mix of academic concerns and divisional alignment concerns), but Scott was working on it when UT approached Scott and pitched the PAC16 concept. A&M was pitched by UT as #16, but A&M pres Loftin pretty unequivocally stated that A&M never reciprocated that interest. But they remained in the public eye as #16 at the behest of UT.

Likewise, Baylor wasn't blocked from the PAC16 by intolerant Cal preemptively inviting Colorado. Baylor was blocked from a PAC16 invite because neither the PAC nor OU, OSU, UT, TTU, A&M, nor the media partners wanted them. But it's much easier to just place the blame on those intolerant Cal lefty pinkos.

UT didn't back out because A&M bailed on the PAC last minute. A&M just affirmed the position they had held from the onset. Scott wasn't caught by surprise because he'd been working on the assumption of Utah as #16 from the beginning. In fact, winning PAC president approval for Utah as either 12 or 16 is what allowed Scott to extend Colorado a formal invite as expansion in some form was a done deal. An agreement had been reached on 11-12 with 12 pending A&M declining as expected.

But then UT killed the PAC16 by its 11th hour questioning of the equal revenue sharing and demanding its own network. There was a moment where the PAC tried to land KU instead of OSU (Chip framing it as greed on the part of the PAC12), but I suspect that this was probably at the prompting of UT (another way to scuttle the PAC deal and make somebody other than themselves look like the culprit).

"And now Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas."

Chip's post-mortem on PAC expansion has some truth behind all the spin that is superimposed to make UT look good. One part that I know was true from the Utah side of things was this:
"If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add Utah."

Anyway, UT succeeded not only in getting a sweet Tv deal that permanently hobbled the BigXII conference and killed the PACN's chance at long term viability, but also did it all in a way where they wrote an almost completely false narrative that paints everyone but themselves in a poor light.
07-07-2017 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,021
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #29
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 02:51 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 08:36 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 11:42 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Then Texas could trick out its home schedule with Notre Dame, Tennessee, Penn State a bunch of other programs who are no longer in it for the standings.

Wait, what?

They are programs where the supporters are showing up for the institution more so than the product at this point.

There was a time when Penn State was an outsider playing in a 50,000 seater with a chip on its shoulder where it was a fight every week for respect in the rankings.

Now it's just a mega huge program that plays decent football against top flight competition. Championship hunger is no longer there. Fans accept the glory days are in the past but show up because the football is a major event.

It's like these classic names that have raised admission standards which give them the effective talent level of a Northwestern. A Top 10 finish becomes a high water mark when the Alabama's and Ohio State's are laser focused on a national title.

Florida State I feel while past it's peak still has that championship hunger to try and sign the nation's top recruiting class. They'll never take a Northwestern mindset to recruiting.

I was mostly with you until the bold. If you think Penn State isn't trying to win a championship then you must not be paying attention. Penn State fought tooth and nail to avoid any penalties in the Jerry Sandusky decision and have been playing handicapped with the sanctions against them but still was above .500 and made bowls once eligible again. They fought like crazy to be in the playoffs last year instead of Ohio State, who PSU beat.

Florida State won a national championship a couple years ago and you say they aren't trying? I wish Penn State and Liberty would accidentally win a couple! I just can't buy Tennessee or Notre Dame not trying either.
07-07-2017 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
I was under the impression that Colorado had a standing Pac 10 invite back in 94 when the Big 8 took in the Texahoma 4, but that Colorado was not really ready to pull the trigger on that offer.

I also can't see where Stanford and Oregon would be accepting of Baylor although maybe not as strident at Cal.

Texas of course would have a standing offer in the Pac, B10, SEC, and ACC.

I would think keeping Baylor away would be always be in the back of any conference's mind. Baylor has had serious issues for decades, the bad stuff recently is not new for Baylor.

Without doubting for a minute that Texas would pull almost anything to further their interests and shot down the move to the P16 for their own benefit, the only three things that UT has not shown the ability to fully control is:

1. A Republican Governor
2. TAMU, and
3. Baylor Politics

Given the political climate in Texas over the past 20 years, the last thing Texas needs is to show their bloody hands regarding cutting Baylor's throat, therefor anything to blame it on anyone else.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2017 09:19 PM by lumberpack4.)
07-07-2017 09:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,065
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
As an outside observer from the Midwest with no real dog in the fight what I take away from the failed Pac 16 expansion was that everyone involved was scheming and politicking:

Texas was actively campaigning to get Colorado swapped for Baylor and Baylor was threatening all parties involved with red tape and legal hoops to stall any moves for years.

A&M hated the whole idea and snuck off and made its own arrangements with the SEC without letting anyone else in on it or consulting with them.

Larry Scott was duplicitous with his 11th hour bait and switch of Oklahoma St for Kansas.

I'm not sure that you can say Colorado did anything sneaky. The Pac schools and Colorado had mutual interest regardless of what everyone else was doing and they made sure to pull the trigger before they could be screwed out of it.

Texas played their advocacy of Baylor as being a good neighbor but what they really wanted was another vote in future P16 dealings but their money grabbing that spoiled the deal showed whose interests they were really looking after.

Theoretically, the whole thing could have been salvaged: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, and Texas Tech to the Pac 16.

Instead they leveraged the networks for money and Texas demanded the LHN to keep this shotgun marriage afloat for dust a few more years.
07-07-2017 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 09:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I was under the impression that Colorado had a standing Pac 10 invite back in 94 when the Big 8 took in the Texahoma 4, but that Colorado was not really ready to pull the trigger on that offer.

Colorado didn't have a standing PAC invite because there wasn't an acceptable #12. The January 2009 Sugar Bowl win made Utah an acceptable #12 athletically, but there were still reservations academically. Before touching down in Oklahoma and Texas, Larry Scott's private plane stopped in SLC-once a few weeks earlier and again on the way out to Texas. Utah getting the votes to be #12 (or 16) and accepting the terms of a PAC invite was what allowed Colorado to finally receive the formal invite.

The "surprise" of A&M declining the PAC invite wasn't a surprise. Scott's planned trip to KU, however, was totally off script. Chip Brown said it was a last second play to sub KU for OSU. Maybe that's true, and if it is I'd wager that UT was the instigator in trying to kill the PAC16 while shifting blame to Scott.

Alternately, I think KU may have been looked at as UT's replacement in a PAC14 (CU, UU, OU, KU) but OU wasn't interested in leaving OSU and UT, and UT didn't feel threatened enough to drop their demands for unequal revenue and the LHN. I sort of think OU may have screwed up by not playing along with the bluff.
07-07-2017 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,140
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 09:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As an outside observer from the Midwest with no real dog in the fight what I take away from the failed Pac 16 expansion was that everyone involved was scheming and politicking:

Texas was actively campaigning to get Colorado swapped for Baylor and Baylor was threatening all parties involved with red tape and legal hoops to stall any moves for years.

A&M hated the whole idea and snuck off and made its own arrangements with the SEC without letting anyone else in on it or consulting with them.

Larry Scott was duplicitous with his 11th hour bait and switch of Oklahoma St for Kansas.

I'm not sure that you can say Colorado did anything sneaky. The Pac schools and Colorado had mutual interest regardless of what everyone else was doing and they made sure to pull the trigger before they could be screwed out of it.

Texas played their advocacy of Baylor as being a good neighbor but what they really wanted was another vote in future P16 dealings but their money grabbing that spoiled the deal showed whose interests they were really looking after.

Theoretically, the whole thing could have been salvaged: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, and Texas Tech to the Pac 16.

Instead they leveraged the networks for money and Texas demanded the LHN to keep this shotgun marriage afloat for dust a few more years.

I really think Texas was the only one actively playing everyone else. I think it's debatable that UT really ever intended to join the PAC.

A&M didn't mislead the PAC, and I believe the interest of OU, OSU, and TTU was entirely genuine. The PAC was very forthright with Utah from the beginning.

I think Texas may have tried to use use Baylor as a bargaining chip (as in we'll drop Baylor if you let us keep the LHN) but I don't think even Texas could sell that bluff. There was never any real consideration of Baylor from the PAC side anyway.

The only time it got weird was when KU came into play.

I think Scott tried to paint UT into a corner by going after a foursome of OU, KU, CU, and UU. I think UT legitimately countered the impending death of the BigXII with a threat to go independent and cut OU and KU off from Texas. UT again made the better bluff and got what it wanted.

Texas certainly played the independence card later in negotiating to keep the LHN in the BigXII.
07-07-2017 10:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 10:43 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 09:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I was under the impression that Colorado had a standing Pac 10 invite back in 94 when the Big 8 took in the Texahoma 4, but that Colorado was not really ready to pull the trigger on that offer.

Colorado didn't have a standing PAC invite because there wasn't an acceptable #12. The January 2009 Sugar Bowl win made Utah an acceptable #12 athletically, but there were still reservations academically. Before touching down in Oklahoma and Texas, Larry Scott's private plane stopped in SLC-once a few weeks earlier and again on the way out to Texas. Utah getting the votes to be #12 (or 16) and accepting the terms of a PAC invite was what allowed Colorado to finally receive the formal invite.

The "surprise" of A&M declining the PAC invite wasn't a surprise. Scott's planned trip to KU, however, was totally off script. Chip Brown said it was a last second play to sub KU for OSU. Maybe that's true, and if it is I'd wager that UT was the instigator in trying to kill the PAC16 while shifting blame to Scott.

Alternately, I think KU may have been looked at as UT's replacement in a PAC14 (CU, UU, OU, KU) but OU wasn't interested in leaving OSU and UT, and UT didn't feel threatened enough to drop their demands for unequal revenue and the LHN. I sort of think OU may have screwed up by not playing along with the bluff.


You are talking about 2010, but I am talking about 1994. Here is an article from the LA Times that says Colorado voted 6-3 to turn down the P10 in 1994 because the P10's vote to issue an invite came after Colorado had agreed to the formation of the B12. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-23/s...conference

My understanding was that the PAC 10 would have been at 11, just like the B10 from 1990 to the addition of Nebraska and that Colorado did not need a 12th because the P10 was always okay with Colorado.

I guess I would compare Colorado and the P10 to the SEC and TAMU - the affinity and the invite have been there for years - waiting for Colorado and TAMU. Georgia Tech could have joined the ACC in 1965 had they asked - they always had the votes.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2017 11:20 PM by lumberpack4.)
07-07-2017 11:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,968
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 07:14 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 02:51 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 08:36 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 11:42 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Then Texas could trick out its home schedule with Notre Dame, Tennessee, Penn State a bunch of other programs who are no longer in it for the standings.

Wait, what?

They are programs where the supporters are showing up for the institution more so than the product at this point.

There was a time when Penn State was an outsider playing in a 50,000 seater with a chip on its shoulder where it was a fight every week for respect in the rankings.

Now it's just a mega huge program that plays decent football against top flight competition. Championship hunger is no longer there. Fans accept the glory days are in the past but show up because the football is a major event.

It's like these classic names that have raised admission standards which give them the effective talent level of a Northwestern. A Top 10 finish becomes a high water mark when the Alabama's and Ohio State's are laser focused on a national title.

Florida State I feel while past it's peak still has that championship hunger to try and sign the nation's top recruiting class. They'll never take a Northwestern mindset to recruiting.

I was mostly with you until the bold. If you think Penn State isn't trying to win a championship then you must not be paying attention. Penn State fought tooth and nail to avoid any penalties in the Jerry Sandusky decision and have been playing handicapped with the sanctions against them but still was above .500 and made bowls once eligible again. They fought like crazy to be in the playoffs last year instead of Ohio State, who PSU beat.

Florida State won a national championship a couple years ago and you say they aren't trying? I wish Penn State and Liberty would accidentally win a couple! I just can't buy Tennessee or Notre Dame not trying either.

In the 80's Notre Dame and Penn State dominated recruiting in the B1G region. They were the hot programs not Ohio State and Michigan.

I just feel the fans of Notre Dame and Penn State don't see realism in returning to the 80's power structure. Scholarship limits, more competition, more academic programs ect.

FSU's peak was in the late 90's early 00's. Those were the years where the national championship came down to winner of the FSU-Florida-Miami games. On the field expectations at FSU though are still sky high which is my point, where at some places in the P5 its more about the pageantry of a traditional program for fans than results on the field.
07-07-2017 11:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 06:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Anyway, UT succeeded not only in getting a sweet Tv deal that permanently hobbled the BigXII conference and killed the PACN's chance at long term viability

If a PACIFIC network isn't viable with a base of Pacific markets, then there shouldn't be a Pacific network.

Houston, Dallas, SA, Austin, OKC, Tulsa, KC ... these are all great examples of markets that have nothing to do with Pacific.


(07-07-2017 11:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You are talking about 2010, but I am talking about 1994. Here is an article from the LA Times that says Colorado voted 6-3 to turn down the P10 in 1994 because the P10's vote to issue an invite came after Colorado had agreed to the formation of the B12. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-23/s...conference

My understanding was that the PAC 10 would have been at 11, just like the B10 from 1990 to the addition of Nebraska and that Colorado did not need a 12th because the P10 was always okay with Colorado.

I guess I would compare Colorado and the P10 to the SEC and TAMU - the affinity and the invite have been there for years - waiting for Colorado and TAMU. Georgia Tech could have joined the ACC in 1965 had they asked - they always had the votes.

Thank you, this is answers exactly the question I was going to bring up: why didn't Colorado just join the PAC when the Big 8 was ending, if they wanted in that conference so badly??

Why wait 15 years, winning the Big 12 just one time in that stretch, to finally say "OK, we're done" ??
07-08-2017 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,154
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 339
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #37
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-07-2017 11:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 10:43 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 09:13 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I was under the impression that Colorado had a standing Pac 10 invite back in 94 when the Big 8 took in the Texahoma 4, but that Colorado was not really ready to pull the trigger on that offer.

Colorado didn't have a standing PAC invite because there wasn't an acceptable #12. The January 2009 Sugar Bowl win made Utah an acceptable #12 athletically, but there were still reservations academically. Before touching down in Oklahoma and Texas, Larry Scott's private plane stopped in SLC-once a few weeks earlier and again on the way out to Texas. Utah getting the votes to be #12 (or 16) and accepting the terms of a PAC invite was what allowed Colorado to finally receive the formal invite.

The "surprise" of A&M declining the PAC invite wasn't a surprise. Scott's planned trip to KU, however, was totally off script. Chip Brown said it was a last second play to sub KU for OSU. Maybe that's true, and if it is I'd wager that UT was the instigator in trying to kill the PAC16 while shifting blame to Scott.

Alternately, I think KU may have been looked at as UT's replacement in a PAC14 (CU, UU, OU, KU) but OU wasn't interested in leaving OSU and UT, and UT didn't feel threatened enough to drop their demands for unequal revenue and the LHN. I sort of think OU may have screwed up by not playing along with the bluff.


You are talking about 2010, but I am talking about 1994. Here is an article from the LA Times that says Colorado voted 6-3 to turn down the P10 in 1994 because the P10's vote to issue an invite came after Colorado had agreed to the formation of the B12. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-23/s...conference

My understanding was that the PAC 10 would have been at 11, just like the B10 from 1990 to the addition of Nebraska and that Colorado did not need a 12th because the P10 was always okay with Colorado.

I guess I would compare Colorado and the P10 to the SEC and TAMU - the affinity and the invite have been there for years - waiting for Colorado and TAMU. Georgia Tech could have joined the ACC in 1965 had they asked - they always had the votes.

You are correct. Numerous articles about Colorado being invited to the PAC 10 in 1994. There was a little smoke about Texas and BYU to the PAC 10 too. There are newspaper articles about New Mexico and BYU to the Big 8/12 from 1994 as well...the SWC falling apart was a huge moment and all kinds of rumors were going on...
07-08-2017 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-08-2017 03:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(07-07-2017 06:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Anyway, UT succeeded not only in getting a sweet Tv deal that permanently hobbled the BigXII conference and killed the PACN's chance at long term viability

If a PACIFIC network isn't viable with a base of Pacific markets, then there shouldn't be a Pacific network.

Houston, Dallas, SA, Austin, OKC, Tulsa, KC ... these are all great examples of markets that have nothing to do with Pacific.


(07-07-2017 11:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You are talking about 2010, but I am talking about 1994. Here is an article from the LA Times that says Colorado voted 6-3 to turn down the P10 in 1994 because the P10's vote to issue an invite came after Colorado had agreed to the formation of the B12. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-23/s...conference

My understanding was that the PAC 10 would have been at 11, just like the B10 from 1990 to the addition of Nebraska and that Colorado did not need a 12th because the P10 was always okay with Colorado.

I guess I would compare Colorado and the P10 to the SEC and TAMU - the affinity and the invite have been there for years - waiting for Colorado and TAMU. Georgia Tech could have joined the ACC in 1965 had they asked - they always had the votes.

Thank you, this is answers exactly the question I was going to bring up: why didn't Colorado just join the PAC when the Big 8 was ending, if they wanted in that conference so badly??

Why wait 15 years, winning the Big 12 just one time in that stretch, to finally say "OK, we're done" ??

Breaking with the Big 6 would not have been easy from a psychological standpoint. Even though Colorado had transformed from a plains/rockies entity to a rockies/west coast entity over the span of about 30 years doesn't mean the older alumni and political base have changed with the institution.

You have some of the same issues in the southeast particularly in the ACC. Even before expansion in 2003 some ACC schools were much more culturally southern while some had become eastern - Duke, UNC, and UVa had become very eastern from the 1970's to the early 00's. When I say eastern I mean a NYC/Boston/DC economic and political millieu. Now to someone standing in Northwestern or Syracuse, those three still appear southern because they are different from Chicago or NY and you really don't see the shift as much from the outside. Sometimes it's a change in your students, sometimes who you hire to run the University, sometimes a change in the demographics of the area, and many times a combination of both.

That's why Colorado balked for so long. That's why TAMU balked at the P10. That's why UVA and UNC will never go the B10. I think it's very difficult to exist comfortably outside your own culture if you hold a permanently inferior position.

I would suggest that to date there have been only a handful of P-5 moves where the moving school changed cultural bases - Maryland to the B10, West Virginia to the B12, and Mizzou to the SEC. In all three cases there were great push factors in addition to pull factors. WVa and Mizzou were both in a panic - WVa legitimately more so than Mizzou. Both were scared of being left in something lesser. Maryland's President and Chancellor had come to hate UNC and Duke and MD's role in the conference had diminished from Conference Leader from 1921 to the mid 1970's, to a near also-ran when it came to decision making.

The reason I know this is because I know the former UNC AD whose father was the AD at Maryland and have had the opportunity to converse with him regarding MD. You would not have seen this friction aired publicly in the ACC because that's not how the "country club" works, and only infrequently would it pop up in the Washington Post. In Raleigh, Charlotte, or Atlanta, MD's issues would be buried.
07-08-2017 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 6,034
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 240
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #39
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-06-2017 11:42 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Just a thought here with all the talk about Texas being this coveted free agent.

In many ways the Texas brand has outgrown performance expectation. What I mean by this is there is know way the football team on the field can match the athletic ego the same way its been at Notre Dame for the past 30 years or so.

PAC could add KU/OU to 14 and Texas w/ ND type deal with a guarantee OU shows up on the PAC schedule.

Then Texas could trick out its home schedule with Notre Dame, Tennessee, Penn State a bunch of other programs who are no longer in it for the standings.

No. They'd have no interest in special treatment of Texas.
07-08-2017 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Could the PAC give Texas an ND type deal?
(07-08-2017 06:51 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  
(07-06-2017 11:42 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Just a thought here with all the talk about Texas being this coveted free agent.

In many ways the Texas brand has outgrown performance expectation. What I mean by this is there is know way the football team on the field can match the athletic ego the same way its been at Notre Dame for the past 30 years or so.

PAC could add KU/OU to 14 and Texas w/ ND type deal with a guarantee OU shows up on the PAC schedule.

Then Texas could trick out its home schedule with Notre Dame, Tennessee, Penn State a bunch of other programs who are no longer in it for the standings.

No. They'd have no interest in special treatment of Texas.

I think Texas as an independent is a product of their own ego. Outside of Texas what is the "hook" (pun intended). Notre Dame's hook is Catholics. BYU's hook is Mormans. If Baptists were rarer, that could be WF's or Baylor's national hook. Army and Navy have a national hook.

To be special as an independent I think you need something that causes people around the nation to be interested in you - a hook. I don't see that with Texas.
07-08-2017 07:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.