(12-19-2017 11:05 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:18 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:04 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-15-2017 02:25 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Cal chancellor Carol Christ expresses “three sets of concerns” about the Pac-12’s direction, criticizes the conference office itself

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/14/ca...dium=email

The Name PAC and B-12 schools want more dollars then the PAC TV deal gives them. They also have no viable expansion targets. I could see a Big 12/Pac 12 merge of teams forming a new conference with Tier 3 rights owned by the schools. I could see Texas and USC starting a new 16 team conference both CA and Texas based to compete with the BIG and SEC.

West: USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Arizona
East: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Colorado, Kansas

So K-State, Iowa State, and WVU are kicked to the curb?

ASU, Oregon St, and Wash St, are given their waking papers?

I don't think Washington goes anywhere without State, same for Arizona and ASU.

If anything, I think you'd see the PAC being split up between the XII and the B1G.

Not to be rude (as my wife is a Coog) but Washington will go wherever the CA schools tell them to go. If the four CA schools and four Texas schools said we are doing this move the rest would be scrambling to join. The easiest two to get are Colorado and Utah as the have no ties to break.

So you have: UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, Utah in the West. Arizona, Oregon and Washington are given a take it or leave it proposition. My guess is they take it or risk getting replaced by UNLV or Hawaii.

East is harder: Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, Colorado approach Nebraska first. If they are in they give Kansas and Oklahoma a take it or leave it offer. Otherwise add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and Kansas is glad to be in.

Colorado left the B12 to get away from Texas, don’t see them being eager for a reunion, also true for Nebraska. Also, academics are only counted if they can be used as an excuse to deny membership.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Considering CU left when they thought UT was coming with them I would say they didn't leave to get away from UT.

Nebraska's a different animal but less adversarial than common rumors assume. Search for their article "The Big Ten Decision" which really mythbusted many of those rumors.

(12-20-2017 09:20 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 03:38 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 05:56 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 04:52 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  USC isn’t going anywhere without UCLA, Stanford, Cal. And quite frankly they don’t need to as any University in the country would give their left nut to be associated with those 4 Universities. But you underestimate the snobbery of those schools. They will associate with like minded Universities but not just anyone. They have the power to call the shots especially if paired with Texas, Utah and Colorado which are all AAU schools. Kansas will join in a heart beat.

Just Academically you have:
USC (AAU)
UCLA (AAU)
Cal (AAU)
Stanford (AAU)
Utah (Not AAU)
Texas (AAU)
Texas Tech (Not AAU)
Colorado (AAU).

That is your core group. Then you place a series of calls:
1) Your first call is a discreet call to Kansas and tell them you or Iowa State. You have 24 hours to see if they want to join. Kansas says yes and Now you have Kansas (AAU)
2) Then you tell Arizona you or UNLV. What do you want to do? Arizona has no alternative being in the West. Arizona says yes
Arizona (AAU).
3) Call Oregon, you or Hawaii. What do you want? Oregon say yes
Oregon (AAU)
4) Call Washington and say you or AZ State? Washington has no choice and Washington (AAU)
5) Call Oklahoma and say we want you but not Okie State. See what happens...

You now have almost every AAU school west of the Mississippi, you can start to fill in the east. Now finish with calls first to peer AAU members: Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M. See if any want to join this distinguished list of schools... you might get one maybe two. Then you fill in from there ending with 4 Texas schools and 4 non-Texas schools in the east.

Ideally you end with Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M/Houston, TCU, Baylor. With Missouri, Iowa State, New Mexico and Baylor
all options. Worst case is you lose Boren and Oklahoma to SEC but I doubt Oklahoma will choose to associate with Alabama and Mississippi versus the list of Western AAU Flagship schools.

I would think the leadership of these schools would be a little too savvy to be duped by such transparent ultimatums. Oregon, for example, will see their replacement by Hawaii as a rather empty threat.

Also, Utah would not be part of the core group. Not AAU, not a blue blood like OU, and no powerful friends to back them up. They might very well be included, but they're not automatic.

Oregon won’t like it but realistically what is their alternative? Let’s say Oregon and Washington revolt and say we will start our own conference. Who are they going to add? Fresno, SDSU, Reno and SJSU? It’s not happening. Oregon, Washington and Arizona would be in the same position as New Mexico, UNLV and SDSU when the MWC was formed.

And yes Utah would because taking them further presses the hands of Washington, Oregon and Washington.

It's true that UO, UW, and UA would have little in the way of other desirable options in such a scenario. There's no need for the new conference to threaten them as you describe.

As I said, Utah would probably be invited, but UO, UW, and UA would be invited before then, as they would be more desirable to the new conference.

Kansas won't necessarily jump at the offer. They'll feel out the Big Ten and maybe even the SEC before they decide to go all in. If the new conference really wants them, they'll wait.

There's no way, however, that Nebraska, Missouri, or Texas A&M would join the new conference. It would be foolish of them to surrender a good thing with the two most powerful conferences for a questionably stable startup league.

The final lineup would probably be like so:

Definite
California
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
USC

Probably
Arizona
Colorado
Oregon
Texas Tech
Washington

Maybe
Arizona State
Houston
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Utah

Probably not
BYU
Oregon State
Washington State

No
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
Any current Big Ten, SEC, or MWC school

So if they max out at 16, you might see:

Big Pac
East: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

Your line-up perhaps maybe the result but I think you maximize both quality and coverage by reducing overlap in smaller states such as Arizona and Oklahoma. For that reason your definate bucket would include Colorado, Utah and Tech. The Airport meeting would include those 8 schools. You can’t include Washington, Oregon, Kansas and Arizona because politically they couldn’t be seen plotting to kick out their in-state rival schools.

I’m also following the model used by the MWC schools when they broke off from the WAC. Something Utah knows very well. So I don’t think Kansas gets time to shop around. Just like UNLV, SDSU and New Mexico had no time to fight. Had the MWC given Fresno and SJSU time, SDSU might never been included. If you give people time, Politicians get involved to save school X and it becomes a mess. So the schools you definatively want to split from their partner: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas get a day. If they say no it’s the lucky day for Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho or Iowa. Once your 12 are locked in then you go for 16 by filling in the final four schools.

(12-20-2017 10:57 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:05 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:18 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 02:04 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  The Name PAC and B-12 schools want more dollars then the PAC TV deal gives them. They also have no viable expansion targets. I could see a Big 12/Pac 12 merge of teams forming a new conference with Tier 3 rights owned by the schools. I could see Texas and USC starting a new 16 team conference both CA and Texas based to compete with the BIG and SEC.

West: USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Arizona
East: Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Colorado, Kansas

So K-State, Iowa State, and WVU are kicked to the curb?

ASU, Oregon St, and Wash St, are given their waking papers?

I don't think Washington goes anywhere without State, same for Arizona and ASU.

If anything, I think you'd see the PAC being split up between the XII and the B1G.

Not to be rude (as my wife is a Coog) but Washington will go wherever the CA schools tell them to go. If the four CA schools and four Texas schools said we are doing this move the rest would be scrambling to join. The easiest two to get are Colorado and Utah as the have no ties to break.

So you have: UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, Utah in the West. Arizona, Oregon and Washington are given a take it or leave it proposition. My guess is they take it or risk getting replaced by UNLV or Hawaii.

East is harder: Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, Colorado approach Nebraska first. If they are in they give Kansas and Oklahoma a take it or leave it offer. Otherwise add Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and Kansas is glad to be in.

Colorado left the B12 to get away from Texas, don’t see them being eager for a reunion, also true for Nebraska. Also, academics are only counted if they can be used as an excuse to deny membership.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Considering CU left when they thought UT was coming with them I would say they didn't leave to get away from UT.

Nebraska's a different animal but less adversarial than common rumors assume. Search for their article "The Big Ten Decision" which really mythbusted many of those rumors.

Nebraska is the intriguing one to me. Would they leave to join a conference, as if not more prestigious as the Big to play with historical rivals Colorado and Oklahoma? Again speed is the issue here. You have to move with a series of one day either/or decisions to maximize speed. Your second choice may not be as nice but you can’t lose speed. The whole thing has to be done in 3 days.


Day 0: Airport invites: Texas, T-Tech, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Utah, Colorado
Day 1: Washington, Arizona, Oregon, Kansas plus inform Oklahoma
Day 2: Nebraska versus Oklahoma State, Texas A&M versus Houston, lock in Oklahoma. TCU versus Baylor
Day 3: Announce new Conference.

(12-20-2017 11:26 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:20 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 03:38 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 05:56 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 04:52 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  USC isn’t going anywhere without UCLA, Stanford, Cal. And quite frankly they don’t need to as any University in the country would give their left nut to be associated with those 4 Universities. But you underestimate the snobbery of those schools. They will associate with like minded Universities but not just anyone. They have the power to call the shots especially if paired with Texas, Utah and Colorado which are all AAU schools. Kansas will join in a heart beat.

Just Academically you have:
USC (AAU)
UCLA (AAU)
Cal (AAU)
Stanford (AAU)
Utah (Not AAU)
Texas (AAU)
Texas Tech (Not AAU)
Colorado (AAU).

That is your core group. Then you place a series of calls:
1) Your first call is a discreet call to Kansas and tell them you or Iowa State. You have 24 hours to see if they want to join. Kansas says yes and Now you have Kansas (AAU)
2) Then you tell Arizona you or UNLV. What do you want to do? Arizona has no alternative being in the West. Arizona says yes
Arizona (AAU).
3) Call Oregon, you or Hawaii. What do you want? Oregon say yes
Oregon (AAU)
4) Call Washington and say you or AZ State? Washington has no choice and Washington (AAU)
5) Call Oklahoma and say we want you but not Okie State. See what happens...

You now have almost every AAU school west of the Mississippi, you can start to fill in the east. Now finish with calls first to peer AAU members: Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M. See if any want to join this distinguished list of schools... you might get one maybe two. Then you fill in from there ending with 4 Texas schools and 4 non-Texas schools in the east.

Ideally you end with Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M/Houston, TCU, Baylor. With Missouri, Iowa State, New Mexico and Baylor
all options. Worst case is you lose Boren and Oklahoma to SEC but I doubt Oklahoma will choose to associate with Alabama and Mississippi versus the list of Western AAU Flagship schools.

I would think the leadership of these schools would be a little too savvy to be duped by such transparent ultimatums. Oregon, for example, will see their replacement by Hawaii as a rather empty threat.

Also, Utah would not be part of the core group. Not AAU, not a blue blood like OU, and no powerful friends to back them up. They might very well be included, but they're not automatic.

Oregon won’t like it but realistically what is their alternative? Let’s say Oregon and Washington revolt and say we will start our own conference. Who are they going to add? Fresno, SDSU, Reno and SJSU? It’s not happening. Oregon, Washington and Arizona would be in the same position as New Mexico, UNLV and SDSU when the MWC was formed.

And yes Utah would because taking them further presses the hands of Washington, Oregon and Washington.

It's true that UO, UW, and UA would have little in the way of other desirable options in such a scenario. There's no need for the new conference to threaten them as you describe.

As I said, Utah would probably be invited, but UO, UW, and UA would be invited before then, as they would be more desirable to the new conference.

Kansas won't necessarily jump at the offer. They'll feel out the Big Ten and maybe even the SEC before they decide to go all in. If the new conference really wants them, they'll wait.

There's no way, however, that Nebraska, Missouri, or Texas A&M would join the new conference. It would be foolish of them to surrender a good thing with the two most powerful conferences for a questionably stable startup league.

The final lineup would probably be like so:

Definite
California
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
USC

Probably
Arizona
Colorado
Oregon
Texas Tech
Washington

Maybe
Arizona State
Houston
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Utah

Probably not
BYU
Oregon State
Washington State

No
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
Any current Big Ten, SEC, or MWC school

So if they max out at 16, you might see:

Big Pac
East: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

Your line-up perhaps maybe the result but I think you maximize both quality and coverage by reducing overlap in smaller states such as Arizona and Oklahoma. For that reason your definate bucket would include Colorado, Utah and Tech. The Airport meeting would include those 8 schools. You can’t include Washington, Oregon, Kansas and Arizona because politically they couldn’t be seen plotting to kick out their in-state rival schools.

I’m also following the model used by the MWC schools when they broke off from the WAC. Something Utah knows very well. So I don’t think Kansas gets time to shop around. Just like UNLV, SDSU and New Mexico had no time to fight. Had the MWC given Fresno and SJSU time, SDSU might never been included. If you give people time, Politicians get involved to save school X and it becomes a mess. So the schools you definatively want to split from their partner: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas get a day. If they say no it’s the lucky day for Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho or Iowa. Once your 12 are locked in then you go for 16 by filling in the final four schools.

OK, agree to disagree. But some new points:

Arizona is a rather populous state (#14 as of 2016) and growing fast. It's not too outlandish to include both UA and ASU. UA appeals to the more academic-minded schools, and ASU has the Phoenix market.

If there's any school among the possible adds that could stand up to an ultimatum, it'd be Oklahoma. If they wanted to join the new conference, they would have enough leverage to bring OSU along. Otherwise, there's the SEC.

(12-20-2017 12:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 11:26 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:20 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 03:38 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 05:56 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I would think the leadership of these schools would be a little too savvy to be duped by such transparent ultimatums. Oregon, for example, will see their replacement by Hawaii as a rather empty threat.

Also, Utah would not be part of the core group. Not AAU, not a blue blood like OU, and no powerful friends to back them up. They might very well be included, but they're not automatic.

Oregon won’t like it but realistically what is their alternative? Let’s say Oregon and Washington revolt and say we will start our own conference. Who are they going to add? Fresno, SDSU, Reno and SJSU? It’s not happening. Oregon, Washington and Arizona would be in the same position as New Mexico, UNLV and SDSU when the MWC was formed.

And yes Utah would because taking them further presses the hands of Washington, Oregon and Washington.

It's true that UO, UW, and UA would have little in the way of other desirable options in such a scenario. There's no need for the new conference to threaten them as you describe.

As I said, Utah would probably be invited, but UO, UW, and UA would be invited before then, as they would be more desirable to the new conference.

Kansas won't necessarily jump at the offer. They'll feel out the Big Ten and maybe even the SEC before they decide to go all in. If the new conference really wants them, they'll wait.

There's no way, however, that Nebraska, Missouri, or Texas A&M would join the new conference. It would be foolish of them to surrender a good thing with the two most powerful conferences for a questionably stable startup league.

The final lineup would probably be like so:

Definite
California
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
USC

Probably
Arizona
Colorado
Oregon
Texas Tech
Washington

Maybe
Arizona State
Houston
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Utah

Probably not
BYU
Oregon State
Washington State

No
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
Any current Big Ten, SEC, or MWC school

So if they max out at 16, you might see:

Big Pac
East: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

Your line-up perhaps maybe the result but I think you maximize both quality and coverage by reducing overlap in smaller states such as Arizona and Oklahoma. For that reason your definate bucket would include Colorado, Utah and Tech. The Airport meeting would include those 8 schools. You can’t include Washington, Oregon, Kansas and Arizona because politically they couldn’t be seen plotting to kick out their in-state rival schools.

I’m also following the model used by the MWC schools when they broke off from the WAC. Something Utah knows very well. So I don’t think Kansas gets time to shop around. Just like UNLV, SDSU and New Mexico had no time to fight. Had the MWC given Fresno and SJSU time, SDSU might never been included. If you give people time, Politicians get involved to save school X and it becomes a mess. So the schools you definatively want to split from their partner: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas get a day. If they say no it’s the lucky day for Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho or Iowa. Once your 12 are locked in then you go for 16 by filling in the final four schools.

OK, agree to disagree. But some new points:

Arizona is a rather populous state (#14 as of 2016) and growing fast. It's not too outlandish to include both UA and ASU. UA appeals to the more academic-minded schools, and ASU has the Phoenix market.

If there's any school among the possible adds that could stand up to an ultimatum, it'd be Oklahoma. If they wanted to join the new conference, they would have enough leverage to bring OSU along. Otherwise, there's the SEC.

I think both your points are very valid. I could see ASU as another team. One alternative to solve both problems is instead of 16 do 18 which would allow both ASU and Oklahoma State but I think it’s probably too many mouths to feed. It’s also tough to make that argument when Washington is slightly bigger and growing slightly faster and Oklahoma is much smaller. The Huskies would likely throw a fit.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

And I agree about Oklahoma. They are the biggest risk factor. I debated on the best approach to get them and not Okie State. The state isn’t big enough market wise to justify 2 teams.

When you look at the population links you can see why the PAC-12 and Big 12 have to merge.

SEC State size: 2, 3, 8, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34
Big: 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 30, 37
ACC: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23
PAC: 1, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31
Big 12: 2, 28, 30, 35, 38

Done Right the Big PAC could have
1, 2, 13, 14, 21, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37 or 18

Much more respectable to compete with the Big, SEC and ACC

PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

If you are going to do that, why not move Kansas and Oklahoma with Texas and Texas Tech into the PAC for 14 (Notre Dame keeps their current status). This would give all of the P conferences 14 members and reduces the number of mouths to feed by 8.

(12-21-2017 01:29 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  OK, agree to disagree. But some new points:

Arizona is a rather populous state (#14 as of 2016) and growing fast. It's not too outlandish to include both UA and ASU. UA appeals to the more academic-minded schools, and ASU has the Phoenix market.

If there's any school among the possible adds that could stand up to an ultimatum, it'd be Oklahoma. If they wanted to join the new conference, they would have enough leverage to bring OSU along. Otherwise, there's the SEC.

I think both your points are very valid. I could see ASU as another team. One alternative to solve both problems is instead of 16 do 18 which would allow both ASU and Oklahoma State but I think it’s probably too many mouths to feed. It’s also tough to make that argument when Washington is slightly bigger and growing slightly faster and Oklahoma is much smaller. The Huskies would likely throw a fit.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

And I agree about Oklahoma. They are the biggest risk factor. I debated on the best approach to get them and not Okie State. The state isn’t big enough market wise to justify 2 teams.

When you look at the population links you can see why the PAC-12 and Big 12 have to merge.

SEC State size: 2, 3, 8, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34
Big: 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 30, 37
ACC: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23
PAC: 1, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31
Big 12: 2, 28, 30, 35, 38

Done Right the Big PAC could have
1, 2, 13, 14, 21, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37 or 18

Much more respectable to compete with the Big, SEC and ACC

The difference between the states of Arizona and Washington is that the little brother in AZ is in a highly populated metro area, whereas in WA the nearest metro of significance to the little brother is Spokane. So AZ has a stronger argument for 2 teams than WA. It's true that OK is too small to justify two teams from a market perspective, but the politics of adding OU would override that argument.

(12-21-2017 01:29 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 11:26 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:20 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 03:38 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Oregon won’t like it but realistically what is their alternative? Let’s say Oregon and Washington revolt and say we will start our own conference. Who are they going to add? Fresno, SDSU, Reno and SJSU? It’s not happening. Oregon, Washington and Arizona would be in the same position as New Mexico, UNLV and SDSU when the MWC was formed.

And yes Utah would because taking them further presses the hands of Washington, Oregon and Washington.

It's true that UO, UW, and UA would have little in the way of other desirable options in such a scenario. There's no need for the new conference to threaten them as you describe.

As I said, Utah would probably be invited, but UO, UW, and UA would be invited before then, as they would be more desirable to the new conference.

Kansas won't necessarily jump at the offer. They'll feel out the Big Ten and maybe even the SEC before they decide to go all in. If the new conference really wants them, they'll wait.

There's no way, however, that Nebraska, Missouri, or Texas A&M would join the new conference. It would be foolish of them to surrender a good thing with the two most powerful conferences for a questionably stable startup league.

The final lineup would probably be like so:

Definite
California
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
USC

Probably
Arizona
Colorado
Oregon
Texas Tech
Washington

Maybe
Arizona State
Houston
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Utah

Probably not
BYU
Oregon State
Washington State

No
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
Any current Big Ten, SEC, or MWC school

So if they max out at 16, you might see:

Big Pac
East: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

Your line-up perhaps maybe the result but I think you maximize both quality and coverage by reducing overlap in smaller states such as Arizona and Oklahoma. For that reason your definate bucket would include Colorado, Utah and Tech. The Airport meeting would include those 8 schools. You can’t include Washington, Oregon, Kansas and Arizona because politically they couldn’t be seen plotting to kick out their in-state rival schools.

I’m also following the model used by the MWC schools when they broke off from the WAC. Something Utah knows very well. So I don’t think Kansas gets time to shop around. Just like UNLV, SDSU and New Mexico had no time to fight. Had the MWC given Fresno and SJSU time, SDSU might never been included. If you give people time, Politicians get involved to save school X and it becomes a mess. So the schools you definatively want to split from their partner: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas get a day. If they say no it’s the lucky day for Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho or Iowa. Once your 12 are locked in then you go for 16 by filling in the final four schools.

OK, agree to disagree. But some new points:

Arizona is a rather populous state (#14 as of 2016) and growing fast. It's not too outlandish to include both UA and ASU. UA appeals to the more academic-minded schools, and ASU has the Phoenix market.

If there's any school among the possible adds that could stand up to an ultimatum, it'd be Oklahoma. If they wanted to join the new conference, they would have enough leverage to bring OSU along. Otherwise, there's the SEC.

I think both your points are very valid. I could see ASU as another team. One alternative to solve both problems is instead of 16 do 18 which would allow both ASU and Oklahoma State but I think it’s probably too many mouths to feed. It’s also tough to make that argument when Washington is slightly bigger and growing slightly faster and Oklahoma is much smaller. The Huskies would likely throw a fit.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

And I agree about Oklahoma. They are the biggest risk factor. I debated on the best approach to get them and not Okie State. The state isn’t big enough market wise to justify 2 teams.

When you look at the population links you can see why the PAC-12 and Big 12 have to merge.

SEC State size: 2, 3, 8, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34
Big: 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 30, 37
ACC: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23
PAC: 1, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31
Big 12: 2, 28, 30, 35, 38

Done Right the Big PAC could have
1, 2, 13, 14, 21, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37 or 18

Much more respectable to compete with the Big, SEC and ACC

If the top programs from the PAC and B12 combine to an 18-school conference, you shed 4 schools. That alone would give everyone in the new conference a $6-7M raise.

And, you too quickly overlook Iowa St. AAU school with pretty decent fan support and attendance. Good basketball.

(12-21-2017 10:35 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 01:29 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 12:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 11:26 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:20 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  It's true that UO, UW, and UA would have little in the way of other desirable options in such a scenario. There's no need for the new conference to threaten them as you describe.

As I said, Utah would probably be invited, but UO, UW, and UA would be invited before then, as they would be more desirable to the new conference.

Kansas won't necessarily jump at the offer. They'll feel out the Big Ten and maybe even the SEC before they decide to go all in. If the new conference really wants them, they'll wait.

There's no way, however, that Nebraska, Missouri, or Texas A&M would join the new conference. It would be foolish of them to surrender a good thing with the two most powerful conferences for a questionably stable startup league.

The final lineup would probably be like so:

Definite
California
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
USC

Probably
Arizona
Colorado
Oregon
Texas Tech
Washington

Maybe
Arizona State
Houston
Kansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Utah

Probably not
BYU
Oregon State
Washington State

No
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas State
West Virginia
Any current Big Ten, SEC, or MWC school

So if they max out at 16, you might see:

Big Pac
East: Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

Your line-up perhaps maybe the result but I think you maximize both quality and coverage by reducing overlap in smaller states such as Arizona and Oklahoma. For that reason your definate bucket would include Colorado, Utah and Tech. The Airport meeting would include those 8 schools. You can’t include Washington, Oregon, Kansas and Arizona because politically they couldn’t be seen plotting to kick out their in-state rival schools.

I’m also following the model used by the MWC schools when they broke off from the WAC. Something Utah knows very well. So I don’t think Kansas gets time to shop around. Just like UNLV, SDSU and New Mexico had no time to fight. Had the MWC given Fresno and SJSU time, SDSU might never been included. If you give people time, Politicians get involved to save school X and it becomes a mess. So the schools you definatively want to split from their partner: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Kansas get a day. If they say no it’s the lucky day for Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho or Iowa. Once your 12 are locked in then you go for 16 by filling in the final four schools.

OK, agree to disagree. But some new points:

Arizona is a rather populous state (#14 as of 2016) and growing fast. It's not too outlandish to include both UA and ASU. UA appeals to the more academic-minded schools, and ASU has the Phoenix market.

If there's any school among the possible adds that could stand up to an ultimatum, it'd be Oklahoma. If they wanted to join the new conference, they would have enough leverage to bring OSU along. Otherwise, there's the SEC.

I think both your points are very valid. I could see ASU as another team. One alternative to solve both problems is instead of 16 do 18 which would allow both ASU and Oklahoma State but I think it’s probably too many mouths to feed. It’s also tough to make that argument when Washington is slightly bigger and growing slightly faster and Oklahoma is much smaller. The Huskies would likely throw a fit.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

And I agree about Oklahoma. They are the biggest risk factor. I debated on the best approach to get them and not Okie State. The state isn’t big enough market wise to justify 2 teams.

When you look at the population links you can see why the PAC-12 and Big 12 have to merge.

SEC State size: 2, 3, 8, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34
Big: 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 30, 37
ACC: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 23
PAC: 1, 13, 14, 21, 27, 31
Big 12: 2, 28, 30, 35, 38

Done Right the Big PAC could have
1, 2, 13, 14, 21, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37 or 18

Much more respectable to compete with the Big, SEC and ACC

If the top programs from the PAC and B12 combine to an 18-school conference, you shed 4 schools. That alone would give everyone in the new conference a $6-7M raise.

And, you too quickly overlook Iowa St. AAU school with pretty decent fan support and attendance. Good basketball.

Actually I didn’t. That is why I could give Kansas 1 day because I could easily take Iowa State.

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

The strategy would be to create as many “last chance” opportunities as possible.

Step 1: the airport 7
USC,UCLA,Stanford,Cal,Utah, Colorado, Texas.
An FBS conference requires 8, so you pass the last chance opportunity to be #8 to schools in the following order: Oklahoma, UW, Oregon, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri. Offer expires in 1 day.

Step 2: The CCG move to 10. This is probably a few years later when the schools above have a chance to regret not joining and come to terms with leaving little brothers. You go after the schools above with the understanding thT the pair of ASU and Arizona will be offered if they decline. If it slips down to ASU and Arizona, you’re done.

Step 3: Divisions and 12. Assuming ASU and Arizona are still on the table as a threat, Repeat step 2.

You just keep adding by 2 as above until you finally add AZ and ASU.

So the conference winds up being the PAC-X (10-14) with the Airport 7, AZ and ASU, and 1-5 of the target schools (Oklahoma, Kansas, UW, OU, Neb, Missouri).

(12-21-2017 10:43 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

This, lawyers will be making bunches of money with all the lawsuits, plus all the alum politicians from the booted states/schools will be making life hell on the others. All of you thinking this nonsense could ever occur are deluded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(12-21-2017 12:21 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 10:43 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

This, lawyers will be making bunches of money with all the lawsuits, plus all the alum politicians from the booted states/schools will be making life hell on the others. All of you thinking this nonsense could ever occur are deluded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For the record, I don't see a "Big Pac" scenario as plausible (i.e., the majority of the Pac-12 and Big 12 schools forming a new conference together). But if it did happen, I'm sure the schools left behind would be well-compensated with hush money in the form of exit fees and possibly long-term OOC scheduling agreements.

(12-21-2017 12:21 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 10:43 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

This, lawyers will be making bunches of money with all the lawsuits, plus all the alum politicians from the booted states/schools will be making life hell on the others. All of you thinking this nonsense could ever occur are deluded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which is why you have to create a new conference. It’s how the PAC-8 schools left Idaho and Montana from the PCC and how the Mountain West schools left the WAC. So kicking someone out isn’t an option and the, PAC-12 would continue anyway.

Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State would simply add nine from the MWC.

They would need to be in CA and Colorado so the obvious 9 would be:
Fresno State, San Diego State, BYU, Boise, UNLV, Hawaii/Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Air Force

(12-21-2017 02:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 12:21 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 10:43 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

This, lawyers will be making bunches of money with all the lawsuits, plus all the alum politicians from the booted states/schools will be making life hell on the others. All of you thinking this nonsense could ever occur are deluded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which is why you have to create a new conference. It’s how the PAC-8 schools left Idaho and Montana from the PCC and how the Mountain West schools left the WAC. So kicking someone out isn’t an option and the, PAC-12 would continue anyway.

Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State would simply add nine from the MWC.

They would need to be in CA and Colorado so the obvious 9 would be:
Fresno State, San Diego State, BYU, Boise, UNLV, Hawaii/Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Air Force

I'm not so sure BYU would want to join that group. It's basically the MWC plus/minus a few members, not a full-fledged power conference.

(12-21-2017 03:24 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 02:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 12:21 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 10:43 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

This, lawyers will be making bunches of money with all the lawsuits, plus all the alum politicians from the booted states/schools will be making life hell on the others. All of you thinking this nonsense could ever occur are deluded.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which is why you have to create a new conference. It’s how the PAC-8 schools left Idaho and Montana from the PCC and how the Mountain West schools left the WAC. So kicking someone out isn’t an option and the, PAC-12 would continue anyway.

Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State would simply add nine from the MWC.

They would need to be in CA and Colorado so the obvious 9 would be:
Fresno State, San Diego State, BYU, Boise, UNLV, Hawaii/Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, Air Force

I'm not so sure BYU would want to join that group. It's basically the MWC plus/minus a few members, not a full-fledged power conference.

Depends on the arrangements for the remaining schools. If they went to 8 and the new PAC-12 and Big 12 were given a seat at the table they might.

Basically you would have 6 conference champions and two at large bids.

The New Big 12 would be interesting also.
West Virginia, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Temple, South Florida, Central Florida, Baylor, SMU, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas State, Memphis. Maybe 14 with NIU and ECU.

The PAC -12 could go to 14 with Hawaii and UTSA.

(12-21-2017 10:43 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

Legally I don’t think a mechanism exists to kick out a full member. Not to mention the political problems in WA and OR. Also you lose to much in the way of Big 12 rivalries.

I wasn't talking about kicking programs out but doing what they did with the PCC. The "Airport Meeting" scenario. That's what I meant by "shedding" programs. If the "Pac-12" continues on as a conference then they could rebuild.

(12-21-2017 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 05:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  PAC could just shed itself of Washington State and Oregon State and add Texas Tech and Texas. They don't have to lose their presence in those states while picking up a high population state. It's not like the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 schools haven't done a similar move in the past. However, the biggest plus is that they don't have to add mouths to feed while getting an economic boost.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford
UU, CU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

Oklahoma and Kansas pick between the SEC and Big Ten and West Virginia goes to ACC.

Done.

If you are going to do that, why not move Kansas and Oklahoma with Texas and Texas Tech into the PAC for 14 (Notre Dame keeps their current status). This would give all of the P conferences 14 members and reduces the number of mouths to feed by 8.

USC, UCLA, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, CU
UU, OU, KU, UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Texas

My idea is it would be a new conference. Basically, programs leave the Pac-12 and Big XII and form a new conference. The programs leaving could simply "buy" the name and that's how they can compensate the programs left behind.

I'm not sure if OU and KU would go to this conference if SEC and/or Big Ten are interested in them but it wouldn't be a bad scenario.

They could just buy the more geographically appropriate WAC name for about $3.50.