The California schools don't want to be ruled by the Univ. of Texas. The CCFB game, the conference basketball tournament and the conference headquarters will all be moved to Texas. That's what they did to the Big 12 folks, so Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M left for better situations. So did Arkansas leave earlier. The U. of Texas has ruined 2 conferences, because they think they should be in charge.

(04-17-2019 04:44 AM)MrCincy Wrote:  The California schools don't want to be ruled by the Univ. of Texas. The CCFB game, the conference basketball tournament and the conference headquarters will all be moved to Texas. That's what they did to the Big 12 folks, so Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M left for better situations. So did Arkansas leave earlier. The U. of Texas has ruined 2 conferences, because they think they should be in charge.

Simply stated, your post is wrong.

Colorado has always wanted to be in the PAC and they took that chance when Texoma started flirting with the PAC. Nebraska was no longer relevant after they lost their ability to recruit partial qualifiers. Mizzou was headed to the Big Est when the Texoma deal to the PAC almost happened. Mizzou wanted the Big 10 because they thought they aligned better with those schools. The Big 10 didn't want them and the SEC saved them. A&M was tired of being in big brother's shadow and had been wanting to leave for the SEC since the late 80's.

Texas didn't ruin anything.

(04-17-2019 04:44 AM)MrCincy Wrote:  The California schools don't want to be ruled by the Univ. of Texas. The CCFB game, the conference basketball tournament and the conference headquarters will all be moved to Texas. That's what they did to the Big 12 folks, so Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M left for better situations. So did Arkansas leave earlier. The U. of Texas has ruined 2 conferences, because they think they should be in charge.

Yet EVERY conference would take them in a heartbeat.

Texas would be the conference realignment equivalent of the trophy wife.

Yeah, they're high maintenance, selfish, and a bit of a snob, but EVERYONE wants one!

The growing TV money disparity between the Big 12 and Pac 12 would, in theory, seem to make this a possibility. This June, the Big 12 seems likely to be around $39 million for each school for their Tiers 1 and 2 and they each have Tier 3 deals (Texas with $15 million from the LHN; OU about $7 million; KU about $5 million for their ESPN basketball deal; and the others ranging from $1 million to $3 million). So each Big 12 school will likely be over $40 million this year and that will escalate some with the new ESPN Tier 3 deal. And the Pac 12 schools are likely to announce about $31 million but that includes Tier 3 and doesn't include their growing expenses associated with their Pac12 networks. So, the difference is likely to be about $10 million per year between the highest earning Pac12 school and the lowest earning Big 12 school. And that seems likely to only grow over the next few years.

But, for all the reasons stated by many in this thread, that disparity just isn't enough to overcome all the other factors that keeps the Pac 12 together. Except for (maybe) USC, I don't see any Pac 12 school that would even be interested in considering such a move and the Big 12 (i.e., Texas) doesn't really want expansion anyway unless projected numbers really move the needle a lot.

Maybe the situation will change in 4-5 years when the Pac 12 renegotiates their deals, but I suspect that they'll do a deal that temporarily gets them back in the mix with the SEC, Big 12 and Big 12 but then diminishes again over time.