Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pac-16 confirmation
Author Message
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
Nebraska had no problem with the LHN, but other BigXII members did.

Baylor was never considered. Not even a little. The notion that the PAC presidents would approve a Baylor variant of the Texahoma proposition belies a fundamental misunderstanding of PAC politics.

I think the more correct way of viewing the “backup” situation is this and it all boils down to PAC academic and market interests:

1) A&M is an a AAU school but more importantly a top 100 research institution located in Texas. UT was the prize in PAC expansion but A&M was a huge target as well- more attractive to PAC presidents than OU et al.

2) A&M was a HEAVY SEC lean from the beginning.

3) Throughout the process UT continuously assured Scott that A&M would accept, but the PAC felt that A&M accepting was improbable. The PAC had multiple contingency plans in place. Colorado was a part of every plan, so they got the invite early.

4) When A&M declined formally, the PAC needed to recoup that AAU member and top 100 research status to appease the school presidents as well as some market size to appease the business side. Kansas (AAU) AND Utah (ARWU 100), both at #30 DMA, were the answer which left OSU with its lackluster academics and redundant small market out.

5) This iteration of the PAC16 had a lifespan of about 5 minutes, because the whole thing fell apart before Scott made it up to KC.

The reason why the PAC rejected the OU/OSU pairing was that OU doesn’t have the market or academics to carry the weight for OSU. It was A&M that carried their weight in the PAC16.0 plan.

So for Bullet’s priority list, here’s the real list for PAC preference:
1: A&M+OSU
2: KU+UU
———————-cutoff
3: OU+OSU
07-25-2019 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 01:12 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Bullet,
Maybe it’s because you need to bend things around to fit some narrative that UT was the savior of the BigXII rather than the program that sacrificed Nebraska, Missouri, A&M, Colorado, and potentially the future stability of the conference to get its LHN. For whatever purpose your adherence to the Chip Brown/UT version of events serves, it precludes you ever having a grasp of what happened then or what could happen prospectively.

It’a a waste of time to pull the same links that you’ve ignored previously because no matter what Loftin, Scott, Neinas, Hill, etc say on the record after the fact, you’re still going to stick with wild speculation and media gap-filling from 2010 to form your narrative. So be it.

But here’s a quick grab from ISU’s discussion of Scott’s travels as it happened. I can’t think of a more neutral party source than ISU.

[Image: 14FCBF66-4C08-4843-B9D4-D17EE37A3738_zpsmuxctuve.png]

And yes, the planned flight to KC, which never happened, did have Utah folks worried because that was not in the playbook before Scott arrived in Texas. (I’ll let you sleuth around and figure out which school president let slip that the PAC wanted to replace OSU with KU last minute)

As we’ve had several presidents and key figures go on the record in the last few years, each providing stories that are consistent with each other, one has to decide which version of the events to believe: the version told by presidents, ADs, and commissioners several years later or the speculation and insinuations of reporters as it happened in 2010.

I’ll put the ball in your court and ask you to find one on-the-record interview with an AD, school president, or commissioner which contradicts any aspect of these accounting of events:

https://theathletic.com/1083080/2019/07/...10-big-12/

https://theathletic.com/1091572/2019/07/...c-program/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/247sports.c...13965/Amp/

Athletic is behind a pay wall.

As for the Utah sports board that you linked:

First the former Utah president now Aggie president-didn't think OU could go without Oklahoma St. Then he totally messes up facts. The Longhorn network did NOT exist in 2010.
"...I surmised the following: Oklahoma probably would be tough to go because it would be hard for them to leave Oklahoma State for political reasons. The legislature may not even let them do it. [Oklahoma president David] Boren wants to do something spectacular, but I don’t know if they can go without Oklahoma State and the Pac-10 won’t take Oklahoma State. That’s my strong suspicion.

Two, you are articulating this vision of equality in the conference in terms of distribution. You want to set up a network like the Big Ten network, things like that. UT won’t give up its television network. It’s a huge cash cow for UT. They cannot do it. They won’t do it. Which is why some schools have left the Big-12 already because they’re so fed up with that. I said it just isn’t going to happen. And unless you’re willing to swallow really hard and allow that to continue, and my guess is that USC and UCLA won’t do that...."

Then the Utah AD:
He "thought" but didn't know.

"...So as long as they got Colorado in their mind, then they’ve got to get another one and we were that school because they didn’t go to 16. If they went to 16, I still to this day don’t know if we’re in or out. I thought it would be us and Kansas, but who knows...."

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregon...ac-10.html

"...On Saturday he flew from Concord, Calif., to Oklahoma City, where he met with officials from Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Then on Sunday it went from Oklahoma City into Texas, where it landed in College Station (Texas A&M) before continuing on to Lubbock (Texas Tech) and then on to Austin (Texas). After handing out all those invitations there was one more stop on the itinerary, Kansas City (Kansas).

“The university presidents have access to something like that,” Kilkenny said of his jet, “but the conference doesn’t.”

So that was that. Kilkenny insisted Scott take his jet, and get this deal done. ..."

So its you who have some agenda to make Utah more powerful than it was.
You got the invite and earned it. But don't distort history.
07-25-2019 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/sport...49&gwt=pay

New York Times-same thing.

https://wtaq.com/news/articles/2010/jun/...12-tuesda/

Nebraska media https://wtaq.com/news/articles/2010/jun/...12-tuesda/ --"Meantime, the University of Texas will reportedly formally announce it is joining the Pac-10 on Tuesday. Orangebloods.com says the announcement will come after the school's regent meeting.

The "Fort Worth Star-Telegram" says Big 12 South Division schools Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are also considering a move to the Pac-10. ..."

Arizona blog left #16 open, but there was no doubt who 4 of the 5 were:
https://arizona.sbnation.com/2010/6/14/1...ion-is-the "...Plenty of conflicting reports this morning on where Texas and friends are going:

From ESPN

The departure of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the Pac-10 is imminent, four sources within the Big 12 said Monday...."

The fact is that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. all had board meetings scheduled that week to approve the move. The only question is what would happen if A&M didn't go. And Scott answered that by flying to Kansas after his trip to College Station.
07-25-2019 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
See Bullet. You reference a bunch of speculation based on “sources” from June 2010. You haven’t recalibrated your narrative based on first hand accounts since then.

And the flight tracker didn’t lie. People started following it a little late in the game and didn’t look at the flight history. Tail number N228PK was in Salt Lake on June 3rd and on June 11.

The flight path was
SoCal—>SLC—>Oregon—>SF—(Big12 fans start paying attention)—>Texahoma.

The media was tipped off to PAC expansion, but it had been brewing in multiple iterations a lon time before the PAC16 news broke.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N228PK”
07-25-2019 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
Realignment was a small slow burning fire. The B1G and PAC had been evaluating options for months but were still months away from decisions and action.

That didn’t fit UT’s timeline. The leaking of the PAC16 proposal was throwing gas on the fire. By placing doubts about the BigXII’s future in the heads of its members it rapidly accelerated the process and placed BigXII members and prospective suitors of those members in a position where immediate decisions and actions were required.

PAC16 expansion moved forward with little more than an agreement with Scott and the PAC 10 presidents saying that they would take the collective 6 of UT, TTU, OU, OSU, A&M, and CU and on the other side Texas assuring that those collective 6 would be delivered.

CU and UT had offers not contingent on the collective, but those invites had been standing since the 1990s. The imminence of the PAC16 happening however was always based on the false position that A&M was interested. Without A&M, it was back to the negotiating table, the slate of schools the PAC was pushing wasn’t going to be a simple swap of school A or B for A&M because there was no available school A or B that was equivalently desirable.

Utah got in and I don’t care about the optics. What I do care about from a sort of abstract discussion of realignment is how your priority list is so out of whack with PAC priorities.

I can think of a lot of very valid reasons why TTU, OSU, etc should be ahead of a Utah on a priority list of membership for some abstract conference Z or why Baylor’s political posturing would have some bearing on the decision making of conference Y.

But we’re not talking about an abstract conference; we’re talking about the PAC and it’s priorities. And your list is complete garbage for what the PAC values. And the inferences you make about the future of realignment seems to be informed a lot by those false assumptions. And it’s not an uncommonly held set of false assumptions. It’s widely prevalent, and I don’t want to single you out, but you just happen to be the one person who posts that false viewpoint with the most frequency in sort of the purest form. You own that Texas perspective like no other.
07-25-2019 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Banned

Posts: 815
Joined: Mar 2019
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
Big 12 could have snagged Pitt, Louisville, AND WVU if they acted quick enough.
07-25-2019 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,010
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
I remember Baylor was making threats of a lawsuit against the Texhoma schools.

Pickins had clout to stop OSU going to the PAC 12 since money speaks.

These are two things slow down the Texhoma 4.

Then, ESPN threw gasoline on the fire to make a deal with Texas to have the Longhorn Network which wound up killing any deals. There are too many headaches with the Big 12, and the PAC 12 said forget it. The next 2 schools that PAC 12 reps went to check out were Boise State and San Diego State. They liked their facilities, but they will watched how their academics come along. Boise State made huge strides going from outside the R3 to be in the R2 in less than 10 years. PAC 12 do want Boise's football team in their conference, but they need to upped their research a lot which they have done so.
07-25-2019 11:11 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,280
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 217
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 10:54 AM)zoocrew Wrote:  Big 12 could have snagged Pitt, Louisville, AND WVU if they acted quick enough.

Pitt was one of the Big Ten candidates until Nebraska got the nod. The Big XII did talk to them afterward, and Arkansas, and Air Force. None of those guys would take it.

As for Nebraska, people like to point the finger at Texas for agitating the conference so much. Nebraska was a pain. All of the uneven sharing and special privileges we blame Bevo for...Huskers were as bad, if not worse.
07-25-2019 04:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 05:32 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-24-2019 05:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  Utah was way down the list.

Colorado
Texas
Oklahoma
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St.
Kansas
then Utah

You sound like those Louisville fans who claim the only reason WVU was picked over them was because they were too moral (Bobby Petrino anyone?) to leave the Big East early.

Utah's place in the pecking order was clear. It was good enough to get an invite, but not to be at the top of the list.

The thing I wonder about here is, if that was the case, which did Utah get an invite but when, AFAIU, the Sooners and Pokes were looking at whether they could get invited to a Pac-14, it turned out that the couldn't?

Was that just a matter of timing?

Pac 10 was making probably $7 million from media and couldn't hold a ccg. All of the sudden they were making $21 million and had their ccg.

They still would have taken OU and Oklahoma St. if Texas was included. But the money needed to make it worthwhile was a lot higher. Just like now with the conference networks no longer a continually increasing source of funds.

Also, OU's version is that they turned the Pac 12 down. Some people say the Pac 12 said no first only because they thought OU was playing them. I'm inclined to believe it was the Pac 12 saying no for their own reasons, but its not certain who said no first and why they did.
07-25-2019 09:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 09:55 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  See Bullet. You reference a bunch of speculation based on “sources” from June 2010. You haven’t recalibrated your narrative based on first hand accounts since then.

And the flight tracker didn’t lie. People started following it a little late in the game and didn’t look at the flight history. Tail number N228PK was in Salt Lake on June 3rd and on June 11.

The flight path was
SoCal—>SLC—>Oregon—>SF—(Big12 fans start paying attention)—>Texahoma.

The media was tipped off to PAC expansion, but it had been brewing in multiple iterations a lon time before the PAC16 news broke.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N228PK”

Speculation? From the guy who owned the plane Scott was flying? That's a first hand source. And you haven't provided ANYTHING supporting your point of view. All you have is speculation by the Utah guy that he thought it would have been Utah and Kansas but even he admitted he really didn't know. And you have a story that Oklahoma St. was out that contradicts everything from the time and the fact that Scott did talk to Oklahoma St. and that Oklahoma St. scheduled a board meeting to approve the move.

Anybody who thinks Oklahoma St. was out has absolutely zero clue. They were rock solid 100% in if Texas said yes.
07-25-2019 10:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 10:22 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Realignment was a small slow burning fire. The B1G and PAC had been evaluating options for months but were still months away from decisions and action.

That didn’t fit UT’s timeline. The leaking of the PAC16 proposal was throwing gas on the fire. By placing doubts about the BigXII’s future in the heads of its members it rapidly accelerated the process and placed BigXII members and prospective suitors of those members in a position where immediate decisions and actions were required.

PAC16 expansion moved forward with little more than an agreement with Scott and the PAC 10 presidents saying that they would take the collective 6 of UT, TTU, OU, OSU, A&M, and CU and on the other side Texas assuring that those collective 6 would be delivered.

CU and UT had offers not contingent on the collective, but those invites had been standing since the 1990s. The imminence of the PAC16 happening however was always based on the false position that A&M was interested. Without A&M, it was back to the negotiating table, the slate of schools the PAC was pushing wasn’t going to be a simple swap of school A or B for A&M because there was no available school A or B that was equivalently desirable.

Utah got in and I don’t care about the optics. What I do care about from a sort of abstract discussion of realignment is how your priority list is so out of whack with PAC priorities.

I can think of a lot of very valid reasons why TTU, OSU, etc should be ahead of a Utah on a priority list of membership for some abstract conference Z or why Baylor’s political posturing would have some bearing on the decision making of conference Y.

But we’re not talking about an abstract conference; we’re talking about the PAC and it’s priorities. And your list is complete garbage for what the PAC values. And the inferences you make about the future of realignment seems to be informed a lot by those false assumptions. And it’s not an uncommonly held set of false assumptions. It’s widely prevalent, and I don’t want to single you out, but you just happen to be the one person who posts that false viewpoint with the most frequency in sort of the purest form. You own that Texas perspective like no other.

A lot of after the fact nonsense that contradicts everything said at the time as well as Pearlman's and Loftin's after the fact stories. Here's what the Pac values, particularly at that point in time. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

And Texas couldn't come without Texas Tech. Oklahoma couldn't or wouldn't come without Oklahoma St. Texas and Oklahoma brought $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

As for Baylor, the Pac did rush to bring in Colorado because Baylor was trying to pressure the Texas legislature to get them in the mix. The Pac did not want Baylor and they didn't want the Texas legislature fouling the deal. I haven't seen anyone on here saying Baylor was going to get accepted.

We aren't talking about the Pac taking CU and TT or CU and Ok. St. over CU and Utah. We are talking about the Big 12 "package" which for UT and OU required TT and Ok. St.
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2019 10:10 PM by bullet.)
07-25-2019 10:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
I will agree there are a lot of false narratives out there. One of them was in your article in the quote by the Utah/Aggie president. He said the LHN was a stumbling block when it didn't even exist in 2010. Its unreal how often people and media post that completely false narrative. They talk about UT driving out Colorado when Colorado had wanted to go to the Pac since 1994 when they had 2nd thoughts about taking the Big 12 invite. They just needed an opportunity. For many years the only way that happened was if UT came along. Finally, Utah got good enough (and the state populous enough) that there was someone who the Pac could pair with CU.

As for Nebraska, except for the location of the conference office, basketball tournament and partial qualifiers in an 11-1 vote (who got banned by the NCAA two years later anyway), there were no two schools in the Big 12 more aligned than Texas and Nebraska. They even jointly paid for a study of a conference network because nobody else thought it was a good idea.
07-25-2019 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zoocrew Offline
Banned

Posts: 815
Joined: Mar 2019
I Root For: PITT, NAVY, MBB
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
Utah and Colorado make sense in the PAC, Aggie doesn’t, they make way more sense in the SEC than anywhere else at this point. Being the only Texas school in the SEC has been the best thing for them. And like other posters have said, UT would fit right in with the PAC aside from the money issues, especially if accompanied by TT, OU, OSU to lighten any travel load and preserve as much rivalry as possible.

Leaving KU, KSU, ISU, TCU, Baylor, WVU would mean close to nothing to UT. I’d even argue going the PAC would make it easier for UT to make the playoff, cupcakes galore.

I think aside from the money/LHN a PAC-16 would make a lot of sense for Texas.
07-25-2019 10:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Offline
Banned

Posts: 844
Joined: Jul 2018
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #54
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 11:11 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember Baylor was making threats of a lawsuit against the Texhoma schools.

Pickins had clout to stop OSU going to the PAC 12 since money speaks.

These are two things slow down the Texhoma 4.

Then, ESPN threw gasoline on the fire to make a deal with Texas to have the Longhorn Network which wound up killing any deals. There are too many headaches with the Big 12, and the PAC 12 said forget it. The next 2 schools that PAC 12 reps went to check out were Boise State and San Diego State. They liked their facilities, but they will watched how their academics come along. Boise State made huge strides going from outside the R3 to be in the R2 in less than 10 years. PAC 12 do want Boise's football team in their conference, but they need to upped their research a lot which they have done so.

Where do you come up with this BS?

Baylor threatened to sue A&M for leaving the Big 12. Baylor wasn't suing the schools they hoped to remain with.
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...s-sec-goal

If OSU's only hope at a power conference was the PAC 12, Pickens isn't stopping anything. Please provide proof Pickens didn't want OSU to move to the PAC 12.

The PAC 12 never had any intentions on inviting Boise and San Diego St.

The mindless dreams from you on conference realignment have become boring and down right stupid. Sorry not sorry but you talk like you know something and you don't know crap.

Quit polluting threads which you know nothing about.
07-25-2019 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
P5PACSEC Offline
Banned

Posts: 844
Joined: Jul 2018
I Root For: P5- Texas Tech
Location: Austin
Post: #55
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 10:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(07-25-2019 09:55 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  See Bullet. You reference a bunch of speculation based on “sources” from June 2010. You haven’t recalibrated your narrative based on first hand accounts since then.

And the flight tracker didn’t lie. People started following it a little late in the game and didn’t look at the flight history. Tail number N228PK was in Salt Lake on June 3rd and on June 11.

The flight path was
SoCal—>SLC—>Oregon—>SF—(Big12 fans start paying attention)—>Texahoma.

The media was tipped off to PAC expansion, but it had been brewing in multiple iterations a lon time before the PAC16 news broke.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N228PK”

Speculation? From the guy who owned the plane Scott was flying? That's a first hand source. And you haven't provided ANYTHING supporting your point of view. All you have is speculation by the Utah guy that he thought it would have been Utah and Kansas but even he admitted he really didn't know. And you have a story that Oklahoma St. was out that contradicts everything from the time and the fact that Scott did talk to Oklahoma St. and that Oklahoma St. scheduled a board meeting to approve the move.

Anybody who thinks Oklahoma St. was out has absolutely zero clue. They were rock solid 100% in if Texas said yes.

Well said sir.
07-25-2019 11:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,010
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 729
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 11:07 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(07-25-2019 11:11 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember Baylor was making threats of a lawsuit against the Texhoma schools.

Pickins had clout to stop OSU going to the PAC 12 since money speaks.

These are two things slow down the Texhoma 4.

Then, ESPN threw gasoline on the fire to make a deal with Texas to have the Longhorn Network which wound up killing any deals. There are too many headaches with the Big 12, and the PAC 12 said forget it. The next 2 schools that PAC 12 reps went to check out were Boise State and San Diego State. They liked their facilities, but they will watched how their academics come along. Boise State made huge strides going from outside the R3 to be in the R2 in less than 10 years. PAC 12 do want Boise's football team in their conference, but they need to upped their research a lot which they have done so.

Where do you come up with this BS?

Baylor threatened to sue A&M for leaving the Big 12. Baylor wasn't suing the schools they hoped to remain with.
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...s-sec-goal

If OSU's only hope at a power conference was the PAC 12, Pickens isn't stopping anything. Please provide proof Pickens didn't want OSU to move to the PAC 12.

The PAC 12 never had any intentions on inviting Boise and San Diego St.

The mindless dreams from you on conference realignment have become boring and down right stupid. Sorry not sorry but you talk like you know something and you don't know crap.

Quit polluting threads which you know nothing about.


You are just a blind Texhoma 4 who believes anything that your local news media.

T. Boone Pickins were lobbying for the Pokes to join the SEC. He knew the PAC 12 would be a disaster. He wanted Texas A&M to stay in the Big 12. He was dead set against Oklahoma State joining the PAC 12. Pickens is the biggest sugar daddy. If the Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma said yes to the PAC 12? Oklahoma State wants to be with Texas A&M. He knew there would be more money coming to the SEC. If he got Oklahoma State into the SEC right after Texas A&M? The PAC 12 would fail, or New Mexico or Colorado State would be #16. Pickens saw the tv deal that the SEC was going to get with Missouri and Texas A&M, and was against going to the PAC 12. The Big 12 schools would be looking eastward like the Big 10, ACC or SEC instead of the PAC 12. PAC 12's only schools that they can keep up are the MWC, BYU, Houston, SMU or C-USA Texas schools. Staying at 12 will put them further behind.
07-26-2019 05:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,327
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1209
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #57
RE: Pac-16 confirmation
I think the PAC 12 must by now realize that history and geography have made improving their conference makeup virtually impossible. They have little choice but to explore and experiment with ways to improve their revenues at the margin. But they will never be able to challenge the SEC and B1G financially, and are likely to drift to the bottom of the P5 in that respect.

The Big 12 is in a similar, yet more precarious situation. They can't grow where they are, and they have pieces that are attractive enough to the B1G and the SEC that they are in danger of breaking apart despite being highly successful on the fields and courts as well as financially.

The most attractive parts of both conferences can't find common ground because they are anchored to regional partners by tradition and geography. There is enough strength in both regions, by supplementing with the strongest G5 programs, to justify three AQ conferences in a P6 world, one of which would be a perennial CFP contender. There just isn't any way to create them, because 10 of the 22 current members of the PAC and Big 12 would have to become AQ but not P4 to do it. And they aren't going down without a fight.

So, tailgate brunch, anyone?
07-26-2019 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #58
Pac-16 confirmation
(07-24-2019 10:00 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(07-24-2019 04:35 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I'm pretty sure this board was pretty dismissive when I said that the PAC never expected A&M to accept the invite, and that Utah was aware of this and waiting for A&M to decline before getting formally invited. Before Texas strategically broke and flight tracking blew up, people missed Scott's stop in SLC before heading to Austin.

The timing of Colorado's offer has a lot less to do with Baylor and a lot more to do with presidents approving PAC16 AND PAC12 plans prior to Scott leaving to negotiate the deal. CU was in every iteration and Utah was a go for the PAC12 and PAC16b options, so Colorado could join with no risk of being stranded at 11.

Hopefully, Loftin, Hill, and Scott have said enough now that everyone recognizes thst A&M despite having an offer was never really in play for the PAC.

Maybe somebody will say enough some day to confirm that the PAC presidents wanted Scott to last minute scuttle OKSU in favor of Kansas in their PAC16 scenario.

The Colorado offer was issued to make sure Baylor didn't have a spot. Utah got an invite when the Texoma 4 said they would remain in the Big 12.

So many theories being floated around but I know Larry Scott came to Lubbock with an invite. He left Lubbock and was headed to Austin.

You guys can speculate the rest. As Bullet mentioned, Utah was down the list.

Utah, TCU and Louisville have to be the luckiest schools in realignment.


They bumped the Colorado offer up once politicians in Texas started getting involved.

However CU was always going to be in. They and Texas always had a committable offer. Texas Tech’s president at the time said on the radio that the Texoma schools all had offers contingent on UT joining.

Utah was down the list and may have even been after KU had A&M likely backed out.

However Governor Nixon was he first domino...
Then CU reaches out to the PAC...
Then the PAC reaches out to UT who only considered it if they could bring friends...
Then whispers reach Nebraska Chancellor Perlman’s ears around February...
And Chip Brown breaks the story public in June...

And that’s how we ended up in the crazy 2010 summer in the Big 12.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2019 08:09 AM by 1845 Bear.)
07-26-2019 08:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #59
Pac-16 confirmation
(07-25-2019 11:07 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  
(07-25-2019 11:11 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I remember Baylor was making threats of a lawsuit against the Texhoma schools.

Pickins had clout to stop OSU going to the PAC 12 since money speaks.

These are two things slow down the Texhoma 4.

Then, ESPN threw gasoline on the fire to make a deal with Texas to have the Longhorn Network which wound up killing any deals. There are too many headaches with the Big 12, and the PAC 12 said forget it. The next 2 schools that PAC 12 reps went to check out were Boise State and San Diego State. They liked their facilities, but they will watched how their academics come along. Boise State made huge strides going from outside the R3 to be in the R2 in less than 10 years. PAC 12 do want Boise's football team in their conference, but they need to upped their research a lot which they have done so.

Where do you come up with this BS?

Baylor threatened to sue A&M for leaving the Big 12. Baylor wasn't suing the schools they hoped to remain with.
https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...s-sec-goal

If OSU's only hope at a power conference was the PAC 12, Pickens isn't stopping anything. Please provide proof Pickens didn't want OSU to move to the PAC 12.

The PAC 12 never had any intentions on inviting Boise and San Diego St.

The mindless dreams from you on conference realignment have become boring and down right stupid. Sorry not sorry but you talk like you know something and you don't know crap.

Quit polluting threads which you know nothing about.


Yeah there’s a lot that’s off in the post you replied to.

1- BU, ISU, KU, and KSU informally threatened legal action against the SEC due to tortious interference with the Fox deal that had been signed 2-3 months earlier. It was due to pay each school 100M on its own which makes for easily calculated damages should the defendant lose. Between legal fees and the risk of losing it forced things to slow down but ultimately wasn’t going to stop anything.

It basically sent the message if you take a team take them in a way that gives the league the best chance of survival. The worst scenario for a team possibly left out is a quick exit where admins at other schools make a hurried move for the door out of fear.

2- OSU was always included.
2b- Even if they may have preferred the SEC they’d be risking having any seat for marginal benefit and leaving OU behind.
2c- I don’t think the SEC takes them instead of Mizzou due to footprint for the SEC network with St Louis and KC.

3- The Boise And SDSU talk is simply not realistic even if some courtesy talks took place. The PAC already gets very good ratings in those markets and I don’t see those two impacting carriage fee negotiations.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2019 09:04 AM by 1845 Bear.)
07-26-2019 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.