What if the Pac 12 went with Nebraska along with Colorado and then the Big 10 took Maryland as its #12 and wouldn't get stuck with Rutgers? Pac 12 has Nebraska instead of Utah (not sure if that's a plus or minus, it would be more travel miles for them in the opposite direction). But the Big 10 has two fewer mouths to feed and fewer miles west. Would Nebraska feel less out of place in the Pac 12 than the Big 10? At least they would have an old Big 8 rival in Colorado rather than have to manufacture a new conference rivalry with Iowa (and Colorado with Utah).

(08-03-2021 09:54 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What if the Pac 12 went with Nebraska along with Colorado and then the Big 10 took Maryland as its #12 and wouldn't get stuck with Rutgers? Pac 12 has Nebraska instead of Utah (not sure if that's a plus or minus, it would be more travel miles for them in the opposite direction). But the Big 10 has two fewer mouths to feed and fewer miles west. Would Nebraska feel less out of place in the Pac 12 than the Big 10? At least they would have an old Big 8 rival in Colorado rather than have to manufacture a new conference rivalry with Iowa (and Colorado with Utah).

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

On what planet would a quintessential football-focused *Midwestern* university like Nebraska feel more in place in the Pac-12 with mostly West Coast schools compared to the Midwestern Big Ten???????

Please stop looking for reasons to think that the Big Ten adding Nebraska was a mistake. It's completely and 1000% wrong.

(08-03-2021 06:07 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 02:15 AM)goofus Wrote:  I don't believe the PAC regrets it as much as you all think.

I believe the PAC, Big Ten, and ACC are now seeing where this is all going if they continue to play this realignment game. Eventually there will be just 1 national superconference where only the top 20-40 schools are invited.

Rather than play that game, the PAC may adopt a approach more like the Ivy league or the Big West where they decide its ok not to be the conference that makes the most money. They would rather stay true to who they are, maintain old traditions, and if they are left behind, so be it.

Football does not seem to be as important anyway to the PAC states, so why base all your decisions on keeping up with SEC football?

Folks who have never lived on the West Coast tend to believe this. It simply isn’t true. I was an SC season ticket holder for a decade. Cal vs Stanford is as big as any rivalry in the East as is Oregon vs Oregon State. Then there is SC / UCLA.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/12/...rose-bowl/

Now if you mean people don’t live and breathe college football, that could be debated. The West Coast is a different lifestyle. You’ll find rabid fans but for the most part individual sports like surfing, windsurfing and biking are popular. Not to mention desert activities in late January and February.

One of the strangest things for me was going out to dinner AFTER Monday Night Football went off.

I agree. Just because a place doesn't have Alabama-level intensity for college football doesn't mean that it isn't valuable there.

Frankly, nearly all of the Pac-12 revenue shortfall compared to the other P5 conferences is due to how poorly executed the Pac-12 Network was. If they went 50/50 with a large media partner like the Big Ten did with the BTN, then I think we're looking at an entirely different story here for them here.

At the same time, I think people have short memories about how powerful USC can be in particular when they have things rolling well. They haven't done well in the CFP era, but remember how dominant they were during the BCS era. This is a school that can absolutely deliver the Los Angeles market in a way that no school is able to do in New York City or Chicago. Note that the LA market by itself has a larger population than every *state* with the exceptions of Texas, Florida and New York (plus California which LA is a part of). When they have things going well, the sidelines at USC have so many A-list celebrities that it looks like being courtside at a Lakers playoff game. It's a completely different ballgame when USC is doing well because that school is so directly intertwined with Hollywood. My guess is that the NIL era is going to reinstate USC to the top of the pecking order - there's nothing like being BMOC when the campus is freaking Hollywood. (And to be clear... I'm the furthest thing from a USC fan. I'd never personally cheer for them. However, I can acknowledge that they're insanely valuable.)

[/quote]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

On what planet would a quintessential football-focused *Midwestern* university like Nebraska feel more in place in the Pac-12 with mostly West Coast schools compared to the Midwestern Big Ten???????

Please stop looking for reasons to think that the Big Ten adding Nebraska was a mistake. It's completely and 1000% wrong.
[/quote]

It was a huge mistake for Nebraska. They lost their main football recruiting ground in Texas. Had they remained in B12 they would have been much more competitive, probably playing for the conf champ game multiple times.

And if I were NE, I'd seriously consider rejoining now that TX and OK are gone - they'd be the flagship program in a new B12.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

On what planet would a quintessential football-focused *Midwestern* university like Nebraska feel more in place in the Pac-12 with mostly West Coast schools compared to the Midwestern Big Ten???????

Please stop looking for reasons to think that the Big Ten adding Nebraska was a mistake. It's completely and 1000% wrong.
[/quote]

It was a huge mistake for Nebraska. They lost their main football recruiting ground in Texas. Had they remained in B12 they would have been much more competitive, probably playing for the conf champ game multiple times.

And if I were NE, I'd seriously consider rejoining now that TX and OK are gone - they'd be the flagship program in a new B12.
[/quote]

i don't think Nebraska wants to take that kind of pay cut.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

On what planet would a quintessential football-focused *Midwestern* university like Nebraska feel more in place in the Pac-12 with mostly West Coast schools compared to the Midwestern Big Ten???????

Please stop looking for reasons to think that the Big Ten adding Nebraska was a mistake. It's completely and 1000% wrong.
[/quote]

It was a huge mistake for Nebraska. They lost their main football recruiting ground in Texas. Had they remained in B12 they would have been much more competitive, probably playing for the conf champ game multiple times.

And if I were NE, I'd seriously consider rejoining now that TX and OK are gone - they'd be the flagship program in a new B12.
[/quote]

That's even more insane!!!

So, they should have stayed in the Big 12 in order to *still* eventually get cut off at the knees by Texas and Oklahoma (which is exactly why they joined the Big Ten)????

And now they should reconsider *rejoining* that league AFTER it has been cut off at the knees (which is what they were trying to avoid when they joined the Big Ten)????

This has absolutely zero basis in any conference realignment logic whatsoever. No one gives two craps about being the "flagship" of a lesser league, as evidenced by UT and OU moving themselves. Do you think UCF enjoys being the "flagship" of the AAC or would they rather be school #15 and lowest on the totem pole in the ACC? We all know the answer is the latter. You're thinking like a fan instead of a university president.

(08-03-2021 10:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

(08-03-2021 11:05 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-03-2021 10:18 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Ha! As a big Star Wars fan, I appreciate this very much.

(08-02-2021 11:34 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 10:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 10:23 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Does the PAC regret not voting in Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to get to 14? I can’t imagine that not having Oklahoma is better than having Oklahoma. What would have been?

Would the XII have back filled to 10 if Bedlam left and with who?

Texas likely still heads to the SEC but with…Kansas or someone else?

Does the PAC go to 16 with TCU and Texas Tech or other schools or not at all?

What do you think may have happened?

(Ignoring Frank’s theory that everything would fall into place as it is today!)

It's difficult not to achieve almost the same outcome overtime because so much is based on shared culture.

What the Pac needed was Nebraska. If they had Nebraska to go with OU any two Big 8 schools would have been fine.

What they really needed was Nebraska, OU, Kansas, and Texas Tech to go with Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and ASU.

New Big 8 versus Old Pac 8.

4 schools in Central Time Zone
4 schools in MTZ
8 schools in PTZ

Had the PAC accepted the Oklahoma pair, even if Oklahoma eventually joined the SEC with Texas, Oklahoma St would still be in the PAC. That leaves the PAC with the difficult task of replacing Oklahoma.

That was my thought. OU would have ditched the Pac-12 for the SEC with Texas, leaving them with OSU

(08-03-2021 02:15 AM)goofus Wrote:  I don't believe the PAC regrets it as much as you all think.

I believe the PAC, Big Ten, and ACC are now seeing where this is all going if they continue to play this realignment game. Eventually there will be just 1 national superconference where only the top 20-40 schools are invited.

Rather than play that game, the PAC may adopt a approach more like the Ivy league or the Big West where they decide its ok not to be the conference that makes the most money. They would rather stay true to who they are, maintain old traditions, and if they are left behind, so be it.

Football does not seem to be as important anyway to the PAC states, so why base all your decisions on keeping up with SEC football?

This isn’t true, especially to Washington and Oregon (look at their numbers in regards to viewership, revenue, and attendance figures). I can’t speak to other schools, but I am sure someone could.