(08-21-2021 03:13 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 03:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:57 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  Well, my view is that the PAC 12, at this time, is only being polite and going through the motions, but nonetheless doing due diligence, only to conclude "not at this time" regarding expansion. ...

My guess is that they punt this time around and look more seriously next year. We'll see though...

IMV this due diligence is not setting up for a punt until next year, its setting up for settling the power conference landscape by letting the Big12 schools know now whether they have an invite or not, and settling that, setting up the PAC12's path for the balance of the Twenties.

You may well be right. The disclosure yesterday that they have a working group and have already held a series of initial meetings was a bombshell given the vagueness at Pac-12 Media Days. They are apparently taking this much more seriously than I originally thought they would.

I think the PAC would be wrongheaded to expand now, but I agree, a working group is something, it's a tangible step towards action beyond mere rhetoric.

I think they are All just reacting to the SEC ..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

(08-21-2021 03:17 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  I think they are All just reacting to the SEC ..

Well yeah, I agree. I doubt we'd be seeing the "Alliance" or the Pac-12 expansion working group absent the TX/OU decision to join the SEC.

But that happened, and so now these things are happening. We'll see where they lead.

(08-21-2021 03:17 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  I think they are All just reacting to the SEC ..

Yes, they are reacting to the change in the status quo created by the SEC successfully wooing OK/TX.

The question isn't whether they are reacting to the change in the landscape, it's what their reaction is.

(08-21-2021 02:45 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:29 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Only schools that add competitive football are Okie State and TCU


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The only ones? Laughable

Baylor’s three years of being one game from the BCS/playoff this decade with a Heisman says hi.
WVU’s strong 2018 & 2016 seasons where they made it late in the year (10/29 rankings & 11/13 rankings) with playoff chances.
ISU’s fiesta bowl win says hi.
KSU teaching #1 says hi.

It is great to have conference pride, and the Big 12 has had some very good teams over the years. But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk. The remaining schools, with proud traditions and rabid fan bases of their own, will have no choice but to scatter. It would be sad. Maybe the Big Ten or Atlantic Coast Conference throws a few a lifeline, but there’s no compelling reason they should."

He added: "And the Pac-12 shouldn’t, either."

(08-21-2021 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:45 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:29 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Only schools that add competitive football are Okie State and TCU


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The only ones? Laughable

Baylor’s three years of being one game from the BCS/playoff this decade with a Heisman says hi.
WVU’s strong 2018 & 2016 seasons where they made it late in the year (10/29 rankings & 11/13 rankings) with playoff chances.
ISU’s fiesta bowl win says hi.
KSU teaching #1 says hi.

It is great to have conference pride, and the Big 12 has had some very good teams over the years. But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk. The remaining schools, with proud traditions and rabid fan bases of their own, will have no choice but to scatter. It would be sad. Maybe the Big Ten or Atlantic Coast Conference throws a few a lifeline, but there’s no compelling reason they should."

He added: "And the Pac-12 shouldn’t, either."

That's not milk....

(08-21-2021 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk.

It's probably great to be an L.A. Sports Writer - you don't really have to do anything like follow sports or pay attention to actual results or anything. Here's UT's Big 12 conference record from 2010-2020:

2010 - 2-6
2011 - 4-5
2012 - 5-4
2013 - 7-2
2014 - 5-4
2015 - 4-5
2016 - 3-6
2017 - 5-4
2018 - 7-3
2019 - 5-4
2020 - 5-3

That's an aggregate of 52-46! Not appallingly terrible or anything, but not all that impressive.

(08-21-2021 04:48 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk.

It's probably great to be an L.A. Sports Writer - you don't really have to do anything like follow sports or pay attention to actual results or anything. Here's UT's Big 12 conference record from 2010-2020:

2010 - 2-6
2011 - 4-5
2012 - 5-4
2013 - 7-2
2014 - 5-4
2015 - 4-5
2016 - 3-6
2017 - 5-4
2018 - 7-3
2019 - 5-4
2020 - 5-3

That's an aggregate of 52-46! Not appallingly terrible or anything, but not all that impressive.

And those all translate into LOSING seasons in the SEC...

(08-21-2021 10:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If the PAC expands, and that remains a big if, a significant compromise will be made by the BOTs and Presidents. On one hand, any addition of a Texas Tech or an Oklahoma State severely changes the academic standard and associations the league leadership has fought to maintain for so long. Additions like those very clearly affects the academic perceptions of the conference. On another hand, adding a Kansas, which has strong academics, hurts football - which the league is also trying desperately to improve.

Even for programs like BYU, Baylor or TCU, the PAC changes its public-only membership to suddenly start including religious and/or private institutions.

I very much doubt the PAC expands, but would be curious to see what compromise the leadership would make. Something would, in theory, have to give.

Aren't USC and Stanford private?

(08-21-2021 06:55 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 10:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If the PAC expands, and that remains a big if, a significant compromise will be made by the BOTs and Presidents. On one hand, any addition of a Texas Tech or an Oklahoma State severely changes the academic standard and associations the league leadership has fought to maintain for so long. Additions like those very clearly affects the academic perceptions of the conference. On another hand, adding a Kansas, which has strong academics, hurts football - which the league is also trying desperately to improve.

Even for programs like BYU, Baylor or TCU, the PAC changes its public-only membership to suddenly start including religious and/or private institutions.

I very much doubt the PAC expands, but would be curious to see what compromise the leadership would make. Something would, in theory, have to give.

Aren't USC and Stanford private?

Yes. As for TCU we are associated with the Christian Church but are not govern or run by it. The Seminary was split off from TCU years ago and is no longer part of the University but its own entity. Many of today's colleges were started by certain churches, but are no longer run by them. USC and Duke are examples. TCU now falls in that category in spite of our name.

nobody

(08-21-2021 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  It is great to have conference pride, and the Big 12 has had some very good teams over the years. But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk. The remaining schools, with proud traditions and rabid fan bases of their own, will have no choice but to scatter. It would be sad. Maybe the Big Ten or Atlantic Coast Conference throws a few a lifeline, but there’s no compelling reason they should."

He added: "And the Pac-12 shouldn’t, either."

This is an interesting case study in economics ... this is a great piece for generating arguments in social media, and completely useless as a piece of analysis. But with newspapers in the decline after the collapse of classified ads, newspaper reporters have no choice but to go for the social media "hot take", no matter how foolish.

Seriously, the LA Times originally existed to carry advertising of various sorts into homes. The reporters at even prestigious papers, with proud traditions and dedicated, though aging, fan bases of their own, will eventually have no choice but to scatter. It will be sad.

(08-21-2021 04:48 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk.

It's probably great to be an L.A. Sports Writer - you don't really have to do anything like follow sports or pay attention to actual results or anything. Here's UT's Big 12 conference record from 2010-2020:

2010 - 2-6
2011 - 4-5
2012 - 5-4
2013 - 7-2
2014 - 5-4
2015 - 4-5
2016 - 3-6
2017 - 5-4
2018 - 7-3
2019 - 5-4
2020 - 5-3

That's an aggregate of 52-46! Not appallingly terrible or anything, but not all that impressive.

Reading is hard. The article doesnt specify FOOTBALL results. Its clearly referring to the Texas BRAND. Last I heard it’s one of the most valuable.

(08-20-2021 04:10 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The best value for them television wise will be Texoma4 or WVU while recruiting wise will be with the Texoma 4.

KU hoops is a nice add but their tv ratings in football and general lack of support hurts them.

If valuations were right it might make sense to grab the 7 central time zone schools plus Houston. Gets more recruiting boost and limits travel. BYU as an addition would add value there but I really think BYU has more hurdles than other religious schools do with the PAC.

I don't think they add anyone though.

I think it's possible that they add some teams, given how few football markets the PAC 12 actually does have (Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Tucson, a good-sized portion of the Los Angeles market, Salt Lake City, a portion of the Denver market, and a combined "SMU-TCU-sized" portion of the Bay Area market. [Basically, take the combined market outreach of SMU & TCU in DFW, and apply it to the Bay Area]).

Kansas knows they have options, so it is possible for them to turn down a PAC 12 invite. They already know that the B1G is interested in them, and thanks to Mizzou, the SEC is interested in them as , so Kansas can afford to sit tight.

I agree with 1845 Bear that the PAC 12 would definitely be looking at Texoma (TTU, OSU, TCU, & possibly BU, especially if the Baptist Convention of Texas decides to drop Baylor because of the fiasco scandal.) I wouldn't underestimate K-State though because they are still the best football brand in Kansas for college football, and when they do well, they draw well, not to mention the PAC 12 could use all the football brands it can get its hands on. ISU is a rival to K-State, AAU, and looks like they could be a brand on the rise.

The only team I see having a problem would be WVU, but they could wind up in the ACC if conference realignment really goes crazy!!

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(08-21-2021 10:16 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 06:55 PM)BigEastMike Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 10:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If the PAC expands, and that remains a big if, a significant compromise will be made by the BOTs and Presidents. On one hand, any addition of a Texas Tech or an Oklahoma State severely changes the academic standard and associations the league leadership has fought to maintain for so long. Additions like those very clearly affects the academic perceptions of the conference. On another hand, adding a Kansas, which has strong academics, hurts football - which the league is also trying desperately to improve.

Even for programs like BYU, Baylor or TCU, the PAC changes its public-only membership to suddenly start including religious and/or private institutions.

I very much doubt the PAC expands, but would be curious to see what compromise the leadership would make. Something would, in theory, have to give.

Aren't USC and Stanford private?

Yes. As for TCU we are associated with the Christian Church but are not govern or run by it. The Seminary was split off from TCU years ago and is no longer part of the University but its own entity. Many of today's colleges were started by certain churches, but are no longer run by them. USC and Duke are examples. TCU now falls in that category in spite of our name.

Wake Forest too!!!

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(08-22-2021 02:36 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 04:10 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The best value for them television wise will be Texoma4 or WVU while recruiting wise will be with the Texoma 4.

KU hoops is a nice add but their tv ratings in football and general lack of support hurts them.

If valuations were right it might make sense to grab the 7 central time zone schools plus Houston. Gets more recruiting boost and limits travel. BYU as an addition would add value there but I really think BYU has more hurdles than other religious schools do with the PAC.

I don't think they add anyone though.

I think it's possible that they add some teams, given how few football markets the PAC 12 actually does have (Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, Tucson, a good-sized portion of the Los Angeles market, Salt Lake City, a portion of the Denver market, and a combined "SMU-TCU-sized" portion of the Bay Area market. [Basically, take the combined market outreach of SMU & TCU in DFW, and apply it to the Bay Area]).

Kansas knows they have options, so it is possible for them to turn down a PAC 12 invite. They already know that the B1G is interested in them, and thanks to Mizzou, the SEC is interested in them as , so Kansas can afford to sit tight.

Kansas would be stupid to turn down an invite to the PAC, as well as the idea that the Big Ten and SEC would be fighting over Kansas and Missouri. I think the Big Ten would be fine with Kansas to the PAC or SEC, with the PAC a little more preferred.

If they were to be invited to go along with OK State, Texas Tech and/or Houston then they oughta take that invite.

Quote:I agree with 1845 Bear that the PAC 12 would definitely be looking at Texoma (TTU, OSU, TCU, & possibly BU, especially if the Baptist Convention of Texas decides to drop Baylor because of the fiasco scandal.)

Even without the complication of church association another problem for Baylor and TCU is they're not even R1 research institutions. Both are currently R2. Even the lowest PAC school is R1. That is definitely going to be a factor when the PAC analyses candidates.

This is why Houston has a chance, albeit still a long shot.

Kansas is in real trouble getting placed as they have really bad FB.

I can remember when Ohio played them in Lawrence and it was something like 25-0 or 27-0 at halftime Bobcats. Rolled over them in Athens too. I was there but don't remember anything aside from the outcome was never in doubt.

Completely uncompetitive against a MAC school. That is good reason to leave them behind in the XII.

SMU has stepped it up and has a more valuable location. TT/TCU/SMU/OSU would make more sense as a pairing to the PAC. Keeps the rivalries tight with TCU/SMU in DFW and OSU/TT getting games in DFW which is a relevant market for them.

(08-22-2021 12:22 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 04:48 PM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk.

It's probably great to be an L.A. Sports Writer - you don't really have to do anything like follow sports or pay attention to actual results or anything. Here's UT's Big 12 conference record from 2010-2020:

2010 - 2-6
2011 - 4-5
2012 - 5-4
2013 - 7-2
2014 - 5-4
2015 - 4-5
2016 - 3-6
2017 - 5-4
2018 - 7-3
2019 - 5-4
2020 - 5-3

That's an aggregate of 52-46! Not appallingly terrible or anything, but not all that impressive.

Reading is hard. The article doesnt specify FOOTBALL results. Its clearly referring to the Texas BRAND. Last I heard it’s one of the most valuable.

Reading is surprisingly easy - we teach first graders how to do it. There was no "article" - it was just a unsourced "quote" from a L.A. "Sports" Writer. Who wrote nothing about "sports" but instead gave a "hot" social media take.

Here's a description of and the # of football championships by UT in the Big 12 since 2010:

(08-21-2021 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:45 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-21-2021 02:29 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Only schools that add competitive football are Okie State and TCU


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The only ones? Laughable

Baylor’s three years of being one game from the BCS/playoff this decade with a Heisman says hi.
WVU’s strong 2018 & 2016 seasons where they made it late in the year (10/29 rankings & 11/13 rankings) with playoff chances.
ISU’s fiesta bowl win says hi.
KSU teaching #1 says hi.

It is great to have conference pride, and the Big 12 has had some very good teams over the years. But I think an LA Times Sports Writer summed it up best: "The Big 12 is done. It only exists to placate Texas and drink off Bevo’s milk. The remaining schools, with proud traditions and rabid fan bases of their own, will have no choice but to scatter. It would be sad. Maybe the Big Ten or Atlantic Coast Conference throws a few a lifeline, but there’s no compelling reason they should."

He added: "And the Pac-12 shouldn’t, either."

Parsing those quotes, I would say:

The Big 12 was to an extent formed to placate Texas, but sometimes things develop lives of their own, unintended by their creators - just ask Nebraska about the Big 12. To me, unless a given school gets a P4 invite, the L8 have a clear incentive to stay together the next few years to collect fees, and even beyond that, they are better off sticking together. There is a good geographic footprint there for them, save for WV, and they constitute the best combination of brand, hoops and football value any of them can find outside of a P4 league.

Yes, I agree the L8 have "drunk off Bevo's milk", in the sense that IMO none of them would have been in a P-level conference without them (and OU). Texas and OU needed several more warm bodies to make up a conference, and well, the L8 were the chosen ones.

I agree that the best move for the PAC is not to expand with any L8 schools. I would add with anyone else available either.

Thing is nobody, not even the ADs seem to know what the actual purpose of the “alliance” is

But I’d wager it’s to do two things:

1) Agree not to poach each other in response to the SEC

2) Push for a smaller playoff expansion that guarantees their 3 champs a place at the table but doesn’t let the SEC get 4 teams in each year

If those are the primary objectives, expansion with the Orphan 8 is possible but unlikely