I don’t know that there’s a combination of 4 of those 8 Big 12 schools that would have made financial sense in 2021.

The Pac 12 would have needed to land Texas and Oklahoma to move the needle and those two could make far more by moving east than by moving west. The PAC 12 didn’t stand a chance.

It sounds heartless but USC and UCLA made the only possible move that kept them in a top tier conference and prevented them from dying a slow athletic death due to being financially handicapped.

Correct. No matter who the PAC12 added, they weren't going to increase their TV payout to $100 mil.

(07-29-2022 09:53 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  “... told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it”

Same thing, apparently, that UT did to the Big XII repeatedly. Hurt us badly, e.g., UofL and Cincinnati would have been fine additions at those times.

The PAC-12-2-? should take heed of our warning not to repeat our mistakes. Unfortunately, other than possibly SDSU, the PAC-? doesn't have as many options as we did back then.

(07-30-2022 08:22 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 09:53 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  “... told the group that she did not understand why the Pac-12 would expand and expressed surprise they were even talking about it”

Same thing, apparently, that UT did to the Big XII repeatedly. Hurt us badly, e.g., UofL and Cincinnati would have been fine additions at those times.

The PAC-12-2-? should take heed of our warning not to repeat our mistakes. Unfortunately, other than possibly SDSU, the PAC-? doesn't have as many options as we did back then.

SDSU is a no brainers. SMU probably checks off the most boxes for number 12.

(07-30-2022 07:08 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t know that there’s a combination of 4 of those 8 Big 12 schools that would have made financial sense in 2021.

The Pac 12 would have needed to land Texas and Oklahoma to move the needle and those two could make far more by moving east than by moving west. The PAC 12 didn’t stand a chance.

It sounds heartless but USC and UCLA made the only possible move that kept them in a top tier conference and prevented them from dying a slow athletic death due to being financially handicapped.

Agree that adding B12 members would have been dilutive in 2021. So long as USC and UCLA remained in the PAC, they were better-off with the 12 team configuration. Probably the best 4 additions would have been Kansas, Oklahoma State, Baylor and TCU…they likely would have replaced Baylor for Texas Tech due to political (academic independence & fit) considerations.

But if USC leaders already had an inkling of the broader implications to college athletics, then it had a serious conflict of interest. UTx and OU moved to the SEC for legitimate reasons…and it wasn’t just about money. It seems odd that that the USC Chancellor would shut-down PAC expansion. USC has now followed a similar path as UTx, but at least UTx has/had been transparent about its constant re-evaluation of its strategic needs. USC’s more clandestine approach has left the PAC vulnerable.

(07-30-2022 05:42 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 11:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  I don’t know what the story was with UT, OU and the PAC in 2010 and 2011, but it’s clear that the PAC really fu*ked up there. Two years in a row.

The Rumor was the PAC passed on UT and OU because Texas wanted an unequal distribution of funds; the same reason B12 schools with an option bailed.

Not true on either part.
The schools who left the Big 12 ALL favored unequal distribution. The 5 who opposed it are still in the Big 12.

(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.

They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.

What? I’ve never heard that. It was Colorado and Texas, and Texas didn’t pull the trigger.

(07-30-2022 02:09 AM)goofus Wrote:  I remember last year Dave Wanstadt saying his sources at FOX were saying there was a plan in place to split up the Big 12.

If I remember correctly, the plan was the Big Ten would take Kansas and Iowa State. ACC would take WV and ??. PAC was going to KSU, Okst, TT and ??. Guess you can say that plan, if it ever was real, clearly fell apart.

That plan never existed, lol. Wannstedt just neither understood realignment nor had good sources.

This happens when people get wandering eyes. Pitt's president cratered a large, long term deal with ESPN and the Big East in @ 2010. Said he didn't want to rush in to a deal and leave $$ on the table all the while they were romancing the ACC. Indirectly led to the mass exodus that followed leading to selling the Big East name and creating the AAC.

(07-30-2022 10:32 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This happens when people get wandering eyes. Pitt's president cratered a large, long term deal with ESPN and the Big East in @ 2010. Said he didn't want to rush in to a deal and leave $$ on the table all the while they were romancing the ACC. Indirectly led to the mass exodus that followed leading to selling the Big East name and creating the AAC.

Bordering on tortious interference.

I think that once the SEC gutted the B12, USC’s mind was made up since at that point it was clear that the PAC would have no real path forward to expand with any schools that would add to the PAC rather than being dilutive both financially and to the academic culture with only Kansas left as a AAU school and the rest being non AAU B12 and MWC schools as possibilities none of which bring the viewership levels to keep the PAC contract competitive with the B1G or SEC

The PAC did a lot of this to themselves and had many opportunities to secure themselves as THE conference west of the Mississippi but instead may not even exist next year

(07-30-2022 09:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.

They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.

What? I’ve never heard that. It was Colorado and Texas, and Texas didn’t pull the trigger.

The Pac had no interest in Texas Tech in 1993. Texas couldn't leave without Tech finding a home. It was never an offer. Pac looked at Tech and said no thanks. So that ruled out the Pac for Texas.

In 1990 Stanford vetoed the Texas admission at the last moment. Tech wasn't as big a problem then. Pac may have later added CU, but CU wasn't part of the UT discussions.

(07-29-2022 11:40 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:26 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.

They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.

I am talking about this last expansion. The Pac have no one but themselves to blame.

Sounds like you think they could have raided the Big 12, but passed up on the opportunity to do so.

Is that your view? If not, what do you think they should have done?

Question: How can you say the PAC schools have no one but themselves to blame when USC was clearly blocking expansion?

If their mistake was not to expand, and if it was USC in particular that stood in the way of expansion, the PAC remainers may not have "themselves" to blame, since it appears that USC is responsible for a share of the blame.

Exactly. Even if a couple of Big 12 schools had joined, they would not come on-board immediately and they would back out once they hear that UCLA and USC are leaving. USC wanted out and had been talking to the Big Ten for over a year, while giving the Pac-12 the impression they were on-board with everything.

UCLA went for the money, USC the money and the Big Ten. USC's football performance over the past 13 seasons has hurt the Pac-12 and now that they seem to be have turned it around with the hiring of Lincoln Riley, they leave for the Big Ten.

(07-30-2022 11:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 09:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.

They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.

What? I’ve never heard that. It was Colorado and Texas, and Texas didn’t pull the trigger.

The Pac had no interest in Texas Tech in 1993. Texas couldn't leave without Tech finding a home. It was never an offer. Pac looked at Tech and said no thanks. So that ruled out the Pac for Texas.

In 1990 Stanford vetoed the Texas admission at the last moment. Tech wasn't as big a problem then. Pac may have later added CU, but CU wasn't part of the UT discussions.

Why would it matter if Tech couldn’t tag along? They all dropped Houston like a case of Shiner.

(07-30-2022 01:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 11:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 09:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:11 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  Smart move. The Pac deserves what it has gotten.

They turned down Texas alone in 1990. And had they been willing to take Texas Tech with UT in 1993-94 they could have had them then with A&M going to the SEC.

What? I’ve never heard that. It was Colorado and Texas, and Texas didn’t pull the trigger.

The Pac had no interest in Texas Tech in 1993. Texas couldn't leave without Tech finding a home. It was never an offer. Pac looked at Tech and said no thanks. So that ruled out the Pac for Texas.

In 1990 Stanford vetoed the Texas admission at the last moment. Tech wasn't as big a problem then. Pac may have later added CU, but CU wasn't part of the UT discussions.

Why would it matter if Tech couldn’t tag along? They all dropped Houston like a case of Shiner.

Tech had political power at the time. Lt. Governor and lots of key committee chairman.

Who would drop a case of Shiner???

(07-29-2022 09:53 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  USC ‘shut down’ potential Pac-12 expansion plans last year

So Ms. Folt ensured TCU and Houston wouldn't make a move they'd regret even before their joint arrival.

That seems like a nice thing to do.

You know everyone here is point at the PAC for all of these missed opportunities with regards to expansion, but at the end of the day those misses don’t amount to even a tenth of the miss that has been decades worth of football and basketball irrelevancy. You don’t even have to worry about expansion if those teams were performing at a consistent and decent standard.

Sure there were a few flash in the pan performances by Stanford and Oregon in football and UCLA and Arizona in basketball (the latter being way more consistent but ultimately underwhelming given the recruiting they’d had). But there just hasn’t really been sustained performance over years and tenures like you see in the other major conferences. That’s what it all boils down to, not missing out on recruiting Texas in the 90s.

The last expansion was looking at schools like Houston and Kansas.

USC spoke for maybe 8 of the 12 CEOs in the room at that moment. It was a teaching moment for Kliavkoff.

(07-30-2022 02:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The last expansion was looking at schools like Houston and Kansas.

USC spoke for maybe 8 of the 12 CEOs in the room at that moment. It was a teaching moment for Kliavkoff.

So it appears a majority of schools in the PAC, not including USC and UCLA, also blocked expansion, not just USC.

(07-30-2022 02:09 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The last expansion was looking at schools like Houston and Kansas.

USC spoke for maybe 8 of the 12 CEOs in the room at that moment. It was a teaching moment for Kliavkoff.

He's likely doing the teaching now- there is unlikely still the delusion that the PAC is a peer to the BIG and SEC.

USC knew though.