(09-02-2022 07:01 AM)HornFrogFan Wrote:  

(09-01-2022 09:41 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  A BXII/PAC12 merger was declined last year and again a month or two ago. The first one was rejected by the PAC12 and I think this last one was by the BXII (although I could be wrong). Of course, circumstances change and what is good now might not have been the case a couple months ago. I would have to image the numbers will be crunched in the next couple weeks which would show all potential options that could garner interest from these two entities.

You're not wrong. B12 rejected the merger this time around and the Pac has been trying to save face since. (It's why they keep targeting us even though it's the B1G that has raided them so far).

That said, I don't want a full merger with the Pac-12. I'm good with the 4 corners if they want to come (although, I'd be just as happy w/Arizona and Colorado). There's no chance Oregon/Wash come our way and I'm not interested in the No Cal schools - and they think they're too good for us anyway.

If we stay at our current 12, I'm good with that too.

While I would prefer a non-full merger---I do find a full merger an acceptable option if just adding the 4-corners is not an option. After playing around with it---this 16 team (nB12+4corners) B12 conference splits into pretty decent divisions. In fact---adding any ACC members later if they come available almost throws off the east/west geographical balance.


WEST
Iowa St
Kansas
Kansas St
BYU
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Arizona St


EAST
OSU
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Houston
WVU
Cincy
UCF

Here’s what I see happening over the next 15 years:

Big 10 adds more PAC 10 schools
Big 12 adds 4-6 of the leftovers
SEC (and potentially Big 10) add ACC schools
Big 12 adds the leftovers

=

3 leagues of about 24 apiece

Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

(09-04-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

(09-04-2022 08:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

Most programs, like people, would prefer steady wealth over a chance of championship. OUT included.

1st choice: Have 2-4 of the 4 corner schools join the Big 12
2nd choice: Stay at 12



3rd choice: Well none since I think staying at 12 is far better than a full merger

(09-04-2022 11:41 PM)Endless Purple Wrote:  1st choice: Have 2-4 of the 4 corner schools join the Big 12
2nd choice: Stay at 12



3rd choice: Well none since I think staying at 12 is far better than a full merger

100% agree!

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Because we want more than one spot at the table and that is going to be hard to get with only 12 schools. You don't hear about the B1G or SEC getting rid of divisions because the realize each division "champ" gives them a higher profile for the CFP. Now they will go to pods and watch the number of CFP worthy teams grow. The Big 12 needs to counter that and even the 4 corners teams at least have name recognition among the masses.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

(09-05-2022 09:07 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Because we want more than one spot at the table and that is going to be hard to get with only 12 schools. You don't hear about the B1G or SEC getting rid of divisions because the realize each division "champ" gives them a higher profile for the CFP. Now they will go to pods and watch the number of CFP worthy teams grow. The Big 12 needs to counter that and even the 4 corners teams at least have name recognition among the masses.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

The Big 12 will likely never get more than two teams in, but there have been many years even in our 10-team format that the league would have gotten two. And the 10-team round robin format guarantees losses and worse records overall than a 12-team format will.

I don't think we need to add teams to improve our chances of getting an at-large selection, particularly if those additions lower the perceived strength of our league in the long run.

(09-05-2022 09:07 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Because we want more than one spot at the table and that is going to be hard to get with only 12 schools. You don't hear about the B1G or SEC getting rid of divisions because the realize each division "champ" gives them a higher profile for the CFP. Now they will go to pods and watch the number of CFP worthy teams grow. The Big 12 needs to counter that and even the 4 corners teams at least have name recognition among the masses.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

nonsense idea that believes you get teams in the playoffs for conference volume not the quality of the teams.....all the worse when you are looking at adding teams that struggle financially, reside in places with a low population of recruits, and that have poor fan support

(09-04-2022 08:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

to me, the advantage in getting 2-4 PAC schools is that you'd basically be gutting the PAC. killing the competition does help, in the long run.

(09-06-2022 06:51 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

to me, the advantage in getting 2-4 PAC schools is that you'd basically be gutting the PAC. killing the competition does help, in the long run.

This mattered a lot more before the announcement of an expanded playoff. Now, there's really no reason that all existing conferences can't continue to exist largely as currently constituted. There's certainly less incentive to add more competition to your league, particularly if those schools don't add money to your TV contract.

(09-06-2022 08:15 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 06:51 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

to me, the advantage in getting 2-4 PAC schools is that you'd basically be gutting the PAC. killing the competition does help, in the long run.

This mattered a lot more before the announcement of an expanded playoff. Now, there's really no reason that all existing conferences can't continue to exist largely as currently constituted. There's certainly less incentive to add more competition to your league, particularly if those schools don't add money to your TV contract.

it ALWAYS only mattered if the new members ADDED money

there is an argument to be made about "competition" for a place in the playoffs with more members in the conference, but if you limit the new members to ones that add money to a TV contract and you reduce the viability of the PAC 12 then you have done well for the Big 12

with 5 power conferences and 4 guaranteed conference winner places in the playoffs that still leaves 8 other spots......it is completely stupid to pretend that adding 100% of the garbage in the PAC 12 would help the Big 12 at all (as foolishly suggested above), but if you added AU, ASU, and Utah you are laving the PAC 12 with garbage and a couple of good teams (that are not even that good right now) and you are going to damage their TV contract most likely especially since they have to add at least one new member to even get to 8 and maintain the NCAA min number of teams

there is absolutely a factor to leaving a conference reduced to bad teams and teams that do not want to be there and damaging their recruiting and competitiveness

the PAC 12 is at 10 now, if the Big 12 takes AU, ASU, and Utah they are at 7 if they only add one more (G5) team they will be at 8 and will have to play 5 OOC games on the west coast which means a lot of MWC games or a lot of travel which is hard on their teams long term

if they go to 10 (adding 3 G5) then if they are stupid enough to play 9 conference games like the Big 12 has been stupid enough to do they will crush themselves because their remaining programs are all weaker than the Big 12 and they will suffer just like the Big 12 hoping that Oregon makes the playoffs or maybe UW gets in some day

they will miss the auto bid most years, will struggle to have more than one team in the top 12, they will have a poor media contract, they will have a guaranteed (totally STUPID) rematch of a CCG and they will probably miss the playoffs entirely most years

their conference will struggle to recruit and struggle to be competitive in an area with mostly bad recruiting, poor budgets, weak fan support, bad TV contracts, and an overall crappy conference

over time that leaves the Big 12 to fill in the pieces and take spots from them year in and year out

keeping them more viable means they will be there possibly competing stronger for one of the guaranteed 4 spots and the by week and they might be competitive for a second spot

the goal is to leave them with 1 to 3 G5 replacements, current weak teams, and to get them to missing an auto bid and a playoff bye and eventually to get them missing the playoffs all together

(09-06-2022 08:15 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 06:51 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:56 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  Now that an expanded playoff will all but guarantee the Big 12's inclusion, why do we really want PAC-12 leftovers? None add significant TV value to the league and only Utah adds anything competitively.

I think it would be wise to move forward with the 12 for now. With our place at the table now secured, there's no real reason to poach the PAC-12 for programs that don't actually make the league any better.

Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

to me, the advantage in getting 2-4 PAC schools is that you'd basically be gutting the PAC. killing the competition does help, in the long run.

This mattered a lot more before the announcement of an expanded playoff. Now, there's really no reason that all existing conferences can't continue to exist largely as currently constituted. There's certainly less incentive to add more competition to your league, particularly if those schools don't add money to your TV contract.

I feel having a complacent attitude like this has allowed the Big 12 and Pac 12 to be unprepared for the recent changes to the college football landscape. If we can take 4 schools from a perceived "power" conference it will be seen as a win.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

(09-06-2022 09:12 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 08:15 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 06:51 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:32 PM)Huan Wrote:  Getting us positioned for the 4th broadcast time suggests we need 2-3 more western teams. This should get us more $

I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

to me, the advantage in getting 2-4 PAC schools is that you'd basically be gutting the PAC. killing the competition does help, in the long run.

This mattered a lot more before the announcement of an expanded playoff. Now, there's really no reason that all existing conferences can't continue to exist largely as currently constituted. There's certainly less incentive to add more competition to your league, particularly if those schools don't add money to your TV contract.

I feel having a complacent attitude like this has allowed the Big 12 and Pac 12 to be unprepared for the recent changes to the college football landscape. If we can take 4 schools from a perceived "power" conference it will be seen as a win.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

It's not complacency. I just feel and have always felt that the benefit of destabilizing the PAC-12 is outweighed by the cost of adding its dead weight. If we can get Arizona and Utah, great. The others add nothing to our league but an unwarranted air of superiority and more mouths to feed.

And in an expanded playoff environment, which will basically extend the P5 era, I feel it's probably good to have more peer conferences with which to fight the SEC and Big Ten's inevitable power grabs. The strength in numbers argument many use for conference stability also applies when trying to stabilize the sport as a whole.

There's not only room now for independent presences from the Big 12, PAC-12 and ACC, it's likely in the long-term best interest of all three of those that all continue to exist. If the PAC-12 dissolves, that's just one more playoff spot going to the SEC or Big Ten and one less potential ally in key votes that will impact the long-term future of college athletics. I struggle to see how that's a good thing for the Big 12.

They could merge with a 2030 GoR such that Cal/Stanford are not locked in and can opt out if the B1G calls later this decade. That way, the Big 22 can capture a QF playoff game every year. However, you'd have to compete with 21 other schools for that bid. Likewise, you have better chance of placing more At-Large bids. It probably is dilutive when all is said and done, but not by much, because there is little separation between the schools in the top half and bottom half, and no schools are individually worth 90 million dollars.

(09-06-2022 09:45 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 09:12 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 08:15 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 06:51 AM)dave108 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:55 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  I can see this, but I'd only want two western schools. And I don't think the Four Corners schools have the same motivation to leave with the expanded playoff that they might otherwise. In fact, a school like Utah would be better off hanging around for as long as possible and feasting on weak PAC-12 competition.

If we could get Arizona and Utah, I'd like that. But I have no interest whatsoever in Colorado or Arizona State.

to me, the advantage in getting 2-4 PAC schools is that you'd basically be gutting the PAC. killing the competition does help, in the long run.

This mattered a lot more before the announcement of an expanded playoff. Now, there's really no reason that all existing conferences can't continue to exist largely as currently constituted. There's certainly less incentive to add more competition to your league, particularly if those schools don't add money to your TV contract.

I feel having a complacent attitude like this has allowed the Big 12 and Pac 12 to be unprepared for the recent changes to the college football landscape. If we can take 4 schools from a perceived "power" conference it will be seen as a win.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

It's not complacency. I just feel and have always felt that the benefit of destabilizing the PAC-12 is outweighed by the cost of adding its dead weight. If we can get Arizona and Utah, great. The others add nothing to our league but an unwarranted air of superiority and more mouths to feed.

And in an expanded playoff environment, which will basically extend the P5 era, I feel it's probably good to have more peer conferences with which to fight the SEC and Big Ten's inevitable power grabs. The strength in numbers argument many use for conference stability also applies when trying to stabilize the sport as a whole.

There's not only room now for independent presences from the Big 12, PAC-12 and ACC, it's likely in the long-term best interest of all three of those that all continue to exist. If the PAC-12 dissolves, that's just one more playoff spot going to the SEC or Big Ten and one less potential ally in key votes that will impact the long-term future of college athletics. I struggle to see how that's a good thing for the Big 12.

The Big 12 should not be worried about just being happy with the current situation, it should be preparing for the future. The B1G tricked the ACC and Pac 12 into some "alliance" and you see how that turned out. The best thing for the Big 12 is to weaken the Pac and then if the wolves circle around the ACC and be ready to pounce on them as well

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

(09-06-2022 03:05 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 09:45 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 09:12 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 08:15 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 06:51 AM)dave108 Wrote:  to me, the advantage in getting 2-4 PAC schools is that you'd basically be gutting the PAC. killing the competition does help, in the long run.

This mattered a lot more before the announcement of an expanded playoff. Now, there's really no reason that all existing conferences can't continue to exist largely as currently constituted. There's certainly less incentive to add more competition to your league, particularly if those schools don't add money to your TV contract.

I feel having a complacent attitude like this has allowed the Big 12 and Pac 12 to be unprepared for the recent changes to the college football landscape. If we can take 4 schools from a perceived "power" conference it will be seen as a win.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

It's not complacency. I just feel and have always felt that the benefit of destabilizing the PAC-12 is outweighed by the cost of adding its dead weight. If we can get Arizona and Utah, great. The others add nothing to our league but an unwarranted air of superiority and more mouths to feed.

And in an expanded playoff environment, which will basically extend the P5 era, I feel it's probably good to have more peer conferences with which to fight the SEC and Big Ten's inevitable power grabs. The strength in numbers argument many use for conference stability also applies when trying to stabilize the sport as a whole.

There's not only room now for independent presences from the Big 12, PAC-12 and ACC, it's likely in the long-term best interest of all three of those that all continue to exist. If the PAC-12 dissolves, that's just one more playoff spot going to the SEC or Big Ten and one less potential ally in key votes that will impact the long-term future of college athletics. I struggle to see how that's a good thing for the Big 12.

The Big 12 should not be worried about just being happy with the current situation, it should be preparing for the future. The B1G tricked the ACC and Pac 12 into some "alliance" and you see how that turned out. The best thing for the Big 12 is to weaken the Pac and then if the wolves circle around the ACC and be ready to pounce on them as well

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Your game of RISK model (conquer the weak; build an empire of leftovers) made a lot of sense in a P2 environment. With a four-team playoff, you want to be part (even if just a small part) of the consolidated power. But it makes WAAAAAYYYYY less sense in an expanded playoff era.

All consolidating power into one "leftover" conference does is make the path to the playoff significantly more difficult for all of that league's members and eventually give playoff spots that would have been occupied by PAC-12 and ACC schools to the SEC and Big Ten. That's a bad plan.

In an expanded playoff model, the Big 12, PAC-12 and ACC are no longer competing for survival because they all have near guaranteed inclusion. This is no longer the zero-sum game it was before last week's announcement. The 12-team playoff essentially ensures survival for the lesser P5 leagues. So the days of rushing to hasty, fear-based decisions should be over.

I'm not against adding schools, but any additions the Big 12 makes going forward should be well thought out and thoroughly vetted. Adding another conference's garbage to kill that conference doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you've got a clear path to two playoff spots in virtual perpetuity.

Enveloping the PAC-12 at this point would be a lot like the AAC eating the Mountain West or vice versa. What's the point? It wouldn't significantly change the national standing/perception of the poaching league and it wouldn't make the league's members any more money. It may make you feel good to say you were the stronger league, but once the dust settles, you'll realize it hasn't strengthened your conference in any meaningful way.

(09-06-2022 04:44 PM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 03:05 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 09:45 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 09:12 AM)uhmump95 Wrote:  

(09-06-2022 08:15 AM)bear2be2 Wrote:  This mattered a lot more before the announcement of an expanded playoff. Now, there's really no reason that all existing conferences can't continue to exist largely as currently constituted. There's certainly less incentive to add more competition to your league, particularly if those schools don't add money to your TV contract.

I feel having a complacent attitude like this has allowed the Big 12 and Pac 12 to be unprepared for the recent changes to the college football landscape. If we can take 4 schools from a perceived "power" conference it will be seen as a win.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

It's not complacency. I just feel and have always felt that the benefit of destabilizing the PAC-12 is outweighed by the cost of adding its dead weight. If we can get Arizona and Utah, great. The others add nothing to our league but an unwarranted air of superiority and more mouths to feed.

And in an expanded playoff environment, which will basically extend the P5 era, I feel it's probably good to have more peer conferences with which to fight the SEC and Big Ten's inevitable power grabs. The strength in numbers argument many use for conference stability also applies when trying to stabilize the sport as a whole.

There's not only room now for independent presences from the Big 12, PAC-12 and ACC, it's likely in the long-term best interest of all three of those that all continue to exist. If the PAC-12 dissolves, that's just one more playoff spot going to the SEC or Big Ten and one less potential ally in key votes that will impact the long-term future of college athletics. I struggle to see how that's a good thing for the Big 12.

The Big 12 should not be worried about just being happy with the current situation, it should be preparing for the future. The B1G tricked the ACC and Pac 12 into some "alliance" and you see how that turned out. The best thing for the Big 12 is to weaken the Pac and then if the wolves circle around the ACC and be ready to pounce on them as well

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Your game of RISK model (conquer the weak; build an empire of leftovers) made a lot of sense in a P2 environment. With a four-team playoff, you want to be part (even if just a small part) of the consolidated power. But it makes WAAAAAYYYYY less sense in an expanded playoff era.

All consolidating power into one "leftover" conference does is make the path to the playoff significantly more difficult for all of that league's members and eventually give playoff spots that would have been occupied by PAC-12 and ACC schools to the SEC and Big Ten. That's a bad plan.

In an expanded playoff model, the Big 12, PAC-12 and ACC are no longer competing for survival because they all have near guaranteed inclusion. This is no longer the zero-sum game it was before last week's announcement. The 12-team playoff essentially ensures survival for the lesser P5 leagues. So the days of rushing to hasty, fear-based decisions should be over.

I'm not against adding schools, but any additions the Big 12 makes going forward should be well thought out and thoroughly vetted. Adding another conference's garbage to kill that conference doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you've got a clear path to two playoff spots in virtual perpetuity.

Enveloping the PAC-12 at this point would be a lot like the AAC eating the Mountain West or vice versa. What's the point? It wouldn't significantly change the national standing/perception of the poaching league and it wouldn't make the league's members any more money. It may make you feel good to say you were the stronger league, but once the dust settles, you'll realize it hasn't strengthened your conference in any meaningful way.

I have seen this argument. If the new CFP is 2.2B the B1G/SEC were rumored to want 50%, ACC/PAC/B12 30% and rest of G5 20%. The B12 under this would be 20M, if the PAC 12 is eliminated would the B12 & ACC go up by 50%?

Does the B12 get a late night time slot then, possibly on both Friday & Saturday night? Is there much value in that?

I hate the idea of the WSU & OSU content in the B12. Because a Boise St. would do much better ratings wise in those night slots and I don't think the B12 is considering Boise St.