Did the Pac-12 risk its future by not expanding?

[RSSBot]

Jon Wilner

That’s a question I’ve been asking myself since the news broke earlier this evening that the conference decided 12 was the right number. Now, it should be made clear there are two issues at play in assessing the league’s decision (and it was a monumental decision, at that) . The first issue is whether the [...]

Originally posted by College Hotline
Click here to view the article.

 

[InTheBuff]

Can somebody paste the entire article. Work's filter has blocked it.

 

[sackman]

Ridiculous query. The Pac 12 is the only major conference in the Mountain and Pacific Time zones. There aren't any others. None. There is no need to expand, especially with UT. What a collossal mess that would have been.

 

[absinthe]

ITB here is most of it:

That’s a question I’ve been asking myself since the news broke earlier this evening that the conference decided 12 was the right number.

Now, it should be made clear there are two issues at play in assessing the league’s decision (and it was a monumental decision, at that) .

The first issue is whether the conference should have bowed to Texas’ revenue demands and cut a special deal with the Longhorns.

The answer is no — no, no, no.

In fact, a source said commissioner Larry Scott walked away from a meeting with Texas officials last weekend in Southern California fairly certain that the Longhorn Network and the Pac-12 revenue model could not co-exist.

My sense, too, was that Texas was a long shot, especially when I was told that the conference and UT were “nowhere near any agreement.” It was fairly close to a non-starter once Scott became aware of the school’s demands/requirements.

But … and here’s the second issue … what about adding the Oklahoma schools to get to 14?

I know the Pac-12 CEOs did not particularly want to expand. That has been clear from the outset.

But it sure seemed like OU president David Boren believed an invitation would come — if the Sooners asked for it, of course — based on his public comments these past few days and weeks.

Maybe the CEOs got cold feet, the result of so much public backlash over the realignment money-grab.

Maybe they thought the geography and logistics of a 14-team league were too awkward.

(If the reason for not taking the Oklahoma schools was that they aren’t members of the prestigious Association of American Universities, well, that’s lame.

Case for expansion:

* It is 2021, and both the SEC and Big Ten have 16 members. Both have more lucrative TV deals than the Pac-12. Both have better football brands — more on-field success, more powerhouse programs — than the Pac-12.

* In other words, the Pac-12 is lagging behind its peers competitively and financially in much the same way it lagged its peers until this very recent, expansion/TV-contract fueled upswing.

* And guess what: In 2021, the league will have no options.

It will have no options because a small pool of possible expansion targets shriveled up when the conference opted against taking the Sooners this week.

Remember that the Pac-12, because of geography, has far fewer quality options than the SEC or Big Ten. There are only two big football brands out there, Oklahoma and Texas, and they are not options.

Texas isn’t an option for the same reason it wasn’t a viable option the time around.

Oklahoma isn’t an option because 1) the Sooners feel they were misled by the Pac-12 this time, or 2) are happy in the Big 12, or 3) are happy in the SEC.

* So where does the Pac-12 turn for more bulk, better football and a new TV deal that brings it closer to the whoppers the Big Ten and SEC will sign in the next few years?

It has nowhere to turn.

That’s why you could make a case that passing on OU may prove costly — because if the league needs to be bigger down the road to compete with its peers, it won’t have any options.

If the collegiate athletic landscape were static, then passing on OU would have minimal impact on the future. But we all know the Big Ten and SEC will grow in the next few years.

You get a chance to grab a program of OU’s caliber, you have to take it — not for today but for 10 or 20 years down the road.

 

[Darth Snow]

What is with mods and double posting lately?

Edit: And in response to Wilner, I think OU will still be there in 5 years. the ACC will limit the SEC's expansion options for now, and the P12Network will look pretty awesome soon enough.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

The Pac 12 may not have many options as of right now but that could change in 5 to 10 years. As for UT and OU the PAC is their only option therefore no to any little bros. Take OU, UT and KU and MU if you have to go to 16.

 

[Darth Snow]

The Pac 12 may not have many options as of right now but that could change in 5 to 10 years. As for UT and OU the PAC is their only option therefore no to any little bros. Take OU, UT and KU and MU if you have to go to 16.

LHN will never be nationally accepted. In a Year, the PAC12Network will be sea to shining sea with a ton of content. They will break down or wither on the vine. Or swallow their pride and go to the SEC and cheat with the rest of them.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

Jon Wilner

That’s a question I’ve been asking myself since the news broke earlier this evening that the conference decided 12 was the right number. Now, it should be made clear there are two issues at play in assessing the league’s decision (and it was a monumental decision, at that) . The first issue is whether the [...]

Originally posted by College Hotline
Click here to view the article.

its a fair question... but i hope and think ou will still be there when this thing rears its ugly head again

 

[CarolinaBuff]

The Pac 12 may not have many options as of right now but that could change in 5 to 10 years. As for UT and OU the PAC is their only option therefore no to any little bros. Take OU, UT and KU and MU if you have to go to 16.

The Pac is likely to have even less options down the road as Wilner pointed out, which is why it's a mistake for the conference to not expand now. Even the ACC, which was considered by many to be on shaky ground, went out and got aggressive in all this conference shuffling.

 

[Buffnik]

It's a calculated risk.

 

[MtnBuff]

Again all the concern is based on the idea that we are going to a conference set-up that is 4X16. Simple fact is that that is more media speculation than anything that the conferences themselves have pushed for.

We know that nothing is going to happen without the conferences themselves agreeing to it. The PAC is currently staying at 12, a number that is more managable and gives them a group of highly compatible schools. The Big 10 is now at 12 and unless Notre Dame applies don't seem to be interested in adding more. The SEC is looking like they will have 13 and are having a problem finding a #14 they want. 15 and 16 aren't just standing there waiting for them in an obvious fashion.

There is certainly an interest in some schools to move. The Big XII is less stable than a bride who just found her fiance in the sack with her maid of honor. The Big East is in trouble and the ACC is trying to shore up their position.

Even with all this nothing is going to happen in the end unless the Big 10, the SEC, the PAC, and the rest of the major players agree and it isn't looking like they are all that interested.