Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

You're working under the assumption that they may have a choice and may be allowed to leave separately by the state's lawmakers. I wouldn't be overly sure of that. And the Pac 12 can accommodate four new members, the SEC, B1G and ACC cannot.

The thing you constantly ignore here is that this is all driven by necessity and not because the Pac, its members, OU or UT necessarily want it to happen. But both sides understand that a marriage may be necessary in order to survive. And I'd rather take the chance and try to survive with them rather than face almost certain death by keeping the status quo.
 
sackman said:
Let's flip this around. What does the PAC 12 have to offer that is better than what the ACC/SEC/B1G can offer? Why would either of those schools choose the PAC when they have better options?

Now let's think about what we would have to offer in order to make it worth their while. So do we really want to be giving incentives to any schools, much less THOSE schools? Because, you know, letting one or two schools play by a separate set of rules than the rest of the conference is kind of a bad idea. Or didn't we learn that?
Click to expand...
this is good question and a reasonable way of thinking about it.

At first blush, the Pac 12 doesn't have the TV network that the SEC or B1G have and I believe that will hurt the Pac in expansion competition. I also suspect travel costs in the Pac would be higher for either UT or OU than the ACC, B1G or SEC (not just airfare, the Pac has some damn expensive destination cities).

Also, the ACC has shown they will bend over for Notre Dame, so that might make the conference more attractive for Texas than the Pac.

Academically, the Pac aligns better with OU and UT than the SEC, but is not a big differentiator against the B1G or ACC. Fair to assume the B1G is not hot on OU given their lack of AAU status.
 
Jens1893 said:
You're working under the assumption that they may have a choice and may be allowed to leave separately by the state's lawmakers. I wouldn't be overly sure of that. And the Pac 12 can accommodate four new members, the SEC, B1G and ACC cannot.

The thing you constantly ignore here is that this is all driven by necessity and not because the Pac, its members, OU or UT necessarily want it to happen. But both sides understand that a marriage may be necessary in order to survive. And I'd rather take the chance and try to survive with them rather than face almost certain death by keeping the status quo.
Click to expand...
"certain death" I think is too strong. Can you realistically envision a future state of college football without the Pac schools being relevant in the national landscape? honestly, I can't. even in the extreme case, I can't forsee the B1G, ACC and SEC splitting off from the NCAA without the Pac. Many of those brands are too big with too much money behind them.
 
hokiehead said:
"certain death" I think is too strong. Can you realistically envision a future state of college football without the Pac schools being relevant in the national landscape? honestly, I can't. even in the extreme case, I can't forsee the B1G, ACC and SEC splitting off from the NCAA without the Pac. Many of those brands are too big with too much money behind them.
Click to expand...

The P12 schools? No, certainly not. California is far too important, but who says it has to be in the P12?
 
Jens1893 said:
The P12 schools? No, certainly not. California is far too important, but who says it has to be in the P12?
Click to expand...
fair distinction. I jumped to a conclusion.

the obvious follow up question is then, "if the Pac 12 doesn't expand, where do you believe the member schools will go?"
 
hokiehead said:
fair distinction. I jumped to a conclusion.

the obvious follow up question is then, "if the Pac 12 doesn't expand, where do you believe the member schools will go?"
Click to expand...

I can't predict the future and predict the second step after the first.

College athletics is very unpredictable not only on the field, but also off the field with all those additional political layers, influential boosters and the way TV networks can directly influence things.
 
Jens1893 said:
I can't predict the future and predict the second step after the first.

College athletics is very unpredictable not only on the field, but also off the field with all those additional political layers, influential boosters and the way TV networks can directly influence things.
Click to expand...
fair enough. I'm struggling to envision any realistic scenario where the Pac breaks up and member schools go their own way, though. Seems like the West coast schools are geographically bound together.
 
hokiehead said:
fair enough. I'm struggling to envision any realistic scenario where the Pac breaks up and member schools go their own way, though. Seems like the West coast schools are geographically bound together.
Click to expand...

How many people said that about UT and A&M?
 
sackman said:
Let's flip this around. What does the PAC 12 have to offer that is better than what the ACC/SEC/B1G can offer? Why would either of those schools choose the PAC when they have better options?

Now let's think about what we would have to offer in order to make it worth their while. So do we really want to be giving incentives to any schools, much less THOSE schools? Because, you know, letting one or two schools play by a separate set of rules than the rest of the conference is kind of a bad idea. Or didn't we learn that?
Click to expand...

OU President is very big on building the academic rep of the university. The coaches want better access to recruiting CA while maintaining TX.

UT has similar motivations.

For both, they killed Big 12 expansion because they want less competition, not more, for recruiting the state of Texas. They can effectively kill ISU and KSU, eliminate WVU having anything working in TX, and also make it so that there are fewer Power Conference programs in TX to compete against.

My guess is that the 2 programs they'd bring with them are OSU and TTU.
 
Jens1893 said:
How many people said that about UT and A&M?
Click to expand...
few, if any, would be my guess, but if you have a source please correct me.

Those schools don't seem "geographically bound together" to anywhere near the extent the West coast Pac schools are. A&M was closer to LSU and Arkansas than any of the current West coast Pac members are to another P5 school.
 
hokiehead said:
few, if any, would be my guess, but if you have a source please correct me.

Those schools don't seem "geographically bound together" to anywhere near the extent the West coast Pac schools are. A&M was closer to LSU and Arkansas than any of the current West coast Pac members are to another P5 school.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is unforeseen stuff happens in football all the time. On and also off the field.
 
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post...-oklahoma-to-pac-12-rankings-and-other-gripes

Just about everything in college football is about money, so when the idea of expansion or even a "super-conference" is broached, you have to ask how is it going to provide more revenue for existing members of the Power 5. When you say, "What if the Pac-12 added Program X?" you have to ask whether that would increase the revenue of the existing 12 members.

Very few would.
Click to expand...

Texas and Oklahoma -- particularly Texas -- would add eyeballs, markets, big stadiums and traditions that would make the Pac-12 more appealing to its broadcast partners. If the magic number is 16, my off-the-cuff guess is Oklahoma State and Kansas might be the most appealing options, but there might be some out-of-the-box thinking that, say, Houston might offer more long-term potential.

While there seems to be some semblance of stability in college football at this point, the only fact of the past 20 or so years has been change. So when you ask, "What's going to happen next?" my honest answer is I don't really know, but by 2025, I'd guess things will look different than they do today.
Click to expand...
 
torerobuff said:
Pretty sure he meant gravy. Gravy based bloody Mary's are far more interesting than rehashing conference realignment for the 700th time. Will these gravy based bloody Mary's be available around San Antonio later this month?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but I just had an inspiration that might actually be good: a Mole themed cocktail. I need to get to work on that.
 
Mole themed cocktail?

mole8.jpg
 
onealcd said:
Texas is the best athletic department and best school in the Big-12. That would not be the case in the Pac-12 so they wouldn't have as much power as they do now IMO. That is probably what people are hoping for if they joined, Stanford, USC, Washington, UCLA and even OU if they came along would be able to easily out influence Texas in those conference rooms.
Click to expand...

I hope someone invents tasty no-calorie fried chicken.
 
Duff Man said:
Yes. Because the other conferences will snatch up desirable schools from the Big 12. The schools have been mentioned ad nauseam in the this. Texas and/or Oklahoma are a must as a starting point.

Yes.

If other every P5 conference picks up desirable schools from the Big 12, they will be stronger leagues and therefore get more bids.
Click to expand...
Giving this some more thought...

If the XII does not crumble and expansion continues by eastern conferences adding current G5 schools, do you still believe the Pac has to expand?
 
bigskybuff said:
I find it extremely hard to fathom those schools leaving Texass behind. When your whole recruiting strategy begins and ends in the state I doubt they go anywhere without UT. So, unless you think grabbing these two will force Texass to join as well, you start with Texass first, not the Okie schools
Click to expand...
You do realize that OU has more championships as a member of the B8 than the B12 right? I think OU did just fine without UT in the conference.
 
hokiehead said:
fair distinction. I jumped to a conclusion.

the obvious follow up question is then, "if the Pac 12 doesn't expand, where do you believe the member schools will go?"
Click to expand...

Down the Ivy League path.

Might as well make a play to merge the PAC with the Ivies.

Get the east coast. And dominate smarts. Plus no Texas.
 
OUBuff said:
You do realize that OU has more championships as a member of the B8 than the B12 right? I think OU did just fine without UT in the conference.
Click to expand...

So did Nebraska. See where they are struggling now. Recruiting Texass. These kids have the attention span of a two year old, they don't care about the Big 8, they only know what's going on now.
I would be very surprised if OU's recruiting didn't suffer if they leave the Texass footprint. I'd love to see OU come without them, I just don't think they will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top