I would rather go to Tucson, Phoenix, and SLC every year than the round robin through Texas and OK. Still hate the idea of expanding beyond 11 or 12, but if it brings in that much more money then I guess that is how it is.
Every time you post this opinion, the bigger chance this actually has of happening.
I read/heard that with typical 8x8 conference schedule we would play the other 8 once every 7 years and with the pod schedule we would play them every 3 years. I vote pod.
Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
Just a guess -- I think Utah is the likely 16th PAC member. A & M could take the slot if they wanted it but they're intent on being part of the SEC, so the question is really whether the SEC will decide to let A & M in.
My hunch is that the SEC will let A & M in because it gives them a presence in the Dallas/Houston/San Antonio media market, besides the need to act pro-actively during a fluid situation. Utah would then be offered entrance if that comes to pass.
OU and A&M will get invited to the SEC. College Station is a very short distance from Louisiana, and has played alot of SEC teams in nonconference.That leaves one spot to fill which would work great for Utah and put us in the Utah, Arizona/State pod with all the Texas/OK schools in another pod. That would work pretty well actually. Then you have the CA pod, and the NW pod.
Thoughts?
What do you make, then, of the rumors that the SEC is favoring Miami, FSU, GT, and WVU? It seems they are clear in naming their favored puppies.
I think the SEC will try to go 2 East and 2 West.
East: Virginia Tech and Florida State
West: Texas A&M and Oklahoma State
Really, I only care about the West since it effects CU. I believe that at the end of the day Oklahoma has almost zero interest to part with the Longhorns and says "No" to the SEC. Next best thing for the SEC is OSU, which delivers some TVs in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, a natural rivalry with Texas A&M, great facilities, and a major upgrade to SEC basketball. Texas A&M is similar -- (Houston market) and all the other OSU points. Both will play an annual rivalry game against OU and UT, respectively, in order to make this happen.
(For our Pac 16, this removes a couple repetitive media markets, gives us the two Top 10 all-time football programs with the bigger local and national followings, and allows us to add Kansas with its #32 Kansas City market as well as Utah with its #31 Salt Lake City market. The Pac 16 becomes even stronger.)
Nik - if it shakes out that way, I agree that would be the best possible situation for the strength of the PacX. I would think that the SEC would have favored an OU/Texas pair, instead of the smaller stepchildren. If they were set on expanding, Lord knows Okie was angling for it. Why allow another conference to snap them up if interested all along?
Its all good - being a Buff grad, I am quite capable of reading, even if the message is more involved. :thumbsup:
The question I have is this: if OU's academics are suspect, how do you explain that Oklahoma has more Rhodes Scholars per capita than any other school in the US? The premier weather program in the US? And research dollars that CU could respect? I really do not think OU had to be overlooked academically.
Its all good - being a Buff grad, I am quite capable of reading, even if the message is more involved. :thumbsup:
The question I have is this: if OU's academics are suspect, how do you explain that Oklahoma has more Rhodes Scholars per capita than any other school in the US? The premier weather program in the US? And research dollars that CU could respect? I really do not think OU had to be overlooked academically.
Pretty simple on Oklahoma: Not in the top 300 of the ARWU rankings and not an AAU Member. Those would be the 2 key academic evaluations it has been reported that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are looking at. Pac 10 wants to increase its academic prestige, not compromise it. (Pac 10: 7/10 members were Top 100 ARWU worldwide and 6/10 were AAU members.)
ARWU comparison: Stanford #2, Cal #3, UCLA #13, Washington #16, Colorado #34, Texas #38, USC #46, Arizona #77, Utah #80, Texas A&M #88, Arizona State #94, Oregon State #101-151, Oregon #201-302, Washington State #201-302, Kansas #201-302, Oklahoma #303-401, Texas Tech #303-401, Oklahoma State (not in top 500), Baylor (not in top 500)
AAU members: Arizona, Stanford, Texas A&M, Cal, UCLA, Colorado, Kansas, Oregon, USC, Texas, Washington
This is why the Pac's top targets were Colorado and Texas. Texas A&M was only a #3 because it's a cultural misfit, but they're very strong in everything else. PAC would love to go to a Pac 12 with only CU and UT added. We bring the best media markets, great athletic traditions (elite with Texas), and top academics. Everyone else is a strategic compromise.
From what I've heard, we're fooling ourselves by believing that UT, OU, OSU and TT are going anywhere but the Pac-XX. Stop with the other nonsense, this will very likely happen. If A&M goes to the SEC, I'd take KU over Utah. They're a former Big 8 school, a proven BCS conference member, provide the KC market and are no further from Boulder than Salt Lake. I don't understand being enamored with Utah.