What's new
  • Are you enjoying this unexpected coaching search as much as the administrators at Allbuffs? Do you too want to get the latest and most tenuous rumors delivered to you? Then consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including Barzil, Barzil 2, and super secret Barzil, along with neat avatars for your user! Also no more annoying ads from absinthe. COOL! 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. Make it happen!

Realignment Starting - UConn

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
To each his own and I won't argue with that sentiment. I just don't believe that's remotely possible if you want to see the Pac 12 remain catch up with the rest of college football.
I doubt there is ever a way for PAC finances to catch the B1G or SEC. On average, PAC fans are less die-hard and less engaged, attendance is lower, and media presence of PAC teams is lower even in home markets. All somewhat expected when you live in such an amazing portion of the country that has so much to offer besides sports for entertainment. But that difference in fan engagement will never fundamentally change. The PAC just needs to stay within a reasonable range of the other conferences, like it historically has (the PAC athletic departments have always operated on much less revenue than their peers in other conferences).
 

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
The gap between P5 and G5 wasn't terribly large 20-30 years ago. It's massive today. Without something serious happening with the Pac 12 and this third party investor/TV deals, the financial and competitive gap between the Pac 12 and the BIG/SEC will continue to grow in the same capacity. Not everything is "cyclical" as you suggest.
Disagree, things will never be equal but the current P5 confences will stay close enough to be competitive.

The exploding gap between the P5 and the G5 is what led to my initial posting in this thread about an eventual redistribution of teams with most of the current G5 teams giving up on the fantasy that they are competing for the highest level and instead settling into what is clearly a second division but being able to operate on a much more reasonable budget.
 

Tractor

Club Member
Club Member
If the LA schools (in particular USC football and UCLA basketball) can get their big programs back on track and keep them there, this conference will be fine, and there really isn't a reason to expand at all unless the Big 12 collapses.
This is all correct. Things go in cycles, the PAC will be strong again soon enough.

And expansion just to expand doesn't help anyone (except the schools getting a bonus by taking away revenue from the existing schools.

If expansion means more money and exposure for each member of the league then do it, if it means dividing the pie into smaller slices then no thanks.

The question is: What has the PAC-10/12 done to help the LA schools get their big programs back on track and keep them there?
-More $$$ / school than competitors? Nope
-Easy (8 conference games) path to national title game? Nope
-Strong enough conference mates to allow for team to still be in with conference loss? Nope
-More TV/exposure to superior high school recruits than competitors? Nope


The PAC12, by doing nothing, isn't helping. The PAC 12, by adding the UNLV/UNM/San Diego States of the world, isn't helping.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
The question is: What has the PAC-10/12 done to help the LA schools get their big programs back on track and keep them there?
-More $$$ / school than competitors? Nope
-Easy (8 conference games) path to national title game? Nope
-Strong enough conference mates to allow for team to still be in with conference loss? Nope
-More TV/exposure to superior high school recruits than competitors? Nope


The PAC12, by doing nothing, isn't helping. The PAC 12, by adding the UNLV/UNM/San Diego States of the world, isn't helping.
Actually if you only lose a game in the pac you will go to the playoff.
 

ahoelsken

Well-Known Member
The question is: What has the PAC-10/12 done to help the LA schools get their big programs back on track and keep them there?
-More $$$ / school than competitors? Nope
-Easy (8 conference games) path to national title game? Nope
-Strong enough conference mates to allow for team to still be in with conference loss? Nope
-More TV/exposure to superior high school recruits than competitors? Nope
The PAC12, by doing nothing, isn't helping. The PAC 12, by adding the UNLV/UNM/San Diego States of the world, isn't helping.
Both the teams we've put in the playoff (2014 Oregon and 2016 Washington) got in with losses in conference. Oregon lost to Arizona (who they punked in the CCG that year) and Washington lost to USC. USC keeping Clay Helton isn't the league's issue-its a USC issue. Same with UCLA not firing Steve Alford years before they finally did.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
How do you know that? A one loss pac 12 champ has never been left out of the playoff.
Due to the reputation the PAC has built the past few years, unfortunately. All of the other conferences are currently seen as "tougher." It will take a few years of good out of conference play/ winning to change the narrative.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
Due to the reputation the PAC has built the past few years, unfortunately. All of the other conferences are currently seen as "tougher." It will take a few years of good out of conference play/ winning to change the narrative.
Yeah I don’t agree with that what so ever. The pac 12 gets plenty of respect when they play well, in football and basketball and there is no evidence for what you are saying.

We aren’t even that far removed from most of the media arguing a two loss Stanford should be in over a one loss big 10 champ, there was even quite a late contingent saying a three loss USC should be in the playoff.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
Yeah I don’t agree with that what so ever. The pac 12 gets plenty of respect when they play well, in football and basketball and there is no evidence for what you are saying.

We aren’t even that far removed from most of the media arguing a two loss Stanford should be in over a one loss big 10 champ, there was even quite a late contingent saying a three loss USC should be in the playoff.
Sure, then agree to disagree. I would agree USC will always get a bit more leeway, however, much the same as UT or OU get more leeway than TCU, KSU, etc.
 

ahoelsken

Well-Known Member
Not if the ACC, SEC, B1G and Big XII conference champs all have 1 or fewer losses.
The odds of all five major conferences putting out champions that are either undefeated or all have one loss in the same year is so astronomically low its not worth talking about. Most schools play at least one power 5 game in the OOC a year. Yeah, there are situations like Oregon playing Bowling Green, Portland State, and San Jose State in the OOC last year (which I think was due to Texas A&M bagging out of a series against them late enough to where they had no choice but three buy games as an OOC) or us when we were rebuilding under MacIntyre.......but I think there are enough P5 vs. P5 games to where that won't ever happen.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
Sure, then agree to disagree. I would agree USC will always get a bit more leeway, however, much the same as UT or OU get more leeway than TCU, KSU, etc.
But it goes beyond those schools. You have no evidence to support any of this. Even a one loss Washington with a terrible OOC got into the playoff. Everyone wanted Stanford in with two losses. The schools themselves are holding the conference back more than anything.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
The odds of all five major conferences putting out champions that are either undefeated or all have one loss in the same year is so astronomically low its not worth talking about. Most schools play at least one power 5 game in the OOC a year. Yeah, there are situations like Oregon playing Bowling Green, Portland State, and San Jose State in the OOC last year (which I think was due to Texas A&M bagging out of a series against them late enough to where they had no choice but three buy games as an OOC) or us when we were rebuilding under MacIntyre.......but I think there are enough P5 vs. P5 games to where that won't ever happen.
Sure, maybe not. My point was only that we are currently at a disadvantage as compared to other conferences. Said more clearly, I mean that the PAC is currently likely to be left out when the other conferences produce teams of equal or better record, whatever that record may be, and we have to admit that the SEC getting two teams in again sometime is always a legitimate possibility.

That's not to say such a narrative won't change, it just may take a couple years. But we need PAC teams to consistently win non-conference games and bowls. Our record has been pretty bad the last two, and the public/ media narrative surrounding the PAC has gone down the drain.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
But it goes beyond those schools. You have no evidence to support any of this. Even a one loss Washington with a terrible OOC got into the playoff. Everyone wanted Stanford in with two losses. The schools themselves are holding the conference back more than anything.
Per my last post, agree to disagree.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
Sure, maybe not. My point was only that we are currently at a disadvantage as compared to other conferences. Said more clearly, I mean that the PAC is currently likely to be left out when the other conferences produce teams of equal or better record, whatever that record may be, and we have to admit that the SEC getting two teams in again sometime is always a legitimate possibility.
The pac won’t be at a disadvantage in this to any team outside of Bama and Clemson because they earned that on the field. The playoff committee has been very fair over the years and there is no reason to think they would devalue the pac 12 in that scenario other than some weird insecurity you have. And either way the likelihood of this being an issue is very small.
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
As a fan, you'd rather see a conference game against a P5 CSU and BSU every year, rather than say UT, OU, NU, TTU, KU, Mizzou, etc?
Sort of.

Hear me out on this one. There's a method to my madness. (WARNING: Long post coming.)

Pull out the elite programs, UT and OU, because they're going to draw a big number from their local market along with their megaregion and national eyes. Those schools are among a group of unicorns that everyone is chasing. NU is pretty much the same, just with a much smaller population within its local sphere of influence, so also pull them out. Besides, they're part of a CU rivalry that would have huge value to the conference as an event - so that separates them for extra value to the Pac-12. With UT + OU as a package, they become extra valuable because it would bring a rivalry game that's going to draw a top tv rating every year nationally for the weekend it's on as an event.

So that leaves us with programs like KU, KSU, ISU, Mizzou, OSU, TTU, TCU, Baylor and maybe UH.

What I'm looking at is the likelihood of a program's games to create an event -- local level, megaregion level or national level.

Those are modified by the populations contained in the local level and mega region in which the school's located.

Before I go on, here's the megaregion map below:


The Pac-12 currently controls 5 of the emerging megaregions: Cascadia, Northern California, Southern California, Arizona Sun Corridor and Front Range.

Here's my theory on how we should start valuing different football programs for the Pac-12 or other conferences:

The strength of Pac-12's influence is compromised within its megaregions, and as a conference whole, by the large amount of unaffiliated open space between its megaregions and the fact that the major metros on the edges of its controlled megaregions is often the home of a G5 program that has a significant local following (distance and disruption between or within megaregions dilutes fan passion is a big part of my theory). How does the Arizona Sun Corridor sphere of influence overlap and tie together with the Front Range sphere of influence if New Mexico (or maybe Texas Tech) isn't part of the Pac-12? Without that, the connection and the passions that come with that are diluted. Same with Southern California having the population centers on the edges of its megaregion (San Diego and Las Vegas) the home of G5 programs that prevent its connection and overlap with Arizona Sun and Front Range. Northern California and Cascadia lose that connection and passion by having the same situations with its border metros of Fresno, Reno and Boise keeping them disconnected from Front Range. The people in Southern California don't care as much about the Front Range & Arizona Sun or the Pac-12 as a whole because there isn't a sphere of influence overlap. That happens throughout our conference with the only exception being the coast with Cascadia connecting/overlappng with Northern California which connects/overlaps with Southern California. It's why the Pac-8 fans feel disconnected to the other conference schools in the Arizona Sun and Front Range -- because they are. Fixing that has huge value because it would increase the Pac-12's likelihood of creating event games -- locally, megaregionally or nationally.

Some scenarios for Pac-12 expansion:

What would a KU or KSU do? They wouldn't do much for the Pac-12's likelihood of creating an event for the whole Great Lakes megaregion or even the chunk nearest east of Kansas City. Neither KU or KSU has enough pull to capture influence of any unaffiliated areas. They'd basically pull in the roughly 3 million people in KS as passionate fans who could create an event. And neither program's pull, by itself, would be strong enough to grab the Kansas City metro away from the Great Lakes and into the Front Range megaregion. Maybe if you got both KU and KSU that could happen, but then you're taking 2 schools to get that effect with a limited number of spots (opportunity cost) and half the additive effect for each school.

What would a Boise State do? Basically, everything KU or KSU would do on its local level except less from a 1.7 million population in ID compared to 3 million people in KS. That gives a solid nudge to one of the KS schools on the "local market" size criteria. But with that, BSU's level of local influence is stronger since it has no FBS competition within its local sphere. Further, Boise State stretches the Pac-12's sphere of strong influence within the Cascadia megaregion to its edge. That gives the Pac-12 total control over the influence there -- leading to all Pac-12 games, particularly those involving Cascadia teams, being more likely to create an event within that entire megaregion. Further, Boise State is a connector to Utah's sphere of influence from the Front Range megaregion. This will directly increase event creation likelihood in the Front Range megaregion for Cascadia games and vice versa since their respective spheres of influence were made to overlap. Taken together, even though they don't bring a rivalry game, adding Boise State is more likely to create events for the Pac-12 (directly and indirectly) than either KU or KSU would.

CSU gives the Pac-12 total control over CO and its 5.6 million people while strengthening the pull of the Pac-12 within the Front Range megaregion. It also creates a new event with the CU-CSU rivalry game which is something programs like KU and KSU don't do. Definitely a more valuable option.

The one program from the expansion list (other than the elites of NU, OU and UT) that is outside the Pac-12 megaregional footprints and might bring more value than the options within the footprint -- Texas Tech. There are 3 million people in West Texas, which is an unaffiliated area outside the Texas Triangle megaregion to its east. TTU potentially pulls the Arizona Sun Corridor's sphere of influence along southern New Mexico through the Las Cruces/El Paso area and down SW Texas along the Rio Grande. It also potentially pulls Front Range influence to the southeast. On that note, adding TTU pairs well with the idea of adding UNM since that solidifies the megaregional influences for the Pac-12 and strengthens the likelihood of creating events. TTU + UNM would be a much stronger duo to add than many might think -- but New Mexico is a small population state in which UNM doesn't have a particularly strong influence.

At the base of this, I'm really looking at 2 things:

1. If a particular school is added, how many more events is that likely to create per year from its football inventory (local, megaregional, national)?
2. From that, how big would an event be on the local or megaregional level based on the populations being strongly influenced in those areas?

The reason why I believe it's mostly about event creation now is because of how viewership has moved. If we're going to buy an app or pay to stream games, or pay for a conference network cable upgrade or app, the quality of the mediocre games doesn't matter much. What matters is how many events your matchups are likely to create and the populations your non-national events will influence.

Having true geographic ties matters. I talked a lot about increasing influence within a megaregion. But there's also the fact that dilution of ties will actually decrease a conference's influence within the megaregions it had. The average Oregonian becomes less enthusiastic about the average Pac-12 game if a KSU it has such weak linkage to is playing in a conference game. This is why C-USA failed. It's why the AAC can't keep a UConn. It's why we don't mention UCF or Temple for Pac-12 expansion -- they're too dilutive to the influence levels where the Pac-12 already is.

So give me Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, UNLV, Nevada, BYU, Utah State or Colorado State over KU, KSU, MU, ISU or OSU. Potential connections made with TTU plus the link into Texas elevates them. UNM solidifies the Front Range influence of the Pac-12 while causing a connect/overlap between Front Range and Arizona Sun. So they are worth considering -- even more so as a TTU pairing since they would make it so Lubbock wasn't such an outlier unaffiliated area. But you only look at UNM if you can't get UT or TCU along with TTU. TCU might be more valuable to the Pac-12 than the PTZ & MTZ options since the problems of geographical disconnect dilution are likely outweighed by the benefits from its local population size (and recruiting grounds). But TCU is also a much stronger candidate if paired with TTU so that rivalry game comes in and increases the value of both.

If it's not an elite, I'm still saying that TTU + UNLV is our best addition. UNLV better links the Southern California megaregion sphere of influence to overlap with the Front Range and Arizona Sun spheres. That raises conference passions overall while also delivering that Nevada/Las Vegas local population influence. TTU for the reasons I stated in the preceding paragraph.

That makes my order in terms of the positive influence on events I think each program would create on average, either directly or indirectly:
Elites (UT, NU, OU or Notre Dame) followed by...
1. Texas Tech (potentially pulls Front Range & Arizona Sun spheres into west Texas + local population & some influence into Texas Triangle).
2. TCU (if TTU said yes or if UT says yes - otherwise drop from list for being too geographically disconnected).
3. UNLV (connects and overlaps So Cal with both Arizona Sun and Front Range + local population)
4. Boise State (strengthens Cascadia influence, overlaps and connects Cascadia and Front Range spheres + local population).
5. BYU (best western rivalry the Pac-12 doesn't have is them and Utes + strengthens Front Range influence).
6. CSU (2nd best western rivalry the Pac-12 doesn't have is them and CU + strengthens Front Range influence).
5. SDSU (strengthens Southern California influence, overlaps and connects SoCal and Arizona Sun spheres + big local population)
6. Utah State (adds rivalry with Utes + strengthens Front Range influence).
7. Nevada (overlaps and connects Northern California with Front Range sphere + local population).
8. New Mexico (strengthens Front Range influence, overlaps Front Range and Arizona Sun + local population)

Hawaii is not on my list because I think the influence would be negative due to causing more geographic disconnection and dilution of passion within the Pac-12.

A few other scenarios based on looking at things from this perspective:

1. Mizzou -- more valuable for the B1G, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC? In all cases, the conference gains very strong influence over the state of Missouri since Mizzou is the only FBS program in that state. But with that, the Big 12 would only gain 1 true rivalry game thru Mizzou (KU). The SEC doesn't gain any rivalry games (exclamation point on that is they didn't think a thing of putting them in the East -- it didn't matter where they went) but is geographically connected. Pac-12 doesn't gain any rivalry games and is disconnected. However, the B1G would gain 2 true rivalry games (NU and Illinois) and is very geographically connected. If the B1G decides to expand, Mizzou should be the top target outside of elites. And if they come calling, Mizzou should listen.

2. Notre Dame -- elite, so every game they play has a high likelihood of creating some level of event. However, their relative value is different to the different conferences. For the Big 12, the value is the lowest since there is no rivalry game and no geographic connection that would gain a megaregional bonus within the existing sphere. For the ACC, it's not much better than with the Big 12. But they have the Boston College rivalry, so at least there's that event and there's also a very weak & tenuous chance to gain influence in the Great Lakes megaregion due to conference members Louisville and Pitt being on the edge of that region. However, there's a lot of strong influencer disruption in between South Bend and either Pittsburgh or Louisville so it's questionable just how much it really brings the ACC of the Great Lakes. Pac-12, like with the Big 12, has no geographic connection to get any megaregional bonus with Notre Dame. However, the conference has 2 Notre Dame rivals (USC and Stanford) which greatly increases the likelihood of a huge national event or at least a big multi megaregional event. The best, though, is the B1G. They've got 3 Notre Dame rivals with Michigan, Michigan State and Northwestern. Notre Dame is also the only thing in the way of the B1G having total dominance of the core of the Great Lakes megaregion around Chicago. Potential for event creation due to rivalries and geographic + megaregional proximity to other programs in the B1G puts ND's value to that conference as high as it gets.

3. Arizona State -- its value to the Big 12 could be high, but could be dilutive. It could bridge unaligned areas and significantly expand sphere of influence for the Big 12 through NM (Front Range megaregion influence) when paired with TTU. Would dominate AZ and the Arizona Sun megaregion since ASU is a stronger influencer than UA. The Big 12 would also gain some competition for influence in the Southern California outlier areas of Las Vegas and San Diego where it's the G5 MWC, not the Pac-12, that has a D1 home program. ASU captures a big part of the influence in those metros despite them being in a different megaregion. But despite all that, ASU is really far away from the rest of the Big 12 conference and being way out on that island could be destructive for the Big 12. The value of ASU to the Pac-12 is higher than for the Big 12. Value comes from full control over AZ and the Arizona Sun Corridor along with near overlaps to Southern California and Front Range. And while it's close based on the above, what puts ASU's value way over the top for the Pac-12 is 1 major consideration: the rivalry game event with UA every year.
 
Last edited:

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
As an aside, I wonder if the AAC will try to backfill. They negotiated with BYU before and things fell apart. Perhaps they look that way again, look at Boise again, or even... The lambs?
 

ahoelsken

Well-Known Member
Sure, maybe not. My point was only that we are currently at a disadvantage as compared to other conferences. Said more clearly, I mean that the PAC is currently likely to be left out when the other conferences produce teams of equal or better record, whatever that record may be, and we have to admit that the SEC getting two teams in again sometime is always a legitimate possibility.

That's not to say such a narrative won't change, it just may take a couple years. But we need PAC teams to consistently win non-conference games and bowls. Our record has been pretty bad the last two, and the public/ media narrative surrounding the PAC has gone down the drain.

I think Pac 12 teams in general need to up the level of competition they're playing OOC in general-The team favored to win the South by most is Utah, and they're playing an OOC that features BYU, Northern Illinois, and Idaho State this year. Utah doesn't play a P5 opponent (No, I'm not giving them a free pass for playing BYU every year) again in the OOC until 2023-so that's an 8 year drought in that respect. Washington draws Eastern Washington, Hawaii, and then goes to BYU. Washington's loss to Auburn LY in the Atlanta kickoff game looks better than wins over any of that murderer's row. Wazzu gets New Mexico State and Northern Colorado (YAWN) at home before they go play Houston.
 

Jalapeno

Spacefarer
Club Member
Solid long post by Nik.

That is why I still believe the PAC needs to get BYU & CSU next. I thought CU and Utah would be able to hit it off as rivals but it didn't happen. Last year's game at ****braska clearly showed every CU fan how far away Utah is from becoming a rival of CU's. I never expected CU to replace BYU as Utah's main rival but I expected something and that hasn't materialized at all. Sure it won't be on the same level of hate as ****braska but I still expected something. My feeling is that this years ****braska game plus two more games will make it more difficult for CU to get a new rival in the Pac-12.

That Boise State Cascades link was spot on. Remember Blount punching that BSU player's lights out after a loss on the blue turf? Oregon State doesn't have much love for the Donkeys either. San Diego State would have the same impact on the CA schools. Both Arizona schools have a history with BYU and the large Mormon presence in Mesa so they would be a great fit for the PAC. That is why CSU needs to be CU's partner in the PAC.

College sports is pretty dead in this state. The only way to revive college sports in this state is to get CU and CSU under the same conference banner.

The only saving grace for the Pac-12 in my eyes is the scheduling system for men's basketball. But my patience for things to develop in the PAC is nearing an end. The MWC is working on a new media rights deal and its possible that they ditch CBS Sports and goes with ESPN as in ESPN+. If that happens, I'm going to watch far more MWC action at least until the next Pac-12 media rights deal. I'm getting the urge to watch the Big 12 again with four schools being on ESPN+ this upcoming season. That's why the next Pac-12 media rights deal is going to be absolutely critical in retaining fans.

The sooner the PAC gets an ESPN+ type of deal along with a new commissioner, the better things will be. Pac-12 Network is a huge disaster!
 

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
I think Pac 12 teams in general need to up the level of competition they're playing OOC in general-The team favored to win the South by most is Utah, and they're playing an OOC that features BYU, Northern Illinois, and Idaho State this year. Utah doesn't play a P5 opponent (No, I'm not giving them a free pass for playing BYU every year) again in the OOC until 2023-so that's an 8 year drought in that respect. Washington draws Eastern Washington, Hawaii, and then goes to BYU. Washington's loss to Auburn LY in the Atlanta kickoff game looks better than wins over any of that murderer's row. Wazzu gets New Mexico State and Northern Colorado (YAWN) at home before they go play Houston.
You are correct. Winning a bunch of games (and losing a few of them) against a bunch of western or midwestern directionals isn't going to help the conference much with the image problem

Auburn was a better team last year than Washington when they played but UDub was in that game. Had Washington pulled that game out it would have changed the entire year for the conference. That game could have potentially put the conference in the playoffs.

I like the fact that the conference plays one extra conference game but that works against the overall good of the conference. Until the other conferences step up and match it the PAC should roll back to an eight game conference schedule but require conference teams to schedule at least one P5 opponent every year, preferably two.
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
Agreed on the PAC needing an 8 game conference schedule. The SEC has been dealing the benefits of that system for years. Fewer games against conference teams = fewer automatic losses by conference teams = higher average rating for conference teams = more hype, more ranked matchups, etc.
 

ahoelsken

Well-Known Member
I wrote this as a response to @Buffnik, but it was too long to include his post a quote:

A couple of things here-I don't understand the allure of Texas Tech by themselves. One, the football program is mediocre at best. Two, the vast majority of the population in West Texas isn't in the Amarillo/Lubbock area-its in El Paso. Three, TTU alums care about TTU, but they've got to do something special to get attention (like get to the championship game of the NCAA tournament) in the Texas triangle.....not unlike CSU in this market-that area features two NFL teams, two MLB teams, three NBA teams, one NHL team, and that's before we get to any athletic programs at Texas or Texas A&M.

Two, if the Big 12 makes a move for ASU, they're coming after another Pac 12 school to go with them. I don't see them taking another school that is out on an island like WVU currently is in that league-I'm sure the Arizona pols would prefer it be UofA, but I think the Big 12 schools themselves would rather have us back.

Three, I think most of think UNLV joins the Pac 12 at some point after the Raiders' move to Vegas.........but I actually like the idea of trying to make a move to get Mizzou, and I think that makes more sense than TTU. They're the only FBS school in a state with two major cities, they're a weird cultural and geographic fit in the SEC (travel would be slightly harder for them here than it is currently but not by much), and they've got a fair amount of history with at least us. The Pac 12 likes the travel partner setup, and UNLV (assuming Nevada doesn't come with them) joining would probably mean the end of the arranged marriage between us and Utah. I'd love to replace that game with one against a former division mate from the old days.
 
Last edited:

TSchekler

Club Member
Club Member
Agreed on the PAC needing an 8 game conference schedule. The SEC has been dealing the benefits of that system for years. Fewer games against conference teams = fewer automatic losses by conference teams = higher average rating for conference teams = more hype, more ranked matchups, etc.
It’s more likely that the SEC/ACC will go to 9 conference game than the Pac 12, Big 12 and/or BIG go to 8. Saban has been vocally supportive about doing it and the more emphasis the committee places on SOS, the more likely we’ll see it happen.
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
I wrote this as a response to @Buffnik, but it was too long to include as a quote:

A couple of things here-I don't understand the allure of Texas Tech by themselves. One, the football program is mediocre at best. Two, the vast majority of the population in West Texas isn't in the Amarillo/Lubbock area-its in El Paso. Three, TTU alums care about TTU, but they're not a huge draw in the Texas triangle-which features two NFL teams, two MLB teams, three NBA teams, one NHL team, and that's before we get to any athletic programs at Texas or Texas A&M. Its not all that different from CSU-and we all know they're low on the totem pole in terms of sports in this market.

Two, if the Big 12 makes a move for ASU, they're coming after another Pac 12 school-I'm sure the Arizona pols would prefer it be UofA, but I think the Big 12 schools themselves would rather have us back.

Three, I think most of think UNLV joins the Pac 12 at some point after the Raiders' move to Vegas.........but I actually like the idea of trying to make a move to get Mizzou. They're the only FBS school in a state with two major cities, they're a weird fit in the SEC (travel would be slightly harder for them here than it is currently but not by much), and they've got a fair amount of history with at least us. The Pac 12 likes the travel partner setup, and UNLV (assuming Nevada doesn't come with them) joining would probably mean the end of the arranged marriage between us and Utah. I'd love to replace that game with one against a former division mate from the old days.
1. Texas Tech would be a strategic move. Really opens up the floodgate for UT to want to leave. Unlikely they stay with Baylor and TCU instead of joining either aTm or TTU. I don't think the Texas politics would allow UT to leave everyone behind to go with OU to the B1G. I don't think the academic voices at UT would favor the SEC. So I think that the Pac-12 would get the inside track for adding UT with this move. And that would mean UT + OU since OU won't want to go to the B1G without UT and they'd also have to leave OSU behind for that while the Pac-12 could find room for OSU by going to 18.

2. Probably right about the Big 12. ASU + CU would be a strong move for them. Problem for them is that they'e the last mover here. B1G is going to move first, which likely means losing at least KU. Another defection of a Tier 1 / AAU school makes it that much harder for UT and OU to stay. I think the Big 12 beaks apart because of a B1G move before they'd even have a chance to try this move. Also, the 2nd mover is probably the SEC and their easiest moves are also expansion though the current Big 12. They really want UT, but failing that, they also really like TCU to give them the DFW metro to go with the Houston metro they got into through aTm. I don't see the Big 12 holding off both the B1G and SEC.

3. Mizzou only starts to make sense to me if the Pac-12 also snagged KU. Otherwise they're a major geographic outlier that lacks a rival. KU solves a lot of those problems. I think they'd be great for the B1G, though. I've seen regrets expressed that in the last round the B1G went with Maryland & Rutgers instead of Mizzou & KU. (If that had happened, Maryland would still be in the ACC and Louisville would be in the Big 12 -- which would make so much more sense, fwiw.)
 

BerkeleyBuff

Club Member
Club Member
It’s more likely that the SEC/ACC will go to 9 conference game than the Pac 12, Big 12 and/or BIG go to 8. Saban has been vocally supportive about doing it and the more emphasis the committee places on SOS, the more likely we’ll see it happen.
I know Saban supports it but there seems to be few others. I'm fine either way but think it should be equivalent, and the current setup is working great for the SEC. I'd prefer we take the same route until they change, but we won't so it doesn't really matter.
 

onealcd

Club Member
Club Member
It’s more likely that the SEC/ACC will go to 9 conference game than the Pac 12, Big 12 and/or BIG go to 8. Saban has been vocally supportive about doing it and the more emphasis the committee places on SOS, the more likely we’ll see it happen.
Looks like the AAC might get rid of divisions and go to a 9 game schedule as well so that would be 4 out of the top 6 conferences at 9 games.
 
Top