Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by MCskid, Aug 11, 2011.
MU is either Big 10 or SEC bound. OU could be SEC bound. UT is a hell no. KU, I don't really care. Scott said he's not looking to expand and he's content not long ago so I'm hoping that the Pac 12 stays as is.
I kind of agree. I think he's looking at many more schools. This sounds extraordinarily obvious, but I think Larry Scott wants to expand East...WAY East. I think he wants a coast to coast conference, so we could get into that Eastern time zone. We're always making our announcements from NYC.
I think if the PAC XX expands again, at least 2 of those schools will be in the Eastern Time Zone.
No way he can pull all four of those without their little brothers, if OU could get away clear they likely prefer the SEC, and UT might actually prefer the Big 10 if they didn't have to deal with Tech as a tag along. Interesting though that TAMU apparently thinks they don't have worry about the fate of any of the other Texas schools.
OSU and OU are a package deal and have a great relationship on the academic and staff levels. This would add a national program to the conference and OSU, which the Pac was intrigued about because of its basketball history and Gallagher-Iba Arena. Of course, OSU isn't the OSU we remember, as its not funded and has great facilities.
To ensure a footprint in Texas, Texas Tech will be the third team. They have a huge alumni base in the DFW Metroplex and would deliver enough of Texas to make it worth their while.
As said above, UT is out for many reasons ranging from attitude to the LHN.
So the fourth team? Kansas. For basketball and the KC market, which isn't big, but it's another market for the list. Plus, the Jayhawks have history with us, OU and OSU, which makes the Pac-16 East division a little more intimate, with the Big 12 teams forming one constellation, the AZ schools and Utah forming another and CU being a bridge between both.
So look for that to happen almost immediately after A&M leaves, which is a lock at this point.
Note on OU: They are considering academics big-time in their next move, and their president doesn't want to go to the SEC AT ALL. Also because it's harder to win there. The SEC might want OU and OU might be intrigued with the SEC, but from folks I know there it appears they are looking west.
I don't think we need to expand any further.
Don't want Texas . Won't mind having Oklahoma join the Pac 12 .
What the hell are you smoking?
I'm glad someone said it. The Pac-10 had to change its scheduling just to add us and Utah. The Pac-12 will never expand East of the Mississippi.
Expansion is not my preference, but it's important that the Pac is responsive to changes in the college football landscape. If the dominoes start to fall and it becomes necessary to have 16-team conferences, I'll roll with it.
Assuming that we could bring UT in under equal terms with TLN being a regional P-16 network, adding a 4-team pod of UT, TTU, OU and OSU would be very strong. The number of televisions and the recruiting grounds that the Pac-16 would dominate would make us the strongest conference in the nation, hands down.
Here's how that hypothetical pod system would likely play out:
"Southwest" pod: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
"Mountain" pod: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
"Coastal" pod: Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA
"Northwest" pod: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Conference schedule: Each team plays the 3 teams in its pod every season. Each team also plays 2 teams from each of the other 3 pods every season. Total of 9 conference games.
Championship: 4 pod winners enter playoff for conference title. 1st round is the Divisional Championship games. Final is between the two Division Champions. (NCAA rule change would be necessary to allow for more post-season games.)
By adding 2 additional post-season games, the Texas and Oklahoma television audiences, greater national television appeal, and 48 more football games (4 new teams x 12), the money would be absolutely sick.
Outside of football, the revenue driver that matters is men's basketball. A 16-team conference would also work within the pod structure. Home-and-home matchups within the pod for 6 conference games. Then, 1 game against the other 12 conference teams for an 18-game conference slate (the current standard). It also brings at least 120 more men's basketball games to the television deal (4 new teams x 30). Conference tourney value and attendance could be enhanced by using the pod system. Regular season pod winners get to host the pod games (2 rounds per pod, seeded 1-4 based on regular season). Then, we'd have a conference "Final Four" at a set location every year.
It will be interesting to follow over the next few years. IIRC Larry Scott did say he sees the Pac expanding in the future.
Right now we need to figure out how to scale back to only 8 conference games as that (9 conference games) has been a killer with regard to national perception of the Pac.
I am sure Scott would love not have to take the little brothers if he didn't have to
That is not what he said.
Can anyone tell me why TTU is always included in the expansion talk? No one except for the red raiders care for TTU to be included. Not even UT. Anyone?? I want seriouz answers.
The thought process is that politically it would be easier if you helped out little brother
Scott said UT having the LHN is a massive hurdle and that he is comfertable with the current twelve team format. I can't find the article but I know I read it yesterday over on Rivals.
Strength in a lot of sports, which is important to the Pac. Strong push with legislature funding approval to gain AAU status on the academic side. Historical connections with the Arizona programs. Two major programs from Texas cements our dominance there. One, even if it's the big dog, doesn't do it to the same extent.
It was a political answer that gives him plenty of wriggle room to look at all options. You can never say never in the current college football climate.
UT is locked into the LHN for 20 years though correct? I assume their would be a massive buyout if they wanted to and I'd assume that the Pac 12 would help pay for that? Am I off base with that? I just don't want UT go 3 for 3.
Strength in a lot of sports? Other than football, all I can think of is women's basketball. TTU is currently ranked as a third tier school at best, sounds like a big hurdle to jump before even gaining AAU status. As far as asserting further dominance in that region, it wouldn't be much- TTU isn't even amongst top 5 in enrollment for the state of Texas (they are the 7th biggest school).
Larry Scott wants UT and UT wants to be in the Pac. Both sides are still in the process of creating leverage points. UT is posturing that it can go independent or absorb new members into the Big 12 to keep it viable and strong. Scott is posturing that the Pac is just fine without them and could even expand without UT and get everything it needs in the even that superconferences become desirable/necessary.
I think they'll find their way to an agreement. The money and being positioned for long-term stability + growth is too compelling not to get this done.
I think Scott wanted UT before because he was going for a huge payday. He now has the huge payday without UT and without the headache. Adding them now makes little sense.
The Texas legislature wants to make sure that the Texas schools have soft landings (or, as soft as possible). A&M chooses to leave, so they are on their own. Texas has one wherever they go, so then the issue becomes Tech and Baylor. The western portion of the state is a very strong support base for Gov Perry. He would be inclined to make sure they are taken care of. When the Big 12 was formed, Baylor alumns were very powerful and made sure Baylor was included. I don't think they have the pull that they once had. More likely that Texas would be told to bring Tech with them.
The PAC-12 will have a 'huger' payday with UT. Like them or hate them, they bring value (just not as much as they think they do). They also bring issues that I think trump the value. We need to root for the Big 12 to stay together, or for UT to think that going independent is viable.
That would terrible nik. Any leverage that Texas would bring to the table already makes it a bigger player in the conference than the other 15 schools. If Texas wants to join, they have to surrender all of it, including LHN, and become just one of sixteen. Texas with any kind of leverage makes them a danger to the whole conference.
I don't understand why we should need Texas. Yes they could bring in more TV $'s, but they would also benefit from that expanded money pool. So we make an extra $10 Million, so would they on top of what they already bring in. I'd rather look in a different direction than add Texas.
Assuming a 9-game conference schedule + 3 OOC games; it adds 30 games, not 48. Likewise, there won't be 120 additional basketball games.
If that deal happens or happened like they wanted to with the 16 schools it would be like us just joining the Big 12 south.
I still think the PAC comissioner would be happy to add Texas, as they bring in by far the largest audience and most exposure of any team. However, the other schools in the PAC would have to approve, and UT, as mentioned above, would have to just be one of the 14 or 16 -- very different from their current UT + 9 setup in the big 12.
I still think Texas is too proud to accept reality of being just one of a group and will not join the PAC - not because they are not invited - but because they are not invited on their terms.
Don't ever forget that UT Athletic Director Deloss Dodds has said repeatedly over the last several years that the Big 12 will never die on his watch.
Help me with the math here.
Currently, we have 12 teams each playing 12 games (9 against conference opponents). With the addition of 4 teams, each of those 12 teams will continue to play 12 games with 9 of them against conference opponents. But we will add 4 teams that will also play 12 games with 9 of them against conference opponents.
I didn't factor in that the Pac-12 wouldn't have 1st right to broadcast non-conference away games, but I don't know how you get to 30 games being added. Is it in the math with the overlap of conference games?
Stream of consciousness post. :lol: Think I've got it now.
Conference games go from 6 x 9 (54) to 8 x 9 (72). Non-conference games go from 12 x 3 (36) to 16 x 3 (48). 12 + 18 = 30. You're right. Rep to you, sir.
Separate names with a comma.