Chabbear said:

---

I doubt that the FCS schools would be in the mix;
FSC:
Sacramento St.
Cal Poly
UC Davis

So a Coastal conference might look like this:
Cal
Stanford
San Jose
Fresno
Nevada
UNLV
San Diego St.
Hawaii

Would the following be interested;
Oregon St
WSU
ASU
Arizona

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

"the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible"

The general consensus in the blogosphere is that this ain't possible under any circumstance.

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

"the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible"

The general consensus in the blogosphere is that this ain't possible under any circumstance.

---

And that, Is why the P12 will always be a follower and not a leader

---

Because of the consensus of the blogosphere?

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

The SEC and Big 10 are running the show. Whatever they want will happen. The P12 is a bit player in this game.

Having said that, it doesn't really matter whether the champions of the major conferences receive an automatic invitation to the playoffs because the champions will always make the playoffs unless they are totally unworthy of consideration. This is as it should be.

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

The SEC and Big 10 are running the show. Whatever they want will happen. The P12 is a bit player in this game.

Having said that, it doesn't really matter whether the champions of the major conferences receive an automatic invitation to the playoffs because the champions will always make the playoffs unless they are totally unworthy of consideration. This is as it should be.

---

The point is that if conferences can only send one or two teams (champion plus an at large) to the playoffs, then being in a large, powerful conference is somewhat of a disadvantage. Texas would have a better shot at the playoffs in the B12 than in the SEC.

Similarly, I agree the B1G has far more clout than the Pac-12, but that is why the PAC-12 should be looking to revive our alliance, maybe even merge with the B1G as it's "Pacific Division" with the conference championship at the Rose Bowl.

Yes we can just roll over, do nothing and await our fate, but Just because the PAC-12 has less clout than the SEC and B1G doesn't mean we have zero clout and cannot influence the future. The key in this situation is forming alliances.

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

The SEC and Big 10 are running the show. Whatever they want will happen. The P12 is a bit player in this game.

Having said that, it doesn't really matter whether the champions of the major conferences receive an automatic invitation to the playoffs because the champions will always make the playoffs unless they are totally unworthy of consideration. This is as it should be.

---

The point is that if conferences can only send one or two teams (champion plus an at large) to the playoffs, then being in a large, powerful conference is somewhat of a disadvantage. Texas would have a better shot at the playoffs in the B12 than in the SEC.

Similarly, I agree the B1G has far more clout than the Pac-12, but that is why the PAC-12 should be looking to revive our alliance, maybe even merge with the B1G as it's "Pacific Division" with the conference championship at the Rose Bowl.

Yes we can just roll over, do nothing and await our fate, but Just because the PAC-12 has less clout than the SEC and B1G doesn't mean we have zero clout and cannot influence the future. The key in this situation is forming alliances.

---

Where did you get the idea that a conference can only send one or two teams to the playoffs. In the plan currently under consideration, they can send as many as are voted in the Top 12. It is expected that the SEC will send 4+ each season.

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

The SEC and Big 10 are running the show. Whatever they want will happen. The P12 is a bit player in this game.

Having said that, it doesn't really matter whether the champions of the major conferences receive an automatic invitation to the playoffs because the champions will always make the playoffs unless they are totally unworthy of consideration. This is as it should be.

---

The point is that if conferences can only send one or two teams (champion plus an at large) to the playoffs, then being in a large, powerful conference is somewhat of a disadvantage. Texas would have a better shot at the playoffs in the B12 than in the SEC.

Similarly, I agree the B1G has far more clout than the Pac-12, but that is why the PAC-12 should be looking to revive our alliance, maybe even merge with the B1G as it's "Pacific Division" with the conference championship at the Rose Bowl.

Yes we can just roll over, do nothing and await our fate, but Just because the PAC-12 has less clout than the SEC and B1G doesn't mean we have zero clout and cannot influence the future. The key in this situation is forming alliances.

---

Where did you get the idea that a conference can only send one or two teams to the playoffs. In the plan currently under consideration, they can send as many as are voted in the Top 12. It is expected that the SEC will send 4+ each season.

---

"The plan currently under consideration" is the plan currently under consideration. Even if it is chosen, which it hasn't been yet, it likely will not be the plan for eternity.

My point is that the PAC-12's strategy could be to work with the other conferences to help shape a plan that increases the number of conference champs in the playoffs, thereby limiting the at large slots which would diminish the attractiveness of being in a super conference.

I am not saying the PAC-12 would be successful in working with the other conferences to keep the SEC in check, I am just saying that is one potential PAC-12 strategy.

The other strategy I suggested is forming a super conference with the B1G.

I don't see taking the B12 leftovers as a good strategy but wouldn't mind if it means the California schools could be in the same division.

---

75bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

At this juncture, the power conferences call the shots. The Big 10 needs the SEC, it doesn't need Pasedena (witness last year) and in reality doesn't really need to the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl to be relevant needs to be able to fill in top teams. If SC and UCLA realign in the Big 10, all the alums sitting on the Rose Bowl executive committee don't give two sheets about the Pac.

---

Is USC/UCLA to the Big 10 really on the table? It seems unthinkable, but at this point I guess I shouldn't be shocked by anything that goes on anymore.

It would blow up 100+ years of tradition. But when $$$ is involved, unfortunately everyone has their price.

I have a bad feeling in my stomach.

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Pac-12 and Big10 commishs need to be on the phone and work out an intra-conference deal where the Rose Bowl decides the conference winner. Otherwise this new "SEC Empire" will just start picking off their conferences. This is really amazing from where we were a few days ago to where we are now.

---

The way to slam the breaks on the growth of superconferences is to have only conference champions in the playoffs.

I agree that the Pac-12 needs to ally with the Rose Bowl. The Pac-12 champ vs BG champ in the Rose Bowl every year is a great first round. If part of a conference champ only playoff, it would cause the SEC to go the other way and split.

---

That would be like Major League Baseball going back to the 1960's when only two teams advanced to the postseason.

Multi-team playoffs are an integral part of determining championship finalists in sports. The notion of league champions only is not realistic in this era.

The SEC has wisely determined that more premier programs means more slots in the 12 team playoff that is on the horizon. Rather than try to turn the clock back, the P12 should take the same approach and secure their future by securing as many top programs as possible to assuage the LA schools, Oregon and UW while at the same time increasing their chances of placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Quite frankly, I have given up on the notion that the Rose Bowl is the goal. That ship has sailed, not because Cal is hopelessly behind the curve but rather because it just isn't that big a deal anymore. It is all about the playoffs no matter where you are assigned to play.

---

The Rose Bowl is still a separate entity with power and a natural ally of the PAC-12.

A multi team playoff is the future, but the final format has not yet been determined. Whether conference champs only, or the current bias towards undefeated teams, being part of a super conference will make it tougher to get to the playoffs, not easier.

The move to superconferences is a response to the current incentives based on cable TV contracts. That revenue model has an uncertain future.

Given the above, the new Pac-12 commissioner, working with the Rose Bowl, all the other non-SEC conferences, and every non-ESPN media outlet, even the NCAA, can work for college football landscape, particularly a post-season format, that will make superconferences obsolete.

---

MrGPAC said:

---

I still think Texas and Oklahoma joining the pac12 makes a lot more sense for all involved, including those teams and the SEC's long term financial future. The only way this makes sense to me is if Texas and Oklahoma see college football dying entirely due to the NIL issues and they are trying to get one last payday before it all implodes.

SEC and B1G being the only two conferences is not good for college football, and if its bad for college football eventually its going to start hitting revenue at those conferences.

---

SadbutTrue999 said:

---

Its about money, and unfortunately, no mix & match of teams is going to bring the Pac12 to parity with the Big 10 or SEC. The Big 10 is not going to cut teams to form some sort of halfsies-joint conference with the Pac 12. There simply isn't enough upside on the west coast in terms of fan interest.

Texas and OU are probably looking at an extra $10-20M / year in TV money if they join the SEC. The SEC already makes tons of money though, and I question just how much more they think their future TV deals are going to be worth with OU and Texas in it. Texas is certainly a big market but they already get part of it with A&M. Most things I've seen have suggested the growth of college football popularity has plateau-d.. a big difference from the last realignment phase where CFB was the fastest growth market on TV. Without continuing popularity growth, eventually ESPN/Fox/CBS/etc are going to ink a TV contract they'll lose money on.

On the football side, annual matchups with LSU, Bama and Florida is going to mean a lot more losses for everyone. Honestly it might actually help curb SEC dominance since it'll be that much harder for a team to make it through with no losses.

How will a schedule even work with 16 teams, btw? The SEC only plays 8 league games. Are they really going to only have one cross-division game per year per team?

But whatever, the Big 12 has been on life support for decades and its finally time. Guess the MWC is going to get its pick of TCU, Texas Tech, etc. Which, frankly, might genuinely put in on par with the Pac 12

---