oskiwow;575173 said:

---

an important reason why the then-Pac-10 lagged behind its peer conferences during 19832009 and why the Pac-12 has strengthened its position since then (and why it won't be in such a sorry state in 2021) is two words: Larry Scott. I don't think he would stand pat if the Pac-12 needed to expand.

---

I just don't get all the man love for Larry. Yes, he is a great improvement from Tom Hansen, but who wouldn't be really? Yes, he got us a great TV deal. But he's a guy with no connections with any Pac-12 school, I don't think, and he's gotten so much attention nationwide (college football fans nationwide all seem to know his name now) that you can't help but think that he is not long for this conference. Hell, he may end up becoming a CEO in some megacorporation or maybe he'll run for Senator. A 'power broker' and a 'consensus builder' seems suited for those types of positions.

Anyway, my point is that all this "In Larry We Trust" is a little misguided and potentially risky, given that he really just wants to make deals since he has no real inherent interest in the Pac.

Also, I am glad that we didn't just add Oklahoma and OK State (and TX Tech). They just don't enough value without Texas to offset their resource usage (since we do have this "culture of equality" thing going on here, well, starting this year at least). Acting in desperation is not going to help our conference in the long term, so we really don't want to add no-value schools like OK State and TX Tech just to get OU and UT, because we can't guarantee that UT won't jump ship some day leaving the Pac stuck with the likes of OK State and TX Tech. Some "big picture" thinking would do a lot of good around here.

CALiforniALUM;575231 said:

---

The B1G and ACC conferences are more likely to chase schools with less pedigree (ND, Conn, Rutgers), but with better TV marketing advantages/value.

---

No school in the NCAA has a bigger pedigree than Notre Dame.

LafayetteBear;576000 said:

---

But I would disagree with the notion that they don't add value. They are both very good football schools, and bring in lots of viewers. If maximizing conference revenue is a primary goal (and I certainly think it is), then the viewers they would bring in can readily be translated to additional bucks..

---

Thanks for your thoughtful reply LafayetteBear. I would be really interested to know how much revenue value OU and OSU would bring to the Pac, although I imagine the value they represent is determined by more factors than simply the sum of their media markets and national viewing audience (since, in the end, the networks are paying for these media broadcasting deals).

LafayetteBear;576000 said:

---

I also happen to believe that adding the Oklahoma schools would have put Texas in an untenable position. Are you gonna tell me that you wouldn't love seeing the Pac 10 pull the Big 12 rug out from under the Longhorns' feet?!! I think it would have forced Texas to abandon its "LHN is non-negotiable" position, probably sooner than later.

---

This seems to be one of the primary arguments of the 'add OU/OSU alone if TX doesn't want to join' camp. Trying to maneuver and compel Texas to join the Pac because it feels that it has no other options just doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. First, there's no way to predict that Texas would end up joining anyway, in which case we would be stuck with OU/OSU (so they would need to be worth the additional two splits of the $3 billion over 12 years revenue pie). And second, having UT join under those circumstances may not be the best idea for long-term conference stability. Heck, adding UT at all is probably a bad idea, but trying to force its hand to join us seems to be asking for disaster (e.g. UT leaving) down the road, especially since the Pac still (I think) doesn't have an exit fee for schools who want to leave. And to add a huge, ACC-like, exit fee if/when OU/UT join would seem to indicate that our expanded conference is held together tenuously, at best.

Even though the Pac may be more geographically contricted than the B1G or SEC, I would like to see it be more selective in adding exactly the schools they want to add without any baggage schools, especially given the high value of our current conference as it stands. After all, if we didn't already have Washington or Oregon, would we really want or need to add WSU and OSU to the conference in order to add UW and UO? Probably not (although OK State and TX Tech are likely more individually valuable, athletically and economically, than Wazzou and Oregon State, with little academic difference)...

Even though the Pac may be more geographically contricted than the B1G or SEC, I would like to see it be more selective in adding exactly the schools they want to add without any baggage schools, especially given the high value of our current conference as it stands. After all, if we didn't already have Washington or Oregon, would we really want or need to add WSU and OSU to the conference in order to add UW and UO? Probably not (although OK State and TX Tech are likely more valuable individually than Wazzou and Oregon State)...

---

Following the premise that we want to be "more selective", then exactly which schools other than the Okla and Texas schools would be more preferable ? I think we truly ARE geographically constricted as you note, so I believe that is a real concern/issue. We may not need to be "desperate" and do something immediately, but failure to expand from 12 in the future may ultimately result in desperation. Scott appears to be quite the manager, but I for one am taking a look at this in the long run because I'm still not sure how this all plays out - we'll see, buy it may be another 2-3 years before we really can tell. I'm still not so sure that we don't end up with some Big 12 schools after they implode.