In looking at the Missouri board it appears that it is just a matter of time before Missouri heads to the SEC. Days or weeks, not months or years. Any insight as to whether this development will cause a rethinking of the PAC 12 expansion plans?

If you would have read their boards last year it would have sounded the same way but about the Big 10. They might go but Mizzou gets a little over excited about leaving and tends to overstate things.

It seems as if our expansion plans are on our own terms and it sounded like Texas wanted special treatment in the PAC. That wont happen, so unless they change their stance I think we hold tight

mdcspe69;585099 said:

---

In looking at the Missouri board it appears that it is just a matter of time before Missouri heads to the SEC. Days or weeks, not months or years. Any insight as to whether this development will cause a rethinking of the PAC 12 expansion plans?

---

Pac-12 is nice and stable, with the largest TV deal in history of college football. I hope Larry Scott and company don't kill the golden goose in the name of greed. We have a great deal, let's enjoy the fortune and work harder to make the conference even greater. DON'T bite off more than you could chew!

FremontBear;585118 said:

---

Pac-12 is nice and stable, with the largest TV deal in history of college football. I hope Larry Scott and company don't kill the golden goose in the name of greed. We have a great deal, let's enjoy the fortune and work harder to make the conference even greater. DON'T bite off more than you could chew!

---

I generally agree. However, the conference needs to continue to be forward looking. As has been mentioned several times, if we miss out on B12 teams we are really kind of shut out of meaningful expansion options. If Missou leaves I think we need to find a way to at least get to 14 with the Okies. I know that causes issues with schedules, division alignments, money, etc. I just think the alternative is ultimately worse.

drunkoski;585139 said:

---

disagree. we need to act now to solidify the conference for the future. we are sitting pretty for the next couple of years, but maybe not so for 2020 if we don't act.

---

Sadly, I think we have to wait for the Big12 to disintegrate before Texas comes hat in hand. I do hope that the Pac has some sort of informal agreement with Okie and Okie St. to provide them a soft landing. I think the TV contract and access to California talent are big enough carrots to keep them out of the SEC. They need top access to either California or Texas recruits and a deal where they go to the SEC and Texas does not might not be good for them.

Assuming the above is correct, the best move for the Pac would be to court Texas Tech. They're probably a team that the Pac wants (assuming Texas, Texas Tech, OU, and Okie St. is ideal) and it would further destabilize the Big-12.

running bear;585171 said:

---

Sadly, I think we have to wait for the Big12 to disintegrate before Texas comes hat in hand.

---

Agreed, but there are things Larry can do to accelerate that disintegration. Like adding the Okies. As for scheduling, just add the Okies to the South division and move UCLA to the North with a fixed UCLA v. USC annual game and a provision that once we go to 16 teams the configuration will automatically go to old P-8 in one group and everyone else in the other.

Right now if the P12 sits put, a lot of the pieces that could provide leverage vs. the Texans will come off the board. Like Kansas, which is how we could leverage UT without having to take TT.

From all I've read about realignment, Texas thinking is far too provincial for my tastes. They're only concerned about being a big fish in a small pond. They bring a huge market, so everyone tolerates their behavior. I just don't see them ever being a good conference mate.

I would push for OU, OSU, KU and UM. Give them a comfort zone with old Big8 colleagues. They'll have their own little pod, we'll get OU football and KU basketball and good overall programs in OSU and UM and 2 AAU schools with OU making a legitimate push in that direction.

At this point, I feel that Texas is a pipe dream that will only get more and more distant as more time and money is put into their network.

drunkoski;585139 said:

---

disagree. we need to act now to solidify the conference for the future. we are sitting pretty for the next couple of years, but maybe not so for 2020 if we don't act.

---

OU and OSU would be good adds. Making a 14 team league work will be hard though.

slider643;585185 said:

---

From all I've read about realignment, Texas thinking is far too provincial for my tastes. They're only concerned about being a big fish in a small pond. They bring a huge market, so everyone tolerates their behavior. I just don't see them ever being a good conference mate.

I would push for OU, OSU, KU and UM. Give them a comfort zone with old Big8 colleagues. They'll have their own little pod, we'll get OU football and KU basketball and good overall programs in OSU and UM and 2 AAU schools with OU making a legitimate push in that direction.

At this point, I feel that Texas is a pipe dream that will only get more and more distant as more time and money is put into their network.

---

I like your thinking. Personally, I do not see Texas ever deciding to go to the PAC-1? unless all other Big 12? suckers decide they have had enough.

And IMO, as mentioned elsewhere, a PAC-14 does not make a lot of sense.

Cal84;585177 said:

---

Agreed, but there are things Larry can do to accelerate that disintegration. Like adding the Okies. As for scheduling, just add the Okies to the South division and move UCLA to the North with a fixed UCLA v. USC annual game and a provision that once we go to 16 teams the configuration will automatically go to old P-8 in one group and everyone else in the other.

Right now if the P12 sits put, a lot of the pieces that could provide leverage vs. the Texans will come off the board. Like Kansas, which is how we could leverage UT without having to take TT.

---

I've been with you since the expansion was halted. Always thought we should have taken OU and OSU to at least solidify 2 good teams, then if we had to take 2 others, at least we wouldn't end up with 4 subpar western teams... OTOH, Larry Scott has proven to be very adept at making the right decision. So while I think we may have goofed, I totally give Scott the benefit of the doubt that he knows the landscape..

I actually like the pac14 zipper model, though travel would be an issue.

You get to play 6 teams in your division every year, guaranteeing an even home/away within your division every year. You play your rival every year + 2 teams from the other division if we keep it at 9 games or 3 teams from the other division if we bump it to 10 conference games. I'm sure there would be initial resistance to a 10 game conference schedule, but I prefer it for a number of reasons. Same number of home/away in conference games every year is a huge plus considering home field advantage in college. You'd play every team every other year (making it a home + away every 4 years, or someone playing on the team for 4 years gets to play everywhere in the conference and vs every team twice), and you reduce the need for tie breaking scenarios.

The whole "can't play your rival last week because you might end up playing them again in the championship game" thing goes out the window, at least this year, too. If Arizona State wins the south (looks probable) and Cal managed to win the north (not so probable), they would play on back to back Friday nights...possibly even in the same venue (at Arizona State).

Only issue I see with 14 team zipper is travel costs for the oklahoma schools.

~MrGPAC

Cal84;585177 said:

---

Agreed, but there are things Larry can do to accelerate that disintegration. Like adding the Okies. As for scheduling, just add the Okies to the South division and move UCLA to the North with a fixed UCLA v. USC annual game and a provision that once we go to 16 teams the configuration will automatically go to old P-8 in one group and everyone else in the other.

Right now if the P12 sits put, a lot of the pieces that could provide leverage vs. the Texans will come off the board. Like Kansas, which is how we could leverage UT without having to take TT.

---

I was thinking Utah or Colorado (most similar culturally) to the North, but UCLA actually makes the most sense from a league perspective. Stanford and Cal already play UCLA, so putting UCLA in the same division eliminates two required interdivision games (though it adds UCLA-USC). The downside is that USC will always play the same Pac-14 schools every year--the Pac-14 South plus the other 3 California schools.

Though, as DO and others have pointed out, the Pac-14 would not last long, in fact I doubt we even play one season under that format. If we take OU and OSU, Texas would join sometime before the next season started.

calumnus;585331 said:

---

I was thinking Utah or Colorado (most similar culturally) to the North, but UCLA actually makes the most sense from a league perspective. Stanford and Cal already play UCLA, so putting UCLA in the same division eliminates two required interdivision games (though it adds UCLA-USC). The downside is that USC will always play the same Pac-14 schools every year--the Pac-14 South plus the other 3 California schools.

Though, as DO and others have pointed out, the Pac-14 would not last long, in fact I doubt we even play one season under that format. If we take OU and OSU, Texas would join sometime before the next season started.

---

So, under that scenario, the Oregons and Washingtons would never play SC. Can't see that format being adopted, even if it was thought to likely be a temporary situation.

Mr. Frumble;585346 said:

---

So, under that scenario, the Oregons and Washingtons would never play SC. Can't see that format being adopted, even if it was thought to likely be a temporary situation.

---

Yup, this is part of why Larry Scott said that expanding to less than 16 wasn't going to work.

sycasey;585510 said:

---

Yup, this is part of why Larry Scott said that expanding to less than 16 wasn't going to work.

---

I don't think the scheduling would be the problem. Like I said, just slide UCLA over to the North and have a UCLA-USC annual game. The real problem is money. If the two teams added were Okie and Texass, no problemo. But if you add Okie and Okie Lite, then there is a problem. Those two are not going to add TV revenue dollars that increase pro rata payouts. In fact they'd probably decrease. That's why Larry would really need to take a leadership role and convince the existing chancellors to go along.

slider643;585185 said:

---

From all I've read about realignment, Texas thinking is far too provincial for my tastes. They're only concerned about being a big fish in a small pond. They bring a huge market, so everyone tolerates their behavior. I just don't see them ever being a good conference mate.

I would push for OU, OSU, KU and UM. Give them a comfort zone with old Big8 colleagues. They'll have their own little pod, we'll get OU football and KU basketball and good overall programs in OSU and UM and 2 AAU schools with OU making a legitimate push in that direction.

At this point, I feel that Texas is a pipe dream that will only get more and more distant as more time and money is put into their network.

---

I agree that Texas will bring us more regrets than advantages. UM wants to go to the SEC and would be a good fit there. I'd take OU, OSU, KU & KSU.

If we can't get KU & KSU, I'd look to two of the following three: Colorado State (rumored to be on the short list for addition to the AAU), Air Force (service academies are prestigious and have nationwide following), Utah State. While that would not be a perfect line-up, it beats being stuck with the likes of SD State, Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, etc., which would offer little in terms of geographic market share, geographic recruiting advantage, or academic prestige.

Cal84;585521 said:

---

I don't think the scheduling would be the problem. Like I said, just slide UCLA over to the North and have a UCLA-USC annual game.

---

Do all 4 California schools get to keep playing each other? If so, it's still a problem.

Larry Scott said that adding OK/OKSt does not pencil out in the non-revenue sports. There are just not enough dollars added to cover the additional travel expense. Texas is the key to our expansion. I back making that move, after some tough negotiating, despite the headaches that Bevo brings.

FremontBear;585118 said:

---

Pac-12 is nice and stable, with the largest TV deal in history of college football. I hope Larry Scott and company don't kill the golden goose in the name of greed. We have a great deal, let's enjoy the fortune and work harder to make the conference even greater. DON'T bite off more than you could chew!

---

Good and successful businesses are always looking to the future, not sitting back and counting the money now.

If we were ever to bring Texas into the conference, the Longhorn network would either have to go or be integrated somehow. That network single handedly killed off the Big12.

I like expanding markets as well: add ok ok state Hawaii and unlv

First of all, I want to make something perfectly clear: I live in Austin, and I enjoy rooting for the home-town team (even if I cannot justify paying $70/ticket to watch them thump Northern Montana). I generally find the team and their coach to be ethical citizens (even when it comes to the detriment of the Cal team I root for -- a man can't change his roots, no matter where he lives).

But as an organization within a conference, NO AMOUNT of money is enough to accept Texas into the PAC. As an institution they are a cancer, pure and simple. It would be like accepting Terrel Owens, Randy Moss, or Brett Favre onto your team: vast talent, but never ending pain. It's not sustainable (which Texas has proven, and keeps on proving), and the PAC will wind up with years of shyt for a few scheckles more.

Just my opinion here: money is NOT the only reason, or usually even the best reason to make a decision. You have to be able to live with the result. What happened to the B12 cannot be allowed to take root here.

tommie317;585805 said:

---

I like expanding markets as well: add ok ok state Hawaii and unlv

---

Hawaii's TV market is like #72 in the nation. All the shaking grass skirts and flower leis in the world won't change that fact. If they are the hypothetical gateway to the mythical "Asian Market", then somebody has to show me the numbers. I bet they don't even have access to it for themselves. Heck, Soccer is bigger in Asia than Hawaii Football.

Vegas is #42, but I think that program would be prone to point-shaving...IMO. I can't prove anything, but I don't trust UNLV for instinctual/gut reasons.

OK and OK State might be burdensome for the PAC in the non-Football Sports....plus, they both seem reconciled to sticking around and making the Big XII work out in the long run. Good for them.

Long story short -- the PAC kicks back at 12.

Our Domicile;585943 said:

---

If they are the hypothetical gateway to the mythical "Asian Market", then somebody has to show me the numbers.

---

Hawaii would do nothing to gain eyeballs in Asia. Berkeley is the gateway to the Asian TV market because everyone in East Asia knows Berkeley. The P12 would need to change some labeling to emphasize "Berkeley" rather than "Cal" though....

The problem the Pac-12 faces is there aren't that many geographical choices that fit.

BYU has that whole Sunday issue of course not to mention the whole relgious issue.

Boise St. is in the Pac-12 in wrestling but that's due to a lack of Pac-12 wrestling programs. They don't bring much to the table either.

Montana has no TV market and their football team is good but 1-AA.

Fresno St. is no go as it doesn't fit the Pac-12 academic profile.

San Diego St. is good from a Tv perspective not so good from an academic profile.

San Jose St. suffers from the same academic issues

New Mexico and New Mexico St. offer little.

Air Force doesn't offer much in TV and there's the military issue.

Colorado St. is similar to many of the state schools.

This leaves

Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
Kansas/Kansas State.
Texas/Texas Tech (TCU and SMU are out as religious schools.)

RaphaelAglietti;586031 said:

---

The problem the Pac-12 faces is there aren't that many geographical choices that fit.

BYU has that whole Sunday issue of course not to mention the whole relgious issue.

Boise St. is in the Pac-12 in wrestling but that's due to a lack of Pac-12 wrestling programs. They don't bring much to the table either.

Montana has no TV market and their football team is good but 1-AA.

Fresno St. is no go as it doesn't fit the Pac-12 academic profile.

San Diego St. is good from a Tv perspective not so good from an academic profile.

San Jose St. suffers from the same academic issues

New Mexico and New Mexico St. offer little.

Air Force doesn't offer much in TV and there's the military issue.

Colorado St. is similar to many of the state schools.

This leaves

Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
Kansas/Kansas State.
Texas/Texas Tech (TCU and SMU are out as religious schools.)

---

I have heard this a lot but I don't understand for the life of me why the religious schools are out. BYU is a fine school. It is also true that they do not play on Sunday. There are a couple of basketball games scheduled on Sundays but they are few and far between. It would seem like an easy scheduling fix. As far as the smaller, non revenue sports, I have no idea when they play. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that they don't play on Sundays anyways.

As far as TCU and SMU, why would they be ruled out just because they are religious schools? I confess I don't understand this argument.

Any expansion without either Texas or Oklahoma is just diluting revenue to no good end.

Our Domicile;585943 said:

---

Vegas is #42, but I think that program would be prone to point-shaving...IMO. I can't prove anything, but I don't trust UNLV for instinctual/gut reasons.

---

UNLV doesn't really bring the Las Vegas market any more than USC already does. The local population really doesn't give a s*** about UNLV football (yes, even less than the Bay Area cares about Cal and Furd).

And yeah, Hawaii is a tiny market by P12 standards.

kiddynamite;586077 said:

---

I have heard this a lot but I don't understand for the life of me why the religious schools are out. BYU is a fine school. It is also true that they do not play on Sunday. There are a couple of basketball games scheduled on Sundays but they are few and far between. It would seem like an easy scheduling fix. As far as the smaller, non revenue sports, I have no idea when they play. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that they don't play on Sundays anyways.

As far as TCU and SMU, why would they be ruled out just because they are religious schools? I confess I don't understand this argument.

---

IMO/

At the risk of causing outrage and the Apocalypse, my simplistic 2 cents is this --

From what info I've gathered over the years, it seems that at Religious Schools all Research has to be approved by their resident Clergy/Priesthood...or some religion-based organization operating along those lines....who have the ultimate power of censorship.

At secular/non-religious schools, it's like, for example -- "Hey, your research makes sense according to Einstein/Hawkian mathematics, years of prior research done by others and has been judged and approved by your PhD peers, so congratulations on your research and advancing your field, maybe you'll win a Nobel Prize or similar" or "Sorry, do more research and we'll peer-review it again. It's not wrong, but it needs more work in proving your theory." In other words, it has to make logical sense at Secular schools and approved by peers.

At Religious schools, it's more like "That contradicts the Biblical Flood" or "That contradicts the fact that God made the Earth in seven days" or "That's heretical to our belief system and the words of the Prophet/Disciples/etc" or "Your research make sense, but is there any way you can give credit to a Higher Power in causing the Big Bang? Just add this and that". In other words, it has to make moral and ethical sense at Religious schools. Also, there seems to be an agenda of sorts in place.

To sum up -- the secular process is Democratic in nature while the religious process is Dogmatic and current PAC schools try to encourage/enforce the Democratic process.

This is not to say that religion and faith is discourage in the PAC and shouldn't be practiced or studied (Folklore, Eastern Philosophy and Comparative Religion classes rock), it's just that it [U]might[/U] interfere with some forms of High and Very High Research, an avowed expertise of PAC schools at the post-grad level.

Ironically, all these Religious Schools want to join BCS conferences for more $$$, the root of all Evil. That's something I don't understand for the life of me.


/IMO.