(11-03-2017 03:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Plan A is obvious, grab the Texlahoma 4 or some combination of Big 12 schools including Texas and Oklahoma.

But what do they do if they fail? If the Big Ten and/or SEC go to 16+ with those two powers added to their ranks the balance of power is forever tipped extremely against their favor.

So is there a Plan B?

Buddying up to the Big Ten would be logical but the Pac schools need the Big Ten far more than the Big Ten needs them. As far as full merger goes the best the Pac could hope for would be admission of the 8 AAU schools in a mega conference conglomerate.

What are your thoughts?

(11-03-2017 03:13 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 03:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Plan A is obvious, grab the Texlahoma 4 or some combination of Big 12 schools including Texas and Oklahoma.

But what do they do if they fail? If the Big Ten and/or SEC go to 16+ with those two powers added to their ranks the balance of power is forever tipped extremely against their favor.

So is there a Plan B?

Buddying up to the Big Ten would be logical but the Pac schools need the Big Ten far more than the Big Ten needs them. As far as full merger goes the best the Pac could hope for would be admission of the 8 AAU schools in a mega conference conglomerate.

What are your thoughts?

If the Texahoma are off the board, I think they should make a strong play for Kansas and Iowa State. Both are AAU, both have very strong basketball programs (KU's blood blood status in basketball would be worth it to add their football), and Iowa State's football program appears to be on the up and up under Campbell. Most importantly, it gets them into the Central Time Zone, so they can add another collection of games that the Midwest/East can see before the late night games.

(11-03-2017 03:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Plan A is obvious, grab the Texlahoma 4 or some combination of Big 12 schools including Texas and Oklahoma.

But what do they do if they fail? If the Big Ten and/or SEC go to 16+ with those two powers added to their ranks the balance of power is forever tipped extremely against their favor.

So is there a Plan B?

Buddying up to the Big Ten would be logical but the Pac schools need the Big Ten far more than the Big Ten needs them. As far as full merger goes the best the Pac could hope for would be admission of the 8 AAU schools in a mega conference conglomerate.

What are your thoughts?

(11-03-2017 05:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 "plan" does not exist, beyond Texas and whatever it takes to get them.

It's really simple, only Texas will get the votes of the California schools and Washington. That is a fundamental "fact" (as far as facts go in realignment). If there is no Texas, there is no Pac-12 expansion.

(11-03-2017 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 "plan" does not exist, beyond Texas and whatever it takes to get them.

It's really simple, only Texas will get the votes of the California schools and Washington. That is a fundamental "fact" (as far as facts go in realignment). If there is no Texas, there is no Pac-12 expansion.

Right, the votes would be there for any combination that includes UT, and not there for any combination that doesn't include UT.

That's the reality, even though it prevents us from enjoying a hundred other realignment theories.

(11-03-2017 06:07 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  San Diego State's research is on par with the non-AAU schools of the PAC 12 as Tier one piers.
Boise State's boom in population in Boise and could draw viewers outside of the state could be an option. They were impressed by how their academics is on the rise. Tier 3 research, but could be a tier 2 in 5 years. Seems that state of Idaho is planning for a medical school in Boise that Boise State could share with Idaho and Idaho State.

(11-03-2017 07:41 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 "plan" does not exist, beyond Texas and whatever it takes to get them.

It's really simple, only Texas will get the votes of the California schools and Washington. That is a fundamental "fact" (as far as facts go in realignment). If there is no Texas, there is no Pac-12 expansion.

Right, the votes would be there for any combination that includes UT, and not there for any combination that doesn't include UT.

That's the reality, even though it prevents us from enjoying a hundred other realignment theories.

Well if UT goes to the B1G or SEC and those two grow to 16 or beyond it will be hard for the Pac to sit at 12 and let the finacial gap between themselves and the others to grow.

(11-03-2017 07:41 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 "plan" does not exist, beyond Texas and whatever it takes to get them.

It's really simple, only Texas will get the votes of the California schools and Washington. That is a fundamental "fact" (as far as facts go in realignment). If there is no Texas, there is no Pac-12 expansion.

Right, the votes would be there for any combination that includes UT, and not there for any combination that doesn't include UT.

That's the reality, even though it prevents us from enjoying a hundred other realignment theories.

Well if UT goes to the B1G or SEC and those two grow to 16 or beyond it will be hard for the Pac to sit at 12 and let the finacial gap between themselves and the others to grow.

(11-04-2017 12:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:41 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 "plan" does not exist, beyond Texas and whatever it takes to get them.

It's really simple, only Texas will get the votes of the California schools and Washington. That is a fundamental "fact" (as far as facts go in realignment). If there is no Texas, there is no Pac-12 expansion.

Right, the votes would be there for any combination that includes UT, and not there for any combination that doesn't include UT.

That's the reality, even though it prevents us from enjoying a hundred other realignment theories.

Well if UT goes to the B1G or SEC and those two grow to 16 or beyond it will be hard for the Pac to sit at 12 and let the finacial gap between themselves and the others to grow.

TV will pay more per-school for a Pac that includes UT. They won't pay more per-school for a Pac that doesn't. The presidents won't invite anyone unless the invitation directly leads to significantly more money for each of the existing members.

"Wouldn't it be nice if the Pac had as many members as each of the other P5 conferences" would be just about the silliest possible reason to expand. The Big 12 presidents heard loud and clear from ESPN and Fox that adding new members just for the sake of adding new members doesn't increase per-school value. Same is true for the Pac-12 and every other P5 conference.

(11-03-2017 08:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:41 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 "plan" does not exist, beyond Texas and whatever it takes to get them.

It's really simple, only Texas will get the votes of the California schools and Washington. That is a fundamental "fact" (as far as facts go in realignment). If there is no Texas, there is no Pac-12 expansion.

Right, the votes would be there for any combination that includes UT, and not there for any combination that doesn't include UT.

That's the reality, even though it prevents us from enjoying a hundred other realignment theories.

Well if UT goes to the B1G or SEC and those two grow to 16 or beyond it will be hard for the Pac to sit at 12 and let the finacial gap between themselves and the others to grow.

Exactly! if the others go to 16 the Pac 12 will be completely left behind in the arms race. They are already disadvantaged due to the time zone issue and the fact that the Pac 12 fanbases aren't nearly as rabid as the Big Ten ans SEC and don't command the same kind of tv dollars.

Academic snobbery prevents them from adding schools that might otherwise help them. If Texas and Oklahoma are off the table the pickings are pretty slim.

In theory, that might try to strike some sort of partnership with the ACC to try to get something going on both coasts but they are firmly in the ESPN camp so that's a no go.

(11-04-2017 12:29 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 07:41 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-03-2017 05:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The P12 "plan" does not exist, beyond Texas and whatever it takes to get them.

It's really simple, only Texas will get the votes of the California schools and Washington. That is a fundamental "fact" (as far as facts go in realignment). If there is no Texas, there is no Pac-12 expansion.

Right, the votes would be there for any combination that includes UT, and not there for any combination that doesn't include UT.

That's the reality, even though it prevents us from enjoying a hundred other realignment theories.

Well if UT goes to the B1G or SEC and those two grow to 16 or beyond it will be hard for the Pac to sit at 12 and let the finacial gap between themselves and the others to grow.

TV will pay more per-school for a Pac that includes UT. They won't pay more per-school for a Pac that doesn't. The presidents won't invite anyone unless the invitation directly leads to significantly more money for each of the existing members.

"Wouldn't it be nice if the Pac had as many members as each of the other P5 conferences" would be just about the silliest possible reason to expand. The Big 12 presidents heard loud and clear from ESPN and Fox that adding new members just for the sake of adding new members doesn't increase per-school value. Same is true for the Pac-12 and every other P5 conference.

(11-04-2017 04:25 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  Problem with expanding for the Pac-12 is they can't really go to 14 like the other conferences. Between everyone needing access to California and the Cal schools requirement to play each other annually there is no way to align a 14 team conference where you accomplish both objectives that would gain the 9 votes necessary to expand so you are left having to expand to 16 to make it work and needing to find 4 viable candidates instead of 2.

As others have said, further Pac-12 expansion revolves around Texas, without them its basically impossible for the Pac-12 to expand further. Maybe there could be a collection of schools led by Oklahoma that the Pac-12 would take but its hard trying to find a group of them that would meet the requirements of the the 12 schools as well as provide value to the media partners.

(11-04-2017 04:59 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-04-2017 04:25 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  Problem with expanding for the Pac-12 is they can't really go to 14 like the other conferences. Between everyone needing access to California and the Cal schools requirement to play each other annually there is no way to align a 14 team conference where you accomplish both objectives that would gain the 9 votes necessary to expand so you are left having to expand to 16 to make it work and needing to find 4 viable candidates instead of 2.

As others have said, further Pac-12 expansion revolves around Texas, without them its basically impossible for the Pac-12 to expand further. Maybe there could be a collection of schools led by Oklahoma that the Pac-12 would take but its hard trying to find a group of them that would meet the requirements of the the 12 schools as well as provide value to the media partners.

There are certainly ways in which the schedule and divisions could be set up in a Pac-14 to permit the CA schools to play every year and allow the other schools access to CA. Why do you say there aren't?

(11-04-2017 04:59 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  For example, a divisionless setup in which each team gets 3 protected rivalries means the CA can schools can play each other while every other school plays two CA schools every year. And that's with just an 8-game conference schedule. Of course, this would require some NCAA rule changes, but as the Big 12 proved, this is not insurmountable.

(11-04-2017 07:31 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(11-04-2017 04:59 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-04-2017 04:25 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  Problem with expanding for the Pac-12 is they can't really go to 14 like the other conferences. Between everyone needing access to California and the Cal schools requirement to play each other annually there is no way to align a 14 team conference where you accomplish both objectives that would gain the 9 votes necessary to expand so you are left having to expand to 16 to make it work and needing to find 4 viable candidates instead of 2.

As others have said, further Pac-12 expansion revolves around Texas, without them its basically impossible for the Pac-12 to expand further. Maybe there could be a collection of schools led by Oklahoma that the Pac-12 would take but its hard trying to find a group of them that would meet the requirements of the the 12 schools as well as provide value to the media partners.

There are certainly ways in which the schedule and divisions could be set up in a Pac-14 to permit the CA schools to play every year and allow the other schools access to CA. Why do you say there aren't?

How?

Anything that involves the California schools still being split apart means that the 4 Cal schools would operate a 6-2-1 schedule model where they play their 6 division games + 2 opposite division Cal schools and 1 game vs the remaining 5 schools. So a Northwest school would play in Southern California once every 5 years and the same for the Mountain schools in Northern California which is where the Cal split would end as none of the Mountain/Northwest schools would agree with that.

Now with the 4 Cal schools in the same division how do you split up the remaining schools? Do you try go geographically and put the Arizona schools and Utah with them? Do you try to go East/West and tell a school like Washington State "hey sorry but you're SOL" and dump them in a east divison? Either way whomever is placed in the division opposite of California is going to fight against it.

Putting the 4 Cal schools in the same division also presents another problem in that you are isolating your only recruiting base in one division, that is a key reason why the Big-12 failed.

(11-04-2017 04:59 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  For example, a divisionless setup in which each team gets 3 protected rivalries means the CA can schools can play each other while every other school plays two CA schools every year. And that's with just an 8-game conference schedule. Of course, this would require some NCAA rule changes, but as the Big 12 proved, this is not insurmountable.

I believe the ACC tried to get something like this passed through a couple years ago if I'm not mistaken and it was denied. I doubt the Pac-12 would have enough clout to get this pushed through if the BigTen (and possibly the SEC) are opposed to it.