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 03:08 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.

Plan B is to pray for change.

UCSD could add football. Right now the PAC doesn't have any presence in San Diego, so that would add a mid-sized region (3.5 million people) and a top-flight university.

Nevada, Hawai'i, or New Mexico could have population booms similar to the booms that pushed Colorado and Utah to the upper tiers of CFB.

Beyond that, I don't see them doing anything. Adding Plains states schools is a nonstarter unless UT-Austin is involved.

(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.

One problem to consider is how to do you split up the divisions with Kansas and Iowa St.? They should be in the same division as Colorado - do you put them in the NORTH division with the Oregon and Washington schools? The legacy Northwest schools aren't going to be happy to give up games in California for Kansas and Iowa.

Or, does the PAC swallow its pride and also invite TCU and Houston? That gets the PAC some decent football and expands the footprint.

As far as divisional alignment, would a 3-2-2-2 pod scheduling system be available by then? (assuming the PAC expands to keep up with the Joneses).

(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?

Lets say OU, UT, KU, and OSU go to either the B1G or SEC.

ISU, KSU, BYU and T Tech. If its to get to 20 then add Houston, Hawaii, UNLV and Boise.

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.

If Texas does decide to finally consummate what has been an on and off courtship since at least the late 1980s, then many combinations would work. Oklahoma is one of them. Since 2011 talks, TCU has very much eclipsed Texas Tech in the preference order as a companion school.

As for OU, they are being softly courted by both the SEC and B1G, with eyes on 2025, so it's hard to see them choosing the P12 for any reason. Unlike Texas, and their LHN (failure that it is, ESPN hands them over $15m a year), OU needs a return on their network. The B1G has a lengthy buy-in like the P12, but has revenues at the same level or higher than the SEC, which has no buy-in (SEC model is 100% provider owned, so no equity). I don't think that is the big decider for OU between the B1G and the SEC, as they are not cash strapped, and will be in great shape either way. Instead their decision will come down to the prestige of the B1G and what it can do for OU's long term academic future of the school, against the political advantage of being able to tow Oklahoma State along with them to the SEC. Since towing Ok State along is the same for benefit to OU with either the SEC or P12, it's pretty obvious which they would choose.

So when you get back to the P12 situation, any expansion begins with Texas. If they don't come, there is no reason to expand. If they do, the P12 will at a minimum take another B12 school in Texas, likely of Austin's choosing or at least approval, and that seems to me to most likely be TCU, who before the B12 was in the MWC, so has a bit of a western tilt anyway.

I am not thrilled by the choices to get to 16, and I am pretty sure the same is true of UW and the California school Chancellors and Presidents. Colorado State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and Rice are really the only options I can see getting out of the suggestion committee. None is a "must have"; only Rice excites the Presidents, but I can't see the AD's signing off on them. The other three can best be described as "complimentary" type additions not bringing enough value on their own to merit an invite.

So I think 14 is more likely than 16. And that means Texas and probably TCU. Then they stop.

(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.

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 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 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.

No, they are not in the same zip code
https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd

SDSU #149, $93m in R &D

Washington #3, $1,181m
UCSF #4, $1,127m // UCSF is the med school run by Berkeley, counted separately
UCSD #5, $1,101m // threw them in for fun (Scripts is counted separately)
Stanford #8, $1,023m
UCLA #9, $1,021m
UC Berkeley #23, $788m
UC Davis #26, $721m
USC #28, $691m
Texas #30, $651m // Med school is counted separately
Arizona #34, $606m
Utah #40, $519m
ASU #48, $458m
Colorado #53, $421m

others
WSU #68, $333m
Colorado St #73, $317m
Kansas #75, $311m
Iowa State #77, $306m
Nebraska #79, $284m
OSU #86, $245m


FYI SDSU is an R2 school. It slots in with similar R2 schools like RIU, Idaho, Nevada and UTEP.

(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.

(11-03-2017 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 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.

When it comes to streaming it will be all about subscribers and getting more subscribers means getting more inventory. Yes, sitting at 12 members while the rest sit at at least 14 members and there are power conference level programs looking for a home the Pac-12 will just say "Nah, we're good! This plan will totally get us more money! We can just make more by doing absolutely nothing!"

(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.

The PAC approached the ACC, years ago about a joint venture/network. The prospect doesn't look any better today than it looked then.

(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.

At this stage of realignment, we have reached a point where the additional inventory of games due to expansion are games that generate little interest anyway. That may have been a reason to expand before this, but not any more.

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 04:25 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?

For example, a divisionless setup in which each team gets 3 protected rivalries means the CA 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 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.

(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.

OK, then rotate the schools between divisions from year to year while keeping the CA crossovers. I believe this is allowed within the current rules. For example:

Division A: Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State + California, Stanford
Division B: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, New Team 1, New Team 2 + UCLA, USC

Then flip the pairs of CA schools for the next year.

The P12 could work 14 in one of two ways.

Nerdlinger's divisions (make Texas and TCU "new team 1 & 2"), except make them permanent. Keep the same California schools playing each other in crossover games, and add Utah-Colorado to the cross over list (they will probably want Arizona as well as the four corner rival).

The other way is a zipper, with everyone playing their cross rival (e.g., UW-WSU, Cal-Stanford, Oregon-OSU, Utah-CU, UofA-ASU, Texas-TCU, UCLA-USC) built in, and then additional cross rivals in California and the Northwest (all the Washington and Oregon schools must play each other, just as the California schools must). The remaining cross rivals would be set up to allow the Texas schools to have a 3rd four-corner State opponent (probably CU and ASU), and the last two four corner schools would play each other (I expect Utah and UofA). That would keep a 9 game schedule and ALL rivalries in tact. It would take 5 years to rotate through the remaining schools in the other division, 10 years to get each at home.

For Basketball (and Volleyball) 14 works pretty well. You always play your cross rival twice, and you host the other 12 schools twice in your gym every three years (e.g., TCU @ Cal in 2026 and 2027, vs Cal in 2027 and 2028; you host 8 of 12 in a given year). This can be set up so you are always hosting at least of the two-school rival pairs; so you always have a NorCal, a SoCal, an Arizona, and Oregon, a Washington, a Texas, and a Mountain school in you home gym. If the P12 goes to 20 games for TV revenue and SoS like the B1G and SEC, schools can protect another game, and they would probably map to the football games.

Bottom line both a zipper and permanent Divisions with Utah moving to the North work for 14.