+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? (/thread-850739.html)
Pages: 1 2
Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Fighting Muskie - 05-28-2018 09:38 AM
Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
Big Ten expansion would drop the 12 team league down to 9 and Colorado was going to go west regardless of what the other 5 did so that leaves the Big 12 at 8 members.
A&M was itching to leave and while they may not have been thrilled with the PAC 16 they might have still made their separate arrangement with the SEC, possibly taking yet another Big 12 school with them.
At the end of the day the 6 schools moving to the PAC 16 might have been Colorado, Oklahoma, Ok St, Texas, Tech, and Baylor (in place of A&M).
The alternative is rebuilding the Big 12 with Big East and MWC replacements
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Nerdlinger - 05-28-2018 09:43 AM
(05-28-2018 09:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
Big Ten expansion would drop the 12 team league down to 9 and Colorado was going to go west regardless of what the other 5 did so that leaves the Big 12 at 8 members.
A&M was itching to leave and while they may not have been thrilled with the PAC 16 they might have still made their separate arrangement with the SEC, possibly taking yet another Big 12 school with them.
At the end of the day the 6 schools moving to the PAC 16 might have been Colorado, Oklahoma, Ok St, Texas, Tech, and Baylor (in place of A&M).
The alternative is rebuilding the Big 12 with Big East and MWC replacements
Baylor was never in the cards. It would have been Utah in there instead.
Not sure who the SEC adds for #14 if Missouri is off the table. If the ACC stays strong, it may have been WVU.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - bluesox - 05-28-2018 11:12 AM
The pac 12 taking ou and ok state when given the chance would have resulted in a pac 16 since I don’t see them staying at 14 long. The big 10 passed on ku and Missouri due to their commish wanting unc in the league, so it was focused on eastern expansion.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - GoldenWarrior11 - 05-28-2018 11:35 AM
If the Big 12 had lost Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to the B1G, Texas A&M most likely still goes to the SEC (with probably West Virginia). Texas/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State can go west to the PAC (along with Utah/Colorado) to get to 16. The B1G still adds Rutgers/Maryland to get to 16. The SEC can go after Virginia Tech/NC State to get to 16, or - if either/both decline - they could look at adding TCU/ECU.
Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU can look at merging with the Big East - who would have inevitably had UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Temple and UCF. East Carolina/Tulane probably get added as well to get to 14. Toss in Tulsa and Navy (football-only), you get 16 members there as well.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Fighting Muskie - 05-28-2018 11:49 AM
(05-28-2018 09:43 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(05-28-2018 09:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
Big Ten expansion would drop the 12 team league down to 9 and Colorado was going to go west regardless of what the other 5 did so that leaves the Big 12 at 8 members.
A&M was itching to leave and while they may not have been thrilled with the PAC 16 they might have still made their separate arrangement with the SEC, possibly taking yet another Big 12 school with them.
At the end of the day the 6 schools moving to the PAC 16 might have been Colorado, Oklahoma, Ok St, Texas, Tech, and Baylor (in place of A&M).
The alternative is rebuilding the Big 12 with Big East and MWC replacements
Baylor was never in the cards. It would have been Utah in there instead.
Not sure who the SEC adds for #14 if Missouri is off the table. If the ACC stays strong, it may have been WVU.
Texas was maneuvering to have Colorado replaced in the deal with Baylor hence I included Baylor in equation as a byproduct of this political brinksmanship. That's part of the reason why Colorado had a separate invitation because the Pac 12 wasn't interested in budging on them. Now if A&M takes themselves out of the picture then there is room for one more and UT would likely demand an instate school.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Nerdlinger - 05-28-2018 12:37 PM
(05-28-2018 11:35 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: If the Big 12 had lost Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to the B1G, Texas A&M most likely still goes to the SEC (with probably West Virginia). Texas/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State can go west to the PAC (along with Utah/Colorado) to get to 16. The B1G still adds Rutgers/Maryland to get to 16. The SEC can go after Virginia Tech/NC State to get to 16, or - if either/both decline - they could look at adding TCU/ECU.
Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, and TCU can look at merging with the Big East - who would have inevitably had UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Temple and UCF. East Carolina/Tulane probably get added as well to get to 14. Toss in Tulsa and Navy (football-only), you get 16 members there as well.
The SEC would never add ECU, even if they desired to reach 16.
Here's a possible alignment for the new P4 plus the rebuilt Big 12.
ACC
East: Boston College, Connecticut, Florida State, Miami-FL
North: Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
South: Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Clemson, Georgia Tech, TCU
Protected crossover: Boston College/Notre Dame
Big Ten
East: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
South: Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
West: Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Protected crossovers: Illinois/Northwestern, Michigan/Ohio State
Pac-16
East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
West: California, Stanford, UCLA, USC
SEC
East: Florida, Georgia, NC State, South Carolina
North: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss
West: Arkansas, LSU, Texas A&M, West Virginia
Protected crossovers: Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia
Big 12
East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple
West: Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Navy (FB only), SMU, Tulane
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Wedge - 05-28-2018 01:02 PM
(05-28-2018 09:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
It's possible that a larger raid on the Big 12 might have caused the Horns to say yes to the Pac. Colorado was going to the Pac regardless of what anyone else did, so if the Big Ten had invited KU and Mizzou in addition to Nebraska (and the Big Ten did consider doing that), then there would have been only 8 schools remaining in the Big "12".
But, the Big Ten was either smart, or just lucked into the smarter decision, to not go all-in on even more schools from less populated states. In fact, to make even more money per school, they should have passed on Nebraska, waited for Maryland to become available, and added the Terps and stayed at 12 members.
Agree with Nerdlinger about Utah. The Pac understood in advance that TAMU might say no even if UT said yes, and the presidents authorized Scott in advance to invite Kansas if UT said yes and TAMU said no, and then Utah if KU said no.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - jrj84105 - 05-28-2018 08:05 PM
(05-28-2018 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2018 09:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
It's possible that a larger raid on the Big 12 might have caused the Horns to say yes to the Pac. Colorado was going to the Pac regardless of what anyone else did, so if the Big Ten had invited KU and Mizzou in addition to Nebraska (and the Big Ten did consider doing that), then there would have been only 8 schools remaining in the Big "12".
But, the Big Ten was either smart, or just lucked into the smarter decision, to not go all-in on even more schools from less populated states. In fact, to make even more money per school, they should have passed on Nebraska, waited for Maryland to become available, and added the Terps and stayed at 12 members.
Agree with Nerdlinger about Utah. The Pac understood in advance that TAMU might say no even if UT said yes, and the presidents authorized Scott in advance to invite Kansas if UT said yes and TAMU said no, and then Utah if KU said no.
Nope. Utah was always the A&M replacement. Scott tried to get KU to replace OKSU last minute. Scott touched down in SLC on his way out for the infamous Texas trip and reiterated this prior to A&M and UT declining.
Not that it was the right play. Realignment is and was about football, and the pair of KU and CU at the time would have been unacceptable. But had Scott put KU ahead of Utah (he didn’t) the PAC 16 would probably have happened as I don’t think the BigXII could have tolerated that loss.
KU was seriously considering the BigEast. Scott should have gone for KU and CU then worked on replacing OKSU with Utah. I’m glad he didn’t.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - DavidSt - 05-28-2018 08:30 PM
Oklahoma State's big donor was set against the PAC 12, and want to go to the SEC. Oklahoma was also looking eastward. SEc could have grabbed texas A&M and Oklahoma which would have killed the PAC 12. Oklahoma would have replaced Missouri in the SEC, not West Virginia.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - JRsec - 05-28-2018 09:05 PM
(05-28-2018 08:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Oklahoma State's big donor was set against the PAC 12, and want to go to the SEC. Oklahoma was also looking eastward. SEc could have grabbed texas A&M and Oklahoma which would have killed the PAC 12. Oklahoma would have replaced Missouri in the SEC, not West Virginia.
That's true David, but Oklahoma president Boren insisted on coming with Oklahoma State and since Texas A&M had already agreed we couldn't take 3. So Missouri took the spot because Oklahoma wouldn't come alone.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Wedge - 05-28-2018 11:46 PM
(05-28-2018 08:05 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(05-28-2018 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2018 09:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
It's possible that a larger raid on the Big 12 might have caused the Horns to say yes to the Pac. Colorado was going to the Pac regardless of what anyone else did, so if the Big Ten had invited KU and Mizzou in addition to Nebraska (and the Big Ten did consider doing that), then there would have been only 8 schools remaining in the Big "12".
But, the Big Ten was either smart, or just lucked into the smarter decision, to not go all-in on even more schools from less populated states. In fact, to make even more money per school, they should have passed on Nebraska, waited for Maryland to become available, and added the Terps and stayed at 12 members.
Agree with Nerdlinger about Utah. The Pac understood in advance that TAMU might say no even if UT said yes, and the presidents authorized Scott in advance to invite Kansas if UT said yes and TAMU said no, and then Utah if KU said no.
Nope. Utah was always the A&M replacement. Scott tried to get KU to replace OKSU last minute. Scott touched down in SLC on his way out for the infamous Texas trip and reiterated this prior to A&M and UT declining.
Not that it was the right play. Realignment is and was about football, and the pair of KU and CU at the time would have been unacceptable. But had Scott put KU ahead of Utah (he didn’t) the PAC 16 would probably have happened as I don’t think the BigXII could have tolerated that loss.
KU was seriously considering the BigEast. Scott should have gone for KU and CU then worked on replacing OKSU with Utah. I’m glad he didn’t.
No, Oklahoma State was never "uninvited". That was BS that someone in Texas made up to try and get people mad at Larry Scott.
When TAMU said no, Scott was headed for Kansas... but cancelled the flight at the last minute because he heard UT was also going to say no.
http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/big-12-realignment/2010/jun/13/sunday-morning-musings-memphis-worth-10-million/
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - arkstfan - 05-29-2018 12:36 AM
I wonder how much impact ESPN and Fox electing to "rescue" the Big XII had in the Pac-12 choosing to have 100% equity in the Pac-12 Network.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - jrj84105 - 05-29-2018 09:55 AM
(05-28-2018 11:49 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:(05-28-2018 09:43 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:(05-28-2018 09:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
Big Ten expansion would drop the 12 team league down to 9 and Colorado was going to go west regardless of what the other 5 did so that leaves the Big 12 at 8 members.
A&M was itching to leave and while they may not have been thrilled with the PAC 16 they might have still made their separate arrangement with the SEC, possibly taking yet another Big 12 school with them.
At the end of the day the 6 schools moving to the PAC 16 might have been Colorado, Oklahoma, Ok St, Texas, Tech, and Baylor (in place of A&M).
The alternative is rebuilding the Big 12 with Big East and MWC replacements
Baylor was never in the cards. It would have been Utah in there instead.
Not sure who the SEC adds for #14 if Missouri is off the table. If the ACC stays strong, it may have been WVU.
Texas was maneuvering to have Colorado replaced in the deal with Baylor hence I included Baylor in equation as a byproduct of this political brinksmanship. That's part of the reason why Colorado had a separate invitation because the Pac 12 wasn't interested in budging on them. Now if A&M takes themselves out of the picture then there is room for one more and UT would likely demand an instate school.
This is completely false. So many people have completely wrong versions of how this played out.
The first and primary thing people need to understand is that there were two realignment plans- The Scott Plan and the Texas Plan.
The Scott Plan was to add Colorado and Utah. The first talks between Scott and these schools began during Scott’s first month as commissioner. Scott was working his Plan for quite a while, but as in previous instances, the PAC presidents were on board with Colorado but were not in full agreement on Utah.
Then Scott went golfing and was pitched the Texas Plan that included UT, TTU, A&M, OU, and OKSU. This Plan was hatched by UT, not Scott. From the onset, one thing was clear and that was that A&M’s interest was tepid at best. Scott sold the PAC presidents on expansion (both plans) and was given the green light to move forward. Because CU was in both plans and because Utah’s Acceptance of an invite should it come was certain, the Buffa were formally invited.
UT never made a play to bring Baylor in, because as we know now, UT was busy using the PAC16 threat to leverage their LHN and BigXII deals, not to change the PAC16 deal that was their idea in the first place. It’s debatable how much interest UT really had in the PAC16, other than making it a livable solution if their primary demands went unmet.
The final thing was that the PAC presidents didn’t want Oklahoma State and wanted Scott to find an alternate if he could.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - jrj84105 - 05-29-2018 10:01 AM
(05-28-2018 11:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2018 08:05 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:(05-28-2018 01:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2018 09:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Let's say that instead of just Nebraska that the Big Ten had also announced Missouri and Kansas as expansion schools.
Could this have tipped the balance and caused the PAC 16 to become a reality?
It's possible that a larger raid on the Big 12 might have caused the Horns to say yes to the Pac. Colorado was going to the Pac regardless of what anyone else did, so if the Big Ten had invited KU and Mizzou in addition to Nebraska (and the Big Ten did consider doing that), then there would have been only 8 schools remaining in the Big "12".
But, the Big Ten was either smart, or just lucked into the smarter decision, to not go all-in on even more schools from less populated states. In fact, to make even more money per school, they should have passed on Nebraska, waited for Maryland to become available, and added the Terps and stayed at 12 members.
Agree with Nerdlinger about Utah. The Pac understood in advance that TAMU might say no even if UT said yes, and the presidents authorized Scott in advance to invite Kansas if UT said yes and TAMU said no, and then Utah if KU said no.
Nope. Utah was always the A&M replacement. Scott tried to get KU to replace OKSU last minute. Scott touched down in SLC on his way out for the infamous Texas trip and reiterated this prior to A&M and UT declining.
Not that it was the right play. Realignment is and was about football, and the pair of KU and CU at the time would have been unacceptable. But had Scott put KU ahead of Utah (he didn’t) the PAC 16 would probably have happened as I don’t think the BigXII could have tolerated that loss.
KU was seriously considering the BigEast. Scott should have gone for KU and CU then worked on replacing OKSU with Utah. I’m glad he didn’t.
No, Oklahoma State was never "uninvited". That was BS that someone in Texas made up to try and get people mad at Larry Scott.
When TAMU said no, Scott was headed for Kansas... but cancelled the flight at the last minute because he heard UT was also going to say no.
http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/big-12-realignment/2010/jun/13/sunday-morning-musings-memphis-worth-10-million/
UT definitely tried to deflect blame for the failure of their own plan, but the KU as A&M replacement notion came from Johnny come lately flight trackers who failed to notice that Scott’s flight stopped in SLC en route, and that he’d made 2 other trips to SLC in the preceding month. We all know as it was widely reported that the PAC considered A&M a long shot from the onset. Scott was putting in a lot of due diligence with one replacemtn school in the preceding months, and it wasn’t KU.
KU was pretty busy working the Big East move, and it wasn’t a fallback plan for A&M picking the PAC.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - goodknightfl - 05-29-2018 04:55 PM
The B10 has to get 50 plus mil per school to add, only a few might do that. I don't see more than 2 added, and doubt that.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - The Cutter of Bish - 05-29-2018 06:41 PM
My understanding was that the B1G and PAC were looking to make jumps to similar membership numbers at the same time back then. There were models for membership of up to 20 if it came to it for the B1G, and while we know of the ill-fated PAC-16, the B1G had a matching plan (just don’t know who the others would have been (probably here is where that group of Rutgers, Pitt, and Missouri factor into consideration, if not other B12 North members like Kansas or ISU).
It felt like the moves to 12 then were done so together. We knew why when B1G-PAC floated out there...and when that fell apart (as well as the Oklahoma duo no-vote), B1G was like “screw this, we’re going to make a mint with or without you,” and took UMD and Rutgers not long after when UMD expressed interest.
So, I think the two were supposed to be aggressive. But, the PAC was dead-set on an acquisition order, and the B1G on B1G-PAC, so both sides didn’t make the splashes others thought they would or could.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - arkstfan - 05-30-2018 08:49 AM
Colorado to Pac-12 broke June 10.
Nebraska to Big 10 on June 11.
TAMU indicates unwilling to go Pac-12 on June 12
TV rescue takes place on June 14
Utah in on June 17.
Funny because all that seemed to take much more time than it did.
One thing I think is certain, Colorado was going Pac no matter and sorting out who else was the devil in the details.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Fighting Muskie - 05-30-2018 06:49 PM
(05-28-2018 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:(05-28-2018 08:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Oklahoma State's big donor was set against the PAC 12, and want to go to the SEC. Oklahoma was also looking eastward. SEc could have grabbed texas A&M and Oklahoma which would have killed the PAC 12. Oklahoma would have replaced Missouri in the SEC, not West Virginia.
That's true David, but Oklahoma president Boren insisted on coming with Oklahoma State and since Texas A&M had already agreed we couldn't take 3. So Missouri took the spot because Oklahoma wouldn't come alone.
It would have been interesting if the SEC would have gone ahead and taken the two Oklahoma schools and leave it in the hands of Texas to either take the 16th slot or potentially be shut out and left lingering in a league of ISU, K St, Kansas, Missouri, TTU, and Baylor. At that point you either go with the tried and true option of joining the SEC or you gamble that you can force a ND-deal with the rump of the B12 and hope that independence can net them the revenue and nationally relevant match ups they desire.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - Wedge - 05-30-2018 07:20 PM
(05-30-2018 08:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote: Colorado to Pac-12 broke June 10.
Nebraska to Big 10 on June 11.
TAMU indicates unwilling to go Pac-12 on June 12
TV rescue takes place on June 14
Utah in on June 17.
Funny because all that seemed to take much more time than it did.
It did take more time.
The Big Ten announced it would look into expanding in a press release on December 15, 2009.
Two days later, Missouri's loudmouthed governor said that Missouri should look into joining the Big Ten.
Colorado's then-AD later said that he got in touch with his contacts at the Pac-10 soon after the Missouri governor's comments.
It took almost six months after that to get to those final announcements in June 2010.
RE: Could a more agressive Big Ten expansion in 2010 make the PAC 16 a reality? - jrj84105 - 05-30-2018 08:05 PM
(05-30-2018 07:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:(05-30-2018 08:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote: Colorado to Pac-12 broke June 10.
Nebraska to Big 10 on June 11.
TAMU indicates unwilling to go Pac-12 on June 12
TV rescue takes place on June 14
Utah in on June 17.
Funny because all that seemed to take much more time than it did.
It did take more time.
The Big Ten announced it would look into expanding in a press release on December 15, 2009.
Two days later, Missouri's loudmouthed governor said that Missouri should look into joining the Big Ten.
Colorado's then-AD later said that he got in touch with his contacts at the Pac-10 soon after the Missouri governor's comments.
It took almost six months after that to get to those final announcements in June 2010.
The schools have to maintain plausible deniability concerning interference. But the B1G doesn’t announce that it’s going to explore expansion until it knows it’s going to expand and with whom.
Colorado, for example, had serious backchannel talks with Scott going back to at least May 2009.