(03-20-2018 07:01 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:18 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Offering Ou, Ok state, KU, and K state is the best option for the pac 12. It destroys the big 12 $ which would than go to the pac and makes it easy for OU and KU to jump with OSU and KSU onboard. Texas would have to do something at that point and the odds are pretty good they join the pac with Texas tech. Than you creat 3 pods of 6 for all sports but football. For football, split the arizonia schools. Pretty easy to incorporate the pac network with those 6 members pairing up into the current system

It is not happening, they are perfectly content with the 12 they have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If they are content then they are stupid and the PAC-12 Presidents aren’t stupid.

All one has to do is look at the populations in the states covered by the conferences to see the issues:
Big 12: 40.526M
PAC 12: 67.474M
Big 10: 85.619M
ACC: 94.827M
SEC: 98.615M

With those kinds of numbers it’s not a surprise DirectTV didn’t pick up the Pac-12 Network. The PAC-12 has a significant numbers gap they aren’t picking up without adding Texas. Unless they want to perpetually be PAC-12 after dark and have their Championship game relegated to Friday night then they better do something to address their population numbers.

By doing the PAC-12/Big-12 merge their numbers jump to 103.037M making them a must show and must carry for TV.

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:14 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The Pac ain't expanding without UT.

If true, the PAC isn't expanding.

What does the PAC offer Texas? Less money. Worse TV coverage and exposure. Late kickoff and tipoff times. Greater travel distances and costs. Fewer rivalries. Less-competitive basketball and football (may be this is a positive?). Worse bowl affiliations.

Better academics and better women's soccer and fencing aren't tipping the scales.

Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:14 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The Pac ain't expanding without UT.

If true, the PAC isn't expanding.

What does the PAC offer Texas? Less money. Worse TV coverage and exposure. Late kickoff and tipoff times. Greater travel distances and costs. Fewer rivalries. Less-competitive basketball and football (may be this is a positive?). Worse bowl affiliations.

Better academics and better women's soccer and fencing aren't tipping the scales.

Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:14 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The Pac ain't expanding without UT.

If true, the PAC isn't expanding.

What does the PAC offer Texas? Less money. Worse TV coverage and exposure. Late kickoff and tipoff times. Greater travel distances and costs. Fewer rivalries. Less-competitive basketball and football (may be this is a positive?). Worse bowl affiliations.

Better academics and better women's soccer and fencing aren't tipping the scales.

Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

Would this lineup be OK with you:

Washington, Oregon, Stanford, California, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Utah

Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston



Then maybe the Pac-12 could rebuild from the MWC:

Boise State, Arizona State, Fresno State, San Diego State, BYU, Hawaii, Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado State, UNLV, New Mexico, Air Force, Gonzaga (non-FB)

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:14 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The Pac ain't expanding without UT.

If true, the PAC isn't expanding.

What does the PAC offer Texas? Less money. Worse TV coverage and exposure. Late kickoff and tipoff times. Greater travel distances and costs. Fewer rivalries. Less-competitive basketball and football (may be this is a positive?). Worse bowl affiliations.

Better academics and better women's soccer and fencing aren't tipping the scales.

Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  If true, the PAC isn't expanding.

What does the PAC offer Texas? Less money. Worse TV coverage and exposure. Late kickoff and tipoff times. Greater travel distances and costs. Fewer rivalries. Less-competitive basketball and football (may be this is a positive?). Worse bowl affiliations.

Better academics and better women's soccer and fencing aren't tipping the scales.

Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-22-2018 11:16 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oregon State and Washington State aren't moving period. Even the California schools wouldn't allow that. They have played with Oregon State and Washington State for over 90 years (UCLA joined the PCC in 1928). Even with the dissolving of the PCC, it only took 5 years before Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State joined back up with them.

And most of them were together for over 100 years (Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and California formed the PCC in 1915, Washington State joined in 1917, Stanford in 1918, USC in 1922, and UCLA in 1928). Even when the PCC dissolved in 1959, it only took 5 years for all of them to get back together (Cal, Washington, USC, UCLA, Stanford in 1959, WSU in 1962, and Oregon and OSU in 1964).

And they will not kick out Oregon State and Washington State.

(03-21-2018 06:44 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  If true, the PAC isn't expanding.

What does the PAC offer Texas? Less money. Worse TV coverage and exposure. Late kickoff and tipoff times. Greater travel distances and costs. Fewer rivalries. Less-competitive basketball and football (may be this is a positive?). Worse bowl affiliations.

Better academics and better women's soccer and fencing aren't tipping the scales.

Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

Would this lineup be OK with you:

Washington, Oregon, Stanford, California, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Utah

Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston



Then maybe the Pac-12 could rebuild from the MWC:

Boise State, Arizona State, Fresno State, San Diego State, BYU, Hawaii, Oregon State, Washington State, Colorado State, UNLV, New Mexico, Air Force, Gonzaga (non-FB)

I think your line-up is the most likely scenario. I would guess the new conference would try to get Missouri, Nebraska or A&M but likely no luck.

I think your PAC-12 rebuild would include KState and Baylor.

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:47 AM)YNot Wrote:  If true, the PAC isn't expanding.

What does the PAC offer Texas? Less money. Worse TV coverage and exposure. Late kickoff and tipoff times. Greater travel distances and costs. Fewer rivalries. Less-competitive basketball and football (may be this is a positive?). Worse bowl affiliations.

Better academics and better women's soccer and fencing aren't tipping the scales.

Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

Interesting that you have UU in the east. I think UU moves west and OK State replaces ASU. You are going to have to give OU an out. That out would be OK State is in if Nebraska/Missouri doesn’t want the spot.

If I’m OK State I’m great with that model and hope Missouri seeks the more academically prestigious PacWest. Likely the SEC backfills Missouri with OK State, NC State and Va Tech.

(03-22-2018 11:16 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s not like it hasn’t happened before: PCC, SWC, WAC...

(03-22-2018 06:18 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:16 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oregon State and Washington State aren't moving period. Even the California schools wouldn't allow that. They have played with Oregon State and Washington State for over 90 years (UCLA joined the PCC in 1928). Even with the dissolving of the PCC, it only took 5 years before Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State joined back up with them.

And most of them were together for over 100 years (Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and California formed the PCC in 1915, Washington State joined in 1917, Stanford in 1918, USC in 1922, and UCLA in 1928). Even when the PCC dissolved in 1959, it only took 5 years for all of them to get back together (Cal, Washington, USC, UCLA, Stanford in 1959, WSU in 1962, and Oregon and OSU in 1964).

And they will not kick out Oregon State and Washington State.

They won’t kick you out as they can’t. They will just leave and you won’t be invited. In the era of Big TV money you can’t justify two schools from a small state like Oregon and Oregon State isn’t AAU. Do you really think USC cares if they play Oregon State versus falling behind in revenue?

Oregon State and Washington State wouldn’t be a problem if they were in the East, but the main issue is that if the conference grows beyond 12, then there are fewer cross division games. Any Eastern adds (Texas, Oklahoma) aren’t going to spend their annual pacific coast cross-divisional game at OSU or WSU. They’re going to want to be in California.

(03-22-2018 11:16 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:03 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Quite a few things actually.

1) you may not care about academics but College Presidents do and the PAC would be elite.

2) Texas and California offer a population base for TV that would be pretty compelling. Also they are two of the top 3 states for recruiting.

3) if Texas goes SEC or Big 10 the lose all their influence and say in conference matters. If you have Texas and 3 other Texas schools then Texas still has significant say and impact on conference decisions.

For those who know their history, the CA PAC schools have dissolved and reformed their league before. At one point they were in a league with Idaho and Montana. I would fully expect them to re-align their membership to remain an elite conference. Texas also had no problem moving from the SWC the Big 12. Both power groups will likely combine to develop a population power base to rival the other 3. But it will be closer to a merger of equals (trimming the overlap) then 4 schools joining the other.

Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.

Lawyers can’t get a check from the PAC if there is no PAC. 9 to dissolve means that only one partner (UW or UO) has to crack and decide to leave. The autobid would mean nothing to the departing schools, but would have value to OSU and WSU in their effort to repopulate a new conference, so they would settle on an arrangement. No different than the BigXII/SWC and MWC/WAC.

(03-23-2018 09:01 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:16 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 02:56 PM)YNot Wrote:  Fair points about the lack of influence that Texas could wield in the SEC or B1G.

But, Texas' former AD went on the record - Texas is looking East, not West. And, a primary reason is travel and timing. 10pm ET tippoffs and kickoffs - not very attractive for schools, student-athletes, fans, alumni, or donors in the Central timezone.

And the old PCC dissolved in the 1950's, before many of our parents were born. Arizona and ASU have been PAC members since the 1970's. Not exactly apropos to the current PAC landscape and realignment discussion.

Everyone talks about how Oklahoma has an Oklahoma State problem in realignment. Oregon and Washington would very much have a similar problem with Oregon State and Washington State.

To add Texas is a very attractive scenario for the PAC. However, to point westward is not an attractive scenario for Texas. To overcome Texas' current good-situation inertia, the PAC would need to show a massive value improvement...and that ignores a likely better offer for Texas coming from Birmingham.

I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.

Lawyers can’t get a check from the PAC if there is no PAC. 9 to dissolve means that only one partner (UW or UO) has to crack and decide to leave. The autobid would mean nothing to the departing schools, but would have value to OSU and WSU in their effort to repopulate a new conference, so they would settle on an arrangement. No different than the BigXII/SWC and MWC/WAC.

I doubt the dissolve. They will leave the league to get credits. The more interesting question is do the PAC remnants and Big 12 remnants form their own conference and whose name do they take?

Let’s assume best case Nebraska comes home and
OK State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor, Oregon State, Washington State, Arizona State all remain....

I’m guessing they want 1 trip to CA and Texas a year so add
SDSU, Fresno State, Boise State, UNLV, to the PAC-3
BYU(if Sunday play not an issue)/Colorado State, Memphis, SMU

Add Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, San Diego State, UNLV

Add BYU, Colorado State, SMU to the eastern 4.

Not a horrible league...

(03-23-2018 09:03 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 06:18 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:16 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 04:02 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  I think going east does offer some advantages but how well do you think Texas and Oklahoma would recruit CA if they played twice a year? The Big 12’s good situation will be hard to maintain with 40% of the population compared to other leagues.

The biggest reason Texas makes a move is if they merge with the PAC they get to bring TCU, Tech and Houston/A&M. How do you think life would be for Texas if they went to the SEC or Big 10 and left those programs in the lurch? The other point with a 16 team league you only play 2 games against the West 1 home and 1 away. 7 Games would be in region.

As for Oregon State and Washington State, Oregon and Washington don’t have options.

This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oregon State and Washington State aren't moving period. Even the California schools wouldn't allow that. They have played with Oregon State and Washington State for over 90 years (UCLA joined the PCC in 1928). Even with the dissolving of the PCC, it only took 5 years before Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State joined back up with them.

And most of them were together for over 100 years (Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and California formed the PCC in 1915, Washington State joined in 1917, Stanford in 1918, USC in 1922, and UCLA in 1928). Even when the PCC dissolved in 1959, it only took 5 years for all of them to get back together (Cal, Washington, USC, UCLA, Stanford in 1959, WSU in 1962, and Oregon and OSU in 1964).

And they will not kick out Oregon State and Washington State.

They won’t kick you out as they can’t. They will just leave and you won’t be invited. In the era of Big TV money you can’t justify two schools from a small state like Oregon and Oregon State isn’t AAU. Do you really think USC cares if they play Oregon State versus falling behind in revenue?

I think that USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, Oregon, and Washington will be no votes on leaving Oregon State and Washington State, partners that they have partnered with for the last 100 years, behind.

The PAC-12 is all about tradition. I don't see any of the old PAC-8 being left behind. And in fact, one of the reasons that the PAC-16 was proposed was to basically have a division with the old PAC-8 being one division.

I don't see USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, or California leaving the PAC-12.

Honestly, you guys are just like the people who insist that Boise State will be the next one to get a PAC-12 invite. You don't know the culture and the history of the PAC-12. They're not just going to jump ship and drop 2 schools that they've been associated with for 90+ years.

(03-14-2018 02:04 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  None of the schools currently in the P5 will even consider the PAC until they can be competitive with the other leagues in revenue. Getting their shite together with the network would help as well.

Let's be honest, of OU is looking to leave the XII, why would they even look at the PAC when they'll probably be courted by the SEC & B1G?

PAC cant get it together.

(03-18-2018 06:05 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  [quote='Transic_nyc' pid='15188086' dateline='1521412633']


Travel TCU to Oklahoma 2 hours 37 minutes and TCU to 14 hours 52 minutes?

I guess things in tex truly are bigger.

PAC will stay at 12


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-24-2018 08:03 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 09:03 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 06:18 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 11:16 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 02:26 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This is correct. The PAC becomes a much less Western conference if WSU and OSU are eliminated because fewer cross-division games are required to give all the Mountain/Central schools California exposure.

The SW division looks a lot more like an improved BigXII the more schools are added.

PAC12
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC
Southwest: AZ, ASU, UU, CU, UT, TTU.

PAC14
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UU
Southwest: AZ, ASU, CU, UT, TTU, OU, KU
----^this lineup is big money comparable to B1G and SEC^-----
PAC16 (get the gang back together)
Pacific: UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU
Southwest: UU, CU, KU, Mizzou, Neb, OU, UT, TTU.

WSU and OSU are just quietly going to go to the Big Sky. Sure thing.

Not going to happen, lawyers will be getting checks from the PAC till Jesus returns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oregon State and Washington State aren't moving period. Even the California schools wouldn't allow that. They have played with Oregon State and Washington State for over 90 years (UCLA joined the PCC in 1928). Even with the dissolving of the PCC, it only took 5 years before Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State joined back up with them.

And most of them were together for over 100 years (Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and California formed the PCC in 1915, Washington State joined in 1917, Stanford in 1918, USC in 1922, and UCLA in 1928). Even when the PCC dissolved in 1959, it only took 5 years for all of them to get back together (Cal, Washington, USC, UCLA, Stanford in 1959, WSU in 1962, and Oregon and OSU in 1964).

And they will not kick out Oregon State and Washington State.

They won’t kick you out as they can’t. They will just leave and you won’t be invited. In the era of Big TV money you can’t justify two schools from a small state like Oregon and Oregon State isn’t AAU. Do you really think USC cares if they play Oregon State versus falling behind in revenue?

I think that USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, Oregon, and Washington will be no votes on leaving Oregon State and Washington State, partners that they have partnered with for the last 100 years, behind.

The PAC-12 is all about tradition. I don't see any of the old PAC-8 being left behind. And in fact, one of the reasons that the PAC-16 was proposed was to basically have a division with the old PAC-8 being one division.

I don't see USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, or California leaving the PAC-12.

Honestly, you guys are just like the people who insist that Boise State will be the next one to get a PAC-12 invite. You don't know the culture and the history of the PAC-12. They're not just going to jump ship and drop 2 schools that they've been associated with for 90+ years.

My wife is a Coog but this move seems inevitable. And my grandparents went to USC in the 30’s, my mom and aunts went to USC/UCLA in the early 60’s and I have been following USC the late 1960’s. I have siblings or cousins at Cal, Stanford, and UCLA. So yes I know the CA PAC schools well and they won’t stand for being 4th in revenue.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnatio...ution-2017

If that means trimming Oregon State and Washington State (both non-AAU schools) they won’t hesitate. Ask the Cal State system how ruthless the UC’s can be.

Washington and Oregon will have no say. Seriously what other options do they have? Do you really think they are going to stay in a Pac12 with Fresno State and San Diego State?

I'm starting to think that the Pac 12 has embarked on a slow death towards irrelevancy. There is far less of a college football culture out west than there is in the South and Midwest. Sanctions have pulled USC out of the national title picture for some time. The UC schools aren't committed to investing in their programs. They are already trailing in revenue and I think that gap is going to grow.