(04-27-2018 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There are a bunch of old threads on various Pac-12 team fan sites in which that was argued. The general argument was not that the conference would have made more money by not expanding, just that the money per school would be roughly the same as it is now.

There was enough desire among presidents to extend the footprint beyond the Pacific time zone that Colorado was a lock to be invited no matter who else joined or didn't join. If you had told the presidents that the money per school would be the same whether or not Colorado joined, they would have still invited CU. You would have had to prove that the 10 existing schools would lose money in order to talk them out of that invitation.

Truth

Utah was the fall back plan if Texas didn't join or if the Texas A&M wen to the SEC rather than come with the Oklahoma and Texas schools the Pac-12 targeted. Larry Scott said it was like pulling teeth to get expansion (i.e., Utah), but schedule needs won out.

I think a lot of people east of the Mountain timezone have a wrong impression of the way the problems are perceived with college sports in the west. It's generally recognized that the quality of play and athletes is fully on par with the P5 and in many sports better. Pro drafts on a per school average show the Pac-12 solidly in the middle of the P5 in Football and Basketball. The problem is a lack of a single strong dominant brand, like say Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson provide for their conferences. The almost even distribution of pro-talent means no single program piles up enough NFL ready talent to be a nationally dominant power. People turn out to see dynasties. Parity is a problem. In any given year 4 to 6 schools think they can win the Pac-12, and they are not delusional. In a way the Pac-12 (or Pac8/pac-10) was perceived to be stronger when USC simply rolled everyone with Alabama or Ohio State depth of first and second round talent.

The other problems are media and demographic related. The media was what looked like a smart setup in 2012 that turned out not to work so well. Or rather the models of the SECtv and BTN proved superior in delivering revenue, while the P12N Olympic Sports focus flopped. Demographics are something they can't do much about. And geography pretty much is a blessing (stability, even the four corner schools are effectively tethered to California and too far from anyone else to even consider a switch) and curse (no realistic expansion candidates).

So Wedge is right the Pac-12 would not hit the reset on expansion. But they might well hit the reset on the media decisions they made.