(07-11-2018 10:20 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I may be wrong, but where Larry Scott was flying was probably not as important as what Stanford was telling USC, Cal, and Washington. Again I may be totally wrong, but I can't see any move in the Pacific going forward that is not supported and fully acquiesced to by Stanford. No one in the ACC has been added over UNC and Duke honest objection, ever. UNC and Duke often have certain positions for public consumption and their real position is closeted because they try to avoid appearing self-serving. But I can tell you if UNC and Duke really didn't want GT, FSU, Miami, VT, BC, ND, Syracuse, or Pitt, they would not be in the ACC now. The ACC Commissioner has been made to look like a fool a number of times by the Presidents, I think it's possible the same thing goes on in the Pacific.

No, it is USC and UCLA that wield the most influence. Colorado wanted to be in the Southern Division with UCLA and USC. The LA market is the 2nd largest in the country. Southern California is rich in athletic talent. Colorado has four alumni chapters in Southern California. They have two in Northern California.

Scott presented three expansion models to the Pac-10 presidents. Colorado was the only school that appeared in all three models. Once Texas decided to stay in the Big 12, Utah was going to get the invite. They would be the travel partner for Colorado and get the Pac-12 to 12 schools, the number needed for a conference championship game at that time.

USC and UCLA, knowing that Colorado wanted to be in the Southern Division, would obviously decide if that was acceptable. Since that would split the California schools into different divisions, all of the schools had to be okay with this. The schedule was arranged so that all 4 California schools would continue to play each other every year in football.

As the Utah President indicated in the article, USC and UCLA would decide if Texas could join with their own network. Neither school would have allowed that and so we have Utah.

I've heard it to be USC and Stanford as the most influential. Supposedly the two who poo-poo'd B1G-PAC.

The cart (BigXII) was WAY ahead of the horses (PAC-12 presidents).

The northwest schools may not want the four plain schools because the cultures and the make-up of the schools do not fit. The backups for 14 are San Diego State and Boise State. San Diego State because of their academics. Boise State, the northwest schools might accept. One reason is that Boise State, Idaho, Idaho State and Lewis and Clark State do have an agreement with the northwest schools with Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State, with Portland State and some others, do send med students from Boise State to Washington's med schools or Oregon med schools. The idea was that pre-med students go to Portland, Seattle or Spokane to get a medical degree. The state of Idaho did started a semi-med school in Meridian which is a suburb of Boise. The Portland one was a merger of University of Oregon and Willamette University's medical schools. Seattle is University of Washington and Spokane is Washington State. The Montana schools also in an alliance with the northwest schools as well. There are new med schools being planned in Provo, Missoula, Henderson, Fairbanks, Merced, and there are some being in planning in other big cities west of there. I think the PAC 12 are more accepted because of their alliance with schools in the states of Idaho, Alaska, Montana, Utah, Oregon, Washington and so forth since there are a lack of medical schools. If any new medical schools do get open? It would be with the help of the PAC 12 schools in the region. They have a control over these new schools. They can't with the schools like Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. Oregon and Oregon State share facilities. Oklahom and Oklahoma do not. Neither does Texas and Texas Tech.

(07-12-2018 01:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I've heard it to be USC and Stanford as the most influential. Supposedly the two who poo-poo'd B1G-PAC.

I have never heard that. It has always been USC and UCLA. Think about it. USC and UCLA are 12 miles apart. In the 2nd largest market in the country. They have a strong inner city rivalry. UCLA has 114 national championships, USC 104. If these two schools were unhappy and decided to leave, the conference would be in serious trouble. I have never heard Stanford mentioned as the most influential.

(07-12-2018 04:42 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The northwest schools may not want the four plain schools because the cultures and the make-up of the schools do not fit.

The northwest schools are actually more likely to vote for the 4-plain schools (presuming that Texas is part of them) because of one simple reason. It would get them back to playing Southern California each year when the realignment goes to a east-west realignment. That is very valuable to the Northwest Schools.

Quote:The backups for 14 are San Diego State and Boise State. San Diego State because of their academics. Boise State, the northwest schools might accept.

The northwest schools don't want Boise State. Nobody in the PAC-12 actually wants Boise State. The Northwest Schools don't want Boise State because it gets them away from their goal of getting the old PAC-8 back together as one division. Boise State doesn't actually do that. The four plain schools do. Not to mention academics, lack of a media market, etc. Boise State has very little to actually offer the PAC-12.

The California Schools will vote against Boise State because of the same reason. The California Schools put great pride in playing eachother each year. Adding Boise State and San Diego State actually takes away the ability to do that. Do you really think that they would give up the ability to play eachother each year for Boise State and San Diego State?

Furthermore, the California Schools don't want any more teams in California, so San Diego State is out as well.

Stanford and USC already have an annual game with ND, so the B1G-PAC game plus ND plus 9 PAC games gave them 11P5 games with too little scheduling flexibility. Their opposition to the B1G-PAC challenge was logistical not philosophical.

(07-12-2018 05:26 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 01:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I've heard it to be USC and Stanford as the most influential. Supposedly the two who poo-poo'd B1G-PAC.

I have never heard that. It has always been USC and UCLA. Think about it. USC and UCLA are 12 miles apart. In the 2nd largest market in the country. They have a strong inner city rivalry. UCLA has 114 national championships, USC 104. If these two schools were unhappy and decided to leave, the conference would be in serious trouble. I have never heard Stanford mentioned as the most influential.

The LA schools are the undisputed power brokers within the Pac-12 though I would say Stanford would probably slide in right behind them. A lot of what people have heard about Stanford and the influence they wield likely draws back to when the Pac-8/10 required unanimous approval for expansion candidates and the lingering rumors that Stanford put the kibosh on Texas joining the conference back in the mid 90s.

The California schools, all four, plus Washington are the ones with pull. The SoCal have more pull. But it's rare these five are not in unison, making it hard to say who has more pull. All five have the same standards for minimum academics to be brought into the Pac-12.

For the record, Texas put the kibosh on Texas joining the Pac in the 90s. They were ready to join, and A&M was ready to join the SEC, but the Texas politicos intervened and told A&M and Texas they had to be together in whatever conference they went to. That nixed both SEC and Pac-10. Ann Richards was Governor and a Baylor alumni. You can pretty much figure out how the B12 got formed from that.

That Stanford rumor (Stanford set up a series at that time to play Texas in 1999 and 2000, so it's kind of hard to believe there was friction in 1995) is the first I've heard of it. Sounds like an urban myth to me.

(07-12-2018 07:23 PM)clpp01 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:26 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 01:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I've heard it to be USC and Stanford as the most influential. Supposedly the two who poo-poo'd B1G-PAC.

I have never heard that. It has always been USC and UCLA. Think about it. USC and UCLA are 12 miles apart. In the 2nd largest market in the country. They have a strong inner city rivalry. UCLA has 114 national championships, USC 104. If these two schools were unhappy and decided to leave, the conference would be in serious trouble. I have never heard Stanford mentioned as the most influential.

The LA schools are the undisputed power brokers within the Pac-12 though I would say Stanford would probably slide in right behind them. A lot of what people have heard about Stanford and the influence they wield likely draws back to when the Pac-8/10 required unanimous approval for expansion candidates and the lingering rumors that Stanford put the kibosh on Texas joining the conference back in the mid 90s.

That rumor is true. Texas president at the time Bill Cunningham discussed it in his book. Stanford did reverse their veto, but Texas had already recommitted to the SWC and so stayed. Texas was on their way to the Pac (presumably with Colorado) and A&M to the SEC until Stanford did that.

(07-12-2018 08:45 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The California schools, all four, plus Washington are the ones with pull. The SoCal have more pull. But it's rare these five are not in unison, making it hard to say who has more pull. All five have the same standards for minimum academics to be brought into the Pac-12.

For the record, Texas put the kibosh on Texas joining the Pac in the 90s. They were ready to join, and A&M was ready to join the SEC, but the Texas politicos intervened and told A&M and Texas they had to be together in whatever conference they went to. That nixed both SEC and Pac-10. Ann Richards was Governor and a Baylor alumni. You can pretty much figure out how the B12 got formed from that.

That Stanford rumor (Stanford set up a series at that time to play Texas in 1999 and 2000, so it's kind of hard to believe there was friction in 1995) is the first I've heard of it. Sounds like an urban myth to me.

The Stanford story is from 1989. You are talking about 1993. And contrary to all the talk, Ann Richards had nothing to do with it. It was Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock who had degrees from both Tech and Baylor along with a number of influential members of the Texas House and Senate. Texas was never going to the Pac 12 in 1993 because the Pac wouldn't take Texas Tech. Texas knew they couldn't leave without Tech. Baylor was a later add-on when Bullock and the others got involved.

the report at the time, including from espn, was that texas, tech, a&m, Colorado and the Oklahoma schools were headed to pac10

if I remember correctly Texas was getting pressured to take Baylor along.(at the expense of Colorado according to state of Texas) Colorado acted swiftly and joined the P10 instead of waiting to do as a group. Texas backed off and that left door open for Utah

(07-12-2018 10:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  the report at the time, including from espn, was that texas, tech, a&m, Colorado and the Oklahoma schools were headed to pac10

if I remember correctly Texas was getting pressured to take Baylor along.(at the expense of Colorado according to state of Texas) Colorado acted swiftly and joined the P10 instead of waiting to do as a group. Texas backed off and that left door open for Utah

And none of that is has been backed up after the fact, and the same people who speculated that at the time have contradicted their prior reports.

University presidents, conference commissioners, and athletic directors have all gone on record after the fact. and even in a thread with direct interviews with those people, on page three someone is still saying what a rando on twitter speculated because “sources”. The Dude of WV apparently has more credibility than every other person who played a direct role in conference realignment.

(07-12-2018 10:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  the report at the time, including from espn, was that texas, tech, a&m, Colorado and the Oklahoma schools were headed to pac10

if I remember correctly Texas was getting pressured to take Baylor along.(at the expense of Colorado according to state of Texas) Colorado acted swiftly and joined the P10 instead of waiting to do as a group. Texas backed off and that left door open for Utah

But that report turns out to be inaccurate. That is what this story reveals. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech were not on the list Scott submitted.

Perhaps they got on that list from Oklahoma and even somebody with Texas, wanting more of their rivals. But I can see how that would be DOA with the Pac-10 Chancellors and Presidents. 5 Hell no votes locked in.

(07-12-2018 05:29 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:42 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The northwest schools may not want the four plain schools because the cultures and the make-up of the schools do not fit.

The northwest schools are actually more likely to vote for the 4-plain schools (presuming that Texas is part of them) because of one simple reason. It would get them back to playing Southern California each year when the realignment goes to a east-west realignment. That is very valuable to the Northwest Schools.

Quote:The backups for 14 are San Diego State and Boise State. San Diego State because of their academics. Boise State, the northwest schools might accept.

The northwest schools don't want Boise State. Nobody in the PAC-12 actually wants Boise State. The Northwest Schools don't want Boise State because it gets them away from their goal of getting the old PAC-8 back together as one division. Boise State doesn't actually do that. The four plain schools do. Not to mention academics, lack of a media market, etc. Boise State has very little to actually offer the PAC-12.

The California Schools will vote against Boise State because of the same reason. The California Schools put great pride in playing eachother each year. Adding Boise State and San Diego State actually takes away the ability to do that. Do you really think that they would give up the ability to play eachother each year for Boise State and San Diego State?

Furthermore, the California Schools don't want any more teams in California, so San Diego State is out as well.

You only snipped a part of my post, and not the whole thing. Utah is getting a med school soon. There are really only 4 med schools in the northwest or 5 if you count the ortho whatever in Meridian Idaho. Lubbock is similar size market as Boise State and Stillwater is just a small hick town in Oklahoma that is way way smaller than Boise. Reno, Portland, Spoakne and Seattle only have the medical schools in the northwest. Fairbanks and Provo are getting one, and the lawmakers in Idaho are thinking of having one built in Boise that would be shared by the three largest schools in Idaho. That would give Boise State a medical program in the future which would boast their academics even more.

(07-13-2018 01:07 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 05:29 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 04:42 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The northwest schools may not want the four plain schools because the cultures and the make-up of the schools do not fit.

The northwest schools are actually more likely to vote for the 4-plain schools (presuming that Texas is part of them) because of one simple reason. It would get them back to playing Southern California each year when the realignment goes to a east-west realignment. That is very valuable to the Northwest Schools.

Quote:The backups for 14 are San Diego State and Boise State. San Diego State because of their academics. Boise State, the northwest schools might accept.

The northwest schools don't want Boise State. Nobody in the PAC-12 actually wants Boise State. The Northwest Schools don't want Boise State because it gets them away from their goal of getting the old PAC-8 back together as one division. Boise State doesn't actually do that. The four plain schools do. Not to mention academics, lack of a media market, etc. Boise State has very little to actually offer the PAC-12.

The California Schools will vote against Boise State because of the same reason. The California Schools put great pride in playing eachother each year. Adding Boise State and San Diego State actually takes away the ability to do that. Do you really think that they would give up the ability to play eachother each year for Boise State and San Diego State?

Furthermore, the California Schools don't want any more teams in California, so San Diego State is out as well.

You only snipped a part of my post, and not the whole thing. Utah is getting a med school soon. There are really only 4 med schools in the northwest or 5 if you count the ortho whatever in Meridian Idaho. Lubbock is similar size market as Boise State and Stillwater is just a small hick town in Oklahoma that is way way smaller than Boise. Reno, Portland, Spoakne and Seattle only have the medical schools in the northwest. Fairbanks and Provo are getting one, and the lawmakers in Idaho are thinking of having one built in Boise that would be shared by the three largest schools in Idaho. That would give Boise State a medical program in the future which would boast their academics even more.

Boise will never be in the PAC, ever.

Oklahoma St won't either.

For the same reason. Academics. One is an ag school that has never done well in rankings. The other is a junior college.

OSU can claim easily the Oklahoma City and Tulsa markets which it sits in the middle of. Both are double the size of Boise or Spokane.

David, you’re about 113 years late on the Utah medical school grand opening.

Med school founded:
Utah: 1905
UW: 1946
UO:1915?
Stanford: 1908
Cal: 1896
UCLA: 1951
USC: 1885
Arizona: 1967

[/quote]
Boise will never be in the PAC, ever.
[/quote]

As Gertrude Stein wrote: "There's no there there."

I had some thoughts as to why Texas Tech and Okla St aren't on that list and I think it's because their invites were bargaining chips. The Pac 10 had their eyes on Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. If that group of 4 was the original offer then then Texas and Oklahoma would have to negotiate to get their little brothers in. If you include those two "companion" schools in the original offer the Pac 10 loses that leverage and bargaining chip.

I think the ESPN folks knew that those two were going to be part of the compromise so when the story leaked the version we all heard was the iteration that included them.

The great irony of the 2010 expansion was that had A&M let its intentions be known sooner their spot could have been re-allotted to Baylor and Pac 16 could have been salvaged.

(07-13-2018 03:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The great irony of the 2010 expansion was that had A&M let its intentions be known sooner their spot could have been re-allotted to Baylor and Pac 16 could have been salvaged.

Baylor was never going to get into the PAC-16, and they knew it. There were two teams that would have been offered before Baylor: Kansas and Utah.