Utah Speaks

I think this quote from Utah president Mike Young shows how far apart Scott and the PAC-10 presidents were from the PAC16 that was proposed by Texas and being reported by expansion prognosticators:

Quote:Young: The call I remember most clearly was I had a call with Larry Scott in which he said, “Gee Mike, I’m sorry to tell you but we’re going to go in a different direction.” I said, “Well, I’ve heard that geographic description before. What’s that mean?” And he said, “We’re going to go with Colorado, Oklahoma, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M.” And I said, “Larry, let me give you my cell number. That’s not going to work out.”

Good read.

This is a good example of the kind of dialogues that occur in the expansion game. And Utah going to the PAC12 was comparatively more simple than some of the expansion activities that have occurred with several conferences at differing times over the years.

Utah was a terrific addition. Not a first choice, but still a solid pick-up.

Quote:Young: The call I remember most clearly was I had a call with Larry Scott in which he said, “Gee Mike, I’m sorry to tell you but we’re going to go in a different direction.” I said, “Well, I’ve heard that geographic description before. What’s that mean?” And he said, “We’re going to go with Colorado, Oklahoma, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M.” And I said, “Larry, let me give you my cell number. That’s not going to work out.”

I surmised the following: Oklahoma probably would be tough to go because it would be hard for them to leave Oklahoma State for political reasons. The legislature may not even let them do it. [Oklahoma president David] Boren wants to do something spectacular, but I don’t know if they can go without Oklahoma State and the Pac-10 won’t take Oklahoma State. That’s my strong suspicion.

....

If they went to 16, I still to this day don’t know if we’re in or out. I thought it would be us and Kansas, but who knows.

This is yet more strong evidence that Oklahoma State was not going anywhere, and is not going anywhere. That is mostly a problem for OU if they want to move.

A&M wanted to go SEC from the start, and Texas knew that so nixed the plan. Notice also that Texas Tech is not in the list. They are also well below P12 standards.

Presidents of the P5 being the ones making approvals, I suspect only Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly Iowa State are acceptable to any other conference power conference from the Big 12. That's it. And it probably all comes down to Ou's willingness or not to leave oSu behind.

(07-11-2018 04:00 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

Quote:Young: The call I remember most clearly was I had a call with Larry Scott in which he said, “Gee Mike, I’m sorry to tell you but we’re going to go in a different direction.” I said, “Well, I’ve heard that geographic description before. What’s that mean?” And he said, “We’re going to go with Colorado, Oklahoma, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M.” And I said, “Larry, let me give you my cell number. That’s not going to work out.”

I surmised the following: Oklahoma probably would be tough to go because it would be hard for them to leave Oklahoma State for political reasons. The legislature may not even let them do it. [Oklahoma president David] Boren wants to do something spectacular, but I don’t know if they can go without Oklahoma State and the Pac-10 won’t take Oklahoma State. That’s my strong suspicion.

This is yet more strong evidence that Oklahoma State was not going anywhere, and is not going anywhere. That is mostly a problem for OU if they want to move.

A&M wanted to go SEC from the start, and Texas knew that so nixed the plan. Notice also that Texas Tech is not in the list. They are also well below P12 standards.

Presidents of the P5 being the ones making approvals, I suspect only Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly Iowa State are acceptable to any other conference power conference from the Big 12. That's it. And it probably all comes down to Ou's willingness or not to leave oSu behind.

My only hesitation with the bolded portion is that Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, and Missouri were left for the presumed XII/Big East merger if the PAC-16 plan occurred.

I'd say only Texas and Oklahoma would be immediately acceptable to all other power conferences. As secondary choices to particular conferences, TCU, Kansas, and West Virginia would be acceptable. As required tagalongs, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, and Kansas St may be acceptable. Iowa St would require a special case like the SEC wanting to add an AAU school in B1G territory or the B1G going to something ridiculous like 20. Baylor is a no-go for anyone.

Fantastic read. Really great article.

Well, TCU and West Virginia are not mentioned by anyone. (Note, I added the reference to KU if they went to 16)

KU is the only other one consistently coming up after Texas and OU in conversations.

I do know is the SEC refused to even consider West Virginia's application, didn't even give them a courtesy blow off; rhe B1G wouldn't touch West Virginia - sort of a given; that leaves the ACC as the only possibility, and not sure they have any interest (would take serious lobbying from ESPN to get them considered).

TCU has a nice location, but they just don't fit P12 or B1G profiles. No reason for the SEC to entertain them (Texas or why bother), as like the B1G it's flagships or nothing now. Again I suppose a possible ACC add as partner with Texas. But man that is really bloating the ACC.

The B12 has big time athletic programs at schools like K State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Oklahoma State. But none of them bring anything school Presidents from flagships would want in their conferences.

But yes I agree the pecking order is:

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Kansas (as a complimentary school, not a primary -- they wont go first)

The more I think about it, the less I see Iowa State as an option for anyone. TCU/Texas Tech only hope is Texas agrees to move but forces one of those to be brought with them, and I really don't think that is likely. If Oklahoma State is really tied to the hip with OU as claimed, then the B12 and all the P5 may not see any changes in membership for the next 15-20 years.

(07-11-2018 04:48 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well, TCU and West Virginia are not mentioned by anyone. (Note, I added the reference to KU if they went to 16)

KU is the only other one consistently coming up after Texas and OU in conversations.

I do know is the SEC refused to even consider West Virginia's application, didn't even give them a courtesy blow off; rhe B1G wouldn't touch West Virginia - sort of a given; that leaves the ACC as the only possibility, and not sure they have any interest (would take serious lobbying from ESPN to get them considered).

TCU has a nice location, but they just don't fit P12 or B1G profiles. No reason for the SEC to entertain them (Texas or why bother), as like the B1G it's flagships or nothing now. Again I suppose a possible ACC add as partner with Texas. But man that is really bloating the ACC.

The B12 has big time athletic programs at schools like K State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, WVU, and Oklahoma State. But none of them bring anything school Presidents from flagships would want in their conferences.

But yes I agree the pecking order is:

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Kansas (as a complimentary school, not a primary -- they wont go first)

The more I think about it, the less I see Iowa State as an option for anyone. TCU/Texas Tech only hope is Texas agrees to move but forces one of those to be brought with them, and I really don't think that is likely. If Oklahoma State is really tied to the hip with OU as claimed, then the B12 and all the P5 may not see any changes in membership for the next 15-20 years.

First off, I don't believe that the PAC-10 expansion ever wanted to go to 14. That would have made it needing 7 to each division, which would have been unlikely to really go with the PAC-12 really wanting travel partners and rivals.

I never believed that Baylor had any real chance of getting into the PAC. I think Utah would have been added as a partner to Colorado even if 16-team had happened, and A&M didn't come along.

I think the scenarios that they would have looked at were:

16-team (Scenario 1): Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado and Texas A&M.

16-team (Scenario 2): Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, and Utah.

12-team: Colorado and Utah.

I don't think that there was ever really an option for 14 teams. It's one of the reasons that they didn't go with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State a few years later to expand to 14 teams.

The 14 school Plan would have been a zipper which would have worked.

It’s sort of lost in the subtext, but even at Utah the president (Young) was much more in the know than the AD (Hill). I think this was true at most of the schools. What Texas leaked was plausible from the standpoint of the ahletic directors, but the university presidents knew those leaks were baloney. The PAC16 that was reported in the media which including OSU (far from academically acceptable) and A&M (SEC bound from the onset) was never a plausible outcome.

Utah was always the A&M backup. Kansas was who the PAC presidents would take instead of OSU. I don’t know the position on TTU, but I think there was flexibility with them.

(07-11-2018 04:56 PM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  First off, I don't believe that the PAC-10 expansion ever wanted to go to 14. That would have made it needing 7 to each division, which would have been unlikely to really go with the PAC-12 really wanting travel partners and rivals.

I never believed that Baylor had any real chance of getting into the PAC. I think Utah would have been added as a partner to Colorado even if 16-team had happened, and A&M didn't come along.

I think the scenarios that they would have looked at were:

16-team (Scenario 1): Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado and Texas A&M.

16-team (Scenario 2): Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, and Utah.

12-team: Colorado and Utah.

I don't think that there was ever really an option for 14 teams. It's one of the reasons that they didn't go with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State a few years later to expand to 14 teams.

"I believe" you start this with. Clearly you did not read the article. Oklahoma State was NEVER acceptable to the Presidents and Chancellors. OU has become disabused of the belief they can take oSu with them to the P12 (they tried after the 16 failed) or the SEC, and they knew not to even try with the B1G.

The evidence is pretty strong Oklahoma State never had a chance. The media had the lineup wrong. The article suggests 14, with Colorado, OU, Texas and A&M. The media had oSu and Tech in for 16, but that is not what Scott told Utah. And Utah thought they'd be competing with KU for a spot. I agree 14 would have been funky, forcing a zipper alignment (Texas and OU would have to be in the same division, as would UCLA and Cal) where your rival would be your protected cross-rival. But it never came to that.

OU needed oSu at the time, and Texas though A&M was not going to go along, due to a strong SEC faction. CU had no issues and went on their own. The geography at that point favored Utah, and that was how it settled.

You really need to look at the academic, research and faculty ranking of Oklahoma State to see they check off not a single category required for P12 membership. Oregon State, perhaps the bottom school in the P12, blows away Oklahoma State in the categories I mentioned. Utah on the other hand is pretty much in the middle of the P12. Scott may have trial ballooned the concept of Oklahoma State and/or Texas Tech, but there was no chance they could ever get thru Presidents and Chancellors.

(07-11-2018 05:10 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The 14 school Plan would have been a zipper which would have worked.

The zipper was something that Larry Scott was against, calling it too complicated. I actually would have preferred a zipper for the 12-team conference, instead of the current scenario, as that would have actually increased exposure in each of the regions. However, Larry Scott was ademently against the idea of the zipper. I don't see how a 14-team conference would have had any simplier of a zipper than a 12-team conference.

Quote:It’s sort of lost in the subtext, but even at Utah the president (Young) was much more in the know than the AD (Hill). I think this was true at most of the schools. What Texas leaked was plausible from the standpoint of the ahletic directors, but the university presidents knew those leaks were baloney. The PAC16 that was reported in the media which including OSU (far from academically acceptable) and A&M (SEC bound from the onset) was never a plausible outcome.

I actually think it was possible, if it hadn't been for Texas trying to negotiate a superior position for all other people on the Longhorn Network. The PAC-12 was after Texas, and Texas knew it. However, alledgely their offer to the PAC-12 would have put them in a superior position to any other PAC-12 team, which I don't think was acceptable to the PAC-12. Alledgely they wanted to keep all money from the Longhorn Network, which would be rebranded as the Texas State PAC-16 network, and include games from Texas Tech. They also wanted an distribution of all PAC-12 network money, if the money from the PAC-12 network would be above the Longhorn Network money. The PAC-12 was looking for an equal partner. Texas wanted to dominate the league, much like what they had done with the Big-12.

Quote:Utah was always the A&M backup. Kansas was who the PAC presidents would take instead of OSU. I don’t know the position on TTU, but I think there was flexibility with them.

I think the targets were Texas and Oklahoma, and they would have taken Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to get them. A&M would have been the 5th team, but I think they saw A&M as wanting to go more towards the SEC, so I never really expected them to come along.

There were two scenarios I think that might have happened at that point. One is that they take Kansas, make them as a travel partner to Colorado and put it off there. The second scenario was Utah for the travel partner to Colorado.

They were not taking Oklahoma State. Not in any scenario.

I think the SEC would take Oklahoma St, truthfully

(07-11-2018 04:18 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Fantastic read. Really great article.

I agree. Very good article. I found this quote interesting:

Young: "UT won’t give up its television network. It’s a huge cash cow for UT. They cannot do it. They won’t do it. Which is why some schools have left the Big-12 already because they’re so fed up with that. I said it just isn’t going to happen. And unless you’re willing to swallow really hard and allow that to continue, and my guess is that USC and UCLA won’t do that."

This quote hit the nail on the head. UT was never going to give up their network and the $15 million per year through 2030 that comes with it. USC and UCLA would never accept the Longhorn Network. UT to the Pac-10 was never going to happen. Without Texas, the best options were Colorado and Utah.

(07-11-2018 06:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  They were not taking Oklahoma State. Not in any scenario.

And if that's so, it will cement how much of a mistake and poorly planned and prepared the PAC really were. You can do so much worse. And, to be honest, this is a conference with the likes of Oregon State, Washington State, and Arizona State...you're not that devoted to the academic prestige thing.

I know Utah wasn't the trendiest pick if you had Oklahoma, Texas, A&M, and some others on the list (and I wonder who those might have been now...probably at least Kansas...but maybe Nebraska had been targeted, even if the Huskers were only thinking Big Ten?), but hearing that Utah was a mixed reaction to PAC presidents...no wonder the conference struggles to make money. Gee, so sorry they don't have the name value of these Great Plains ag-sci schools. ANYBODY could put a dream list together of Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M.

But, as they say...even the blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. All that posturing and waffling over the Big XII really helped Utah out, but not as much as how dead-set the conference was for the UT-A&M-OU cluster. And they wound up with none of those after all of it, even though they could have had at least OU at one point. Dumb.

(07-11-2018 07:46 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 06:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  They were not taking Oklahoma State. Not in any scenario.

And if that's so, it will cement how much of a mistake and poorly planned and prepared the PAC really were. You can do so much worse. And, to be honest, this is a conference with the likes of Oregon State, Washington State, and Arizona State...you're not that devoted to the academic prestige thing.

I know Utah wasn't the trendiest pick if you had Oklahoma, Texas, A&M, and some others on the list (and I wonder who those might have been now...probably at least Kansas...but maybe Nebraska had been targeted, even if the Huskers were only thinking Big Ten?), but hearing that Utah was a mixed reaction to PAC presidents...no wonder the conference struggles to make money. Gee, so sorry they don't have the name value of these Great Plains ag-sci schools. ANYBODY could put a dream list together of Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M.

But, as they say...even the blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. All that posturing and waffling over the Big XII really helped Utah out, but not as much as how dead-set the conference was for the UT-A&M-OU cluster. And they wound up with none of those after all of it, even though they could have had at least OU at one point. Dumb.

You sir, do not get “it”. Even after apparently reading a piece that pretty clearly outlines what “it” is.

(07-11-2018 07:46 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 06:08 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  They were not taking Oklahoma State. Not in any scenario.

And if that's so, it will cement how much of a mistake and poorly planned and prepared the PAC really were. You can do so much worse. And, to be honest, this is a conference with the likes of Oregon State, Washington State, and Arizona State...you're not that devoted to the academic prestige thing.

I know Utah wasn't the trendiest pick if you had Oklahoma, Texas, A&M, and some others on the list (and I wonder who those might have been now...probably at least Kansas...but maybe Nebraska had been targeted, even if the Huskers were only thinking Big Ten?), but hearing that Utah was a mixed reaction to PAC presidents...no wonder the conference struggles to make money. Gee, so sorry they don't have the name value of these Great Plains ag-sci schools. ANYBODY could put a dream list together of Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M.

But, as they say...even the blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. All that posturing and waffling over the Big XII really helped Utah out, but not as much as how dead-set the conference was for the UT-A&M-OU cluster. And they wound up with none of those after all of it, even though they could have had at least OU at one point. Dumb.

I take it you've never actually compared ASU, Oregon State, or Wazzu to Oklahoma State.

(07-11-2018 07:57 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  You sir, do not get “it”. Even after apparently reading a piece that pretty clearly outlines what “it” is.

The conference winds up with quality parts in spite of itself. I'm really happy for Colorado and Utah. But when I read about Utah's reception and how craved the big trio were, and part of this "plan," all of that "unoriginal" and "uninspired" stuff comes right back.

(07-11-2018 02:38 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  This is a good example of the kind of dialogues that occur in the expansion game. And Utah going to the PAC12 was comparatively more simple than some of the expansion activities that have occurred with several conferences at differing times over the years.

Utah was out in front of the expansion conversation in a way that we didn't realize.

In a way the Utah AD is right they had a lot more to offer at the time then Colorado but had to overcome the stigma of non-BCS status in the eyes of PAC presidents.