Jump to content
Warbow

PAC 16 -- 2020

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, RSF said:

Start with scheduling.  Odd numbers suck.  The only reason the Big 10 stayed at 11 was they were waiting on Notre Dame.  And then they stopped waiting.  If at best a single school only keeps the financial pie stable (which is what you're looking at with OU), why would a school vote to add them if they hardly play them?

 

 

But, previous comments notwithstanding, some fans of OU may want to find greener pastures, but the school understands those greener pastures may not exist.  Same with UT.  They like being the big dogs, with more money than everybody else in the neighborhood.  And neither of those is happening anywhere else.

You really believe that Oklahoma at best keeps the revenue Pie flat?  The Sooners are arguably a top 10 brand in all of college football.  I think you're nuts.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSF, were you not aware that OU and Okie State approached teh PAC12 again after TA&M went to the SEC? 

Oklahoma is not happy with the status quo.  Texas has convinced many B12 members that some of the P12 schools are poachable. Game plan is to try an poach them (to what extent I have no idea).  Arizona, UCLA, Colorado are the schools most often talked about as targets.  This is no secret.

Now in my opinion no P12 school will jump or even entertain the idea.

Oklahoma made it very clear they are open to relocating. They led the charge on not extending a GOR. That in and of itself was a pretty loud message to the B12, and other P5 conferences that they are open for courting in 2022(or whatever the date is that is needed to be in a new conference when the GOR expire in I believe 2025).

The P12 is a no go for Oklahoma.  It was a pretty big snub that the P12 gave them.  Basically the P12 said no, not w/o Texas and they had very little interest in Okie St.

The B1G has already had discussions with Oklahoma.  They want Texas, but they really like Oklahoma.  The general feeling is that Oklahoma has a spot in the B1G if they want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, suralexander said:

http://fansided.com/2015/07/27/oklahoma-kansas-tried-to-join-big-10/

 

Homework already done on KU and Oklahoma.  Once GOR up I believe it will be a done deal.

The Big 10 can only offer membership to states touching current members. So if the Big Ten expands KU and OU goes together in my opinion. If the Big Ten tries to make a western division then I think Texas might join them. Will be interesting when the GOR is up. It will change the MWC and the AAC in my opinion. Some teams here will be in a worse situation, while others will be in a new G7-8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chad Sexington said:

Well I would hate to dash hope, so go ahead with 5 years of speculation. In the meantime you might try and see what could be done to make the MWC the best it can be. 

The 5-year figure applied to Kansas going to the B1G which you assert is "ridiculous" and I said we won't know if that will happen for at leave five years. More likely is Kansas to the B1G will be announced in 2024. As to the MWC, in football as now constituted it IS the best it can be, meaning garbage. The conference has a chance to be good again in basketball but appears to lack the leadership necessary to make that happen.

Even assuming you're correct that SDSU won't be admitted to the Pac, SDSU should be out of the MWC a decade from now. Most likely that will happen as a result of OU, KU and probably another couple schools leaving the B12. Alternatively SDSU could go indy for football and somewhere else for its Olys. If I'm wrong about that it will be only because the administration has totally effed things up and left no option but to remain in the MWC. And if that happens I will stop following SDSU sports as will most of us who now faithfully support the football program.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, suralexander said:

Thanks for the link. I had never read such a report before.

Assuming it's accurate, the Pac's thinking apparently was adding just two schools that far east rather than six (and basically creating an eastern division to include the Arizona schools and a western division composed of the Pac-8 schools) as was the prior thinking would not be financially viable. If the Pac actually rejected the idea then that's additional reason to think OU won't be going to the Pac circa 2025. Rather, it will be the B1G or the SEC.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rampage said:

The Big 10 can only offer membership to states touching current members. So if the Big Ten expands KU and OU goes together in my opinion. If the Big Ten tries to make a western division then I think Texas might join them. Will be interesting when the GOR is up. It will change the MWC and the AAC in my opinion. Some teams here will be in a worse situation, while others will be in a new G7-8.

Maybe it will be called a G7-8 initially but I think it's likely that a new division of college football will eventually be created. There are now 63 group-of schools. About 4 B12 schools won't be going to one of the P4 (definitely ISU and Baylor and probably also KSU and TT). Of the 67 or so, about half will comprise the new division and the rest will drop down to the FCS level. Whether that new division will survive long term will depend on TV contracts, ability to schedule P4 schools, commitment to prioritizing football over hoops, etc.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

The 5-year figure applied to Kansas going to the B1G which you assert is "ridiculous" and I said we won't know if that will happen for at leave five years. More likely is Kansas to the B1G will be announced in 2024. As to the MWC, in football as now constituted it IS the best it can be, meaning garbage. The conference has a chance to be good again in basketball but appears to lack the leadership necessary to make that happen.

Even assuming you're correct that SDSU won't be admitted to the Pac, SDSU should be out of the MWC a decade from now. Most likely that will happen as a result of OU, KU and probably another couple schools leaving the B12. Alternatively SDSU could go indy for football and somewhere else for its Olys. If I'm wrong about that it will be only because the administration has totally effed things up and left no option but to remain in the MWC. And if that happens I will stop following SDSU sports as will most of us who now faithfully support the football program.

I'm not sure what Kansas brings to the B1G aside from a national basketball brand. That sounds nice, but it won't do much for their bottom line, unless there's movement on the value of tournament credits going forward. Small state, smaller than Utah, with no football legacy or market. But I don't follow the B1G expansion scenarios, although I suspect that even they may be running into inflation fatigue.

As to the PAC-12, I can't envision, in the current climate (barring substantial changes to economics or population), any expansion that doesn't involve Texas and Oklahoma.  As has been repeatedly argued here and elsewhere, there is no economic impetus to expansion that doesn't include those schools. There's no reason that all the conferences have to conform to the same number of members.  The P5 opted to allow the BigXII to do whatever they wanted regarding a championship.  It would require a fundamental shift for them to start dictating to each other. A precedent they don't seem to want to set.

A period of retrenchment is upon us.  Uncertain future for the current business model. I don't see any conference making a huge capital commitment just to get to 14 or 16 members until there's some stability.

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, are you still a moron?"

"Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag and there's nothing I can't do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, Chad Sexington said:

I'm not sure what Kansas brings to the B1G aside from a national basketball brand. That sounds nice, but it won't do much for their bottom line, unless there's movement on the value of tournament credits going forward. Small state, smaller than Utah, with no football legacy or market. But I don't follow the B1G expansion scenarios, although I suspect that even they may be running into inflation fatigue.

As to the PAC-12, I can't envision, in the current climate (barring substantial changes to economics or population), any expansion that doesn't involve Texas and Oklahoma.  As has been repeatedly argued here and elsewhere, there is no economic impetus to expansion that doesn't include those schools. There's no reason that all the conferences have to conform to the same number of members.  The P5 opted to allow the BigXII to do whatever they wanted regarding a championship.  It would require a fundamental shift for them to start dictating to each other. A precedent they don't seem to want to set.

A period of retrenchment is upon us.  Uncertain future for the current business model. I don't see any conference making a huge capital commitment just to get to 14 or 16 members until there's some stability.

I agree with what you've said.

Bottom line, there are a few MWC schools that think they are "better" than the current MWC.   SDSU and CSU come to mind.   However, because of geography, SDSU and CSU have essentially no hope of joining a P5 conference any time soon, if ever.  

if SDSU and CSU want to upgrade football, then they probably need to try and go Indy like BYU.   We've read arguments on here for years that Indy is a downgrade from the MWC, but I disagree.  And in the MWC, I think only SDSU and Hawaii can pull off going Indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, wolfpack1 said:

What is funny is that in the last 6-9 months there have been a few articles about Oklahoma possibly going to the SEC but they wouldn't be going alone as many believe that Oklahoma St would be going with them and Texas would possibly head to Big 10 or independent in football. I still believe if there was interest in moving...conferences and teams would be doing it right now. I just don't know if there is interest in another round of expansion right now. 

But for Pac-12 I think they are pretty much in a hole as unless they can drag someone from a big conference...there isn't anyone out there that will really change things for them. BYU won't give up their contract with ESPN and the whole Sunday thing would create problems......and then behind them there isn't anyone that really adds anything to their footprint or add money to a TV deal. In reality I think that is where the big conferences are at right now. Other than raiding another conference there isn't much out there right now.

BYU would give up their meager ESPN contract in an instant to join the Pac, and the Sunday play is not the issue with them either. None of the California schools would ever vote for BYU's inclusion.

I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kansas: The B1G is not the SEC. The SEC is never going to add a school which is terrible at football but the Rutgers addition is proof that you can be terrible at football yet still get in and Rutgers also has one of the worst basketball programs in the country whereas KU has one of the best. As Chad is obviously unaware, Lawrence, Kansas is just 40 miles from Kansas City, MO which has no major university and the KC area is virtually identical to SLC as a TV media market: http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/09/top_us_tv_markets_cleveland-ak.html and the B1G has absolutely no footprint there. (I've always thought one reason the B1G dissed Mizzou's many overtures is the B1G had its eye on KU.) Also, membership in the Assn. of American Universities is a minimum qualification for admission to the B1G, thereby greatly limiting the number of possible additions, and KU is an AAU member.

Pac Expansion: The Pac may no longer have any interest in expanding but if the B1G, the SEC and the ACC all go to 16 members they aren't going to allow the Pac champion an automatic berth in the football playoffs when - not if - the playoffs are expanded to 8 teams if the Pac is still at just 12.

Stunner: Since he knows BYU has absolutely no chance of gaining admission to the Pac and since BYU has already gone indy, his contention SDSU and CSU should go indy for football is so lacking in objectivity on this issue as to be laughable.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mano said:

BYU would give up their meager ESPN contract in an instant to join the Pac, and the Sunday play is not the issue with them either. None of the California schools would ever vote for BYU's inclusion.

Nor would Washington or Colorado.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
17 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Kansas: The B1G is not the SEC. The SEC is never going to add a school which is terrible at football but the Rutgers addition is proof that you can be terrible at football yet still get in and Rutgers also has one of the worst basketball programs in the country whereas KU has one of the best. As Chad is obviously unaware, Lawrence, Kansas is just 40 miles from Kansas City, MO which has no major university and the KC area is virtually identical to SLC as a TV media market: http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/09/top_us_tv_markets_cleveland-ak.html and the B1G has absolutely no footprint there. (I've always thought one reason the B1G dissed Mizzou's many overtures is the B1G had its eye on KU.) Also, membership in the Assn. of American Universities is a minimum qualification for admission to the B1G, thereby greatly limiting the number of possible additions, and KU is an AAU member.

Pac Expansion: The Pac may no longer have any interest in expanding but if the B1G, the SEC and the ACC all go to 16 members they aren't going to allow the Pac champion an automatic berth in the football playoffs when - not if - the playoffs are expanded to 8 teams if the Pac is still at just 12.

Stunner: Since he knows BYU has absolutely no chance of gaining admission to the Pac and since BYU has already gone indy, his contention SDSU and CSU should go indy for football is so lacking in objectivity on this issue as to be laughable.

I'm speaking the truth.

Look, we know how you think that SDSU is not a peer to the MWC schools.   That SDSU is far superior.   I'm not arguing with your opinion there.

I'm just pointing out that you are absolutely wrong in your opinion that the PAC12 is ever going to expand to add SDSU.  Sorry, it's simply never going to happen.  So, if not the PAC12, what P5 conference is SDSU going to join?  SDSU has not real options.

You can keep arguing that a SDSU invite to the PAC12 in pending, though.  And enjoy complaining every year about CBS Sports and your MWC schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
21 minutes ago, Mano said:

BYU would give up their meager ESPN contract in an instant to join the Pac, and the Sunday play is not the issue with them either. None of the California schools would ever vote for BYU's inclusion.

 

12 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Nor would Washington or Colorado.

 

6 minutes ago, Chad Sexington said:

Nor UTAH.

As to the rest, I guess we'll see...

Let me be very clear for the Utes whose arseholes are all puckered up because of the PAC12 expansion chat on here.

BYU is not contending that it will be invited to the PAC12.  Neither are BYU fans saying that will happen. BYU is obviously a bad institutional fit with the PAC12, and besides, the PAC12 is not going to ever expand anytime soon.

That's not a big deal anyway.   BYU already schedules the PAC12 a ton in football anyway.   Yes, Indy IS NOT as nice as being in a P5 conference (scheduling is a challenge).  

But whatever.  BYU is able to get pretty good schedules most years (2017 is sort of down year, because of too many MWC schools).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just stating a fact. 

All of these infant bald vaginas, falling back on "triggered" and butt holes like a college student to a safe space, can't handle being offered facts. UTAH has no incentive to back any expansion of the PAC12 without significant financial gain. No present PAC12 school does. Fact. 

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, are you still a moron?"

"Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag and there's nothing I can't do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chad Sexington said:

(1) All of these infant bald vaginas, falling back on "triggered" and butt holes like a college student to a safe space, can't handle being offered facts. (2) UTAH has no incentive to back any expansion of the PAC12 without significant financial gain. No present PAC12 school does. Fact. 

(1) Not sure what this means and I suspect others don't either but whatever. (2) There's no denying that but contrary to your OPINION, that doesn't mean the Pac will never expand again in the absence of a favorable cost-benefit analysis. Not only that but just how much benefit has Utah and Colorado's admission brought to the conference? As an example, the Pac-10 Network has been far less than a success.

Look, Utah's accomplishments in basketball and football and its location in a major city meant it was as worthy of Pac membership as anybody else available but please don't try to argue the Pac had to get down on its knees and beg you guys to join. Because although I'm sure you would never agree, Utah benefited considerably more from joining the Pac than the Pac benefited from having you guys do so.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation isn't about Utah. That was a specific response to a specific statement. 

I guess you haven't read all the triggered posts referring to ass holes. 

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, are you still a moron?"

"Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag and there's nothing I can't do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
45 minutes ago, Chad Sexington said:

Just stating a fact. 

All of these infant bald vaginas, falling back on "triggered" and butt holes like a college student to a safe space, can't handle being offered facts. UTAH has no incentive to back any expansion of the PAC12 without significant financial gain. No present PAC12 school does. Fact. 

I really don't disagree with anything you've said.

This thread is about desperate MWC fans that want a better conference for their school (who can blame them??)

But, like you said, the PAC12 will NEVER expand, except for maybe adding Texas someday.   Hell, they already told Oklahoma no, which is one of the most elite college football programs in the Country.  

So... Colorado and Utah can be extremely happy that they "won the lottery" when they did.  I'm not sure the PAC10 would add 2 schools today if they know what they know now.  That is not an attack on Utah and Colorado, but just saying that you don't even need 12 schools for a Conference Championship Game anymore (which was not the rule when the PAC10 expanded).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...