Jump to content
Warbow

PAC 16 -- 2020

Recommended Posts

Guest #1Stunner
22 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I've lived in California all my life, in non-Pac country of SD for just half a dozen years when I attended SDSU but the rest of my life in the Bay Area and L.A., each of which contain not just one but two Pac schools. Just what are your bona fides in arguing what the "culture" of the Pac is? And don't tell me you live in Utah and that's a Pac state. Lmao at any contention the Utes being in the Pac for half a dozen years somehow gives you credibility to say I'm wrong.

As to rivalries, assuming simply for purposes of argument that actually matters to the Pac, SDSU and UNLV have now been in the same conference for more than two decades and each is the other's principle basketball rival. Before joining the Pac, it had been more than 50 years since Utah and Colorado were in the same conference.

 Don't be dumb. I don't live in Utah (Idaho), and have nothing to do with the University of Utah.

I repeat.  The PAC8 (the real leadership of the PAC12) is very anti-expansion.  The PAC8 is very big into tradition.  They want to play USC, UCLA, CAL, and Stanford every year.  The Oregons and Washingtons also have a very strong historical relationship with the the 4 California schools that matter.  They won't give that up to play a school with no tradition like SDSU or UNLV.    They are at the biggest they will ever expand to (12 teams), unless they can add Texas.   That's it.

If anything, the PAC12 only wants to enter into a scheduling agreement with either the B1G or BIG12.  They can get the benefit of playing those schools, without ever having to expand.  They want nothing to do with further expansion.   Sorry, NO MWC will ever be offered to join the PAC12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
14 hours ago, wolfpack1 said:

I believe, and could be wrong, but when Colorado and Utah joined and they set up the divisions.....there was a lot of fighting or discussion about how to do it because the schools didn't want to be cut out of California and then they wanted to keep the rivalries in the Pac-10 at the time which also was about the scheduling. Pac-12 had approached Colorado before about joining but nothing came of it until the last round of expansion.

However at the same time a lot has changed since the last round of expansion where it was all a money grab and not everything has turned out well with some conferences which I think might make them think or at least study expansion a lot closer than they did last time. And personally, I know doesn't mean much, but my opinion is that SDSU is closer to joining the Pac-12 than UNLV is even though I think the chances of either of them getting an invite in the forseeable future is slim to none.

You are correct.

The PAC12 moved to a 9-game schedule, in part because every school wanted to keep playing USC and the other California schools as often as possible.   The California schools were also granted permission to continue to play each other every year, despite being in different divisions. 

 

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/10/21/pac-10-expansion-reaction-from-cal-and-stanford-on-the-division-split-and-california-rivalries/

The Pac-10 Conference entered a new era Thursday with the unveiling of its realignment plans for football. But there was an unmistakable nod to tradition.

As expected, Cal and Stanford will be paired with the Oregon and Washington schools in the six-team North Division starting next season.

But the league adopted a scheduling model that guarantees the Bay Area schools will play USC and UCLA every year – thus preserving rivalries that are nearly a century old.

"There is a deep appreciation in the conference for the historical rivalries,” Commissioner Larry Scott said. “Not just the (natural) rivalries but the Northern and Southern California rivalries.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stunner is right. That's why when SDSU, UNLV, CSU, and gasp BYU join the PAC the divisions will be realigned so you have PAC-Classic and PAC-Nuevo.

Classic = USC/UCLA , Stanford/CAL, UO/OSU, UW/Wazzu

Nuevo = UA/ASU , SDSU/UNLV , UU/BYU, CU/CSU

This post will be panned and maybe it should. But short of the PAC hitting a grand slam and landing UT and OU, this arrangement makes the most sense. It scoops up the last remaining large markets that are already semi-interested in the PAC and continues to build the conference with help from established rivalries. This is a no brainer slam dunk and restores the PAC8 in a round about way. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

 Don't be dumb. I don't live in Utah (Idaho), and have nothing to do with the University of Utah.

I repeat.  The PAC8 (the real leadership of the PAC12) is very anti-expansion.  The PAC8 is very big into tradition.  They want to play USC, UCLA, CAL, and Stanford every year.  The Oregons and Washingtons also have a very strong historical relationship with the the 4 California schools that matter.  They won't give that up to play a school with no tradition like SDSU or UNLV.    They are at the biggest they will ever expand to (12 teams), unless they can add Texas.   That's it.

If anything, the PAC12 only wants to enter into a scheduling agreement with either the B1G or BIG12.  They can get the benefit of playing those schools, without ever having to expand.  They want nothing to do with further expansion.   Sorry, NO MWC will ever be offered to join the PAC12.

Yes. I think all of this is true. 

"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

35 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

Stunner is right. That's why when SDSU, UNLV, CSU, and gasp BYU join the PAC the divisions will be realigned so you have PAC-Classic and PAC-Nuevo.

Classic = USC/UCLA , Stanford/CAL, UO/OSU, UW/Wazzu

Nuevo = UA/ASU , SDSU/UNLV , UU/BYU, CU/CSU

This post will be panned and maybe it should. But short of the PAC hitting a grand slam and landing UT and OU, this arrangement makes the most sense. It scoops up the last remaining large markets that are already semi-interested in the PAC and continues to build the conference with help from established rivalries. This is a no brainer slam dunk and restores the PAC8 in a round about way. 

This will not happen. 

"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
56 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

Stunner is right. That's why when SDSU, UNLV, CSU, and gasp BYU join the PAC the divisions will be realigned so you have PAC-Classic and PAC-Nuevo.

Classic = USC/UCLA , Stanford/CAL, UO/OSU, UW/Wazzu

Nuevo = UA/ASU , SDSU/UNLV , UU/BYU, CU/CSU

This post will be panned and maybe it should. But short of the PAC hitting a grand slam and landing UT and OU, this arrangement makes the most sense. It scoops up the last remaining large markets that are already semi-interested in the PAC and continues to build the conference with help from established rivalries. This is a no brainer slam dunk and restores the PAC8 in a round about way. 

 

20 minutes ago, Chad Sexington said:

This will not happen. 

Agree with Chad on this.

There is no way that Utah, Colorado, and the Arizonas will agree to give up playing the prestigious PAC8, in exchange for more, annual games vs BYU, UNLV, SDSU, and CSU.  They want to play USC, Cal, Oregon, Stanford, Washington and UCLA, not MWC schools.

I fully agree that SDSU probably deserves a bigger stage.  The San Diego market is a great area. But right now, the only way SDSU can try and do that is to go Indy in football.  SDSU is in a tough predicament due to geography.  I just doubt that the SDSU leadership has the courage to go Indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think, with the inception of the Longhorn Network, if Texas ever left Big 12 I think it would go independent for football and not join another conference.  I don't believe that Pac-12 would invite Texas into the conference and let Texas keep using the Longhorn Network.....that is one of many things that have changed since the last expansion. IF Pac-12 expanded again, and I think the only reason they would is because they have to, they would probably look to the Big 12 first and go from there. I don't think the presidents would want three teams from Southern California area in the Pac-12....they could look at BYU but I do think what could possibly hold back is the Oly sports not playing on Sunday........but in reality unless taking a team from another P5 conference I don't know if there is much out there right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 things ...

I don't think the Pac-12 wants to expand, but the lack of media money available to them in its current form will demand some kind of action. Their ability to keep up with the B1G and SEC is hamstrung by their location. I don't have the answer to their problem, and I suspect they don't either.

It is probably in the best interests of the Pac to have at least 1 other regional FBS conference in their footprint -- since the WAC no longer exists, that leaves the MWC. The ease of travel in terms of H&H games for both fan travel and media scheduling makes this necessary for them. This makes the situation a little tricky for them as they want quality OoC games & wins, but also don't want the competition to advance to their level.

What does any of this lead to? It would be my guess that the Pac would like to see the MWC enter into a solid agreement with ESPN that pays the MWC better than the CBS-sn agreement does currently and gets P12 OoC games more exposure -- thereby increasing their own brand & media exposure when playing the MWC. In essence, I believe they would like to see the MWC seen as P5+1, such that games vs the MWC boosts their own credibility and the occasional loss is not seen as a season killer.

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

 Don't be dumb. I don't live in Utah (Idaho), and have nothing to do with the University of Utah.

I repeat.  The PAC8 (the real leadership of the PAC12) is very anti-expansion.  The PAC8 is very big into tradition.  They want to play USC, UCLA, CAL, and Stanford every year.  The Oregons and Washingtons also have a very strong historical relationship with the the 4 California schools that matter.  They won't give that up to play a school with no tradition like SDSU or UNLV.    They are at the biggest they will ever expand to (12 teams), unless they can add Texas.   That's it.

If anything, the PAC12 only wants to enter into a scheduling agreement with either the B1G or BIG12.  They can get the benefit of playing those schools, without ever having to expand.  They want nothing to do with further expansion.   Sorry, NO MWC will ever be offered to join the PAC12.

I'm not too sure about the other Pac schools, but Cal and UCLA are the primary dissidents when it comes to changes in the Pac 12.  Voting is unanimous in the Pac12. Stanford and USC have gobs of money to do their own thing so I don't think they really care one way or the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wolfpack1 said:

I also think, with the inception of the Longhorn Network, if Texas ever left Big 12 I think it would go independent for football and not join another conference.  I don't believe that Pac-12 would invite Texas into the conference and let Texas keep using the Longhorn Network.....that is one of many things that have changed since the last expansion. IF Pac-12 expanded again, and I think the only reason they would is because they have to, they would probably look to the Big 12 first and go from there. I don't think the presidents would want three teams from Southern California area in the Pac-12....they could look at BYU but I do think what could possibly hold back is the Oly sports not playing on Sunday........but in reality unless taking a team from another P5 conference I don't know if there is much out there right now.

You'd be hard pressed to find any schools more liberal than UCLA, Washington and Colorado to say nothing of Cal. No way, no how are those schools going to agree to admit to their cabal a school affiliated with a religion which was founded on polygamy and still doesn't allow women in its priesthood and which banned people of African ancestry from the priesthood until 1978 and whose founder considered them to be some sort of devil. So the only way that university will ever be considered for admission to the P12 will be if it cuts ties from the Mormon Church the way USC did from the Methodist Church ~70 years ago.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, wolfpack1 said:

I also think, with the inception of the Longhorn Network, if Texas ever left Big 12 I think it would go independent for football and not join another conference.  I don't believe that Pac-12 would invite Texas into the conference and let Texas keep using the Longhorn Network.....that is one of many things that have changed since the last expansion. IF Pac-12 expanded again, and I think the only reason they would is because they have to, they would probably look to the Big 12 first and go from there. I don't think the presidents would want three teams from Southern California area in the Pac-12....they could look at BYU but I do think what could possibly hold back is the Oly sports not playing on Sunday........but in reality unless taking a team from another P5 conference I don't know if there is much out there right now.

I've always thought that was a short sighted approach. While Texas does like to have it's own prestige and money, it would be disadvantageous to go independent for a TV channel that is in all likelihood getting dropped or significantly reduced (in pay and probably exposure) after the current contract. I don't think Texas would let a 10 year decision affect a 100 year one. Texas knows it eventually needs to move and if the next round passes it by with OU, Kansas, and others leaving, leverage is lost for Texas in realignment.  I don't foresee Texas reducing itself to play smaller schools in its non football conference, just so it can schedule a few decent football games (that are limited by expanding conference schedules) while watching its TV channel get cut and  Purdue, Vanderbilt, Northwestern and such make more money than it in their TV contracts. Some say Texas pride is too big to join a conference on equal terms. I'd say Texas pride is too big to relegate its self importance, by clinging to a channel, limiting its further choices and allowing other smaller, less prestigious schools make more money, play better schools, have equal exposure and such by being in the Big Ten or SEC. 

 

I hope the Pac-16 interest died with the prior Texas administration and AD. I personally have no interest in 1)worse game times, 2) schools with no connections to Texas, 3) No history, 4) worse travel among other things. 

In the end it just doesn't matter because my university will get whatever it wants and be on the inside on any incarnation of whatever conference it chooses and whatever incarnation of the NCAA or BCS that arises. Our ego only got bigger with the Pac-10, SEC and Big 10 trying to get us to join their conference.

Look, why don't you just be quiet before my university buys yours and closes it just for spite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, UTAlrightGuy said:

I hope the Pac-16 interest died with the prior Texas administration and AD. I personally have no interest in 1)worse game times, 2) schools with no connections to Texas, 3) No history, 4) worse travel among other things. 

Wasn't "the prior Texas administration" interested in going to the Pac mainly to improve the university's academic image?

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chad Sexington said:

This will not happen. 

So come clean. Assuming the Pac has no choice but to expand to 16 because TV partners, the other power conferences, God, the Devil, Beavis & Butthead or whomever mandates the Pac do so, what four schools would you predict will be added? And please explain your rationale.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Wasn't "the prior Texas administration" interested in going to the Pac mainly to improve the university's academic image?

I honestly don't see Texas agreeing to join the Pac ... among the many reasons (like the Longhorn TV issue) would be the scheduling involved in playing in a conference that is almost entirely left of their timezone. This is not just about start times but also about travel issues for teams and fans alike.

Likewise, I don't think the Pac is all that enthused about spreading themselves farther than they already have geographically or schedule-wise ... as others have stated -- any other addition to the 12 would break up the ability of the conference to all have multiple games in CA.

That being said ... money talks and if enough is in play -- anything is possible.

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

So come clean. Assuming the Pac has no choice but to expand to 16 because TV partners, the other power conferences, God, the Devil, Beavis & Butthead or whomever mandates the Pac do so, what four schools would you predict will be added? And please explain your rationale.

I know this was not directed at me ... but I will conjecture that the same immutable conditions will have to be met.

1. academics - will the additions dilute the academic branding of the conference?

2. athletics - can the programs added compete (primarily in football, basketball & baseball) and will they increase bowl revenue & ncaa credits?

3. media/market - will the institutions added increase media revenue?

4. travel/schedule - what will be the overall effect of the locations added? 

 

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 hour ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

You'd be hard pressed to find any schools more liberal than UCLA, Washington and Colorado to say nothing of Cal. No way, no how are those schools going to agree to admit to their cabal a school affiliated with a religion which was founded on polygamy and still doesn't allow women in its priesthood and which banned people of African ancestry from the priesthood until 1978 and whose founder considered them to be some sort of devil. So the only way that university will ever be considered for admission to the P12 will be if it cuts ties from the Mormon Church the way USC did from the Methodist Church ~70 years ago.

I agree, BYU will never be in the PAC12, nor is it pretending to be.  To correct your falsehood, the Mormon Church never taught that Africans are "some sort of devil", or anything close.  Don't make stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
36 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

So come clean. Assuming the Pac has no choice but to expand to 16 because TV partners, the other power conferences, God, the Devil, Beavis & Butthead or whomever mandates the Pac do so, what four schools would you predict will be added? And please explain your rationale.

Again.... The PAC12 will never expand, unless it is Texas and 1 other school of whoever Texas wants.  They will never expand to 16.  That would destroy historic rivalries.

And sorry, but SDSU has as much of a chance of joining the PAC12 as BYU----zilch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
2 hours ago, HighNTight_SD said:

2 things ...

I don't think the Pac-12 wants to expand, but the lack of media money available to them in its current form will demand some kind of action. Their ability to keep up with the B1G and SEC is hamstrung by their location. I don't have the answer to their problem, and I suspect they don't either.

It is probably in the best interests of the Pac to have at least 1 other regional FBS conference in their footprint -- since the WAC no longer exists, that leaves the MWC. The ease of travel in terms of H&H games for both fan travel and media scheduling makes this necessary for them. This makes the situation a little tricky for them as they want quality OoC games & wins, but also don't want the competition to advance to their level.

What does any of this lead to? It would be my guess that the Pac would like to see the MWC enter into a solid agreement with ESPN that pays the MWC better than the CBS-sn agreement does currently and gets P12 OoC games more exposure -- thereby increasing their own brand & media exposure when playing the MWC. In essence, I believe they would like to see the MWC seen as P5+1, such that games vs the MWC boosts their own credibility and the occasional loss is not seen as a season killer.

The PAC12 wants to have a football and basketball scheduling agreement with the Big12 or Big Ten.  Look for them to partner with the Big12 on some future TV opportunities.  Both conferences would benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

The PAC12 wants to have a football and basketball scheduling agreement with the Big12 or Big Ten.  Look for them to partner with the Big12 on some future TV opportunities.  Both conferences would benefit.

The Pac only has 3 OoC games to work with in football ... 1 game used by Stanford and USC on Notre Dame. A Scheduling agreement would limit other teams to 2 games (USC and Stanford down to 1). This scheduling of teams from the mid-West and central plains would actually increase the need for quality games within their footprint. Thus the need for the MWC to remain a viable option.

Similar conditions exist for basketball with an 18-game conference slate, tourneys and existing travel conditions.

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
10 minutes ago, HighNTight_SD said:

The Pac only has 3 OoC games to work with in football ... 1 game used by Stanford and USC on Notre Dame. A Scheduling agreement would limit other teams to 2 games (USC and Stanford down to 1). This scheduling of teams from the mid-West and central plains would actually increase the need for quality games within their footprint. Thus the need for the MWC to remain a viable option.

Similar conditions exist for basketball with an 18-game conference slate, tourneys and existing travel conditions.

Yes.  They will do 1 home-and-home with the P5 or Notre Dame.

And try and get 2 1-and-done games to fill out their schedules.  The MWC will mostly just travel to their place.

But, I see your point with a scheduling agreement.  It would only work with an 8 game conference schedule.

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...