PAC 16?

[Guest FountainofUte]

I'm glad the PAC is at 12. It got my school in, and sefishly, it's not as crowded or watered down as a 16-team PAC would be.

 

Still, I'm not sure it's going to sit like this for too long. While I can't find the quotes (i.e. won't bother looking for them) I get the sense that 16 is still on Larry Scott's radar.

 

With that said, I wonder what his targets are? On one hand, I can see that UT is still the golden apple out there, and everything else is just "side dishes" to compliment them. Without UT, is 16 a moot point? Probably, but what if the power grab begins and the SEC, Big 10 and ACC all scramble for 16? What does the PAC do? What can they do?

 

Additionally, I think UT (and the state legislature that's attached to its tit) showed its true colors last June. I wonder if Scott sees that UT is not worth getting in bed with given all the baggage they bring. Does he look for combos that get to 16 that don't include UT? I actually think that might be a viable option.

 

So, I see this going two ways: 16 with UT, and 16 w/o UT. To me, the two scenarios look vastly different.

 

If the PAC can get UT, I see Scott grabbing the four he probably wanted all along: UT, A&M, OU and then the next best option: either OSU (to keep natural pairings) or KU (better academic fit, and more history of success in one of the two big sports).

 

But what if UT doesn't want to be a part of the PAC? What if the Big 10 thinks they can woo UT and ND. Or, what if the SEC starts putting a package together that gets UT's attention? What then?

 

I can see several scenarios:

 

1) Academics be damned - think football

In this case, grab the best football powers available that make sense for the PAC: BYU, TCU, BSU, then debate the fourth (AFA, Fresno, Nevada, something in Texas)

 

2) Think about history and rivalries

In this case, the PAC realizes that what makes it tick are long-standing regional rivalries: Add BYU (for Utah), CSU, AFA or OU (for CU - sorry Buffs, we ain't getting NU), then add TCU and SMU (gets us into TX). Or in place of TCU and SMU, you could go UNLV and Nevada (decent basketball schools, need a TON of help in football).

 

3) Raid the best of the Big 12 leftovers

UT will go its own way, as would A&M in that scenario, there are still decent B12 choices available: Add TT, OU, OSU, KU

 

4) Raid the best Big 12 pairs

The PAC loves traditional pairings: OU, OSU, KU, K State

 

5) Football be damned - think academics

There aren't a lot of options here, but: New Mexico, Air Force, TCU, SMU

 

6) Think regional

Shore up the best west of the rockies: BYU, BSU, UNLV, Nevada (consider AFA & CSU)

 

If the 'Horns want in, it's easy. They're the entree, then pick the best three sides. You almost can't go wrong. If UT looks elsewhere, it gets messy for the PAC. What you you think?

[Guest superdeluxe]

I'm glad the PAC is at 12. It got my school in, and sefishly, it's not as crowded or watered down as a 16-team PAC would be.

 

Still, I'm not sure it's going to sit like this for too long. While I can't find the quotes (i.e. won't bother looking for them) I get the sense that 16 is still on Larry Scott's radar.

 

With that said, I wonder what his targets are? On one hand, I can see that UT is still the golden apple out there, and everything else is just "side dishes" to compliment them. Without UT, is 16 a moot point? Probably, but what if the power grab begins and the SEC, Big 10 and ACC all scramble for 16? What does the PAC do? What can they do?

 

Additionally, I think UT (and the state legislature that's attached to its tit) showed its true colors last June. I wonder if Scott sees that UT is not worth getting in bed with given all the baggage they bring. Does he look for combos that get to 16 that don't include UT? I actually think that might be a viable option.

 

So, I see this going two ways: 16 with UT, and 16 w/o UT. To me, the two scenarios look vastly different.

 

If the PAC can get UT, I see Scott grabbing the four he probably wanted all along: UT, A&M, OU and then the next best option: either OSU (to keep natural pairings) or KU (better academic fit, and more history of success in one of the two big sports).

 

But what if UT doesn't want to be a part of the PAC? What if the Big 10 thinks they can woo UT and ND. Or, what if the SEC starts putting a package together that gets UT's attention? What then?

 

I can see several scenarios:

 

1) Academics be damned - think football

In this case, grab the best football powers available that make sense for the PAC: BYU, TCU, BSU, then debate the fourth (AFA, Fresno, Nevada, something in Texas)

 

2) Think about history and rivalries

In this case, the PAC realizes that what makes it tick are long-standing regional rivalries: Add BYU (for Utah), CSU, AFA or OU (for CU - sorry Buffs, we ain't getting NU), then add TCU and SMU (gets us into TX). Or in place of TCU and SMU, you could go UNLV and Nevada (decent basketball schools, need a TON of help in football).

 

3) Raid the best of the Big 12 leftovers

UT will go its own way, as would A&M in that scenario, there are still decent B12 choices available: Add TT, OU, OSU, KU

 

4) Raid the best Big 12 pairs

The PAC loves traditional pairings: OU, OSU, KU, K State

 

5) Football be damned - think academics

There aren't a lot of options here, but: New Mexico, Air Force, TCU, SMU

 

6) Think regional

Shore up the best west of the rockies: BYU, BSU, UNLV, Nevada (consider AFA & CSU)

 

If the 'Horns want in, it's easy. They're the entree, then pick the best three sides. You almost can't go wrong. If UT looks elsewhere, it gets messy for the PAC. What you you think?

 

http://www.statesman.com/sports/collegefootball/expect-big-12-expansion-talks-to-bubble-up-934631.html

 

that was a article from last week, I think UT is still in play, and we have a pac-16 with what we thought was going to happen (A&M out, Utah in)

[Guest superdeluxe]

If UT is not in play (Which I disagree with), then I like section 3, although I think Oklahoma would go to the SEC if they could, but they might have a 'state' problem so if we could get Oklahoma, Oklahoma state, Texas Tech and a Missouri, that would be good (if no A&M and UT)

 

I still think a Pac-20 is not out of the question, basically 2 10 team leagues.

 

I don't really like any of those other options

[Guest superdeluxe]

Woops, I noticed you did mention that if UT is in play than it is easy.

 

Do the original dance. OU/OSU/UT/TT

[Guest Chad Sexington]

I didn't read all of your scenarios because my attention span is too short.

Yes, I have ADD or ADHD or STP or something, I can't remember...hey, a cookie!

 

Anyway, I think if there is going to be a push for a PAC16 it will include Texas, OU and KU for sure. Texas A&M is a long shot IMHO because of many factors, most importantly they seem to be looking eastward. A fourth school is problematic. OU and KU would probably stretch academics requirements as far as anyone in the PAC would want. You couldn't stretch them further to include Okie Lite or Texas Meth, and we all know Baylor is a non-starter. What about Missouri? Seems a geographic stretch, but ...

 

Would you come back west? USD? SDU? SDSU? STD? PTSD?

 

I really can't think of an acceptable fourth school.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

I'm ok with a Pac-16 if they go with the pod scheduling.

 

But being a former Big 12 fan, let me lay out the stuff about those Big 12 schools who could join us in the future.

 

Texas

 

UT really is setting themselves to go independent in the future. UT is getting 100,000 fans to football games at DKR and they are not finished expanding that stadium...there is one end that is yet to be completely enclosed and plans have said that it will take the stadium capacity to 110k if not more. I think the UT admin have already come to the conclusion that it would be impossible for UT to truly find the conference that fits them the best.

 

Keep an eye on the state of Texas...the C-USA will eventually split up and a new SWC will come into play where the C-USA West schools will most likely join up with NMSU and Louisana Tech plus there is UNT and two Texas schools that are presenting to the WAC today. That new SWC should come around this decade and would be the home for all non-football sports for the Longhorns.

 

UT is an AAU school and a very high level research school like CU (Utah is a very high level research school) so the Longhorns meet the academic requirements for PAC membership.

 

Oklahoma

 

Coming from a Sooner family, I know OU quite well. The support is there to expand OU's stadium to over 100k if necessary in order for OU to go independent down the road. It sounds like OU might or might not go independent. They already have a lot of big name teams lined up this decade and could house their sports in the new SWC.

 

OU is not an AAU school and they are a high research activity college. Based on Utah's acceptance into the Pac-10, OU does not qualify academically.

 

Oklahoma State

 

If it was not for Boone Pickens, OSU could have been looking at a future in the C-USA and I am not joking at all. Their facilities were woefully subpar until Daddy Pickens bailed them out.

 

Like OU, non-AAU and high research activity college...does not qualify academically.

 

Texas Tech

 

They really benefitted the most from being in the Big 12 no dobut about that and they really invested the money they earned back into their own facilities.

 

TT is a non-AAU school but there is funding in place to start the push towards TT getting into the AAU sometime in the 2020s if not sooner. The Pac-8 accepted Arizona back then when they weren't an AAU member (they got the membership in 1985) so you could see TT as another Arizona in the making.

 

Kansas

 

They are building up their football facilities and given what happened this spring, they will really be more dedicated to football than ever.

 

KU is an AAU member so they meet PAC membership requirements and Big Ten requirements as well.

 

Kansas State

 

No way KSU gets into the PAC...they are not AAU and like OU, OSU, and TT, high research activity school.

 

Missouri

 

The Tigers have long wanted into the Big Ten but their athletics haven't been THAT successful despite being the only FBS school in that state and more people than Nebraska. They are an AAU school and very high level research university so they meet both PAC and Big Ten membership requirments.

 

Iowa State

 

The Cyclones are overshadowed by Iowa in a big way and with Nebraska going to the Big Ten, I have read that many fairweather ISU fans are going to switch over to the Hawkeyes because of Nebraska...they really got hurt the most by the Big 12's near collaspe. I hope ISU fans are coming to terms with the reality that they could very well end up in the MAC or C-USA down the road. They have to be really crossing their fingers that the Big Ten takes them along with KU and Missouri to form a pod with Nebraska assuming the Big Ten adds one more eastern school such as Rutgers or even Norte Dame.

 

Did I say ISU could join the Big Ten? Yes they are an AAU school and very high level research school.

 

Texas A&M

 

The most underperforming school in the nation when it comes to athletics. They are the equal of big bad Texas when it comes to facilities and academics.

 

Culturally, they are more of a SEC school and I have been to College Station and I support that very idea. The Aggies are not a good match for the PAC culturally.

 

AAU and Very High Research activity school. Meets PAC and Big Ten requirements.

 

Baylor

 

Non AAU and High Research Activity school which does not help their case with the PAC. They have invested a lot of money into the non-football facilities although but seems like they can't get over the hump (should happen sooner than later).

 

Other

 

This tells you how limited the PAC's choices are in this situation. I know that Hawaii is a Very High Research Level school and there has been talk of building a new 62,000 on campus football stadium but it seems like it has been shelved in favor of refurbishing Aloha Stadium.

[Guest utenation]

IMO, the PAC will see how the new TV contract works. Maybe we see a 4-5 year deal with options to change on the fly is expansion continues but I think we're done for awhile..

 

I think they get a solid look at the new conference with 12 and see how they compete.. The goal(s) of the PAC were to expand rev and increase exposure to allow more championship opportunities.

 

 

They'll be careful on the CCG and not make hasty decisions..

 

 

One thing is clear, the PAC with Scott is not going to sit around like they did with Hansen..

 

I still question some of the politics with a Texas package.. I learned a lot about that school this summer.. And they weren't all that good.

[Guest FountainofUte]

Yeah, most of my scenarios were in the event that Texas does not want into the PAC. If they want in, you fill out the rest with B12 teams. You get A&M if you can, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think they have one foot in the SEC already. That leaves OU and KU as the most desirable, and then close your eyes and flip a coin over TT, OSU and *maybe* MSU (they seem too east geographically and too 'Big 10' culturally).

 

The fun comes in under the scenario that 1) Texas says no to the PAC and 2) the scramble for 16-team super conferences begins.

 

The Big 10 and SEC would take who they want from the B12, Big East, and even the ACC. I think the ACC survives scooping what's left of the Big East and maybe Big 12. The B12 goes away as does the Big East.

 

It could all go 1,000 different ways, but none of them look too good for the PAC unless it gets UT. Still, I think there are better options than people think. I think the PAC can get into the state and recruiting grounds of Texas without UT and A&M. And outside of Texas, there are programs with great academics like Air Force Adademy, large fanbases like BYU, basketball-rich history like UNLV.

 

I've seen TCU up close. That's a good school. They suffer from little brother status, big time, but they've made huge strides in the MWC, and I could see them upticking a notch or two in the PAC. I'd take them over TT without a second's hesitation. Get Big D, get a good academic school, get a school that's already rolling in football, is already committed to upgrading their stadium, and has a coach and staff in place that, if retained, will keep them at a high level.

[Guest FountainofUte]

IMO, the PAC will see how the new TV contract works. Maybe we see a 4-5 year deal with options to change on the fly is expansion continues but I think we're done for awhile..

 

I think they get a solid look at the new conference with 12 and see how they compete.. The goal(s) of the PAC were to expand rev and increase exposure to allow more championship opportunities.

 

 

They'll be careful on the CCG and not make hasty decisions..

 

 

One thing is clear, the PAC with Scott is not going to sit around like they did with Hansen..

 

I still question some of the politics with a Texas package.. I learned a lot about that school this summer.. And they weren't all that good.

 

I'm totally on the same page as you, Nation. I think the PAC has just what it wants and needs today and if they could control the weather, they'd keep it this way for five years, or so. But I wonder what happens if a big expansion frenzy happens started by the SEC and B10. Then the PAC will be drawn into a "war" it doesn't want but will be forced to fight. What do they do then?

[Guest Bone Crusher]

The Pac-10 can't sit too still because the SEC is still lurking to take A&M and OU. But you cannot dismiss the possibility that once the Big 12 gets a new monster TV deal (believe me, they WILL get the $$$) and if it puts the Big 12 on par with the SEC, Arkansas will most likely jump ship from the SEC and rejoin their former SWC mates. Jerry Jones will be more than happy to pay Arkansas to leave the SEC and there is a reason why Arkansas is playing at JerryWorld. I was skeptical of this six months ago but as long as the Big 12 gets the monster TV deal, the 'Hogs will flee the SEC because there is no buyout fee in the SEC and membership fees are just $50.00. 'Hog fans are very interested in developing new rivalries with the Oklahoma schools and Missouri. Basketball could develop with the Kansas schools. The 'Hogs are happy members in the SEC but something is missing.

 

The second new Big 12 team will continue to be discussed a lot. Memphis is one school that could join the Big 12 if they don't go to the Big East. New Mexico's name keeps popping up as well. TCU's name is starting to fade away from this Big 12 talk...those Froggie fans are going to be very disappointed...the Oklahoma and Texas schools already own the Dallas TV market. Boise State will never go to the Big 12...the PAC is their only option if the MWC does not get AQ. That 12th school has to be a power in basketball and that is why Memphis and New Mexico are two names that keep coming up. I sense that the Big 12 is going to focus more on basketball than ever and the Big 12 is going to be INSANELY TOUGH this year in basketball. If CU was in the Pac-10 this year, the Buffs would be picked to finish in the top half instead of 9th in the Big 12.

 

The only hope for TCU is a SEC membership along with Texas A&M while the new East schools could be Clemson, GT, Florida State, or Miami. This would mean the Pac-16 with the two Texas and OKlahoma schools is a reality.

 

We probably won't hear as many stories in the summer of 2011 but things could heat up again in 2012 since the Big 12 will have a new rich TV contract. The Pac-12 and Big 12 are going to cash in a big way in 2012.

[Guest Wazzup]

I'm not a big fan of the PAC-16 idea in general, as the basic structure gives you a "playoff" to earn a single BCS spot. I don't see how this is an advantage for any of the schools in the conference, until and unless its part of a wholesale BCS revision. What advantage does the first conference to go to 16 have over the others who decide to remain at 10 or 12? The PAC-12 looks solid to me, and I for one am happy that Texas decided not to jump. Utah "fits" the PAC better, imo. Even if we later go to 16, I'm happier with Utah woven into the conference fabric.

 

Assuming 16 does happen, and with Texas being one of the 4 additions, the 4 additional schools would most likely be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and OK State. A&M will most likely look elsewhere under this scenario... SEC most likely.

 

With an independant Texas, the 4 additional schools to shoot for would be, OK, OK State, Texas Tech and.... A&M.

 

Either way, thanks to the Utah add, we would only get stuck with 2 of the Texas Schools instead of 3, and the PAC has historically had some balance to it.

 

I don't see any interest in adding Baylor under any circumstance, or TCU, in spite of their great program. Religious schools need not apply. (*cough* BYU *cough*)

[Guest FountainofUte]

I'm not a big fan of the PAC-16 idea in general, as the basic structure gives you a "playoff" to earn a single BCS spot.

 

I'm with you. I think 12 is just right.

 

Still, I think the land grab to 16 is going to happen eventually between the B10, SEC, ACC and us. Problem is, our options are not as plentiful as those of the other three "Bigs." And if UT gets snatched up by someone else, does the PAC decide to hold at 12, or join the arms race by adding schools it never would have otherwise? It will be interesting to see.

 

I hope the PAC doesn't have to get in bed with UT, ever. I'm not sure what PAC 10 folks really wanted from expansion-palooza, but I think the best thing ended up happening. (But, I'm a little biased).

[Guest GoBruinz]

The Pac 16 only happens now if other conferences expand first IMO.

 

From what I've read, it sounds like the Big 10 is now pretty content for the near-term with 12 teams (and when I say "near term", I am thinking 5 years or so). The chancellor of Ohio State said something to that effect. The ONLY school I could see changing that calculation would be Notre Dame. If Notre Dame knocked on the Big 10's door and said "hey, let's talk", then all bets are out the window.

 

Assuming that Notre Dame is content with independent status, I think we've reached a "detente" in the conference expansion race. If the Big 10 doesn't expand, the SEC won't expand -- the SEC has admitted the only reason they were talking to A&M was as a defensive measure against the Big 10 and the Pac 10.

 

So, in my opinion, in 2015 we are still staring at:

Big 10 - 12 teams

SEC - 12 teams

Pac 12 - 12 teams

ACC - 12 teams

Big XII (-2) - 10 teams (or maybe 12)

Big East - 10-12 teams (football)

 

I do think the possibility still exists for the Big XII to grab another couple of schools to replace Nebraska and Colorado, but it is likely those schools would come from the MWC, CUSA, or Big East. So, this would not really cause a domino effect.

The Big East has already invited Villanova (!?!?) to join them, and I wouldn't be surprised if they also went for some combination of Memphis, Houston, TCU, Southern Miss, East Carolina or schools like that in order to get to 10 or 12 teams. Again, this would not really cause a domino effect either.

 

I think the Pac 16 is comatose for now, unless something major happens, most specifically starting with Notre Dame to the Big 10. And I'm happy about that. 12 teams is much better for the conference IMO.

 

But if other conferences go to 16 teams, I don't think UT goes independent, and they will end up in the Pac, along with 3 of their Big XII brethren (hopefully UT, OU, Kansas and probably Texas Tech due to TX politics).

[Guest superdeluxe]

 

 

Other

 

This tells you how limited the PAC's choices are in this situation. I know that Hawaii is a Very High Research Level school and there has been talk of building a new 62,000 on campus football stadium but it seems like it has been shelved in favor of refurbishing Aloha Stadium.

 

 

Nice Breakdown, but I think with how close we came to going to 16. It is obvious to me, that if it works, that academics would take a back seat. I no longer think Academics is the #1 factor. Honestly I think the whole Midwest group (oklahoma/missouri/kansas etc) would work even without Texas. I think Oklahoma could deliver the D/FW market, and if we can finangle A&M to the west, along with Tech, I think we would get great coverage in Texas, although I think Texas can still be attainable, larry scott even says he does not think texas could go indy.

[Guest superdeluxe]

I think Scott should be waiting in the wings again when the Big 12 starts to fall apart again. Eventually Texas will not be able to hold the Big 12 together..and if they wish to keep some of their rivaliries together..they will pony up with Tech and the 2 oklahoma schools and move west. Giving the Pac-16 every major media market from the pacific ocean to the mississippi

[Guest superdeluxe]

And lets be clear, Oklahoma has a state problem and UT has a Tech problem, a problem that the pac-12 can help with.

[Guest FountainofUte]

And lets be clear, Oklahoma has a state problem and UT has a Tech problem, a problem that the pac-12 can help with.

 

That's what I'm afraid of.

 

While I think 12 is best, I could live with bringing in UT and maybe one other (like OU or A&M). But there's something nice about staying west of the Rockies (including CU).

 

I want no part of TT, Okie State or any of the other B12 cast offs.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

And lets be clear, Oklahoma has a state problem and UT has a Tech problem, a problem that the pac-12 can help with.

 

Like I outlined, the OK schools and TT currently do not have the academic creds for the PAC but I know that TT has a plan in place to get them to being a Very High Level Research school and an AAU member which is by invite only. Don't be surprised if the PAC takes in UT and TT first then when the OK schools get their act together, they come in later to make it 16.

 

This also is a reason why the Pac-16 most likely will not happen. Two hour differences can be a conference killer.

[Guest superdeluxe]

That's what I'm afraid of.

 

While I think 12 is best, I could live with bringing in UT and maybe one other (like OU or A&M). But there's something nice about staying west of the Rockies (including CU).

 

I want no part of TT, Okie State or any of the other B12 cast offs.

 

I heard this brought up before, that 12 is the best way. Sure if the 12 was UT and A&M, then yes it is best..you get texas..but only add 2 mouthes to feed, but if with 16 you get Texas, and you go form 8-11 million per team to 18-22 million per team, what would be so bad about 2 8 team leagues? Heck the old Pac 8 was a 8 team league anyways.

[Guest superdeluxe]

Like I outlined, the OK schools and TT currently do not have the academic creds for the PAC but I know that TT has a plan in place to get them to being a Very High Level Research school and an AAU member which is by invite only. Don't be surprised if the PAC takes in UT and TT first then when the OK schools get their act together, they come in later to make it 16.

 

This also is a reason why the Pac-16 most likely will not happen. Two hour differences can be a conference killer.

 

Wait, so how can you state that we wouldn't take OK and OKstate along with TT and UT, when that was the plan back in June?

 

And while you think that 2 hour time difference is a negative, I think it is a positive, imagine that, we can provide games/programming All day long because we are in so many time zones.