PAC 16?

[Guest OKCBuff]

Interesting debate. I have some thoughts. First I'll share what I believe to be facts, then I'll explain why I think there are only TWO viable options if the Pac-12 has to add four teams to get to 16 in the wake of massive conference shifts.

 

Facts (in my crazy head):

 

1. Texas is threatening independence as a short-term move. Basically, they want 4-5 years to set up their own network, so that when the next round of conference expansion comes, the new home for UT sports can't say no to their own network -- they have to take UT, the UT sports network and live with the setup. Texas wants to be in a conference. They just want to get their TV network set up. And since the Big 12 seems willing to allow it, UT will happily stay in the Big 12 for a few more years before pulling the plug on it and moving to the Pac-16 (I still see it as an eventuality). UT is the Silver Surfer of college athletics.

 

2. The Pac-12 has limited, realistic, options due to lack of major media markets west of Texas.

 

3. BYU will never, ever, ever, be considered a candidate. Nor will TCU.

 

4. The Pac-12 will wait until the Big Ten makes another move (they will re-start this in five years after five more horrible seasons of ND football, when the new school leadership -- the younger ones -- will be open to join because ND football will be flailing around by then) before doing anything else. The Pac knows the Big 12 will die soon and that the Big 10 and SEC aren't likely to go after the schools the Pac will need to get to 16, although I believe an A&M/OU SEC combo is VERY realistic.

 

5. NEW MEXICO is the best-kept secret out there in terms of demographics and market 30 years down the road (think the next Phoenix).

 

6. Cal-State schools are never, ever, an option (mainly because the UCs don't want them).

 

OK, OK. Here are the ONLY two ways I think the Pac could get to 16.

THE TEXAS MODEL

Step 1: Texas wants the Pac.

Step 2: Pac invites Texas, Tech, OU, OSU to get to 16

Step 3: PROFIT!!!$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

The Geographic Model

Step 1: Texas does something and it's not joining the Pac; Pac must act as others go to 16

Step 2: Since the Texas move likely takes other Texas/Oklahoma options off the table (I can see the SEC take UT, A&M, OU and OSU to help keep Arkansas), the league has to swallow its pride and take teams within its current two time zones.

Step 3: Needing four teams and not being able to raid the Big 12, the Pac HAS to add four schools that aren't quite ripe. So they add Boise State, Nevada, UNLV and New Mexico. None of those schools would be high on the list for the Pac right now, but in a bleak future where they have to resort to just get numbers, the options become more attractive. So they add the Nevada schools because of the rivalry pairing and to flow with the current geographic footprint, while they take Boise because they're still a football force and have even more respect by this point. Finally, they take UNM because of what could be: Albuquerque, IMO, is the next Phoenix. Maybe it won't grow at the same clip, but the future demographic projections for ALB are strong and UNM is a solid school with a GREAT hoops program. Football needs help, but a BCS payday would help them improve quick. I think they're the diamond in the rough out west, as after Vegas, ALB is the last best decent market out there. And, after some time in the Pac, down the road, all of those schools would be able to rise to the level of the others and everything would be fine.

 

Just my take.

[Guest FountainofUte]

Good stuff, OKBuff. I actually share your take on New Mexico. I wouldn't shed a tear if they ended up in the PAC. They're an underrated academic school, a growing metro in the west, a VERY passionate fan base for their hoops (mens and womens). They could use some help with football and fb facilities. The Pit has always been a great place for hoops, and is only getting better with a major upgrade that I think debuts this season.

 

What about Air Force? Is that no consideration for them in the PAC? Does the whole military thing fly in the face of the libs in the Bay area? The Academy's academics are top notch. I'm not well versed on their research, but the little I've heard they're not left wanting in that category. Of all the schools we're leaving behind in the MWC, the AFA is probably the one that is toughest to leave in the rear view mirror. (And also TCU, they've more than earned the Utes' respect of late.)

[Guest superdeluxe]

I see I have a issue about #4) If we wait on others..Big ten might grab UT and Notre Dame, and if SEC gets OU/A&M, we are SUNK. Aren't we still dealing with both UT and OU having problems about cutting the cord with their state brothers?

 

We were pre-emptive this summer, and we will have to be again.

[Guest superdeluxe]

I agree with OKCBuff about New Mexico though, Alberqerque is a growing metro area, and is the only media market that has some teeth, and falls largely outside of the pac-12's footprint. I know they have great academics, but I am unsure about their facilities and commitment to sports

 

I do disagree about taking whoever to get 16 though..Why would you have to go 16? Going to 16 and adding schools which does not bring huge media markets I think would actually cost us money, is there a reason to go to 16?

 

I think we could get to 16 without UT. If UT goes to Big 10, And A&M has a change of heat, we could grab OU/OSU/A&M and Tech. Which delivers the state of Texas pretty much (OU/A&M/TT), OU will deliver D/FW.

[Guest OKCBuff]

Well, like I said above (or should have said), the "geographic" expansion model assumes that good options to our east (Texas schools, OU, OSU, etc) are already off the table. I realize the Pac jumped out there this time, but that came after the Big Ten put noise out there about talking to Mizzou, NU and east-coast schools. IMO, the Pac reacted to what the Big Ten did because those two conferences are joined at the hip and if the Big Ten was going to 16, the Pac felt compelled to as well just to keep pace.

 

I still believe the Pac lusts after Texas. As I said above, the only decent market not in the Pac footprint is Albuquerque (I lump Vegas into the Pac-10/12 now because of its close ties to the LA area and Salt Lake being in the mix now). To REALLY expand in a huge way, it has to include Texas, OU and likely OSU/ Tech (those have to happen btw). There are no other "big splash" additions left now that we have CU and UU. Boise is a nice get for football, but every other sport sucks and academics is way below standards.

 

So again, I hope everyone realizes my "geographic" model depends on good Big 12 options to be off the table for whatever reasons (it could easily happen).

 

I'm glad people see my UNM pick. If I'm the Big 12, I add them and Memphis tomorrow and call it good. UNM is exactly where ASU and UA were in the 70s: Seemingly an outpost school in a region that is starting to grow but isn't getting national notice yet. When the Pac-8 added the Devils and Cats, many Pac presidents weren't happy because they felt both were no better than a community college. ASU had a great football and baseball history, but that was about it. The UA addition, to my readings, really was questioned at the time because Tucson was in the middle of nowhere and its athletics wasn't very good (pre-Lute). But now, both schools have been fine additions -- ASU has had good-to-great football teams and baseball tradition, while UA hoops is still a big deal now, even with their slip. And in ASU's case, that school is getting named to all sorts of "Top" schools lists. And with Phoenix now the 5th-biggest metro area, you can say the Arizona schools gamble more than paid off for the Pac. I feel we'll say the same about NM/ALB around 2030 or so.

 

And why would we go to 16? I believe the future of multiple, 16-team conferences is the next wave. (Ironically, I think 8-10 team conferences is the next next wave, say 30 years from now, as schools ache for more community and stronger ties to each other.) I believe the Big Ten is going to give Notre Dame one final chance in about five years. By then, as the Big Ten must be thinking, Notre Dame could be onto another coach after another string of sub-par seasons. Maybe NBC will be balking at staying with them. Maybe alums/donors will be aching for the Big Ten by then. I do know that the "next generation" leadership for ND leans slightly toward joining the Big Ten (they were overruled this past time by the old guard which doesn't have much time left in power). If the Big Ten can finally get them, I see them adding Mizzou, Rutgers and either Pitt/Cuse to get to 16 and they'll be set. But now that they have 12 teams, if they get ND, they will go to 16 automatically -- that would allow them to grab the biggest prize left while adding the NYC area as icing on the cake.

 

So, I work under the assumption that the Big Ten, er, Twen(?) will go to 16 within a decade. If that happens, the Pac needs to act fast. The SEC has already said they'll only go to 16 if someone else (read, Big Ten) gets there first, and if they do, I can see them going two ways: adding A&M, OU, and two out of Clemson, GaTech, VaTech and Florida State OR A&M, OU, UT and OSU. I believe they will go west all-in, as those east teams are already in SEC territory and I don't see the need to get them -- with the exception of VT, which has a big presence in the DC/NVA area.

 

But I know for a fact A&M wants the SEC and I also know OU had deep discussions with the SEC this summer and they were interested in going. However, the SEC balked at OSU. (OU fought hard for them to go; if they had said yes I believe those three would have gone together, with maybe VT or one of the east schools rounding out the expansion.) So, that means one of the major expansion cogs for the Pac-10 (OU) could be poached by the SEC. If OU can get OSU accepted, this could happen before anyone realizes it. (Why? Because the SEC knows Arkansas is only staying in the SEC for the paycheck; adding OU, OSU and A&M would get Arky three real regional in-conference rivals they have histories with in various sports.) I ultimately believe this is what will happen, as A&M and the Oklahoma schools are a better cultural, academic and competitive (in terms of program budget/fan zealotry) fit than in the Pac-10. Only UT has the "feel" of a west-coast school.

 

Anyway, that's hopefully a better explanation as to my line of thinking.

[Guest GoBruinz]

If the PAC 12 can't get Texas, I don't think we expand to 16. There are real benefits to expanding to 12 teams (especially being able to have a conference championship game), but the benefits of going from 12 to 16 seem much more marginal.

 

I think (and hope) that the only reason the PAC ever expands to 16 is that we are getting Texas (and Texas wants to bring its friends along).

[Guest superdeluxe]

Bleh a pac-16 with half the schools coming from the WAC/MWC just doesn't seem like that great of a idea.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

I strongly support New Mexico making the move to the PAC when the Lobos are ready for that. The football stadium and The Pit are very close to the airport...I'd say 5 minutes away and that is something that should not be overlooked at all and won't be overlooked by the ADs of the PAC concerning the student-athlete's welfare. A UNM-TT pair would be a nice add to the Pac-12 although Lubbock is in the middle of nowhere but if the Pac-12 has Pullman, the Pac-16 can have Lubbock too. Based on the last time I was in ALBQ, I suspect that UNM is a Big 12 lean at this time instead of the Pac-12. Lubbock does have an airport nearby as well and is in the central time zone on the western edge just right next to Mountain time zone and doesn't have the same travel issues that UT and A&M would face because they are so far out west in Texas.

 

UNM and TT used to be Border States Conference members with the Arizona schools.

 

BSU might be a tricky situation due to who would be paired up with them. I could see Nevada-Reno with them but that could mean we would need to subsituite TT with UNLV and BSU is paired up with Utah while CU is paired up with UNM. I did go to a recent UNM-CU MBB not that long ago in Boulder and I did feel and see some potential for a CU-UNM rivalry.

 

I don't think the PAC will add more than one school from a state if the Big 12 South four-some passes on the PAC.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

If the PAC 12 can't get Texas, I don't think we expand to 16. There are real benefits to expanding to 12 teams (especially being able to have a conference championship game), but the benefits of going from 12 to 16 seem much more marginal.

 

I think (and hope) that the only reason the PAC ever expands to 16 is that we are getting Texas (and Texas wants to bring its friends along).

 

I agree with your points. The PAC might have to get proactive in regards to UNM because they are also a Big 12 target and I suspect they will be targeted along with Arkansas if the large increase in the Big 12 TV contract is indeed true.

 

It's fun to debate who could be next but I'd happily put it to rest once we get rolling with the Pac-12.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

Bleh a pac-16 with half the schools coming from the WAC/MWC just doesn't seem like that great of a idea.

 

The Pac-12 has three former WAC members and the Oregon schools & Washington State did talk with the WAC charter schools about being part of the WAC before the WAC was formed after the PCC disbanded in 1959.

[Guest superdeluxe]

I strongly support New Mexico making the move to the PAC when the Lobos are ready for that. The football stadium and The Pit are very close to the airport...I'd say 5 minutes away and that is something that should not be overlooked at all and won't be overlooked by the ADs of the PAC concerning the student-athlete's welfare. A UNM-TT pair would be a nice add to the Pac-12 although Lubbock is in the middle of nowhere but if the Pac-12 has Pullman, the Pac-16 can have Lubbock too. Based on the last time I was in ALBQ, I suspect that UNM is a Big 12 lean at this time instead of the Pac-12. Lubbock does have an airport nearby as well and is in the central time zone on the western edge just right next to Mountain time zone and doesn't have the same travel issues that UT and A&M would face because they are so far out west in Texas.

 

UNM and TT used to be Border States Conference members with the Arizona schools.

 

BSU might be a tricky situation due to who would be paired up with them. I could see Nevada-Reno with them but that could mean we would need to subsituite TT with UNLV and BSU is paired up with Utah while CU is paired up with UNM. I did go to a recent UNM-CU MBB not that long ago in Boulder and I did feel and see some potential for a CU-UNM rivalry.

 

I don't think the PAC will add more than one school from a state if the Big 12 South four-some passes on the PAC.

 

TT without UT or at least A&M? We would be taking care of Austin's 'Tech' Problem.

[Guest superdeluxe]

The Pac-12 has three former WAC members and the Oregon schools & Washington State did talk with the WAC charter schools about being part of the WAC before the WAC was formed after the PCC disbanded in 1959.

 

 

I get that..but going forward not sure how much those additional MWC/WAC schools would bring to the table in terms of television sets and overall academic/athletic stature. If WSU was up for admission in 2010, I don't think they would get in.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

TT without UT or at least A&M? We would be taking care of Austin's 'Tech' Problem.

 

A "Tech" problem that could be an AAU member in 10-20 years plus they do have a share of the Dallas-Ft. Worth market that won't be ignored by Scott plus they are between ALBQ and DFW. Given how some Pac-10 schools are recruiting more in Texas, this would be a good fit and a necessary selection if the SEC gets A&M and OU while UT goes independent.

 

Unlike OU and Okie State (unless OKCBuff says otherwise since he's in OK), TT does have a fully funded plan to get TT's academics up to par with UT and A&M.

 

TT fans have said that they prefer the PAC and the SEC & Big Ten are not options for TT if they want to continue to be a BCS school.

[Guest superdeluxe]

A "Tech" problem that could be an AAU member in 10-20 years plus they do have a share of the Dallas-Ft. Worth market that won't be ignored by Scott plus they are between ALBQ and DFW. Given how some Pac-10 schools are recruiting more in Texas, this would be a good fit and a necessary selection if the SEC gets A&M and OU while UT goes independent.

 

Unlike OU and Okie State (unless OKCBuff says otherwise since he's in OK), TT does have a fully funded plan to get TT's academics up to par with UT and A&M.

 

TT fans have said that they prefer the PAC and the SEC & Big Ten are not options for TT if they want to continue to be a BCS school.

 

Really? My friends from dallas say that Tech is a distinct 4th in the D/FW market..after UT, OU, and A&M. Sure we would capture Western Texas..but..that is just Western Texas.

 

I heard Oklahoma State was upgrading their academics though..maybe I misheard.

 

When this whole expansion thing was going on, both Okie State and TT fans were all about the pac-10, I think this had more to do with those schools not being left out in the 'cold' like Kansas or Iowa State would.

[Guest Bone Crusher]

I get that..but going forward not sure how much those additional MWC/WAC schools would bring to the table in terms of television sets and overall academic/athletic stature. If WSU was up for admission in 2010, I don't think they would get in.

 

The problem with any future PAC member is that only UT fits the PAC profile and the PAC will have to roll the dice again just like they did with the Arizona schools.

 

Back to Lubbock, they have the same population numbers that ALBQ had 15-20 years ago so once ALBQ explodes, Lubbock will most likely be next and they are part of what is called the Ports to Plains Corridor plan which will help Lubbock grow and they are not that far from Midland-Odessa which is a very important center for Big Oil. Oil and Trade are big money business and will lead to population growth surges.

 

Speaking of oil money, Wyoming has really re-invested the revenues from high oil prices from a few years ago into new academic buildings and big time research projects that is bringing their academics up to par. I think they recently got bumped up to the High Research Activity level if not the VHRA level. The only downside is their population but they do have a presence in Denver along with AFA and CSU.

 

Wyoming would be a good pair with BSU...just think Cowboys and Broncos.

 

Those four schools would be just one school from their respective states since I don't believe the PAC will add more than one school from one state down the road. Plus they are in regions with high growth possibilities which can lead to research dollars being pumped into their respective schools.

[Guest superdeluxe]

I don't think Wyoming is going to have a increase in population..hasn't their population actually gone into decline the past few decades? Wyoming *screams* to me another mouth to the table, without bringing much to the table.

[Guest superdeluxe]

If we can't get UT or A&M, how about a OU/OSU/TT/Missouri option?

 

So you would have your 'east' of

 

Arizona

Arizona State

Utah

Colorado

OU

OSU

TT

Missouri?

 

OU/OSU/TT gives you Texas, Missouri gives you the Kansas City/St Louis Media Markets, and in effect, every major media market west of the Mississippi. I think that would also give you some market penetration into Illinois, Arkansas and Kansas

[Guest The Real U]

If we can't get UT or A&M, how about a OU/OSU/TT/Missouri option?

 

So you would have your 'east' of

 

Arizona

Arizona State

Utah

Colorado

OU

OSU

TT

Missouri?

 

OU/OSU/TT gives you Texas, Missouri gives you the Kansas City/St Louis Media Markets, and in effect, every major media market west of the Mississippi. I think that would also give you some market penetration into Illinois, Arkansas and Kansas

Ouch, that would be a tough football division. The SEC couldnt say they were the best at this point. I am sure the coffers would be filled with gold, but I have concerns that if the 16 team league did come to fruition the BCS would be in bigger trouble... just IMO.

[Guest GoBruinz]

If we can't get UT or A&M, how about a OU/OSU/TT/Missouri option?

 

So you would have your 'east' of

 

Arizona

Arizona State

Utah

Colorado

OU

OSU

TT

Missouri?

 

OU/OSU/TT gives you Texas, Missouri gives you the Kansas City/St Louis Media Markets, and in effect, every major media market west of the Mississippi. I think that would also give you some market penetration into Illinois, Arkansas and Kansas

 

I think OU will do whatever Texas does, and OSU will do whatever OU does. But in the scenario above, I think Kansas would be better than Missouri. Kansas is just a couple of years removed from the Orange Bowl, and their basketball program is obviously blue chip with a national fanbase. Missouri is about on par with Kansas in football, and is way below them in basketball. Plus, geographically Kansas makes more sense.

[Guest superdeluxe]

I think OU will do whatever Texas does, and OSU will do whatever OU does. But in the scenario above, I think Kansas would be better than Missouri. Kansas is just a couple of years removed from the Orange Bowl, and their basketball program is obviously blue chip with a national fanbase. Missouri is about on par with Kansas in football, and is way below them in basketball. Plus, geographically Kansas makes more sense.

 

 

yeah but that Orange Bowl was made up on smoke and mirrors. Because they were in the north, they missed the big guns, and they were 4-0 playing community college teams OOC.

 

Basketball they would be big time, and geographically they make more sense..but Doesn't Kansas have a 'state' problem as well? We wouldnt have that limitation with Missouri