NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:58 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3495 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 229, 230, 231, 232, 233
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:02 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 829
Location: Columbus, OH
Good posts all around. Lash pointed out that there are troubles concerning the the Texlahoma 4 and I agree. I actually pointed a lot of those problems out in a separate thread i created the other day about the feasibility of an independent Texas. A lot of the Pac 12 schools seem content. The schools that would be slated to be in a division with the Texlahoma 4 (especially Colorado and the Arizona schools) don't want to be in that division and some of the academic purists at places like Cal and Stanford are using academic standards as their justification for opposition of that plan. i'd encourage you all to post your thoughts on the idea of an independent Texas.

The Big Ten erred when they added Maryland and Rutgers. If they had been smart they should have gone for Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. It would have built a geographic bridge to the prize that is Texas and brought them some awesome programs with proven football pedigrees (and Kansas's incredible basketball pedigree). Right now neither the Big Ten or SEC could expand to include Texas, Oklahoma, and the programs that would have to come with them without going beyond 16 members. There are also some other significant obstacles--A&M could peek the Longhorns out of the SEC. Nebraska might hold a similar grudge.

Right now the Big 12 is weak but I'm not sure that any of the other power leagues would be willing to make the concessions needed to gut it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:31 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 425
Smart b10 took Rutgers and UMD great tv market.
Their tv contract in 2017 will double


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1067
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
ctx48c wrote:
Smart b10 took Rutgers and UMD great tv market.
Their tv contract in 2017 will double


With all due to respect, I think the opposite about it. However, what's done is done. No turning back.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2011-12 ACC men's basketball conference tournament champions; 2012, 2013 & 2014 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2012, 2013 & 2014 ACC football regular season champions; 2012, 2013 & 2014 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:53 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1198
The Big Ten erred in not taking both Penn State and Pitt. Pitt-Penn State was the only thing going for the northeast in terms of football, other than Army-Navy. Investing in "future rivals" like Rutgers and Maryland, while putting the Big Ten into considerable markets and alumni bases won't erase the grip the two schools have up in these parts. Missouri's the other mistake.

lash wrote:
It is all you eastern guys that apparently want Texas to go to the Pac 12 or somewhere other than the Big 12. Most Pac 12 fans have moved on to bigger and brighter future.


I don't know. I think "moving on" for the PAC is going to 14+ like the other three majors, with or without Texas. And it's not like there aren't schools out there academically and geographically that would help them get some exposure in more "eastern-friendly" time-slots. And it's not like the Big Ten didn't want some of those Big XII schools. The Big Ten wanted Colorado just like the PAC did, but the PAC got them. They wanted Texas, but they seem like a conference with an actual plan without them. The PAC doesn't strike me like that. Turning away Oklahoma, even if it meant taking oSu, comes off like the PAC feels it honestly needs Texas as part of any future endeavor. And it's feeling that pinch: the network isn't paying out, the time difference is clearly an issue, and it's not like Colorado and Utah made the conference immediately and decisively better.

Once the Big Ten gets their deal restructured, it's going to create some spats within pockets, of certain conferences among certain schools. The mere addition of someone like Rutgers, who athletically brought nothing to the table, and their ability to beef up a media deal because of their location, potentially catapults the expansion/realignment topic into some treacherous terrain. You're going to see some big schools finally seeing the financial benefits seemingly everyone speculated would happen with the Big Ten's expansion, and they're going to want to make sure they're right back up there, and above some, as soon as possible.

The Big Ten media deal will be the first domino to get the next big round going. A new bar for revenue. Literal numbers keeping non-B1G school brass awake at night. Even if CCG autonomy happens exactly the way the Big XII wants it, the money is going to make movers out of everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 2:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2726
Location: Phoenix Arizona
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
The Big Ten erred in not taking both Penn State and Pitt. Pitt-Penn State was the only thing going for the northeast in terms of football, other than Army-Navy. Investing in "future rivals" like Rutgers and Maryland, while putting the Big Ten into considerable markets and alumni bases won't erase the grip the two schools have up in these parts. Missouri's the other mistake.

lash wrote:
It is all you eastern guys that apparently want Texas to go to the Pac 12 or somewhere other than the Big 12. Most Pac 12 fans have moved on to bigger and brighter future.


I don't know. I think "moving on" for the PAC is going to 14+ like the other three majors, with or without Texas. And it's not like there aren't schools out there academically and geographically that would help them get some exposure in more "eastern-friendly" time-slots. And it's not like the Big Ten didn't want some of those Big XII schools. The Big Ten wanted Colorado just like the PAC did, but the PAC got them. They wanted Texas, but they seem like a conference with an actual plan without them. The PAC doesn't strike me like that. Turning away Oklahoma, even if it meant taking oSu, comes off like the PAC feels it honestly needs Texas as part of any future endeavor. And it's feeling that pinch: the network isn't paying out, the time difference is clearly an issue, and it's not like Colorado and Utah made the conference immediately and decisively better.

Once the Big Ten gets their deal restructured, it's going to create some spats within pockets, of certain conferences among certain schools. The mere addition of someone like Rutgers, who athletically brought nothing to the table, and their ability to beef up a media deal because of their location, potentially catapults the expansion/realignment topic into some treacherous terrain. You're going to see some big schools finally seeing the financial benefits seemingly everyone speculated would happen with the Big Ten's expansion, and they're going to want to make sure they're right back up there, and above some, as soon as possible.

The Big Ten media deal will be the first domino to get the next big round going. A new bar for revenue. Literal numbers keeping non-B1G school brass awake at night. Even if CCG autonomy happens exactly the way the Big XII wants it, the money is going to make movers out of everyone.

I do not see any conference expanding to 14 just for the sake of it. 14 is by far the worst alignment possible for scheduling among other disadvantages, however, both the SEC and Big Ten had big benefits or reasons to take that approach deliberately. Texas A&M fell into the SEC lap and needed an even number of schools and personally believe the Big Ten retaliated with ACC due to taking partial Notre Dame by spitting the ACC into two non connecting regions with counteracting taking the NYC market and Washington DC/Baltimore markets from the ACC.

The Pac 12 does not appear to have any benefits just to expand to 14 and further erode the California schools that will want to continue to play round robin each year.

Maybe if Notre Dame somehow wanted to join the Pac 12 and needed an eastern school such as Boston College to follow, the Pac 12 may have some interest to gain eastern exposure. The benefits for two eastern schools or adding four such as Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Boston College could benefit the Pac 12 network with eastern time zone teams. This approach does not appear to be feasible as well as the four pods never appear to have benefits for a conference to have a mini playoff. So this ideas would be very far fetched to happen.

Other than that, no other combination of teams appears to benefit the Pac 12. I would never see a Oklahoma and Texas combination to bring the Pac 12 to a Pac 14. This would be disastrous for both of those Big 12 schools in travel, time zones, missed rivalries, etc.

12 was the maximum a conference should have expanded to avoid unwieldy issues that currently plague both the SEC and Big Ten. If everyone assumes all the schools in the Big Ten and SEC are fat and happy with current 14 school alignments are not paying attention to what fans and media are reporting with both of these leagues. Of course the SEC and Big Ten may be laughing all the way to the bank right now with 14, this could change over time and your stuck with an unwieldy alignment that nobody actually really truly prefers or likes in the future.

For now, there is no benefit for the Pac 12 to expand to an unwieldy 14 member just because the Big Ten and SEC made that choice due to other factors. Do no see the Pac 12 jumping off the cliff because some of the other power leagues decided there were benefits for making those expansion decisions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1198
lash wrote:
For now, there is no benefit for the Pac 12 to expand to an unwieldy 14 member just because the Big Ten and SEC made that choice due to other factors. Do no see the Pac 12 jumping off the cliff because some of the other power leagues decided there were benefits for making those expansion decisions.


Nobody finds fourteen ideal, I agree. Those other conferences are just biding their time until the fifteenth and sixteenth schools make themselves available.

I just don't see the PAC as being a unified front or even just content. B1G-PAC was supported by all but two PAC schools and saw it derailed. Turning away OU and oSu, two schools who would be part of the PAC16 anyway, just because Texas wasn't part of the deal? Either you want these guys or you don't, you know? Other conferences don't necessarily care about the order of membership; that whole war over the battle thing...so what's going on with the PAC?

The PAC, like the B1G and SEC, and maybe even the ACC...they all stand to gain if the Big XII goes down in flames. I think everyone will grab a piece. I just think the PAC's got their sites too narrow.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:20 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 829
Location: Columbus, OH
I was really disappointed to B1G-Pac get shot down. I saw B1G-Pac as a move towards a 2 Mega Conference alignment--not just Super Conferences of 16 but an even bigger scheme similar to the AFC/NFC arrangement in the NFL. I saw the SEC grabbing up contingents of the ACC and Big 12 (the more Southern Members) to make up the other half and then the Big-Pac grabbing the Northern members of the ACC and Big 12 to polish things off. Playoff games could then take place within each Mega Conference with the winners of the B1G-Pac and Super-SEC meeting for a National Title game. B1G-Pac and the Super-SEC could then function together as their own collegiate athletic organization and resign from the often corrupt and inept NCAA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:26 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1198
B1G-PAC was going to be a game changer for sure. How big it could have been/could be (I think they'll reopen this in the not so distant future), I don't know. I doubt it would have stopped further expansion...it sounds like the B1G and PAC both had hankerings for something over twelve members, but just a matter of whom.

I think, for the Big XII's sake, that conference should be on its knees thanking their maker that the PAC is such a mess with this stuff. B1G-PAC could have expedited some further expansionary moves, but the PAC passing on the two Oklahoma schools absolutely kept that thing together. And, I think the PAC shot itself in the foot twice on that one: I think Texas would have come back to the PAC's table to work something out. When I read the PAC network figures not being overly impressive, or this concern for more eastern-time-zone-friendly slots...no sympathy. B1G-PAC and the OKs...they'll still call strikes even if you don't swing the bat, you know?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:48 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1588
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
B1G-PAC was going to be a game changer for sure. How big it could have been/could be (I think they'll reopen this in the not so distant future), I don't know. I doubt it would have stopped further expansion...it sounds like the B1G and PAC both had hankerings for something over twelve members, but just a matter of whom.

I think, for the Big XII's sake, that conference should be on its knees thanking their maker that the PAC is such a mess with this stuff. B1G-PAC could have expedited some further expansionary moves, but the PAC passing on the two Oklahoma schools absolutely kept that thing together. And, I think the PAC shot itself in the foot twice on that one: I think Texas would have come back to the PAC's table to work something out. When I read the PAC network figures not being overly impressive, or this concern for more eastern-time-zone-friendly slots...no sympathy. B1G-PAC and the OKs...they'll still call strikes even if you don't swing the bat, you know?

Each of these P5 conferences have schools resistant to change. Some are in the minority, but influential enough to largely get their way. It was alleged, Alabama for example, sat on it a week or better, before concuring to allow the SEC to move forward in the formal invitation to Mizzou.
I do have empathy for Oklahoma wanting to bring along Oklahoma State with any kind of conference transition, particularly with the PAC12, given the distance and the need/desire to have close-by companions. The politics of looking out for in-state sister schools is understandable. State governance doesn't want one moving to something better while the other could get left out in the cold.
There's a popular impression Texas can partake of most any option out there. That's true to a considerable extent. But does any option for Texas look near perfect? The PAC12 is not near utopia given the geographic ramifications and the existing structure of the PAC12. The current Big12 now has a more condensed footprint with fewer numbers. Even if the SEC became a real future option, Texas would be on the west end of the conference of which Texas A&M has already staked a claim. The BIG is predominantly upper midwestern and northeast now, and there would be 'connection' issues there too. The ACC? Texas would be an outlier in a conference that has several schools that don't look like a match in multiple ways.

If leaving the Big 12 is the goal, the best option, would seem to be the PAC12 with a cluster of other new additions (not necessarily all from the B12) that would connect well with the Arizona schools and can blend with Colorado, Utah, and the rest of PAC12. The PAC12 has to see it the same way as the schools coming into a new P12 format.

The Big 12 can still work well for Texas and Oklahoma. They'll have to make some strategic and calculated decisions, and YES, expand for the long-term. There are not really good or easy choices.

If one is looking for the Big 12 is to grow and to be intact 15 or 20 years from now, Bowlsby and team may not be the jockeys one wants riding those horses. These administrators will all be retired or transitioned by that time period. They will be heralded for 'keeping things together'. The next group of guys, facing the future, shall get blamed for any forthcoming break-ups because the overly-praised last group, failed to take modest risks and be innovative for changing times. Will the B12 ultimately have a desperate Marinatto situation (old BE) with a grand implosion; or an Aresco, moving-on, coping realistically, and rebuilding from the remnants for a new and lower profiled league?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2726
Location: Phoenix Arizona
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
B1G-PAC was going to be a game changer for sure. How big it could have been/could be (I think they'll reopen this in the not so distant future), I don't know. I doubt it would have stopped further expansion...it sounds like the B1G and PAC both had hankerings for something over twelve members, but just a matter of whom.

I think, for the Big XII's sake, that conference should be on its knees thanking their maker that the PAC is such a mess with this stuff. B1G-PAC could have expedited some further expansionary moves, but the PAC passing on the two Oklahoma schools absolutely kept that thing together. And, I think the PAC shot itself in the foot twice on that one: I think Texas would have come back to the PAC's table to work something out. When I read the PAC network figures not being overly impressive, or this concern for more eastern-time-zone-friendly slots...no sympathy. B1G-PAC and the OKs...they'll still call strikes even if you don't swing the bat, you know?

You either do not understand how the last college football expansion went down or simply do not want to believe the facts. You could not be more wrong with whom the Big 12 should be thanking their lucky stars to be here today.

The SEC and ironically Texas A&M were the reasons the Pac 16 never metalized. Once Texas A&M had interest from SEC and did not need to follow Texas and the others to the planned Pac 16, Texas and did not want to join the Pac 12 without Texas A&M. There were other pressures in the state of Texas that helped to convince Texas to abort the move west.

You likewise could not be more wrong on the Pac 12 being in a mess. The Pac 12 is more likely to someday raid the Big Ten as likely as taking some Big 12 schools.

If I were a Big Ten fan such as yourself, would not be too optimistic on the new Big Ten TV contact. Speaking of the Pac 12, the old Pac 10 was very under valued and was making less that any of the current power leagues. The Big Ten is already making more with the old TV contract and what is the Big Ten going to bring to the table that makes it more valuable that todays current TV contract. Bringing in Rutgers and Maryland may helped with beefing up the Big Ten network, it would not be that much more valuable to ABC and a possible combination of Fox should the Big Ten try the same approach as the Big 12 and Pac 12. I am not a TV exec, however, just do not see how much more valuable the Big Ten is today compared to the old contract which was at market value or possibly over market value.

Big Ten fans may watch paint dry if it included competition with other Big Ten schools, the other college football fans of the country are not so high on a very bad football league. Granted Ohio State helped a lot by winning the national championship in football, it did not change the fact the Big Ten was the worst of the power leagues in football this year.

If the Big Ten does not bring in that much more that the current TV contact, the conference can kiss any plans good by on taking ACC schools which may promote another expansion war.

The SEC is most likely happy with 14 and doing great. The Pac 12 is very happy with 12. The ACC is just happy to be alive.

So good luck with you hope on the Big 12 breaking up having any thing to do with the Big Ten.

You really need to use facts when shooting your mouth off. Otherwise you lose credibility with your comments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:48 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 829
Location: Columbus, OH
Lash--I'm a little confused by the sudden harshness. Bishin made some very valid points and I agree with him; the Big 12 is lucky to be alive.

You were correct that A&M was the school that kept the original Pac12 plan from going through. But The Pac 12 could have been a reality a year or two later but then there were other contingencies. After the initial Pac 16 offer was turned down by everyone but Colorado it looked as though the Big 12 was just going to stick together as one big happy 10 member family but then the SEC got involved and wanted a footing in Texas and A&M was happy to give it to them but suddenly all of the "all of us Texas schools have to stick together" mentality was gone. I'm not sure why suddenly it was ok for the Aggies to do what they wanted when previously the Texas schools operated with a group mentality and did what was best for them as a block rather than individual members. I'm not sure why after the TAMU secession Texas and company didn't go right back to the Pac 12 and negotiate new terms for a Pac 16. If the issue was Texas not wanting to go without a bigger block of local schools they could have asked for a Pac 18 with room at the table for Baylor and TCU. What I believe happened was that the LHN, bankrolled by ESPN prevented FOX from gaining a strong money maker in the form of a Pac 16/18.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:49 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:27 pm
Posts: 22
All Power5 decided to climb in the same king bed.
Sub allianes are just shrills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:21 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1198
lash wrote:
You either do not understand how the last college football expansion went down or simply do not want to believe the facts. You could not be more wrong with whom the Big 12 should be thanking their lucky stars to be here today.

The SEC and ironically Texas A&M were the reasons the Pac 16 never metalized. Once Texas A&M had interest from SEC and did not need to follow Texas and the others to the planned Pac 16, Texas and did not want to join the Pac 12 without Texas A&M. There were other pressures in the state of Texas that helped to convince Texas to abort the move west.

You likewise could not be more wrong on the Pac 12 being in a mess. The Pac 12 is more likely to someday raid the Big Ten as likely as taking some Big 12 schools.

If I were a Big Ten fan such as yourself, would not be too optimistic on the new Big Ten TV contact. Speaking of the Pac 12, the old Pac 10 was very under valued and was making less that any of the current power leagues. The Big Ten is already making more with the old TV contract and what is the Big Ten going to bring to the table that makes it more valuable that todays current TV contract. Bringing in Rutgers and Maryland may helped with beefing up the Big Ten network, it would not be that much more valuable to ABC and a possible combination of Fox should the Big Ten try the same approach as the Big 12 and Pac 12. I am not a TV exec, however, just do not see how much more valuable the Big Ten is today compared to the old contract which was at market value or possibly over market value.

Big Ten fans may watch paint dry if it included competition with other Big Ten schools, the other college football fans of the country are not so high on a very bad football league. Granted Ohio State helped a lot by winning the national championship in football, it did not change the fact the Big Ten was the worst of the power leagues in football this year.

If the Big Ten does not bring in that much more that the current TV contact, the conference can kiss any plans good by on taking ACC schools which may promote another expansion war.

The SEC is most likely happy with 14 and doing great. The Pac 12 is very happy with 12. The ACC is just happy to be alive.

So good luck with you hope on the Big 12 breaking up having any thing to do with the Big Ten.

You really need to use facts when shooting your mouth off. Otherwise you lose credibility with your comments.


The facts are what they are, lash. Ten out of twelve PAC schools supported B1G-PAC, but it didn't carry. The PAC also passed on two schools (one being one they want very much) who were a part of a larger PAC plan/vision. They vent that they can't get a grasp on more east coast friendly time-slots. I'm having some trouble finding the logic in their perceived strength. I don't contest their regional might. When you hold a monopoly of an entire coast, you aren't necessarily troubled by some issues others may face. But it ends somewhere.

If they are currently plagued by visibility in certain markets, surely you can see how matters like both B1G-PAC and expansion into the CTZ with Oklahoma schools would have relieved them of this issue. If they were/are so set on having Texas as a member, did they just not want to indulge where that rabbit hole led if they had taken the Oklahoma schools, further destabilizing (and possibly terminating) the Big XII?

LHN is a pain, but, again, it's a two-way street. It's as much ESPN's as it is Texas' thing. Change the conference landscape enough, and ESPN loses its interest. That's not speculation or opinion, that's business.

TAMU was its own agent of chaos. But, was what they did really all that shocking given the interest between them and the SEC those years back? I mean, looking back even into the late 80's and early 90's, TAMU wasn't one that was factored into B1G or PAC plans were the Big XII to not have happened. I'm going to guess that it was safe to assume TAMU-SEC was a fait accompli. If that's the case, how smart was it of the PAC to peg expansion endeavors on them as a participant?

I just find the whole history thing fascinating. And in collegiate sports, there are so many of these little fountainhead programs and political spats that derail things rather dramatically. The PAC's definitely a part of the current situation, and, yes, the Big XII's very existence is a byproduct by what that western conference failed to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:27 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 829
Location: Columbus, OH
To me it seems that after A&M went to the SEC and the Pac 16 discussion reopened that Texas got away with a major bluff and the Pac 12 bought it. Texas at one point decided to put their foot down and said they weren't interested unless they could have the LHN. The Oklahoma school were still interested and wanted in but the Pac 12 didn't want to risk expanding and not get Texas. The loss of the Oklahoma schools would have rendered the Big 12's television value almost worthless as they would have Texas and only Texas as a flagship with national value. The Pac could have leaked that they were going forward with their Central Time Zone expansion with Texas Tech and Baylor/TCU if they couldn't land Texas. Essentially they would have sent the message to Texas "Either join us on our terms or we wreck your conference and leave you with Kansas, Kansas St, and Iowa St--good luck with that." Instead, Texas was gifted with the a wonderful scenario in which it was clear to them and all of their conference mates that if they didn't go to the Pac 12 then no one got to go to the Pac 12. that gave them an incredible amount of leverage and bought the LHN time to get off the ground and grow some legs on which to stand giving them not only sway over the Big 12 but an advantage in any future talks with the Pac 12 or any conference for that matter.

Here we are now. and the Pac 12 Network is struggling to have East Coast-friendly content which could have been alleviated by admitted the Oklahoma and Texas schools.

I know this doesn't paint Texas in a very good light and that Longhorn fans would beg to differ with this course of events but to me that's how things went down.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:03 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 421
The Bishin Cutter wrote:

Ten out of twelve PAC schools supported B1G-PAC, but it didn't carry.
...appearing as the unbriddled passion to have submissive, mental intercourse with the topping Notre Dame. ...rather disturbing the insane deference, at the expense of the PAC12, given by USC and Stanford to the independent and crafty Notre Dame. ..but that's a varying pattern throughout the P5, particularly highlighted with the ACC's formalized, one-sided deal with ND, who seems to have outwitted Swofford considerably.

The Bishin Cutter wrote:
The PAC also passed on two schools (one being one they want very much) who were a part of a larger PAC plan/vision.

PAC decided to pass thinking the pakage deal could come up later with more favorable conditions. You are correct though, taking OU/OSU would have greatly advanced the conditions for the ultimate outcome.

The Bishin Cutter wrote:
TAMU was its own agent of chaos. But, was what they did really all that shocking given the interest between them and the SEC those years back? I mean, looking back even into the late 80's and early 90's, TAMU wasn't one that was factored into B1G or PAC plans were the Big XII to not have happened. I'm going to guess that it was safe to assume TAMU-SEC was a fait accompli. If that's the case, how smart was it of the PAC to peg expansion endeavors on them as a participant?


Texas A&M was interested in going to the SEC prior to the Big8 marriage with the Texas 4. Only pressure made them stay, and Texas A&M did not have the political clout/will to break away, alone, then (though Texas was also offered). Plus, it has to coincide with SEC timetable movements. TA&M never preferred the PAC.

The Bishin Cutter wrote:
And in collegiate sports, there are so many of these little fountainhead programs and political spats that derail things rather dramatically


As to the long PAC12/BIG tango, the foundation for it is the Rose Bowl. The PAC is the obvious host platform given the Pasadena location. The B1G has had a huge advantage with that "granddaddy" for multiple decades as the permanent invitee conference, with the exceptional years whereby the BCS/playoff championships have altered. The B1G knows the Rose Bowl has been their cake and icing and wants to build off it (engaging the PAC 12) for their further advantage, inclusive of reinforcing that Rose Bowl perc....


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3495 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 229, 230, 231, 232, 233

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jbb and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group