NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:36 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 881 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2688
Location: Phoenix Arizona
tkalmus wrote:
ctx48c wrote:
The PAC 12 has no interest in MWC teams nor in BYU.
Their interest is in UT,UOKL plus OKL ST and Texas Tech

This is obvious.

Norwich was asking a hypothetical that is extremely unlikely and I gave an answer.

This is a slow time on this board so almost any postings that can help jump start a conversation are appreciated by people like me even for that fact that it gives me a break from work to think about random stuff like realignment.

You don't know what is going to happen and neither does anyone else on this board. No need to be so negative all the time, just because you disagree doesn't mean others a wrong.

And I like your posts (that say more than "not going to happen"), for the most part we seem to agree in everything but B1G expansion.

An interesting scenario for the Pac 12 if there were ever any interest in expansion again, would be to raid the Big Ten for Nebraska and take old rival Oklahoma as a pair to reach 14 schools. Nebraska would be united again with old rival and close by University of Colorado and there was not a better rival than the old Big 8 of Nebraska and University of Oklahoma joining the Pac 12.

With the LA Rams in St Louis, there may be some interest for Missouri to rejoin their old Big 8 rivals in a reconfigured western Pac 16.

The Pac 12 could then add powerhouse basketball schools Kansas to the mix and you have a nice group of Midwestern schools to expand the Pac 12 network into Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri.

The Big Ten would then be free to continue and expand into the eastern markets taking the University of Virginia, University of North Carolina along with rival Duke as a replacement for far reaching University of Nebraska.

University of Texas, Florida State, and Clemson as a Missouri replacement would make for a nice rounded 16 member SEC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:45 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:14 pm
Posts: 1
I have been reading this forum for years and finally felt like I needed to chime in on this subject.

This new world order in which we see the P5 conferences moving to, is going to continuously keep advancing until the "Jones" have all caught up with each other. Most of the expansions have been reactionary moves based on rumors and potential losses. I.E. The ACC grabbing Pitt and Syracuse for fear of loosing schools to the B10 when the talk was that they were going to grab five schools including three from the ACC. Also, at that time the Pac 10 was working on adding the Texhoma three plus Colorado. In the end, the Texhoma deal fell through, the Pac settled on Utah and Colorado, the B10 ended up only taking one (Nebraska) and the ACC was left with too many mouths to feed. Now I will get to my point.

The Pac-12 is now behind the curve and needing to catch up with it's two biggest competitors for college football dominance (B10 and SEC). They now need to add at least two more and may make the move to 16 first. I am sure there has been continuing discussions between Texas and the Pac that if the revenues are not what Texas expected from LongHorn that a move would be eminent. The same is probably true with Oklahoma as well, but I think they would rather stay in the east then have games two time zones over. Oklahoma will try to do what A&M did and move to either the B10 or the SEC and most likely the SEC with Ok. State. for 16. We are now left with Texas and TT as the only true viable options for the Pac out of the Big 12. Kansas is not going to the Pac, no way no how. They are B10 bound. With all that being said I only think they will take Texas and here is why.

The move right now is to capture TV dollars first and foremost and all of the conference moves have been to get bigger and better TV contracts. All this discussion about taking Boise State (112 TV market), Baylor (94 TV Market) etc. is ridiculous. It's not going to happen no matter how good they are. Their TV markets suck and their fan bases are not large enough to overcome that and that is why they will never get a sniff. When the Pac makes their next move it will be for Texas first and they will add TV markets as needed to keep up the SEC and B10. My guess is they will either grab UNM (44 TV Market) or UNLV (42 TV Market) to couple with Texas due to the size of the TV market and the fact it would be a market not currently captured by the Pac. If the move is to get to 16 then the top four are in order.

1. Texas
2. UNM/UNLV
3. UNLV/UNM
4. San Diego State

Although San Diego is a larger TV market (28) than both Las Vegas and Albuquerque-Santa Fe it is repetitive for the coverage they have in California and the fan base is non-existent in comparison to UCLA, SC, Cal or Stanford. Those four schools have larger fan bases in SDSU's back yard than SDSU ever will. The get for the Pac in adding SDSU is another California trip to appease UofA, ASU and Colorado. It would guarantee every non-Cali school a chance to recruit the hot bed that is California once a year. If they go to 16 my guess is that the conference would break out like this:

North - UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Stanford, Cal, Utah, UCLA

South - ASU, UA, Texas, UNM, UNLV, SDSU, Colorado, USC

They would add protected crossovers to protect rivalries and keep the nine game schedule so that you rotate through the other six on the opposite side. Obviously this is all speculation, but this is my best guess based on what I have seen transpire over the last 10 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:07 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2688
Location: Phoenix Arizona
The Goods wrote:
I have been reading this forum for years and finally felt like I needed to chime in on this subject.

This new world order in which we see the P5 conferences moving to, is going to continuously keep advancing until the "Jones" have all caught up with each other. Most of the expansions have been reactionary moves based on rumors and potential losses. I.E. The ACC grabbing Pitt and Syracuse for fear of loosing schools to the B10 when the talk was that they were going to grab five schools including three from the ACC. Also, at that time the Pac 10 was working on adding the Texhoma three plus Colorado. In the end, the Texhoma deal fell through, the Pac settled on Utah and Colorado, the B10 ended up only taking one (Nebraska) and the ACC was left with too many mouths to feed. Now I will get to my point.

The Pac-12 is now behind the curve and needing to catch up with it's two biggest competitors for college football dominance (B10 and SEC). They now need to add at least two more and may make the move to 16 first. I am sure there has been continuing discussions between Texas and the Pac that if the revenues are not what Texas expected from LongHorn that a move would be eminent. The same is probably true with Oklahoma as well, but I think they would rather stay in the east then have games two time zones over. Oklahoma will try to do what A&M did and move to either the B10 or the SEC and most likely the SEC with Ok. State. for 16. We are now left with Texas and TT as the only true viable options for the Pac out of the Big 12. Kansas is not going to the Pac, no way no how. They are B10 bound. With all that being said I only think they will take Texas and here is why.

The move right now is to capture TV dollars first and foremost and all of the conference moves have been to get bigger and better TV contracts. All this discussion about taking Boise State (112 TV market), Baylor (94 TV Market) etc. is ridiculous. It's not going to happen no matter how good they are. Their TV markets suck and their fan bases are not large enough to overcome that and that is why they will never get a sniff. When the Pac makes their next move it will be for Texas first and they will add TV markets as needed to keep up the SEC and B10. My guess is they will either grab UNM (44 TV Market) or UNLV (42 TV Market) to couple with Texas due to the size of the TV market and the fact it would be a market not currently captured by the Pac. If the move is to get to 16 then the top four are in order.

1. Texas
2. UNM/UNLV
3. UNLV/UNM
4. San Diego State

Although San Diego is a larger TV market (28) than both Las Vegas and Albuquerque-Santa Fe it is repetitive for the coverage they have in California and the fan base is non-existent in comparison to UCLA, SC, Cal or Stanford. Those four schools have larger fan bases in SDSU's back yard than SDSU ever will. The get for the Pac in adding SDSU is another California trip to appease UofA, ASU and Colorado. It would guarantee every non-Cali school a chance to recruit the hot bed that is California once a year. If they go to 16 my guess is that the conference would break out like this:

North - UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Stanford, Cal, Utah, UCLA

South - ASU, UA, Texas, UNM, UNLV, SDSU, Colorado, USC

They would add protected crossovers to protect rivalries and keep the nine game schedule so that you rotate through the other six on the opposite side. Obviously this is all speculation, but this is my best guess based on what I have seen transpire over the last 10 years.

Sorry to burst your bubble on your first try on this site, I just do not see the University of Texas in any scenario in the Pac 12. That ship had one chance and sailed into the western sunset without getting Texas on board.

Texas is not going to join a western based league while its primary requiting rival Texas A&M is getting all that eastern exposure in the SEC.

The Pac 12 has always been at an disadvantage when its comes to time zones especially during the critical night games that are prime time TV. The SEC thrives on night games and Texas is not going to allow a school in its home state to have any more advantage than possible and joining the Pac 12 without Texas A&M would be disastrous for the University of Texas.

The Pac 12 also has a major disadvantage with eastern media biased and most Pac 12 officials will attest to this facts. University of Texas is not going to want any part of this while its chief rival is in the eastern and central based time zones and media markets.

Since ESPN basically is running both SEC Network and LHN, it would be very easy to just combine both someday if necessary for Texas to make a move into the SEC someday.

If Texas ever has any plans to leave the Big 12 which is highly doubtful as the University of Texas has a good thing in the Big 12 along with its LHN, the SEC would be the only option I can see the school making a move that would be beneficial and practical at the same time.

We all by now can stop with all the academic concerns that Texas may have with the SEC as this is just not the primary reason a school makes a move into another league. Likewise we can stop with the Texas is afraid to join the SEC.

As long as college conference networks thrive so will the fate of the LHN. I do not see Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State, WVU, Oklahoma State, and Iowa State having many options in the future for conferences with cable networks and those teams will keep the Big 12 in tack and provide Texas and the LHN a safe home for the long term future.

Assuming someday the U of Kansas and the U of Oklahoma would attract the interest of the conferences with networks and bolt the Big 12 for the Big Ten and its conference network benefits, I do not see any league including the Big Ten bringing along Kansas State and Oklahoma State just for the fun of it.

Worse case scenario the Big 12 would simply reload with a couple teams such as BYU to reach 10 and carry on without Kansas and Oklahoma.

Again I just do not see the state of Kansas population as a big draw for conference cable networks. Ditto with the state of Oklahoma especially taking two schools from this state.

Based on this strong prediction, I do not see Texas being a candidate for any other league and most likely none of the other current 9 Big 12 members as well.

If the Pac 12 wants to expand in the future, the most likely targets would have to be the MWC schools. I just do not see the Pac 12 schools wanting or needing to do this so the Big 12 and Pac 12 to me are pretty much set for the future.

Maybe BYU with its own tier 3 network would fit very nicely into the Big 12 strategy and may someday find its way into the Big 12. Regardless, BYU most likely will never be considered for Pac 12 membership needing many liberal college votes to gain support.

Other than BYU, is there any non power five school in the west worth expansion of the Pac 12. UNLV are you kidding me! SDSU would bring no additional markets a compete with current Pac 12 schools including the Arizona schools for the California requiting benefits. Boise State has no market for the Pac 12 to speak of and Utah State would be just one more mouth to feed.

Which Pac 12 schools are going to vote to bring in extra competition of additional MWC schools. It was very difficult to get the old Pac 10 interested in expansion and only the so called Texhoma helped get everyone interested in expansion in the first place which eventually lead to Utah and Colorado getting an invite. Since the Texhoma ship has sailed, what interest is going to persuade the current Pac 12 schools to expand when only MWC schools are available for the taking.

Sorry I just do not see the Pac 12 expanding in the very long future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:24 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 26
If not the Texahoma 4, why not Hawaii?

You could air Hawaii's conference games on ESPN 9P/Midnight Eastern and stage a gambler's folly (one final chance to earn all losses back) every Saturday and it would air in prime time on the West Coast; currently nothing does or ever has for that matter aside from the rare Hawaii game in the past 25 years) ! Not to mention, with Pac-12 resources, Hawaii could be pretty darn awesome considering they put guys in the pros with regularity and once reached the Sugar Bowl on the smallest operating budget of ANY FBS school the year it was accomplished. If they could keep 90%-100% of American-Samoan talent in-state... wow! Manti Te'o, Marcus Mariotta, Junior Seau, Troy Polamalu ect. 100% would play for Hawaii if they were a P5 school.

If Colorado State does go ahead with the new $250 million stadium, why not? Colorado with its shall we say unique laws is due for a major increase in state population. It also has a great state economy aside from that and as we've already seen Colorado State is capable of the same things Utah/TCU once was in the Mountain West if you check out their mid-late 90's seasons.

Then, I think you promise the Oklahoma schools the moon for 16. SEC won't take both of them and Oklahoma State with T. Boone's wealth backing them is just too valuable and potentially huge not to be a P5.

Division X: Oklahoma, OK St, Colorado, CO ST, Arizona, AZ ST, Utah, Hawaii
Division Y: The rest

If Hawaii is just too much of an awkward fit for you (due to being so far away), then swap them for BYU/UNLV/New Mexico and keep the divisions the same.

This conference would have many schools capable of winning a National Title based on their demonstrated financial commitment so far: USC, UCLA, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and since Colorado has done it in 1990, you have to assume with the right pieces in place they could again reach Title Contender status. Arguably 9/16 schools have a shot at someday winning it all. About the same as the SEC (maybe less these days with A&M rising fast and Missouri increasing) but still the second-most and well ahead of their rival Big Ten's measly six: Nebraska, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin.

Or haha the ACC's two: Clemson, Florida State (honorable mention Notre Dame for three).

Texas to Pac-12?..... I tend to agree with some on here that they are destined for the SEC due in no "small" (re: Huuuuuuuge!!!) part to ESPN not wanting to pay for both the LHN and SECN each and every year for eternity. And new matchups galore!!! Holy cow. The reunification with A&M, Arkansas, LSU ect. And with Texas as #15 you just know #16 will be epic too (maybe Miami/FSU????!!!!).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1450
Texas to the PAC is not dead.

The state of Texas knows that if Texas goes anywhere but the PAC16 then Texas Tech is going to be stranded outside of a Power conference.

A&M doesn't want Texas in the SEC, and Texas doesn't want to follow A&M, and Tech and the State of Texas don't want Tech to get left out.

Similarly, OU and Okie State are tied together and noone but the PAC16 will take OSU which is why the PAC16 is still a real possibility.

The PAC16 wants schools in the Central Time Zone and needs more "Jewels" and outside of UT/OU, ND and maybe KU there are no more "Jewels" to be had that aren't on the East Coast.

The East Coast Time Zone is over played. Texas and Oklahoma will get just as much exposure to the East Coast time Zone as they've always had. The PAC12 wants UT/OU to give them MORE exposure to the EST zone, thier games won't all of a sudden be at 9pm Central, UT/OU/TT/OSU will still only play the noon/midday/evening time slot and the west coast states will still anchor the late night spot, but having the Texhoma4 allows them access to the early/noon timeslot which they really want. A&M is getting more hype and attention, but that has nothing to do with their time zone, it didn't change and their game times haven't changed either.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:24 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 43
My opinion on what happens with the PAC-12 is based a lot on what I've been reading on the Big 12 forum and links found on there. I've come across everything from Texas would go to the Pac-12 if LHN failed to they'll never go to the Pac-12. They've considered it twice, so who knows.

I found rumors of Texas and Oklahoma trying to get schools to join them and form a new conference if the Big 12 would've failed in 2010. They're basically heads of the Big 12 now, just with most of the pre-2010 members still around. Competitively I don't see Texas or Oklahoma going anywhere unless the Big 12 loses its status as equal to the other Power 5s, which I can't see happening unless Kansas leaves (and I've heard UT and OU would reconsider their options if that happened).

Considering what schools get along and what schools have grievances with each other plays a big part in realignment since schools can block others from getting in. I don't know of Texas having issues with any current Big 12 members, and they get along with Rice but not SMU or Houston. (There's a link on the Big 12 forum about Nebraska's move to the Big Ten that's definitely worth a read).

Anyway, Texas wouldn't want to follow A&M or go to a less academic minded conference (the Big 12 is better than SEC on that but not where Pac, B1G & ACC are). Texas has at least rumored to also be concerned about travel, as Texas is 2 hours later than California so getting back to Austin would be very late on weeknights. The East Coast exposure also helps and the Pac-12 is at a disadvantage in TV.

Texas could of course join the Pac-12 but I'd actually say the Big Ten would be preferred if they chose to go to a new conference and Pac-12 would be second. But that's just putting what I've gathered together to come up with something.

Point of all that is if Texas is not an option for the Pac-12, I'm not sure expansion would be worth it. I know Colorado would support adding anyone from the Big 12 since they're one of the only majors to switch conferences on good terms. Texas Tech by itself doesn't give much. Kansas would add to basketball and KSU for football quality but culturally those schools don't fit in with the Pac-12. The Oklahoma pair could go and make it Pac-14 but then someone has to move divisions or OU gets split with OSU. OU and OSU stick together and OU is UT's best friend, for lack of a better way to put it.

Right now I think it's to the Pac-12's benefit to just stay at 12. Get a better media deal, wait and see if the Big Ten and SEC pluck schools for 16 and react based on that aftermath.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1557
robconstant wrote:
Anyway, Texas wouldn't want to follow A&M or go to a less academic minded conference (the Big 12 is better than SEC on that but not where Pac, B1G & ACC are).

Lose four AAU schools from four different states, and replace with TCU and WVU, which Texas voted to do, sounds like going the other direction. Texas may talk out of two sides of their mouth on this, as anyone else can, and they certainly don't want to follow A&M regardless of A&M's success or the money put on the table. Texas has their top money and their control which they shall not freely relinquish. Even when Texas was shopping around, it included with them the new LHN deal and depending on where, bringing along some of their loyal dependents.
robconstant wrote:
.
Point of all that is if Texas is not an option for the Pac-12, I'm not sure expansion would be worth it.


May be the case.

What, then, new PAC12 Commissioner Scott offered several years back failed to reach fruition. There's no indicators the same offer and circumstances would still be now on the table or to what level compromises would be offered. Attitudes can shift quickly either way. Texas and Oklahoma project being bound to some sister schools, and with each other somewhat, which is contrary to independent moves.
Near the 1990 period, Stanford balked at adding Texas, and that was a lone consideration. There are some PAC12 schools that have had a history of being very protective of their existing structure. It comes down to the reach of incentives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:51 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 43
sec03 wrote:
robconstant wrote:
Anyway, Texas wouldn't want to follow A&M or go to a less academic minded conference (the Big 12 is better than SEC on that but not where Pac, B1G & ACC are).

Lose four AAU schools from four different states, and replace with TCU and WVU, which Texas voted to do, sounds like going the other direction. Texas may talk out of two sides of their mouth on this, as anyone else can, and they certainly don't want to follow A&M regardless of A&M's success or the money put on the table. Texas has their top money and their control which they shall not freely relinquish. Even when Texas was shopping around, it included with them the new LHN deal and depending on where, bringing along some of their loyal dependents.
robconstant wrote:
.
Point of all that is if Texas is not an option for the Pac-12, I'm not sure expansion would be worth it.


May be the case.

What, then, new PAC12 Commissioner Scott offered several years back failed to reach fruition. There's no indicators the same offer and circumstances would still be now on the table or to what level compromises would be offered. Attitudes can shift quickly either way. Texas and Oklahoma project being bound to some sister schools, and with each other somewhat, which is contrary to independent moves.
Near the 1990 period, Stanford balked at adding Texas, and that was a lone consideration. There are some PAC12 schools that have had a history of being very protective of their existing structure. It comes down to the reach of incentives.



Well the SEC does have 4 AAU members versus 3 for the Big 12. I thought some schools were in it that aren't. But Texas has more pull than the public even realizes. Nebraska had disagreements with Texas (and problems with how making the Big 12 gave them a disadvantage) so they joined the B1G, lobbying privately to join if I remember right rather than Missouri's public call, and the whole realignment cycle went from there. It would be interesting if someone could get a hold of records they have of the whole 2010 events. Anyway, Texas will have their choice of what conference they go to but no one else is going to let them be in a conference and have LHN.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:27 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 703
Location: Louisville, KY
A Pac 16 network can show four games live in one day

11:30 AM Central/9:30 AM Pacific
3:00 PM Central/1:00 PM Pacific
6:30 PM Central/4:30 PM Pacific
10:00 PM Central/8:00 PM Pacific

It would even be feasible to do a doubleheader on Thursday night:

6:30 PM Central/4:30 PM Pacific
10:00 PM Central/8:00 PM Pacific

Half the conference could be on the conference network on one Saturday as long as one of the Texahoma four have a home game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:31 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 694
Location: Columbus, OH
wbyeager wrote:
A Pac 16 network can show four games live in one day

11:30 AM Central/9:30 AM Pacific
3:00 PM Central/1:00 PM Pacific
6:30 PM Central/4:30 PM Pacific
10:00 PM Central/8:00 PM Pacific

It would even be feasible to do a doubleheader on Thursday night:

6:30 PM Central/4:30 PM Pacific
10:00 PM Central/8:00 PM Pacific

Half the conference could be on the conference network on one Saturday as long as one of the Texahoma four have a home game.


The flexibility that the Pac 12 network would have in terms of time slots would be incredible and highly lucrative. The BTN and SEC Networks can, at best, air 3 games on a Saturday. Being able to sell advertisers air time through 4 games instead of 3 would give the Pac 16 Network a lot of appeal and revenue.

I imagine that Oklahoma St and Texas Tech would be the ones frequently featured at 11:30 Central.
Texas and Oklahoma games would likely be aired at 3 Central except for marquee opponents, which they network would want to air in the prime time slot.
USC, Stanford, UCLA, Oregon, and Arizona St would be ideal for the prime time slots as they are typically the best of the Pac 12.
The other schools probably get relegated to the late night slot--not so great for east coast exposure but I'm sure the atmosphere of a night game on the west coast would be electric.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1450
Academics-

Rob - sec is right, the Big12 is pretty bad in academics too, but Baylor is a good academics school and OU (like UGA) is pushing hard to get into the AAU. 30% of the Big12 is AAU but the SEC and ACC have lower percentage. But that's not really all you need to look at. You should also look at the nonAAU schools and how they rank in research, where their SAT/ACT thresholds and other minimums qualifications are set in addition to how many degree programs they offer (undergrad/master/doctorate) and so on and so on because that's where the SEC Clearly falls behind the ACC and Big12 still. Yes WVU was a horrible academic add but the SEC has more of those caliber of schools that UT doesn't want to associate with.

If UT is choosing a new conference and considering academics as a high priority the SEC is not the way to go (as the only realistic AAU candidate is UGA and A&M's AAU affiliation is going to be pulled if they don't reverse some of their recent changes that Perry forced on them which the smarter Aggies are upset about). So even if UT/OU joined and A&M got back on good terms with the AAU the SEC would still be 5 AAU's out of 16 members and compare that to the other conferences...
Pac16 w/Texhoma4 - 9 of 16
B1G w/ OU - 16 of 18 (w/ Chicago and JHU in the CIC) or if KU joins too it could be even higher
ACC - 5 of 16 but WF/BC/ND are all AAU caliber religious schools and Syracuse recently withdrew over disputes on how to count non-federal grants but it was not about their academics or lack of research.

The only reason (outside of geography) I'd think UT might join the SEC for academics over the ACC is if the SEC could realistically go crazy and poach the big3 ACC academic schools UNC/Duke/UVA to add to the East while turning around and adding UT/OU/KU to the West to make a pretty have 9 and be comparable to the PAC16 (and it would forever end the SEC=bad academics talking point forever) although that Western division if not broken up into pods would be ridiculous.

PAC12 -

First let's address the networks LHN/P12Ns. Scott offered UT a regional network w/ TXTech like everyone in the PAC12 has which outside of the USC/UCLA one have been pretty poorly received. Nothing was offered to Texas that wasn't offered to all. So by saying those special thing Texas wanted or were offered or any compromises won't be there this time is misleading or aka wrong as there weren't any concessions the first time or second time around. Scott's ploy was to tempt us with our own "regional" network w/ Tech which is originally what the LHN was supposed to be the LoneStar network when A&M said no but then wanted back in once Texas got ESPN involved. Not only would UT have to share time with TX Tech, but they would also have to share the profits from the regional network with them and that was why they turned down the PAC12 twice and stuck with the LHN. They couldn't understand that why Texas wouldn't share with Tech but has wanted to share with A&M, and completely gloss over how A&M+UT=40% A&M 60%UT so UT didn't feel bad sharing their extra 10% because the channel would grow quickly through the state, but with Tech+UT=20% Tech 80%UT is not just giving up a small amount to Tech, they are basically paying Tech to steal valuable prime time space on the network. I know many of you think this sounds petty but when all of this was going on this is what UT was thinking about. So UT counter-proposed a network with OU leaving TT/OSU to pair up but that was declined and they then offered to do a pod network with unequal revenue sharing between the 4 and that was declined (though neither options were ever presented to the other schools as Scott was afraid the bigger schools like UW/UO would have jumped all over unequal sharing with/or cutting out of their lesser partners) and so after basically telling UT to do it our way or hit the highway ESPN came down giving Texas 300mil for its 3rd tier TV rights and the PAC was gone and the LHN was borne and 4 years later it's has 17.25 of the top 20 national providers (except DirectTV, Comcast, and only regionally on TWC 12 states IIRC) without Texas Tech which UT knew and which is why they rejected sharing equally with Tech because they knew how value able they were and they got that value.

Looking back UT has already received more money from last years LHN payout than what the entire P12 received on their 3rd tier TV rights COMBINED. It was a good decision for UT at the time and still is but only time will tell because now that UT has the LHN distributed and can see the numbers they can compare it to what going on with the PAC12N+ regional networks and if it pays the same or better they could dump the LHN and suck it up and share with Tech (as by now they've realized 24/7/365 is enough to share with another school)(and the shared money won't be worth arguing over once the new contract are negotiated and the PAC gets to utilize the early game slot and the Texhoma4 w/o the Big12 slackers (not talking about you KU bb). My point is that if the PAC12 can show UT the money, then it's going to happen.

Side note on LHN - It's profitable, ESPN this year will have made more than enough money to pay UT it's $15 million plus enough to cover it's production and overhead costs. Now we have no idea HOW profitable it is yet, they may have made $10 or 10mil but it can no longer accurately be called a failure. Next year that decision will likely be made as they'll have the income from all these distribution deals and a huge one possible from DirectTV's full ABC/ESPN/Disney renegotiation in December, and if those number don't look good then ESPN could decide that they aren't making enough money off of the LHN and opt to not renew it in 2025 and instead repurpose the channel as the ACC Network (or as ESPNU in the future as it was rumored they might repurpose ESPNU as the ACCN). That obviously would bring the failure label back to the LHN and make the Big12 a deadman walking as Texas could be quickly looking for a new home. But if it become wildly successful the. ESPN has to start paying UT even more money after it hits a certain level of profitability which activate the escalated payouts to UT, but if that happens then UT will never give up the LHN. But regardless, as of now the network should no longer be considered a failure.

Time zones

They sound bad but it's very manageable. For fb the Texhoma4 would agree to play 1-2 early games (UT/OU play the RRSO every year at 11 or noon so they really are only agreeing to 1 optional game, while OSU/TT are basically agreeing to 2) and 1 possible semi-late game (8pm central) when playing away in the PTZ per year. If you break the PAC16 into pods Texas would only play 1 game/yr in the MTZ and 2 in the PTZ. The MTZ isn't anything new, we've played CU and have recently played at BYU, WYO, and UTEP, those won't all of a sudden become huge pains in the butt just because they are in conference. And in case you haven't seen our OOC schedule we just played at UCLA, will play at Cal in 2016, at USC in 2018 and a rumor Stanford series is also in the works (how random?) so we'd basically just be adding 1 more PST game and which would start no later than 8pm central. It's not that bad, people think midnight games but really if Texas or Oklahoma are playing USC/UCLA/UW/UO/Stan it'll be prime time on ABC at the normal time so the only late games will be when we play Cal/WSU/OSU which is maybe 1 every other year and it's not that bad, we've had some ridiculously late games here in Big12 country UT play 2 late games last year, BYU went till midnight, TCU went until 1am, and hell I remember an OkSU 2 years back played Tulsa till 3am.

They have most other sports already worked out as in basketball they'd only play 2 Thurs/Sat trips in the PTZ and simply fly home Sunday and Texas already does/did that (Hardwood series and OOC, and we play tourneys in Hawaii and are going to Japan in 2 years for a game), and for baseball they only play on weekends and requires early games to fly back on Sunday or they may just do double headers on Saturday when in the PTZ like we did one year when playing at Stanford (who we play every year FYI, and have also scheduled ASU, UCLA, and UW OOC too).

When Texas plays at KU on Thursday night and KSU on Saturday (or SAT/MON) they don't fly home to Austin for Friday classes, they stay in Kansas and do school stuff with their team tutors and practice. And we do the same thing in Oklahoma/OSU, and used to do the same thing with Nebraska and Iowa St we all paired our odd ball members to coincide with our away game at TXTech so we'd fly to Tech on Thurs then fly to CU or MU for Sat. And now we do the same thing where we'd fly to Tech or drive to TCU on Thurs then fly to ISU or WVU for Sat. Once you see the travel schedules and figure out travel partners and the outlier it all come together and I could draw you out a very easy way to limit expensive flights time away from schools in the PAC16 just as easy but I hope their are smarter people than me that realize that this isn't that big of an issue.

In summary - The travel distance/time zone is overblown, money isn't a reason, the players already travel all the time and if any school can do it Texas can. The goals is to travel smart and it's helps to minimize plain trips and especially trip that require hours on a plan and a bus. The PAC16 is setup perfectly for that with the worst trip likely being Oregon but all other schools are in the same city (or city suburb in AZ) as a major airport, if the Texhoma schools joins then TXTech become the worst trip hands down. But the PAC is setup nicely for traveling unlike the SEC/ACC where they have multiple outcasts that make traveling difficult as they have no good travel partners outside of MS/AL and NC/VA. The B1G is a bit better than those but still I'm most impressed with the PAC possible setup for travel.

B1G18 -

Football in the northern winter is not want Texas wants, weak baseball is not what Texas wants but other than that the B1G would be perfect if they took UT/OU/KU for 17 and 1 in the East splits the conference perfectly E/W between Indiana and Illinois, but if they got Mizzou for 18 they have to put either Illinois/NWU/Wisc East which messes with many rivalries. But still that's the only way it would happen and I doubt UT/OU/KU could break from the tagalongs like that (notice that all the movements have been single schools that weren't tied to anyone EXCEPT A&M who UT helped convince people to let them go...I don't think A&M, Tech or anyone will help convince them to let UT go this time and nor do I think it'll have so easy in for OU/KU (OU could get away for the SEC but likely not the BigTen).

Which is why I'm still on the PAC16 or bust bandwagon...for now.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 881 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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