NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:00 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 939 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:43 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Posts: 25
Location: Pomona, California
bigshotbob wrote:
I'm up for a good challenge...

New Mexico - flagship university in a state with an increasing population, new state for the PAC Network
Colorado State - completes State of Colorado which is an affluent state with an increasing population

15th *Associate* Member is Hawaii for Olympic Sports and football consideration ala Notre Dame and the ACC (currently).


I'm on board with New Mexico, not so much so with Colorado St. and partial Hawaii membership. I would rather Scott add a Nevada school (preferably Nevada-Reno) and go for the homerun with a full Notre Dame offer. I have hope Scott could subdue the Irish beast.

mozilla wrote:

My first thoughts are:
BYU
San Diego State
UNLV

What was the reasoning on the number 15 for the conferences?


I respect the hell out of BYU, but I don't see the value of adding a second school in a state like Utah. The Pac 12 has a PC Utah school with the Utes, and they cover the bigger Salt Lake City as opposed to Provo. Plus the California schools wouldn't be okay with the whole culture difference of a BYU. That's not even mentioning the whole Sunday thing.

San Diego St. and UNLV could become great additions over time and provide great media markets. But again, the California schools would be against adding a state school they view is academicly inferior to them (never mind them being a California school, which doesn't help either)

UNLV could have a chance if they continue their current investment in upgrading both there academics and athletics, but I can't help but think Scott and the presidents would prefer Nevada-Reno. There much more advanced in both academics and athletics, plus there is room to expand because of the land. Plus they already are specialize in medicine, and UNLV are still trying to find an identity. Upgrading the Nevada University could be the last spark that is needed to push Reno over the edge in terms of sexiness. With the Tesla grab bringing more jobs, Reno is going to be seen by major corporations as a great option in a state with less taxes than California. I truly believe a Reno addition would be the better investment long term not just for Nevada, but the West Coast overall adding another potential top 30 media market one day in Reno.

And as for the 15 schools, I went back and read on these forum's that 15 schools was the ultimate end goal of autonomy. As seen on the ACC, Big 10 and Big 12 threads.

_________________
PAC 12 fan since 2011, Bruins fan from birth.

Yes, I know the AZ schools are in the wrong order.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 9:55 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7668
Salt Lake Trib article discussing the Utah and PAC 12 media marketing situation at http://www.sltrib.com/home/2747020-155/ ... ffers-risk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:42 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7668
Jon Wilner blog article(previously posted in another thread)with update on PAC 12 network/Directv situation at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... whats-next


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:05 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 84
My ranking of PAC-12 expansion candidates

1. Texas - ...but it wouldn't be that easy. I would even willingly take a bigger chunk of the Great State for the sole purpose of landing Texas, including: Rice, UTEP, Texas Tech (or Houston, TCU ect.) And this is still your number one candidate. I like going overboard and even "huh? type" picks here for simplicity of having four schools in California and four in Texas. Let that sink in. The top two states for recruiting (for all sports... otherwise Florida is two in football ahead of California at three) and having those two states covered with eight schools! Pretty hard for the SEC to "claim" Texas when their current "claim" to Florida is missing Miami and Florida State while their "claim" to Texas would be missing what are now four P4 schools from the State of Texas (and that is true in 2015 as well... which is why the "we now have Texas" angle never flew with me).

2. Oklahoma - ... it would be that easy, but I have a soft spot for Oklahoma State. The Cowboys have never done me wrong and have pretty much always been above the median line in Pac 10/12 money sports. Why not? They have Oregon-esque financial backing which ensures their relevancy on a base level of "yeah, they are reasonably relevant". Had the BCS correctly included the Cowboys in the National Title Game over Alabama (who lost a home game! did not even win their division! profited from avoiding injury/less to scout by future opponent in not even making their own conference's championship game!) at minimum the Pokes would have that appearance (and possible recent football Nati if they won against LSU). Heisman for Barry Sanders as well. Oh and that season in question, the Cowboys defeated the Pac-12 Champion Andrew Luck-led Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl which is nothing to sneeze at. As in, (probably) the best ever Oklahoma State team beat (probably) the best ever Stanford team. Anyway, I respect both Oklahoma schools and would take both including the four from Texas as well.

3. Kansas - ... it definitely would be as easy as pie, but if you are wanting a "travel partner" instead of Kansas State just go with Iowa State for the AAU thing and the increase in geographic footprint. Do the best athletes in Iowa/Plains want to play in sunny Pac-12 locales or Big XII/Big Ten locales in the future? And Iowa (Big Ten) is damn good when they have the best local recruits. Like literally winning the Orange Bowl, beating LSU and Florida in Citrus Bowl kinda good when on the off occasion the Plain States have a nice amount of blue chips and Iowa lands them. There's no reason Iowa State couldn't literally steal recruits not just from Iowa, but from Nebraska as well when these local blue chips would rather play out west. And for the record, this pair (KU, ISU) is two new states, two great basketball programs and two AAU schools. On athletic prowess, I like the Oklahoma schools better, but the gap (overall) isn't that big when you examine every category a school can bring to the table.

4. New Mexico - ... I'm big on these guys. I really do think they are a sleeping giant in an Oregon State wins the Fiesta Bowl in 2000 kinda way. Their fans do have passion. Have you seen Latin American soccer games on TV? Lobos basketball actually has that level of intensity in "The Pit" (their home court). Lobo football flat out stinks, but give any Go5 a P4 cut and there would be improvement by default. Trivia time, who has the bigger alumni base, Oklahoma or New Mexico? It's New Mexico, and it's huge. And those alumni would care about P4/P5 Lobo football. No local/Lobo alum would attend New Mexico vs. Wyoming even if they lived an inch from the stadium. All of those same people would attend New Mexico vs. Texas/USC/Oklahoma/UCLA/Arizona if they lived a time zone away from the stadium. Travel partner would be Utah. Which leads into...

5. Colorado State - ... not a big fan, but a fan. I don't think it would hurt to own another Colorado school with decent alumni and decent academics. As a state, Colorado does quite well for itself and no less so than Oregon, Arizona or Washington which all have two Pac-12 schools. Keep in mind, I have Colorado State below nine schools on this list. Try not to overreact about anything said here. Or the next one...

6. Hawaii - ... I'll wait. I know, I know. You can think of a million things wrong with this pick. For the record it's choice number ten, but I will defend Hawaii's honor if only for a few sentences. They would be much better in sports with P4/P5 resources. They have the smallest athletic budget in the entire FBS. You read that correctly. If they could be I guess "legitimized" by P4/P5 status, holy cow would they be able to recruit any blue chip Samoan or what? Think Marcus Mariotta instead of Colt Brennan. Think Troy Polamalu on defense. I'm moving on but I could name fifty Samoan footbal greats and forty eight would probably sign up to play for a Pac-16 Hawaii school. You also get a new time zone with this pick. You get a new state. You get a state recruits want to visit. That blue chipper in Iowa gets to play in Austin, L.A., Bay Area, Seattle, Phoenix.... and Hawaii!!! It's a gimmick, it's my tenth pick. But I do mean it. I support Hawaii above BYU, Boise, San Diego State, Nevada and others that were not mentioned in this list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2839
Location: Phoenix Arizona
How would the current power conferences line up if the Pac 12 would have been successful in getting Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado to join and become the Pac 16.

College landscape concerning the power conferences would look very different. There would be obvious losers and winners had this plan taken place with the Pac 16.

Winners:

Pac 16 as the league would have split most likely with 8 team divisions of the old Pac 8 and the Arizona schools added with the new 6 members.

Big East would likely have survived and thrived by inviting Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State to reach 12 members.

With Big East in place, Cincinnati, UConn, USF would have all been major winners remaining in a power league.

ACC would have most likely kept Maryland as the other leagues would have remained with 12 schools including the Big Ten.

Conference alignment would be much more simply aligned and the fans would have benefited from this move.

The Pac 12/16 networks.

Losers:

The Big 12 would not exist any longer and would have been the biggest loser with this plan.

Baylor would have been the most likely lone school without a power league and forced to join the MWC or Conf USA.

TCU would have never been invited to a power league.

Utah would be stuck in the MWC and not in power league.

Missouri would have never been invited to the SEC.

Rutgers would have never been provided a free meal ticket to the Big Ten.

The SEC network may have not been launched without Texas markets.

Big Ten would probably have never expanded with 14 without the SEC making the first moves and would not have claim to the NYC and Wash/Baltimore markets.

So your new power leagues would include the Pac 16, Big Ten with 12 schools, SEC with 12 schools, ACC with 12 schools, Big East with 12 schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:33 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 84
Lash, I agree with most of what you said except with Maryland and with the Big Ten. Maryland was out of money. That was a huge break for the Big Ten and Rutgers/Missouri/ect. would come with Maryland. The Big Ten is conference rivals (for over 100 years) with the Pac 8/10/12. Big Ten vs. SEC stuff is fun, but it's a fairly recent "North v. South" media-created thing. Anyway, the Big Ten would not take lightly to their rival conference being the only P5 maxed-out to 16. Offers would be made and I'd say it's more likely that the Big Ten would end up with 16 than with 12 in this scenario.

To honor your scenario (which I liked)...

PAC 16 (CU, TT, TAM, TX, OK, OSU)
BIG 16 (MD, RUT, UConn, Kansas)
SEC 16 (Missouri, WV, TCU, Baylor)
ACC 16 (Cincinnati, Louisville, Notre Dame in full, Memphis)

Big East 16 (it's 16, but it's a not a power conference, includes ISU, KSU, BYU and others... gets respectable bowl contract and decent TV money for what it is)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:51 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2839
Location: Phoenix Arizona
bigshotbob wrote:
Lash, I agree with most of what you said except with Maryland and with the Big Ten. Maryland was out of money. That was a huge break for the Big Ten and Rutgers/Missouri/ect. would come with Maryland. The Big Ten is conference rivals (for over 100 years) with the Pac 8/10/12. Big Ten vs. SEC stuff is fun, but it's a fairly recent "North v. South" media-created thing. Anyway, the Big Ten would not take lightly to their rival conference being the only P5 maxed-out to 16. Offers would be made and I'd say it's more likely that the Big Ten would end up with 16 than with 12 in this scenario.

To honor your scenario (which I liked)...

PAC 16 (CU, TT, TAM, TX, OK, OSU)
BIG 16 (MD, RUT, UConn, Kansas)
SEC 16 (Missouri, WV, TCU, Baylor)
ACC 16 (Cincinnati, Louisville, Notre Dame in full, Memphis)

Big East 16 (it's 16, but it's a not a power conference, includes ISU, KSU, BYU and others... gets respectable bowl contract and decent TV money for what it is)

bigshotbog, of course any of these scenarios could have been possible and would be interesting to have observed how the leagues would have played out with the Pac becoming a 16 member league.

To me the only league in the country that really made sense as 16 then or now was the Pac 10 or Pac 12. The Oregon and Washington schools always have needed the LA area and the four California schools want to play each other ever year. Other that the Arizona schools getting a little shaft in missing playing close by southern California schools, picking up Texas would have been a good substitute to replace the regular California games.

I do not believe the SEC would have taken Missouri without Texas A&M wanting to join. Many schools including powerful Alabama did not necessarily want Missouri.

It was interesting when the Pac 16 proposal was in full swing, ESPN and many other media came out with the SEC plans of taking Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M, and Missouri. I remember watching this report on ESPN and thinking is this really happening as we would discuss many of these options on this board at that time.

I personally believe the SEC had a lot to do with the failure of the Pac 16 and threw Texas A&M a bone or promise to keep them from going along and blotched the plan for Texas and the proposed Pac 16.

Everyone wants to blame Baylor and the threat of law suite, however, no one would have cared what Baylor wanted to do with the legal system. It was Texas A&M reluctance and most likely promise of SEC membership that caused a most likely chain reaction.

Had the Pac 16 been able to continue and just replace Texas A&M with Utah and the SEC proceeded with taking Florida State, Clemson, Texas A&M, and Missouri we could have a very interesting landscape in todays power leagues.

With this ESPN report of Florida State and Clemson bolting to the SEC, ACC most likely began preliminary plans to raid the Big East for Pittsburgh and Syracuse and strive for the best basketball league (aka Big East plans after first ACC raid).

What the ACC did not plan for was the Big Ten coming in as well and snatching up cash strapped Maryland. With the ACC being raided from the south by the SEC and north by the Big 12, I believe the Big East may have came out on top especially if Kansas were included in the Big East mix with the original basketball schools of Georgetown.

Remember Oliver Luck of WVU had proposed the Big East create a west division with Louisville, Missouri, Kansas, K State, Iowa State and the east with UConn, Rutgers, WVU, Cincinnati, USF, UCF.

IF the SEC and Big Ten had been successful along with the Pac 16, Syracuse and Pitt would have probably changed their decision and return back to the Big East. At that time the Big East was just as strong as the would be gutted ACC in basketball and neither would have been that strong in football with FSU and Clemson bolting for the SEC. Boston College would have probably rejoined their old league as well.

I believe the Big Ten would have went after Virginia and North Carolina with the ACC in such a vulnerable state and the Big East would have survived as the stronger league.

Maybe something like the following for Big East football and of course the Big East basketball only schools and Notre Dame would have continued to be the mix as well.

East: Boston College?, UConn, Syracuse?, Rutgers?, Miami?, Va Tech?, NC State?, Georgia Tech?

West: Pitt?, WVU, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, Kansas?, Kansas State?, Iowa State?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:00 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:27 pm
Posts: 61
Not particular SEC fan, but they don't take Texas church schools.
No leftovers either.
Try BIG on that.
Nebraska having regrets.
Maryland next?
Pac12, needs to take OU.
Something fine shall follow.
Texas will do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:33 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 84
Scenario...

-The Big Ten and SEC are both 16 schools.
-Texas is in one of those conferences, but Oklahoma is not.

Would the PAC go for 16 with: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, New Mexico?

Proposed divisions...

PAC WEST: Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU
PAC EAST: Arizona, ASU, Oklahoma, OSU, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Texas Tech

I reckon this is the best that a PAC-16 could be without Texas involved. Iowa State/Rice/Kansas State/ect. for New Mexico/Texas Tech if you want to replace the final addition(s).

And because I believe this and have a general ethos of avoiding the worst-case scenario, I feel the PAC-12 should offer at minimum both Oklahoma schools. Despite rejecting both in the past, make amends on that mistake now to prevent: SEC 16, BIG 16, ACC 16, PAC 12.

Assuming the status quo, Stanford and Cal's academic snobbery will come at the cost of being left behind in a Super Conference Era. I do not see any value in their snobbery. Stanford is not in any way, shape or form weakened by playing these four proposed additions in sports on a regular basis. What good does it do Cal, to point out the lesser academics of another university? And not only point out, but justify as a reason for failing to become a Super Conference in the impending Super Conference Era.

The idea of PAC 16 began with a public offer for: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Texas Tech.

As of now, one of those schools is no longer available (Texas A&M). At least two of the remaining five are highly-desired by other conferences. It would seem (based on discussions between both parties) that the idea of adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State has been discussed at the highest levels. Obviously, nothing came of it. I think it is clearly time to revisit those talks with special attention to the downside of NOT adding both schools. If losing Texas is the price for not being left behind in a Super Conference Era, then lose Texas. And retain a much smaller chunk of the state with Texas Tech. Texas Tech could make a habit of playing multiple non-conference games against Texas schools to at least get Texans to watch more PAC-16 content. A Tech non-conference slate featuring: Houston, UTEP, Texas, Texas A&M ect. would be an overall plus for the PAC 16. Both Oklahoma schools could schedule the same way for the same benefit to the conference. Think about it, when OU was Big 8 and Texas was SWC, they still played annually on Primetime Television slots. A PAC 16 vs. SEC 16 Red River Rivalry would be just as valuable to both new conferences.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 939 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 59, 60, 61, 62, 63

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], 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