NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:21 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ... 57  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:01 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
he brings up a good point, why bring it to a vote if you're not going to expand, by this weekend, if you don't plan on it?

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=516229

_________________
Image


Last edited by Fresno St. Alum on Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:02 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Based on the recent Oklahoma developments, one can theorize that Oklahoma doesn't have the P12 votes locked up. Been an interesting evening. Especially the fire Beebe demand by OU.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:26 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7364
Latest Jon Wilner blog article regarding PAC 12 expansion.He says that if Larry Scott calls for a vote on conference expansion it means that he thinks that he has the votes to approve it.Also,he believes that the PAC 12 will pass on Texas if that school does not agree to equal revenue sharing for the good of the league.Link at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... er-matters


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1368
Location: Baltimore, MD
Quinn and Fresno are absolutely on target. Teams must play every other school in their division, and that means only 2 crossover games for a hypothetical Pac 16. Not much LA exposure there for the Eastern Division. Back to the dreaded zipper model anyone?

Of course, given latest stories from the Coast (president resistance) and Oklahoma (maybe we'll stay), no expansion may occur. I'm beginning to think that's a good thing. The Pac 12, Big 10 and SEC have a pretty good setup now. Let them play it out for a few years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 7:15 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Phoenix Arizona
I am not sure the Pac 12 has the votes to expand.

The Arizona schools are not happy about not playing LA schools. Arizona is more a Pacific coast type state and less like a mountian west state and there is where most of us spend our spare time on the coast in California.

Colorado moved to the Pac 12 to gain access to Califonia requiting as well.

Stanford and California are not happy with taking in Texas Tech and Oklahoma state.

The only votes for expansion may come from the Washington and Oregon schools which would gain regular access to LA schools each year.

The California schools already get to play each other regardless that two each are in seperate divisions.

What happens if the Pac 12 does not have the 9 votes?

What happens if Texas agrees to share the LHN with the Texas A&M.

What happens if the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac 12 remain with 12 schools and there is no consolidation of conferences, can the ACC demand enough money to cover taking in Pitt and Syracuse?

Could the ACC have jumped the gun on expansion to super conferences?

Maybe it was a good thing the ACC held up at 14.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Pac not expanding

http://twitter.com/#!/PeteThamelNYT/sta ... 4758936577

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:52 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 268
Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Great news


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -expansion

Quote:9:10 p.m. update: Been on the phone for last 30 minutes. Here’s why league did not expand, in a nutshell:

It determined that a 14-school conference was awkward and it would not bow to Texas’ revenue demands.

According to a source, Larry Scott walked away from weekend meeting with Texas knowing the Longhorn Network and the Pac-12 revenue model could not work together.

It was zero or four and the four was too problematic — no interest in meeting UT’s revenue demands — so it’s at zero, which is where the CEOs wanted to be all along.

Edit:FSA,fixed your broken link.

Thanks
Freaked

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:18 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7364
NCAABBS MB thread discussing PAC 12 decision not to expand at this time at http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=516329


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:35 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7364
Latest Jon Wilner blog article with more on PAC 12 expansion situation at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -expanding


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 10:55 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Latest Jon Wilner blog article with more on PAC 12 expansion situation at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -expanding


excellent piece as always from jon. Touches on an important point: in passing on Oklahoma (and OSU), it means that the Pac12 value (considered lower than SEC and Big Ten despite new TV contract) will always remain in that subservient spot. Oklahoma was a platinum chip that is now out of the picture (I guess never say never, but unlikely). So the Pac-12, a conference that will need to make move to improve their value (since they have no eastern TV markets) has no options. It would take something drastic like a population boom in a MWC city like ABQ, reboom in Vegas which slowed down this decade, etc....and those programs actually becoming something of value. Pac12 value will rise with the overall value trends in college sports, but in passing on Oklahoma now, they have peaked. Big Ten and SEC will get new contracts to put them way up on the top, Pac-12 and others will be behind. But now, the Pac-12 risks being behind the Big 12 if they can get their s*#$ together and finally find some unity.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:05 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1368
Location: Baltimore, MD
Despite Scott's aspirations of spreading Pac 12 telecasts over various time zones, it looks like their games will continue to be concentrated in the late PM time slots. Always something good to watch at the end of the day for an East Coaster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
I guess we can shut this section of the board down.....until next summer.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:31 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 881
Quote:
Sources told Orangebloods.com at least six Pac-12 presidents opposed further expansion, and Larry Scott needed nine of 12 votes to approve any new additions.


I wonder who the other two were. The first four are obvious to me:

#1 - Stanford would oppose adding three schools ranked 102, Tier 3 and Tier 3 to a league with only ONE Tier 3 academic institution.
#2 - Colorado would oppose the move because they wanted to be affiliated with the Pac-12 schools, and in the Pac-16, they wouldn't have a very worthwhile affiliation with USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Ore State, Washington and WSU if they're in the East with Utah, Arizona, ASU, Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, OK State**
#3 - Arizona would oppose because they'd be in the East with Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, OK State** and not with USC and UCLA.
#4 - Arizona State would oppose because they'd be in the East with Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, OK State** and not with USC and UCLA.

** - yeah, I know the pod thing. But the pod system means "no championship game." They'd have to play a round-robin. Sure, they could switch pods into different divisions every two years, but it still means you're not playing in Southern California every single year.


And that's BEFORE you even look at the Longhorn Network.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1368
Location: Baltimore, MD
I would guess that both Cal and Utah opposed expansion. I know from the SLC papers that Utah feared losing its newly gained access to LA.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 ... 57  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Quinn 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