and that's a missed opportunity

I would say the PAC does have their stuff together. Why would they want a dysfunctional conference and cave in to a bully. Their new contract makes more money than all the rest and that does not even include what the PAC network could be bringing in a couple years from now.

Olympic sports wise the PAC is a runaway winner.

BB and might not be at the top this year but will be back in full force at AZ, UCLA, and FB when USC gets off of probation. Aside from USC their is almost always one or two top 10 teams in the PAC....

I do not see how not expanding will make any of their success go away....

It's hard to tell, that's for sure. There is one side of the argument, which I touched on my last post, that in passing on Oklahoma/OSU, that means that if you need to expand in the future as the Pac-12 is in a tough spot being a west coast conference...you have no options. So the Pac-12 is the Pac-12.

BUT, there is the other side too: in adding Oklahoma and OSU, you are essentially the conference causing the shift in conference growth that would create the same problem of not having quality schools to add. As long as the Big 12 remains, then the Pac-12 is fine. Because the loco B12 region is the buffer zone from east to west. But if the Pac-12 doesn't goto 16 (or maybe 14) then things remain calm.

So it's somewhat of a chicken/egg problem. So maybe, just maybe, in not doing anything and keeping things as is...the Pac-12 does not create the problem of not having quality schools out of need to expand beyond 12 because in keepign things as is, there is no need to expand to 14-16.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

I took the afternoon and evening off yesterday after all the work Sat-Wed AM. Pretty sickening feeling as more details came out, especialyl the general understanding that Oklahoma (and Texas) were essentially both trying to do what Texas did last year in using not just the Pac-12 but all the NCAA as leverage for better deals. As I mentioned before, there are a number of other schools in the country that have the same if not superior clout as both schools, but have opted for civility rather than holding the nation hostage. Certainly not a knock on fans of the schools...it's not their fault. Just like Ohio St. and Miami fans aren't to blame for their schools scandals. But from a leadership perspective, it's a poor message to the alum of those schools.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

Latest Jon Wilner blog article discussing college conference expansion with a look back at PAC 12/Oklahoma/Texas situation at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... yus-future

Had to wonder if what I saw on Twitter tonight was right. It's there... Oklahoma wanted to join the Pac but didn't want Texas to join.

Texas wants the Pac to overrun their sense of fairness and take them with LHN intact.

I still wonder how many people Baylor would have sued, yet I still wonder how many schools should sue Baylor for bringing down the value of the Big 12. After all, I still have no rational explanation why the Pac now has a better TV contract than the SEC.

Watching the remnants of the Big 12 is way too entertaining.

Well said, Quinn, Pounder, on the point about the LHN and the attempt to carry it with conference shopping to the PAC 12, and even discussions with the ACC.

While Texas can weild the LHN, insisting on maintaining it while knowing certain other conferences find it unacceptable with their revenue distribution plans, suggests flaws in seriousness, and manipulation of those trying to find resolutions.

Big Ten and Pac-12 supposedly to agree to more non-conference scheduling against one another, including a "challenge series" in football by 2017:

http://tracking.si.com/2011/12/28/repor ... &eref=sihp
http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... legal-mess

If true, this assures one quality non-conference opponent each season in football, which would be good for both conferences.

If the intent is move to four super conference the Pac 12 and Big Ten could work together to align two of the four 16 team super conferences.

Why not move Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and say Wisconsin to the Pac 16. Nebraska could be reunited with rival Colorado. Utah the Arizona schools would make up the 8 schools of the East division of the Pac 16.

The Big Ten could then come in a swoop up 8 eastern schools of North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, and Boston College.

This would be one heck of a 32 team alliance for the Rose Bowl a semi final to the plus one bowl.

Wisconsin alumni would love that idea. No seriously they would. Wisconsin travels to play UNLV often because the alumni like the trip.

Perhaps those dairy farmers & brewer workers love to gamble and see Wayne Newton in person; Gov. Scott Walker perhaps just doesn't want teachers and municipal unions to have that extra spending cash to also do it .

totally unrelated to sports, but the random and not funny political digs are making reading this forum annoying at times.

And this is your sports comment of redeeming social value on the topic at hand? Lighten' up a bit. Actually, cultural stereotyping, politics, state financial situations play well into perceptions and sports. It doesn't need to always be presented in serious mode.

Maybe one ever so many, good & bad, I post on the silly, lite and/or sarcastic side.

Hickory_Conhuskers remark was actually a good point about Wisconsin playing UNLV.

Some other highly speculative stuff about inter-conference designs may be more appropriate for the dream thread commentaries.

.

Because there is no intent for four symetrical superconferences of 16. The intent is for "one richest, most powerful superconference: and that's ours."

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

JP,
Do not read too much into that post as it was just one of my out of the box type discussions of what ifs.

I totally agree with you it would take a actual person in charge (NFL type commissioner) to make a four team super conference a monopoly.

In other words a merger of one super conference of Pac 12, Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12 of say 48 schools.

The odds of that taking place is not very likely unless there was a split from the NCAA.