The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Ehh...Colorado's PAC spot was never actually in jeopardy. Would they have won were they up against just Texas and Oklahoma? No. But it was NEVER just those two competing with Colorado. The +1's made UC far more attractive. Plus, it's true...UC was a PAC school in a Great Plains conference...there's a west coast sheen to the school that no other in the Big XII were close to having. We can spin the closeness of the potential snub many ways, but Colorado was always a coveted target. Heck, didn't the B1G approach them AND Nebraska in the 90's?
I'm certain the PAC would have laid out all five schools (UT, TT, OU, OSU, and CU) and made the case to "the chasers" that one +1 was fine. Both +1's and no UC was a non-starter.
Utah is the real boobie prize. If it comes down to the Texahoma 4 and Kansas in the future, I wonder if Utah gets the boot if they don't demonstrate any value to the conference. Ironic, considering had Utah and BYU been absorbed in the original Big XII scheme, it may have kept UC around. Maybe even Nebraska.
If Texas had said yes but the state of Texas was saying you have to bring Baylor along then YES Colorado's spot was in danger, the current and future value of Texas and Oklahoma versus the value of Colorado is laughable. I did a quick google search and BOOM. http://www2.registerguard.com/cms/index ... -a-pac-16/
"Interestingly, if the Pac-10 can get over the fact that Baylor has a religious affiliation, its academic reputation is considerably higher than Texas Tech’s or Oklahoma State’s. Also, its overall athletic program is pretty good (yeah, this is about football, though), better than Colorado’s. If Baylor was included rather than Colorado, the entire Big 12 South division would join the Pac-10, and travel within that division would be a simple, easy situation. ... Makes some sense.
Or at least, it makes as much sense as any of this.
When you think something can’t happen here, pay attention to the huge, huge money. Baylor over Colorado? Could happen. If that’s how the Pac-10 gets Texas, it just might happen."
Now I agree that Colorado made the most sense, but Colorado is no Texas nor Oklahoma, anything they had to do to get them would have been done IMO if they had gotten Texas to buy into the PAC12 network over the LHN. Colorado and the PAC took the Baylor option away by taking Colorado so that there was no room for Baylor (though when A&M said no Baylor once again tried to push their way in).
Also Utah will not get the boot...if the PAC12 goes to 16 w/ Texas, Tech, OU, and OkSU you got easy divisions with the old PAC8 and the new guys but those 4 votes AZ/ASU/CU/Utah would kill the expansion.
If they go to 18 with Kansas and KSU they'd have to put Utah w/ the old PAC8 and the Arizona's+CU with the Big 12 schools for that to work. And those three votes from the Arizona's and Colorado would kill any expansion.
That's why I've come around to thinking that IF the PAC12 expands with Texas and company in the future they'd have to go to 20 and the PAC10 would have to be unanimous to override Utah/Colorado's votes. That would create an Eastern division including Utah/Colorado and they would need just two more schools to have the old PAC10 in the West and basically the old Big 12 in the East.
Options for that would be BYU (maybe they get in if in another division than the Cali schools and may put pressure on Utah to vote on expansion) Colorado St (good school, and could possibly put pressure on Colorado to vote yes too), and the remaining Texas school Baylor/TCU could possibly get included too, and I also have New Mexico as a longshot option.
Personally I like how it looks w/ BYU/CSU.
PAC20 West - Washington, WSU, Oregon, OrSU, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, ASU
PAC20 East - Utah, BYU, Colorado, CSU, Kansas, KSU, Oklahoma, OkSU, Texas, TXTech
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...