(11-22-2014 05:28 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(11-21-2014 12:34 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I find it hard to defend the PAC's stance on Oklahoma State's academics, being that they have Washington St, Oregon St and Arizona St. Nothing against those institutions but none of them scream "Public Ivy" to me. The Western states don't have the nearly the number of institutions, public and private, that the Eastern states have in such numbers that conferences could be able to go with an academic elitist model. It probably wasn't going to happen, anyway, since Texas got cold feet in the end, without which the numbers don't make sense for going beyond 12. UT, OU, KU, TT and UU would have been a nice Plan B.

Which leads me to believe that if the PAC were to try again they'd go after UT, OU, KU and TT. Now if the pay TV model shifts to what JRSec calls saturation could that list change? I would think Iowa State and T.C.U. would be added to the list to get to 18.

UW, UO, WSU, OSU, Cal, Stanford
USC, UCLA, AZ, UU, CO, ASU
UT, OU, TT, TCU, KU, ISU

WVU to ACC. Kansas State and Oklahoma State to SEC. There's your eight to dissolve.

If the SEC went shopping of B12 leftovers in your example, WVU would add the most the Slive's pie followed by OSU. Kansas State brings nothing Mizzou can't cover.

The Big 12 schools aren't going to leave two behind. That is some very bad PR. Especially when they hold the cards and can negotiate a final deal that gets all 10 a place. If you are contemplating a scenario that doesn't take that into account, then keep working on it.