(11-17-2013 10:48 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 10:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I think the threat of moving on without the PAC is enough to get the PAC to go along with a plan that most posters wouldn't think possible.

Scenario's like these are the kind that can be used to threaten the PAC to just take the money and the schools suggested to them by the Networks.

It's fun though to exercise the noodle on such scenario's though.

I think this is the biggest hammer. If ESPN and FOX authorize the elimination one conference for financial reasons, the PAC stands to be left behind monetarily. It will functionally irrelevant that the PAC has a permanent playoff spot if the likes of Baylor and KSU are making 1.5-2 times as much money. That type of disparity will take its toll on coaches as well as staffing and would marginalize the PAC far worse than the ACC's past 5 years of irrelevancy.

If all the PAC has to do is to get to 16 teams (4 from the B12) and the schools can agree on some type of North-South split (I just don't see pods working out there) then Standford will probably relent.

Yeah, most sports fans don't like to mentally tackle such a concept as complex politics mattering more in regards to conference realignment than the simple desires of each conference.

I do disagree with you on the division thing though. The only way the current PAC will get to across the board protect their visits to California is by putting the four California teams in the same four team division. Many of those schools will not only want to protect their own interests directly in terms of playing there but they will also want to indirectly protect their interests by making sure no other non-California schools get more games in California than other non-California schools. As an example, Oregon depends massively upon California recruits. How would a North/South split work for them and would schools like Arizona and Arizona State stand to take over the position that Oregon enjoys now? Schools like Oregon and Washington will not stand for that. They will have the likes of Oregon State and Wash State standing with them on that. Likely Utah and Colorado would too. A North and South split would never be agreed upon. I just cant see it Van.

That means a four team California division is inevitable, in my opinion, if the PAC does as you and I surmise they will be forced into doing.

H1,

Maybe I should have detailed how I imagine a P16 working out. Now, I can only remember 3 of 4 teams you mentioned for for PAC expansion, so you'll have to forgive me:

PAC North: ORE, ORST, WAZZU, UW, CAL, STAN, ISU, KSU

PAC South: 'ZONA, ASU, CU, UU, UCLA, USC, OKST, TT

As it stands, with the requirement in place by the CALI schools, everyone outside of the Golden State either play two or one of those CA schools, depending on the year. But they always have a game in CA, which seems to work for everyone. If you go to a nine game conference schedule, you are able to retain that requirement.

Now, with the three OOC games left, there is nothing to stop those teams that desire more expose in CA from using one of those games to schedule teams like Fresno, SJSU or SDSU. I confess I'm not sure of what the politics of such a move would entail, if any. But this is no different than "Bama playing in the Chik-fil-a Kickoff in ATL every year (granted, this specific move wouldn't work out west). One doesn't actually need to play the team located in the state to get a trip there.

If the PAC can not convince Texas to join, then they might as well stay at 12. If that is the case, I would look for the PAC to renew attempts to partner with the ACC in a coast-to-coast joint all sports network.
It does not make sense or cents for the PAC 12 to expand without Texas.

(11-18-2013 08:16 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 10:48 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-17-2013 10:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 01:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I think the threat of moving on without the PAC is enough to get the PAC to go along with a plan that most posters wouldn't think possible.

Scenario's like these are the kind that can be used to threaten the PAC to just take the money and the schools suggested to them by the Networks.

It's fun though to exercise the noodle on such scenario's though.

I think this is the biggest hammer. If ESPN and FOX authorize the elimination one conference for financial reasons, the PAC stands to be left behind monetarily. It will functionally irrelevant that the PAC has a permanent playoff spot if the likes of Baylor and KSU are making 1.5-2 times as much money. That type of disparity will take its toll on coaches as well as staffing and would marginalize the PAC far worse than the ACC's past 5 years of irrelevancy.

If all the PAC has to do is to get to 16 teams (4 from the B12) and the schools can agree on some type of North-South split (I just don't see pods working out there) then Standford will probably relent.

Yeah, most sports fans don't like to mentally tackle such a concept as complex politics mattering more in regards to conference realignment than the simple desires of each conference.

I do disagree with you on the division thing though. The only way the current PAC will get to across the board protect their visits to California is by putting the four California teams in the same four team division. Many of those schools will not only want to protect their own interests directly in terms of playing there but they will also want to indirectly protect their interests by making sure no other non-California schools get more games in California than other non-California schools. As an example, Oregon depends massively upon California recruits. How would a North/South split work for them and would schools like Arizona and Arizona State stand to take over the position that Oregon enjoys now? Schools like Oregon and Washington will not stand for that. They will have the likes of Oregon State and Wash State standing with them on that. Likely Utah and Colorado would too. A North and South split would never be agreed upon. I just cant see it Van.

That means a four team California division is inevitable, in my opinion, if the PAC does as you and I surmise they will be forced into doing.

H1,

Maybe I should have detailed how I imagine a P16 working out. Now, I can only remember 3 of 4 teams you mentioned for for PAC expansion, so you'll have to forgive me:

PAC North: ORE, ORST, WAZZU, UW, CAL, STAN, ISU, KSU

PAC South: 'ZONA, ASU, CU, UU, UCLA, USC, OKST, TT

As it stands, with the requirement in place by the CALI schools, everyone outside of the Golden State either play two or one of those CA schools, depending on the year. But they always have a game in CA, which seems to work for everyone. If you go to a nine game conference schedule, you are able to retain that requirement.

Now, with the three OOC games left, there is nothing to stop those teams that desire more expose in CA from using one of those games to schedule teams like Fresno, SJSU or SDSU. I confess I'm not sure of what the politics of such a move would entail, if any. But this is no different than "Bama playing in the Chik-fil-a Kickoff in ATL every year (granted, this specific move wouldn't work out west). One doesn't actually need to play the team located in the state to get a trip there.

Yeah, but also remember that I am a staunch believer that the Major Conferences are going to gain governing control. They will do what they have to in order to get that and they have made that very clear.

So for me, I just cant see why they wouldn't allow themselves to have Football Conference Tournaments. The latest two Conference Championship games sold for 20 million each. That is huge money. Conference Semifinals are a given at this point when these Major Conferences get control. We may be talking 15 million a pop for each of them which means these Conference Tournaments would be worth around 50 million dollars each.

The best way to lead into that is to have four divisional winners. That is why I push four divisions instead of two.

So in a four division set up, by putting USC and UCLA with the two Arizona schools and then putting Stanford and California with Colorado and Utah as some folks suggest, I don't see how that works for the likes of Oregon. Yes, they want to protect their northwest rivalries but their bread and butter has become California and Texas games for recruiting. If they get a couple of Texas teams into the conference, then they are going to want strong access to both States but they wont want other schools in the conference to have stronger access to either. That is why I feel, in this kind of a scenario, history gets thrown out the window. The best situation for Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State is for the California schools to be all in one division. That will maintain two games a year against the Cali schools for those Northwest schools while making sure that the other schools don't get more access.


In terms of the four schools? Well for me Tech, ISU and KSU are a given. ESPN and FOX will pay for that. If this is to go down, FOX will need those Central Time Zone locations for the PAC so that the loss of Big 12 scheduling will be remedied for the earlier time slot by the PAC being able to provide games. ESPN will pay in order to get Texas over to the ACC as well as to get Texas and Notre Dame together as well as providing the ACC with a strong connection to the State of Texas. They will also be served by pitting Oklahoma against the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and of course Nebraska.


In terms of the fourth school for the PAC? That is up in the air. Personally, if I was the Commish and I was able to convince the Presidents on whatever I thought was best? I would attempt to sell them on Houston first in order to have two programs in the State of Texas. That means everyone in the conference will get an opportunity to be seen in the State of Texas every year. With just one team in the State, that is not the case. Houston may be a long ways away but it is a very large city with an airport that is easily accessible. Getting to Houston for those schools would be easier and less costly than getting to many schools that are farther West.

(11-18-2013 08:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the PAC can not convince Texas to join, then they might as well stay at 12. If that is the case, I would look for the PAC to renew attempts to partner with the ACC in a coast-to-coast joint all sports network.
It does not make sense or cents for the PAC 12 to expand without Texas.

If Fox and ESPN pay for it to happen then yes it makes both sense and cents.

wsu, wash, osu & ore have been playing each other on a yearly basis. keeping those rivalries is their number 1 priority.

remember oregon & washington are much closer to california and have a pretty big presence there. thats the result of geography and being in a california based conference for several decades. they can have a CA presence even without being in a pod with 2 cali schools. and as i will prove later in this post, it doesnt take much to recruit cali for a western school.

you cant say that taking away cali exposure for the 4 western schools wont be a problem for them with the added texas exposure. the reason is......

western schools simply dont have success in texas.

-colorado (the only western b8 school) just so happened to be the only big 8 that saw a DECREASE in texas recruiting when they joined the big 12.

-the two arizona schools have a combined 14 players from texas and 12 players from florida. yes thats correct.......the zona schools have as much success in texas as they do in florida.

TX & CA commits by school
new mexico state: 15 CA, 5 Texas
new mexico: 5 CA, 11 texas
colorado: 15 CA, 4 texas
colorado state: 6 CA, 4 Texas
wyoming: 6 CA, 1 Texas
BSU: 14 CA, 2 texas
idaho: 15 CA, 0 texas
utah: 14 CA, 7 texas
utah state: 6 CA, 2 texas
BYU: 9 CA, 0 texas
nevada: 17 CA, 2 texas
UNLV: 12 CA, 3 Texas
oregon: 7 CA, 2 Texas
osu: 13 CA, 4 Texas
washington: 15 CA, 1 Texas
WSU: 14 CA, 2 Texas
zona: 15 CA, 0 texas
ASU: 12 CA, 3 texas

so out of the 18 western schools (i did not include AF & the cali schools) just one of them has a bigger presence in texas than california.

every western school (except NM) has a heavy cali presence. your notion that the best thing for the NW schools to do is to keep all the other pac12 schools from having more than 2 cali games a year (and sabotaging their own cali exposure in the process). thats not a good thing for them at all. thats one of the worst moves they can do. all they will accomplish is opening up the other mwc schools to have a better shot at snagging cali recruits.

you can not say that any recruiting the non cali pac12 schools lose in california they will simply make up with the added texas exposure. colorado joined the b12 on that promise and it was the dumbest move we ever made. the pac12 schools will lose much more in cali recruiting than they will gain in texas recruiting

colorado is the ultimate example. while i do refer to colorado as a de facto cali school (and to a certain extent im correct on that) they do have a texas component to the schools identity. if you had to pick one pac12 school to try to pull off, colorado was your best bet. they couldnt do it and they are the closest p12 school. so theres no way the other p12 schools can.

colorado TX commits by year
2004: 2
2005: 2
2006: 2
2007: 0
2008: 2
2009: 3
2010: 2
2011: 4 (the year we left the pac12)
2012: 7
2013: 4

yeah thats how much "texas exposure" we got from the b12. a whooping 11 texas players over a 7 year period. the crazy thing is in the 3 years since we left the b12 we have gotten more TX recruits than our previous 7 years in the b12 despite a massive downturn in our program.

it didnt work for the buffs in a conference that was 25% texas based. we bought the same argument that you are arguing and it led to the total collapse of our football program. if it didnt work for us theres no way in hell its gonna work for schools that are much further away in a conference thats 12% texas based.

and i will rest my case on this one little stat for you to prove how little texas recruiting these pac12 schools will get.

texas recruits for wvu
2013 class: 1
2014 class: 0 (has 15 so far)

Yes, because the Major schools in the West have had time in conference with Texas schools to be able to make the statement that Western Schools wont have success in Texas if they are in conference with some Texas schools. Right...

(11-18-2013 11:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes, because the Major schools in the West have had time in conference with Texas schools to be able to make the statement that Western Schools wont have success in Texas if they are in conference with some Texas schools. Right...

you totally missed the point.

colorado was in that conference for about 15 years and they had a DECLINE in the amount of texas recruits.

oregon & washington have nothing in common with texas and you are talking about at best schools averaging 1 game in texas each year. thats simply not enough to build any decent pipeline.

cali recruiting vs texas recruiting is very different. the western schools have CA all to themselves whereas the b12 has to fend off numerous programs from other conferences who try to recruit the state.

thats why we see....
1. the non texas b12 schools pick up fewer texas recruits than the non cali p12 schools pick up CA recruits

average TX recruits for non texas b12 schools 7.5 (only one school had more than 8)

average CA recruits for non cali p12 schools 13.12

2. the g5 schools from states that border texas pick up less recruits than all the g5 schools in the west pick up from cali.

texas recruit average for g5 schools near texas (theres 7 of them)
5

cali recruit average for non cali g5 schools in the west (theres 9 of them)
11.66

at both the g5 & p5 levels. the western schools see twice as much success recruiting cali as the b12/texas regional schools do

conclusion: its a lot easier for a school to establish a pipeline in CA than TX.

this is just another example of the several that i have already gave that prove you wrong. your entire argument is based on an assumption that recruiting in TX will pick up for the p12 schools without a hitch. and i keep showing stats that say otherwise. we have two great examples of schools (wvu & colorado) trying to attempt this and both failed miserably.

so how can you possibly think it will work for wsu, utah, etc.?????

(11-19-2013 12:32 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes, because the Major schools in the West have had time in conference with Texas schools to be able to make the statement that Western Schools wont have success in Texas if they are in conference with some Texas schools. Right...

you totally missed the point.

colorado was in that conference for about 15 years and they had a DECLINE in the amount of texas recruits.

wsu, utah & arizona have nothing in common and you are talking about at best schools averaging 1 game in texas each year. thats simply not enough to build any decent pipeline.

cali recruiting vs texas recruiting is very different. the western schools have CA all to themselves whereas the b12 has to fend off numerous programs from other conferences who try to recruit the state.

thats why we see....
1. the non texas b12 schools pick up fewer texas recruits than the non cali p12 schools pick up CA recruits

average TX recruits for non texas b12 schools 7.5 (only one school had more than 8)

average CA recruits for non cali p12 schools 13.12

2. the g5 schools from states that border texas pick up less recruits than all the g5 schools in the west pick up from cali.

texas recruit average for g5 schools near texas (theres 7 of them)
5

cali recruit average for non cali g5 schools in the west (theres 9 of them)
11.66

conclusion: its a lot easier for a school to establish a pipeline in CA than TX.

this is just another example of the several that i have already gave. your entire argument is based on an assumption that recruiting in TX will pick up for the p12 schools. and i keep showing stats that say otherwise. and we have two great examples of schools (wvu & colorado) trying to attempt this and both failed miserably.

so how can you possibly think it will work for wsu, utah, etc.?????

So what you are saying here John is that the PAC has no real need to expand into Texas because as long as they can pick her fruit for free they don't need to marry her and pick up the tab?

(11-19-2013 12:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:32 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes, because the Major schools in the West have had time in conference with Texas schools to be able to make the statement that Western Schools wont have success in Texas if they are in conference with some Texas schools. Right...

you totally missed the point.

colorado was in that conference for about 15 years and they had a DECLINE in the amount of texas recruits.

wsu, utah & arizona have nothing in common and you are talking about at best schools averaging 1 game in texas each year. thats simply not enough to build any decent pipeline.

cali recruiting vs texas recruiting is very different. the western schools have CA all to themselves whereas the b12 has to fend off numerous programs from other conferences who try to recruit the state.

thats why we see....
1. the non texas b12 schools pick up fewer texas recruits than the non cali p12 schools pick up CA recruits

average TX recruits for non texas b12 schools 7.5 (only one school had more than 8)

average CA recruits for non cali p12 schools 13.12

2. the g5 schools from states that border texas pick up less recruits than all the g5 schools in the west pick up from cali.

texas recruit average for g5 schools near texas (theres 7 of them)
5

cali recruit average for non cali g5 schools in the west (theres 9 of them)
11.66

conclusion: its a lot easier for a school to establish a pipeline in CA than TX.

this is just another example of the several that i have already gave. your entire argument is based on an assumption that recruiting in TX will pick up for the p12 schools. and i keep showing stats that say otherwise. and we have two great examples of schools (wvu & colorado) trying to attempt this and both failed miserably.

so how can you possibly think it will work for wsu, utah, etc.?????

So what you are saying here John is that the PAC has no real need to expand into Texas because as long as they can pick her fruit for free they don't need to marry her and pick up the tab?

having texas is nice and the pac would take them in a heartbeat if theres no LHN. im just pointing out that there is no way the p12 schools can rely on texas pipelines

(11-19-2013 12:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:32 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes, because the Major schools in the West have had time in conference with Texas schools to be able to make the statement that Western Schools wont have success in Texas if they are in conference with some Texas schools. Right...

you totally missed the point.

colorado was in that conference for about 15 years and they had a DECLINE in the amount of texas recruits.

wsu, utah & arizona have nothing in common and you are talking about at best schools averaging 1 game in texas each year. thats simply not enough to build any decent pipeline.

cali recruiting vs texas recruiting is very different. the western schools have CA all to themselves whereas the b12 has to fend off numerous programs from other conferences who try to recruit the state.

thats why we see....
1. the non texas b12 schools pick up fewer texas recruits than the non cali p12 schools pick up CA recruits

average TX recruits for non texas b12 schools 7.5 (only one school had more than 8)

average CA recruits for non cali p12 schools 13.12

2. the g5 schools from states that border texas pick up less recruits than all the g5 schools in the west pick up from cali.

texas recruit average for g5 schools near texas (theres 7 of them)
5

cali recruit average for non cali g5 schools in the west (theres 9 of them)
11.66

conclusion: its a lot easier for a school to establish a pipeline in CA than TX.

this is just another example of the several that i have already gave. your entire argument is based on an assumption that recruiting in TX will pick up for the p12 schools. and i keep showing stats that say otherwise. and we have two great examples of schools (wvu & colorado) trying to attempt this and both failed miserably.

so how can you possibly think it will work for wsu, utah, etc.?????

So what you are saying here John is that the PAC has no real need to expand into Texas because as long as they can pick her fruit for free they don't need to marry her and pick up the tab?

having texas is nice and the pac would take them in a heartbeat if theres no LHN. im just pointing out that there is no way the p12 schools can rely on texas pipelines

It seems to me they (PAC schools) are getting a lot more recruits out of Texas than the Big 12 is getting out of California.

(11-19-2013 12:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:32 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 11:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes, because the Major schools in the West have had time in conference with Texas schools to be able to make the statement that Western Schools wont have success in Texas if they are in conference with some Texas schools. Right...

you totally missed the point.

colorado was in that conference for about 15 years and they had a DECLINE in the amount of texas recruits.

wsu, utah & arizona have nothing in common and you are talking about at best schools averaging 1 game in texas each year. thats simply not enough to build any decent pipeline.

cali recruiting vs texas recruiting is very different. the western schools have CA all to themselves whereas the b12 has to fend off numerous programs from other conferences who try to recruit the state.

thats why we see....
1. the non texas b12 schools pick up fewer texas recruits than the non cali p12 schools pick up CA recruits

average TX recruits for non texas b12 schools 7.5 (only one school had more than 8)

average CA recruits for non cali p12 schools 13.12

2. the g5 schools from states that border texas pick up less recruits than all the g5 schools in the west pick up from cali.

texas recruit average for g5 schools near texas (theres 7 of them)
5

cali recruit average for non cali g5 schools in the west (theres 9 of them)
11.66

conclusion: its a lot easier for a school to establish a pipeline in CA than TX.

this is just another example of the several that i have already gave. your entire argument is based on an assumption that recruiting in TX will pick up for the p12 schools. and i keep showing stats that say otherwise. and we have two great examples of schools (wvu & colorado) trying to attempt this and both failed miserably.

so how can you possibly think it will work for wsu, utah, etc.?????

So what you are saying here John is that the PAC has no real need to expand into Texas because as long as they can pick her fruit for free they don't need to marry her and pick up the tab?

having texas is nice and the pac would take them in a heartbeat if theres no LHN. im just pointing out that there is no way the p12 schools can rely on texas pipelines

It seems to me they (PAC schools) are getting a lot more recruits out of Texas than the Big 12 is getting out of California.

utah is the only p12 school that gets a significant amount. but for a state thats as large as texas a few schools having 1-3 from that state is no biggie.

in fact the same happens with CA & the b12

CA commits:
texas: 2
texas tech: 3
TCU: 2
baylor: 0
osu: 0
oklahoma: 5
ksu: 2
ku: 5
isu: 2
wvu: 1 (im omitting them)

its too insane to include wvu in a stat about california recruiting. but heres the averages

b12 for cali
2.33
2.2 (with wvu included)
2.37 (without wvu/tcu)

p12 for texas
2.13
1.5 (without utah & cu)

so lemme humbly say jres ==> you are wrong

**but you get a pass because its negligible difference at best**

The PAC has the luxury of geographic isolation which means they have the luxury of being able to be patient.

They can wait 11 years and try for UT and friends again.

Or they can wait 20 years for teams/markets like UNLV/UNM to up their academic/athletic games and become attractive

(11-18-2013 08:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yeah, but also remember that I am a staunch believer that the Major Conferences are going to gain governing control. They will do what they have to in order to get that and they have made that very clear.

So for me, I just cant see why they wouldn't allow themselves to have Football Conference Tournaments. The latest two Conference Championship games sold for 20 million each. That is huge money. Conference Semifinals are a given at this point when these Major Conferences get control. We may be talking 15 million a pop for each of them which means these Conference Tournaments would be worth around 50 million dollars each.

The best way to lead into that is to have four divisional winners. That is why I push four divisions instead of two.

So in a four division set up, by putting USC and UCLA with the two Arizona schools and then putting Stanford and California with Colorado and Utah as some folks suggest, I don't see how that works for the likes of Oregon. Yes, they want to protect their northwest rivalries but their bread and butter has become California and Texas games for recruiting. If they get a couple of Texas teams into the conference, then they are going to want strong access to both States but they wont want other schools in the conference to have stronger access to either. That is why I feel, in this kind of a scenario, history gets thrown out the window. The best situation for Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State is for the California schools to be all in one division. That will maintain two games a year against the Cali schools for those Northwest schools while making sure that the other schools don't get more access.


In terms of the four schools? Well for me Tech, ISU and KSU are a given. ESPN and FOX will pay for that. If this is to go down, FOX will need those Central Time Zone locations for the PAC so that the loss of Big 12 scheduling will be remedied for the earlier time slot by the PAC being able to provide games. ESPN will pay in order to get Texas over to the ACC as well as to get Texas and Notre Dame together as well as providing the ACC with a strong connection to the State of Texas. They will also be served by pitting Oklahoma against the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and of course Nebraska.


In terms of the fourth school for the PAC? That is up in the air. Personally, if I was the Commish and I was able to convince the Presidents on whatever I thought was best? I would attempt to sell them on Houston first in order to have two programs in the State of Texas. That means everyone in the conference will get an opportunity to be seen in the State of Texas every year. With just one team in the State, that is not the case. Houston may be a long ways away but it is a very large city with an airport that is easily accessible. Getting to Houston for those schools would be easier and less costly than getting to many schools that are farther West.

I agree on the control aspect, I just think that 'winning' a 4 team pod is kind of wonky. Yes it works in the NFL, but there a 32 teams there versus the 16 teams that a conference would have. In my mind, 4 pod winners is the equivalent of two division winners and two wild card teams. And since we are talking about adding CTZ teams not named Texas, the PAC still remains mono-polar (CA) which is something I think has to be accounted for.

(11-19-2013 08:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The PAC has the luxury of geographic isolation which means they have the luxury of being able to be patient.

They can wait 11 years and try for UT and friends again.

Or they can wait 20 years for teams/markets like UNLV/UNM to up their academic/athletic games and become attractive

This to me is the essence of the matter. The Big East and Big 12 were vulnerable not only because there were some internal frictions, they were also surrounded by hungry neighbors. It's not just a matter of geography in terms of distance, but also in terms of time, or to be more specific, time zones. I can see how it could be attractive for the PAC to establish a foothold in the Central zone to broaden their national exposure, but their geographic isolation makes it possible for them to wait for the most attractive options.

(11-19-2013 03:27 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 08:34 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The PAC has the luxury of geographic isolation which means they have the luxury of being able to be patient.

They can wait 11 years and try for UT and friends again.

Or they can wait 20 years for teams/markets like UNLV/UNM to up their academic/athletic games and become attractive

This to me is the essence of the matter. The Big East and Big 12 were vulnerable not only because there were some internal frictions, they were also surrounded by hungry neighbors. It's not just a matter of geography in terms of distance, but also in terms of time, or to be more specific, time zones. I can see how it could be attractive for the PAC to establish a foothold in the Central zone to broaden their national exposure, but their geographic isolation makes it possible for them to wait for the most attractive options.

Phog they can only wait about 7 to 9 years. As the time nears an end on the GOR the Big 10 and SEC would be in better position to pick up the best options if the PAC hasn't preemptively moved by that time.

I think valid points have been made by several posters here. But one immutable fact remains. There are 3 prime targets for the PAC, Big 10, and SEC. Only the PAC has the room and ability to make package deals. If they wait until the need to package has passed they will never land the three prizes because of their distance and isolation. The package is the only way for them to go because it is the only way to make the move worth it for the Big 12 schools.

So far most of the discussion is about what it is worth it for the PAC, but the real issue is making it worth it for Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

The best suggestion I've read so far was for the PAC to take 7 and 1 other. The best model for that was to take Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and......Nebraska if the Big 10 would let them go. There are still 7 AAU targets (or at least strong ARWU schools) remaining for the Big 10 elsewhere if they cooperate with the SEC.

But that aside it is the package that makes being a member of a remote conference doable for the present members of the Big 12.

jres and I are on the same page for the most part. the only big difference in our two opinions is the size of a package move.

for me i say no more than 2-4 schools. for him its 8 schools

(11-19-2013 03:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  jres and I are on the same page for the most part. the only big difference in our two opinions is the size of a package move.

for me i say no more than 2-4 schools. for him its 8 schools

John, if the PAC moves to 20 the Big 10 and SEC will as well and that means 3 conferences, not 4, not 5, which means 2 more conference shares of the playoff pie are subdivided raising all participants in the remaining three conferences approximately 2 million each per year on the low side of the estimate. And that doesn't count market enhancements for the respective networks, or the boost from the sale of former conference property for the schools of the ACC and Big 12. It is probably the only way to bring future economic and athletic balance to a new upper tier.

(11-19-2013 03:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 03:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  jres and I are on the same page for the most part. the only big difference in our two opinions is the size of a package move.

for me i say no more than 2-4 schools. for him its 8 schools

John, if the PAC moves to 20 the Big 10 and SEC will as well and that means 3 conferences, not 4, not 5, which means 2 more conference shares of the playoff pie are subdivided raising all participants in the remaining three conferences approximately 2 million each per year on the low side of the estimate. And that doesn't count market enhancements for the respective networks, or the boost from the sale of former conference property for the schools of the ACC and Big 12. It is probably the only way to bring future economic and athletic balance to a new upper tier.

As previously mentioned, if the PAC wants a shot at the top properties in the B12, then they have to offer a spot to enough schools to get the conference to dissolve.

Since I just love realignment scenarios try this one on for size:

PAC: Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
California, Colorado, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.
Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oklahoma

Big 10: Duke, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia
Boston College, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC: Georgia Tech, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Florida State, Miss State, South Carolina, Tennessee
Arkansas, L.S.U. Ole Miss, Missouri, Texas A&M

Nope