PonyFans.com

crazy horse wrote:Wasn't Colorado State's President Albert Yates, one of the key instigators of the airport meeting that split the WAC 16? I know its been a long time, water under the bridge and so forth, but that really pissed me off, and hurt a LOT of programs for a few years.

And Yates, as I recall had many unkind things to say about those teams left behind. I truly wish they had acted honorably and attempted to form divisions that were satisfactory, or at least settled the issue before inviting everyone. I recall a tremendous amount of trash talk for a couple of years on the old WAC board.

Forgive, forget, and move on, I guess. Hopefully, everyone learned from that experience.

Yates is also the CSU president who hired Earl Bruce, who continues to pollute from the grave, most recently in the form of CSU's curious decision to hire noted Bruce protege Urban Meyer to direct their coaching search a couple years ago....which yielded Meyer chum Steve Addazio, who got them almost all the way back to the stone ages in 2 seasons.

Aztecgolfer wrote:Yeah, nice attraction but hell no to playing BB on it. We did it the first time versus Syracuse. Boeheim promised he wouldn't play zone and lied. It was windy so we couldn't hit a three and lost.

Oh yeah, I was kidding. It was a total gimmick. Did Mich State and Gonzaga end up playing there? I know they were talking about it.

PS Best hotel is, IMhO, the Pendry--even moreso based on location if the Padres are in town.

I have been reading the readers comments on John Canzano's March 4 post re the PAC 10 media negotiations and potential expansion. The article and the comments are encouraging. His takeaway is that despite wild rumors neither Oregon or Colorado have any interest in leaving the PAC for the Big 12, that the media rights deal will be solid, possibly better than the Big 12, and the comments about SMU are welcoming and favorable. The tone of the PAC fans is one of knowledgable and realistic observers of the sport and is at a much higher level of sophistication than anything being churned out by the hysterical Big 12 apologist media machine. One AD told Canzano the PAC should expect good things because, compared to the Big 12, the PAC has "better schools, a bigger audience, and better ratings."

Topper wrote:I have been reading the readers comments on John Canzano's March 4 post re the PAC 10 media negotiations and potential expansion. The article and the comments are encouraging. His takeaway is that despite wild rumors neither Oregon or Colorado have any interest in leaving the PAC for the Big 12, that the media rights deal will be solid, possibly better than the Big 12, and the comments about SMU are welcoming and favorable. The tone of the PAC fans is one of knowledgable and realistic observers of the sport and is at a much higher level of sophistication than anything being churned out by the hysterical Big 12 apologist media machine. One AD told Canzano the PAC should expect good things because, compared to the Big 12, the PAC has "better schools, a bigger audience, and better ratings."

I can't claim to understand how Oregon, Arizona or ASU think, but the Colorado chatter has seemed nutty to me. CU left the Big12 barely a decade ago because it saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to be the only flagship left with a bunch of ag and religious schools, and because the Pac12 offered an immediate step up in prestige (plus like-minded peers in Stanford and Cal, who also still use ~1990s athletics budgeting methodology). CU has the financial luxury of decent football attendance even when they're bad, so the idea that they'll tuck tail and run back to the Big 12 for incremental revenue doesn't make sense. They are doing fine with out-of-state tuition payers from TX as it is.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/.am ... ourth-spot



So this one says we’re a lock.
If not Tulane or Rice?

Rla1022 wrote:https://www.si.com/college/stanford/.amp/football/three-long-shot-pac-12-expansion-candidates-for-the-fourth-spot



So this one says we’re a lock.
If not Tulane or Rice?

Well, it says "near" lock, but seems to mean it's a done deal, yes. I still do not believe Colorado State is a real thing. I think it will be twelve. There is zero chance of UTSA.

There's only one team in CO that might move the needle and its not CSU, but AFA.

PonyTime wrote:The ONLY school that I would be sad to leave in the AAC is Tulane. Huge plus if somehow Tulane and SMU both land in the PAC. NOLA is a great trip and Tulane fans are a great group. Really hope this happens.

Adds another Central Time slot to the mix. Academically a great school.

How about Tulane being the only SEC / PAC member?

I would like to amend my statement. I loved being in a conference with Navy. Being basketball season, they slipped my mind.

Imagine AFA would be an excellent add as well.

Dukie wrote:

Rla1022 wrote:https://www.si.com/college/stanford/.amp/football/three-long-shot-pac-12-expansion-candidates-for-the-fourth-spot



So this one says we’re a lock.
If not Tulane or Rice?

Well, it says "near" lock, but seems to mean it's a done deal, yes. I still do not believe Colorado State is a real thing. I think it will be twelve. There is zero chance of UTSA.

CSU doesn't make sense since the PAC already has Colorado and UC values its association with Cal, Stanford et. al. CSU is a good school academically and has made some investments in athletics, but there are other markets that make more sense.

Dukie wrote:

Aztecgolfer wrote:Yeah, nice attraction but hell no to playing BB on it. We did it the first time versus Syracuse. Boeheim promised he wouldn't play zone and lied. It was windy so we couldn't hit a three and lost.

Oh yeah, I was kidding. It was a total gimmick. Did Mich State and Gonzaga end up playing there? I know they were talking about it.

PS Best hotel is, IMhO, the Pendry--even moreso based on location if the Padres are in town.

I believe there was one other game on the Midway. Gonzaga played Mich. St. this year on the Abraham Lincoln. After playing on the Midway we played USD at Petco the following year and lost. Our coach put his foot down after that, no more outdoor PR gimmick games.

laxdawg97 wrote:

Topper wrote:I have been reading the readers comments on John Canzano's March 4 post re the PAC 10 media negotiations and potential expansion. The article and the comments are encouraging. His takeaway is that despite wild rumors neither Oregon or Colorado have any interest in leaving the PAC for the Big 12, that the media rights deal will be solid, possibly better than the Big 12, and the comments about SMU are welcoming and favorable. The tone of the PAC fans is one of knowledgable and realistic observers of the sport and is at a much higher level of sophistication than anything being churned out by the hysterical Big 12 apologist media machine. One AD told Canzano the PAC should expect good things because, compared to the Big 12, the PAC has "better schools, a bigger audience, and better ratings."

I can't claim to understand how Oregon, Arizona or ASU think, but the Colorado chatter has seemed nutty to me. CU left the Big12 barely a decade ago because it saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to be the only flagship left with a bunch of ag and religious schools, and because the Pac12 offered an immediate step up in prestige (plus like-minded peers in Stanford and Cal, who also still use ~1990s athletics budgeting methodology). CU has the financial luxury of decent football attendance even when they're bad, so the idea that they'll tuck tail and run back to the Big 12 for incremental revenue doesn't make sense. They are doing fine with out-of-state tuition payers from TX as it is.

Oregon isn't going to the B12, they want to go to the B1G but have not been invited. Arizona is an AAU school so they are not leaving the PAC unless it is blown up, which would require the B1G to at least two more schools. The B1G gave a big "no" to Cal when they recently begged to be invited. Stanford doesn't want to pay its players so they would be even less competitive in the B1G than in the PAC. The B!G likely prefers Notre Dame, UNC and Virginia over Washington and Oregon, so they will want to keep slots open for when those school become available. Finally, USC doesn't want to compete with other western schools (other than UCLA) and are fine with just they and UCLA in the B1G. USC cares only about football, BB is an afterthought, they draw only some 4K fans to their BB games. You hear about Zona going to the B12 because they have a blogger named Jason Scheer who is pushing for that.

Aztecgolfer wrote:Oregon isn't going to the B12, they want to go to the B1G but have not been invited.

Correct.

UO and UW have shown little interest in the Big 12's initial and present courting efforts.

Aztecgolfer wrote:

laxdawg97 wrote:

Topper wrote:I have been reading the readers comments on John Canzano's March 4 post re the PAC 10 media negotiations and potential expansion. The article and the comments are encouraging. His takeaway is that despite wild rumors neither Oregon or Colorado have any interest in leaving the PAC for the Big 12, that the media rights deal will be solid, possibly better than the Big 12, and the comments about SMU are welcoming and favorable. The tone of the PAC fans is one of knowledgable and realistic observers of the sport and is at a much higher level of sophistication than anything being churned out by the hysterical Big 12 apologist media machine. One AD told Canzano the PAC should expect good things because, compared to the Big 12, the PAC has "better schools, a bigger audience, and better ratings."

I can't claim to understand how Oregon, Arizona or ASU think, but the Colorado chatter has seemed nutty to me. CU left the Big12 barely a decade ago because it saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to be the only flagship left with a bunch of ag and religious schools, and because the Pac12 offered an immediate step up in prestige (plus like-minded peers in Stanford and Cal, who also still use ~1990s athletics budgeting methodology). CU has the financial luxury of decent football attendance even when they're bad, so the idea that they'll tuck tail and run back to the Big 12 for incremental revenue doesn't make sense. They are doing fine with out-of-state tuition payers from TX as it is.

Oregon isn't going to the B12, they want to go to the B1G but have not been invited. Arizona is an AAU school so they are not leaving the PAC unless it is blown up, which would require the B1G to at least two more schools. The B1G gave a big "no" to Cal when they recently begged to be invited. Stanford doesn't want to pay its players so they would be even less competitive in the B1G than in the PAC. The B!G likely prefers Notre Dame, UNC and Virginia over Washington and Oregon, so they will want to keep slots open for when those school become available. Finally, USC doesn't want to compete with other western schools (other than UCLA) and are fine with just they and UCLA in the B1G. USC cares only about football, BB is an afterthought, they draw only some 4K fans to their BB games. You hear about Zona going to the B12 because they have a blogger named Jason Scheer who is pushing for that.

That makes sense. The new B12 is the worst academic conference among the P5 by far. That still means something to some schools.

Conferences care about academics as much as fans care about Olivia Dunne's gymnastics scores.

mtrout wrote:Conferences care about academics as much as fans care about Olivia Dunne's gymnastics scores.

What the heck does that mean
?