PonyFans.com

http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2011 ... expansion/

will all this expansion talk fall apart?
some good shots in the article.

Planning with so much instability is difficult at best. One wonders if so much uncertainty about the future and the problems that causes for schools, conferences and TV networks doesn't actually lead to creating smaller but very stable conferences. CUSA could leverage its stability to networks. It could retain a loyal and growing fan base as stability leads to comfort. Let instability and uncertainly of the big conferences work to their demise.

What is the PAC12 requirement for giving invitations to new schools. Can one vote veto an offer?

ponyte I agree to a point. I must say as a fan of football in a general sense that uncertainty is dissatisfying. All this conference movement has created a ton of it especially with the backstabbing going on in the Big12. I think the CUSA remains a good fit for SMU until the Big 9 re/dissolves and then we can reevaluate.

reddevil wrote:What is the PAC12 requirement for giving invitations to new schools. Can one vote veto an offer?

The Pac 12 new membership requires:

Membership shall be limited to institutions of higher education holding Division I membership in the NCAA.
Applicants shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary and appropriate by the Commissioner.
New members may only be admitted to the Conference by three-fourths vote of the entire CEO Group.

The CEO Group consists of:

Each member of the Conference shall have one representative on the CEO Group which shall be the President
of the member (“Chief Executive Officer”), except as to the University of California, Berkeley; the University of
California, Los Angeles; and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the respective Chancellor shall be considered
the Chief Executive Officer.

The Pac 12 has revoked the single veto.

Too Bad the single veto is gone and all 4 California Schools still fall short of the 3/4 majority.

I'm sure they would love to eliminate the 2 Okies & TT talk of joining.

If all four Cal schools voted no on the Okies and TT, wouldn't it be enough to block? There wouldn't be enough voting yes to get to 3/4ths would there?

I find it quite funny that Colorado- that bastion of academic excellence - is worried about OU,OSU and TT academics.

GO PONIES!!!

I agree with mathman. Note also the division problem - who thinks Colorado, Utah, and especially Arizona and ASU are going to be excited with being in the new East Division and only getting one* West Coast** football game a year?

* Assuming the PAC 16 would have teams play all opponents in their division and two crossover games, one home and one away.

** Assuming Pullman and Corvallis qualify as "West Coast."

mathman wrote:If all four Cal schools voted no on the Okies and TT, wouldn't it be enough to block? There wouldn't be enough voting yes to get to 3/4ths would there?

That is assuming all 4 vote no!

33.3% NO 66.6% YES

With Colorado in play it should be a done deal to veto expansion.

HB Pony Dad wrote:

mathman wrote:If all four Cal schools voted no on the Okies and TT, wouldn't it be enough to block? There wouldn't be enough voting yes to get to 3/4ths would there?

That is assuming all 4 vote no!

66.6% NO

With Colorado in play it should be a done deal to veto expansion.

That was the assumption I was going on based on your comment about the Cal schools. I have no idea how they feel about it one way or the other.

@FootballBYU: BYU will accept Big 12 offer pending OU signs intent to stay

Arizona and Arizona St. and pissed that they would be in a division with Colorado, Utah, OU, OSU, TT, and UT. They could be potential votes no as well. They like Colorado really want to play games against the California schools and if they are in the a separate division those games would be few and far between.