WordUpBU wrote:
The PAC isn't going to 18 schools. Come on...
They will do whatever maximizes their TV revenue per school...and that is getting a good footprint in the expanding TX media markets. And, much like the Big 8 in the mid-90s, they will take whoever Texas wishes to bring along in order to get the deal done.
(Actually the Big 8 was prepared to do a full merger with the SWC, but Texas called just before a meeting was to occur to finalize that and axed the four left-behind schools - this was reported last year by a Kansas newspaper that sat down with someone close to the negotiations at the time - I think they were some senior official at KU or KSU - here's a link to a discussion page with some quotes from the article but the original article link seems to not be working: http://www.bighuskerfan.com/smf/index.p ... ic=58419.0)
PAC may consider expanding east. The SEC, ACC and even the Big 10 have all gone to more national conferences and less regional. Its all about the money baby.
This move slapped the B1G. ND is basically a brand that has lost a lot of its luster (so who cares). The SEC is the top conference (Big 6) while the Beast is the lowest (the rest fall somewhere in between). It also made the ACC look desperate. The Beast needs to get the last school and win games.
CalallenStang wrote:
I wish you were right, because if you were, SMU's chances of getting into a better conference would go way up.
But you aren't. Texas and OU have all the leverage because Texas and OU can destroy the conference at will. For instance, if Texas and OU decide to go to the PAC-12 and take OSU and TCU or Texas Tech with them, they will offer to buy those TV rights from the remaining six members in the conference. If the remaining members say no, they just throw a bone to another school or two (say KU or KSU) with a PAC-12 invite, and all of a sudden, the B12 is below the 6 continuing schools required by the NCAA to stay with the current conference certification. At that point, the remaining four schools would vote to cancel the grant of rights and find their own new homes.
The PAC is not about to accept OSU or Tech because of their academics. And the Oklahoma Legislature has signaled it isn't letting OU go anywhere without OSU. This is precisely what caused the OU-to-Pac deal to fall apart last year. Texas isn't going anywhere without its LHN, so that automatically rules out the SEC and the Pac.
And none of them are going anywhere with their media rights anyway, because for the next 13 years, they don't own them. Which means they aren't going anywhere.
CalallenStang wrote:The PAC has WSU. They don't have a problem with bad academics if it helps them reach their goals.
WSU is a near charter-member of the conference, so nothing can be done about them. But last year, Stanford and USC made it clear they aren't going to accept many more schools of that caliber. They were sorta quietly backed by Cal.
Since Pac 12 expansion votes must be unanimous, that effectively bars candidates like OSU and Tech. Without OSU, OU is not a candidate either.
Geez, even OSU and Tech fans acknowledged this last year. Did you not keep up with the news at the time?
CalallenStang wrote:The PAC has WSU. They don't have a problem with bad academics if it helps them reach their goals.
WSU is a near charter-member of the conference, so nothing can be done about them. But last year, Stanford and USC made it clear they aren't going to accept many more schools of that caliber. They were sorta quietly backed by Cal.
Since Pac 12 expansion votes must be unanimous, that effectively bars candidates like OSU and Tech. Without OSU, OU is not a candidate either.
Geez, even OSU and Tech fans acknowledged this last year. Did you not keep up with the news at the time?
It's not a problem if TV says it's worth it. The true story is that TV said OSU wasn't worth it last year. I know - I have connections that work in the administration at Stanford.
And the situation I posted is but one that could potentially unfold. Here's another:
Texas and TCU to PAC
OU and OSU to SEC
KU to Big 10
CalallenStang wrote:The PAC has WSU. They don't have a problem with bad academics if it helps them reach their goals.
WSU is a near charter-member of the conference, so nothing can be done about them. But last year, Stanford and USC made it clear they aren't going to accept many more schools of that caliber. They were sorta quietly backed by Cal.
Since Pac 12 expansion votes must be unanimous, that effectively bars candidates like OSU and Tech. Without OSU, OU is not a candidate either.
Geez, even OSU and Tech fans acknowledged this last year. Did you not keep up with the news at the time?
SORRY FROGGIE BUT UNANIMOUS VOTES ARE A THING OF THE PAST SINCE $$ RULES!
The PAC-12 vote procedure is as follows:
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.
