PonyFans.com

WordUpBU wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

gostangs wrote:at least 6 of them are gone. Big 10 has stated they are going to 16. once they pick and the SEC picks then the big 12 will have to go get at least 3-4.

And then the PAC will have to pick...and if the B12's Grant of Rights is truly as ironclad as some make it out to be, we are one of the most logical options for them. It feels weird typing that.

Don't shoot the messenger but they don't HAVE to pick. They can simply go on with 12. I put the chances of them expanding without UT and OU around 1%.

They can't go on with 12 if Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all go to 16. The 3x16 and 1x12 scenario would then create the argument that the Pac-12 champ isn't as "battle-tested" as those from the other conferences, and the selection committee will leave them out from the playoff more often than not. Thus, if the other three go to 16, PAC must go to 16, or they risk backsliding into being a second-tier conference.

OK 2%-no school is going to get the required 10 votes w/o UT/OU quadrant

Stallion wrote:OK 2%-no school is going to get the required 10 votes w/o UT/OU quadrant

We shall see

A little bit more of an aggie fan today with this news....

still better to be as far east as possible for media exposure...of put together a coast to coast group with "regional" divisions

CalallenStang wrote:

Stallion wrote:OK 2%-no school is going to get the required 10 votes w/o UT/OU quadrant

We shall see

If the OU/OSU combo didn't have it last year, good luck with anything that brings less media punch than that. PAC12 presidents shot it down after Scott thought he had the votes.

Not trying to rain on any parade here but it's really how I see it.

WordUpBU wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

Stallion wrote:OK 2%-no school is going to get the required 10 votes w/o UT/OU quadrant

We shall see

If the OU/OSU combo didn't have it last year, good luck with anything that brings less media punch than that. PAC12 presidents shot it down after Scott thought he had the votes.

Not trying to rain on any parade here but it's really how I see it.

They didn't NEED more than 12 last year. Had they needed more than 12, they would have been in.

They can't go on with 12 if Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all go to 16. The 3x16 and 1x12 scenario would then create the argument that the Pac-12 champ isn't as "battle-tested" as those from the other conferences, and the selection committee will leave them out from the playoff more often than not. Thus, if the other three go to 16, PAC must go to 16, or they risk backsliding into being a second-tier conference.

Won't adding a bunch of parasitic junk make the Pac-12 a 2nd tier conference anyway?

sbsmith wrote:

They can't go on with 12 if Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all go to 16. The 3x16 and 1x12 scenario would then create the argument that the Pac-12 champ isn't as "battle-tested" as those from the other conferences, and the selection committee will leave them out from the playoff more often than not. Thus, if the other three go to 16, PAC must go to 16, or they risk backsliding into being a second-tier conference.

Won't adding a bunch of parasitic junk make the Pac-12 a 2nd tier conference anyway?

Four schools "a bunch" does not make

I would take that over the nBE

CalallenStang wrote:

sbsmith wrote:

They can't go on with 12 if Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 all go to 16. The 3x16 and 1x12 scenario would then create the argument that the Pac-12 champ isn't as "battle-tested" as those from the other conferences, and the selection committee will leave them out from the playoff more often than not. Thus, if the other three go to 16, PAC must go to 16, or they risk backsliding into being a second-tier conference.

Won't adding a bunch of parasitic junk make the Pac-12 a 2nd tier conference anyway?

Four schools "a bunch" does not make

But it still would be parasitic junk even if you don't consider 1/4 of a league "a bunch". Not sure why they would want to dilute their conference's brand and give a share of their pie to four charity cases. The smart play for them is just to stay at twelve.

sbsmith wrote: But it still would be parasitic junk even if you don't consider 1/4 of a league "a bunch". Not sure why they would want to dilute their conference's brand and give a share of their pie to four charity cases. The smart play for them is just to stay at twelve.

Again, my scenario is that they will have to take 4 more or else get essentially kicked out of the in crowd. At that time, they have to take the 4 best options, and we would be one of those 4. Further, we would improve their TV package by getting the new PAC network they are trying to develop onto TV sets in Dallas (something they really wanted Texas for, which is why when Texas approached them they demanded that Texas get rid of the LHN)

CalallenStang wrote:

sbsmith wrote: But it still would be parasitic junk even if you don't consider 1/4 of a league "a bunch". Not sure why they would want to dilute their conference's brand and give a share of their pie to four charity cases. The smart play for them is just to stay at twelve.

Again, my scenario is that they will have to take 4 more or else get essentially kicked out of the in crowd. At that time, they have to take the 4 best options, and we would be one of those 4. Further, we would improve their TV package by getting the new PAC network they are trying to develop onto TV sets in Dallas (something they really wanted Texas for, which is why when Texas approached them they demanded that Texas get rid of the LHN)

My scenario is that adding the 4 best options (which are all horrible) would kick them out of the in crowd anyway. Why bother diluting their brand just to be looked down upon anyway by the 3 superconferences? Is adding a few dozen extra subscribers in Dallas really worth that? Wouldn't we have already gotten an invite if they thought we could move the needle for them?

sbsmith wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:

sbsmith wrote: But it still would be parasitic junk even if you don't consider 1/4 of a league "a bunch". Not sure why they would want to dilute their conference's brand and give a share of their pie to four charity cases. The smart play for them is just to stay at twelve.

Again, my scenario is that they will have to take 4 more or else get essentially kicked out of the in crowd. At that time, they have to take the 4 best options, and we would be one of those 4. Further, we would improve their TV package by getting the new PAC network they are trying to develop onto TV sets in Dallas (something they really wanted Texas for, which is why when Texas approached them they demanded that Texas get rid of the LHN)

My scenario is that adding the 4 best options (which are all horrible) would kick them out of the in crowd anyway. Why bother diluting their brand just to be looked down upon anyway by the 3 superconferences? Is adding a few dozen extra subscribers in Dallas really worth that? Wouldn't we have already gotten an invite if they thought we could move the needle for them?

It wouldn't be "a few dozen extra subscribers in Dallas" - it would be able to gain much wider distribution with a local team to go along with the many PAC alums in Dallas - we are talking $1 for each subscriber with expanded basic cable or higher. Plus they could charge more for advertising. Add UH in Houston as a travel partner and distribution down there as well, and you come to an even higher number. The problem is...where do you get #15 and #16 from? As much as I hate to say it, UTSA might be the best remaining option to really capture the Texas triangle, which probably forces PAC network onto expanded basic throughout Texas. Of course, UTSA is a newbie program so that may be a non-starter.

And no, we wouldn't have already received an invite. They were chasing B12 schools until the GoR was signed, and after that, they initially chose to sit out of realignment to evaluate their options. Plus, they just launched the PAC network this year, so they didn't have an understanding of just how much money they would generate from the network and thus couldn't properly evaluate the value of new markets.

With DirecTV announcing that they will not carry the channel, the PAC now knows that they need a larger geographic footprint in order to force DirecTV's hand, so adding more schools would not just add new markets but would also allow PAC to access distribution through DirecTV.

Still doesn't address the issue of them supposedly being kicked out of the in-crowd for not having a battle-tested champion. And if we can't help deliver DirectTV to the Pac-12, they basically just agreed to subsidize four brand-diluting charity cases for nothing.