Re: PAC12 Scenario = Expansion
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2023 8:33 pm
The smartest move for the PAC-12 would be to grab BYU, SDSU, Houston, and SMU. The Big XII could grab Memphis and one of Tulane/USF/Temple and both conferences would benefit.
mustangxc wrote:The smartest move for the PAC-12 would be to grab BYU, SDSU, Houston, and SMU. The Big XII could grab Memphis and one of Tulane/USF/Temple and both conferences would benefit.
That’d be great for SMU but in no way would the Big 12 benefit by replacing BYU and UH with Memphis and Temple.mustangxc wrote:The smartest move for the PAC-12 would be to grab BYU, SDSU, Houston, and SMU. The Big XII could grab Memphis and one of Tulane/USF/Temple and both conferences would benefit.
This post could have been from 2006.Charleston Pony wrote: Of course, if SMU can continue to improve and become a consistent Top 25 (or better) program, we might become more attractive in the future but we have shown we have a very small fan base so SMU needs to gain more interest in the program and that isn't likely to happen without winning championships. Life in the AAC might afford that opportunity and if SMU was to have the kind of success that Boise State has enjoyed as the big fish in a smaller pond, then the Dallas market comes into play.
As football continues building a roster that will hopefully help SMU compete for championships, we need basketball to do the same for people to really take notice. SMU needs to be playing in bowl games every year and make the NCAA Tourney in hoops and maybe we can attract some much needed bandwagon fans.
If they were to add USF, that would solidify the Florida market for the conference. Eastern is usually better. In the case of the PAC, BYU would solidify the Utah market and while nowhere near USC or UCLA BYU would be a solid replacement brand. Then, SMU and UH would help get them a little more in the Texas market. I didn't say it would benefit the Big XII, but it would certainly benefit the PAC-12 and the Big XII would have decent replacement options as a backup plan.Dukie wrote:That’d be great for SMU but in no way would the Big 12 benefit by replacing BYU and UH with Memphis and Temple.mustangxc wrote:The smartest move for the PAC-12 would be to grab BYU, SDSU, Houston, and SMU. The Big XII could grab Memphis and one of Tulane/USF/Temple and both conferences would benefit.
Any teams added have to increase value for all members. Why expand unless that happens? In the worst-case scenario, the Pac-12 numbers will be slightly below the Big 12. Even if that happens, schools aren't jumping for $1M-$3M per year. It's not worth the hassle and can be made up elsewhere.SMUstang wrote:Would it even be possible for the PAC to hold at 10? With a lower contract value would the 4 corners, Washington, and Oregon stay for less money than they could get elsewhere? Remember, when the Big 12 had 10 teams, they still had Oklahoma and Texas and a decent contract value.
What you said is that ΓÇ£both conferences would benefit.ΓÇ¥ I think we actually agree that the Big 12 wouldn’t.mustangxc wrote:If they were to add USF, that would solidify the Florida market for the conference. Eastern is usually better. In the case of the PAC, BYU would solidify the Utah market and while nowhere near USC or UCLA BYU would be a solid replacement brand. Then, SMU and UH would help get them a little more in the Texas market. I didn't say it would benefit the Big XII, but it would certainly benefit the PAC-12 and the Big XII would have decent replacement options as a backup plan.Dukie wrote:That’d be great for SMU but in no way would the Big 12 benefit by replacing BYU and UH with Memphis and Temple.mustangxc wrote:The smartest move for the PAC-12 would be to grab BYU, SDSU, Houston, and SMU. The Big XII could grab Memphis and one of Tulane/USF/Temple and both conferences would benefit.
Some people dont seem to ever get this —. PAC cannot take big 12 teams - they have signed long term contracts. There is zero chance the Big 12 added them to the tv contract and schedules without their legal commitment. Also they would not be interested in going to the PAC as the money is projected to be about even.mustangxc wrote:If they were to add USF, that would solidify the Florida market for the conference. Eastern is usually better. In the case of the PAC, BYU would solidify the Utah market and while nowhere near USC or UCLA BYU would be a solid replacement brand. Then, SMU and UH would help get them a little more in the Texas market. I didn't say it would benefit the Big XII, but it would certainly benefit the PAC-12 and the Big XII would have decent replacement options as a backup plan.Dukie wrote:That’d be great for SMU but in no way would the Big 12 benefit by replacing BYU and UH with Memphis and Temple.mustangxc wrote:The smartest move for the PAC-12 would be to grab BYU, SDSU, Houston, and SMU. The Big XII could grab Memphis and one of Tulane/USF/Temple and both conferences would benefit.