BREAKING: Pac-12 will NOT expand
by JazzyUte on Sep 20, 2011 9:14 PM MDT
in Football
Email
PrintUPDATE: Here is the official statement from the conference:
In light of the widespread speculation about potential scenarios for Conference re-alignment, the Pac-12 Presidents and Chancellors have affirmed their decision to remain a 12-team conference. Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott said, "after careful review we have determined that it is in the best interests of our member institutions, student-athletes and fans to remain a 12-team conference. While we have great respect for all of the institutions that have contacted us, and certain expansion proposals were financially attractive, we have a strong conference structure and culture of equality that we are committed to preserve. With new landmark TV agreements and plans to launch our innovative television networks, we are going to focus solely on these great assets, our strong heritage and the bright future in front of us.
Jon Wilner just tweeted a bombshell: The Pac-12 will NOT be expanding.
"After careful review we have determined it's in the best interests of our member institutions .. to remain a 12-team conference."
This is huge, considering just earlier today it looked like the conference was on the verge of adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
Thoughts?
57 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This will probably change. Remember the back and forth days when the Utes were going to the Pac 12 and then not and then going and then not.
by PhuckthePhillies on Sep 20, 2011 9:17 PM MDT reply actions
It seems pretty solid, though...
Back then, the MWC would release a statement that said “…at this time.”
No such words from the Pac-12. IMO, the presidents decided they didn’t want to expand.
I'm relieved.
From a Utah perspective, being in the Pac-12 South is the ideal. All expansion scenarios were a step backward.
But I agree with PtP that we aren’t entirely safe yet. The chancellors and presidents could change their mind if conference instability continues…
No doubt things could change...
Nothing is ever a given. But the Pac-12 just stabilized this situation greatly.
me too
I wouldn’t mind OU and OSU, but I’m glad they voted no because I thinking Texas was part of the deal. Texas is a cancer to any conference they join. Not only that, but I don’t like the idea of having to travel to the flatland of Oklahoma at least once a year.
by Classless Ute on Sep 20, 2011 9:37 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
No Texas compromise
Pat Forde of ESPN says at least 2 major presidents of the PAC said that if Texas wasn’t involved as an equal partner, don’t bother bringing it to a vote.
I'm guessing Texas wanted special terms
…culture of equality that we are committed to preserve.
I would assume this is the same reason the ACC closed the door on them. What will Oklahoma do now?
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
That's the one thing that really stands out and sends a message.
There really is no reason to put that bit in there from a purely informational standpoint; it’s a not so surreptitious statement obviously aimed directly at Texas. I don’t doubt something still might happen… this really reads like another move in the chess game. A public stance, as it were, letting Texas know that there will be no backdoor deals where revenue sharing is concerned.
by -FeloniousMonk on Sep 20, 2011 11:00 PM MDT up reply actions
Pac-12 just told Texas to take their Diva-ness and shove it.
I think OU kind of smelled the blood in the water, which is why it released it’s demands yesterday to save the Big XII.
So what now for the Big-12?
Oklahoma wants Dan Beebe gone, and are tired of Texas’ shenanigans. Missouri has informally agreed to go to the SEC. That leaves the Big-12 at 8.
…so does the Big-12 dump their commish, does Texas make concessions, and does the conference grab 2-4 more teams? Who are they? (I speculate BYU, Boise St. TCU, Air Force).
…or does Oklahoma move to the Big East and destabilize the Big-12 causing Texas to go independent? Who grabs the Big-12 leftovers in that scenario?
Remember that the ACC needs 2 more teams if they want 16...
Maybe a Pac 16 is off because OU & Okie State have already defected to the ACC. I know, I know, they’re out of the ACC’s footprint, but geography doesn’t really seem to apply anymore when it comes to conference expansion. Not saying that’s what happened, but it is a possibility… hell, anything’s a possibility anymore.
by -FeloniousMonk on Sep 20, 2011 11:04 PM MDT up reply actions
I'm of the opinion that the Big East is now toast...
…but I thought it was toast in the “everyone gets to 16 teams” scenario as well.
My current thoughts are:
The SEC picks up Missouri and sticks at 14 teams (with Missou & TamU).
The ACC, with a focus on basketball, grabs UConn & West Virginia to get to 16 teams…or they could go Cincinnati & Louisville. Not sure if Rutgers is attractive enough in either sport, but that could capture an interesting & possibly large TV market. They are the wildcard in that scenario.
The Big-12 (now at 8), grabs Louisville & Cincy (if they are a available), and TCU
+ BYU to get back to 12. Boise St. becomes the wildcard in that scenario, with a coupling of Houston or possibly a Colorado school (CSU/Air Force) to expand to 14 or even 16 to really stabilize themselves against other conferences picking them apart.
The Big-10 considers expanding to 14, but only if they can pick up Notre Dame. If they can, West Virgina should be in play…Kansas schools might be in play for a move to 16 teams.
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St. remains in play for all conferences if Dan Beebe isn’t fired. If they leave, Texas goes independent, K/K St. land in Big-10, TCU, Baylor, TT, Iowa St. end up in MWC. ND may stay indy or could end up in Big-10, bumping K St. into MWC and possibly leaving Iowa St. out.
The shake-up is far from over. Even the Pac-12 could get to 16 if Texas gets scared and agrees to the Pac revenue sharing.
I just don’t see a scenario where the Big East survives as a football conference.
That makes sense.
I think it stops at 14 for the ACC and SEC, at least for the time being. I’ve said before that I don’t think there are the dollars available right now to warrant 16 team conferences. That’ll change, of course, but only for the right 16 teams. Honestly, I have my doubts about there being enough for 14 teams.
As it stands right now, the Pac 12 has a good market mix, some pretty huge “brand names” and a Cinderella-story “little guy” (Utah). They’ve made their move to expand into the “heartland”, covering the Eastern edge of “the west” and struck a protectionary blow to any possible western conference rivals by nabbing Utah. They’re sitting pretty.
by -FeloniousMonk on Sep 21, 2011 8:22 AM MDT up reply actions
I don't think Mizzou leaves
Mizzou was willing to agree in principal last year with anyone that would listen. No difference this year.
I think Texas now knows they have to capitulate on the Longhorn Network. I think they will, and OU then commits to the Big XII, after Beebe gets fired.
The real question in my mind, is whether OU forcing Texas to capitulate gets aTm to reconsider (Probably not), and if aTm ends up staying in the Big XII, does Pitt/‘Cuse decide it’s not worth the money and 27 months and end up staying in the Big East.
Love It!!!
If this is indeed the case and remains the case I love it. This is best for the Utes. We are in an ideal situation in an ideal division in the PAC-12. Going to 16 would not be good for Utah at this point. However, we’re simply lucky to be in so I can’t complain if we go to 16.
Woot!
Seriously glad to see this outcome. It would have been interesting to add a quality program like Oklahoma to the pac, but almost nothing I heard coming from Austin made me comfortable with the Longhorns joining. I hope Oklahoma can get some concessions from Tejas and find a way to stabilize the BIG12 (maybe get back to 12 with some quality programs).
Not convinced this is the end
I like the PAC 12 as it is and personally don’t want expansion but think it’s inevitable and we’re headed that way sooner or later. The PAC 12 will have to expand if the ACC and SEC go to 16. Sounds like they are both inching towards 14. If the PAC 12 stays pat and others expand, they become irrelevant.
Things will continue to shift and settle. Being in the western half of the country where population bases and states are more spread out and academic requirements or cultural fits aren’t up to the requisite standard of the PAC12, the options of possible teams to expand to are extremely limited. They have to go to the Midwest or Southwest or wherever the hell Oklahoma is. Adding Oklahoma and Texas gives the conference two blue-bloods in college football. It would be the preeminent conference in all of sports.
Still, I’m glad they didn’t give in to Texas’ demands. The revenue sharing has to be equal or it will be the undoing of the conference. I bet this issue resurfaces again before the season closes.
The Pac will never become irrelevant...
Because there is no other BCS conference west of the midwest.
This issue might be revisited again in the future, but it won’t be for a good three to five years.
If UT and OK go to the ACC in 3 years, who is left for the PAC to expand?
There were/are already perceptions about this conference, fair or not. The time zone difference equals lack of exposure, the conference is USC and his 9 ugly step kids, teams don’t play defense, can’t win a big game (except USC), while there is parity there aren’t traditional name brands except USC, etc. There is a theme.
If the SEC goes to 16 other conferences will clamor to keep up. So if Oklahoma and Texas get picked off the board because of a sweet deal with the Big 10 or ACC, who does the PAC12 pick up instead? There aren’t a lot of other options that make sense and bring what is needed to the table.
Haste in this situation would likely backfire, but at some point these teams are going to go somewhere. The Big 12 will not live past five years as a league. If OK and UT end up in another conference, the effects won’t be positive out west.
by UteinBrooklyn on Sep 21, 2011 10:11 AM MDT up reply actions
If the Pac-12 was absolutely pushed
to become a 16-team super conference, there are PLENTY of teams who could join (though not necessarily AQ teams). Look at the numbers, The 3 other major conferences can not absorb everyone from the Big-12/Big Least. Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, TCU, Baylor, and even Iowa State would all be options. Additionally, you could put pressure on teh guys out east by adding a Non-AQ team that gets you into a big market (i.e UNLV).
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Sep 21, 2011 11:52 AM MDT up reply actions
Those are options but not good ones.
But if you’re adding inventory would you rather select two of the most valuable brands (Texas and Oklahoma) in all of college sports or second rate teams like Kansas State and Iowa State?
It’s like asking someone in the Mountain West would they want Boise State or New Mexico State to join their conference. (I know Boise is already a member. ) One enhances the perception, reputation, and visibility of the conference a lot more than the other.
Out of your list, Kansas is the only reasonable option because they have a top-5 basketball program and are a member of the prestigious AAU that the PAC presidents prefer. UNLV, Boise St., SDSU, will never be invited to the PAC because of substandard academic credentials to a conference that has 4 schools among the top universities in the world.
Missouri will be playing in the SEC before long. TCU, BYU and Baylor won’t get an invite, because they are religiously affiliated institutions that limit certain academic freedoms and are a bad cultural fit. There really aren’t many good options left on the table.
If Texas can keep a rebellion from happening and make sure Oklahoma is happy, we may not have to worry about this for a while. But three teams just fought to break away from the Longhorns and the other top dig isn’t happy. I could see Texas going independent, but don’t think they have enough restraint and self control to not flex their muscles and piss everyone else off. Realignment might have been stalled for now, but it isn’t over.
by UteinBrooklyn on Sep 21, 2011 4:36 PM MDT up reply actions
Point is...
I don’t think the Big 12 will last long term. If another conference grabs Texas and Oklahoma before the PAC 12 does, there aren’t any strong and realistic options left out there. If that were to happen, the PAC would definitely be struggling to keep from being the bottom dweller of the super conferences.
by UteinBrooklyn on Sep 21, 2011 4:43 PM MDT up reply actions
OU has two options: Pac-12 or Big10...
They’re not going to the SEC. OU does not want the SEC and the SEC really doesn’t want the Sooners.
If that happens, then the Pac-12 can look at bringing them on board. But the Sooners, and the conference, know that their own viable option right now is the Big 12.
Dodged the Texas Bullet
If we have to expand, taking the Oklahoma schools with the Kansas schools was always a lot better choice than Texas and anyone else.
Looks to me like Oklahoma is still not pleased about the Big-12 with Texas throwing its weight around, so we may revisit a variation of this in the future.
But they could knock it all off until after the bowl games. Let concentrate on the important stuff.
And, oh yeah, HOW ABOUT THAT SHOCK AND AWE THAT FELL ON THE COUGS!!!!!!
I wasn't necessarily against 16 just against Texas
If they were causing this many problems now when the PAC had all the leverage, imagine what we would have had to deal with if they were in. I really hope this stays at 12 so that things settle down a bit before a huge decision like this is made.
Beautiful
I am constantly faced with new reasons to admire this conference. This is the right decision in the long run, economically and athletically as well as philosophically.
We will see what happens next, but this is a good development.
If I were Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Washington State, or Washington, I would vote against expansion to 16 generally. If Texas is supposed to get big bucks just for being orange, I’d vote against them as USC and Oregon as well. I imagine that is how the vote broke down.
Not sure why 7 presidents found a reason to vote against a 14 team conference with Oklahoma… maybe academic stuff.
by Joseph Silverzweig on Sep 21, 2011 7:53 AM MDT reply actions
Honestly, so long as Texas is part of the equation,
I wouldn’t vote for a Pac 16 if I’m any current Pac 12 member. They’ve a proven track record for conference ruination. How many teams does this make who want/have wanted to get the hell away from them now? Like, six? Four at the very least. Why would you actively seek to add them to your conference?
by -FeloniousMonk on Sep 21, 2011 8:12 AM MDT up reply actions
Apparently it never came to an actual vote.
Per the New York Times:
The conference call Scott had with the Pac-12 presidents on Tuesday night did not involve a vote. The presidents simply expressed their consensus that they were happy with 12 members and comfortable with the equal revenue sharing and conference divisions that they had decided on.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
There will never be a vote where Scott won't have the numbers.
Scott knows what his chancellors and presidents want. He will never take a proposal to them that he won’t have enough votes to pass.
He never would take conference expansion to a vote unless Texas had already capitulated.
^
Exactly. Scott did a theoretical vote (like a senate whip) to see if he had the votes. He didn’t… I’m wondering who the seventh hold-out was.
I agree that adding Texas is short-sighted and more trouble than it’s worth… but I’m not sure school Presidents would see it that way in the midst of a recession. Those millions make a difference.
by Joseph Silverzweig on Sep 21, 2011 8:43 AM MDT up reply actions
Who's to say how many hold-outs there were?
Why would any school in the conference vote for adding the OK and Texas schools if Texas demanded preferential treatment? And as for adding just the OK schools, that brings up a whole host of issues that schools could take issue with, such as conference divisions (likely zipper), scheduling, academic concerns, and TV markets (and, by extension, financial attractiveness). 14 teams is a lot messier than 16 in many ways, and the OK schools are less of a slam dunk financially than Texas.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
There weren't any because they never tabled a vote
by Utah-UCLA alum on Sep 21, 2011 9:45 AM MDT up reply actions
That's what I'm saying
Andy Katz at ESPN went further in-depth on this:
Scott didn’t endorse expansion to the league’s presidents and chancellors, the source said.
The presidents never took a vote on the four Big 12 schools and the four schools didn’t formally apply for inclusion either, the source said. The Pac-12 member presidents were on a conference call Tuesday night and reaffirmed the decision to stay at 12 members.
He also confirms that yes, this was all about Texas wanting special treatment, and that Pac-12 presidents did not want to expand to 14 schools (adding the Oklahoma schools only).
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
Sorry about that. I think I am on these blogs too much :)
by Utah-UCLA alum on Sep 21, 2011 7:57 PM MDT up reply actions
Ha ha. No worries.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
I love that
I find it surprising they didn’t go after TCU, though. They play SEC-type football. Maybe it’s the religious stuff.
by Joseph Silverzweig on Sep 21, 2011 8:43 AM MDT up reply actions
TCU has no support
The Frogs can’t sell out a 35,000 seat stadium in a year they won the Rose Bowl. If Texas A & M goes to the SEC, it will be all the conference needs to get into the Texas TV footprint and recruiting base.
by UteinBrooklyn on Sep 21, 2011 10:15 AM MDT up reply actions
other way around
Texas won’t have anything to do with the SEC because of academic standards. A & M will be the highest ranked academic institution after Vanderbilt, as soon as they join.
by UteinBrooklyn on Sep 21, 2011 10:28 AM MDT up reply actions
this is great.
We should not have to deal with Texas unless they are willing to be one of the guys. and that just wont happen.
Am I the only one who doesn’t miss hair Thompson?
Want to see someone really get their brain twisted up? Try explaining the Monty Hall problem to them....
by BigBenSportsGuy on Sep 21, 2011 8:43 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Thoughts? . . .YES!
As others say, Texas brings more trouble than benefit.
Then again, I don’t like the idea of a 16 team conference. Really, the division is the conference and you have an agreed upon champ game with another conference. Yeah, you could get a pod system going so you get more varied games, but it’s takes a PhD in scheduling to make sure everyone has both a challenging and interesting schedule. Look how much flak Utah takes from just missing Oregon and Stanford in one year.
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
Scheduling
I don’t know why no one has mentioned this crazy, crazy idea.
4 four team ‘pods’? I say call ‘em divisions. Each team plays a home and home with each other team in their division every season (Wha?! Fairnes?!). That’s six games. The four divisions pair off based on overall record and play a playoff game as the twelfth game of the season; non-division winners pair up across divisions. Seven conference games. Throw in two out of division games against other conference teams to keep things interesting, and have three out of conference games that don’t really matter in the standings.
Then the two winners of the two playoff games play each other in the Pac-12 Champ game… that’s the thirteenth game just like now. Then the Pac-12 Champion (who won their division fair and square and won two playoff games) plays the Big 10 champ in the ‘superbowl’.
Why isn’t actual, fair, professional-style football with playoffs an option for the division, I say?
by Joseph Silverzweig on Sep 21, 2011 12:32 PM MDT up reply actions
Conference
Not Division. We can’t have a BCS playoff… but we could have a two-round conference playoff as the PAC-16 without giving up any OOC games.
by Joseph Silverzweig on Sep 21, 2011 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions
No we can't.
In order to have a conference championship game (that isn’t part of your regular 12-game season) you have to play everyone in your division (right now). So if we’re going to have TWO championship games, we’ll be limited to 10 regular season games, or 11 if the non-championship teams get to play each other in a completely meaningless game (although the logistics of not knowing your 11th game until the last second are a nightmare).
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Sep 21, 2011 2:27 PM MDT up reply actions
Although I was really for bringing in OU, and OSU due to the fact they would help this conference
and I was upset that it didn’t happen. One positive I can take away from this whole episode is we truly have the best commish in college sports (and possible pro sports with how crappy those have been lately). but not only does he know what his universities want, but he also fights for it.
I don't understand why 16 is the magic number.
I think the PAC is pretty secure. They have everything in the west, and California and everyone else won’t stop watching football because we have a slightly lower power ranking in the BCS. Nor will the BCS cut off the entire western U.S. – Which is expanding rapidly in population and represents probably 1/3 of the market.
I say stay at 12, split revenue between less teams, and we will still be an automatic qualifying conference. The BCS isn’t going to go to a playoff any time soon, so four 16-team conferences is not necessary.
Stay at 12 – We will be the most exclusive conference in the country – and when the other conferences with messed up geography has contention amongst themselves, we can sit back and realize our biggest market-share competition is the Mountain West and WAC.
Bottom line – Don’t expand.
TV Contract Related
16 is the magic number for most TV contracts to be considered enough of a drastic change to allow renegotiation.
One is the loneliest number...
that you’ll ever dooooo. Just ask BYU. /lamer joke
by -FeloniousMonk on Sep 21, 2011 6:57 PM MDT up reply actions
Jazzy
You need to ban these two… oh wait. One of them is you. Ban yourself. BigBen can write the blog. Goodness knows he posts enough (I never vote for you to stop posting, Ben!)
by Joseph Silverzweig on Sep 21, 2011 9:56 PM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
Related FanPosts on Block U
Related FanShots on Block U
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
