PAC10 to offer invites to 6 Big 12 schools

Collegiate Sports
21

[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:20, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:18, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:17, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:12, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:10, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:

“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”

The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]

When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]

You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

The Pac-10 requires unanimous votes to add new members, so getting a school like Stanford to agree will take more than money. Last time, when AZ and AZ St. were added, USC had to threaten to leave to get STanford to approve. None of these schools but Texas would merit that tactic from the pro-expansion Pac-10 schools this time.[/quote]

Well since you’re the Stanford AD, what’s their problem with the whole thing? I’d like to think the amount of money they are stating would change just about anyone’s mind.[/quote]

Stanford is a lot like Duke. They value education over athletics, basketball over football. They’re priorities are not football and money oriented. But hey, perhaps they can be bribed.[/quote]

I’m aware Stanford is like Duke, I’m not that naive, and since I’m not I tend to believe $20 mil talks alot more than academic integrity. I’m not in the know on those 6 schools academic profiles, but I’d suspect most are on par with existing Pac 10 members.

I also wouldn’t say Stanford values basketball over football. John Elway would probably agree with me. They tend to be successful in both, however, they’ve been better in football lately.

22

[quote=“CharSFNiners, post:21, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:20, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:18, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:17, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:12, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:10, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:

“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”

The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]

When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]

You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

The Pac-10 requires unanimous votes to add new members, so getting a school like Stanford to agree will take more than money. Last time, when AZ and AZ St. were added, USC had to threaten to leave to get STanford to approve. None of these schools but Texas would merit that tactic from the pro-expansion Pac-10 schools this time.[/quote]

Well since you’re the Stanford AD, what’s their problem with the whole thing? I’d like to think the amount of money they are stating would change just about anyone’s mind.[/quote]

Stanford is a lot like Duke. They value education over athletics, basketball over football. They’re priorities are not football and money oriented. But hey, perhaps they can be bribed.[/quote]

I’m aware Stanford is like Duke, I’m not that naive, and since I’m not I tend to believe $20 mil talks alot more than academic integrity. I’m not in the know on those 6 schools academic profiles, but I’d suspect most are on par with existing Pac 10 members.

I also wouldn’t say Stanford values basketball over football. John Elway would probably agree with me. They tend to be successful in both, however, they’ve been better in football lately.[/quote]

The big question on the possibility of the Pac-10 expanding (2 additions up till this) is whether they can get all 10 (especially Stanford) to vote for more members. Now all of a sudden all 10 schools will vote to add 6 schools? Something doesn’t ring right about it. Remember that had the ACC had a unanimous clause instead of a 75% vote, then the ACC would still be at 9 schools. Don’t forget that internal politics at one school (NCSU) and a state governor (VA) got involved before the dust settled. Pac-10 has much more hoops to jump through then the ACC did.

23

[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:22, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:21, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:20, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:18, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:17, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:12, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:10, topic:23382”][quote=“CharSFNiners, post:9, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:8, topic:23382”]In other headlines:

“Pac - 10 offers crack rocks to kids on the street.”

The Pac -10 is a unanimous vote conference to add members. It’s a stretch to imagine them adding 2 available schools (even Texas and A&M), much less 6.[/quote]

When you can form a 16 team superconf. with your own network which would give each member roughly $20 million annual payout… it’s not a stretch[/quote]

You still have to get Stanford to vote for it.[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]

The Pac-10 requires unanimous votes to add new members, so getting a school like Stanford to agree will take more than money. Last time, when AZ and AZ St. were added, USC had to threaten to leave to get STanford to approve. None of these schools but Texas would merit that tactic from the pro-expansion Pac-10 schools this time.[/quote]

Well since you’re the Stanford AD, what’s their problem with the whole thing? I’d like to think the amount of money they are stating would change just about anyone’s mind.[/quote]

Stanford is a lot like Duke. They value education over athletics, basketball over football. They’re priorities are not football and money oriented. But hey, perhaps they can be bribed.[/quote]

I’m aware Stanford is like Duke, I’m not that naive, and since I’m not I tend to believe $20 mil talks alot more than academic integrity. I’m not in the know on those 6 schools academic profiles, but I’d suspect most are on par with existing Pac 10 members.

I also wouldn’t say Stanford values basketball over football. John Elway would probably agree with me. They tend to be successful in both, however, they’ve been better in football lately.[/quote]

The big question on the possibility of the Pac-10 expanding (2 additions up till this) is whether they can get all 10 (especially Stanford) to vote for more members. Now all of a sudden all 10 schools will vote to add 6 schools? Something doesn’t ring right about it. Remember that had the ACC had a unanimous clause instead of a 75% vote, then the ACC would still be at 9 schools. Don’t forget that internal politics at one school (NCSU) and a state governor (VA) got involved before the dust settled. Pac-10 has much more hoops to jump through then the ACC did.[/quote]

I’m also aware of what legs had to be pulled for the ACC (I’m from VA, and have never liked VT), but this isn’t ACC schools looking out for their bread and butter which was hoops. You still haven’t provided a reason as to why Stanford would not vote for them, other than for academic integrity. I have a read a couple stories on this and nowhere has it mentioned that they are a likely school to block it, nor did I see anything about them pitching a fit when the Pac 10 last expanded. If anything some of the Big 12 schools are large research institutions, something many Pac 10 schools are, so it may be fitting for some of these schools academically in that regard. The only hoop that is different between the Pac 10 and the ACC is that there needs to be a 100% vote, yet there is going to be a bunch more money on the table. I’m not saying it will happen, just that money talks.

24

I’ll search for the late 70’s article on Stanford and USC I saw posted on another website and post it when I find it.

Here’s some more:

http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/907

Pac 10 Commissioner Scott says that invitations to join have not been extended.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100603/NEWS/306039776#barfknecht-pac-10-about-to-raid-the-big-12

Author of this one says he’s lying, basically.

If this does go down then it will be very bad for college sports and even more so for us. This is not a good thing.

25

Why do you think this is bad for us? Just because we aren’t ready yet?

It pushes the SEC east and not west and that means the possible implosion of the ACC and Big East which I am still hoping bodes well for us based on our potential, not what we bring now. I still think what ever happens we stand a good chance of ending up somewhere with WV, Looserville, Cincy, USF and ECU plus others. I think when its settled we will be with those guys - that might be in the next year or two, next 5 years or next 15 - but I think that is where we go.

26

[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:24, topic:23382”]I’ll search for the late 70’s article on Stanford and USC I saw posted on another website and post it when I find it.

Here’s some more:

http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/907

Pac 10 Commissioner Scott says that invitations to join have not been extended.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100603/NEWS/306039776#barfknecht-pac-10-about-to-raid-the-big-12

Author of this one says he’s lying, basically.

If this does go down then it will be very bad for college sports and even more so for us. This is not a good thing.[/quote]

So Stanford’s apparent BF occurred in the 70’s when college atheltics wasn’t nearly as profitable? Not surprising as to why I wouldn’t think they’ll stand to block.

27

I think this could work in our favor as well if the Pac 10 increases to 16 teams. It is going to cause some very good teams to be left out of big time conferences as there will not be enough room. Some of these schools will have football teams, but much stronger in basketball. If the Big East falls apart, then we may look to hook up with more basketball type of schools and wait a few years to go into a football conference. I know lots of people are looking for the big football conference, but our football will not be ready for Div 1 for 10 years so we need to keep the basketball program strong or stronger over this time period.

It would be great to have a league with several of the Big East non-football schools along with X, Temple, Dayton, and St Joe’s/

28

Why do you think this is bad for us? Just because we aren’t ready yet?

It pushes the SEC east and not west and that means the possible implosion of the ACC and Big East which I am still hoping bodes well for us based on our potential, not what we bring now. I still think what ever happens we stand a good chance of ending up somewhere with WV, Looserville, Cincy, USF and ECU plus others. I think when its settled we will be with those guys - that might be in the next year or two, next 5 years or next 15 - but I think that is where we go.[/quote]

If this isn’t a hoax to get certain schools to commit to a conference (Notre Dame) or to recommit to their current conference (Nebraska, Missouri)? If all this 16 team conference BS is real? Then they are doing if for 1 thing, and that is to leave the NCAA and form their own league. I see lots of reasons why they wouldn’t want to do this, but I do see one really big reason they would and that is control of the money. I don’t think the SEC or ACC want to go to 16 and will resist it, but if both the Pac 10 and Big 10 do it and kill off the Big XII and Big East Football then the ACC and SEC will have no choice. The Pac 10 may be trying to kill the Big XII off to force Texas to make a choice. The SEC can’t afford to let Texas waltz off to the Pac 10 or Big 10 without a fight for it. If this all results in 4 16 team conferences everyone left out of those 4 will never play for a “real” national title in any sport ever again. Even if they don’t leave the NCAA but still form these mega conferences those on the outside will be worse off then they are now.

I think most of us on here want Charlotte to get into a BCS league. Anything that makes that more difficult then it already is is bad for us. Even if we move to FBS in 2017 we’ll still have to play a few years before we get a look and that’s under the current format. Change for us now in the college landscape is bad, change in 15 could be good. Potential is great, but these conferences aren’t desparate like the Big East was in 2003. They can get established BCS programs to join them. The Big East is our hope to get into the BCS. The Big East Football schools imploding will NOT be good for us.

[quote=“woodniner, post:27, topic:23382”]I think this could work in our favor as well if the Pac 10 increases to 16 teams. It is going to cause some very good teams to be left out of big time conferences as there will not be enough room. Some of these schools will have football teams, but much stronger in basketball. If the Big East falls apart, then we may look to hook up with more basketball type of schools and wait a few years to go into a football conference. I know lots of people are looking for the big football conference, but our football will not be ready for Div 1 for 10 years so we need to keep the basketball program strong or stronger over this time period.

It would be great to have a league with several of the Big East non-football schools along with X, Temple, Dayton, and St Joe’s/[/quote]

Just from a basketball perspective this is not good for us either. The 8 or 7 (depending on what ND does) Big East Basketball schools (ALL CATHOLIC SCHOOLS) will still survive as a conference. If they are separated form the left over football schools then they will look for the best 4 or 5 CATHOLIC basketball schools. Guess where most of the remaining good east coast catholic basketball schools are? Xavier and Dayton are locks for a basketball only Big East. St. Joes, St. Louis and even Dusquene and Fordham (don’t laugh, I’ve seen both mentioned numerous times on BE boards) might be gone. Temple and its FBS football program will probably make the best it can with an FBS conference (other than the MAC).

Does an A-10 without Xavier, Dayton and/or Temple sound like a good place to stay?

How about a return to CUSA if East Carolina, Memphis and UCF are replaced with MTSU, Western Kentucky and Troy?

fewer BCS conferences mean fewer future home choices for us.

29

I don’t get this. How is the Pac10 in a position to raid the B12? If football is king, how is it the Pac10 that’s doing the raiding and not the B12?
P10 has… USC.
B12 has Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma…

30

[quote=“49or bust, post:29, topic:23382”]I don’t get this. How is the Pac10 in a position to raid the B12? If football is king, how is it the Pac10 that’s doing the raiding and not the B12?
P10 has… USC.
B12 has Texas, Oklahoma…[/quote]

ftfy

31

[quote=“49or bust, post:29, topic:23382”]I don’t get this. How is the Pac10 in a position to raid the B12? If football is king, how is it the Pac10 that’s doing the raiding and not the B12?
P10 has… USC.
B12 has Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma…[/quote]

Geographic conference location and TV markets and TV contracts.

The Pac 10 faces no threats from other conferences because they only share a boarder with the Big 12. The Big 12 is boardered by the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 10. They’re 3 big predators to poach the Big 12 carcass. The west coast is isolated enough to protect the Pac 10 schools from other conferences but has big enough TV markets to let it be dominant over its nearest rival, the Big 12.

The Pac 10 (I believe) is an equal share conference but clearly is willing to allow Texas to maintain their Lonestar TV network revenues. The Big 12 distributes money based on TV appearances. This is one reason Missouri is keen on the Big 10.

32

[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:31, topic:23382”][quote=“49or bust, post:29, topic:23382”]I don’t get this. How is the Pac10 in a position to raid the B12? If football is king, how is it the Pac10 that’s doing the raiding and not the B12?
P10 has… USC.
B12 has Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma…[/quote]

Geographic conference location and TV markets and TV contracts.

The Pac 10 faces no threats from other conferences because they only share a boarder with the Big 12. The Big 12 is boardered by the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 10. They’re 3 big predators to poach the Big 12 carcass. The west coast is isolated enough to protect the Pac 10 schools from other conferences but has big enough TV markets to let it be dominant over its nearest rival, the Big 12.

The Pac 10 (I believe) is an equal share conference but clearly is willing to allow Texas to maintain their Lonestar TV network revenues. The Big 12 distributes money based on TV appearances. This is one reason Missouri is keen on the Big 10.[/quote]
Yea, I get that. Just seems like success would be the greatest decider. Guess not.

33

[quote=“49or bust, post:32, topic:23382”][quote=“49RFootballNow, post:31, topic:23382”][quote=“49or bust, post:29, topic:23382”]I don’t get this. How is the Pac10 in a position to raid the B12? If football is king, how is it the Pac10 that’s doing the raiding and not the B12?
P10 has… USC.
B12 has Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma…[/quote]

Geographic conference location and TV markets and TV contracts.

The Pac 10 faces no threats from other conferences because they only share a boarder with the Big 12. The Big 12 is boardered by the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 10. They’re 3 big predators to poach the Big 12 carcass. The west coast is isolated enough to protect the Pac 10 schools from other conferences but has big enough TV markets to let it be dominant over its nearest rival, the Big 12.

The Pac 10 (I believe) is an equal share conference but clearly is willing to allow Texas to maintain their Lonestar TV network revenues. The Big 12 distributes money based on TV appearances. This is one reason Missouri is keen on the Big 10.[/quote]
Yea, I get that. Just seems like success would be the greatest decider. Guess not.[/quote]

TV sets + Networks = Conference Power

Texas (the state) is strong in the TV “Force” but the rest of the Big 12 territory is not. California plus Portland, Pheonix and Seattle > Texas and the Prairie States

34

After reading this article it doesn’t sound like the Big 12 meetings did not go that well.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/03/1990902/colorado-ad-sees-pac-10-invitation.html#ixzz0ptpmd6vb

35

I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I won’t be surprised to eventually see four 16 team conferences, with each conference having two 8 team divisions. Those divisional champions play for the conference championship in each conference, and then the 4 conference champions have a 4 team playoff for the National Championship.

Doing the math, there is room for us in one of those conferences, especially if everything happens later rather than sooner.

36

[quote=“Over49er, post:35, topic:23382”]I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I won’t be surprised to eventually see four 16 team conferences, with each conference having two 8 team divisions. Those divisional champions play for the conference championship in each conference, and then the 4 conference champions have a 4 team playoff for the National Championship.

Doing the math, there is room for us in one of those conferences, especially if everything happens later rather than sooner.[/quote]

We’ll need 15 years from now to get where we need to be. The one saving grace for us is the long term SEC and ACC contracts. Let’s hope they both don’t “knee-jerk” react to this.

Kind of funny take on the whole Big XII expansion:

http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/4/1500646/the-rumormill-the-big-xii-to-pac

37

Could this all be an attempt to force Nebraska’s hand?

38

If I’m the SEC, I go get Fla St., Miami, GAa. Tech and Clemson now.
I would also consider Louisville, USF and even WV.

39

[quote=“Tintin, post:38, topic:23382”]If I’m the SEC, I go get Fla St., Miami, GAa. Tech and Clemson now.
I would also consider Louisville, USF and even WV.[/quote]

Why duplicate in a market you already dominate? Especially when you can get better schools in better and new TV markets. The SEC needs to give ESPN/ABC a reason to increase an already outrageous contract to support new teams. Raiding the ACC or Big East would be like the SEC breaking into ESPN’s house, stealing electronics ESPN already owns, and trying to sell it back to ESPN for more than ESPN paid for it the first time.

40

[quote=“49RFootballNow, post:36, topic:23382”][quote=“Over49er, post:35, topic:23382”]I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I won’t be surprised to eventually see four 16 team conferences, with each conference having two 8 team divisions. Those divisional champions play for the conference championship in each conference, and then the 4 conference champions have a 4 team playoff for the National Championship.

Doing the math, there is room for us in one of those conferences, especially if everything happens later rather than sooner.[/quote]

We’ll need 15 years from now to get where we need to be.[/quote]

Maybe… and maybe not.

I won’t even mention USF’s rapid rise to the top, but I will mention another team from the same state. The University of Miami used to draw almost no one, and they were not in a major conference. In just a 2 or 3 year span, they started winning games and captured the hearts of the southern half of Florida.

Of course, we’ll need to gather local support, and lots of it. We’ll need the local support not just for game attendance, but for an inmproved level of interest in the TV market.