Pac-16 Conference

[mavs413]

Whats does everybody think of this??

Colorado just announced they will be moving to the Pac-10 from the Big-12. Texas and Texas A&M are meeting today to discuss the future of their athletic programs. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5271438

Eastern Conference - Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Colorado, Arizona St, U of Arizona
Western Conference - USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St

[LonghornDub]

I think you have the directions west and east confused.

[Flacolaco]

When does this take effect? Like 2029 or something?

[mavs413]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

When does this take effect? Like 2029 or something?

2012

[LonghornDub]

Only the CU move is official so far, but as soon as Nebraska announces they're going to the Big 10 tomorrow, it's all over, and you can expect the five Big XII South schools to join CU out in Pac-land.

And it's 2012-2013 Flaco, unless they get a vote of 9/12 Big XII AD's, in which case it can happen earlier. But I'd assume that just means 2011-2012, not 2010. And with at least four schools being left out, I doubt the 9/12 vote will happen.

[mac222b]

i personally think it sucks. where is the loyalty of the people making theses decisions? conferences shouldn't be able to raid other conferences at their whim. why is BC in the ACC? what does Colorado have to do w/the Pac10. there eventually won't be any rivalries left the whole thing will become so diluted. and also Pete Caroll skips town just before 2 yr. probation and isn't penalized. and Calipari etc.
NCAA needs to address these 2 issues: coach/conference accountability

[mcsluggo]

i agree, where is the loyalty!!!???

kick U of Michigan back out of the Big 10 and put the University of Chicago back in... as god clearly intended (since it happened first)

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by mac222b

i personally think it sucks. where is the loyalty of the people making theses decisions? conferences shouldn't be able to raid other conferences at their whim. why is BC in the ACC? what does Colorado have to do w/the Pac10. there eventually won't be any rivalries left the whole thing will become so diluted. and also Pete Caroll skips town just before 2 yr. probation and isn't penalized. and Calipari etc.
NCAA needs to address these 2 issues: coach/conference accountability

The Big XII has been around for only 15 years. The biggest rivalry in the conference (Texas-OU) existed for decades before the conference even did. There's no conference loyalty. Texas, A&M, OU, etc. don't owe any degree of "loyalty" to schools like Kansas, Iowa State, etc.

[mkat]

i'm down for it. i'm hoping it'll lead to some kind of playoff system and 3-4 super conferences.

[Just211]

i say replace nebraska, colorado and mizzzou with utah,byu and boise(or memphis or louisville). the north sucks anyways, and this would allow some deserving teams to join a bcs conference without bringing their whole crappy conference. and if you wanna get bigger, add tcu and arkansas, but i doubt that would ever happen.
I really dont want to associate texas football with the pac 10.
or sec for that matter.
I think the big 12 south can carry this conference until the north rebounds or is replenished. Just fix the horrible TV deal.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The Big XII has been around for only 15 years. The biggest rivalry in the conference (Texas-OU) existed for decades before the conference even did. There's no conference loyalty. Texas, A&M, OU, etc. don't owe any degree of "loyalty" to schools like Kansas, Iowa State, etc.

i understand your point but mine didn't pertain to the Big XII only. it's just strange to me. maybe "accountability" is a better word than loyalty. i mean these teams are in a conference together. they all quite literally share in one another's success' and failures. the AD's and Presidents all know one another. so it's weird that teams can just say "see ya!" with no repercussions leaving the other universities and former "partners" scrambling to adjust.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by mac222b

i understand your point but mine didn't pertain to the Big XII only. it's just strange to me. maybe "accountability" is a better word than loyalty. i mean these teams are in a conference together. they all quite literally share in one another's success' and failures. the AD's and Presidents all know one another. so it's weird that teams can just say "see ya!" with no repercussions leaving the other universities and former "partners" scrambling to adjust.

You're right about the teams sharing in success and failure to some extent. But it's not like the exiting teams can just up and leave immediately. They have to live out the contract through the 2011-2012, at which point their "accountability" to the other teams is over. I think that satisfies what you're talking about--they shouldn't be expected to commit to longer than the contract specifies.

The only way they can leave earlier is with a supermajority vote of 9/12 current teams, which would mean that the vast majority of the conference supports disbanding immediately. At that point, accountability is obviously a nonissue.

[ocelot_ark]

I have no stake in the matter but I wouldn't want to be a fan of a Texas school that had to play a considerable portion of our games in a Pacific time zone. Yuck. Student road trips to see a random road game? Don't see it unless mom and pop are loaded.

Wish UT, A&M, OU, and OSU would come to the SEC. I'd love the geographic benefits as an Arkansas fan and it would seem to make a heck of a lot more sense...but that's just me. I know I saw some stories tonight saying that OU and A&M were still considering an SEC move, but I can't see them going somewhere that didn't include UT.

[BGMaverick9]

I personally think the Pac-16 is a great idea...the super conferences will be awesome. It's going to keep the rivalries alive and have a chance to start some new ones. It definitely creates some issues for teams like Kansas with basketball and etc but they'll find a home eventually.

They need to go ahead and add two more teams

Pac-16 into 18PK

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

I have no stake in the matter but I wouldn't want to be a fan of a Texas school that had to play a considerable portion of our games in a Pacific time zone. Yuck. Student road trips to see a random road game? Don't see it unless mom and pop are loaded.

Wish UT, A&M, OU, and OSU would come to the SEC. I'd love the geographic benefits as an Arkansas fan and it would seem to make a heck of a lot more sense...but that's just me. I know I saw some stories tonight saying that OU and A&M were still considering an SEC move, but I can't see them going somewhere that didn't include UT.

This is all about money. Primarily TV--the new Pac-16 will have an awesome TV deal. As far as game attendance, it's not about student road trips. Students aren't the ones paying Mack Brown's salary, paying for stadium renovations, etc. Rich boosters would much rather travel to LA, Seattle, Eugene, Palo Alto, etc. for a road game than...Oxford, Tuscaloosa, or Gainesville, etc. The Pac-10 destinations are better than anywhere else in the country.

I think there's some small chance A&M goes to the SEC without UT. It'd be stupid of them, but there's a chance. OU on the other hand, no way. Their AD said today they are going where Texas goes.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

This is all about money. Primarily TV--the new Pac-16 will have an awesome TV deal. As far as game attendance, it's not about student road trips. Students aren't the ones paying Mack Brown's salary, paying for stadium renovations, etc. Rich boosters would much rather travel to LA, Seattle, Eugene, Palo Alto, etc. for a road game than...Oxford, Tuscaloosa, or Gainesville, etc. The Pac-10 destinations are better than anywhere else in the country.

I think there's some small chance A&M goes to the SEC without UT. It'd be stupid of them, but there's a chance. OU on the other hand, no way. Their AD said today they are going where Texas goes.

The A&M scout site a good take on the money aspect of the proposed deal today:
http://tamu.scout.com/2/976606.html

The part that sticks out:
"For the life of me, I don't know why so many Texas fans have such a blind spot on the Pac-16 money issue. How any rational human being can look at the current Pac-10/SEC numbers ($200+ million vs. $50+ million) and thinking that adding CU, OSU, OU, Utah, etc. will even out that $150 million disparity is frankly nuts. The Texas market is what it is...whether A&M/Texas go to the Pac-16 or SEC, it's worth the same theoretically so that's a zero-sum game in this analysis. Also, the $150 million disparity doesn't account for the SEC expanding east...to say Virginia Tech, UNC, or Florida (FSU)."

Without doing my own research on the issue, and strictly taking the A&M site as gospel, that doesn't look like a good deal at all. Sure, the Pac-10 will look much better when Texas moves over, but any conference would.

Those Pac-10 destinations are better places to visit? Or better places to watch football? Surely you just mean visit...because there's nothing like SEC football atmospheres, collectively, in the country.

I think it would be BRILLIANT for A&M to go to the SEC. They instantly become the only school in Texas playing in the best conference. Their parents, who might not be huge boosters with money coming out of their buttholes, will actually be able to attend some of their away games without having to trek 3000 miles. Besides. What, exactly, has A&M benefited by being in UT's shadow all these years? Being out on their own might be exactly what they need.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

The A&M scout site a good take on the money aspect of the proposed deal today:
http://tamu.scout.com/2/976606.html

The part that sticks out:
"For the life of me, I don't know why so many Texas fans have such a blind spot on the Pac-16 money issue. How any rational human being can look at the current Pac-10/SEC numbers ($200+ million vs. $50+ million) and thinking that adding CU, OSU, OU, Utah, etc. will even out that $150 million disparity is frankly nuts. The Texas market is what it is...whether A&M/Texas go to the Pac-16 or SEC, it's worth the same theoretically so that's a zero-sum game in this analysis. Also, the $150 million disparity doesn't account for the SEC expanding east...to say Virginia Tech, UNC, or Florida (FSU)."

Those numbers are just wrong. The new Pac-10 with its amazing TV deal will be the most profitable conference per school in the country. Take anything you read on an Aggie message board with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

Those Pac-10 destinations are better places to visit? Or better places to watch football? Surely you just mean visit...because there's nothing like SEC football atmospheres, collectively, in the country.

Yes, I mean visit, but that's what you need to focus on when talking about Texas boosters. We're not an SEC school--even though it's in the state of Texas, it's a different kind of person.

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

I think it would be BRILLIANT for A&M to go to the SEC. They instantly become the only school in Texas playing in the best conference. Their parents, who might not be huge boosters with money coming out of their buttholes, will actually be able to attend some of their away games without having to trek 3000 miles. Besides. What, exactly, has A&M benefited by being in UT's shadow all these years? Being out on their own might be exactly what they need.

The last sentence is the only reason why I think it might be a good idea. It definitely could benefit them to get out of Texas's shadow. Best conference? Yeah, the SEC has won the last several BCS titles. But as soon as Texas, OU, OSU, and Tech go to the Pac-10, the SEC is no longer the best conference top to bottom.

The distance thing is way overhyped. The new Pac-10 would likely involve two games against the teams in the other division (i.e., the "West Coast" teams). Every other game would be against the current Big XII teams, Arizona, and ASU. None of those schools are any farther away on average than most of the SEC schools. The once-a-year trip to Oregon or Washington isn't that much more burdensome than having to go to South Carolina or Gainesville. A bit farther, yes, but not ridiculously so.

As for "the only Texas team in the SEC," that's overhype too. Aggies seem to think it will help recruiting--I've got news for them: bad ass high school recruits aren't going to be tripping over themselves to go play for a middle-of-the-pack SEC team. A&M will recruit better once they start winning--which conference they play in doesn't make much difference. Besides, A&M's problem isn't really recruiting anyway. They recruit fine. They're never going to recruit on the level of Texas and OU, but they recruit on average just as well as say, your Arkansas program, and yet when you all played in the fall, you guys totally waxed them.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Those numbers are just wrong. The new Pac-10 with its amazing TV deal will be the most profitable conference per school in the country. Take anything you read on an Aggie message board with a grain of salt.

What kind of numbers are being rumored? And to be fair, that's not an article just from a fan. It's actually a journalist, however biased he may be. I guess my point is that, with Texas' clout, they could join a conference with an already superior TV deal (such as the SEC), and only enhance it. Let's say Pac-10 was $50MM and it's now going to be $300MM. Well the SEC is already $200MM. Adding UT and whatever other schools the SEC would want and the Texas legislature wouldn't get its panties in a twist over would have surpassed anything the Pac-10 will be putting together.

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Yes, I mean visit, but that's what you need to focus on when talking about Texas boosters. We're not an SEC school--even though it's in the state of Texas, it's a different kind of person.

I'm not sure what that means.

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The last sentence is the only reason why I think it might be a good idea. It definitely could benefit them to get out of Texas's shadow. Best conference? Yeah, the SEC has won the last several BCS titles. But as soon as Texas, OU, OSU, and Tech go to the Pac-10, the SEC is no longer the best conference top to bottom.

The Pac-10 will definitely improve with the move. UT, OU are legitimate contenders. Oregon looks on the up. But USC is screwed (for now). Who else are you seeing as rivals to UGA, Bama, Florida, LSU? Auburn's looking up. Hell, Arkansas has a decent chance as a darkhorse this year. And let's not overlook that the SEC will likely make a move of some sort as well. Adding Florida State, Clemson, Miami, WVU, Virginia Tech, A&M, Missouri, OU...all of those rumors have been out there. But let's just say that SEC teams have fared pretty darn well versus Big12/Pac10 teams the last few years.

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The distance thing is way overhyped. The new Pac-10 would likely involve two games against the teams in the other division (i.e., the "West Coast" teams). Every other game would be against the current Big XII teams, Arizona, and ASU. None of those schools are any farther away on average than most of the SEC schools. The once-a-year trip to Oregon or Washington isn't that much more burdensome than having to go to South Carolina or Gainesville. A bit farther, yes, but not ridiculously so.

South Carolina is roughly the same distance as ASU would be. That would be the farthest SEC game for UT. But I see what you're saying. I still think it'll add an incredible burden on the schedules of the student athletes for all sports.

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

As for "the only Texas team in the SEC," that's overhype too. Aggies seem to think it will help recruiting--I've got news for them: bad ass high school recruits aren't going to be tripping over themselves to go play for a middle-of-the-pack SEC team. A&M will recruit better once they start winning--which conference they play in doesn't make much difference. Besides, A&M's problem isn't really recruiting anyway. They recruit fine. They're never going to recruit on the level of Texas and OU, but they recruit on average just as well as say, your Arkansas program, and yet when you all played in the fall, you guys totally waxed them.--

I do think it'll help. They've been DECENT in recruiting. But nothing like UT. And there's no reason they shouldn't recruit better than OU, which they haven't. Coaching, to me, is their biggest problem of late.

I just think that, with consistent challenges every week (which is a huge characteristic of SEC play), A&M will get better. I think that's what's happened with Arkansas and I can see some similarities.

I just really wish A&M, UT, OU, and OSU would have landed in the SEC. It would have been great geographically, restored old rivalries while maintaining the current ones, and resulted in an unprecedented TV deal.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

I'm not sure what that means.

Texas has a lot of rich, prissy boosters who love football but nevertheless will be much more enticed by trips to Hollywood, Rodeo Drive, Palo Alto, and Pike Place Market than swampy Florida and suburban Mississippi.

Originally Posted by ocelot_ark

I do think it'll help. They've been DECENT in recruiting. But nothing like UT. And there's no reason they shouldn't recruit better than OU, which they haven't. Coaching, to me, is their biggest problem of late.

I just think that, with consistent challenges every week (which is a huge characteristic of SEC play), A&M will get better. I think that's what's happened with Arkansas and I can see some similarities.

I just really wish A&M, UT, OU, and OSU would have landed in the SEC. It would have been great geographically, restored old rivalries while maintaining the current ones, and resulted in an unprecedented TV deal.

I'll have to really disagree with you that there is "no reason" A&M shouldn't recruit as well as OU. They're obviously in a more fertile state, but OU has seven national championships, BCS appearances almost every year recently, and has along with Texas completely dominated the Big XII for basically a decade (even winning an unprecedented 3 titles in a row). A&M has one (split) national championship from before WW II, hasn't even been in a conference title game since 1998, and has had several losing seasons this decade. A&M is not going to be winning conference titles or playing for national titles when they move to the SEC. Coaching, as you said, has been a huge problem. Moving to the SEC isn't going to help that. It's only going to exacerbate the problem because, as you also said, just about every game is a challenge.

As for TV, The Pac-16 TV deal will be better than anything any other conference can get even WITH Texas and those other teams. That's a crucial point, and that's what the Aggie journalist is missing. The SEC has an extensive contract with CBS/ESPN already in place. The CBS contract pays the conference about $55 mil total a year. The ESPN contract is less, though I don't know the exact number. There has been some suggestion that the contract will increase per school payout to the SEC if the conference expands, but it's actually unclear whether that will happen under the contract. I'd imagine it will, but even if it does, it won't match the numbers of the Pac-10 network that will be created. Early word is new Pac-10 schools will be looking at something in the realm of $15-16 million EACH from the network. Multiply that times the 16 teams that will be in the conference, and it's a lot more than whatever increase would result from the SEC's CBS and ESPN contracts.

[alexamenos]

Sucks for Baylor. They finally get a little momentum going, but their considerable uncertainty will make recruiting a beotch.

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

It looks like the Big 12 is going to survive:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5286672

What happens now? Does the Big 12 try to add two more teams like a Utah for example? This will be interesting to see...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan

It looks like the Big 12 is going to survive:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5286672

What happens now? Does the Big 12 try to add two more teams like a Utah for example? This will be interesting to see...

I expect them to add two teams. TCU maybe, Utah, SMU -- not sure what all the contracts read like with the conferences they are in, but it will be interesting for sure.

[mavs413]

Utah joins Pac-10 as 12th member
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5298238