Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

CUFan said:
The PAC needs more exposure for growth. Needs to be on TV more and not buried on the PAC network. Needs to be a times the rest of the country can watch the games.

The PAC commands the western half of the US. No need to expand unless it's to central time zone.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Expansion is not just about what is brought to the equation, it is also what is taken off the table from your competitors. The Pac has an opportunity, maybe, to not only increase its brand, but also weaken another conference.

Even taking UT out of the equation, adding non-UT Big 12 schools would get the Pac into the central time zone, force the network to be distributed nationally, and perhaps most importantly, weaken or destroy the Big 12.

Given that the Pac 12 network trails other networks rather pathetically, absent a change of leadership or expansion into new markets/time zones, I would argue it won't be long until the Pac 12 is a conference of have-nots. When that occurs, what is to stop other conferences with real revenue from cherry-picking Pac 12 schools?

I'm not a huge fan of The Big Lead, but the last paragraph sums up my long-term fears. Why wouldn't the Big 12 hold pat and try to add Cali schools and Arizona schools if revenue streams don't keep pace with competing conferences?

"Expansions reduces flexibility. College football looks like it is heading toward another major reshuffling next decade. Four 16-team conferences seems like the plausible stasis point. Why would you want to be less flexible heading into that? A 10-team Big 12 could look at the Pac 12 blunders, swoop in to steal six teams and secure itself as a super conference. A watered down 12-team or 14-team Big 12 is the conference getting plucked."

http://thebiglead.com/2016/07/22/big-12-expansion-cincinnati-byu-houston-uconn-ucf/
 
Anyone else kind of surprised at the number of speculative articles popping up that we are somehow chomping at the bit to move back to the Big 12? Seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding among the wider public for why we moved in the first place. Of all the schools involved in recent realignment our move is the one that actually made the most sense (along with Utah).
 
some posters on this topic seem to put a lot of emphasis on time zones. please help me understand, what is the advantage for any given conference in either gaining footprint in a new timezone or having dominant share of a current timezone?

TV market shares, population centers of fan bases, geographic proximity -- those all make sense to me in this discussion. Time zones do not seem relevant.
 
I kind of doubt anyone in Oklahoma or Kansas cares what the Governor of Texas wants. UT is currently in a fight with UH over their desire to open a new campus (mostly medical I think) in Houston. Houston probably makes sense in a 4 team expansion, but it also seems plausible that UT is publicly supporting Houston while relying on the non-Texas schools to kill the bid so they can keep their hands clean.
 
Because the Pac-12 is at a distinct disadvantage with start times. They are trying to change it, but there are still going to be plenty of late night Pac-12 games being played into the early morning hours on the east coast. That precludes large viewership numbers.
 
Duff Man said:
Because the Pac-12 is at a distinct disadvantage with start times. They are trying to change it, but there are still going to be plenty of late night Pac-12 games being played into the early morning hours on the east coast. That precludes large viewership numbers.
Click to expand...

Plus the networks only have so many slots within the windows that are convenient for East Coast viewers, and the P12 is always going to end up on the losing end of that equation simply because they can support later starts because of the time zone difference. Plus its not like P12 fans want games starting at 9 am or 10 am local time. If it remains a big problem then the P12 may need to seriously explore an arrangement with NBC the next time the rights are up if NBC can support more time slots that give the league greater exposure outside of the Western half of the country.
 
Buffnik said:
You keep stating that "neither are interested" as a declaration of fact. Do you have insight into the thoughts of the Regents, Presidents, Athletic Directors, Deans, Faculty, Coaches and Fans at UT and OU that the rest of us do not? I mean, UT had exploratory talks with the Pac about joining in 1994 and again in 2010. Similar for OU, with the addition of petitioning in 2011 to join with OSU. But for some reason you feel that there is zero interest and a complete non-starter for either of these schools to consider joining the Pac. I'm curious as to why you have so much certainty.
Click to expand...

I'd site the ShaggyTexas conference expansion thread as a pretty good indicator on what Texas wants and doesn't want.

Those fans are all over the place.
The only school UT respects in the P12 as a blueblood football peer is USC.

Proximity to opponents (their harem) is very important.

Some want SEC for the money but hate the academic profile. Some want B1G for the academic side and would be for using the P12 to get a better deal out of B1G where Michigan and tOSU are legit peers.

Some want UT to go independent and believe this is a viable option.

But mostly the B12 is the ship and UT is the captain. They like that control and authority. Nothing Larry Scott can offer with a straight face will be enough to offset the sweet deal of UT being the undisputed captain.
 
Duff Man said:
Because the Pac-12 is at a distinct disadvantage with start times. They are trying to change it, but there are still going to be plenty of late night Pac-12 games being played into the early morning hours on the east coast. That precludes large viewership numbers.
Click to expand...

That's not ever gonna change. Even if teams in the central zone were added, the only place to play those 10 p.m. eastern zone games is in the mountain and pacific. It's not like the Pac can't schedule games at 12:30 to compete in the 3:30 time slot on the east coast. The problem from the network's POV is that they would prefer those games at night on the east coast because they don't have anything else to air at that time.
 
BuffsNYC said:
That's not ever gonna change. Even if teams in the central zone were added, the only place to play those 10 p.m. eastern zone games is in the mountain and pacific. It's not like the Pac can't schedule games at 12:30 to compete in the 3:30 time slot on the east coast. The problem from the network's POV is that they would prefer those games at night on the east coast because they don't have anything else to air at that time.
Click to expand...

Sure. But adding the central time zone adds earlier games and gives greater exposure.
 
I don't see UT leaving the B12. They have all they want there. They call the shots. They have the LHN (I am sure they perceive that as having great value), the only other school they have to consider is OU. Upstarts like TCU and bailer are going to be a nuisance in the short term, are according to Bevo holy writ, soon to be under hoof again. OU will stay because like ot or not, OU and UT are joined at the hip because of the Red River Shootout/ Rivalry/ Pillow Fight. I don't see OU going P12 or SEC, playing a full conference slate AND having to play UT also. Too much for the NC aspirations.

UT and OU are probably satisfied to keep the B12 a two horse race and add a few chess pieces that dress the conference up, but do not upset the status quo. No other P5 conference is going to give them what they are getting in the B12.

The dalliances with the P10 in 1994 and 2010 seem to confirm the above. UT kicked the tires, considered, and stayed where they are because off the above reasons. I do not see that changing anytime soon.
 
Duff Man said:
Because the Pac-12 is at a distinct disadvantage with start times. They are trying to change it, but there are still going to be plenty of late night Pac-12 games being played into the early morning hours on the east coast. That precludes large viewership numbers.
Click to expand...

SuperD said:
Plus the networks only have so many slots within the windows that are convenient for East Coast viewers, and the P12 is always going to end up on the losing end of that equation simply because they can support later starts because of the time zone difference. Plus its not like P12 fans want games starting at 9 am or 10 am local time. If it remains a big problem then the P12 may need to seriously explore an arrangement with NBC the next time the rights are up if NBC can support more time slots that give the league greater exposure outside of the Western half of the country.
Click to expand...

and how does adding a few teams in the Central Time Zone change any that in a way that helps current members? if schools in the CT are added, won't the Pac 12 be in a situation w/r/t start times such that either (a) the majority of games are still timed to start at convenient slots for the schools in the PT and MT (i.e. the majority of Pac 12 games are still at the low viewership time slots) or (b) the majority of games are moved to a time slot less convenient for the majority of schools in the conference? sorry if I'm being dense (not trying to be argumentative), but I'm simply not connecting the dots here.
 
You'd think if the PAC offered Houston and a few others (say OU, KU, etc) it could make a compelling offer. Gives those schools some good traveling partners and relatively local road games. Gives them an equal vote in their conference. Allows for continued recruiting in Texas and opens up CA even further. And on the PAC side, it should dramatically alter the PAC viewership profile.

I'd be disappointed if I heard Larry never made the call.

Certainly it seems a little strange culturally (CA + TX/OK/KS), but could make for some fun games.
 
leftybuff said:
The dalliances with the P10 in 1994 and 2010 seem to confirm the above. UT kicked the tires, considered, and stayed where they are because off the above reasons. I do not see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

The rule around here is that if you aren't one of the regents or at least the President of the University, you're not allowed to make such sweeping statements.
 
I can't believe one stupid statement from the Weasel on the radio has B12 fans thinking they are somehow going to pull UCLA and the Arizona schools out of the P12.
 
CUFan said:
You'd think if the PAC offered Houston and a few others (say OU, KU, etc) it could make a compelling offer. Gives those schools some good traveling partners and relatively local road games. Gives them an equal vote in their conference. Allows for continued recruiting in Texas and opens up CA even further. And on the PAC side, it should dramatically alter the PAC viewership profile.

I'd be disappointed if I heard Larry never made the call.

Certainly it seems a little strange culturally (CA + TX/OK/KS), but could make for some fun games.
Click to expand...

From a Texas perspective, they'd want partners that are within a drivable distance of their alumni base. UT + 3 from this group would be an offer worth looking down their noses at: (OU*, A&M**, TCU***, Baylor*** SMU***, Rice****, UH****, North Texas****, Okie Ligh*****, Texas Tech*****, Imaculate Word*** + ****, Texas State******, UT-San Antonio******)

* RRR in Dallas Cotton Bowl - Rivalry
** Rival, but A&M won't travel P12 distances & happy in $$$$EC
*** Faith Based non AAU/research institution not attractive to P12 presidents
**** Not current member of P5 club. Promoting to big league also negatively impacts UT recruitment
***** Long ass drive from alumni base. B12 relationship be damned. Sandaggy and stoolwater still too far away.
****** OOC fodder. No value add

Then after that, KU slots in further down the list. Out of Texas, out of mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Skidmark 's post above and the earlier post about how Texas isn't looking to be anywhere it can't dominate so is happy in the Big 12...

This is the key thing to remember.

It is why when I laid out a Pac-16 that could include Texas I framed it as I did.

Only way it happens is if the Big 12 breaks apart with schools like KU, OU and OSU leaving which results in a bunch of former G5 type schools and a further dilution of Tier 1 academic institutions.

With that, what the Pac-12 can offer that no one else could is a 4-team Texas Pod that UT would be able to politically dominate. Other concessions like the western semi-final game always being played in Texas (maybe somewhere "neutral" like the Alamo Dome), the Pac-12 purchasing the Longhorn Network and guaranteeing LHN money to UT, a rotation between San Francisco and Dallas for the Pac-12 Championship, hosting championships half the time in Texas for baseball and some Olympic sports... all those things and more could be on the table.

No other conference could offer that sort of package.

But it all depends on whether the Big 12 stays viable or starts coming apart.

Back to the political domination and why I said UH, TCU and TTU:

UH - beholden to UT if it gets into the Big 12, would be doubly indebted if UT pulled them along into a Pac-16

TTU - going back to the SWC had UT as an advocate and has always been like a vassal state to UT in voting, UT pulling them into Pac-16 only takes this to another level

TCU - has UT and DeLoss Dodds to thank for getting into the Big 12 and would also have UT to thank for getting into the Pac-16
 
A lot of stars would have to align for @Buffnik's framework to play-out.

Included in that list of obstacles are:

P12 comfort with PODs vs E/W. The Cal and Tex pod is head and shoulders more valuable from a media perspective. The disparity between haves and have nots would eventually undermine tv slots, revenue sharing constructs, Conf leadership bias, ect. It's in the interest of most P12 schools to divide Califonia into N/S. Similarly, it's key to break Texas into DFW-OK and Austin/Houston.

UT needs to make more money from P12 than they could get from B1G or SEC or as an independent. UT would demand more than their 1/16th equity share.
 
Well, looks like UT gave the (y) to TTU that UH was playing ball and would be welcomed:
 
The Wichita Eagle says their sources claim Arizona is top school on the list for Big 12 expansion.

Jake Trotter, from ESPN, "the only Power 5 possibility out there would be from the Pac-12, with UCLA, Arizona and Arizona State topping the wish list."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top