Pac-12 expansion is now inevitable

[The Alabaster Yak]

The Pac 12 will not stand pat and watch the SEC, Big 10 and ACC poach the valuable teams from the Big 12, not matter how hard Sacky wills it to happen. Unfortunately, we won't know how it will all shake out for a few more years. This conversation sucks.

 

[sackman]

The Pac 12 will not stand pat and watch the SEC, Big 10 and ACC poach the valuable teams from the Big 12, not matter how hard Sacky wills it to happen. Unfortunately, we won't know how it will all shake out for a few more years. This conversation sucks.

So what do we have to do to keep those other conferences from poaching the valuable teams?

Edit: and by "valuable", I mean UT and OU because it has now been established that those are the only two that actually add value.

 

[onealcd]

So what can we do to push that process along?

Biggest hurdle is figuring out the distribution issues with DirecTV showing these schools that the conference is capable of taking that next step on it's own. Next is trying to limit the late night kickoffs for big time programs as much as possible. Also have to try and fix engagement issues with the fanbases (limiting late night kickoffs will help), the issue with a lot of the ratings is the kickoff times but also the best team over the last 8 years has been Stanford who has an awful fanbase. Basically we need Stanford to fall back to being a bottom feeder with teams like USC, UCLA, Washington, Colorado and ASU taking over the conference from an athletics point of view.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

So what do we have to do to keep those other conferences from poaching the valuable teams?

I don't pretend to understand the politics involved or the inner workings of schools changing conferences. I just know where the college football landscape is heading and there are a lot of scenarios by people more in the know than most here, that suggest the schools you deem non-starters, are in fact very much in play for Pac 12 expansion.

 

[leftybuff]

I sincerely doubt UT is going anywhere. They have constructed their little pond, are raking in more cash than they will get anywhere else (h/t to Miami on that) and they call the shots, with the only need to pay OU just a little deference now and then. No other conference is going to be able to match that scenario in the foreseeable future.

Without UT, P12 expansion is problematic. Expansion can add, but carries a greater risk. UNM, UNLV, UN-R, BYU, Boise, SDSU, potential regional partners, just are not that attractive, and some carry major issues (BYU). You could go into the MTZ to get AFA, CSU, UW, but again, the addition is minimal. It is only when you stretch into the CTZ that attractive partners are there, but UT the whale of the group, is a cancer and too fat and happy to move, so you wold be picking up the schools that want a life raft from the wake of Bevo.

I don't think any P5 conference stretches over 3 TZ's. TV slots would be difficult. I think that is why nobody else does it. The ACC, SEC and BInteger get the early and early afternoon slots, B12, BigINteger and P12 get the early afternoon, P12 and the elites fill the late afternoon and evening spots.

Right now, the P12 is probably better off standing pat. The lack of population concentration in the west is the problem. There just aren't enough schools/TV sets to make it worthwhile.

If and when the B12 expands, they will not go into the MTZ for the reasons above, IMO.

 

[sackman]

I don't pretend to understand the politics involved or the inner workings of schools changing conferences. I just know where the college football landscape is heading and there are a lot of scenarios by people more in the know than most here, that suggest the schools you deem non-starters, are in fact very much in play for Pac 12 expansion.

Who are these people? Can you link an article? I'm interested in learning more about these scenarios.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Who are these people? Can you link an article? I'm interested in learning more about these scenarios.

Is Pat Forde from Yahoo a reasonable person to cite?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12s-status-among-the-power-five-clearly-in-jeopardy-215007897.html

Thus it’s not overly difficult to foresee Texas and Oklahoma making a break for it for real next time, triggering the power-conference endgame. If the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 all kept their current members and descended upon the Big 12 like carrion, here’s one guess what it could all look like come 2024:


SEC new members: Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The Sooners are the big prize and the tagalong Cowboys are the lottery winners by virtue of state politics and Boone Pickens.

Big Ten new members: Kansas and Connecticut. It would be a basketball-centric expansion for a conference that already has sufficient football flagships. It also would further the league’s foothold in the New York area, while simultaneously preventing UConn from being the single biggest loser of all realignment.

Pac-12 new members: Texas, BYU and two from a group of Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU and Houston. Or BYU could be the odd team out in favor of an all-Texas foursome.

ACC: Notre Dame and West Virginia. Or the Fighting Irish could continue their current relationship as a football scheduling partner and otherwise full ACC membership. The ACC could make do with 15 in football and 16 in basketball, or it could add Cincinnati to make it 16 and 17.

That arrangement would cut loose Kansas State and Iowa State, plus one or two Texas schools, from The Club. That’s the peril of being the least-attractive members of the least-stable conference in the current Power 5.

I mean, I don't understand where you get off talking in absolutes about certain programs coming to the Pac 12 as non-starters. You are the only person in the room who, for some reason, doesn't want to accept that it could happen.

 

[CUFan]

I'd like to see the PAC fix the current issues. Distribution problems and game time problems are contributing significantly to a lack of interest in the PAC. People just aren't able to view the product and it is often at inconvenient times.

Edit: I assume maybe adding some teams might help with the above and would be one of the main drivers for expansion.

 

[GoBuffs08]

The only consideration Pac should be giving to expansion is will DTV carry our network if we have X team in our conference. The only team that might have that pull is UT and they are not going anywhere until their existing agreements expire in 2024.

 

[sackman]

Is Pat Forde from Yahoo a reasonable person to cite?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12s-status-among-the-power-five-clearly-in-jeopardy-215007897.html


I mean, I don't understand where you get off talking in absolutes about certain programs coming to the Pac 12 as non-starters. You are the only person in the room who, for some reason, doesn't want to accept that it could happen.

Pat Forde speculates about UT and BYU, or possibly UT and three random Texas schools to the PAC 12. No mention of OU. Remember, OU and UT are the ones we are after. He also says nothing is likely to happen until 2023.
So we are, once again, back to square one.
Perhaps instead of concentrating on expansion possibilities that are all tenuous at best, we should be looking at ways to increase our own brand and make it more valuable? Doing that now could make us more attractive once the next round of expansion happens. And if the next round of expansion doesn't happen, then we will still be better off.

 

[onealcd]

Pat Forde speculates about UT and BYU, or possibly UT and three random Texas schools to the PAC 12. No mention of OU. Remember, OU and UT are the ones we are after. He also says nothing is likely to happen until 2023.
So we are, once again, back to square one.
Perhaps instead of concentrating on expansion possibilities that are all tenuous at best, we should be looking at ways to increase our own brand and make it more valuable? Doing that now could make us more attractive once the next round of expansion happens. And if the next round of expansion doesn't happen, then we will still be better off.

I agree with you and said so above, but those two things aren't mutually exclusive. This is why Scott makes a **** ton of money, to have a pulse on all of this and better the conference in the meantime.

 

[MtnBuff]

Getting UT would require bending over and grabbing out ankles which is exactly why UT killed the SWC and why they would kill the B12 if half the schools had any other option.

Texas will not accept being an equal when they don't have to and as long as the B12 exist they don't have to. Chances are if the B12 failed or if the situation required the ACC would not only bend over but they would provide the lube.

UT isn't coming to the PAC without doing major damage to the integrity of what the PAC is.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Pat Forde speculates about UT and BYU, or possibly UT and three random Texas schools to the PAC 12. No mention of OU. Remember, OU and UT are the ones we are after. He also says nothing is likely to happen until 2023.
So we are, once again, back to square one.
Perhaps instead of concentrating on expansion possibilities that are all tenuous at best, we should be looking at ways to increase our own brand and make it more valuable? Doing that now could make us more attractive once the next round of expansion happens. And if the next round of expansion doesn't happen, then we will still be better off.

There are a lot of scenarios out there that are possible, and Forde even mentions that everybody could be up for grabs at some point. Also, I thought we were pretty much all discussing the expansion based on the Big 12 falling apart in 2023 after their TV deal is up (same as Forde is assuming), so how are we back to square one?

 

[sackman]

if we are looking at 2023 as the target date. We are at square one. If we are serious about making a push for UT and OU, we have a lot of work to do to make ourselves more attractive. As we sit, we are fourth in a four man race. Maybe third.
I'd suggest that Scott needs to keep an eye on things, but his efforts would be better spent improving what we have as opposed to chasing the OU and UT skirts.

 

[onealcd]

if we are looking at 2023 as the target date. We are at square one. If we are serious about making a push for UT and OU, we have a lot of work to do to make ourselves more attractive. As we sit, we are fourth in a four man race. Maybe third.
I'd suggest that Scott needs to keep an eye on things, but his efforts would be better spent improving what we have as opposed to chasing the OU and UT skirts.

I don't really get why you would think that.

 

[sackman]

I don't really get why you would think that.

The B1G and SEC certainly offer more than we do. The ACC may or may not.

 

[onealcd]

The B1G and SEC certainly offer more than we do. The ACC may or may not.

In some ways yes in other ways no as I laid out earlier.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Par Forde whiffed on a couple of points.

1. BYU to the PAC idea wouldn't make it past the conference prez's.

2. Okie and okie lite are not nearly as connected politically as he thinks, and hasn't been since around 2010.

I do think some of his other possibilities are interesting. I also think Notre dumb might be a bigger pain in the ass than tejass, when realignment discussions/negotiations heat up.

 

[Buffs35]

if we are looking at 2023 as the target date. We are at square one. If we are serious about making a push for UT and OU, we have a lot of work to do to make ourselves more attractive. As we sit, we are fourth in a four man race. Maybe third.
I'd suggest that Scott needs to keep an eye on things, but his efforts would be better spent improving what we have as opposed to chasing the OU and UT skirts.

I don't really get why you would think that.

I agree with Sacky’s thought on the Pac’s pecking order. I personally like the current Pac better than the ACC, but the ACC also has strong academics, is in a better time zone, has a distribution deal, and has a number of schools within their footprint that they could either add, or replace bolting teams. As has been discussed in this thread, there aren’t any teams within the Pac’s current footprint that really add anything – besides places I would like to visit for away games.


The ACC is better positioned to add other teams of real value, while the Pac’s only viable option is to add the cream of the crop from the Big 12. They are a conference without tons of options, if, and I stress IF, expansion is required to keep up with the Joneses.


Waiting around until the mid-2020’s seems risky when you’re hoping that UT and OU want the Pac when the GOR expires, or that teams like TT, Houston, KSU, Baylor, etc, will get sick of Tex-ass’s crap. They will suckle at the Uterus teat from now until eternity. Without them they are CSU.


The other real fear would be if OU and UT went north or east. If the SEC, ACC and Big 10 all go to 16 teams, the Pac might be out of viable dance partners to get to the requisite number. Who is to say that if the Big 12 implodes, the Pac will look attractive to UT or OU?

 

[sackman]

In some ways yes in other ways no as I laid out earlier.

In the ways that matter, particularly to schools like UT and OU, they do.

 

[onealcd]

I think the ACC and the Pac-12 are very underrated in terms of what they offer to possible expansion teams, but the ACC can only add 1 team and is very compact geography wise. The SEC is probably the worst conference to join because there will only be one playoff team from that conference so adding two more powerhouses like UT and OU would be devastating to some big time programs (that lineup is stacked with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, Bama and Auburn so having essentially 5 elite programs having no real shot at the playoff each by mid season year would be tough). They need more middle of the road programs from bigger markets like TCU, Baylor, TTU etc.

The Big-10 is definitely number one in my mind since they can offer a great position competitively in a weak division, a ton of money and good academics.

For UT is probably goes like this:
1) Big-10
2) ACC/Pac-12
3) SEC

For OU:
1) Big-10
2) Pac-12
3) SEC
4) ACC since they can only add one team.

 

[sackman]

Fair.

I don't agree, but I get your logic. I think teams like UT and OU feel like they are at the top of college football, so having other "elite" teams in the conference doesn't bother them.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Fair.

I don't agree, but I get your logic. I think teams like UT and OU feel like they are at the top of college football, so having other "elite" teams in the conference doesn't bother them.

Honestly, I think they'd be a little scared of joining the SEC. Both expect to win the conference every year, but I think they're smart enough to know that's not happening in a 16 team SEC.

 

[sackman]

Meh. Things come and go. Once Saban is gone, Alabama will regress. Alabama is really the only school in the SEC that has been consistently great over the last ten years.

 

[leftybuff]

LSU is 113-32 over the last ten, that is pretty good if you ask me.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

LSU is 113-32 over the last ten, that is pretty good if you ask me.

Exactly. The SEC has won something like 8 of the last 10 National Championships and have been represented in 9 of the last 10 (2014 with OSU and Oregon). There is no possible way OU and UT look at the competition in the SEC and just go, "meh". If the playoffs don't expand, both of them would then have to compete with Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia (just to name a few) for the one SEC playoff spot. That is as unattractive as anything when looking at which conferences to join.

 

[onealcd]

Sacky I think the overall point is that there are probably 6 programs (Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, bama, LsU and auburn) that could beat Texas even when Texas is rolling and that isn't even counting of OU went with them.

 

[sackman]

I'll agree that LSU has been a great team over that stretch. For some reason, I always forget about them.

I'm thinking of teams like Florida, Auburn, Georgia and Tennessee. Teams that are usually pretty good, but not truly elite. They go through their ups and downs just like everybody. Hell, even Alabama had its own set of issues before Saban got there. One thing the SEC does that might be cause for concern to UT is that they all have a win at all cost attitude. Any corner that can be taken is taken. Any rule that can be bent is bent, and if they're reasonably sure nobody will find out, they'll break it. UT, for all its foibles, generally plays by he rules. They do so because they're usually the ones making the rules. That wouldn't be the case in he SEC. It wouldn't be the case in any conference outside the Big 12, though.

 

[BlackNGold]

I for one don't think expansion is inevitable. The PAC 12 deal is tied up until 2024 with Fox/ESPN. With changing landscape of how consumers are getting their content I believe that the providers are going be too anxious to pay for rights way out in the future. Disney's investment in BAM indicates they know that the bundling is coming to an end. The cable bundling has been a cash cow for the content providers especially in the area of sports programming but at the same time has been very unfair to the consumer. In Europe most sports are sold on a per event basis. I just don't see the financial benefit. And the whole thing with the Big 12 is a pipe dream, The LHN is like a poison pill making UT unattractive to other conferences.

 

[Highlander]

I just told my wife that after the current cable TV contract expires, I'm killing it with fire. For the first time in the past 5 years she has heard me say that, she said that's fine - she doesn't watch that much traditional TV these days anyway.

I'm sort of kicking myself for just extending the Comcast agreement for a year, but it will take at least that long for Sling TV or some other source to get the local stations and and the sports stations I need to all be readily available over the internet any way.

The lynchpin is the Pac 12 network - they need to get this thing on line in the next 12 months.

PS - I agree the LHN is a poison pill. I can't believe ESPN signed a contract of that length. Whoever approved that 3 years ago, clearly did not see the writing on the wall related to cable TV.