UT doesn´t want Pac w/o annual game in LA

[Buffalo Brad]

I ****ing hate Uterus and I really hope that Scott tells them to take a freaking hike. Expansion is necessary and will happen but as Sacky says, it does not have to include that disease of a school in Austin.

 

[DesertDawg526]

Transcript LINK: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskymensbasketballblog/2016145264_live_chat_with_12.html

12:02

[Comment From AndrewAndrew: ] Commissioner Scott, in the event that we one day see a Pac-16, would you be inclined to split the conference up into two divisions (consisting of 8 teams) or four pods (consisting of 4 teams)? Thursday September 8, 2011 12:02 Andrew

12:03

Larry Scott: I'll answer what I can about this, because I know there is a lot of interest. But I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. Our preference is status quo, all conferences staying at 12. But...if we expanded further, we'd carefully look at equal access to all territories

I guess my prior wording was a little off, I thought he mentioned California specifically but this is what he said verbatim. From everything I know about Larry though I cannot see teams being excluded from California, because that will kill the conference. And I really like the way he never backs down from EQUAL.... whether it is access or revenue or whatever. I doubt Texas could handle anything "equal".

 

[Unleash Hell]

Texas is a cancer, they will ruin any confernce they join just like they have the last two. YOU DO NOT WANT THEM! THis is a good example.

 

[Ralphandler1]

Somebody remind me again why UT isn't going to the SEC? Seems like a much more natural fit all the way around.

Texas wants no part of the SEC. For one they get their s-it kicked everytime they play an SEC team. Second of all they wont be able to rule the conference and get everything they want cause they will not be the big bully on the block. They don't want the SEC and I am pretty sure based on Texas' attitude and actions the SEC wants texas to stay the hell away.

 

[Buffnik]

Texas wants no part of the SEC. For one they get their s-it kicked everytime they play an SEC team. Second of all they wont be able to rule the conference and get everything they want cause they will not be the big bully on the block. They don't want the SEC and I am pretty sure based on Texas' attitude and actions the SEC wants texas to stay the hell away.

True. I think the main factors are that they see the SEC as a return to the SWC days, both academically and with cheating.

 

[Mick Ronson]

Texas wants no part of the SEC. For one they get their s-it kicked everytime they play an SEC team. Second of all they wont be able to rule the conference and get everything they want cause they will not be the big bully on the block. They don't want the SEC and I am pretty sure based on Texas' attitude and actions the SEC wants texas to stay the hell away.

all of this true and they (UT) masks it with some "academics" pretend. Vandy is a much better school than UT and UF and UGA aren't that far away. i think anytime you see "academics" listed it's either a rhetorical ploy or outright obfuscation of a different issue in all this.

 

[DBT]

Transcript LINK: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskymensbasketballblog/2016145264_live_chat_with_12.html

12:02

[Comment From AndrewAndrew: ] Commissioner Scott, in the event that we one day see a Pac-16, would you be inclined to split the conference up into two divisions (consisting of 8 teams) or four pods (consisting of 4 teams)? Thursday September 8, 2011 12:02 Andrew

12:03

Larry Scott: I'll answer what I can about this, because I know there is a lot of interest. But I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. Our preference is status quo, all conferences staying at 12. But...if we expanded further, we'd carefully look at equal access to all territories

I guess my prior wording was a little off, I thought he mentioned California specifically but this is what he said verbatim. From everything I know about Larry though I cannot see teams being excluded from California, because that will kill the conference. And I really like the way he never backs down from EQUAL.... whether it is access or revenue or whatever. I doubt Texas could handle anything "equal".

I would think that just as much as we, ou and the tee sips would want access to Cal, the Cal and Northwest schools would want access to Texas.

 

[Junction]

Transcript LINK: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskymensbasketballblog/2016145264_live_chat_with_12.html

12:02

[Comment From AndrewAndrew: ] Commissioner Scott, in the event that we one day see a Pac-16, would you be inclined to split the conference up into two divisions (consisting of 8 teams) or four pods (consisting of 4 teams)? Thursday September 8, 2011 12:02 Andrew

12:03

Larry Scott: I'll answer what I can about this, because I know there is a lot of interest. But I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves. Our preference is status quo, all conferences staying at 12. But...if we expanded further, we'd carefully look at equal access to all territories

I guess my prior wording was a little off, I thought he mentioned California specifically but this is what he said verbatim. From everything I know about Larry though I cannot see teams being excluded from California, because that will kill the conference. And I really like the way he never backs down from EQUAL.... whether it is access or revenue or whatever. I doubt Texas could handle anything "equal".

I like this answer better. Equal access to "California" would put the UT north/south division proposal on the table, but giving us and the rest of the north very limited access to Southern California, which is where everybody wants to be seen. I have no idea how "equal access to all territories" works, but I hope he can figure it out...

 

[BinaryBuff]

SIAP, but Wilner from the Mercury news lays out a horrible scenario for us
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/13/pac-12-football-the-latest-on-expansion/

 

[DesertDawg526]

The Pac-12 is also backed into a corner a bit geographically. If 16-team conferences are going to happen, our options suck if OU and UT decide to look elsewhere. We're hardly holding all the cards here, so don't make the mistake of thinking that we can simply dictate terms and OU/UT will accept them.

I agree we're a little short on quality teams to add within our geographic region.

I disagree that we're holding all of the cards though. We have a very strong conference, and when factoring in potential Pac Network revenues each school should be getting over $30 million yearly in the next few years (over $21 million yearly as of next year), and this is without adding anybody.

I don't really want to add a SDSU or Fresno St, but we're not in a position where we have to move fast, at least not IMO. We may end up with four superconferences of 16, but it won't be in the next year or two, or it would be very shocking if it was....

But we're simply not in a conference that is caving, and there is no reason to allow a new member in if it is dictated on their terms. It's our way or the highway for potential newcomers...

I see absolutely no reason why the Pac can't dictate terms of membership to anybody. This is not to say we wouldn't work with a school like OU to make it beneficial to both parties. But we can absolutely dictate terms of membership. If a school doesn't like it they can stay out. We don't NEED to add anybody. We are a very, very financially strong and stable conference as is.

We certainly want pick of the litter if/when expansion happens, but we are in no position to rush things or give in to demands right now...

My $0.02

 

[Alfred91]

Like I said before, geographic divisions aren't the only way to go here.

 

[Buffnik]

I agree we're a little short on quality teams to add within our geographic region.

I disagree that we're holding all of the cards though. We have a very strong conference, and when factoring in potential Pac Network revenues each school should be getting over $30 million yearly in the next few years (over $21 million yearly as of next year), and this is without adding anybody.

I don't really want to add a SDSU or Fresno St, but we're not in a position where we have to move fast, at least not IMO. We may end up with four superconferences of 16, but it won't be in the next year or two, or it would be very shocking if it was....

But we're simply not in a conference that is caving, and there is no reason to allow a new member in if it is dictated on their terms. It's our way or the highway for potential newcomers...

I see absolutely no reason why the Pac can't dictate terms of membership to anybody. This is not to say we wouldn't work with a school like OU to make it beneficial to both parties. But we can absolutely dictate terms of membership. If a school doesn't like it they can stay out. We don't NEED to add anybody. We are a very, very financially strong and stable conference as is.

We certainly want pick of the litter if/when expansion happens, but we are in no position to rush things or give in to demands right now...

My $0.02

We "can" dictate, but we can't dictate and know that they would accept. I think that a lot of us Pac-12 folks see the situation as the Big 12 programs being on the Titanic and the Pac-12 being the only lifeboat in the area. The Big 12 schools we would want all have a bunch of options.

 

[Junction]

SIAP, but Wilner from the Mercury news lays out a horrible scenario for us
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/13/pac-12-football-the-latest-on-expansion/

I’d also imagine the the conference office would open a eastern branch, probably in Dallas.

And so it begins..... :lol:

 

[MtnBuff]

I don't see any way that the Pacific Northwest schools (in Washington and Oregon) accept not going to SoCal regularly, this also holds true for CU and Utah. I also don't see the Arizona schools accepting having to play four games a year against the old Big XII south schools.

When well over 1/2 your conference isn't on board makes a hard sell.

 

[DesertDawg526]

SIAP, but Wilner from the Mercury news lays out a horrible scenario for us
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/09/13/pac-12-football-the-latest-on-expansion/

"*** If Texas ultimately comes aboard with Texas Tech — and that’s the only way TTU is getting in, by the way — then the league will split into the two eight-team divisions sketched out in the spring of 2010 (with Utah filling Texas A&M’s slot)."

That is one huge assumption (two divisions west/east), and I really don't see it happening, FWIW...

 

[Mick Ronson]

it's unclear to me why Tech is even a tag-a-long player in all this. if it was 5 years ago and Bobby Knight was their coach and in the Sweet 16 with Andre Emmett and J. Jackson.....and Leach was winning 10 games and bending Cal over in the Holiday Bowl....maybe.

all the media market angles are out the door with Lub, TX.

 

[DesertDawg526]

We "can" dictate, but we can't dictate and know that they would accept. I think that a lot of us Pac-12 folks see the situation as the Big 12 programs being on the Titanic and the Pac-12 being the only lifeboat in the area. The Big 12 schools we would want all have a bunch of options.

I agree, but I don't really care if they accept or not so it doesn't really matter if they don't:thumbsup:

 

[Liver]

"*** If Texas ultimately comes aboard with Texas Tech — and that’s the only way TTU is getting in, by the way — then the league will split into the two eight-team divisions sketched out in the spring of 2010 (with Utah filling Texas A&M’s slot)."

That is one huge assumption (two divisions west/east), and I really don't see it happening, FWIW...

i think wilner may be off on this one. i don't see CU, uu, asu, and ua going quietly into the texas/ou division.

 

[Mick Ronson]

i think wilner may be off on this one. i don't see CU, uu, asu, and ua going quietly into the texas/ou division.

i wouldn't.

more and more, i don't think Texas is going to be in the Pac. maybe it's wishful thinking. OU maybe, UT can suck a knob. they may have some vag hurt right now that OU told them to kiss off a bit, but they aren't going to change their leopard spots.

 

[Alfred91]

The more I look at it, the more I think 16-team conferences are going to suck.

 

[BinaryBuff]

i think wilner may be off on this one. i don't see CU, uu, asu, and ua going quietly into the texas/ou division.

I'm hoping so too. Wilner has been fairly tied in, which is what worries me. After thinking more about it though, I just can't see anyone but the old Pac 8 schools buying into that plan. At least that's my hope..

 

[MtnBuff]

The more I look at it, the more I think 16-team conferences are going to suck.

+1

 

[The Guest]

I'm hoping so too. Wilner has been fairly tied in, which is what worries me. After thinking more about it though, I just can't see anyone but the old Pac 8 schools buying into that plan. At least that's my hope..

Why did you even think about it?

1. Read Sacky's Signature Line
2. Read Sacky's posts
3 ??????
4. I hate Texas

 

[Liver]

The more I look at it, the more I think 16-team conferences are going to suck.

i am starting to agree. i think the reason it was conceptually cool (other than a true playoff system) was that we were all thinking that the superconferences would consist of the best teams, basically. but, historical and other interests are creating some odd combinations. texas tech being included in any superconference is one such anomaly. and, ku possibly being excluded is another.

meanwhile, some schools who are lucky enough to already be a member of an expanding conference as opposed to a contracting one (northwestern, washington state, vandy, etc.) get a free pass.

it is a real cluster ****.

 

[Del]

With Wilner you have to consider the source. He covers the Northern Califonia teams. Of course his audience and I'm sure everyone not named Arizona, ASU, Utah or Colorado would love this format. The old Pac-8 can reunite and the NW schools can have access to Cali all to themselves. He fails to mention how Colorado gave up 7 million dollars to join the conference and how Colorado and Utah helped get the PAC a championship game. He doesn't even mention the Arizona schools or how voting to get them in could play out or even bring up a pod scheduling system. He must be hanging out with Henderson.

 

[Buffnik]

A lot of people in Pac-12 country still think of the "real PAC" as the pre-Arizona eight.

 

[Liver]

A lot of people in Pac-12 country still think of the "real PAC" as the pre-Arizona eight.

yep. i have lots of friends and relatives who think that way. where they get really militant is if there is any suggestion that cal, stanford, ucla, and usc aren't together and playing each other.

 

[Junction]

With Wilner you have to consider the source. He covers the Northern Califonia teams. Of course his audience and I'm sure everyone not named Arizona, ASU, Utah or Colorado would love this format. The old Pac-8 can reunite and the NW schools can have access to Cali all to themselves. He fails to mention how Colorado gave up 7 million dollars to join the conference and how Colorado and Utah helped get the PAC a championship game. He doesn't even mention the Arizona schools or how voting to get them in could play out or even bring up a pod scheduling system. He must be hanging out with Henderson.

So if the Big XII dies before the end of this academic year, who gets to split up the revenue CU left behind? Can we make the refugees give their shares back to us?? :lol:

 

[Del]

He also doesn't address that Oklahoma and Texas also want access to California and that Larry Scott will just magically be able to convince any member opposed to the division format that it is okay. Lazy article.

 

[Alfred91]

Has anyone who is placed anywhere near Larry Scott said anything about division arrangements? Or are we all going off of the imaginations of 'journalists'?