Pac-12 to decide whether to expand within a couple weeks
- Thread starter cyIclSoneU
- Start date
Considering that move would kinda kill the pac12 I would say yes. You could still make it the site of the big ten championship or a playoff game. Part of the alliance is a push to keep the rose bowl relevant although I have no idea how.
Rose Bowl lost much of its B1G v. Pac 10 luster when it started hosting other conferences as part of the CFP rotation. But yeah USC, Oregon, et al joining the B1G would have to be the nail.
Except if you are to believe most of the media the last couple days about the so called alliance. This alliance is in part an agreement to not poach teams from each other. So if that is the case and they stick to that agreement, then if any of those 3 conferences do want to expand they are going to be looking hard at the Big 12.
And why expand you ask, none of the remaining teams would equal OU/TU as far as $$$ but when it comes to the playoff and that $$, the SEC will say we have more teams we deserve more spots. Its simply a way to say we are all equal. Not to mention the PAC needs to do something to come up with a way to increase $$$ in some way. And even though the schools left in the Big 12 arent high value, being a complete new area and new time zone, allows them a much bigger impact on that conference, especially in needing a boost the PACNet.
I personally find it difficult to believe that we will see any of the West Coast schools in the B1G proper, at least not in the near future, as long as there are traditional conferences as we know them. I believe its much more likely to see the Big 12 divided up between the other 4 in some way, with that lasting for another Decade or so until close to the next media deals, when we will see some more strangeness. Which at that point you could see some form of full on mergers of the B1G/PAC and the SEC/ACC or other craziness.
The fact that there are logical cases for both the B1G to poach the PAC cream teams, and also that there is an anti-poaching agreement, shows you just how speculative ALL of this is. Plus there are about 50 possible widely divergent outcomes all on the table.
It still feels to me like in the medium term (3-4 years) the B1G and PAC expand some and you end up with a P4. The B1G and PAC insitutions don't seem like radical change agents to me. If anything, I think their very real respect for academics and tradition will drive their decisions as much as the money. But that's just my speculation...
It still feels to me like in the medium term (3-4 years) the B1G and PAC expand some and you end up with a P4. The B1G and PAC insitutions don't seem like radical change agents to me. If anything, I think their very real respect for academics and tradition will drive their decisions as much as the money. But that's just my speculation...
Iowa does not want to add Oregon and USC to the West... it would really decrease their chances of ever getting to the B1G title game again. They have a tough time making it now with only one other good team in their division (Wisky).
Do you mean BCS? That's when it started getting disrupted although now it's definitely more prone to be without that matchup.
Ok, so explain to me what does Mizzou bring to the Big 10 that ISU, or OSU does not? Great history of football, no. World class BB program, no. Great academics, No.
So other than Big 10 fans crowing they stole a school from the SEC, what does Mizzou bring to the Big 10 that ISU or OSU does not to the conference?
It's viewership that adds value to a conference media package, not Dr. and Lawyer donors.
For those hoping to join up w/SEC and ESPN vs all...what the crap? Both of those entities are literally trying to kill you. You'd survive at their whim as long as they wanted you too. Joining with all media partners not named ESPN and all other conferences is a much better move in the short and long run.
Mizzou is AAU and OSU is not. Mizzou's academics are in par with ISU and better than OSU
Mizzou brings St Louis & KC eyeballs. Like it or not, a conference with a linear network- households matter.
Mizzou already has a big rival in the BIG10- Illini
I said adding Mizzou was intriguing as part of a Mizzou, ISU and KU bundle. Along with Nebraska that would be Big8 renewal
I also said, Mizzou wanted to be in Big10 over SEC ten years ago and Big10 turned them down. Maybe times have changed.
Heck, back in 2011, one could have made the argument Mizzou would have been a better add than Nebraska based on sport teams. Then add in carriage fees for Big10 Network.
PAC12 and Big Ten probably aren't just going to panic-add teams like we want them too.
Still have at least a year (probably not more) before OU and UT are legally out of the conference.
Going to have to give them time to reevaluate.
Still have at least a year (probably not more) before OU and UT are legally out of the conference.
Going to have to give them time to reevaluate.
Time and a reason to reevaluate if it comes to that.
Play lights out ball. Support the squad. Make a conference want ISU
I do not see the B1G taking more than two teams, so ISU-KU-Mizzou is not happening IMO.
There clearly isn't HIGH interest in any of the schools or one or more of them may have been invited already. However, it might be that they are evaluating the programs to determine their worth before deciding if they have any interest.
When you look at the additions that these conferences have made since 2004, all but Utah (and maybe Colorado) have underperformed their expectations or haven't boosted the conferences. So they realize that the benefits of adding programs oftentimes don't materialize. So why not take plenty of time to consider whether it's really worth it to add more programs?
a better question would be - What does ISU bring the to BIG 10 that Missouri does not?
Here's an even better question:
Q: What does ISU bring to the Big 10 that Iowa doesn't?
A: Fans that Michigan, Ohio State, and fans of the rest of the schools of the Big 10 for that matter don't have to apologize to fans of out-of-conference schools for the behavior of tavern hoks.
