PAC 10 now PAC 12: Utah accepts invitation (1 Viewer)

[kbleck]

Another key to this is that Colorado and Nebraska have to pay the Conference $9 mil each for leaving the conference. So that is another bonus to keeping the conference together.

My bet is Utah will be added to the conference and you will have a North and South and a conference championship.

Oregon

Oregon State

Washington

Washington State

Colorado

Utah

Stanford

Cal

USC

UCLA

Arizona

Arizona St.

 

[CravenM]

I think the conference that won is the SEC because of their leadership and patience.

They didn't start creating special deals, didn't try to re-organize, didn't try a land grab and didn't panic.

The PAC-10 got virtually nothing (Colorado) and now are going to have to pursue smaller schools (Utah, BYU, Boise St, etc) in order to legitimize their conference championship, IF they decide to have one. They may hope the BCS will give them 2 auto-berths but there's no way that's going to happen without a complete restructuring and addition of bowl games as part of the BCS.

The Big-12 is now 11 and 95% of it is because of the position of Texas. They've forfeited their conference championship game unless THEY go after another small school. They've also been told by their commish to start scheduling better non-conf games - they says a lot about the perceived weakness of the conference.

The Big-10 now has 12 schools (with Nebraska) but DIDN'T and probably WON'T get Notre Dame. Whether they choose to implement a conference championship game or not, they'll still lose to the SEC champ in the BCS final game.

So the SEC wins again - they have a 15 year guaranteed contract with ESPN and CBS and still have the picks of the litter when they choose to expand.

 

[SSOG]

It's almost the same thing. and I submit that money from joining the right conference (we can argue who that would be all day) would be a huge boon to the school. Yes, perhaps beyond what they make now.

Not perhaps. Certainly. Both the Big 10 and the SEC distribute more to their member schools than Notre Dame makes on average. If Notre Dame was making a BCS bowl every single year, they might be able to keep up with the SEC and Big 10 in TV/bowl revenue... and if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle, too. As it currently stands, VANDERBILT makes more money from TV contracts and bowl revenue than Notre Dame.

I think the conference that won is the SEC because of their leadership and patience.They didn't start creating special deals, didn't try to re-organize, didn't try a land grab and didn't panic.The PAC-10 got virtually nothing (Colorado) and now are going to have to pursue smaller schools (Utah, BYU, Boise St, etc) in order to legitimize their conference championship, IF they decide to have one. They may hope the BCS will give them 2 auto-berths but there's no way that's going to happen without a complete restructuring and addition of bowl games as part of the BCS.The Big-12 is now 11 and 95% of it is because of the position of Texas. They've forfeited their conference championship game unless THEY go after another small school. They've also been told by their commish to start scheduling better non-conf games - they says a lot about the perceived weakness of the conference.The Big-10 now has 12 schools (with Nebraska) but DIDN'T and probably WON'T get Notre Dame. Whether they choose to implement a conference championship game or not, they'll still lose to the SEC champ in the BCS final game. So the SEC wins again - they have a 15 year guaranteed contract with ESPN and CBS and still have the picks of the litter when they choose to expand.

The Pac-10 didn't just get virtually nothing, they actually probably walked out of expansion talks with a net loss. Colorado has not been a valuable football asset in years. If they want a championship game they'll have to add Utah, which will increase the quality of football but will actually wind up decreasing each school's cut of the revenue (Utah won't bring much revenue in with them, they'll just wind up taking a piece of everyone else's pie). Most importantly, they lost their major source of pride- the fact that they were the only conference that anyone cared about (sorry Big East) that staged a true round-robin. Everyone played everyone. With Colorado on board, that's no longer possible. I'm putting the over/under on 5 years before some 2nd-tier team draws a schedule that doesn't include USC, goes undefeated in league play, doesn't play in a conference championship, and winds up opening Pandora's Box.Also, the Big 12 is down to 10 (they lost both Nebraska and Colorado), and they've basically announced to the world that whatever you want to call them, they're all just Texas's bootlickers. They're probably better off without two divisions, though- the North division has been a joke for years.The Big 10 still made out pretty well, though. Nebraska doesn't bring in much in terms of revenue (only 700,000 people in the entire state), but it does have some cachet in football, some lingering brand recognition dating back to the '90s. And Nebraska agreed to join for a lesser share, so they aren't getting a full 12th of the Big 10 TV revenue, which makes expansion much more palatable for the other 11 teams (they aren't getting a smaller piece of the pie to make room for Nebraska). And, at the end of the day, the Big 10 still pays more out to its member schools (~$20 million) than the SEC does (~$17 million), mostly due to social geography- the Big 10 is situated right in the heart of the most densely populated region of America. That's an advantage that isn't going away for a long time, which means the Big 10 will always be operating at a financial advantage against the other conferences. Which is good, because they need it to offset the weather disadvantage (imagine trying to convince that five-star recruit that he should come to Minnesota rather than hanging out on the beaches of Florida or Southern California).

 

[GregR_2]

...Biggest winner this week - nebraska and Big 10. They have a true super conference...

Texas A&M was definitely a big winner out of this financially. In exchange for staying they are going to be making a lot more money each year from the television contract... drawing $20m a year instead of the $13m range that the other Big 12 teams outside of Texas and OU are getting. In addition, they were saying on the radio that Nebraska and Colorado have to pay about $20m in penalties to leave, and that that money won't be split evenly amongst the Big 12 but will instead mostly go to Texas, OU and TAMU.They are getting paid what Texas and OU are, and they really don't bring to the table what those schools do in terms of their football program.

 

[mambomambo]

Texas A&M was definitely a big winner out of this financially. In exchange for staying they are going to be making a lot more money each year from the television contract... drawing $20m a year instead of the $13m range that the other Big 12 teams outside of Texas and OU are getting. In addition, they were saying on the radio that Nebraska and Colorado have to pay about $20m in penalties to leave, and that that money won't be split evenly amongst the Big 12 but will instead mostly go to Texas, OU and TAMU.They are getting paid what Texas and OU are, and they really don't bring to the table what those schools do in terms of their football program.

I believe the $20M a year when I see the signed deal. I doubt this will be the actual number.BTW Texas A&M will NOT get paid the same as Texas. It will be close, but not the same. And when you add the Texas TV Network deal that will be shoved down the throats of every A&M fan in Texas, they will end up making a LOT more than A&M.Whatever A&M might've gained financially, they lost in pride (always following Texas) go look at A&M forums right now and check out the number of Pissed off A&M alumns that are sending letters and stopping their donations to the university!! They wanted to go to the SEC and stop playing the little brother role to Texas. By staying in the Big 12, little 10, whatever you want to call it, they pretty much guaranteed mediocrity for years to come.....They will NEVER be able to compete with Texas in recruiting, or even OU in the State of Texas like they would if they were in the SEC. And of course, had the SEC and A&M agreed to unite, their TV contract would have earned them a lot more than $17M (currently in the SEC) due to the Texas mkt addition. BUT, I guess the Aggies enjoy playing second fiddle to Texas.

 

[Routilla]

Texas A&M was definitely a big winner out of this financially. In exchange for staying they are going to be making a lot more money each year from the television contract... drawing $20m a year instead of the $13m range that the other Big 12 teams outside of Texas and OU are getting. In addition, they were saying on the radio that Nebraska and Colorado have to pay about $20m in penalties to leave, and that that money won't be split evenly amongst the Big 12 but will instead mostly go to Texas, OU and TAMU.They are getting paid what Texas and OU are, and they really don't bring to the table what those schools do in terms of their football program.

I believe the $20M a year when I see the signed deal. I doubt this will be the actual number.BTW Texas A&M will NOT get paid the same as Texas. It will be close, but not the same. And when you add the Texas TV Network deal that will be shoved down the throats of every A&M fan in Texas, they will end up making a LOT more than A&M.Whatever A&M might've gained financially, they lost in pride (always following Texas) go look at A&M forums right now and check out the number of Pissed off A&M alumns that are sending letters and stopping their donations to the university!! They wanted to go to the SEC and stop playing the little brother role to Texas. By staying in the Big 12, little 10, whatever you want to call it, they pretty much guaranteed mediocrity for years to come.....They will NEVER be able to compete with Texas in recruiting, or even OU in the State of Texas like they would if they were in the SEC. And of course, had the SEC and A&M agreed to unite, their TV contract would have earned them a lot more than $17M (currently in the SEC) due to the Texas mkt addition. BUT, I guess the Aggies enjoy playing second fiddle to Texas.

I think one thing that folks may not know about A&M is that their school Fight Song is about the Texas Longhorns. If they were to have gone to another conference w/o Texas, they would have to create a new song.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Everyone played everyone. With Colorado on board, that's no longer possible. I'm putting the over/under on 5 years before some 2nd-tier team draws a schedule that doesn't include USC, goes undefeated in league play, doesn't play in a conference championship, and winds up opening Pandora's Box.

As long as Utah (or some other school) joins the conference, that's impossible. Every team will play every team in its division, so if USC goes undefeated and you go undefeated you'll play USC in your conference championship game (USC can't be undefeated if you're undefeated and you and USC are in the same division).

 

[Andrew Garda]

Everyone played everyone. With Colorado on board, that's no longer possible. I'm putting the over/under on 5 years before some 2nd-tier team draws a schedule that doesn't include USC, goes undefeated in league play, doesn't play in a conference championship, and winds up opening Pandora's Box.

As long as Utah (or some other school) joins the conference, that's impossible. Every team will play every team in its division, so if USC goes undefeated and you go undefeated you'll play USC in your conference championship game (USC can't be undefeated if you're undefeated and you and USC are in the same division).

Unless - as has been widely talke about - PacWhateva declines to make a Conf Champ Game.I hope that doesn't happen - but will say even if it does - that the doomsday scenario in the first quoted bit isn't likely to happen.

 

[Jayded]

The biggest reason ND doesn't want to be in a conference is the secular vs. regilious aspect side of things. ND has a strong Catholic tradition that runs to its core. Call it naive or what-have-you but the administration has never looked kindly upon the idea of secular schools dictating anything to them, especially with respect to academic standards. That is the most sticky part of the argument I never see come up outside of ND circles.

I was with you until the bolded sentence - then you lost me. As was said by someone else, you're talking about a school that is affiliated with conferences everywhere but football. How does that happen when they are allegedly not in football due to 'the secular vs. regilious aspect side of things'.Basketball is less secular?

That independent thing is about ego, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe it started off differently but to me, THAT's where it is now. They don't want to because they're NOTRE DAME dammit and they don't have to.

I applaud them - the Bowl tie-ins were to benefit conference schools - they found a way to circumvent that. Smart move. But again, you might as well go into a conference if you NEED a conference to get offered bowl games because they (Bowls) don't invite the way they used to.

It's almost the same thing. and I submit that money from joining the right conference (we can argue who that would be all day) would be a huge boon to the school. Yes, perhaps beyond what they make now.

The other point that the three who quoted me aren't considering is how the conference affiliation affects the postseason. Right now with ND's sweetheart deal in football, football is not forced into conference affiliation to win a national title. I guarantee if you saw the mega conferences formed, and ND would have been forced to join a conference to still play for the title that it would definitely have been the tipping point.ND also prides itself as a "national" school and schedules accordingly. I can tell you that alumni fear that if they were to go to the Big Ten, for example, that they'd shrink to being a regional school even with some out of conference games. Right now a big sell to recruits can be that they have the opportunity in the recruit's next four years to travel the country and abroad to play football (They're playing Navy in Dublin, Ireland in a few years). If they were to shrink to a Big Ten schedule, the fear is the coast to coast viewership for games agains the Iowas and Minnesotas of the world. Nothing again either of those schools, but if the ratings came down to USC vs. one of those schools we all know which would have the higher rating.

 

[SSOG]

Everyone played everyone. With Colorado on board, that's no longer possible. I'm putting the over/under on 5 years before some 2nd-tier team draws a schedule that doesn't include USC, goes undefeated in league play, doesn't play in a conference championship, and winds up opening Pandora's Box.

As long as Utah (or some other school) joins the conference, that's impossible. Every team will play every team in its division, so if USC goes undefeated and you go undefeated you'll play USC in your conference championship game (USC can't be undefeated if you're undefeated and you and USC are in the same division).

Right, which is why I made a point of pointing out how little revenue Utah would wind up bringing to the table, and how the addition would likely result in the rest of the league members seeing a net decrease in revenue. Either the Pac 10 stands pat and gets screwed in the schedule, or it adds Utah and gets screwed in the coffers. Either way, they've screwed themselves over in expansion.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Everyone played everyone. With Colorado on board, that's no longer possible. I'm putting the over/under on 5 years before some 2nd-tier team draws a schedule that doesn't include USC, goes undefeated in league play, doesn't play in a conference championship, and winds up opening Pandora's Box.

As long as Utah (or some other school) joins the conference, that's impossible. Every team will play every team in its division, so if USC goes undefeated and you go undefeated you'll play USC in your conference championship game (USC can't be undefeated if you're undefeated and you and USC are in the same division).

Right, which is why I made a point of pointing out how little revenue Utah would wind up bringing to the table, and how the addition would likely result in the rest of the league members seeing a net decrease in revenue. Either the Pac 10 stands pat and gets screwed in the schedule, or it adds Utah and gets screwed in the coffers. Either way, they've screwed themselves over in expansion.

I don't think they've screwed themselves. Utah is a good add, IMO, and the conference really needed a CCG. I think USC has been hurt in years past when they got 11-1 and don't have a CCG to vault themselves into a title game. If you're going to go undefeated, you don't need a CCG, but for any one-loss team -- which the Pac-10 usually has -- a CCG increases your odds of making the title game, IMO.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The biggest reason ND doesn't want to be in a conference is the secular vs. regilious aspect side of things. ND has a strong Catholic tradition that runs to its core. Call it naive or what-have-you but the administration has never looked kindly upon the idea of secular schools dictating anything to them, especially with respect to academic standards. That is the most sticky part of the argument I never see come up outside of ND circles.

I was with you until the bolded sentence - then you lost me. As was said by someone else, you're talking about a school that is affiliated with conferences everywhere but football. How does that happen when they are allegedly not in football due to 'the secular vs. regilious aspect side of things'.Basketball is less secular?

That independent thing is about ego, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe it started off differently but to me, THAT's where it is now. They don't want to because they're NOTRE DAME dammit and they don't have to.

I applaud them - the Bowl tie-ins were to benefit conference schools - they found a way to circumvent that. Smart move. But again, you might as well go into a conference if you NEED a conference to get offered bowl games because they (Bowls) don't invite the way they used to.

It's almost the same thing. and I submit that money from joining the right conference (we can argue who that would be all day) would be a huge boon to the school. Yes, perhaps beyond what they make now.

The other point that the three who quoted me aren't considering is how the conference affiliation affects the postseason. Right now with ND's sweetheart deal in football, football is not forced into conference affiliation to win a national title. I guarantee if you saw the mega conferences formed, and ND would have been forced to join a conference to still play for the title that it would definitely have been the tipping point.ND also prides itself as a "national" school and schedules accordingly. I can tell you that alumni fear that if they were to go to the Big Ten, for example, that they'd shrink to being a regional school even with some out of conference games. Right now a big sell to recruits can be that they have the opportunity in the recruit's next four years to travel the country and abroad to play football (They're playing Navy in Dublin, Ireland in a few years). If they were to shrink to a Big Ten schedule, the fear is the coast to coast viewership for games agains the Iowas and Minnesotas of the world. Nothing again either of those schools, but if the ratings came down to USC vs. one of those schools we all know which would have the higher rating.

ND could still keep Navy and USC on the schedule. Who else they routinely play outside of the Bgi10 anyway/ they play MSU,UofM, Purdue almost every year. Who else Stanford? NCState? A team that has 1 bowl win since 1993 should be beggin to join a conference. They wil be stuck in the Big East where they can be the big dog vs little fish all season long and still go 8-4

 

[S.K.A.]

The PAC-10 has added the Denver market and a school that brings in a lot of research dollars (from what I've been told). With the potential addition of Utah, the PAC-10 captures the SLC market and adds a conference championship. I disagree that the conference has been weakened by expansion. Certainly it wasn't the mega-conference that was envisioned last week, but solid additions none the less.

 

[mambomambo]

Texas A&M was definitely a big winner out of this financially. In exchange for staying they are going to be making a lot more money each year from the television contract... drawing $20m a year instead of the $13m range that the other Big 12 teams outside of Texas and OU are getting. In addition, they were saying on the radio that Nebraska and Colorado have to pay about $20m in penalties to leave, and that that money won't be split evenly amongst the Big 12 but will instead mostly go to Texas, OU and TAMU.They are getting paid what Texas and OU are, and they really don't bring to the table what those schools do in terms of their football program.

I believe the $20M a year when I see the signed deal. I doubt this will be the actual number.BTW Texas A&M will NOT get paid the same as Texas. It will be close, but not the same. And when you add the Texas TV Network deal that will be shoved down the throats of every A&M fan in Texas, they will end up making a LOT more than A&M.Whatever A&M might've gained financially, they lost in pride (always following Texas) go look at A&M forums right now and check out the number of Pissed off A&M alumns that are sending letters and stopping their donations to the university!! They wanted to go to the SEC and stop playing the little brother role to Texas. By staying in the Big 12, little 10, whatever you want to call it, they pretty much guaranteed mediocrity for years to come.....They will NEVER be able to compete with Texas in recruiting, or even OU in the State of Texas like they would if they were in the SEC. And of course, had the SEC and A&M agreed to unite, their TV contract would have earned them a lot more than $17M (currently in the SEC) due to the Texas mkt addition. BUT, I guess the Aggies enjoy playing second fiddle to Texas.

I think one thing that folks may not know about A&M is that their school Fight Song is about the Texas Longhorns. If they were to have gone to another conference w/o Texas, they would have to create a new song.

My point indeed....why keep living in the shadows when you don't have to....A&M will always be the little Texas University that could....

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I kinda feel bad for Boise State who joined the Mountain West, in part lured by the spectre of joining Utah as one of its anchors. Now that Utah inevitably joins the Pac 10, they have to be thinking that they got screwed. And so it goes in this musical chair conference switcharoos. It's like a shell game played by crafty con men.

ETA: Now Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones is trying to get Arkansas and Notre Dame to join the Big 12.

Arkansas I can see. They are the red headed stepsister of the SEC. But Notre Dame? No way.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...aa-realignment/

 

[FUBAR]

I kinda feel bad for Boise State who joined the Mountain West, in part lured by the spectre of joining Utah as one of its anchors. Now that Utah inevitably joins the Pac 10, they have to be thinking that they got screwed. And so it goes in this musical chair conference switcharoos. It's like a shell game played by crafty con men.

ETA: Now Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones is trying to get Arkansas and Notre Dame to join the Big 12.

Arkansas I can see. They are the red headed stepsister of the SEC. But Notre Dame? No way.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...aa-realignment/

If ND joined the XII, that would be epic. assuming football is part of the deal. Arkansas would surprise me, why are they the stepsister?

 

[SSOG]

The PAC-10 has added the Denver market and a school that brings in a lot of research dollars (from what I've been told). With the potential addition of Utah, the PAC-10 captures the SLC market and adds a conference championship. I disagree that the conference has been weakened by expansion. Certainly it wasn't the mega-conference that was envisioned last week, but solid additions none the less.

Colorado doesn't really command the Denver market. They like the Buffs, but at the end of the day, that's a pro football town.Utah might add the SLC market (I don't know), but it's not like that's this untapped gold mine or anything. Utah is the 34th most populous state, sandwiched right between Kansas and Nevada... and I don't see any conferences rushing to add the lucrative Kansas or Nevada markets. Will Utah bring in additional revenue? Sure... but that additional revenue will likely be less than the share of the conference pie that they'd command, leading to a net loss in revenue for the other 11 schools.

I kinda feel bad for Boise State who joined the Mountain West, in part lured by the spectre of joining Utah as one of its anchors. Now that Utah inevitably joins the Pac 10, they have to be thinking that they got screwed. And so it goes in this musical chair conference switcharoos. It's like a shell game played by crafty con men.

ETA: Now Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones is trying to get Arkansas and Notre Dame to join the Big 12.

Arkansas I can see. They are the red headed stepsister of the SEC. But Notre Dame? No way.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...aa-realignment/

I couldn't see Arkansas at all. Why leave the SEC, which is currently the second-richest conference and the conference with the most cachet, to join a conference that pretty much just admitted that everyone in it is Texas' #####? Why leave a conference with equal revenue distribution to join one where all the money is funneled into 2-3 programs? The Big 12 would have to offer Arkansas Texas money to do it... and even then, "Texas Money" is really just the same as "SEC money". And why would the Big 12 pay Arkansas UT money when teams like Tech, Missouri, Kansas, and OSU aren't even making Texas money (and they've been better on the field recently than Arkansas)?The real red headed stepsister of the SEC is Vanderbilt. A private college with unbelievable academic standards offering a very highly regarded education but incapable of fielding a consistently good football team... it sounds more like a Big 10 school than an SEC school.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The PAC-10 has added the Denver market and a school that brings in a lot of research dollars (from what I've been told). With the potential addition of Utah, the PAC-10 captures the SLC market and adds a conference championship. I disagree that the conference has been weakened by expansion. Certainly it wasn't the mega-conference that was envisioned last week, but solid additions none the less.

Colorado doesn't really command the Denver market. They like the Buffs, but at the end of the day, that's a pro football town.Utah might add the SLC market (I don't know), but it's not like that's this untapped gold mine or anything. Utah is the 34th most populous state, sandwiched right between Kansas and Nevada... and I don't see any conferences rushing to add the lucrative Kansas or Nevada markets. Will Utah bring in additional revenue? Sure... but that additional revenue will likely be less than the share of the conference pie that they'd command, leading to a net loss in revenue for the other 11 schools.

I kinda feel bad for Boise State who joined the Mountain West, in part lured by the spectre of joining Utah as one of its anchors. Now that Utah inevitably joins the Pac 10, they have to be thinking that they got screwed. And so it goes in this musical chair conference switcharoos. It's like a shell game played by crafty con men.

ETA: Now Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones is trying to get Arkansas and Notre Dame to join the Big 12.

Arkansas I can see. They are the red headed stepsister of the SEC. But Notre Dame? No way.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...aa-realignment/

I couldn't see Arkansas at all. Why leave the SEC, which is currently the second-richest conference and the conference with the most cachet, to join a conference that pretty much just admitted that everyone in it is Texas' #####? Why leave a conference with equal revenue distribution to join one where all the money is funneled into 2-3 programs? The Big 12 would have to offer Arkansas Texas money to do it... and even then, "Texas Money" is really just the same as "SEC money". And why would the Big 12 pay Arkansas UT money when teams like Tech, Missouri, Kansas, and OSU aren't even making Texas money (and they've been better on the field recently than Arkansas)?The real red headed stepsister of the SEC is Vanderbilt. A private college with unbelievable academic standards offering a very highly regarded education but incapable of fielding a consistently good football team... it sounds more like a Big 10 school than an SEC school.

Vandy is pure academia. SEC is hanging by threads on Florida and Vandy as credible academic schools. Bama Law is also prominent. Auburn Engineering... But Arkansas is a glorified junior college. That's why I think of them as the red headed stepsister. You do need some academic anchors, don't you think?

 

[LHUCKS]

The PAC-10 has added the Denver market and a school that brings in a lot of research dollars (from what I've been told). With the potential addition of Utah, the PAC-10 captures the SLC market and adds a conference championship. I disagree that the conference has been weakened by expansion.

Just some guys fishing...nobody really believes they are weakened.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

The PAC-10 has added the Denver market and a school that brings in a lot of research dollars (from what I've been told). With the potential addition of Utah, the PAC-10 captures the SLC market and adds a conference championship. I disagree that the conference has been weakened by expansion.

Just some guys fishing...nobody really believes they are weakened.

Not weakened? Please tell me you are joking? Right, right?They went from almost getting perrenial powerhouses Oklahoma and Texas and expanding market shares across roughly a size double of thier existing region, to adding lightweights Colorado and Utah who are just clinging on. In the same time period, the marquee franchise suffers an NCAA scholarship and postseason penalty that will set them back a decade. On top of that, a conference that appears to not want a CCG to establish their BCS standing. The Pac 10 got the rug pulled out from them, and they are spinning tales of always coveting teams like Utah and Colorado, but really do you believe this? The "Conference of Champions" as they like to call themselves is most definitely weaker today than a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Andrew Garda]

The PAC-10 has added the Denver market and a school that brings in a lot of research dollars (from what I've been told). With the potential addition of Utah, the PAC-10 captures the SLC market and adds a conference championship. I disagree that the conference has been weakened by expansion.

Just some guys fishing...nobody really believes they are weakened.

Not weakened? Please tell me you are joking? Right, right?They went from almost getting perrenial powerhouses Oklahoma and Texas and expanding market shares across roughly a size double of thier existing region, to adding lightweights Colorado and Utah who are just clinging on. In the same time period, the marquee franchise suffers an NCAA scholarship and postseason penalty that will set them back a decade. On top of that, a conference that appears to not want a CCG to establish their BCS standing. The Pac 10 got the rug pulled out from them, and they are spinning tales of always coveting teams like Utah and Colorado, but really do you believe this? The "Conference of Champions" as they like to call themselves is most definitely weaker today than a couple of weeks ago.

Well...... I almost typed the NCAA sanctions had nothing o do with the conference play but we all know it must have. Still they are somewhat seperate.Yes the sanctions will weaken the conference. They may all hate USC but they got the Pac10 press more than about any other team in it (footballwise).Missing on Texas and Ok? Stings, but they don't come out weaker by adding two teams even if they're not top caliber.The Pac fell waaaayyyyy short of their stated goal (and I would argue, got played by Texas like everyone else). Theye didn't get what they wanted.But even if they didn't get a super conference or the teams they really wanted you don't ADD teams and get weaker in reality. Perceptionwise, sure - because like Junior Soprano said in an early season 'He couldn't sell it. He couldn't get the job done.'. But in reality, the only way they get weaker is lose a team or two to another conference.Not saying they came out leaps and bounds ahead - even if they always coveted Colorado or Utah (and I always heard it was the other way around for the Buffs) - they missed their mark.So - in one sense yeah, they are weaker (although I am curious to see if another good team emerges - the Oregon schools were already playing well). But completely because of the sanctions and THAT was going to be the case anyway.

 

[Concept Coop]

The PAC-10 has added the Denver market and a school that brings in a lot of research dollars (from what I've been told). With the potential addition of Utah, the PAC-10 captures the SLC market and adds a conference championship. I disagree that the conference has been weakened by expansion.

Just some guys fishing...nobody really believes they are weakened.

Not weakened? Please tell me you are joking? Right, right?They went from almost getting perrenial powerhouses Oklahoma and Texas and expanding market shares across roughly a size double of thier existing region, to adding lightweights Colorado and Utah who are just clinging on. In the same time period, the marquee franchise suffers an NCAA scholarship and postseason penalty that will set them back a decade. On top of that, a conference that appears to not want a CCG to establish their BCS standing. The Pac 10 got the rug pulled out from them, and they are spinning tales of always coveting teams like Utah and Colorado, but really do you believe this? The "Conference of Champions" as they like to call themselves is most definitely weaker today than a couple of weeks ago.

No joke. They are better with Utah and Colorado than they were without them. Sure, it would have been great to add Texas and the lot and be a super conference. Lets remember that the Utah/Colorado talks started before the Texas and co talks. According to the local news here in Utah, there was a handshake agreement months ago between Utah and the Pac 10. It was just put on hold when the Pac 10 went for the home run.

 

[Concept Coop]

Everyone played everyone. With Colorado on board, that's no longer possible. I'm putting the over/under on 5 years before some 2nd-tier team draws a schedule that doesn't include USC, goes undefeated in league play, doesn't play in a conference championship, and winds up opening Pandora's Box.

As long as Utah (or some other school) joins the conference, that's impossible. Every team will play every team in its division, so if USC goes undefeated and you go undefeated you'll play USC in your conference championship game (USC can't be undefeated if you're undefeated and you and USC are in the same division).

Right, which is why I made a point of pointing out how little revenue Utah would wind up bringing to the table, and how the addition would likely result in the rest of the league members seeing a net decrease in revenue. Either the Pac 10 stands pat and gets screwed in the schedule, or it adds Utah and gets screwed in the coffers. Either way, they've screwed themselves over in expansion.

What credentials do you have? Just curious as to what makes you think you know more than the Pac 10 officials that had Utah and Colorado on their radar for quite some time. Maybe you should give them your resume.SLC is the 31st biggest TV market in the US. That is major, considering that the U of U doesn't have a large amount of competition in that area. Adding that market is FAR from a let down. If it was going to hurt the other schools in the conference, they wouldn't have voted for the expansion in the first place. It's as easy as that, really.

 

[jaybebo]

Texas A&M was definitely a big winner out of this financially. In exchange for staying they are going to be making a lot more money each year from the television contract... drawing $20m a year instead of the $13m range that the other Big 12 teams outside of Texas and OU are getting. In addition, they were saying on the radio that Nebraska and Colorado have to pay about $20m in penalties to leave, and that that money won't be split evenly amongst the Big 12 but will instead mostly go to Texas, OU and TAMU.They are getting paid what Texas and OU are, and they really don't bring to the table what those schools do in terms of their football program.

I believe the $20M a year when I see the signed deal. I doubt this will be the actual number.BTW Texas A&M will NOT get paid the same as Texas. It will be close, but not the same. And when you add the Texas TV Network deal that will be shoved down the throats of every A&M fan in Texas, they will end up making a LOT more than A&M.Whatever A&M might've gained financially, they lost in pride (always following Texas) go look at A&M forums right now and check out the number of Pissed off A&M alumns that are sending letters and stopping their donations to the university!! They wanted to go to the SEC and stop playing the little brother role to Texas. By staying in the Big 12, little 10, whatever you want to call it, they pretty much guaranteed mediocrity for years to come.....They will NEVER be able to compete with Texas in recruiting, or even OU in the State of Texas like they would if they were in the SEC. And of course, had the SEC and A&M agreed to unite, their TV contract would have earned them a lot more than $17M (currently in the SEC) due to the Texas mkt addition. BUT, I guess the Aggies enjoy playing second fiddle to Texas.

I think one thing that folks may not know about A&M is that their school Fight Song is about the Texas Longhorns. If they were to have gone to another conference w/o Texas, they would have to create a new song.

My point indeed....why keep living in the shadows when you don't have to....A&M will always be the little Texas University that could....

Don't you have some ducks or owls to play with...move along...A&M football tradition is very strong...yes, of late, it has not been as good...A&M is a proud school and it is believed they where the key to keeping the conference together.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Utah officially joins PAC 10, er PAC 12

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5298238

 

[AtomicDogg97]

Biggest winner this week - nebraska and Big 10. They have a true super conference

Wait, so adding one (currently) mediocre team to a conference that has widely been considered a joke for the last 5 years makes them a super conference?The Big 10 will still be an overrated, slightly above average Ohio State team piddling their way through a weak Big 10 schedule into a BCS bowl where they get embarrassed, just like it has been for the last 5 years.

If the Big Ten is a joke then what are the Big East and ACC? You can mock the Big Ten, but during this past bowl season they beat the ACC Champion Georgia Tech, Pac 10 champion Oregon, SEC power LSU, and Big East power Miami of Florida. How is that embarassing?I think the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 10 are all roughly about the same in terms of quality. Only the SEC is clearly superior.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I think the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 10 are all roughly about the same in terms of quality. Only the SEC is clearly superior.

I agree which is why Arkansas leaving is crazy talk.