Pac-12 On Expansion

Home Page forums BlueGoldNews WVU Sports Pac-12 On Expansion

  • This topic has 30 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated by Butlereer.
Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 31 total)
  • Author
  • #153039

    Big 12 teams don’t have to worry about booking trips to USC, Stanford or Oregon just yet.


    One thought on this announcement, as well as the meeting to discuss an “alliance” and the announcements at the conclusion of those meetings, as long as the B12 is in existence the more likely it is that UT and OK have to pay all or nearly all of their exit fee to the remaining B12 schools.  Plenty of time to absorb the remaining schools into the remaining 3 conferences at the conclusion of the B12’s rights agreements.  And more money to those potential new members of those conferences, and less money to the SEC, in the mean time.

    Just a thought.


    I’m starting to think we need to assume that B1G, Pac 12, and ACC are all going to stand pat.

    That said, what is the best course for the 8 orphans of the Big 12?  We have to stick together and we have to add.

    But what’s the best play for addition?

    Full merger with the AAC or cherry pick the 4 best from them?

    And what metric(s) do you use to judge the 4 best?

    TV market is likely a given. Then the weighing of the pros/cons will focus on football strength, basketball strength, or which 4 have the best strength in both.  Football must be the tie breaker for any ties that occur in your deliberations.

    Another big factor that would be a metric – facilities.

    Then there is fan base support.

    For the orphaned 8, this is survival.  First, we’re not going to steal schools from the existing power conferences – I can’t think of anyone in the 4 big conferences that would be THAT disgruntled.  So, we have to have some basis of logical evaluation of Group of 5 schools by some set of metrics to find the best 4.


    I read a piece today that the Big 12 is very interested in UCF. I have no idea how reliable the source is.  So the PAC 12 isn’t expanding.  Is there any reason for the ACC and the BIG to expand?  I don’t know.  Just asking.  Perhaps for those three conferences the alliance is a satisfactory response for now.  I think the Jilted 8 could find 2 or 4 schools that would make for a respectable conference.  The 8 remaining teams aren’t garbage.  They’re pretty damn good actually.


    Personally I don’t think the B12 should limit itself to 4 new teams. At 12 they are still the smallest P5 conference and susceptible to more poaching. At 12 with another couple programs leaving B12 is out looking for teams again. At 14 if/when a team leaves the conference can still be intact and take time to rebuild if needed.


    PAC12: “at this time”


    I agree,  Butler.  I think if the Big 12 expands, it should add 6.  But most people, I think, disagree.


    The Big12 should just stay at and with the current 8


    We have no clue what the future holds for college football, and especially for the B-12 conference. But, I, for one, want to add three schools immediately, or receive their their paperwork to become part of the B-12 after they can do so without paying a cost to exit the conference they’re presently in.

    IMO, the B-12 erred greatly when they didn’t also add Louisville at the time they added WVU to the conference. With statements and speculation coming from FSU, Clemson, VA, and NC, if the B-12 fails to act now, it may be too late in the future.

    It’s possible that WVU may find themselves in a better place in the near future, but why chance that possibility? Build the B-12 to the best they can do, and if the Mountaineers leave for a better place, so be it, but don’t hold your breathe until they do.

    My thinking has shifted a little since reading some other posts. I have been advocating adding Cincinnati, UCF, and Memphis immediately. I have not been one wanting BYU in the conference for various reasons.

    I do believe that adding those schools would lead to better TV contracts than dropping to the AAC.

    But, if studies indicate that BYU will add to TV contracts, I’d be for that school to be the fourth add on to make the B-12, a twelve school conference.


    It wasn’t too many years ago when the B-12 was considering adding two schools to take the conference back up to twelve. The leaders decided that no other schools added value to the B-12. IMO, those leaders followed the lead of Oklahoma and Texas, and voted not to expand, and I believe that it would have been beneficial for the conference to expand.

    Now, the PAC 12 have decided to remain intact as they are. I wonder whether the other schools are following the lead of a couple of schools that want to exit the conference? Of course, the PAC 12 is in a better place than the B-12, because they have twelve members, and would still have ten if two members would jump ship.

    That’s not the case with the B-12 who has just ten members, and losing two takes them below the number to remain a conference.


    Eugene, you make great points. In my opinion, the PAC-12 has it’s struggles with quality teams vs. SEC, ACC, and B1G; however, they do have 12 teams vs. Big 12’s eight but I believe they have programs that are viewed as higher quality than what is left of Big12 or what Big 12 could form with the addition of perceived mid-levels. With Big12’s instability I would be surprised if PAC-12 members or even AAC would jump over. If I was UCF, it would be an attractive offer and a dream come true to join a Power5 but I also would be really weary if the grass is greener in the Big 12 and getting stuck on a sinking ship.


    I have no idea what number of schools should be added to the B-12. But, I firmly believe that three or four schools should be added immediately, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, and one more. Should the fourth one be Houston or BYU? which of those schools would most benefit TV contracts?

    Other schools could be added after the present TV contracts expire, and after it’s decided of the value of adding more schools to the conference.

    Adding those four schools would put the Mountaineers in a division with WVU, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF Oklahoma State, and Kansas. If the schools chose one school from the other division, and the Mountaineers choose Iowa State, their home and away would be three home and three away before adding a rotation from schools from the other division.

    The schools could play one home, and one away against rotating schools from the other division. So a conference school would play eight conference games, four home and four away.

    Until Oklahoma and Texas exit the conference, that would be another home and away game to add to the conference. So, until they left, there would be ten conference games, five home and five away to play.


    At this point why divy up the pie anymore when the slices will be smaller.  No G5 schools will increase our size of the slice.


    You add schools now to have a better chance of keeping the conference together long term.  You add schools now to have a better chance of staying a P5 conference.  At 8 and the reduced monies from ESPiN and others we would be looking at a very significant decrease in TOTAL conference revenue.  When that money drops to the total level of a G5 then the other P5 conferences will move to kick the P12 (P8?) out of the CFP playoff systems.

    Adding more teams may decrease the share per school, but it will add to the total pot.  It’s more of an insurance policy about the best road to staying a P5 conference.

    Take a look at history.  BE screwed up completely by not splitting the BB and FB sides and adding a few more FB schools when they had the chance.  They were afraid of taking a cut in individual revenue.  Nobody in the BE office gave a rats ass about the FB side and could care less about bringing in a Lvlle, UCF, ECU in FB.  They didn’t want to go after GT or FSU or any other ACC team that wasn’t happy at that time.  Ultimately that was the demise of the BE.

    If you only look at today’s money then you are short sighting yourself in the long run.


    There won’t be a Big12 in the long run,  it is really more about contraction than expansion.  I truly believe within 4 years we will be in a power4 league, and then be in a better position for the future when some schools in the power4 are tossed out.


    Butler, good post. I fully agree.


    Tyler, it would be great if the Mountaineers become part of that major four conference set. We don’t know if this will happen or when it will happen.

    So, in the mean time, should we just sit back and wait for changes to happen, or should we try to put the Mountaineers in the best possible position for the short run? This would be disregarding whether WVU later becomes part of a major Power conference or not.

    IMO, doing everything that can be done to keep the conference intact, should be done. And, that includes adding at least four schools to the conference.


    Having 8 schools doesn’t mean the conference will fall apart.


    I agree,  Butler.  I think if the Big 12 expands, it should add 6.  But most people, I think, disagree.

    Most people would be wrong.  Most people are short sighted.  Don’t expand enough to get ESPiN on board with lots of inventory even it is Weds/Thrs/Fri and off time starts the B12 is doomed.  It’s all about total TV money from the networks, not individual program money.

    If the B12 is to survive it needs to build a conference with the best teams that will provide viewers for networks.  Otherwise we …… WVU …… will roll the dice, hope and pray for an ACC invite.  B12 without expansion to the right number will be relegated to G5 status without a path to the CFB Championship.


    Having 8 schools doesn’t mean the conference will fall apart.

    8 schools would absolutely relegate the B12 to a G5 conference.   TV money would dry up significantly.  One defection would collapse the conference.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 31 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Home Page forums BlueGoldNews WVU Sports Pac-12 On Expansion