Could the P12(10) be more secure than the B12?

[Butler-eer]

Wvu could have been Oregon if it had smarter people running the show over the years. When Oregon broke through and made it to the Rose Bowl in 94 they didn't just savor the moment they made commitments to try and keep it that way. Every time Oregon has made a poor decision they didn't waste there time in trying to correct it. Wvu on the other hand let Pastilong run the Athletic department like it were a Five and Dime store for years. Oregon also would have never hired Elmer Fudd at 2 am in the Morning to try and maintain the greatest 3 year run the football program ever experienced in its history. Maybe if we would have been wiser over the last couple of decades it would be us trying to beg the Big 10 or Sec to take us.

Here is one more thing that we do agree on. Fast Eddie Putzalong was led around by his nose by some of the big dollar donors. This jackarse was more of a brain dead putz than our current POTUS.
Your comment about hiring Good Old Bill is a disservice to Elmer Fudd. You need to apologize to Elmer for that remark.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

B1G doesn't WANT any more PAC teams "at this time" ...... UNLESS ...... ND says yes only if they bring Stanford in with them. ..... OR ....... SEC makes another move to add a few more teams breaking up the ACC and goes directly to 20+.

Correct, PAC teams have begged for acceptance, as any P5 school would want to move to the B1G or SEC for the HUGE bucks that are being thrown around.

Currect. B1G will probably stick to 16 for now "UNLESS the rate of expansion increases". SEC is now driving the bus here. 2012 SEC adds aTm, Mizzou. 2014 B1G responds and adds Maryland, Ruggers. 2022 SEC adds OUT. B1G responds with adding USCLA.

AND if ND says yes, all bets are off and B1G would gobble them up like a kid with a bag full of Halloween candy.

Big 10 doesn't want any more Pac 12 teams because they don't do anything for their bottom line. Notre Dame can join a conference whenever they want and whatever conference they want.

 

[Butler-eer]

Everyone knew they would leave some day just like everyone knows that any teams not currently in the Sec or Big 10 wants out of their conference. When it come to the Big 12 commissioner. Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

This is yet to be proven. I seriously doubt that anybody could be as inept as Bowlsby .... Except Fast Eddie Putzalong.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

This is yet to be proven. I seriously doubt that anybody could be as inept as Bowlsby .... Except Fast Eddie Putzalong.

Bowlsby is just like every other Big 12 commissioner of past, present and Future. He has nothing to offer anyone. Texas and Oklahoma would have left anyway regardless of who is running the show. The new guy will be just like the rest all talk and no action.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

Using your logic why did wvu join the Big 12 when everyone knew Texas and Oklahoma were going to leave. There are certain things you just can't control and one of them is whether someone else is going to stay. At the current rate expansion is only happening every decade and its only involving 1-2 teams a conference. The pac's most valuable members are still more valuable than anything remaining in the Big 12. The teams being mentioned as possible big 12 additions are some of the least valuable pac 12 teams. The teams on the outside looking in from the pac aren't in any rush at the moment knowing that the Pac's more valuable teams have no current options. The pac still has 6 state flag ship universities and outside of Utah every team has been a power 5 program for an extended period of time. Contrast that with what will be the new Big 12 . If you find the decision difficult to jump from the big 12 to the Pac it isn't any easier looking at it from a Pac 12' teams perspective. A pac 12 team isn't going to move to the bIg 12 until it feels it has to and I doubt they are feeing that at the moment.

If you think the writing on the wall that Texas and OU leaving the Big 12 in 2011 was as obvious as the writing on the wall that other PAC 12 teams will be going as soon as they are offered by the Big 10 today you are either an idiot or grasping at straws. Also even if in 2011 it was obvious that OU and UT were leaving, the Big 12 was still a better option than the AAC. Currently for most PAC 12 teams the Big 12 is at worst a lateral move and a likely more stable place to be. In the event more PAC 12 teams are poached, it is an objectively definitive upgrade. Anything could happen, but it's obvious to anyone with eyes that the Big 12 has more upside for any middling PAC 12 teams not likely to get an invite in thr next round of expansion.

 

[Butler-eer]

Some thought the same when Ollie took over for Eddie. Then we saw Ollie make changes quickly with some coaches that many thought were there for life. Baseball and FB as starters. Then maneuvering to the B12 instead of being left behind in the then to be AAC.
Time will tell what happens with Yormark. His background and experience don't show the same trajectory of thinking as Bowlsby.

 

[WVUALLEN]

If you think the writing on the wall that Texas and OU leaving the Big 12 in 2011 was as obvious as the writing on the wall that other PAC 12 teams will be going as soon as they are offered by the Big 10 today you are either an idiot or grasping at straws. Also even if in 2011 it was obvious that OU and UT were leaving, the Big 12 was still a better option than the AAC. Currently for most PAC 12 teams the Big 12 is at worst a lateral move and a likely more stable place to be. In the event more PAC 12 teams are poached, it is an objectively definitive upgrade. Anything could happen, but it's obvious to anyone with eyes that the Big 12 has more upside for any middling PAC 12 teams not likely to get an invite in thr next round of expansion.

Agree.

 

[Rootmaster]

Here is one more thing that we do agree on. Fast Eddie Putzalong was led around by his nose by some of the big dollar donors. This jackarse was more of a brain dead putz than our current POTUS.
Your comment about hiring Good Old Bill is a disservice to Elmer Fudd. You need to apologize to Elmer for that remark.

Does dissing Bill Stewart make you feel like a man jackass? What a dick.

 

[Butler-eer]

Does dissing Bill Stewart make you feel like a man jackass? What a dick.

No, Just telling it like it is. Peter Principle at it's best. Bill Stewart was a great QB coach. Anybody that knew anything about FB could tell that he wasn't HC material. Nothing against him as a person or a position coach. As head coach material ...... he was not. If the first 2 L's (games 2 & 3) of his first year didn't tell you he was over his head then the last MooU game should have.

Some of his thinking about program building was way off base. "Saving schollies" for deserving walk ons is beyond belief. Take a look at how many years we were struggling to get to the 85 number after Holgs came on board. And now how many years it's taken Brown to get to that number when using every schollie available. If you have room for 25 and can sign 25 then sign 25 LOI's. THEN give out schollies to deserving w/o's after some attrition takes you below the 85 mark. "Saving" schollies is wasting schollies.

Bla, Bla, Bla. 9W's, 9W's, 9W's. It was the BE..... Not SEC, Not B1G, Not B12, Not ACC. The BE at that time was far inferior to any of those conferences after Miami, BC and VT bolted.
Good position coach, Yes. Good recruiter, Yes. HC, not so much.

 

[Rootmaster]

No, Just telling it like it is. Peter Principle at it's best. Bill Stewart was a great QB coach. Anybody that knew anything about FB could tell that he wasn't HC material. Nothing against him as a person or a position coach. As head coach material ...... he was not. If the first 2 L's (games 2 & 3) of his first year didn't tell you he was over his head then the last MooU game should have.

Some of his thinking about program building was way off base. "Saving schollies" for deserving walk ons is beyond belief. Take a look at how many years we were struggling to get to the 85 number after Holgs came on board. And now how many years it's taken Brown to get to that number when using every schollie available. If you have room for 25 and can sign 25 then sign 25 LOI's. THEN give out schollies to deserving w/o's after some attrition takes you below the 85 mark. "Saving" schollies is wasting schollies.

Bla, Bla, Bla. 9W's, 9W's, 9W's. It was the BE..... Not SEC, Not B1G, Not B12, Not ACC. The BE at that time was far inferior to any of those conferences after Miami, BC and VT bolted.
Good position coach, Yes. Good recruiter, Yes. HC, not so much.

Saving scholarships for walk ons is common moron. All coaches do it. WVU has a long history of it including now. Stop bloviating. You sound like an idiot. Wish WVU could be BS as good now as under BS.

 

[Butler-eer]

Saving scholarships for walk ons is common moron. All coaches do it. WVU has a long history of it including now. Stop bloviating. You sound like an idiot. Wish WVU could be BS as good now as under BS.

No. "SAVING" schollies for walk ons is not common. Saving schollies is a waste of an LOI for recruited players.

Giving schollies to walk ons is common. Giving schollies to walk ons after all of the available schollies have been used for incoming recruits is common. Giving schollies to walk ons that could/should be used for incoming recruits is no where near the norm.

Programs use their allotted 25 schollies for recruits and transfers. If they are still under the 85 available then they give deserving walk ons schollies. We see kids getting schollies mid year when the number of yearly allowed schollies are already used. Even when we have been at a full 85, there is always a player or more that drop off before the season starts opening up a spot for a walk on. AND that schollie doesn't count toward the 25 for that past year. There are rules for counting walk ons toward the 85 or 25 and programs know how to maneuver schollies without "saving" a schollie that could be used for incoming players.

If a program is under the 85 and the next year's 25 won't take them to the 85 limit then "saving" a schollie is just throwing it away. You have room to put w/o's on schollie when you are under 85 without using one of the allotted 25 LOI's. Bill Stewart was never ever close to going over the 85 number. NEVER.

If you don't understand that you should talk to someone that actually does the recruiting.

 

[Rootmaster]

No. "SAVING" schollies for walk ons is not common. Saving schollies is a waste of an LOI for recruited players.

Giving schollies to walk ons is common. Giving schollies to walk ons after all of the available schollies have been used for incoming recruits is common. Giving schollies to walk ons that could/should be used for incoming recruits is no where near the norm.

Programs use their allotted 25 schollies for recruits and transfers. If they are still under the 85 available then they give deserving walk ons schollies. We see kids getting schollies mid year when the number of yearly allowed schollies are already used. Even when we have been at a full 85, there is always a player or more that drop off before the season starts opening up a spot for a walk on. AND that schollie doesn't count toward the 25 for that past year. There are rules for counting walk ons toward the 85 or 25 and programs know how to maneuver schollies without "saving" a schollie that could be used for incoming players.

If a program is under the 85 and the next year's 25 won't take them to the 85 limit then "saving" a schollie is just throwing it away. You have room to put w/o's on schollie when you are under 85 without using one of the allotted 25 LOI's. Bill Stewart was never ever close to going over the 85 number. NEVER.

If you don't understand that you should talk to someone that actually does the recruiting.

Guarantee I have been around program longer than you lol. Yes it is normal...but believe your own myth while you stfu dissing a dead man who did the job.

 

[Butler-eer]

Normal? To whom? Name a top school that routinely does not use all of their available schollies just to save them for walk ons.

 

[Rootmaster]

Normal? To whom? Name a top school that routinely does not use all of their available schollies just to save them for walk ons.

Moving goalpost. We're talking about WVU.

 

[WVUALLEN]

There are no hard numbers on athletes who went from being a walk-on to receiving an athletic scholarship. That said, it is far more common that a walk-on athlete eventually gets some amount of an athletic scholarship if they are on the team for multiple years. But don’t expect your scholarships to be a full-ride, most are partial scholarships.

WVU usually doesn't give a scholarship to a walk-on unless they warrant it or earn it. They don't just pass it out like candy.

Walk-ons are not even guaranteed a spot on the team. Those are saved for preferred walk-ons who usually get the schollie before any other type of walk-on.

From the NCSA.

 

[Rootmaster]

There are no hard numbers on athletes who went from being a walk-on to receiving an athletic scholarship. That said, it is far more common that a walk-on athlete eventually gets some amount of an athletic scholarship if they are on the team for multiple years. But don’t expect your scholarships to be a full-ride, most are partial scholarships.

WVU usually doesn't give a scholarship to a walk-on unless they warrant it or earn it. They don't just pass it out like candy.

Walk-ons are not even guaranteed a spot on the team. Those are saved for preferred walk-ons who usually get the schollie before any other type of walk-on.

From the NCSA.

And your point is? Lol.

 

[WVUALLEN]

And your point is? Lol.

My point is, it's the truth. LOL

 

[Rootmaster]

My point is, it's the truth. LOL

And what is "it's "? And what "truth" would that be?

 

[WVUALLEN]

And what is "it's "? And what "truth" would that be?

Learn to read and you will know walk-ons don't just get a scholarship for the hell of it.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

If you think the writing on the wall that Texas and OU leaving the Big 12 in 2011 was as obvious as the writing on the wall that other PAC 12 teams will be going as soon as they are offered by the Big 10 today you are either an idiot or grasping at straws. Also even if in 2011 it was obvious that OU and UT were leaving, the Big 12 was still a better option than the AAC. Currently for most PAC 12 teams the Big 12 is at worst a lateral move and a likely more stable place to be. In the event more PAC 12 teams are poached, it is an objectively definitive upgrade. Anything could happen, but it's obvious to anyone with eyes that the Big 12 has more upside for any middling PAC 12 teams not likely to get an invite in thr next round of expansion.

Well at the moment it doesn't appear that the Big 10 is interested in any more Pac 12 teams. If Pac 12 teams actually felt the Big 12 was a better option they would probably be moving faster in the process of joining which doesn't appear to be happening. Teams are not looking to make lateral moves when switching conferences they are looking to upgrade. When pac 12 teams look at the Big 12 they see a conference that is nothing more than a group of middle tier power 5 teams with G5 teams sprinkled in. Hence the AAC on steroids. Anyone who can't see that is either an idiot or grasping at straws.

 

[Rootmaster]

Learn to read and you will know walk-ons don't just get a scholarship for the hell of it.

Who said that lol? Learn to read moron.🤪

 

[skygusty]

Well at the moment it doesn't appear that the Big 10 is interested in any more Pac 12 teams. If Pac 12 teams actually felt the Big 12 was a better option they would probably be moving faster in the process of joining which doesn't appear to be happening. Teams are not looking to make lateral moves when switching conferences they are looking to upgrade. When pac 12 teams look at the Big 12 they see a conference that is nothing more than a group of middle tier power 5 teams with G5 teams sprinkled in. Hence the AAC on steroids. Anyone who can't see that is either an idiot or grasping at straws.

I don't know why people think things should have already happened, other than talking heads trying to stir things up for their channel. There really isn't the urgency that is projected. The BIG and the SEC are in control. If in the coming years, they invite more schools from the PAC or schools from the ACC, then the PAC and the ACC and the BIG12 are all going to look about the same. What everyone is waiting to see is the money that is going to each conference/per school in the coming 3 years. After more is known, there may be more movement. Unless you are the BIG or the SEC, there is no other option for backfilling than to expand with middle and lower tier schools. The BIG12 had to do it, the PAC12 will have to do it and if the ACC ever gets raided, they will have to do it. Some of those G5 schools are going to be pretty competitive with middle tier Power 5 leftovers.

 

[Buckaineer]

The Big Ten is waiting on a few things.

#1 a decision from Notre Dame, which is trying to determine if it will get $75 mil per year for 6 games from NBC to remain independent first.

#2 The finalizing of the next Big Ten contracts. Should happen around Labor Day per reports. This will let a lot of people in the ACC and PAC 12 and Notre Dame understand what they are looking at financially going forward.

#3. Once the Big Ten deal and Notre Dames decisions are made, then The SEC, ACC and PAC will make decisions.

The SEC will decide if it wants to expand more in order to try to catch up to the Big Ten in power and financially. They’ll try to figure out how to make that happen.

The ACC schools will have legal decisions to make. We already know everyone wants out so that won’t be the decision, rather how exactly will the exit process work. ACC schools are really the remaining expansion option for the SEC because PAC schools aren’t going there very likely due to extreme distances and other factors. BIG 12 schools supposedly won’t be valued high enough. ND isn’t joining the SEC. It’s fSU, Clemson and Miami that probably determine if the SEC can try to keep pace financially.

#4 Pac schools have to make a tv agreement deal before 2024. Who will sign a grant of rights? Doubt anyone will unless it’s really short but it can’t be beyond 2025.

#5 After their new tv deal, the next time B10 schools get more revenues is in 2026 with the next playoff. That’s when they’ll be most likely to expand again Unless ND comes in soon.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

Well at the moment it doesn't appear that the Big 10 is interested in any more Pac 12 teams. If Pac 12 teams actually felt the Big 12 was a better option they would probably be moving faster in the process of joining which doesn't appear to be happening. Teams are not looking to make lateral moves when switching conferences they are looking to upgrade. When pac 12 teams look at the Big 12 they see a conference that is nothing more than a group of middle tier power 5 teams with G5 teams sprinkled in. Hence the AAC on steroids. Anyone who can't see that is either an idiot or grasping at straws.

The current Big 12 is equal to the current PAC 12 now that it is without USC and UCLA. The options available to add to the PAC 12 are far worse than UCF, Cincy, or BYU. The two conferences are not vastly different in quality. If we cannot agree on that, just stop reading or responding because you are wrong and too illogical to understand why. Every team in either conference would jump at an invite from the SEC or Big 10. At issue is that the Big 12 teams are unlikely to be invited to either the Big 10 ir SEC in comparison to some of the remaining PAC 12 teams. Hence it would be foolish not to consider the more stable landing spot, even if it is a lateral move, than risk being left in an AAC equivalent conference which is exactly what the PAC 12 becomes if it loses 2-4 of its best remaining members.

 

[Buckaineer]

Not sure what is supposed to be even about the remaining BIG 12 plus Cincy, Houston, BYU and UCF as compared to the leftovers in the PAC.

BIG 12 schools are not in danger of being poached as the SEC and B10 have already declined to do that.

The B10 just poached the top brands from the Pac, are threatening more. The SEC and B10 covet ACC schools, have met with them and will add them asap.

The BIG 12 including the incoming schools is highly competitive in college football. Cincinnati was in the playoff just last year. TCU and Baylor have been qualified but left out for political reasons in the past decade and OK State was maybe one loss away last year.

In bowls the BIG 12 existing and new defeated multiple power teams showing just how strong and competitive the conference still is and will be without OU or overrated Texas:

KSU 42, LSU 20
Baylor 21, Ole Miss 7
Ok State 37, ND 35
Texas Tech 34, MS State 7
Alabama 27, Cincy 6
Clemson 20, ISU 13
MN 18, WVU 6
Houston 17, Auburn 13
UCF 29, Florida 17

Meanwhile in the listless PAC 12 an ofer

Ohio State 48, Utah 42
Central MI 24, Wash State 21
Wisconsin 20, ASU 13
No 16 OU 47, No 14 Oregon 32

In the regular season alone, BYU defeated FIVE Pac schools including the top ones
Arizona, Utah, ASU, Washington State, USC all lost to BYU

The PAC hasn't been to the playoff at all with anyone in like 6 years. Cincy was in it just last year and the newer BIG 12 has had more NY6 participants as well:


B12--
Baylor 3
Cincinnati 2
OK State 2
UCF 2
TCU 1
Houston 1
ISU 1
Total 12


PAC--
Utah 3
Washington 3
Arizona 1
Stanford 1
Utah 1
Total 9


Look at the CFP standings from just last season

Cincinnati 4
Baylor 7
Ok State 9
BYU 13
Houston 20


Meanwhile in the PAC
Utah 11
Oregon 14

There isn't much comparable about the newer BIG 12 and the leftover PAC--its just more spin from the Pac 12 trying to paint it as such. The BIG 12 is the superior conference by a long shot.

 

[Rootmaster]

Good post.

 

[steeleer]

The current Big 12 is equal to the current PAC 12 now that it is without USC and UCLA. The options available to add to the PAC 12 are far worse than UCF, Cincy, or BYU. The two conferences are not vastly different in quality. If we cannot agree on that, just stop reading or responding because you are wrong and too illogical to understand why. Every team in either conference would jump at an invite from the SEC or Big 10. At issue is that the Big 12 teams are unlikely to be invited to either the Big 10 ir SEC in comparison to some of the remaining PAC 12 teams. Hence it would be foolish not to consider the more stable landing spot, even if it is a lateral move, than risk being left in an AAC equivalent conference which is exactly what the PAC 12 becomes if it loses 2-4 of its best remaining members.

Agree with all the above except for the current PAC 12 being equal to the current Big 12. We have OK for another 3 years until proven otherwise. Even without them, the B12 is better.

 

[westsiderSJHS77]

Oregon is the only “jewel” left in the PAC.

Stanford will only get an invite if it’s in the deal to get NotreDame into the BIG.

 

[steeleer]

Oregon is the only “jewel” left in the PAC.

Stanford will only get an invite if it’s in the deal to get NotreDame into the BIG.

Stanford 10 years ago would have gotten in no problem. Losing Harbaugh really started a downward spiral. They did well for another few years or so, but not so much now.

 

[Buckaineer]

Oregon is the only “jewel” left in the PAC.

Stanford will only get an invite if it’s in the deal to get NotreDame into the BIG.

Seems that markets are still most important. Only way Texas, USC and UCLA could be so valued as additions supposedly.

It sure isn’t on field success in the last decade plus.

With Oregon not sure there is a market but they do have the recently bought football successes.

 

[Tylerite]

I don’t believe it is about markets, brands, and on field success now. It is about about who’s in charge and their backgrounds and relationships with certain schools and people.

 

[Rootmaster]

I don’t believe it is about markets, brands, and on field success now. It is about about who’s in charge and their backgrounds and relationships with certain schools and people.

You mean kind of like how the Dems cheat on elections to destroy the working man and woman? Yeah reality doesn't count.

 

[MichiganHerd]

I actually think Stanford has a great opportunity to be absorbed into the B1G, if the B1G opted to go after them. Athletics wise, their programs across the board are always solid, which is why they're either at the top or close to the top in the annual athletic directors cup standings. Toss in the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose market, and that's a decent draw. With that said, their only hope (as many have stated) is if Notre Dame decided to join the B1G and request that they come along for the ride. I doubt ND will do so, but we'll know soon enough, once the TV deals are announced. Stanford > Oregon, despite them having shiny uniforms.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

Agree with all the above except for the current PAC 12 being equal to the current Big 12. We have OK for another 3 years until proven otherwise. Even without them, the B12 is better.

I agree with that analysis. I was compromising with the poster I was responding to in order to show that, even if the Big 12 was a lateral move in the here and now for any remaining PAC 12 teams, that a move to the Big 12 still has the foreseeable upside in comparison to staying put.

 

[Jason Voorhees]

The current Big 12 is equal to the current PAC 12 now that it is without USC and UCLA. The options available to add to the PAC 12 are far worse than UCF, Cincy, or BYU. The two conferences are not vastly different in quality. If we cannot agree on that, just stop reading or responding because you are wrong and too illogical to understand why. Every team in either conference would jump at an invite from the SEC or Big 10. At issue is that the Big 12 teams are unlikely to be invited to either the Big 10 ir SEC in comparison to some of the remaining PAC 12 teams. Hence it would be foolish not to consider the more stable landing spot, even if it is a lateral move, than risk being left in an AAC equivalent conference which is exactly what the PAC 12 becomes if it loses 2-4 of its best remaining members.

The bottom line is no more teams are leaving the pac for the foreseeable future. There is no financial incentive for Pac teams to leave for the Big 12 conference. The big 12 is nothing more than the AAC on steroids. The pac can add Boise state which based on performance over the last 20 years is better than anything the Big 12 just added. They can add San Diego state SMU. Whatever they add doesn't' help The Pac that much. The teams the Big 12 added are nothing but dead weight as well. whether you realize it or not. Any way you slice it its still 2nd tier.

 

[Buckaineer]

Laughable claim of the day "there is no financial incentive for Pac schools to join the BIG 12".

First--the BIG 12 is not at the negotiating table yet, but what we do know is that ALL projections show that the BIG 12 is going to be ahead of the PAC--which has already been lowballed and is going to have to go to open market to try to get any deal. And these aren't message board posters, they are the people in the industry who valuate conferences ahead of their media rights negotiations.

On top of that, the BIG 12 is FAR more likely to participate in playoffs and major bowls than the PAC is.

Sure the PAC is pumping out propaganda left and right to try to hold the few schools that want to remain there there. But real viewing numbers, fan numbers, athletic success--everything that matters shows the BIG 12 to be ahead.

Now who knows if the PAC schools are going to just hold on to wait for Oregon, Stanford, Washington to also leave. Who knows if they'll be happy to fork over revenues to those schools just to get them to sign for a couple of years instead of blowing up right now.

But to claim there isn't a financial incentive reminds one of the lies the ACC told FSU and Clemson to keep them in that severely underpaid conference which is waiting to blow up? Just a bogus claim with nothing to back it up.

 

[OlegeezEER]

The current Big 12 is equal to the current PAC 12 now that it is without USC and UCLA. The options available to add to the PAC 12 are far worse than UCF, Cincy, or BYU. The two conferences are not vastly different in quality. If we cannot agree on that, just stop reading or responding because you are wrong and too illogical to understand why. Every team in either conference would jump at an invite from the SEC or Big 10. At issue is that the Big 12 teams are unlikely to be invited to either the Big 10 ir SEC in comparison to some of the remaining PAC 12 teams. Hence it would be foolish not to consider the more stable landing spot, even if it is a lateral move, than risk being left in an AAC equivalent conference which is exactly what the PAC 12 becomes if it loses 2-4 of its best remaining members.

Why can't the Pac 12 teams just wait it out to see what happens? The Pac 12 may or may not get raided again but if they do the teams that get left behind would actually know their fate.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

Why can't the Pac 12 teams just wait it out to see what happens? The Pac 12 may or may not get raided again but if they do the teams that get left behind would actually know their fate.

They very well could. I'm not saying specific things are inevitable, I'm just saying trends make me believe the PAC 12 is far more likely to lose their better remaining teams to poaching than the Big 12. A PAC 12 down USC, UCLA, and 2 others that is forced to bring in something like Boise, Colorado State, SDSU, and Fresno State is a worse spot to be in than the post UT and OU Big 12. If current teams in the PAC 12 stay put and the PAC 12 is raided, the Big 12 can still invite from what's left. But some teams will be left behind even in that situation and the remenants of the raid will be reduced to a west coast AAC. Hence some PAC 12 teams may want to entertain courting the Big 12 if they are unlikely to get an invite from the Big 10/SEC in the next expansion and are worried about possibly being out maneuvered on jumping to the Big 12 if/when the PAC 12 is raided.

 

[Rootmaster]

Oh come on now. Let's not get stupid. The PAC has to solve this and get back to at least 12 during this media negotiations cycle. Comments are getting silly.

 

[The Bell Tolls for Thee]

The bottom line is no more teams are leaving the pac for the foreseeable future. There is no financial incentive for Pac teams to leave for the Big 12 conference. The big 12 is nothing more than the AAC on steroids. The pac can add Boise state which based on performance over the last 20 years is better than anything the Big 12 just added. They can add San Diego state SMU. Whatever they add doesn't' help The Pac that much. The teams the Big 12 added are nothing but dead weight as well. whether you realize it or not. Any way you slice it its still 2nd tier.

The bottom line is that while the Big 12 will never be the Big 10 or SEC, the post UT/OU Big 12 is undoubtedly a tier higher than the PAC 12 minus UCLA and USC given the programs available to the PAC 12 to add.

It is even more apparent if another 1-2 teams leave the PAC 12.

Lastly, why the hell do you think the Big 10 and SEC are expanding? It is not as simple as just adding value, it includes trying to kill competition. So a PAC 12 that maybe down 1-4 more teams in the next decade could try to limp along at a value less than the Big 12. But if 4 of the teams left in the PAC 12 can jump to the Big 12 in the event of another raid of the PAC 12, those teams increase their value and harm the value of another group of competitors.