NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Is the PAC16 Concept Dead?
August 20, 2010, 06:55 PM
Ok, With the MWC/WAC (and maybe in CUSA getting involved) re-alignment going on, I think it shows that the underlying pressure for re-alignment is still there. The BigTen is still considering expansion, and heaven on knows what they are going to do. And Scott still says he thinks the PAC16 idea is a good idea and would work.

SO, is the PAC16 concept Dead? on long term hold? just slightly delayed?

If you were PAC Commissioner, what would you do? Are you better off waiting until other moves happen (or don't happen) so you know what the lay of the land is going to be, OR moving first so you get first choice of the teams out there and not leftovers?

And what would be you top 8 or 10 teams ranked in order if you could expand to 16. I know the PAC only needs 4, but what if one of your top 4 says no or go elsewhere?

I think my top 8 would be:
1) Texas (and I think it is pretty clear that Texas's first choice if the BigXII becomes unstable is the PAC, so that is pretty good match)
2) Oklahoma (and I think that is a pretty good match as well)
3) TAMU ( but I think TAMU prefers the SEC, and probably would NOT accept a PAC invite but rather take what seems to be a open offer to the SEC)
4) BYU (Best overall program as an individual program available at this point, BUT probably NOT invited because Texas and Oklahoma will want partners ...)
5) Texas Tech
6) Colorado State
7) Baylor
8) TCU
9) Oklahoma State
10) New Mexico

I think what will happen is Texas and Oklahoma and whatever little brothers they choose (Texas Tech and OSU is my guess) will be the 4.

But what if Oklahoma decides to split from Texas and they go to the SEC? then what? 4 Texas Teams - Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston (or SMU or Baylor?)

Or what if Texas decides to go Independent? Is Oklahoma and OSU enough of a draw without Texas?
August 20, 2010  10:53 PM ET

At this point, I think the (new) Pac 12 is just fine.

The Pac 10 was already a quality conf, and adding Utah should only make it better. And who knows, maybe Colorado will bring some of those big ole corn-fed midwestern recruits out west.

August 20, 2010  11:12 PM ET

I liked the proposal when it came out this summer and I think it would work from a competitiveness/scheduling point of view. However, Texas has every right to get the best deal they can financially, and they've made it pretty clear that they are not in favor of significant revenue sharing.

I know that the Pac10 financial have nots like, well, pretty much everybody except Stanford, USC and Oregon were looking forward to revenue sharing to pay their bills, so I can't blame the Horns for walking away. I remember someone at UT saying that unequal revenue distribution was not unreasonable, because UT has invested significant money in their program while other BCS schools have chosen not to. I have to agree.

August 22, 2010  02:11 PM ET
QUOTE(#2):

I liked the proposal when it came out this summer and I think it would work from a competitiveness/scheduling point of view. However, Texas has every right to get the best deal they can financially, and they've made it pretty clear that they are not in favor of significant revenue sharing. I know that the Pac10 financial have nots like, well, pretty much everybody except Stanford, USC and Oregon were looking forward to revenue sharing to pay their bills, so I can't blame the Horns for walking away. I remember someone at UT saying that unequal revenue distribution was not unreasonable, because UT has invested significant money in their program while other BCS schools have chosen not to. I have to agree.

Very well said.

 
August 23, 2010  08:54 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

I liked the proposal when it came out this summer and I think it would work from a competitiveness/scheduling point of view. However, Texas has every right to get the best deal they can financially, and they've made it pretty clear that they are not in favor of significant revenue sharing. I know that the Pac10 financial have nots like, well, pretty much everybody except Stanford, USC and Oregon were looking forward to revenue sharing to pay their bills, so I can't blame the Horns for walking away. I remember someone at UT saying that unequal revenue distribution was not unreasonable, because UT has invested significant money in their program while other BCS schools have chosen not to. I have to agree.

While I am all for each person/team making as much money as they can, I think there is one caveat here.

If I'm in a club with others, and the whole signs contracts, that money should be divided equally...and if I, as an individual, enter into contracts that I get because I am part of the club, that money should also be divided as I wouldn't have had the opportunity without my mates.

If I can sign a contract that diminishes the contracts with the club, then I should not enter into those contracts as it impacts the whole.

If I can enter into a contract that does NOT impact the others, then that money is mine.

HOWEVER...if I want to sign contracts individually and keep all monies, then I should go independent.

For example...Mississippi State is part of the SEC and all money is split evenly. Should MSU suddenly start winning the CC and even playing for/winning the NC, they will start getting exposure, playing on TV more often, etc. This was accomplished because of their affiliation with the SEC...without that partnership, they would have been able to recruit as well, or play the level of competition.

The point is that teams like TU, U$C, tOSU and OU have gotten those contracts because they were part of a conference. I don't think either would have survived during the lean years alone. As such, they should pay into the conference as a member. If they want to spend money to enhance their programs, then so be it...and perhaps they can, at some point, move to another conference or go independent. But while they are part of a conference, they should support all members.

Just my humble opinion

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Irving: Fans don't deserve the Cavs
    Views
    19240
    Comments
    683
  2. 2
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    922
    Comments
    531
  3. 3
    Red Sox dodged two injury scares
    Views
    3319
    Comments
    504
  4. 4
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    1058
    Comments
    264
  5. 5
    Trump taking a legit run at the Bills
    Views
    2711
    Comments
    109

SI.com

SI Photos