SuperPAC talk heats up again

S

Superman

All-Star
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...p-to-pac-12-sooner-rather-than-later/related/

In a piece he penned for the Austin American-Statesman titled “One more move and Big 12 is over”, venerable columnist Kirk Bohls puts the onus for the survival of the conferences squarely on the shoulders of the Oklahoma Sooners. And presumably, based on those he’s spoken to, the Norman school is ready to put its current conference out of its misery and head west.
Should Oklahoma act upon its earnest desires and seek an invitation to join the Pacific-12 Conference — something I’m fully expecting to happen within days, if not hours — that decision could well be the killing blow to the Big 12 while also providing Texas the political cover to follow suit and ask for admission as well.
​
“Oklahoma owns all the cards,” a Big 12 source added.
But wait. There’s more says television infomercial guy. Bohls continues painting a landscape-shifting picture of Texas privately hoping that their Red River rivals make the first in a series of moves — thus ensuring that “the Longhorns’ hands would be politically clean” — in what would result in, “probably before the calendar turns to October… [y]our new Pac-16 members: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.”
Click to expand...

Let's do it. Now that Texas did it's independent TV deal, and the Pac did their TV deal, this is an even bigger opportunity than it was last year. Hope they make it happen. And if we can add BYU and Boise State, it will be even better.
 
I would love a Super Pac.

BYU I'd be fine with. Good rivalry with Utah. Plays other sports than football though not to as high a level except the occasional good hoops team (and probably some random sport I have no interest in).

Boise had their chance, they may be right behind Miami in terms of the big sanctioning bat smashing the program, forget them.
 
Superman said:
Let's do it. Now that Texas did it's independent TV deal, and the Pac did their TV deal, this is an even bigger opportunity than it was last year. Hope they make it happen. And if we can add BYU and Boise State, it will be even better.
Click to expand...

It seems like some people think Texas would have a bit of trouble integrating into a PAC-16 because the PAC's TV deal is with FOX and Texas' is with ESPN, but I don't know how much of a problem that would cause.

In principle I do like the idea of a PAC-16, or PAC-West, or whatever you'd have to call it at that point. It separates neatly into an 8-team Pacific division (California, Oregon, Washington) and an 8-team "Inland" division (everybody else). One of the best things about the PAC-10 was the true round-robin in both football (9 conference games) and basketball (18 conference games). But that is lost in a the new PAC-12, anyway. With a PAC-16, for football, you'd have a true round-robin against division opponents (7 games), 2 games out-of-division (four year cycle), and then add a conference championship game; for basketball again a true round-robin against division opponents (14 games), 4 games out-of-division (two year cycle), and then the conference tournament with a slightly different structure.

So I think 16 is a lot "cleaner" than 12, and I like the strength of the proposed additions - especially if Texas is in the mix. 18 (adding BYU and Boise State) I'm not so hot about. I mean, at some point you do have to cap the size of the conference, and divisions and round-robins don't come off so cleanly with 18.

Looks like there might be some interesting movement any way you look at it, though. I do think that the former Big-12 is ready to crumble. Nebraska and Colorado left, A&M is all but gone, Missouri wants out, Kansas appears to be tempted by the Big East...if Oklahoma jumps ship, the whole house of cards comes down. Something to keep an eye on.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
It seems like some people think Texas would have a bit of trouble integrating into a PAC-16 because the PAC's TV deal is with FOX and Texas' is with ESPN, but I don't know how much of a problem that would cause.
Click to expand...

Reports say that the Longhorn Network would come under the umbrella of the Pac TV deal. I don't see why they can't coexist, even though they're different networks. I think that's more an internal conference issue with revenue sharing than anything else.

In principle I do like the idea of a PAC-16, or PAC-West, or whatever you'd have to call it at that point. It separates neatly into an 8-team Pacific division (California, Oregon, Washington) and an 8-team "Inland" division (everybody else). One of the best things about the PAC-10 was the true round-robin in both football (9 conference games) and basketball (18 conference games). But that is lost in a the new PAC-12, anyway. With a PAC-16, for football, you'd have a true round-robin against division opponents (7 games), 2 games out-of-division (four year cycle), and then add a conference championship game; for basketball again a true round-robin against division opponents (14 games), 4 games out-of-division (two year cycle), and then the conference tournament with a slightly different structure.

So I think 16 is a lot "cleaner" than 12, and I like the strength of the proposed additions - especially if Texas is in the mix. 18 (adding BYU and Boise State) I'm not so hot about. I mean, at some point you do have to cap the size of the conference, and divisions and round-robins don't come off so cleanly with 18.

Looks like there might be some interesting movement any way you look at it, though. I do think that the former Big-12 is ready to crumble. Nebraska and Colorado left, A&M is all but gone, Missouri wants out, Kansas appears to be tempted by the Big East...if Oklahoma jumps ship, the whole house of cards comes down. Something to keep an eye on.
Click to expand...

I agree about 16 > 18, but I really like BYU. Would be willing to let either Texas Tech or Oklahoma State fall somewhere else and replace them with BYU. That way we get the Utah/BYU rivalry game every year as a conference game. You already have the Red River Shootout with Texas/Oklahoma. A bunch of other in-conference rivalries. Doesn't make sense to have Utah without BYU.

I'm thinking about this mostly from a football perspective.
 
If the Regents are "approving" it, which probably means "pushing" it then it seems likely? Certainly a far more explosive move than the ACC's new adds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top