Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

Oregon would have no warm feelings for this league. They think we are some backwoods hillbilly. They, IMO, feel we are below them. We are just now getting rid of these types of teams. I'm not a fan of bringing another one in.

Yeah, I don't want any of the Pac12 schools. STFA

blackie said:

---

Oregon would have no warm feelings for this league. They think we are some backwoods hillbilly. They, IMO, feel we are below them. We are just now getting rid of these types of teams. I'm not a fan of bringing another one in.

---

Well they can end up in MWC if they refuse to be realistic. I think the XII will take a certain number of PAC schools but won't go above that number (and I don't think it is a large number actually). If Oregon says no we aren't going to come back for them as we then look east in a few years and the B10 has pretty much repeatedly said Oregon doesn't do enough to make their pie bigger.

Oregon's behavior is about the equivalent of Baylor, Tech, OSU or TCU delusionally expecting a call from the SEC any day now or if the XII was in the verge of collapse.

If we expand, I hope it's with former Pac12 schools. A couple of our new additions are frankly already an overreach, and we shouldn't dilute the revenue stream simply for expansion's sake

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

If the B1G expands, then yes.

MrGolfguy said:

---

Yeah, I don't want any of the Pac12 schools. STFA

---

I don't either, but Brett Yormark definitely does. So if the opportunity arises, we'll take a handful of them.

Oregon and Washington are the only two programs that move the needle for me, but both would be unbearable as conference mates.

I'm still rooting for the PAC-12 to hold together with a couple of G5 additions and for the Big 12 to move on without adding faux elites from the West Coast that don't really have any desire to be here.

I'm in favor of bringing in schools that will add to our already stacked MBB league. Hoops heavyweights across all 4 time zones will give us blanket coverage in that sport.

As for football, there aren't any teams left that will improve our brand so we might as well get used to it and quit kicking around the same old tired names of schools who are also 'left behinds'.

No Quarterback said:

---

If we expand, I hope it's with former Pac12 schools. A couple of our new additions are frankly already an overreach, and we shouldn't dilute the revenue stream simply for expansion's sake

---

The new TV contract stipulates the only way the money could increase is that is has to be Power 5 schools. .so that rules out SMU Tulane Fresno St etc.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

If we expand, I hope it's with former Pac12 schools. A couple of our new additions are frankly already an overreach, and we shouldn't dilute the revenue stream simply for expansion's sake

---

The new TV contract stipulates the only way the money could increase is that is has to be Power 5 schools. .so that rules out SMU Tulane Fresno St etc.

---

Logic should rule out SMU, Tulane, Fresno etc for us. I personally think it would be hilarious if Yourmark only offers 2 PAC schools to save slots for some future ACC remnants, and Oregon is not one we offer. Oregon is going to end up screwed. I don't think the B10 is coming for them.

Oregon and Washington don't want to be in the Big 12. In an odd way, the goal should be to stabilize the conference and freeze the board. Take the schools that would add value but that the SEC and Big10 won't want.

The four corners schools, NC State. VaTech, etc… it will stabilize the Big12 in that we won't get poached, but we'll have quality inventory. It'll freeze the board in that it will kill negotiating leverage for the Oregons/UNCs of the world with the BigTen/SEC.

I have seen that stated about Oregon and UW and perhaps that is the attitude of the fans being attributed to the officials at those school. Either way the real choice seems to be MWC or a MWC like conference or seek the XII if the PAC actually collapses. I'm not even sure the XII would offer them to be honest they are both at geographic disadvantage to everywhere else in the country.

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

LagunaBear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

---

I agree, but it does sort of beg the question. Why do any of these universities want to play this game of big $$ for football? I imagine there are at least some conversations about how sports help raise the profile of the university to attract more students and do new and different things through education. It isn't JUST to pay the football coach more money. Certainly those same reasons to be in this game are true for Stanford as well.

wongobear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

---

I agree, but it does sort of beg the question. Why do any of these universities want to play this game of big $$ for football? I imagine there are at least some conversations about how sports help raise the profile of the university to attract more students and do new and different things through education. It isn't JUST to pay the football coach more money. Certainly those same reasons to be in this game are true for Stanford as well.

---

Not sure that Stanford needs sports, at least at a high level, to attract students or research grants, and the like. Their reputation in the classroom is undisputed. Does Rice get students because of sports? Does Johns Hopkins? Independent would be fine for them. I could never see them interested in a conference that is dominated by the middle west, and ones with academic reputations that do not approach what they have.

I would go so far to say that I suspect a vast majority of their students either don't care about sports or they are happy to be involved in Olympic type sports sans basketball. In other words, ones that are not driven by big money and the sleaziness that goes on with those sports. Sports that for many on these boards have never attended and have no interest in attending.

wongobear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

---

Certainly those same reasons to be in this game are true for Stanford as well.

---

Actually, not so much. Stanford doesn't need football to raise applications and the like as other universities might. All of the reasons that other universities benefit from high-profile football teams affects Stanford hardly at all, if at all. Even when I was there (8 years ago) there was already serious discussion about whether the university wanted to remain at its current "level" of football participation (tons of support for all the Olympic sports though).

blackie said:

---

Oregon would have no warm feelings for this league. They think we are some backwoods hillbilly. They, IMO, feel we are below them. We are just now getting rid of these types of teams. I'm not a fan of bringing another one in.

---

They are geographically undesirable. Oregon to Florida would be as hard to get to as could be for non revenue sports.

A Tuesday Oregon WVU woman's basketball game?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

blackie said:

---

Oregon would have no warm feelings for this league. They think we are some backwoods hillbilly. They, IMO, feel we are below them. We are just now getting rid of these types of teams. I'm not a fan of bringing another one in.

---

They are geographically undesirable. Oregon to Florida would be as hard to get to as could be for non revenue sports.

A Tuesday Oregon WVU woman's basketball game?

---

This. People keep implying that PAC teams pushing back against joining the Big 12 is primarily an ego or perception isuse, when, in reality, travel would be ridiculous and extremely cost prohibitive. It's to the point that PAC teams would be better off making notably less money - if it came to it - by staying in the PAC vs joining the Big 12.

Yormark wants to offer TV networks all 4 time zones. He has made that clear. I expect us to be adding at least 2 from the west coast. It wouldn't surprise me if we added 3 from the west and one more from the east. That would give us 4 'pods' similar to what the SEC is planning to do.

blackie said:

---

wongobear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

---

I agree, but it does sort of beg the question. Why do any of these universities want to play this game of big $$ for football? I imagine there are at least some conversations about how sports help raise the profile of the university to attract more students and do new and different things through education. It isn't JUST to pay the football coach more money. Certainly those same reasons to be in this game are true for Stanford as well.

---

Not sure that Stanford needs sports, at least at a high level, to attract students or research grants, and the like. Their reputation in the classroom is undisputed. Does Rice get students because of sports? Does Johns Hopkins? Independent would be fine for them. I could never see them interested in a conference that is dominated by the middle west, and ones with academic reputations that do not approach what they have.

I would go so far to say that I suspect a vast majority of their students either don't care about sports or they are happy to be involved in Olympic type sports sans basketball. In other words, ones that are not driven by big money and the sleaziness that goes on with those sports. Sports that for many on these boards have never attended and have no interest in attending.

---

Ok then, so to what extent does Baylor actually need sports? If we dropped out or even down a level, would it make a difference to the purpose of the university? I'm pretty sure we'd still get plenty of big-haired baptist girls looking for their Mrs degree even if we played Incarnate Word every year.

Stanford (and Baylor) are likely looking at this as a chance to be included among the top tier of . . . everything. Or maybe they aren't, and we'll see them fade into the background of sports.

wongobear said:

---

blackie said:

---

wongobear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

---

I agree, but it does sort of beg the question. Why do any of these universities want to play this game of big $$ for football? I imagine there are at least some conversations about how sports help raise the profile of the university to attract more students and do new and different things through education. It isn't JUST to pay the football coach more money. Certainly those same reasons to be in this game are true for Stanford as well.

---

Not sure that Stanford needs sports, at least at a high level, to attract students or research grants, and the like. Their reputation in the classroom is undisputed. Does Rice get students because of sports? Does Johns Hopkins? Independent would be fine for them. I could never see them interested in a conference that is dominated by the middle west, and ones with academic reputations that do not approach what they have.

I would go so far to say that I suspect a vast majority of their students either don't care about sports or they are happy to be involved in Olympic type sports sans basketball. In other words, ones that are not driven by big money and the sleaziness that goes on with those sports. Sports that for many on these boards have never attended and have no interest in attending.

---

Ok then, so to what extent does Baylor actually need sports? If we dropped out or even down a level, would it make a difference to the purpose of the university? I'm pretty sure we'd still get plenty of big-haired baptist girls looking for their Mrs degree even if we played Incarnate Word every year.

Stanford (and Baylor) are likely looking at this as a chance to be included among the top tier of . . . everything. Or maybe they aren't, and we'll see them fade into the background of sports.

---

Baylor's application rate from rising HS juniors and seniors has gone through the roof as its sports profile has significantly increased in the last 10-12 years. Higher application rates means higher rated incoming classes and a better ability to shape incoming classes.

Baylor is (a) in Texas and (b) while a superior and improving academic institution, is not (yet) Stanford or Rice in terms of academics (not really even close yet) - Baylor undeniably benefits from strong athletics and undeniably suffers from poor athletics.

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

TV contracts will dictate this very soon.

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I don't see the first sentence here being accurate at all.

If we do, then I don't expect the league to reach the Pacific Ocean. I could see Schools like Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, and maybe Colorado if it really goes to **** w/ the PAC. I don't see any California, Oregon or Washington wanting to be members.

wongobear said:

---

blackie said:

---

wongobear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

---

I agree, but it does sort of beg the question. Why do any of these universities want to play this game of big $$ for football? I imagine there are at least some conversations about how sports help raise the profile of the university to attract more students and do new and different things through education. It isn't JUST to pay the football coach more money. Certainly those same reasons to be in this game are true for Stanford as well.

---

Not sure that Stanford needs sports, at least at a high level, to attract students or research grants, and the like. Their reputation in the classroom is undisputed. Does Rice get students because of sports? Does Johns Hopkins? Independent would be fine for them. I could never see them interested in a conference that is dominated by the middle west, and ones with academic reputations that do not approach what they have.

I would go so far to say that I suspect a vast majority of their students either don't care about sports or they are happy to be involved in Olympic type sports sans basketball. In other words, ones that are not driven by big money and the sleaziness that goes on with those sports. Sports that for many on these boards have never attended and have no interest in attending.

---

Ok then, so to what extent does Baylor actually need sports? If we dropped out or even down a level, would it make a difference to the purpose of the university? I'm pretty sure we'd still get plenty of big-haired baptist girls looking for their Mrs degree even if we played Incarnate Word every year.

Stanford (and Baylor) are likely looking at this as a chance to be included among the top tier of . . . everything. Or maybe they aren't, and we'll see them fade into the background of sports.

---

As some others have implied, I don't think you have the same type demographic of student attending Stanford vs. Baylor. They have different interests. And Stanford's academics are so far better than what we offer, especially when considering the grants and research that goes on there. The vast majority of students at Baylor come from the South or Southwest. They have attended high schools that go ga-ga over football. Many have never ever even participated in a good chunk of the sports that Stanford offers. As such, raising the football profile for a place like Baylor is a magnet. Stanford doesn't need that magnet. Their academics and philosophies are their magnet. They would probably be happy if it was geographically possible to be in the Ivy League.

There is nothing wrong with fading into the background of sports depending on what you want to get out of college. As an older fan I wish that I could lessen my interest such that I didn't get down when Baylor loses. There are plenty of times I wish that we all could turn down sports a bit. Around here, it too often can define the quality of your university in the minds of a sports-crazed public. Has little effect on the Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, Johns Hopkins, and MITs of the world. I suspect sports is very low on the priority list of students wanting to attend these types of institutions.

blackie said:

---

wongobear said:

---

LagunaBear said:

---

wongobear said:

---

A whole thread of speculation and no mention of Stanford at all. They are soooo rich. Their endowment is almost as big as the entire state of Texas education endowment. Double digit billions.

Stanford will be in whatever deal gets made (if they want to be).

---

I could see Stanford going independent if the PAC collapses. They want nothing to do with most of us.

---

I agree, but it does sort of beg the question. Why do any of these universities want to play this game of big $$ for football? I imagine there are at least some conversations about how sports help raise the profile of the university to attract more students and do new and different things through education. It isn't JUST to pay the football coach more money. Certainly those same reasons to be in this game are true for Stanford as well.

---

Not sure that Stanford needs sports, at least at a high level, to attract students or research grants, and the like. Their reputation in the classroom is undisputed. Does Rice get students because of sports? Does Johns Hopkins? Independent would be fine for them. I could never see them interested in a conference that is dominated by the middle west, and ones with academic reputations that do not approach what they have.

I would go so far to say that I suspect a vast majority of their students either don't care about sports or they are happy to be involved in Olympic type sports sans basketball. In other words, ones that are not driven by big money and the sleaziness that goes on with those sports. Sports that for many on these boards have never attended and have no interest in attending.

---

Maybe Stanford should just give up sports altogether. Would they really be missed?
Same goes for Cal.

ScottS said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

TV contracts will dictate this very soon.

---

This is where I get a feel that there is something else at play. The West Coast is very into revenue diversification, alternate revenue streams and cross-silo revenue. I have no idea if I am right or wrong, but my dealings with Silicon Valley and places like Oregon/Washington I am see more creative revenue generation investigation than other places for example Vehicle Miles Traveled in Oregon to replace Gas Tax in the public sector. SIlicon Valley you can't go to a meeting and not hear "monetization" 100 times. I see no reason to believe that CFB out there is insulated from this thinking.

PartyBear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I don't see the first sentence here being accurate at all.

---

Who knows? You know what they say about opinions. All I know is that after all the talk on here how bad the PAC is as a conference, they are still there, no one else has left and they are looking at expanding.

RMF5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I don't see the first sentence here being accurate at all.

---

Who knows? You know what they say about opinions. All I know is that after all the talk on here how bad the PAC is as a conference, they are still there, no one else has left and they are looking at expanding.

---

The PAC-12 has serious issues. But I think Big 12 fans underestimate the sense of (largely unwarranted) superiority those schools feel over the Big 12 and the massive priority gap the two conferences have between athletics and academics. These schools do not want to make that move. It would be a last resort ... and would only happen if there was no path forward for the PAC-12.

That could happen this round -- the Athletic article was pretty damning -- but I still think the PAC-12 holds together for at least a few more years.

bear2be2 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Briles said:

---

Any chance we land 1 or 2 Pac-12 schools after 2024? Would love to see Oregon and Colorado (re)join the conference. Oregon obviously has a great football reputation and having Prime at the opposing sideline would be amazing.

---

I don't think the PAC goes away and will be a pain to the B12 when the next realignment comes down. They do not see themselves as being on the brink or subordinate to the B12 even as is. I also think they have a lower risk profile on exploring other revenue streams outside what the B12 believes will be there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

---

I don't see the first sentence here being accurate at all.

---

Who knows? You know what they say about opinions. All I know is that after all the talk on here how bad the PAC is as a conference, they are still there, no one else has left and they are looking at expanding.

---

The PAC-12 has serious issues. But I think Big 12 fans underestimate the sense of (largely unwarranted) superiority those schools feel over the Big 12 and the massive priority gap the two conferences have between athletics and academics. These schools do not want to make that move. It would be a last resort ... and would only happen if there was no path forward for the PAC-12.

That could happen this round - the Athletic article was pretty damning -- but I still think the PAC-12 holds together for at least a few more years.

---

I can see the PAC going to all on-screen games, no fans, little infrastructure and higher profit margins. On TV, game looks the same. Lowers overhead, so they don't need the same level of profit the big stadium schools need. They are already in-person spectator challenged and the system I describe dovetails with a lifestyle that they promote - Western Lifestyle, ski in the morning, swim in the afternoon and be connected to what you like all the while.

These are my ramblings based on my interactions with the Silicon Valley Automated Vehicle industry. No direct proof or data, just discussions with them on their vision for Automated cars connected to your office and entertainment. If you can shop, work, and do everything else why not watch your sports while doing other things. Why waste a day sitting in a concrete stadium? Just bar talk, which is why I like this site. To discuss ideas.

Keep in minding changes to work that are now expected after COVID lockdowns. Things we never would have considered.

https://www.outkick.com/asu-angry-with-pac-12-conference-open-to-leaving/

Stefano DiMera said:

---

https://www.outkick.com/asu-angry-with-pac-12-conference-open-to-leaving/

---

Naturally, IF they go that changes the forecast. Them leaving, even if they go independent, would be great for the B12. I hope they and UofA come to the B12. I do work with Uof A and like Tucson better than Phoenix. Gonna be there for a project in early March, I will ask around. Not sure the Engineering Department will know anything!