if the Pac 12 expands, i propose it should only include states where there is an In-N-Out…so that includes Nevada & Texas. what’s more West coast than In-N-Out? and hopefully In-N-Out will expand into WA soon too.
8 of the Pac-12 member institutions are AAU members (Association of American Universities). That list includes (with year of membership) -
Cal (1900)
Stanf*rd (1900)
Washington (1950)
Colorado (1966)
Oregon (1969)
USC (1969)
UCLA (1974)
Arizona (1985)
I make note of this only because the statement from earlier today mentions "...our ability as a conference to thrive...both academically and athletically" as an important factor.
The only remaining Big XII schools that are already AAU member institutions (excluding Texas) are Kansas (1909) and Iowa State (1958). I theorize that those two schools would be a better fit for the B1G, certainly from a geographic perspective. At least Kansas would bring serious basketball cachet to the table.
The Pac-12 is largely constrained by geography and academics. Any of the natural academic fits for the Pac-12 are either within the conference or have gone to greener pastures (both financially and geographically).
I can understand why the Pac-12 was rumored as the driving force behind the alliance with the B1G and the ACC, no matter how loose that alliance may be. It's a defensive move against being shoved down to mid-major status as a conference. If that were to happen there's no guarantee that some current members wouldn't want to explore greener pastures.
RE: "shoved down to mid-major status" -- I think it's safe to assume that would only happen to the Pac 12, in the current FBS, AFTER at least 2-3+ of the top Pac 12 revenue schools leave first (i.e. in no world is USC [or even Oregon at this point] in a mid-major conference). So, relegation wouldn't be the cause for them leaving, but instead them leaving would be the cause of the relegation, right? I think more likely than the Pac 12 across the board being relegated to a lower status in the current FBS paradigm is that there will be such a radical change in the NCAA (or major college football leaving the NCAA!) that our current concept of major/mid-major (i.e. P5/G5), or current conferences, is no longer relevant -- and there would probably be some individual casualties. Which brings up an interesting topic... to what degree do these legal/bureaucratic conference entities want to stay alive, regardless of their members, and are motivated independently of their members?
I read Wilners article where he looked at expansion and came to the conclusion that UH would be best fit for the Pac12. He decided that SDSU or any CSU wouldn’t be included in expansion because Cal and UCLA would block any such move.
I agree that the best move at the moment is to stay at 12 and maybe look at possible expansion again next off season.
Wouldn't Houston (or any other school in one of the AB 1887 states - https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887) be a non-starter for membership since Cal and UCLA couldn't travel there?
Not sure what to make of this. On one hand, none of the leftover Big 12 schools feel like particularly good fits. On the other hand, I want the conference to persevere. But I don’t trust the leadership across the Pac 12 schools to make the smart decision to protect the future of the conference.
For all of the pomp and circumstance, the alliance feels a bit like we're kicking the can down the road to buy time. I'm not sure what the right answer to solving this mess is, but thinking this alliance will allow the conferences to exist in their current iterations feels maybe more hopeful than practical. I fear eventually another chip will fall and we'll end up with an even less desirable outcome than if we had been bolder to begin with.
if the Pac 12 expands, i propose it should only include states where there is an In-N-Out…so that includes Nevada & Texas. what’s more West coast than In-N-Out? and hopefully In-N-Out will expand into WA soon too.
8 of the Pac-12 member institutions are AAU members (Association of American Universities). That list includes (with year of membership) -
Cal (1900)
Stanf*rd (1900)
Washington (1950)
Colorado (1966)
Oregon (1969)
USC (1969)
UCLA (1974)
Arizona (1985)
I make note of this only because the statement from earlier today mentions "...our ability as a conference to thrive...both academically and athletically" as an important factor.
The only remaining Big XII schools that are already AAU member institutions (excluding Texas) are Kansas (1909) and Iowa State (1958). I theorize that those two schools would be a better fit for the B1G, certainly from a geographic perspective. At least Kansas would bring serious basketball cachet to the table.
The Pac-12 is largely constrained by geography and academics. Any of the natural academic fits for the Pac-12 are either within the conference or have gone to greener pastures (both financially and geographically).
I can understand why the Pac-12 was rumored as the driving force behind the alliance with the B1G and the ACC, no matter how loose that alliance may be. It's a defensive move against being shoved down to mid-major status as a conference. If that were to happen there's no guarantee that some current members wouldn't want to explore greener pastures.
You forgot Utah. 9 out of 12.
RE: "shoved down to mid-major status" -- I think it's safe to assume that would only happen to the Pac 12, in the current FBS, AFTER at least 2-3+ of the top Pac 12 revenue schools leave first (i.e. in no world is USC [or even Oregon at this point] in a mid-major conference). So, relegation wouldn't be the cause for them leaving, but instead them leaving would be the cause of the relegation, right? I think more likely than the Pac 12 across the board being relegated to a lower status in the current FBS paradigm is that there will be such a radical change in the NCAA (or major college football leaving the NCAA!) that our current concept of major/mid-major (i.e. P5/G5), or current conferences, is no longer relevant -- and there would probably be some individual casualties. Which brings up an interesting topic... to what degree do these legal/bureaucratic conference entities want to stay alive, regardless of their members, and are motivated independently of their members?
Oh man. I got to hand it to Leland that the "cans plan to expand" title is outstand..ing.
dat assonance doe
I read Wilners article where he looked at expansion and came to the conclusion that UH would be best fit for the Pac12. He decided that SDSU or any CSU wouldn’t be included in expansion because Cal and UCLA would block any such move.
I agree that the best move at the moment is to stay at 12 and maybe look at possible expansion again next off season.
Wouldn't Houston (or any other school in one of the AB 1887 states - https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887) be a non-starter for membership since Cal and UCLA couldn't travel there?
That's a great point I didn't think of.
CGB blast from the past: https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2017/6/24/15869068/uc-berkeley-state-discrimination-travel-ban-cal-north-carolina-ole-miss-tcu-auburn
I am not sure how that would apply to membership. We are currently set to play at TCU in a few weeks so I’m not even sure how that works currently.
TCU (and later Auburn at the time) was already scheduled before the law so it was grandfathered in as an exception.
I figured it was grandfathered in.
Not sure what to make of this. On one hand, none of the leftover Big 12 schools feel like particularly good fits. On the other hand, I want the conference to persevere. But I don’t trust the leadership across the Pac 12 schools to make the smart decision to protect the future of the conference.
Sums up exactly how I feel. Stuck between a rock and a hard place
For all of the pomp and circumstance, the alliance feels a bit like we're kicking the can down the road to buy time. I'm not sure what the right answer to solving this mess is, but thinking this alliance will allow the conferences to exist in their current iterations feels maybe more hopeful than practical. I fear eventually another chip will fall and we'll end up with an even less desirable outcome than if we had been bolder to begin with.
Like the Oregon and USC leaving
Oregon can't be going as a power forever (Phil is 83)
Or movement with the Big 10 or ACC schools, which diminishes the Pac-12.