Author
Topic: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?
(Read 28752 times)

847badgerfan · « **Reply #238 on:** September 14, 2024, 08:47:17 AM »

Also much closer to campus than Sam Boyd was.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #239 on:** September 14, 2024, 08:55:27 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on September 14, 2024, 07:35:05 AM

So you know the full details of their deal with the ACC?

I heard on the internets......that they'd have to take a 2/3 pay cut to go back to this shit version of the Pac-12.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #240 on:** September 14, 2024, 09:02:46 AM »

They are getting zero share this year, half-share next year and the following, then up to 2/3 through year 10.

They should be in the PCC, not the ACC, and they can take UCLA, USC, UDub and UNike with them.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #241 on:** September 14, 2024, 09:04:08 AM »

If Stanford and Cal want to be in a diluted Pac 12, then they are smart enough to have stayed put instead of joining the ACC.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #242 on:** September 14, 2024, 09:38:39 AM »

The Big Ten f'd over the Pac by admitting USC and UCLA.

Entropy · « **Reply #243 on:** September 14, 2024, 09:42:01 AM »

yes, the Big did.. But the Pac10 messed up when they didn't make the move on the Big12. I know those conversations were the reason UNL left and wouldn't stick around, but from a PAC10 point of view, not wanting to taking oSu or TT seems silly now.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #244 on:** September 14, 2024, 09:57:07 AM »

Quote from: Entropy on September 14, 2024, 09:42:01 AM

yes, the Big did.. But the Pac10 messed up when they didn't make the move on the Big12. I know those conversations were the reason UNL left and wouldn't stick around, but from a PAC10 point of view, not wanting to taking oSu or TT seems silly now.

I thought the PAC wanted Texas, aTm, TTU, OU, oSu and Colorado.

utee94 · « **Reply #245 on:** September 14, 2024, 10:00:08 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on September 14, 2024, 09:57:07 AM

I thought the PAC wanted Texas, aTm, TTU, OU, oSu and Colorado.

Yup that was the 6 that were headed over. Then aTm decided they'd rather look East, Colorado took the bid ASAP because they'd always wanted to go to the PAC anyway, even back in the old Big 8 days, and then ESPN and Fox came up with enough money to keep the B12 competitive.

If that last bit hadn't happened then the 5 plus maybe Baylor would have gone to the PAC.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #246 on:** September 14, 2024, 10:14:10 AM »

And Nebraska and Missouri seemingly always wanted in the Big Ten.

The Big Ten didn't need USC and UCLA.

California is losing millions of people (the ones with income).

Why go there to expand? Why take Washington? They bring what exactly? We know what Oregon is - a cancer.

This sucks.

They should have been going hard after Miami, FSU, GT, UNC, UVA and ND. All in growing states and making the conference contiguous.

FearlessF · « **Reply #247 on:** September 14, 2024, 10:14:17 AM »

seems we can ALWAYS blame ESPN

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #248 on:** September 14, 2024, 11:01:06 AM »

The Big Ten is the culprit of the 2 biggest problems in college football the last 30 years.

Their insistence on keeping the RB matchup with the PAC denied us 1 vs 2 matchups for far too long.
1991 Washington could have played Miami. Nope!
Nebraska vs UM in 1997? Nah. We need to go play Washington State.....because reasons.
Penn State vs.....Nebraska in 1994? Nah. Let's play some Oregon team who is barely ranked.
You could have denied Spurrier his NC, but no. You saddle Bobby Bowden with an overmatched rematch.

I'm all for tradition, it's part of what makes college football great. But it's also important not to be a slave to tradition. When the alternative is better, you do the alternative.

And then adding west-coast teams and taking the geographical tradition of college football and throwing it in the trash can. So now that opens it up for everyone else to just do whatever the hell, including Cal and Stanford in the ACC. It's stupid.

Slave to tradition, then blowing the doors off tradition (and logic). The Big Ten has been bi-polar and it's made everything worse.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #249 on:** September 14, 2024, 11:16:48 AM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on September 14, 2024, 11:01:06 AM

The Big Ten is the culprit of the 2 biggest problems in college football the last 30 years.

Their insistence on keeping the RB matchup with the PAC denied us 1 vs 2 matchups for far too long.
1991 Washington could have played Miami. Nope!
Nebraska vs UM in 1997? Nah. We need to go play Washington State.....because reasons.
Penn State vs.....Nebraska in 1994? Nah. Let's play some Oregon team who is barely ranked.
You could have denied Spurrier his NC, but no. You saddle Bobby Bowden with an overmatched rematch.

I'm all for tradition, it's part of what makes college football great. But it's also important not to be a slave to tradition. When the alternative is better, you do the alternative.

Or maybe their adherence to tradition meant that we avoided the NFL-ization of college football for another decade. If we'd BCS'd it all the way back then maybe we'd have had a 12-team playoff by 2014, not 2024. Wouldn't that be swell?

Quote

And then adding west-coast teams and taking the geographical tradition of college football and throwing it in the trash can. So now that opens it up for everyone else to just do whatever the hell, including Cal and Stanford in the ACC. It's stupid.

Slave to tradition, then blowing the doors off tradition (and logic). The Big Ten has been bi-polar and it's made everything worse.

I'd accept the argument that taking Penn State and then Nebraska were early surgical strikes in the realignment wars.

But I think taking USC/UCLA was more a reaction to the SEC taking TX/OU.

Once both TX/OU and USC/UCLA happened, either the Big 12 or the PAC was going to die. And the Big 12 had a better TV deal.

So I think the SEC is equally complicit in this one.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #250 on:** September 14, 2024, 11:25:58 AM »

Taking Penn State hurt nobody.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #251 on:** September 14, 2024, 11:32:18 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on September 14, 2024, 11:16:48 AM

But I think taking USC/UCLA was more a reaction to the SEC taking TX/OU.

Once both TX/OU and USC/UCLA happened, either the Big 12 or the PAC was going to die. And the Big 12 had a better TV deal.

So I think the SEC is equally complicit in this one.

Adding schools in footprint-adjacent states did what now?

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

847badgerfan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

847badgerfan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

847badgerfan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

Entropy

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

847badgerfan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

utee94

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

847badgerfan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

FearlessF

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

847badgerfan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?