Pac12 expansion - looking to add 4 teams

ralphiewvu said:
lol

So delusional

I 100% asked a question about PAC expansion. Do you really think I believed Wyoming and UNM were some sort of rival to WSU??? It was your latest post at the time, that’s why I quoted it.

You didn’t, you gave some half cocked dumbass response for WSU.

This was never in question. My question was about the PAC adding folks, not just WSU.
Click to expand...
If you are going to stick with that line of thinking then I can’t help you. You specifically replied to my post then went full tard with Wyoming and New Mexico. Not sure why you can’t just the L and move on

Here is a bit of advice. Next time you want to bring up expansion create your own post and not reply to a post that clearly is satire
 
ralphiewvu said:
When did this happen? Not saying you are wrong I'm curiously asking. And yes, I know they aren't WSU rivals :dhd:
Click to expand...
This happened the day the 4 of us got left at alter. If my memory serves me correctly all 4 of us agreed to rebuild with SDSU and once Boise State was brought up they decided to play on the East Coast. Larry Scott gets a lot hate but Cal and Stanford are the primary reason the entire conference imploded
 
wazzu31 said:
If you are going to stick with that line of thinking then I can’t help you. You specifically replied to my post then went full tard with Wyoming and New Mexico. Not sure why you can’t just the L and move on

Here is a bit of advice. Next time you want to bring up expansion create your own post and not reply to a post that clearly is satire
Click to expand...
There is no L to take. We both misunderstood while you pretended to think I meant Wyoming and UNM were some sort of rival to WSU.

I was generally curious your opinion on the options I listed as you are the only fan of the PAC 2 I know on here. I didn't really think it'd be a big issue or you'd have a problem answering but I guess I overestimated in that regard.
 
Collegefbfan said:
This is coming from someone that lives deep in ACC country. I don't know why anyone would want to join this conference. Unless it is mainly for academics. By the end of the season, the ACC will probably have two ranked teams. I didn't and still don't see the reasons for adding Cal and Stanford especially in a sports sense. SMU maybe a tiny bit, but still way out of region, not that that matters anymore. Currently, the PAC 12 wouldn't be looking for so many teams to try and reconstruct the conference if Cal and Stanford stayed put.
Click to expand...
Yes, they would. Cal and Stanford would rather drop down to FCS than be associated with the schools that make up the new Pac 12. They put up with Oregon State and Washington because they were in the same conference as USC and UCLA. That is no longer the case. The ACC in its present form is still more appealing than the Pac-12. It's wild that anyone would suggest otherwise. The ACC is dying. The Pac-12 is already dead. Adding MWC schools doesn't change that fact. If the ACC is ever raided by the Big Ten and SEC, then they will be in the same boat. ACC money for the next twelve years is more valuable than Pac-12 money.
 
outofyourmind said:
I just stopped by to see why this thread is approaching 600 posts.


Backing Up Homer Simpson GIF
Click to expand...
its always ralphie, lmao.
 
ericd7633 said:
I agree the Pac had no plan. The old commissioner did a really poor job at evaluation. Apparently, before CU, OU and UW left they had a deal on the table for basically what the B12 is getting and he turned it down. Massive mistake.

I'd say it's a stretch to consider that a power conference. The Arizona schools are inconsistent and Stanford has been down for a while now. My guess is with those 7/8 and additions they'd be looking at something like $21-$22 million or so. I think with Oregon and Washington, the proposed P12 deal was right around $30 or so.
Click to expand...
The B12 got 31.7 for the new media deal when the networks knew UT and OU wouldn't be there while 3 G5s and whatever BYU was considered were effectively taking their spot. It's crazy to think the PAC teams and new additions couldn't get at least close to that. There is nothing indicating the CFP playoff money with the B12 and that PAC would be different and I doubt they'd lose their power status if the B12 didn't.
 
ralphiewvu said:
There is no L to take. We both misunderstood while you pretended to think I meant Wyoming and UNM were some sort of rival to WSU.

I was generally curious your opinion on the options I listed as you are the only fan of the PAC 2 I know on here. I didn't really think it'd be a big issue or you'd have a problem answering but I guess I overestimated in that regard.
Click to expand...
New Mexico nor Wyoming are options. UNLV is the only team left in the MWC that fits what the members are looking for.
 
Hitman Hart said:
Yes, they would. Cal and Stanford would rather drop down to FCS than be associated with the schools that make up the new Pac 12. They put up with Oregon State and Washington because they were in the same conference as USC and UCLA. That is no longer the case. The ACC in its present form is still more appealing than the Pac-12. It's wild that anyone would suggest otherwise. The ACC is dying. The Pac-12 is already dead. Adding MWC schools doesn't change that fact. If the ACC is ever raided by the Big Ten and SEC, then they will be in the same boat. ACC money for the next twelve years is more valuable than Pac-12 money.
Click to expand...
If Cal and Stanford were actually getting ACC money then I’d agree with you. But they aren’t. But you can have them, they are not welcome back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top