tOfficial PAC-12 Thread

duckboy33 said:
I wish both conferences could just trim the fat and just include the best of what both have to offer.

West:
Washington
Oregon
Stanford
California
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
BYU

East:
Colorado
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Baylor
Texas Tech
Click to expand...
That could have happened but you guys balked.

When Texas and OU left you guys could have cherry picked the Big 12 easily instead all of you guys were like I don't see any value in adding any of the teams. Guess what now you are going to be hat in hand asking to be let into the Big 12 and do it on their terms.
 
Wild Turkey said:
That could have happened but you guys balked.

When Texas and OU left you guys could have cherry picked the Big 12 easily instead all of you guys were like I don't see any value in adding any of the teams. Guess what now you are going to be hat in hand asking to be let into the Big 12 and do it on their terms.
Click to expand...

As discussed earlier in this thread, USC killed off the idea of expansion. With the LA schools, vast expansion wasn't really needed at the time. The timing of USC and UCLA leaving has left the PAC in a tough spot. If they left at the same time UT and OU left, the Big 12 and PAC 12 remaining schools would both be in better positions.

Either the PAC will sign a deal in the same neighborhood as the Big 12 (which is still my prediction) or they'll have to join the Big 12. I have no idea what it means by "it will be on their terms". If they try to add PAC teams on lesser shares, then it won't make sense financially to join.
 
Someone said it right, Cal and Stanford are the issue with Pac12 because of their perceived sense of self importance about certain schools. BYU, for example, could have been a great fit years ago but got passed up for their different politics.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Someone said it right, Cal and Stanford are the issue with Pac12 because of their perceived sense of self importance about certain schools. BYU, for example, could have been a great fit years ago but got passed up for their different politics.
Click to expand...

Once the PAC added Utah, I don't think BYU really brought that much value to the conference. The bigger miss was not landing Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State back in 2009 or 2010(?). Getting big brands in the central time zone is really what the conference needed.
 
duckboy33 said:
As discussed earlier in this thread, USC killed off the idea of expansion. With the LA schools, vast expansion wasn't really needed at the time. The timing of USC and UCLA leaving has left the PAC in a tough spot. If they left at the same time UT and OU left, the Big 12 and PAC 12 remaining schools would both be in better positions.

Either the PAC will sign a deal in the same neighborhood as the Big 12 (which is still my prediction) or they'll have to join the Big 12. I have no idea what it means by "it will be on their terms". If they try to add PAC teams on lesser shares, then it won't make sense financially to join.
Click to expand...
I see everything is USC's fault.

It's funny because I remember vividly (and no I'm not going to pull posts so don't ask) but all of you guys were on board and preaching that none of the leftovers added anything. The rest of us were like you guys should combine but no it didn't make any sense.

You know what really made sense:

1. Adding Texas and OU when you had the chance no matter who else you had to take. Don't tell me if you had agreed to take Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them and allowed Texas to keep the LHN they wouldn't have come. Wouldn't you love to have OSU and TT now.

2. It made a ton of sense to raid the B12 and take OSU, Kansas, Baylor and Texas Tech or TCU when OU and TX left.

3. It would have made sense to have added BYU years ago.

The PAC doesn't use good sense to make decisions and no its not all USC's fault and if it truly is then that's your fault for giving them that much power.
 
duckboy33 said:
Once the PAC added Utah, I don't think BYU really brought that much value to the conference. The bigger miss was not landing Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State back in 2009 or 2010(?). Getting big brands in the central time zone is really what the conference needed.
Click to expand...
Just doubling down on that lack of sense thing I see.
 
Wild Turkey said:
I see everything is USC's fault.

It's funny because I remember vividly (and no I'm not going to pull posts so don't ask) but all of you guys were on board and preaching that none of the leftovers added anything. The rest of us were like you guys should combine but no it didn't make any sense.

You know what really made sense:

1. Adding Texas and OU when you had the chance no matter who else you had to take. Don't tell me if you had agreed to take Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them and allowed Texas to keep the LHN they wouldn't have come. Wouldn't you love to have OSU and TT now.

2. It made a ton of sense to raid the B12 and take OSU, Kansas, Baylor and Texas Tech or TCU when OU and TX left.

3. It would have made sense to have added BYU years ago.

The PAC doesn't use good sense to make decisions and no its not all USC's fault and if it truly is then that's your fault for giving them that much power.
Click to expand...

Ahh, back to your usual straw man tactics. I get your fishing for attention, shame on me for falling for it.
 
Chip Brown of 247 saying "Nothing is done. Terms are still being discussed, but I’m hearing if terms can be agreed upon, an invitation for SMU to join the Pac-12 could be extended within a week."
 
duckboy33 said:
Ahh, back to your usual straw man tactics. I get your fishing for attention, shame on me for falling for it.
Click to expand...
See by definition a strawman argument has a logical fallacy. My argument has none and you have no real rebuttal because you have no argument against it.

I mean you proved my argument with your BYU comment claiming they brought no value. Well, the Big 12 picked them up and are getting 7 million more a school than the PAC has been offered.

Enjoy the state of Texas because you are going to be traveling there soon pretty frequently and remember you are part of the problem of why this is happening.
 
duckboy33 said:
Chip Brown of 247 saying "Nothing is done. Terms are still being discussed, but I’m hearing if terms can be agreed upon, an invitation for SMU to join the Pac-12 could be extended within a week."
Click to expand...
Pop the champagne! You passed on OU, TX, OSU, TT and BYU to pick up SMU.

Homerun buddy.
 
duckboy33 said:
Once the PAC added Utah, I don't think BYU really brought that much value to the conference. The bigger miss was not landing Texas, TT, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State back in 2009 or 2010(?). Getting big brands in the central time zone is really what the conference needed.
Click to expand...
Which was a Cal issue. Fuck Cal.
 
Wild Turkey said:
Pop the champagne! You passed on OU, TX, OSU, TT and BYU to pick up SMU.

Homerun buddy.
Click to expand...
No it’s really Cal blocked Baylor from joining the conference costing essentially the demise of the conference but still ended up having to glad hand an inferior religious school in SMU.
 
Wild Turkey said:
I see everything is USC's fault.

It's funny because I remember vividly (and no I'm not going to pull posts so don't ask) but all of you guys were on board and preaching that none of the leftovers added anything. The rest of us were like you guys should combine but no it didn't make any sense.

You know what really made sense:

1. Adding Texas and OU when you had the chance no matter who else you had to take. Don't tell me if you had agreed to take Oklahoma State and Texas Tech with them and allowed Texas to keep the LHN they wouldn't have come. Wouldn't you love to have OSU and TT now.

2. It made a ton of sense to raid the B12 and take OSU, Kansas, Baylor and Texas Tech or TCU when OU and TX left.

3. It would have made sense to have added BYU years ago.

The PAC doesn't use good sense to make decisions and no its not all USC's fault and if it truly is then that's your fault for giving them that much power.
Click to expand...
No. It is ALL Texas fault.
 
duckboy33 said:
Chip Brown of 247 saying "Nothing is done. Terms are still being discussed, but I’m hearing if terms can be agreed upon, an invitation for SMU to join the Pac-12 could be extended within a week."
Click to expand...
How in the world does that help the PAC? You are adding for the sake of adding. Fox and ESPN aren't going to suddenly pony up hundreds of millions more because you landed SMU and SDSU.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
How in the world does that help the PAC? You are adding for the sake of adding. Fox and ESPN aren't going to suddenly pony up hundreds of millions more because you landed SMU and SDSU.
Click to expand...

My guess is they are hearing that they need more inventory and they don’t have to pay those two schools a full share. I doubt they would be adding if the media partners weren’t telling them to do it. Nobody is suggesting that those two will add hundreds of millions to the media contract. That’s a WT posting tactic
 
Last edited:
WhosYourDawggy said:
How in the world does that help the PAC? You are adding for the sake of adding. Fox and ESPN aren't going to suddenly pony up hundreds of millions more because you landed SMU and SDSU.
Click to expand...
Makes about as much sense as the Big 12 adding Houston. Not much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top