ASU's Steve Patterson will be next AD at Texas

[itgoeslike]

S W A I M has been tweeting today about the possibility of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State moving to the PAC-12. He says that it would only take 40% of the schools leaving to nullify the Big 12 GOR. I think he's wrong, but I haven't been able to find out what percentage it would be anywhere else. Does anyone know? If it's really 40%, that would seem to defeat the purpose of a GOR.

I read somewhere (quite a awhile ago) that the B12 GOR was dependent on a majority of the conference staying intact, perhaps as much as 2/3, which is the real reason behind Texas' stance against expansion (they want to preserve their options) and why many teams with fewer CR options have been pushing for expansion. Texas can easily coax 3 teams to move in concert with them, but with 12 or 14 teams in the conference, it becomes more complicated. The clock is ticking, and January/February may bring change that will force expansion. Then again, maybe I've been hitting the moonshine a tad bit too hard.

 

[Gfunk]

There intentions are clear...Texas to Pac16 inevitable

I don't know about that. Based on some Internet sources sorry, so sorry, Luck wasn't necessarily keen on a potential UT to BIG. The new AD may have worked at ASU and got his degree at UT, but he was born and raised in Wisconsin. Just saying.

 

[pj]

I don't know about that. Based on some Internet sources sorry, so sorry, Luck wasn't necessarily keen on a potential UT to BIG. The new AD may have worked at ASU and got his degree at UT, but he was born and raised in Wisconsin. Just saying.

From Texas's point of view, a 9-team B1G West of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue would be a big upgrade over the B12, covering the same geographic region but with much better schools. It's even better compared to a geographically dispersed 12 or 14 team B12. Also a division they could expect to win routinely, given their recruiting advantages. Doubt they'd favor the Pac over that, given the travel burden and 2 time zone difference.

I have to believe discussions with the B1G are serious and if Texas can keep its Longhorn network, this could happen.

 

[mike012]

Unless B1G gives them some sweet deal with the long horn network there is no reason to go there. If I had a choice between Pac 16 or B1G I am going West to Cali.. better football schools there. By a really big margin if you ask me plus much better recruiting areas as well. Plus why choose the guy from ASU, when Luck was the big pick this whole time. Clearly they don't have any intentions of saving there current conference... Plus with Texas A$M doing so well now.

 

[Gfunk]

Unless B1G gives them some sweet deal with the long horn network there is no reason to go there. If I had a choice between Pac 16 or B1G I am going West to Cali.. better football schools there. By a really big margin if you ask me plus much better recruiting areas as well. Plus why choose the guy from ASU, when Luck was the big pick this whole time. Clearly they don't have any intentions of saving there current conference... Plus with Texas A$M doing so well now.

I fundamentally disagree & I think historical facts prove my case. The Pac12 has a slight advantage, head-to-head, on the BIG in Rose Bowls and historical OOC games & that's in large part because of the past decade of BIG mediocrity & big programs like Michigan, OSU and PSU dealing with scandals and seismic coaching changes - replacing JoPa, Tressel and Llyod Carr was more challenging than USC losing Carrol. Don't forget that Wisky came damn close to winning it's past two Rose Bowls against a Pac12 opponent. They weren't even the best BIG team last year, they lost 3 games in conference & took Stanford, clearly the second best Pac12 team, to the wire, Oregon the year before & the Buckeyes did beat Oregon recently. The Pac12 won most of their Rose Bowls playing the second best BIG team, esp USC because OSU played in other BCS games or the BCSCG - twice. The ultimate difference lies in the fact that USC, and USC only, has a fantastic Rose Bowl record & that venue may not be their home stadium, but it's their adopted second home. You subtract USC's Rose Bowl record from the equation, the BIG vs the rest of the Pac12, all time, tilts BIG by a noticeable margin. There is really only one blue-blood-king football program in California: USC & they are a fine, fine program, one of the top 3, all-time, in my opinion - no arguments here.

California may produce the most FBS and NFL talent, but it's no based on per-captia numbers - it's because of their huge population. They don't even crack the top 10.

http://usafootball.com/news/press-b...-most-nfl-players-california-tops-states-miam

Cali is already over-recruited by the Pac12, esp the California schools (4 total) - USC, UCLA, Stanford and Cal. Throw in the fact that Utah and Colorado are already putting major efforts into California pipelines - I believe Cali hs football is maxed out. We all know that UT can take care of itself, in-state. But if you introduce OU to California via conference affiliation, along with UT, there will be so many average to frequent cellar-dwellers in the Pac12, who simply cannot compete with their resources. I think the Pac12 stands to benefit more by getting into Tx, because as it stands, they are stretched thin in recruiting. People tend to forget that OU is a Tx hs football junkie, they can't succeed without these pipelines, albeit OU fans seem to think they would fall off the Earth if they don't share a conference with UT. I think such is overstated, their historical ties to Tx are quite entrenched at this point, and they are a border state - Norman is a quick drive to the Dallas Metroplex - less than 3 hours. OU had plenty of success in the Big8 where no Tx schools had membership.

Moreover, the Pac12 is already the most spread out conference in terms of travel amongst major conferences - the AAC comes close, but it's not one of the big boys at this point. The west deceives average fans when looking at a map, but those are big states with a lot of mountainous terrain. The AAC, on the other hand, has the advantage of being in the eyes of the central and eastern time zones - we've heard the East Coast-Midwest bias, and for not so fair reasons.

If UT can bring OU and KU into the BIG, it will merely mirror what they have now in the Big12, but with stronger traditions, larger venues, greater academic prestige. UT may be slightly down in football, but they can live with such an alignment, I'm sure they like their chances better in a BIG West - travel and time zone issues outweigh say the possibility of losing say better competition in college baseball. In the two sports that produce the most revenue, basketball & football, they'll make far more money in the BIG. As it stand now, BIG basketball is better than the Pac12 & by comfortable margins. In football, the Pac12 holds a noticeable edge in the BCS era. But the gap between the BIG and Pac12 is smaller than the gap between the Pac12 and SEC.

 

[pj]

Culturally, California is shifting away from interest in football to soccer. The rising Hispanic population isn't interested in football and coastal whites are concerned about concussion risk. I agree that California football is pretty well maxed out. I think there is room for some schools to recruit better there, San Diego State would do well if they got in a major conference, so would UNLV, but that's just more competitors for the likes of Texas. I think Texas would have to look at its home state as its chief recruiting ground and would look to level of competition, cultural fit, travel in Olympic sports, and money as the major factors. B1G scores well there.

 

[UConnJim]

From Texas's point of view, a 9-team B1G West of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue would be a big upgrade over the B12, covering the same geographic region but with much better schools. It's even better compared to a geographically dispersed 12 or 14 team B12. Also a division they could expect to win routinely, given their recruiting advantages. Doubt they'd favor the Pac over that, given the travel burden and 2 time zone difference.

I have to believe discussions with the B1G are serious and if Texas can keep its Longhorn network, this could happen.

I think Texas would prefer the Pac 12. Why? An eastern division of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, and Utah is pretty attractive. In addition, there are no political problems for Texas and Oklahoma as little brothers come too.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Culturally, California is shifting away from interest in football to soccer. The rising Hispanic population isn't interested in football and coastal whites are concerned about concussion risk. I agree that California football is pretty well maxed out. I think there is room for some schools to recruit better there, San Diego State would do well if they got in a major conference, so would UNLV, but that's just more competitors for the likes of Texas. I think Texas would have to look at its home state as its chief recruiting ground and would look to level of competition, cultural fit, travel in Olympic sports, and money as the major factors. B1G scores well there.

An NFL team in LA (will happen in the next 5-10 years) would likely change that quite a bit.

 

[Gfunk]

I think Texas would prefer the Pac 12. Why? An eastern division of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, and Utah is pretty attractive. In addition, there are no political problems for Texas and Oklahoma as little brothers come too.

You may be right about UT preferring the Pac12, but I just can't see the Pac12 signing off on both OkSt and TT - no way! The Pac12 is nearly as elitist as the BIG when it comes to academic likeness. As a whole, in terms of population as opposed to number of states, the Pac12 leans more left than the BIG. Even bluer BIG states have a more like-minded cultural base with the lower Plains and Southwest than the Left Coast, granted Minnesota, Md, Jersey, Michigan and Illinois are entrenched blue states, but not on the level of Oregon, California and Washington (<-- and that's a similar population spread, of the two, the West Coast sample has a slightly larger total population).

 

[Gfunk]

An NFL team in LA (will happen in the next 5-10 years) would likely change that quite a bit.

Even with an NFL team, Cali wouldn't be much different than how the Northeast and Midwest love their NFL football, but continue, as a greater whole, to de-emphasize prep football. What soccer bashers never seem to realize is that there are more sports fans than they think who prefer constant movement, action & less tv commercials, despite less points on the board, than the constant pauses in football and overwhelming commercialization. Of course, I love me some pro football and it's the perfect betting game, but the other futbol clearly prevails on a global scale, and that will never change.

I've spent plenty of time in California to know that the average person there embraces the outdoors and alternative sports, which partly explains why the Cali Pac12 teams have amassed hundreds and hundreds of NCAA titles in less popular Olympic sports.

I really think football will become a regionalized sport on the prep level, yet remain quite popular on the national level amongst a stable of traditional college powers and of course the NFL. The game has to become safer and pr issues need to be addressed or people will turn off.

Colder states may inevitably go with standard, privatized prep football development and call it a day, less high schools playing and perhaps the top 100 kids from each state will be split up amongst 2-4 teams and travel a national high school circuit in the fall and early winter, and then some spring ball. I think such a model would absolutely close the gap, though never equal the level of the Southeast and certain Sun Belt states. I'm not explaining my idea fully here, but year round, specialized prep football in the North is not a new idea & we'll see more of it to come. Ohio and Indiana are certainly going down this path Indiana's prep football is on the rise, albeit the pipeline isn't big enough to address Purdue, ND, IU and Ball State's needs - but it's an emerging prep infrastructure. If Illinois approached football like they do with non-hs basketball, and Minnesota modeled traveling football like their prep hockey, regional recruiting bases will improve. I'm just citing a few examples. It's an "assets" and "capability" issue, along with the desire to transform culture, these issues were raised in a similar vein at yesterday's symposium between UofMd alum - staff and Jim Delany. Right now too many BIG states are on the fence with the "capability" part.

 

[UConnJim]

You may be right about UT preferring the Pac12, but I just can't see the Pac12 signing off on both OkSt and TT - no way! The Pac12 is nearly as elitist as the BIG when it comes to academic likeness. As a whole, in terms of population as opposed to number of states, the Pac12 leans more left than the BIG. Even bluer BIG states have a more like-minded cultural base with the lower Plains and Southwest than the Left Coast, granted Minnesota, Md, Jersey, Michigan and Illinois are entrenched blue states, but not on the level of Oregon, California and Washington (<-- and that's a similar population spread, of the two, the West Coast sample has a slightly larger total population).

Well, if we use US News rankings here's the Pac 12:

5 Stanford
20 Cal
23 UCLA
23 USC
52 Washington
86 Colorado
109 Oregon
119 Arizona
121 Utah
128 Washington St.
142 Arizona St.
142 Oregon St.

Now, let's look at Texas, TT, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St.:

52 Texas
101 Oklahoma
142 Oklahoma St.
161 Texas Tech

Sure, Ok St and TT would be at the bottom, but Ok St is tied with 2 current Pac 12 schools and TT is only somewhat below.

Remember, if the Pac 12 went to 16 teams, there would be two 8 team divisions and I think the traditional Pac 8 would love this:

Western (Old Pac 8): USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St.
Eastern: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Ok St., Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Colorado

If the Pac 12 is ever going to 16 teams, this is the only option as they are not adding schools like Nevada, UNLV, San Diego St., Fresno St., BYU, Boise St., Utah St., ...

 

[gioff23]

You forget the PAC could have had UT and OU (and their red headed step kids) a few years back. The deal unraveled because every non-Cali school wants to be in the same division as one or more Cali schools, so they can guarantee a trip there regularly. While they were exploring 4 pods, the east/west model does not solve the problems they could not overcome then. You've simply made recruiting for the eastern schools more difficult by separating the schools on the beach from those embedded in rock formations.

 

[UConnJim]

You forget the PAC could have had UT and OU (and their red headed step kids) a few years back. The deal unraveled because every non-Cali school wants to be in the same division as one or more Cali schools, so they can guarantee a trip there regularly. While they were exploring 4 pods, the east/west model does not solve the problems they could not overcome then. You've simply made recruiting for the eastern schools more difficult by separating the schools on the beach from those embedded in rock formations.

Texas decided they didn't want the Pac 12 at the time, although Oklahoma did. Without Texas, the Pac 12 wasn't interested.

The Pac 12 would gladly take Texas and the 3 other schools into the conference. Think about this: The Pac 16 would have the #1 brand schools in both California (actually #1, 2, 3, & 4) and Texas (#1 and #3 or 4) as well as Arizona (#1 and #2), Washington (#1 and #2), Oregon (#1 and #2), Utah (#1), Colorado (#1), and Oklahoma (#1 and #2) and it would have a footprint that dwarfs any other conference. The media deals would be the better than any other conference.

And, don't you think the original Pac 8 would love to be in a division together? Sure, some schools would not play football in California every year, but neither Utah nor Colorado belonged to California-centric conferences before joining the Pac 12. The real losers would be Arizona and Arizona St, but they recruit Texas as well and having Texas and Texas Tech in the conference would improve recruiting there for them.

 

[Limbo Land]

Just a slightly better cluster c k than what we have now.

Are you kidding... that would be one hell of a basketball conference and a servicable football conference. Better then we are in now and to be honest we can't be to picky. Out team sucks right now. We will get better in the future but right now... eeeehhhh.

 

[Gfunk]

Well, if we use US News rankings here's the Pac 12:

5 Stanford
20 Cal
23 UCLA
23 USC
52 Washington
86 Colorado
109 Oregon
119 Arizona
121 Utah
128 Washington St.
142 Arizona St.
142 Oregon St.

Now, let's look at Texas, TT, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma St.:

52 Texas
101 Oklahoma
142 Oklahoma St.
161 Texas Tech

Sure, Ok St and TT would be at the bottom, but Ok St is tied with 2 current Pac 12 schools and TT is only somewhat below.

Remember, if the Pac 12 went to 16 teams, there would be two 8 team divisions and I think the traditional Pac 8 would love this:

Western (Old Pac 8): USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St.
Eastern: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Ok St., Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Colorado

If the Pac 12 is ever going to 16 teams, this is the only option as they are not adding schools like Nevada, UNLV, San Diego St., Fresno St., BYU, Boise St., Utah St., ...

Well the BIG or Pac12 really don't put much emphasis on US InflateNews, perhaps more on their graduate school rankings, & then they overrate AAU like the BIG, and truly value research, which I find respectable and more important than undergraduate rankings. God, I even think the Pac12 uses AAU referencing in their network's commercials, if I'm not mistaken. Thus, 8 of 12 are AAU. So suddenly Oregon, Colorado and Arizona's lower rankings carry much more merit with such metrics. The Pac12 also holds the distinction of having a top half that's USNews better than the BIG: Cal, UCLA, Stanford, USC and Washington. That's likely better than the ACC's top half as well, albeit the ACC holds stronger rankings in the undergraduate level due to a lot of expensive private schools and east coast bias, which I believe exists, often for the wrong reasons.

The vote by the Pac12 was pretty clear a couple years back, they weren't interested in the Big12 outside UT. Powers was using his Cal connections, and the former UT president, Yudof, was top dog for all the UC schools at one point, so his influence was in there too.

I don't necessarily agree with your last sentence. I think the Pac12 is willing to sacrifice AAU status for schools that are closer than the Big12 candidates. Nevada schools are for the taking, and one such school, UNLV, is building a nice football stadium. The Pac12 held their basketball tourney in Vegas last year. But you're right, they won't take most of those schools. A dark horse for the Big12 is Colorado State, which may have a nice, new stadium soon. Colorado and Utah are growing states with a lot of former California residents. The Pac12 is less concerned about doubling up in states & the Rams give the Buffaloes a nice in-state rival. Boulder is a long ways from most of the Pac12.

 

[Gfunk]

You forget the PAC could have had UT and OU (and their red headed step kids) a few years back. The deal unraveled because every non-Cali school wants to be in the same division as one or more Cali schools, so they can guarantee a trip there regularly. While they were exploring 4 pods, the east/west model does not solve the problems they could not overcome then. You've simply made recruiting for the eastern schools more difficult by separating the schools on the beach from those embedded in rock formations.

I don't think you're right. They voted against going to 16. As for just UT and OU, I don't know.

 

[NickyNewark]

I fundamentally disagree & I think historical facts prove my case. The Pac12 has a slight advantage, head-to-head, on the BIG in Rose Bowls and historical OOC games & that's in large part because of the past decade of BIG mediocrity & big programs like Michigan, OSU and PSU dealing with scandals and seismic coaching changes - replacing JoPa, Tressel and Llyod Carr was more challenging than USC losing Carrol. Don't forget that Wisky came damn close to winning it's past two Rose Bowls against a Pac12 opponent. They weren't even the best BIG team last year, they lost 3 games in conference & took Stanford, clearly the second best Pac12 team, to the wire, Oregon the year before & the Buckeyes did beat Oregon recently. The Pac12 won most of their Rose Bowls playing the second best BIG team, esp USC because OSU played in other BCS games or the BCSCG - twice. The ultimate difference lies in the fact that USC, and USC only, has a fantastic Rose Bowl record & that venue may not be their home stadium, but it's their adopted second home. You subtract USC's Rose Bowl record from the equation, the BIG vs the rest of the Pac12, all time, tilts BIG by a noticeable margin. There is really only one blue-blood-king football program in California: USC & they are a fine, fine program, one of the top 3, all-time, in my opinion - no arguments here.

California may produce the most FBS and NFL talent, but it's no based on per-captia numbers - it's because of their huge population. They don't even crack the top 10.

http://usafootball.com/news/press-b...-most-nfl-players-california-tops-states-miam

Cali is already over-recruited by the Pac12, esp the California schools (4 total) - USC, UCLA, Stanford and Cal. Throw in the fact that Utah and Colorado are already putting major efforts into California pipelines - I believe Cali hs football is maxed out. We all know that UT can take care of itself, in-state. But if you introduce OU to California via conference affiliation, along with UT, there will be so many average to frequent cellar-dwellers in the Pac12, who simply cannot compete with their resources. I think the Pac12 stands to benefit more by getting into Tx, because as it stands, they are stretched thin in recruiting. People tend to forget that OU is a Tx hs football junkie, they can't succeed without these pipelines, albeit OU fans seem to think they would fall off the Earth if they don't share a conference with UT. I think such is overstated, their historical ties to Tx are quite entrenched at this point, and they are a border state - Norman is a quick drive to the Dallas Metroplex - less than 3 hours. OU had plenty of success in the Big8 where no Tx schools had membership.

Moreover, the Pac12 is already the most spread out conference in terms of travel amongst major conferences - the AAC comes close, but it's not one of the big boys at this point. The west deceives average fans when looking at a map, but those are big states with a lot of mountainous terrain. The AAC, on the other hand, has the advantage of being in the eyes of the central and eastern time zones - we've heard the East Coast-Midwest bias, and for not so fair reasons.

If UT can bring OU and KU into the BIG, it will merely mirror what they have now in the Big12, but with stronger traditions, larger venues, greater academic prestige. UT may be slightly down in football, but they can live with such an alignment, I'm sure they like their chances better in a BIG West - travel and time zone issues outweigh say the possibility of losing say better competition in college baseball. In the two sports that produce the most revenue, basketball & football, they'll make far more money in the BIG. As it stand now, BIG basketball is better than the Pac12 & by comfortable margins. In football, the Pac12 holds a noticeable edge in the BCS era. But the gap between the BIG and Pac12 is smaller than the gap between the Pac12 and SEC.

No one in the populous NE,SE or Midwest should want to play those low rated late night PST games IMO ?? Most of us have CFB overload by the time their games are featured! The fans in most of those P12 schools aren't very rabid either...quite the culture shock for the Texahoma fans I'd think!Its very rare at least for me to get interested in PAC FB.

 

[NickyNewark]

You may be right about UT preferring the Pac12, but I just can't see the Pac12 signing off on both OkSt and TT - no way! The Pac12 is nearly as elitist as the BIG when it comes to academic likeness. As a whole, in terms of population as opposed to number of states, the Pac12 leans more left than the BIG. Even bluer BIG states have a more like-minded cultural base with the lower Plains and Southwest than the Left Coast, granted Minnesota, Md, Jersey, Michigan and Illinois are entrenched blue states, but not on the level of Oregon, California and Washington (<-- and that's a similar population spread, of the two, the West Coast sample has a slightly larger total population).

But all the "slight population gain" is located in CA with the rest of it in the mountains,deserts or wilderness!The B1G is pretty evenly populated from Ill to NJ and in for TV purposes a better time zone!

 

[Stinger92860]

Yesterday:
MH3‏@MH34 Nov
I'm hearing UT will announce Luck as the new Athletic Director on either Sunday evening or next week on Monday morning.

Today:
Dave Colangeli‏@MegaMeebs2h
@MH3 looks like you've heard wrong, yet again.

MH3‏@MH355m
@MegaMeebs not really. Something changed.

I'm not dead yet.....

These guys are buffoons.