So the Pacific-10 Conference dreams of being the top dog in college sports crumbled Monday when Texas decided to keep the Big 12 together with 10 teams.
As of now, it’s the Pac-11 with Colorado with expectations of Utah getting an invite to make it a Pac-12. It just doesn’t have the same ring anymore, does it?
“University of Texas President Bill Powers has informed us that the 10 remaining schools in the Big 12 Conference intend to stay together,” Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said in an e-mail. “We are excited about the future of the Pac-10 Conference and we will continue to evaluate future expansion opportunities under the guidelines previously set forth by our Presidents and Chancellors.”
Utah AD Chris Hill said he’s not responding to rumors. So that means the Utes will be in the listening mode this week.
Oregon State AD Bob De Carolis told me last week he wanted to wait until conference expansion is completed before he makes a comment how this affects the Beavers. He turned out to be wise with that decision.
He could have said things were going great with Colorado and how the Pac-16 would be great, but now he would have to change his tune. De Carolis previously said expansion was good for the Beavers only if it brings significant revenue.
As it turns out, we’ll have to see how much revenue will come back. If Utah joins the conference, the Denver and Salt Lake City markets will give the Pac-12 better visibility in a TV contract deal, but how much? The Pac-10 network and conference championship game would still be in the works.
Will there be more money split up 12 ways instead of 10? That’s the formula Scott must believe or his tenure will be a bust already, in his first year.
Scheduling will be interesting for football. Do 12 teams break up into two six-team divisions? How do they breakup, northwest plus newcomers with the Bay Area, L.A and Arizona schools together?
That means OSU misses out of the every other year of USC coming to town. That’s a big money game. Also, L.A. is a big recruiting area and all the schools want to visit there once a year. That won’t happen for OSU if not in the same division as the L.A. schools.
This report says it’s northwest plus Bay Area in a division with newcomers, L.A. and Arizona schools together. That would be brutal to the northwest group. Any way you cut it, will hurts the Beavers.
Are there two or four crossover games with the other division for seven or nine total conference games? If there are two, all the ADs will be scrambling to fill out the schedule. And that is already a cause of major stress for the Beavers.
There are so many questions to work out with a 12-team conference. At least there’s a two-year buffer to figure it all out.
While Colorado and Utah have been talked about for a long time joining the Pac-10, this flirtation with a super conference makes a Pac-12 kind of bland.
And check out this video look at money being the backbone of these conference changes. I know, shocker.
9 comments
ean says:
Jun 15, 2010
This move can't be judged until the new TV contract is in place. If it brings back money it is good. I love my Beavs but as much as I love my Beavs I hate it when the athletic department has to borrow from the general fund. Yeah it is not fair that football has to carry the athletic department but it is what it is. Hopefully the Big-12 and Pac-10 can still get a joint TV network or something… although that bridge may be burnt.
On a side note: if I am not mistaken the Big-12 now has 10 teams and the Big-10 now has 12 teams? Man this is confusing.
ean says:
Jun 15, 2010
Also, I don't see the need to break it down into 2 6 team divisions. Just play 8 or 9 conference games and leave out a few of the teams. It will lead to more headache tiebreakers though.
JackBeav says:
Jun 15, 2010
The Big XII and Pac 10 can never have a combined network for the same reason that Texas remained in the Longhorn League. They would have to give the conference their media rights.
Dan Beebe has promised that the Longhorn League can pull in $170m per year in a market containing 11.5 million households. What they're claiming is that their product is twice as good as Big 10 or SEC products.
With that kind of valuation, Larry Scott can simply demand Big 10 money and look extremely conservative in the process. He'll probably get more.
And I don't like what I think will happen with divisional match-ups. I don't know why the NW schools would get lumped in with the newcomers. They're much closer to the Az and SoCal schools than they are to us. Besides, the NW and Bay Area schools were the charter members of our league, so it would be best to keep them together.
JackBeav says:
Jun 15, 2010
And if you're disappointed about not having a 16 team league, then you have only you to blame. Two weeks ago, we were just meandering along as some nondescript 10 team conference. Now we're the belle of the ball, and what was an assumed move (adding CU and UU) has become a media sensation with expected valuation through the roof.
Konce says:
Jun 15, 2010
I have been against Pac-10 expansion from the beginning, primarily because it most likely leads to North/South Division…and, as stated, that's bad for the Beavers. The 1 in 6 chance of playing in a Championship game does not, in my mind, overcome the detriment of not playing in the L.A. market every year (the very market that every team in the Pac-10 recruits the hardest). Also, gaining the Denver (for sure) market and the Utah (yet to be announced) is a little overrated. It's an addition, to be sure, but not such a big one as some would have you believe.
angrybeaver says:
May 18, 2012
Right.
This is a huge bust if Scott goes to 12 teams and splits north/south. Just leave it at 11 and keep round robin/remove 1 cream puff. Scott has a great case to have the (12 team) rule changed and get a title game with the #1/#2 team if the teams play that difficult a round-robin schedule.
http://angrybeavers.wordpress.com
SJ_Johnson says:
Jun 16, 2010
Not having Texas or Oklahoma in the Pac, 10, 12, 16 or whatever just means 2 less losses for the Beavs and the Ducks
mxpx5678 says:
Jun 16, 2010
I personally think that Texas will be surprised when they realize how little their own network would bring in. You might be able to sell ads during football season but good luck running the network during the rest of the year. Plus all the really big games will be on ESPN, ABC, Fox and CBS. They are saying oh if we just get a dollar from each person that wants to watch it, well listen you arent going to get people to pay more for their cable, it just wont work out that way.
WebTraveler says:
Jun 17, 2010
One thing I wondered was why didn't Scott pursue some of the other Big 10 schools and try to set up something else? For example, maybe Scott could have threatened to pull off a 10-team Big Mountain league or something (to avoid the scheduling issues to the west coast), it could have gone like Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Houston, TCU (? maybe issues with the liberal Pac 10), and so forth.; This threat could have forced Texas' hand….it would have forced Texas coming west or there was no Big 12 left to even compete in.
I still don't think the Big 12 will survive. One of these days Missouri will get an offer from someone. I am thinking if the SEC is looking to expand this might be a good fit – looking north to a bigger metro population, bit sill close to some of the SEC schools like Arkansas. Texas treats its conference partners like crap.