Clemson isn't welcome... only room for one Death Valley in the SEC, and it resides in BR. The NCAA should make them rename their stadium regardless of where they play.
I worry about Texas, but if they join the PAC they must drop their baggage and meet the PAC's terms, they need us more than we need them now. If they don't like it, phuck em, we'll take Kansas, or BYU. that being said it would be a very tough conference. PAC 8 Washington Washington State Oregon Oregon State California Stanford UCLA USC PAC south Utah Colorado Arizona Arizona State Oklahoma Oklahoma State Texas Tech Texas
The PAC-16 is going to cover three time zones. It's going to be hard to send minor sports teams 1600 miles in the middle of a school week, not to mention expensive. The SEC would be wise to stay as compact as possible and keep more money in the bank.
I've never really considered this,.. it does sound expensive, and complicated too. Maybe in the minor sports, they could emphasize regional play; pods or something, to keep travel down.
I agree with this. I realize that a lot of folks are desperate for the Pac-12 to be the #1 conference in football. I get that, and I am cool with the passion of that, but is this the right way for that conference to go? USC historically runs that conference, in terms of football. Oregon has been an up-and-comer for sometime and currently sits atop the conference. Stanford is trying to get back into relevance in the conference as well. I'm trying to figure out why anyone out here would want to be challenged and potentially minimized due to the arrival of Oklahoma and Texas? Also, how odd is it that the Pac-10/12/14/16 or whatever it will be will border the SEC at Louisiana. And assuming that A&M comes into the SEC, the conference will overlap in Texas. I actually see the state of Texas coming out as THE winner in all of this. LSU will likely lose some recruits to A&M and Texas kids will have the chance to play in either major conference without having to leave the state. Does anyone really think that Oregon is going to come into Texas and clean up in terms of recruiting? I don't see it, and I think some CAL kids will have more options in terms of major college football and staying in the conference. Where am I wrong, please?
This is probably a good alignment given everyone's concerns out here on the left coast. It preserves the west coast teams who were the crux of the original Pac-8, mostly, and keeps the interior teams grouped closer together. My question is whether these parties are good with this? Particularly, how do the AZ programs feel about it? I am sure not many care, so maybe they can just be run over in getting this done. I am really concerned that in order to bolster themselves, the Pac-10 needs to reach into the South. What does that say? These schools are not in the same region of the country. Not even close, and the players are different. Can't say the same with the current SEC, which is why I am against adding a program like Missouri for ratings or geography or whatever. Same is probably true of WVA, but maybe to a lesser extent. A lot of SEC people are traditional when it comes to the South. I am one of those. As such, I am good with adding schools like FSU and aTm, which is in SE Texas. I'd even want to take (gulp) Miami before we got into a Missouri or something.
Being someone that has family in Miami. . . .the Missouri mindset would fit in FAR better than anything from Miami. Not to mention it's at least 4 hours closer to drive there.
I am thinking in terms of the type of player. I realize that Miami has recruited more nationally in the past, but the Florida player is much more like the SEC player than Missouri player. I also understand the geographic appeal of expanding to a place like Mo. with the St. Louis TV market, and maybe even the KC market. But I agree with the others here who want to see the SEC stay compact within our region. Bringing in FSU and Miami does little to enhance the SEC's geographic and market-share footprint, but, to me at least, it is the right thing to do over the alternative, which runs the risk of diluting the league too much. $.02
Speaking for myself, I was pretty content with the PAC10, except it was at least a notch below the best conferences. It's clear, the writings been on the wall for a while now, change was/is coming. Personally I like the challenges the 4 new teams would bring. The PAC16 champ would be a strong candidate for the big game. I don't think the Ducks would ever, fill up on Texas recruits, but I think our conference would gain a lot. Texas schools being part of the PAC, would create a natural recruiting conduit to the west. I don't have any idea concerning how Utah or Colorado feel about it. Ted Miller, espn, did an article recently mentioning that Arizona, and State hate the idea of being separated from the Southern Cal teams, I think they will be run over,.. out voted with little choice. My impression is USC and UCLA lean towards keeping the PAC8 together. The Northwest and Bay area schools, would never allow them to go south.
So why is the Pac-10 so ready to do this? Is it for the quest of potential relevance/supremacy in college football? Are some schools selling their souls for this? In a conference proposed as such, USC would NEVER run it like it once did. A school like Oregon runs the risk of having a lot of it's gains wiped out. You guys have the mother of all benefactors and that is a huge advantage. You have great facilities and that is another huge advantage, but you have little to no natural talent pool and that is a huge disadvantage. It is a gamble for a school like Oregon and some of the lesser schools run the distinct possibility of total irrelevance other than sharing the pot of money at the end of the year, which is probably why they are for it. I am surprised that I haven't seen more articles out of the west coast discussing the disadvantages of this expansion, but I'm also surprised to see the lack of similar articles from La. concerning aTm and the possible impact on LSU's Texas recruiting.
