If t.u. had gone to the Pac like they wanted to do all a long, would the Pac still be a relevant conference today?

The Pac largely imploded because their commissioner screwed up their TV contract which leads me to think there is a slight chance it could reform with stronger leadership

No, t.u. would've arrived and then quickly convinced Washington, Oregon, UCLA and USC that they needed to leave the smaller schools behind and join another conference...

Burdizzo said:

---

If t.u. had gone to the Pac like they wanted to do all a long, would the Pac still be a relevant conference today?

The Pac largely imploded because their commissioner screwed up their TV contract which leads me to think there is a slight chance it could reform with stronger leadership

---

For the first point, yes we're living in a substantially different landscape if Texas, OU, and maybe A&M (depending on the specifics of the hypothetical) are in the Pac-12. The Big 12 either dissolves entirely or is in a much worse position than it is now, and we're probably looking at a reality where the Pac 12 is a near-equal to the Big Ten in terms of on-field product and TV value.

For the second point, are we asking if there's a chance now that the Pac-12 could be reassembled? I could see a circumstance where Cal and Stanford come back if the ACC sees some big departures that leave it diminished, but there's no way the four Big Ten defectors ever come back, at least in football.

Unlikely - they would have just joined the B1G eventually (probably sooner than they joined SEC) and Washington would have been left out. They would have dominated all league decisions in their favor and the league would have declined like every other league they touch.

No because tu destroys any conference it's ever been in

Nah…they didn't kill the SIAA or TIAA.

I maintain the (unpopular) opinion that t.u. never intended to actually go to the Pac-16 and their insistence on the Longhorn Network proves it. DeLoss wanted to blow up the Big 12, get deep enough into negotiations that the Pac couldn't walk away, and then come to "irreconcilable differences" over TV negotiations. t.u. gets to walk away as an independent with no blood on their hands, the Longhorn Network shows all home games and maybe turns a profit, and maybe Baylor slides into the empty Pac spot.

zpj0001 said:

---

I maintain the (unpopular) opinion that t.u. never intended to actually go to the Pac-16 and their insistence on the Longhorn Network proves it. DeLoss wanted to blow up the Big 12, get deep enough into negotiations that the Pac couldn't walk away, and then come to "irreconcilable differences" over TV negotiations. t.u. gets to walk away as an independent with no blood on their hands, the Longhorn Network shows all home games and maybe turns a profit, and maybe Baylor slides into the empty Pac spot.

---

I am with you until the last line. Some of the Pac-10 refused to even schedule religious schools. They weren't taking Baylor. They could find some other middle tier college instead.

zpj0001 said:

---

I maintain the (unpopular) opinion that t.u. never intended to actually go to the Pac-16 and their insistence on the Longhorn Network proves it. DeLoss wanted to blow up the Big 12, get deep enough into negotiations that the Pac couldn't walk away, and then come to "irreconcilable differences" over TV negotiations. t.u. gets to walk away as an independent with no blood on their hands, the Longhorn Network shows all home games and maybe turns a profit, and maybe Baylor slides into the empty Pac spot.

---

Back in 2010, even DeLoss didn't expect the LHN to be a money maker--they initially saw it as simply a propaganda organ. The network hurdle was inserted at the last minute when it was clear we weren't going with them, which made them second guess the move. There's no way at that point in time they wanted to be in the Pac while we were in the SEC. They also weren't really excited about being in a conference where they made the same money as Washington State.

If you want to talk about a hypothetical where they decide to be team players and join the Pac network, I think that league still would have broken up because their network concept was flawed. They had a terrible time getting carriage contracts. OU and Texas would have helped, but it still was doomed. So, I think they would have been looking for a way out as soon as that round of media contracts expired.

The more interesting question to me is what would have happened if Stanford hadn't blackballed the sips joining the Pac back in the late 80s (deal was for them and Colorado to go west). A&M would have joined Arkansas in going to the SEC (no South Carolina).

njohn87 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

If t.u. had gone to the Pac like they wanted to do all a long, would the Pac still be a relevant conference today?

The Pac largely imploded because their commissioner screwed up their TV contract which leads me to think there is a slight chance it could reform with stronger leadership

---

For the first point, yes we're living in a substantially different landscape if Texas, OU, and maybe A&M (depending on the specifics of the hypothetical) are in the Pac-12. The Big 12 either dissolves entirely or is in a much worse position than it is now, and we're probably looking at a reality where the Pac 12 is a near-equal to the Big Ten in terms of on-field product and TV value.

For the second point, are we asking if there's a chance now that the Pac-12 could be reassembled? I could see a circumstance where Cal and Stanford come back if the ACC sees some big departures that leave it diminished, but there's no way the four Big Ten defectors ever come back, at least in football.

---

I just don't see any reality where the highlighted part comes true. Regardless of the population of the footprint, what drives value is actual interest that population has in the product. The woke mind virus that has infected the west coast so bad leaves you with a lot of people that just don't give a damn about college sports. That is the main reason the PAC-12 died. That is why the SEC is always pushing the "It Just Means More" narrative. To the majority of the PAC-12 footprint, it just doesn't mean much at all.

Admiral Nelson said:

---

zpj0001 said:

---

I maintain the (unpopular) opinion that t.u. never intended to actually go to the Pac-16 and their insistence on the Longhorn Network proves it. DeLoss wanted to blow up the Big 12, get deep enough into negotiations that the Pac couldn't walk away, and then come to "irreconcilable differences" over TV negotiations. t.u. gets to walk away as an independent with no blood on their hands, the Longhorn Network shows all home games and maybe turns a profit, and maybe Baylor slides into the empty Pac spot.

---

I am with you until the last line. Some of the Pac-10 refused to even schedule religious schools. They weren't taking Baylor. They could find some other middle tier college instead.

---

I'll concede that, probably would have ended up with Utah in the 16th spot, same as they ended up in the 12th spot for real.

twk said:

---

zpj0001 said:

---

I maintain the (unpopular) opinion that t.u. never intended to actually go to the Pac-16 and their insistence on the Longhorn Network proves it. DeLoss wanted to blow up the Big 12, get deep enough into negotiations that the Pac couldn't walk away, and then come to "irreconcilable differences" over TV negotiations. t.u. gets to walk away as an independent with no blood on their hands, the Longhorn Network shows all home games and maybe turns a profit, and maybe Baylor slides into the empty Pac spot.

---

Back in 2010, even DeLoss didn't expect the LHN to be a money maker--they initially saw it as simply a propaganda organ. The network hurdle was inserted at the last minute when it was clear we weren't going with them, which made them second guess the move. There's no way at that point in time they wanted to be in the Pac while we were in the SEC. They also weren't really excited about being in a conference where they made the same money as Washington State.

If you want to talk about a hypothetical where they decide to be team players and join the Pac network, I think that league still would have broken up because their network concept was flawed. They had a terrible time getting carriage contracts. OU and Texas would have helped, but it still was doomed. So, I think they would have been looking for a way out as soon as that round of media contracts expired.

The more interesting question to me is what would have happened if Stanford hadn't blackballed the sips joining the Pac back in the late 80s (deal was for them and Colorado to go west). A&M would have joined Arkansas in going to the SEC (no South Carolina).

---

Legitimate question: if LHN was meant to be propaganda only, why did ESPN pay them so much to operate and distribute it? Surely ESPN saw some opportunity to profit?

zpj0001 said:

---

twk said:

---

zpj0001 said:

---

I maintain the (unpopular) opinion that t.u. never intended to actually go to the Pac-16 and their insistence on the Longhorn Network proves it. DeLoss wanted to blow up the Big 12, get deep enough into negotiations that the Pac couldn't walk away, and then come to "irreconcilable differences" over TV negotiations. t.u. gets to walk away as an independent with no blood on their hands, the Longhorn Network shows all home games and maybe turns a profit, and maybe Baylor slides into the empty Pac spot.

---

Back in 2010, even DeLoss didn't expect the LHN to be a money maker--they initially saw it as simply a propaganda organ. The network hurdle was inserted at the last minute when it was clear we weren't going with them, which made them second guess the move. There's no way at that point in time they wanted to be in the Pac while we were in the SEC. They also weren't really excited about being in a conference where they made the same money as Washington State.

If you want to talk about a hypothetical where they decide to be team players and join the Pac network, I think that league still would have broken up because their network concept was flawed. They had a terrible time getting carriage contracts. OU and Texas would have helped, but it still was doomed. So, I think they would have been looking for a way out as soon as that round of media contracts expired.

The more interesting question to me is what would have happened if Stanford hadn't blackballed the sips joining the Pac back in the late 80s (deal was for them and Colorado to go west). A&M would have joined Arkansas in going to the SEC (no South Carolina).

---

Legitimate question: if LHN was meant to be propaganda only, why did ESPN pay them so much to operate and distribute it? Surely ESPN saw some opportunity to profit?

---

It was propaganda & ESPN thought they were going to get to broadcast UIL high school football. To ESPN it was content & as Sumner Redstone (CEO of Viacom/CBS) would say "content is king."

zpj0001 said:

---

twk said:

---

zpj0001 said:

---

I maintain the (unpopular) opinion that t.u. never intended to actually go to the Pac-16 and their insistence on the Longhorn Network proves it. DeLoss wanted to blow up the Big 12, get deep enough into negotiations that the Pac couldn't walk away, and then come to "irreconcilable differences" over TV negotiations. t.u. gets to walk away as an independent with no blood on their hands, the Longhorn Network shows all home games and maybe turns a profit, and maybe Baylor slides into the empty Pac spot.

---

Back in 2010, even DeLoss didn't expect the LHN to be a money maker--they initially saw it as simply a propaganda organ. The network hurdle was inserted at the last minute when it was clear we weren't going with them, which made them second guess the move. There's no way at that point in time they wanted to be in the Pac while we were in the SEC. They also weren't really excited about being in a conference where they made the same money as Washington State.

If you want to talk about a hypothetical where they decide to be team players and join the Pac network, I think that league still would have broken up because their network concept was flawed. They had a terrible time getting carriage contracts. OU and Texas would have helped, but it still was doomed. So, I think they would have been looking for a way out as soon as that round of media contracts expired.

The more interesting question to me is what would have happened if Stanford hadn't blackballed the sips joining the Pac back in the late 80s (deal was for them and Colorado to go west). A&M would have joined Arkansas in going to the SEC (no South Carolina).

---

Legitimate question: if LHN was meant to be propaganda only, why did ESPN pay them so much to operate and distribute it? Surely ESPN saw some opportunity to profit?

---

ESPN overpaied. Period. Why? Was it a simple miscalculation (assuming they could shove it down cable and satellite carriers throats without a choice), or was it a calculated gamble to hold the Big XII together (and keep Texas from going to a conference where Fox had the rights)? I don't think we'll ever know for sure. It may have been a little bit of both.

If sips and land bandits left big 12 for pac 12, big 12 would have folded and pac 12 would have held together. Leadership wouldn't have been the same with texas and ou there.