Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
Texas doesn't want to leave. That's the biggest flaw. They want to remain "Texas centric". They don't want to go to some far off coast to play, they don't need to. As long as Texas makes equivalent money, they aren't looking to go somewhere else.
I know everyone thinks Texas wants to leave, but they really gain very little by doing so. The PAC 10 is now the PAC 12, and there is a strong voting bloc AGAINST expansion. CU, Utah, and the Arizona schools don't want their access to California diminished, which under most expansion scenarios, happens. The PAC would have to do something really radical, like got to 20, in order to break up that voting bloc.
Other schools are not going to dictate the terms, at least not on their own. They might go through the networks and say we'll come if these are the terms. Then it would be up to the networks to put the necessary pressure on the conference, if they felt like it was beneficial. My point it, its not up to the schools, and there is nothing inherently dissatisfying about the GoR issue.
What most potential schools have hesitancy about is being on the far end of a Texas based conference. They're concerned about scheduling. They're concerned about "who comes with". The GoR is not a major factor here. Their desire to remain a eastern centric conference is.
|
If Texas and Oklahoma want into the PAC (sans LHN) it's a fait accompli.
Texas would have a ton to gain in the PAC versus the Big 12 in it's current form. Being in a conference with UCLA, USC, Oregon, etc. is much more appealing than the current marriage of convenience both athletically and academically.