Last week, dissatisfaction with a plan to air high school games on the Longhorn Network led to reports that Texas A&M and Oklahoma were pondering moves to the SEC. That talk has died down for the moment. But if such moves ever do happen, they would certainly doom the Big 12, and likely lead to further shifts. The Pac-12 would be left in a bit of a bind under such circumstances, however, assuming the creation of an SEC-16 makes expansion to 16-team superconferences feel like an imperative for everyone. Larry Scott’s grand gamble of last summer to expand to 16 schools involved both Oklahoma and Texas A&M. Without both schools, the options for Pac-12 expansion are more limited. Even more so if Oklahoma State is taken along with Oklahoma.
Texas is the obvious target for any expansion scenario, but the Longhorns might be just as willing to strike out on their own. Texas Tech is also an option, and the last remaining of the three major Texas schools. Baylor is less likely given its religious affiliation, something that was presumed to be a large part of the reason BYU wasn’t offered a spot in the Pac-12.
The next likely set of schools would be the remaining members of the Big 12: Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri and Iowa State. All four schools are research universities like the rest of the Pac-12, ranked in the highest category of the Carnegie Classification system, and ranked at the same level as many of the existing Pac-12 schools by US News and World. Kansas and Missouri are also members of the Association of American Universities, a prestigious collection of major research universities which 8 of the 12 current Pac members also belong to.
What would the downside of such additions be? The obvious one would be the lack of presence in Texas, a major television market with a huge recruiting base to draw from. But outside of the Big 12 Texas schools, what other options are there? SMU and TCU both have the same problem Baylor and BYU have, they are both religious schools. UTEP, North Texas and Houston aren’t even close to academically or athletically on par with even the lower end of the Pac 12. Rice perhaps is an option, as an academically highly ranked, non religious school. Perhaps, despite their lack of prowess in athletics, they could be worth considering for academic and media-market reasons. But I think it’s unlikely.
Who else is there? The WAC schools are certainly out–neither academically or athletically appealing and largely overlapping with existing Pac-12 media markets. Outside of Colorado State and Hawaii, none of the Mountain West schools are academically strong either. Obvious football powers like Boise State and Fresno State aren’t even research universities.
If Larry Scott is unable to convince Texas or Oklahoma to join the Pac-12, I think the likely alternatives would involve the Kansas schools, Texas Tech, and one other. Perhaps Baylor or Rice for a second Texas school, Perhaps Missouri if they don’t go to the SEC. Certainly the Pac-12 won’t be without options for further expansion, but it won’t be the home run that many of us expected last summer.
Baylor is less likely given its religious affiliation, something that was presumed to be a large part of the reason BYU wasn’t offered a spot in the Pac-12.
USC was founded as Southern Methodist University.
They were affiliated with the Methodists true (I don’t believe it was Southern Methodists however) but severed any formal ties by 1952. In addition the feelings towards religious affiliated universities were likely different 90 years ago when USC first joined the league. BYU being a religious institution was only part of the problem, it was also the research and other academic restrictions tied to their religious connections that turned off many of the Pac-10 schools. The conference isn’t merely an athletic grouping, there is a lot of inter-University research (one of the reasons Colorado was pursued despite their recent dearth of football success was their research ties to the western schools).
I’m not saying Baylor would never happen like I think BYU never would, I’m just saying its a potential minus for the Bears chances.
USC was originally called SMU.
Gahrie, what’s your point? USC’s prior religious affiliation (not to mention its hilarious pre-“Trojan” nickname, the “Fighting Methodists”) is not relevant to the present discussion except as a point of academic interest. It certainly doesn’t disprove anything David has said. But maybe that’s not your intention – I’m not sure. Are you suggesting that David is wrong in some fashion? If so, you’re off base. It’s a well established fact that the Pac-12 now is relatively hostile to the notion of inviting religiously affiliated schools, regardless of what happened 100+ years ago. Hence BYU not even being considered, and hence some of the resistance to including Baylor in the original Pac-16 deal. It’s not like David is making this up, or personally discriminating against religious schools in an inconsistent fashion. He’s just talking about facts.
David, there’s one option for the Pac-12 that you didn’t consider….not expanding. Implicit in your post, I guess, is the idea that an SEC-16 would essentially force everyone to expand to 16. But I’m not sure whether that’s true. Faced with the options you’ve presented, I think the Pac-12 might very well decide that its best choice is to stand pat at 12.
I also think — notwithstanding what I just said to gahrie! — that if the Pac-12 does want to think about expanding to 16, and Texas/Oklahoma aren’t on the table, now-independent BYU has to be at least considered as an option, notwithstanding past opposition on religious grounds to such a move. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if we’re talking about Iowa State, Rice or Colorado State as potential Pac-16 members, we’ve clearly reached the “desperate” stage. I don’t know if BYU would even want to join, and I’m not saying they’d get an invite even in desperate times, but it’s worth pondering the possibility at least briefly. How about:
PAC-16 NORTH
Washington
Wazzu
Oregon State
Oregon
Cal
Stanford
Kansas
Kansas State
PAC-16 SOUTH
Utah
BYU
Colorado
Texas Tech
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona State
P.S. I added a line (“…assuming the creation of an SEC-16 makes expansion to 16-team superconferences feel like an imperative for everyone”) to make your implicit assumption explicit. Feel free to delete or re-word if you feel that doesn’t accurately reflect your meaning.
I was merely pointing out a historical fact.
If Texas is off the table, there is really no point in expanding. Any expansion will cause a new realignment, and there will need to be a counterweight to USC/UCLA for the purposes of media draw and recruiting. None of the schools mentioned have that — not even Oklahoma. We could expand to 14 or 16 so long as Texas comes; without Texas, you have to have at least OU and Texas A&M to make expansion worthwhile. Otherwise it all becomes a game of subtraction by addition.
Fair enough, gahrie.
AML, I am inclined to agree.
If the other conferences expand and the Pac-12 doesn’t, I think that leaves us in an even bigger bind because its unlikely we will have the opportunity to do so again in the future if the remnants of the Big 12 all end up in one of the three other remaining BCS conferences (ACC, BigTen, SEC) as it will be more difficult to get them to shift in the future.
Yes its possible that we stay at 12 but I think thats going to limit us for future media deals and the like. I also think, but have no reason to believe this other than pure speculation, that one of the ways Larry Scott may have sold the NW schools on the current division split is the idea that it was temporary and that in the not too distant future a 16 team conference would re-unite the Pac-8 schools in their own division. In fact, I don’t think expansion happens if its not going to result in the creation of East/West divisions. The divisions Brendan proposes above would present a situation where the four northwest schools would NEVER play in southern california. Why you ask? Because Cal and Stanford would each year, which along with the other 7 conference games USC and UCLA play means 9 games and no room for the other schools to be scheduled in. No, any 8 team division has to re-unite the California and Northwest schools, otherwise might as well stay at 12.
PAC-16 WEST
Washington
Wazzu
Oregon State
Oregon
Cal
Stanford
USC
UCLA
PAC-16 EAST
Utah
BYU/Rice/Baylor/Missouri/Iowa State/TCU/whomever
Colorado
Texas Tech
Kansas
Kansas State
Arizona
Arizona State
Yeeeeaaaahh….nobody would care about that Pac-16 East. Totally not a viable solution, competitively or marketing-wise, without Texas or TAMU+Oklahoma.
I also think, but have no reason to believe this other than pure speculation, that one of the ways Larry Scott may have sold the NW schools on the current division split is the idea that it was temporary and that in the not too distant future a 16 team conference would re-unite the Pac-8 schools in their own division.
For the record, I am highly skeptical of this speculation. It seems exceptionally unlikely to me that such a hypothetical would have been a significant factor in anyone’s decision-making process.
Whomever? You totally forgot Little Sisters of the Poor University.
For my part I think if A&M bolts for the SEC we will find some way to bring in Texas to the Pac-12. They aren’t going to the SEC and they need somewhere good for their non-Football sports to land. The WCC worked for BYU but I don’t think there is an equivalent for Texas. I highly doubt a BCS AQ conference (Big 10, SEC) would take them sans Football, whats the point. Conference USA or the Mountain West MIGHT, but pretty sure Texas would be reluctant to do that. I suppose a non-football D1 conference could work, but I don’t know those well enough to speculate on where a good fit might be. Missourri Valley maybe?
I agree an east without Texas/TexasAM/Oklahoma is definitely less compelling as you point out too, but I also think its going to be hard to come up with anything else IF expansion happens and IF the Pac-12 feels like it has to participate.
It all depends on Texas. If OU and A&M leave, that probably forces Texas’ hand, and yes, they would need to park their other sports in a conference somewhere. But my guess is the Pac-12 becomes undesirable to them without OU and A&M, and both Texas and Notre Dame end up working out deals with the Big East or the Big Ten. Both of those conferences would be far more amenable to the financial leeway ND and UT want.
How does the Pac-12 become undesirable to them? I also doubt the Big Ten would be more flexible than the Pac-12.
just take a look at the Pac-12 network announcment today and tell me you don’t think Larry Scott will be able to sell Texas et al on the Pac-12 over the Big Ten. Every Pac 12 football and basketball game will be on national TV starting in 2012. Texas may have help from ESPN getting its football games nationally with the Longhorn network, but ALL football and basketball nationally? Thats pretty damn appealing.