Darren Perkins

The nice thing about the alliance, from my understanding, is that games would be schedued on a year to year basis and not 5-10 years ahead of time. This way, they can schedule the top/hottest teams each year. Now, there's a lot of details to work out, but that is goal is to create matchups that the networks would like to throw money at. The big 12 had a good year, but I don't believe Baylor and Ok St are winning double digits games on a consistent basis. If the Bearcats were in the Big 12 this year, odds are they don't make the playoff. On top of that, there's a good chance they would have knocked OK St or Baylor out of the NY6. So the new Big 12 would have had 2 teams top, possibly only one in the NY6/CFP. I understand eliminating the competition, but with USC and the Ducks firing on all cylinders (and if UW and UCLA ever stepup) the Big 12 is really no competition to the Pac-12 (think current SEC to PAc-12 now). They have no top tiers programs, no blue-bloods, no new-bloods, and almost half the conference was a Group of 5 team within the past decade. They have some good second-tier programs, but none the networks are salivating over. I think if the Pac-12 steps up, then down the line, if it makes financial sense, they can maybe snag Oklahoma State and a couple/a few Texas schools. I get it and I agree, Texas is a valuable state, but I'm not sure any of those leftover programs offer enough cache.

Yup, and if Oregon and USC step and become serioius contender then all the more money. The Big 12 has zero blue-bloods and/or top tier programs. Almost half their conference was a Group of 5 member over the past decade. It's about big names and big matchups more than it is about expanding into new territories.

Good points. And, I think they keep Vandy and the likes around so they can guarantee some wins, don't want everybody to be too good.

Agreed...

Hey Jon, I totally respect your well thought out point of view, you might be right.... I dont think hoops does enough to move the needle since, what? Off the top of my head 85% percent of revenue is football., give or take. And yes, they did well this season just like the Pac-12 did poorly, but that's not every year. There would be plenty more to sell, but would that increase the pay out per school? That's a big risk, especially in the short term, and while it is more prudent to look long-term as you've suggested, that's just not how the world works, people want results, as in, yesterday! I think going the Alliance route is the prudent first step, and expansion could be something down the road, the book on that isn't closed forever. A strong Oregon and USC would make the PAc-12 attractive, and I think we're on the way.

Very true, and that's kinda what it took for a new coach at SC and a new commissioner.

And I respect that point of view. I do think it is possible that the PAc-12 could expand into Texas down the road. If USC and Oregon become CFP regulars, whick i think is very likely, then we can expand from a position of strength.

Yes, if we could get just 1, the folks in Seattle would not be happy. Here's to Lanning getting things right!

I think the new commish is off to a good start, yes action, hopefully we'll get alot of that this offseason.

Good point on Dixon, I was referring to the USC dominance from 2002-08.

Yeah, he's open to some cool ideas, such as not having all the alliance games be just in September, but spreadout through the season, which goes against tradition.

Agree, it's all about the marquee matchups, and honestly the Pac-12 just needs to play better, and I think the Pac is on the brink.

As far as expansion,? I believe the powers that be looked at that, but didn't feel it would generate more revenue per school.

Thanks for the comments. I do believe it as about quality and not quantity. The Alliance games will draw way more eyeballs than, for example, Washington State vs Texas Tech type matchups, of which there would be many, which networks don't get jazzed about. None of the remaining Big 12 teams bring enough name cache to get the networks excited and the SEC knows that. USC was a bit of a dumpster fire when Pete Carrol took over and by year two they were winning the Orange Bowl, It will be a quick bounce back, this is not like rebuilding Oregon State. USC has talent and Riley is bringing in more, the Oklahoma qb, williams, just entered the transfer portal, safe to say he's probaly looking at SC. Also, there will be a next round of expansion, serious talks seem to happen every 5-10 years, if down the road bringing in some of those BIG 12 teams makes sense then it could get donw.

110% the blame goes to Mario.

For sure I can!

The only thing i can think of is it gives backups and others who haven't played much a chance to shine heading into next year.

Yeah, it's kinda like watching a JV game, or a game in garbage time when both teams are playing backups, but just nobody it winning or losing yet.

Well said. I honestly don't know what to expect tomorrow, which I guess makes for some intrigue. It'll be interesting.

Yeah, it 's one or the other, right now we're in the middling, akward stage of tyring to have both the CFP and Bowls, it just doesn't work, and it should become a playoff dominate post season in the next few years.

Yup, let's win, or at least avoid an embarrassing loss.

That's the big saving grace of this game, we get to play Oklahoma instead a lesser brand. Definitely a chance to do something positive tomorrow night.

For sure, it's little more fast-food this year than a nice meal. Thanks for the comment.

Great chance for some backups to step-up and impress for next year, for sure!

yeah, it's a chance to see some guys step up and earn some PT for next, I think i'll feel more like a scout when watching the game than a fan. But, nontheless, Go Ducks!