Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Our Beloved Ducks Forum

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

Posted
  • Moderator

As we all know, the Pac-12 decided not to expand 'at this time.' Decided not to pick up B12 teams that were left hanging, for a while, when OK and TX decided to head for the SEC. 

 

My completely non-scientific take based on comments on the Forum, is that Forum members were split down the middle on whether the Pac-12 should have expanded. So, this is just some off-season fun with numbers at how the Pac-20 with the addition of Baylor, Houston, Iowa ST, KS, K ST, OK ST, TCU and TX Tech, would have hypothetically finished in the final AP Poll.

 

25% of the Pac-20 would have finished in the top 25 - Nos. 5 Baylor, 7 OK ST, 12 Utah, 17 Houston and 22 Oregon. 16.66% of the Pac-12 finished in the top 25. Pac-20 would have had 2 teams finish in the top 10, with Baylor finishing at 5 and 'just out of the playoff.' 

 

The Pac-20 would have had 12 bowl teams (UCLA no contest) and finished 5-6. The Pac-20 would have gone 4-1 (considering OK to be in the SEC) against the SEC.  Ws over No. 11 Ole Miss, LSU, Auburn, Miss St and an L vs No. 10 OK. 1-0 vs No. 8 Notre Dame that the Pac-12 finished 0-2 against.

 

The Pac-20 would have gone 2-1 in NY6 bowls; close to 3-0 with Utah's close L versus Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. More teams to split post-season $ with but adding the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls and more bowl eligible teams would have meant more money for the Pac-20 per school than earned by the Pac-12. (I also assume that like when Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers joined the B1G, a 'full share' for new Pac-20 members would have been phased in. protecting the Pac-12 members current per-school bottom line.)

 

In 2025 with the new media deals in place, we'll see if the Pac-12 made the correct decision not to increase market size with a move into the Central time zone, and market share based on the number of eyeballs viewing the 'added 8' compared to the numbers watching Pac-12 games.

 

With expansion, would the Pac-12 Network have become financially solvent, up on all cable networks and returned a decent ROI to the Pac-12? Wither the network now with the decision not to expand? Late night games broadcast on the Network hurt and do not help the Pac-12 in any respect, including recruiting.

 

'At this time?' After Bob Bowlsby pulled his Houdini act and saved the B12 as a P5 conference, where can the Pac-12 expand to if it decides to expand? There are no financially viable teams for the Pac-12 to pick off in the Pacific and Mountain time zones.

 

I think the decision not to expand was a terrible and perhaps fatal decision for the Pac-12. Others reasonably disagree with this opinion.

 

At the end of the day, $ will tell the tale.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.