Big-12/Texas A&M Divorce Fallout: Bob Stoops/Oklahoma Eying UCLA, Southern Cal in a "Pac-16"
by Nestor on Aug 31, 2011 12:04 PM PDT
in News
Email
Print
Big-12 is in big trouble. It appears that Texas A&M and the weakened conference are finalizing their divorce papers. While noting major will probably break out in near future, it appears that Oklahoma Sooners head coach Bob Stoops not downplaying the idea of Sooners moving to the Pac-12. In fact, reportedly he is excited about joining UCLA and Southern Cal in a Pac-16 (emphasis added):
A year ago, Stoops endorsed the idea of OU joining the then-Pac-10 when that league attempted to expand to 16 members. He confirmed Tuesday that membership in a Pac-16 still excites him.
"Think about it," Stoops said. "A (league) championship game in the Rose Bowl, going to USC to play, the Rose Bowl and playing UCLA (the storied stadium serves as the Bruins' home field) ..."
Stoops also still believes if the Sooners eventually head west that it's vital to take at least three Big 12 teams with them. When commissioner Larry Scott was trying to grow the Pac-10 to 16 teams, he wanted to add OU, Oklahoma State, Texas and possibly Texas Tech.
"It's very important, because of (playing) games in this area and recruiting in Texas is still going to matter to us," Stoops said of at least two Texas-based Big 12 teams joining OU on the Left Coast. "Half our games would be here, and then we'd have a couple down there (Texas) for recruiting purposes."
We have shared extensive thoughts on Pac-12 expansion rumors involving Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. You can read up here. 63 percent of this community gave a "thumbs up" to the idea of Sooners, Cowboys and Red Raiders joining the conference with another team, which could enable the conference to split up in two divisions reviving the Classic Pac-8.
Obviously lot of dominoes are left out there. Big-12 is on a desperate bid to keep itself intact. Texas has its own ideas. For UCLA pov, whatever moves Pac-12 ends up making, it needs to make sure Bruins best interest are preserved as one of flagship holding schools representing the number 2 media market in the country. It's not a coincidence that UCLA is one of the two schools that immediately came to Stoops' mind (and his brother coaches Arizona lol) when he "excitedly" discussed the topic of the Sooners joining the Pac.
GO BRUINS.
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Would a Pac-16 be a good idea without Texas?
Seems like the Longhorn Network would be a major roadblock (or ridiculous concession to one school) within a Pac-16 structure. If USC weren’t doing their “Project Stanford” deal, I’d think they should be interested in their own network too, if Texas would be allowed in and get one.
And if not, would Oklahoma be willing to move without taking their Red River rival with?
I'd be excited about having Texas
But I think Pac would need to ensure that Texas is not getting some special deal like they were able to cut as member of the Big-12.
My concern with Texas
is precisely that they’d want some sort of special deal. Otherwise, as an equal partner, I’d love to have Texas be part of this.
At this point I’m thinking the Longhorn Network would give them enough juice to go independent and allows them to keep their rivalry as Timo_112 notes below, if the Pac-* didn’t make concessions.
well if Texas didn't come...
Im sure it would be because they would go independent. The Red River rivalry would probably work out the way the Notre Dame/USC rivalry does.
Texas? Meh!
I doubt OU and OSU will split up, even though, there is room for a rivalry game if they do.
I’m pretty sure UT and aTm will continue to play their rivalry game.
The Pac has been surprisingly egalitarian during all of these machinations. Texas is a pig and in Texas we say “Hogs get fat but pigs get slaughtered.”
After all the schools manipulations, I’d like nothing better than to see Texas on its own.
sjh
ooooohhh im excited!
The idea of having a pac-16 and playing Oklahoma and OSU every year gets me pumped. Our Pac-16 would make the SEC look like a pop warner football league. :)
in a Pac-16
we would play Oklahoma once every 4 years, home game once every 8 years, in a regular season.
by VeniceBruin on Aug 31, 2011 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
are you sure?
because they would restructure the league all over again. Im sure Stoops would want to play USC and UCLA every year.
we would be old Pac-8, playing each other every year, leaving only 2 games from the others
by VeniceBruin on Aug 31, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I mean, it's all a guess
and the Arizonas get screwed here, but… screw the Arizonas.
by VeniceBruin on Aug 31, 2011 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah that makes sense...
Except somehow I could see us not being grouped with Stanford/Cal, and as a NorCal Bruin, I really want one of those games up here annually.
why TT?
if we are looking for 4 teams to make it 16, and we are a conference of natural “pairs” then why would it not be Texes, Texas A&M, OU and OSU?
Those are the natural rivalries and the programs with the larger fan bases. TT is a great program but is not the rival with Texas that A&M is.
These 4 would make quite a super conference.
Powder to the People
They haven't been offered a spot in the SEC, nor have they asked.
wink wink.
Formerly AllHailMightyBruins
nope
A&M hasn’t asked, so they haven’t said no yet. I heard on the radio that they couldn’t vote until A&M asked otherwise it could be construed as poaching a team under contract with another conference or something. A&M needs to make public declarations about their intention to leave the current conference (which they did today I think). After that they can pursue a spot in a conference of their choosing, after which there will be a vote.
Something like that anyway.
The only reason for TT is
playing the Texas thing. Goes this way;: Oklahoma gets you Oklahoma State. Then you tel Texas Tech if they want in the have to bring in Texas. You tell Houston if they want in they have to bring in A&M. Obviously you go with how the Pac 12 ha structured its television rights with a two part contract—-one for overall super regions and currently 6 sub regions. You just go to 8 subregions. One of these being Texas and one being Oklahoma and its nearby northern regions.
Half of every TT freshman class comes from the Dallas Ft Worth area
It’s been that way for 50 years. And about half return there. There are more Tech fans in DFW than TCU and SMU fans combined (mainly because TT has 35,000 students & the two local private schools have less than 10k each).
The best reason TT adds value to the Pac 16 is they bring the 5th largest media market & the 4th largest metropolitan area in the country to any conference cable networks. Plus they have cool black uniforms.
2011 Season - No excuses. Just win!
We could take them all except Texas.
And add in BYU which is currently without a conference.
Now that would be a super conference.
BYU would be a rival for Utah
but we don’t want them in our conference.
I’d rather bring in Houston or Rice.
by VeniceBruin on Aug 31, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I still like Rice
I get the concerns about being a small stadium and never being a football power, but I think they would be a good fit for our conference and boost it’s academic profile from a solid market.
+100
Rice is a great school worthy of being in a conference with us, Cal and Stanford.
Rice has had a history of spurts of sports greatness — including baseball, recently. There is strong support for football — they just refurbished their very nice on campus football stadium (I look at it and wish it were in Westwood.)
Some people say that the alum base is too small to capitalize on the size of the TV market, but I’m not sure that is true. Texans are proud of all things Texan.
It probably won’t happen — we will probably go after the 2 Okla schools, Tech, and maybe TCU. But, it should happen.
sjh
Rice's stadium holds 70K+
But you’re right about them not being a power.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Effect on recruiting
I’d like to know what kind of effect an expansion with the Oklahoma and Texas schools would have on our recruiting. Traditional wisdom suggests that our increased exposure to would attract more Midwestern talent. But UCLA’s rigorous academic standards provides us with very few athletic exemptions for talented high school prospects who don’t have the grades. In short, while the rest of the Pac-12 may benefit by reaching into the Midwestern talent-pool, UCLA would still not be able to fully enjoy the fruits of an expansion, at least from a recruiting point-of-view,especially because of its academic standards. To me, this doesn’t seem like a good idea. Thoughts?
by DoubleBruin0711 on Aug 31, 2011 12:42 PM PDT reply actions
alternatively
you could equally argue that because we are limited to good academics, we are the ones who really need exposure to academically talented athletes wherever they are. Unless you are saying there aren’t academic kids in the midwest.
by VeniceBruin on Aug 31, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't the Furd and Cal have the same academic standards as we do?
by BrendonBruin on Aug 31, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Stanford yes, Cal is more debatable
Cal admissions seems to allow their AD more ‘silver bullets’ to admit academically questionable (in terms of normal athletic admit standards) than does UCLA.
formerly bruinhoo
Since.....
UCLA and Cal are both part of the UC system, I’ve never been able to comprehend why Cal has less stringent acedemic standards than UCLA does.
I think
it has to do with the difference between the UC established minimum requirements and then the effective “real” requirements for admission which vary from UC to UC. [Ex. It’s way easier to get into UCSC than UCLA]
Cal is comprarbly difficult to UCLA for the average student applying to undergrad to gain admission, but when it comes to compromising on these unoffical requirements, Cal admissions bends more frequently/further than UCLA’s will. The campuses have enough autonomy for this practice to exist.
NUmbers please?
From what I have seen the difference in selectivity between Cal & UCLA is negligible (not talking about cherished athletes and academic waivers here – just normal kids).
Can anyone provide any reall numbers to back this up?
For that matter – how do we know how rigorous UCLA compared with Cal when it comes to athletes?
Any numbers?
by KnudsenRockne on Aug 31, 2011 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sure if you were disagreeing
but I did say that admissions for non-athletes between Cal and UCLA were comparable.
Admittance rate for Fall 2011:
Cal: 25.5%
UCLA: 25.3%
Weighted GPA of Admitted Freshman – Fall 2010:
Cal: 4.19
UCLA: 4.37
(These averages are not from the same source, Cal specified theirs was the median, while UCLA didn’t specify and their grades were from 10th/11th grades only, so compare with a grain of salt)
http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/Prospect/Adm_fr/Frosh_Prof10.htm
http://berkeley.edu/about/fact.shtml
Recruiting
I think we’d still have a net positive effect of this. We’ve had some pretty good recruits from Texas. When you combine that with the ability for Texas kids to be able to get a UCLA education, be in SoCal, and still play at “home” once or twice a year, I could see this as a boon.
Effect on recruiting
@Venice: That’s very true. But what I am worried about is the comparative advantage that the other Pac-12 schools would have against us as a result of the expansion. For example, let’s say we have two highly-touted recruits who, but for the expansion, would not have considered UCLA or USC. The first one has great grades and the second one has awful grades. In a Pac-16 world, USC would have access to both while we would realistically have access to only the recruit with the good grades. Now, in a Pac-12 world, the two recruits would not have considered UCLA or USC in the first place. We don’t get the recruit, but neither does USC. This hypothetical is obviously silly because it works within a vacuum and makes many unsupported assumptions. But I just wanted to illustrate that the rising tide from expansion may raise some boats higher than others. Seeing as how we have consistently lost the recruiting battle to USC for some time, I am merely suggesting that while expansion may benefit us, it may also increase the recruiting disparities between us and USC, and of course other Pac-12 schools.
@Brendon: From what I understand, we have the second toughest academic standards only to Stanford. Their athletic department possesses the fewest number of academic exemptions to admit an athlete who otherwise would not have been accepted by reason of his grades.
by DoubleBruin0711 on Aug 31, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
each team can only sign so many players
and I trust CRN as a recruiter to do a good job.
$c typically has athletic depth at each position – giving them increased access only incrementally increases their talent level.
UCLA over the last few years has not had that depth, perhaps in part due to the lack of gifted STUDENT-athletes in the recruiting footprint. Replacing the guys on the bottom of our depth charts with elite student athletes could make more of a difference to us than traditionally at $c.
So again, I think your point can be argued either way. And obviously, the smarter the kid is, the more he should want to come to UCLA anyway :-)
a Pac-16 seems to make things tougher for us, unless the other conferences also upgrade
if the Big 10, SEC, ACC and Big East stay as they are, then the path to a national title from the Pac-16 would probably mean:
1) going unbeaten vs the Pac-8
2) beating 2 teams from the East division, which will sometimes include Oklahoma, and often include one long road trip across time zones
3) winning a championship game vs an Oklahoma-caliber team.
We would essentially be inserting an additional elimination game betweeen the Pac-10 and Big 12.
I’m guessing some of the other conferences would also combine for TV reasons, potentially paving the way for 4 superconferences meeting in bowls and a +1 championship game system. But if not, it seems we’d be at a competitive disadvantage.
I am happy to say that I called it.
Look for the Pac-24 coming to a theater near you, and event I called a month or so ago.
Three eight team divisions, with one wild card (and maybe a couple of playoffs to get the wild car, then a semi-final game and a championship game. Tell me that wouldn’t make TV history (and revenue history). We get the 12 we have now (and I’m having trouble remembering exactly who they are) and start adding: OJ, OSU, Texas Tech, Baylor, Rice, BYU, Sam Houston State, San Diego State, Utah State, Colorado State, San Jose State, and Slippery Rock (just because I like the name.) Then we start telling the TV networds to submit bids and please don’t insult us with numbers that would generate only $30 million per school.
There is everything good about this and nothing bad. We have recruiting bases in Oklahoma and Texas and Colorado and Utah and Slippery Rock. UCLA should be able to exploit this and becaome the newest juggernaut on the horizon.
I wish I could manipulate fonts and all that, so I could write Revenue in big, bold letters.
Of course, the Pac 24 is only the start, my friends. It’s only the start. UCLA would soon be able to retire from acting and go into directing full time and …. Oh, wait. That’s another script.
But who would sponsor it, Fox?
I was looking forward to reading your projections. :)
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Great Move
This would immediately up the recruiting value of this conference and bring some $toried programs here. OK is a huge FB legend, Bud Wilkenson, etc. We would have more clout in TX for players. PAC16’s TV network would be big $. I don’t see much of a downside except that the teams we’d play are giants. We would have to bring the A game to every Sat. No mediocrity with the SJ States. I can still remember the PAC 8. Yeh, I AM that old!
call me old fashioned
but we haven’t even kicked off the Pac12 yet and there’s already chatter of adding 4 more teams. Personally, I liked the 10 team format and would be happy to go back to it rather than expand to 16 teams.
Perhaps we could kick Utah and Colorado out… and tell them to join up with Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Rice, OU and OK State to form the “Texas & Taxes Conference.”
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Aug 31, 2011 2:26 PM PDT reply actions
I've come around on Utah
If expansion is inevitable…
Considering the available options, I really don’t see that many attractive schools for the Pac. Assuming we want maintain some integrity and get western schools with good academics and research and balanced athletics, there aren’t a ton of worthy schools out West. I wouldn’t think Boise or Nevada or Fresno or UNLV or SDSU would or should make the cut. I have never considered travelling to Corvalis or Pullman, but I’d sure consider going to SLC. I know there is some different culture in the state, but SLC is much more progressive than anywhere else there, and Utah is not BYU, which is a good thing in my mind. Academically, they are on par with the middle of the Pac. We should have moved on Nebraska when they were shopping, but after that, CU and Utah seem to me as the next best options.
Sure, Utah is not Texas or Oklahoma, but few are. And if the Big 12 10 9 is falling apart and we are looking to expand to stay alive, I’d rather get Utah and CU than have to accept Oklahoma State or Kansas or Baylor just to make Texas and Oklahoma feel at home.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Don't we like legitimate competion?
In the last 8 years their football program has had a better record than our Bruins. They beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, we beat Temple in the whatever bowl. They finished in the top 25 five times, we’ve finished in the top 25 once. You could say they have a better overall record against $uc over the last 10 years. Besides Alabama, they have beaten Pitt, Cal and Georgia Tech in bowl games. They made their bones, let them in.
I think his issues with Utah
are non-football related.
agreed
what do they have other than football?
UCLA in a class of its own
Out of the current 12 members of the Pac 12, eight are in the top 50 of research universities. Utah is one of the eight. In the Academic Ranking of World Universities it one of nine members of the Pac 12 to make the list. In case your wondering Colorado made both lists. What does this say about the other Pac 12 schools who did not make the list. Should we kick them out?
Utah has both a medical school and a college of law. Like said before they made their bones, let them in.
If we were to use UCLA as a yardstick very few schools are in our league.
Bring on OU
Because he has lost a couple of big, big games (e.g. southern cal and Idaho State and a couple to Texas) poor Bob Stoops, a quality, quality coach and leader if there ever one, is called called, tongue in cheek no doubt and never to his face, Bob “Big Game” Stoops. If that’s the case then, let’s play the Sooners every year. If it’s a big game, we win.
Where does this leave Wazzu?
All this talk makes Wazzu look like the red headded step child. Why not get rid of them and bring in another contender?
Texas is the best fit, as Larry Scott envisioned
But the onus is on them, not the PAC 12. I think it was Wilner who wrote it is doubtful they could make more under the LHN than the $30 million per school anticipated under a PAC 16 distribution plan. And “independence” would mess up their non-football sports. If they pretend otherwise, I would call their bluff.
I think OU and OK State come for sure.
If Texas comes, I guess Texas Tech is logical.
If it doesnt, Rice would be nice but they are a doormat. Then who are we to talk UNTIL THIS YEAR!
GO BRUINS
Having moved to Texas just over a year ago I would love to see this expansion!
Texas fans are awesome, show sportsmanship, and would be a great fit to the Pac 12 conference. For a Texas or Oklahoma kid to feel that they can still reliably expect to play in front of fans back home would obviously bolster recruiting
When I lived in California, I often said that I felt the east coast began at the Colorado River, as the majority of pollsters live and vote east, and ignore the entire west coast as they are already in bed by west coast game time. I have been able to redistrict the west coast since my move to the Mississippi River. Ignoring BCS nonsense, I believe that a PAC 16 extending out to Texas and Oklahoma would put an enormously greater positive focus on West Coast athletics.
BTW, good luck with the move, 66. It’s really hot here!
Personally
I dont like the potential PAC-16 conference. There are too many teams. like venicebruin said, we would only play the south teams every 4 years. and isn’t this conference call PAC
Pacific-12 Conference? Oklahoma is certainly not west. Yes it would help with recruiting and have a huge revenue. But every idea has a bright side. I can respect other peoples opinions but for me this is just a bad idea
Thanks and GO BRUINS! CANT WAIT FOR SATURDAY!
I lean toward agreeing with you
but logic in conference naming exploded long ago.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
In the warped world of East Coast bias
Oklahoma is west. Texas is west. Missouri is West. Anything on this side of the Mississippi River is West. So maybe we could go with the Lewis Division and the Clark Division?
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Thoughts on the PAC-16
First, I don’t think winning y games in the old PAC-8, two in the new PAC-8-16, and one title game will hurt our chances at a NC. I think title games only help team’s chances, and the added exposure, etc…is great news for conferences and schools. The added exposure will add more legitimacy, and I can forse a scenario at which we could be on the outside (a 3 or 4 BCS seed), win, and then get the inside track. So, overall it’s good I think.
I also like the idea of expanding our conference into Texas. It will help us recruit there…
It does occur to me though, that if we go to a PAC-16 format it won’t the the PACIFIC conference anymore…more likely it’ll be something like the Super WAC!! hahahaha….
My final thought is that all the conferences going to these larger formats is going to build in an INFORMAL playoff system. Of course, it’s not a true playoff…but it will then likely lead to a kind of +1 format where 3 of the superconference victors and one non-major conference team get to duke it out. A playoff system, in the long run, is inevitable I think. Superconferences are one step on the way there.
It May Be Inevtiable....
My guess is that the Big 12 (or what’s left of it) is eventually going to go belly-up in some form or fashion so expansion (again) is probably on the horizon. My only fear is that adding Texas to our conference could potentially be problematic given how toxic Texas was to the rest of the Big 12. The other schools in the Big 12 just HATE Texas and how they poisoned everything. So I think it’s just something Larry Scott has to be keenly aware of.
When (not if) the dominoes start falling again, I really want to see how the other conferences make their moves as well before we just blindly send out invitations to anyone. The guess here is that Jim Delaney and the Big 10 is going to go hard after Notre Dame and (possibly) Missouri. As for how they carve up the rest of the carcass (Kansas, K-State, Iowa St., Baylor) is anyone’s guess at the moment.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Sep 1, 2011 4:40 AM PDT reply actions
I Mean "Inevitable"
(Sigh) Too bloody early in the A.M. to make these kinds of posts!
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Sep 1, 2011 4:43 AM PDT up reply actions
TV Deal
I thought the point of the Pac-16 last year was to have more leverage in negotiating the new TV deal.
If we suddenly go to Pac-16 1 year later with the TV deal already negotiated, does that mean the 12 schools now get less money from the actual Fox deal? Aren’t we tied into this deal for the next decade?
Arguably we’ll get a lot more revenue from the regional PAC-1x networks, so maybe that will make up for the loss of 4 new schools?
The guys negotiating those deals are not stupid.
There are undoubtedly pre-negotiated escalators for additional markets or re-negotiation clauses for the addition of markets.
Formerly AllHailMightyBruins
Funny thing is, much of this conversation is a repeat from 2009.
Before Colorado and Utah climbed on board we were talking about a PAC-16, but without Utah and Colorado.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
