peggysue69 fanshotted last night about this. I think it's worth discussing it an open thread in a fanpost throughout the day. Jon Wilner posted Larry Scott's official statement closing the door on further Pac-12 expansion - at least for now (emphasis added):
"After careful review we have determined that it is in the best interests of our member institutions, student-athletes and fans to remain a 12-team conference. While we have great respect for all of the institutions that have contacted us, and certain expansion proposals were financially attractive, we have a strong conference structure and culture of equality that we are committed to preserve. With new landmark TV agreements and plans to launch our innovative television networks, we are going to focus solely on these great assets, our strong heritage and the bright future in front of us."
Okay then. I guess Classof66's SPTR acronym is safe at least for a while.
Wilner, who has been more on top of Pac-12 related developments than anyone else, reported that apparently the hang up was with the Sooners:
The news, not coincidentally, comes a few hours after a Daily Oklahoman report that OU was considering staying in the Big 12 if certain demands were met (scaling back the Longhorn Network and the dismissal of B12 commish Dan Beebe).
The question is: Is the Pac-12 not expanding because Oklahoma was considering staying ... or was Oklahoma considering staying because the Pac-12 is not expanding?
Based on Scott's statement, it would seem the Pac-12 was the proactive party in this.
Earlier in the day Wilner shared this regarding votes from the Pac-12:
It's critical to remember that - as with the 12-school negotiations last fall on divisions, scheduling and revenue sharing - commissioner Larry Scott's goal would be to find a Pac-16 infrastructure that satisfies everyone ... even if it doesn't thrill anyone.
*** Last point: I've read and heard a lot about whether Scott has the CEO support to expand or is getting significant push-back from a handful of presidents and chancellors. (Nine votes are needed to approve new members.)
Bottom line: If Scott needs the votes, he'll have the votes.
Hmm. I wonder which schools raised most objections. I imagine Colorado was loud about it. If that is true, kind of funny for them to throw their weight around given they just joined the conference.
BTW, even though Wilner mentions OU in his latest story the actions from last night I think was really a message for Texas. The note about "equality" was a subtle warning shot against the Longhorns. Also, Ted Miller thinks this is not necessarily "the end game":
Is this the endgame? Does it feel like we'll be celebrating "20 years of the Pac-12" in 2031?
But on Sept. 20, 2011 -- a Tuesday night of the college football season's fourth week -- the conference announced it would remain the Pac-12. It seems certain it will remain so through the weekend.
But if Texas comes back to the table willing to make a concession for equal revenue sharing, expansion talk will perk up again. And fast.
Personally, while this story has been interesting I have been feeling increasingly ambivalent about it. My mind is all around UCLA football which at this snapshot of time is not in good shape. We need to get our house in order fast so that the Bruins are prepared for all the new dynamics created by the ongoing tectonic shifts in college football.
Consider this an expansion open thread. If you are running into good nuggets, stories, please share them here.