Pac-12 says no (mostly) to expansion

And after all of the chatter about super-conferences and the Pac-Whatever, the Pac-12 has decided to... stay the Pac-12.

From the conference home office:

Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott said, “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.”

You should note the bolded "culture of equality." The Pac-16 deal didn't get done because the Pac-12 didn't feel that could be maintained with expansion.

Bottom line: There were a lot of discussions -- and proposals -- traded between Texas, Oklahoma and the Pac-12, but the parties were unable to reach an agreement that worked for everyone.

So, does this augur long-term stability for the Pac-12? Maybe. But anyone asserting certainty is just being hopeful. It appears that the ACC, SEC, Big East and Big 12 are still engaged in reckless eyeballing, so there are still dominoes to fall that could again change the landscape.

What the Pac-12 is really saying is that it is confident in its present position, but if things change, it will be able to react in a way that maintains its position in the conference pecking order -- see the recently signed, $3 billion, 12-year deal with ESPN and Fox that is the richest in college sport.

Is this the endgame? Does it feel like we'll be celebrating "20 years of the Pac-12" in 2031?

Probably not.

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.

View the original article here

Lombardi: Seahawks ‘almost’ like expansion team

Published: September 19th, 2011 | Tags: Seattle Seahawks, Around the League, Michael Lombardi

nfl.use('nfl-video', function (Y) { var video = new Y.NFL.Video.Player({ srcNode: "#video-player-09000d5d82262caf", contentId: "09000d5d82262caf", related: "home", adSetting: "1", dartURL: "http://ad.doubleclick.net/pfadx/nfl.special/blog/home;s1=blog;s2=home;slot=inpage;nfl=ad;tile=3;sz=640x360;ord=?", playerName: "blog_large_embedded", render: true, size: "large", uniqid: "09000d5d82262caf"});});

There aren’t many positives for the Seahawks to take out of their first two losses of the season, and the numbers tell enough of the story. The Seahawks have been outscored 57-17, and were shut out by the Steelers on Sunday. They’ve been outgained 630 to 383 in total yards. They have a total of 95 rushing yards.

NFL Network’s Michael Lombardi was asked for his assessment of the team that was the surprise winner of the NFC West last season at 7-9.

“I see almost an expansion team. I really do,” Lombardi told “Around the League” on Monday. “And I hate to be so critical in only the second week of the season. But Seattle has not demonstrated any significant player on either side of the football who can make a play or stop someone from making a play. Their offensive line is very suspect. The defensive line doesn’t have a dominating player. And, when you look at the team, where are you going with Tarvaris Jackson at quarterback?”

Follow The NFL Network on Twitter @nflnetwork.

Posted in: NFL Network   comments    

Comments may be no longer than 2000 characters and will post to the site shortly after submitting.

View the original article here

Is stability the expansion endgame?

Oklahoma's and Texas' board of regents granted their school presidents the authority to take action regarding conference realignment on Monday, but that doesn't necessarily mean immediate moves are imminent.

Maybe we get a moment to breathe here. Maybe that's a good thing.

There are plenty of folks who remain uncertain about expansion, including Pac-12 administrators. UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero released a statement Monday on potential Pac-12 expansion:

Expansion just for the sake of expansion is rarely a good thing. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "We may all have come in different ships, but we are all in the same boat now." Those of us in the same boat, the existing Pac-12 members, need to think long and hard as to the relevancy and value of bringing new members into the boat. Issues of academic compatibility, student-athlete welfare, competitive and financial implications all need to be thought out carefully by the various stakeholders. If further expansion is the right thing to do, then it makes sense to proceed.

The chief question: Is the conference's long-term future best served by being a 12-team league or by adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech and becoming a 16-team league? That means Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott needs to paint a picture for the Pac-12 presidents about what might happen if other leagues expand and the Pac-12 doesn't.

One thing to understand: Just about everything here is about self-interest. Treat everything you read -- from named and unnamed sources -- as working an angle and you'll be better off.

Texas coach Mack Brown's speech on the Big 12 conference call? ("As much as we talk about money," Brown said, "as much as we talk about college football, as much as we talk about realignment, as much as we talk about great games, playoffs and all that stuff, we better go back and make sure that we're taking care of the players and that the players and the high school coaches are always considered in the equation.")

Right. Texas wants the Big 12 to survive because its the Texas League, where it gets to do anything it wants. (And what do high school coaches have to do with this?)

Baylor's polling of Big 12 fans about conference expansion? Right. The poll wouldn't exist if Baylor were part of the foursome talking to the Pac-12. Or it might have emerged from Lubbock if Texas Tech were left out.

Even Guerrero, packing a Martin Luther King reference, is working an angle. His chief worry is UCLA falling further down the conference pecking order.

So don't listen to any of these guys. They all have agendas.

But you, the college football fan, do not get enriched by any of this, expansion or no expansion. In fact, you're the one who pay all the bills. You buy tickets. You watch TV. Your passion has created this multi-billion-dollar market that is driving these decisions. Your agenda is the game you love and your willingness to spend money -- and time -- on it.

I wonder if you're being taken for granted. No, wait. I don't wonder. I know. And I hear your massive skepticism.

Still, I am cautiously optimistic a Pac-16 would work and even work well, that it could be organized in a way that satisfies most fans interests. And as a college football entity -- heck, college sports entity -- it would be a powerhouse.

To me the larger issue is reaching an endgame where we can find long-term stability. How much of a guarantee would we have that four or so 16-team super-conferences will settle in for the next decade or so? Not much, I suspect.

That ultimately becomes an issue for the guys on the revenue end to consider: If upheaval becomes the standard, that eventually could significantly erode fan interest.

And then the next set of TV contracts might not end up leaving the schools so fat and happy.

View the original article here