Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Big 12 Expansion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Virginia Frog" data-source="post: 3164696" data-attributes="member: 4959"><p>I'll go along.</p><p></p><p>I believe it is more likely this is academic since the PAC10 will go forward with the remaining 10 for 2024-25 so the B12 won't have the option to get 2-4 PAC teams at this point.</p><p></p><p>If I'm wrong and the PAC10 doesn't hang together in the short term, it will be because <strong>the insiders know</strong> that there's another shoe dropping before 6/30/23 and 2-4 additional schools will be "in the B1G money." In this scenario, the leftover pool of B12 candidates will be everyone but OreSt and WashSt.</p><p></p><p>Maybe the B12's goal should be to <strong>bring in two</strong> of the MountainTZ four. I say: Colorado & Arizona.</p><p><strong>Why bring in more mouths to feed </strong>by taking all four? (AzSt and Utah - we'd have those that states covered with AzU and BYU.)</p><p></p><p>1) it lessens the PAC 10 down to 8 and further weakens them so the newPAC is marginally viable.</p><p>2) a side benefit would be so they later won't have the strength to "take" any B12 teams.</p><p>3) this economy of choices maximizes the B12 future options in other areas of the country down the line (with the goal of being Conference #3 after the SEC/B1G.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Virginia Frog, post: 3164696, member: 4959"] I'll go along. I believe it is more likely this is academic since the PAC10 will go forward with the remaining 10 for 2024-25 so the B12 won't have the option to get 2-4 PAC teams at this point. If I'm wrong and the PAC10 doesn't hang together in the short term, it will be because [B]the insiders know[/B] that there's another shoe dropping before 6/30/23 and 2-4 additional schools will be "in the B1G money." In this scenario, the leftover pool of B12 candidates will be everyone but OreSt and WashSt. Maybe the B12's goal should be to [B]bring in two[/B] of the MountainTZ four. I say: Colorado & Arizona. [B]Why bring in more mouths to feed [/B]by taking all four? (AzSt and Utah - we'd have those that states covered with AzU and BYU.) 1) it lessens the PAC 10 down to 8 and further weakens them so the newPAC is marginally viable. 2) a side benefit would be so they later won't have the strength to "take" any B12 teams. 3) this economy of choices maximizes the B12 future options in other areas of the country down the line (with the goal of being Conference #3 after the SEC/B1G.) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Big 12 Expansion
Top