When Texas A&M announced they were leaving the Big 12, the big elephant in the room stood up. That elephant is about to stomp on what remains of the Big 12. The mice will start running to the SEC, ACC and the Pac-12. That brings us to the Pac-8, or Pac-10—no, wait—now it’s the Pac-12.
I agree with Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, who says that probably the best product for the Pac-12 is to stay the Pac-12. However, I believe he understands that if the Pac-12 doesn’t join the conference realignment party, there will be a huge line spanning the Rocky Mountains that will isolate the Pac-12 from the rest of the country.
So, in order for the Pac-12 not to be left at the altar, the Pac-16 must rear its ugly head. The Pac-12 Conference may feel like it is holding a double-edged sword.
Okay, so let’s assume that this realignment throughout the country happens and the 2012 college football schedule is not anything like what we have this year.
I have one question: Who is better off?
Student athletes? Yeah, right—they don’t win now, so why would the university presidents or the NCAA throw them a bone?
How about the fans? Well, do you actually see ticket prices going down as a result of this? My attendance is critical so I can buy $14 beers.
Now, don’t get me wrong, the Pac-16 could be a great, competitive conference. I live in Eugene, the home of the Ducks. I would love the opportunity to see the matchups that this conference realignment has the potential to produce. Selfishly, I would really enjoy having Oklahoma State come to Eugene every other year. That would be a great game, each and every meeting.
Okay, so the players and fans won’t be better off.
That’s right, the old men who run the NCAA, the bowl committees (really old men) and university presidents (really, really old men).
What will these groups gain?
After all, that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?