There are a number of interesting stories out today about where things stand with realignment.
While many of us wonder who will arrive in the Pac-12 the bigger question should be is expansion even wanted?
Wilner offer's up an interesting perspective...
On the topic of voting (nine CEOs must sign off on new members), it’s important to consider Scott’s management style.
Before coming to the Pac-12, which was then the Pac-10, he ran the Women’s Tennis Association — an international organization of independent contractors with their own agendas.
Yes, he is bold and creative. But he’s also a pragmatist and a consensus builder.
He’s in regular communication with his CEOs, including ASU’s Michael Crow, chairman of the league’s executive group, and knows exactly what the presidents and chancellors want.
He’s not going to call for a vote on new members unless those new members agree in advance to work within the Pac-12′s framework.
For example: If Texas doesn’t agree to participate fully in the league’s revenue-sharing plan … if Texas doesn’t agree to fold the Longhorn Network into the Pac-12 regional network structure … if everyone isn’t on board with a 16-team division alignment … then Scott isn’t going to bother asking for a vote on the Longhorns.
Makes pretty good sense.
Wilner has it pretty solid. Scott won't embarrass himself with either party. He won't bring expansion to a vote if Texas doesn't give up some concessions,on the flip side he won't ask for a vote if he has division amongst his conference CEO's...at least not until he has the votes in his pocket.
Scott is riding a wave, why waste political capital if don't already have the answer you want. He'll walk, just like he did last year and watch with amusement as the Big-12 explodes.
One other thing to consider...is Texas a good fit? It's not like they have been great conference partners in the past, why would they start now? When the dust up over the broadcasting of high schools games first arouse it wasn't like UT stood up and said we don't want this...they allowed ESPN to dictate things not fully realizing that they were over playing their hand.
The conference CEO's see this and it is giving them pause.
One other thing here. The academic angle is joke, I mean how many stellar academic institutions does the Pac-12 really have? Are ASU, OSU and WSU on the same par as the big four? Does anyone really think that the CEO's of those schools that I just listed are really going to play the academic card? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to our longtime conference brethren, but come on...
The other story is that OU may try to take one last stab at saving the Big 12. And they are going to ask for some HEAVY concessions...
"It's going to take major, major reforms" for OU, and thus Oklahoma State, to consider remaining in the Big 12, the source said. "We'd have to have an interim commissioner."
The source said the league presidents do not believe Beebe responded with adequate leadership to Nebraska's and Texas A&M's frustration. The Big 12 has lost three members in the last 15 months, and "the relationships were so bad (with) the commissioner," the source said.
The conventional thinking on Beebe is that he has been an absentee landlord, that he stood by an let UT do as they pleased instead of working towards a consensus among the Big-12 CEO's.
Who knows where this all ends, but one thing is for sure, some schools are starting to rise up and fight for what is in their best interests if the league commissioners won't.