ESPN College Football

A day after conference expansion Armageddon was avoided with the Pac-12 taking a pass on Oklahoma and Texas, commissioner Larry Scott was in good cheer. And why not? Scott's conference still has the richest TV deal and is the most unified and stable in the nation.

"We could have expanded, but the deal didn't make any sense at the end of the day for us, especially given the position that we are in," Scott said. "There is a very high bar. It's hard to imagine very many scenarios for our conference to expand because the bar is so high."

And Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, were not able to clear that bar, a determination Scott made over the weekend, which he recommended to the Pac-12 presidents on Monday and Tuesday. Thus the statement from Scott's office Tuesday night that the conference would remain at 12 teams.

The decision to not expand was greeted favorably from all corners of the conference.

Said Washington State athletic director Bill Moos, "I like the way the conference is now and I'm pleased the decision was made to keep it at 12 members."

Said USC athletic director Pat Haden, "I don't think there is any rush for us to get to 16."

On Wednesday, a source told The Oklahoman that Oklahoma was using the Pac-12 for leverage to get some concessions from the Big 12:

“But frankly, we wanted the impression out there that we might go to the Pac-12 because that gave us some leverage,” the source said. “We were using that as leverage to say, ‘Hey, you want us to stay? Let's have some of these reforms.'”

That would seem to imply that Oklahoma wanted to make it public that it was negotiating in bad faith with the Pac-12, but Scott had no issue with this strategy.

"I have nothing but respect for the leadership of the University of Oklahoma," he said. "I don't want to contradict anything that they feel they need to say as part of the process they are in."

The Big 12 has yet to announce reforms.

While a second negotiation within just over a year to create a Pac-16 didn't end with an agreement, Scott said he doesn't feel that relationships have been damaged.

"I can only speak from my own experience and say not at all," he said. "Not in terms of the folks I've dealt with. I have had very enjoyable dealings with everyone I've dealt with."

Scott, Moos and Haden each said they don't expect expansion talk to end across the nation, including with the Pac-12.

"I don't see any of our schools wanting to leave," Moos said. "We've established the Pac-12 as a destination. I would guess there will be overtures down the road of institutions inquiring about membership."

But the Pac-12's condition for membership will be non-negotiable, Scott said: equal revenue sharing. Even if that means leaving money on the table.

Said Scott, "An opportunity was turned down that could have generated more money for the schools but potentially could have torn apart the fabric of the culture of the conference."

The big question, however, is the future: How long before expansion chatter again engulfs the conference? Is the Pac-12 merely playing a game of chicken with other programs?

Scott doesn't see it that way, but he also maintains -- as he has since the first wave of expansion in 2010 -- that consolidation isn't going away in big-time college football.

"I absolutely expect we will stay 12 teams for a long while," he said. "But after what I've seen happen in the last year, I don't think anyone could stick their neck out and make any definitive predictions."

Is the Pac-16 practically a done deal? Or is poor, ol' Baylor going to rally folks around Texas-ness, as if Texas is a foreign country or sumptin?

Or will legal threats complicate things? There's talk of lawyering up!

I thought folks in Texas liked free markets.

There's lots of speculation. Lots of "sources said." Here's the latest, which probably won't be anything like what actually happens.

• Jon Wilner writes that more than a few folks don't see Texas as being part of the deal. That might be true, but that would require Texas to (again) make a short-sighted business decisions. The Longhorns' most lucrative long-term move is the Pac-16. Period. Texas' best bet is to hush up and listen to Larry Scott, who's playing chess while others play checkers.
• George Schroeder, who knows his way around Oklahoma, believes the Sooners are on the cusp of joining the Pac-12, if not this week, then next.
• If you read the contract, there's little that prevents compromise on the Longhorn Network, so it could fit within a Pac-16 framework.
• Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops was grandstanding when he talked about ending the series with Texas -- about 2 percent chance of that happening -- but he probably enjoyed doing it.
• Colorado, which was eager to go all Californy, isn't eager to be reunited with its landlocked exes.
• Expansion? The coaches are focused on games but for the most part they've accepted it as inevitable.

Lots going on. Lots of chatter.

Here's the take-away.

The Pac-12, the Pac-14, the Pac-16 -- whatever -- is well-positioned. Commissioner Larry Scott is in a seat of power. Most of the players here coming to him with hats in hand. He saw this coming months ago. And his conduct as commissioner thus far suggests he has a clear plan and vision that will work out best for the conference.

You don't have to like it. But you probably will have to get used to it.

We interrupt your final preparations for the opening week of the college football season for a word from our sponsor: Expansion.

Says Expansion, "We're baaaack!"

With Texas A&M officially tap dancing its way toward the SEC, the general feeling is the Big 12 now stands on shaky ground. Really shaky ground.

And there are two new power brokers as we look ahead: the Pac-12 and Oklahoma.

Recall how Texas left Larry Scott and the other Big 12 members of the Pac-16 plan, including Oklahoma, at the altar? Well, Scott is no longer a guy who transforms from blushing bride to despondent daisy.

Recall the scene in "A Few Good Men" when Col. Nathan R. Jessep tells Lt. Daniel Kaffee, "You gotta ask me nicely." That's the new Scott.

Scott has proved he can produce. Texas, the biggest expansion prize, knows now it will be richer as a member of an expanded Pac-12 than as an Independent or as a member of a watered-down Big 12.

But the team that needs to take the lead on the deal is Oklahoma, not Texas, as Jake Trotter writes here: "This time around, Texas does not hold all the cards and the Sooners have fewer obstacles in their path to another conference."

Kirk Bohls of the Austin Statesman believes Texas wants Oklahoma to make the first overtures to the Pac-12:

Should Oklahoma act upon its earnest desires and seek an invitation to join the Pacific-12 Conference — something I'm fully expecting to happen within days, if not hours — that decision could well be the killing blow to the Big 12 while also providing Texas the political cover to follow suit and ask for admission as well.

The Pac-12's not going to ask first. It's been down that road before, led along until the eleventh hour a year ago.

Bohls goes so far as to make a prediction.

Here's what I think will happen, probably before the calendar turns to October:

Your new Pac-16 members: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The era of the super conference begins.

What about the Longhorn Network, which has been seen as stumbling block (Scott has said as much in interviews)?

The Longhorn Network gets folded into the Pac-16 as a downsized regional network, joining the six regional networks that already exist within the conference.

Scott has long said he believes college football will continue to consolidate. And he knows he now holds a strong hand.

Are we headed for a Pac-16, with East and West Divisions (Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the East; California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington and Washington State in the West)?

Let's just say lots of folks think so.

Big winner in this: Utah, which wasn't part of the original Pac-16 plan.

Small loser: Colorado, which would switch out some glamorous Pac-12 road trips for more weekends in Stillwater, Norman and Lubbock.

Ring-ring! "Larry, Oklahoma is on line 16."

Big grin. "Tell them I'll be with them when I finish my danish."

Oh, and what is the "official" position of the Pac-12. Here's a statement from Scott:

"Our sole focus has been on developing the tremendous opportunities we have as a new, 12-team Conference and we have no current plans to expand the Pac-12. However, I have made clear my vision that the health, stability and future of college athletics will likely include further consolidation and re-alignment. While I can not predict if and when this might make sense for us, we will listen to and evaluate any scenario that would benefit our member institutions, our student-athletes and our fans. In the meantime, we are pleased to be in a strong leadership position in academics and college athletics, with both a rich heritage of success and recent moves that have greatly strengthened our conference and positioned us well for the future."

It's been a busy summer for Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott, who made a bold, but ultimately abortive move to create the first super-conference -- a Pac-16 with Texas as the headlining new partner -- but he still made big news when he expanded the conference to 12 teams with Utah and Colorado.

But his work is far from done. He's got to figure out how to divide the new conference into divisions. He's got to figure out where and how he wants to play a conference championship game.

And he's got to then try to negotiate a blockbuster media deal that keeps the Pac-12 competitive with the other top BCS conferences going forward.

While a lot of tough negotiations lay ahead -- particularly over the divisions -- he did have some answers this week. While he wouldn't get pinned down definitively, it's clear the conference will continue to play a nine-game conference schedule going forward and that there will be a conference championship game.

Also: A Pac-10 network is going to get serious consideration.

The football part of football is about to start cracking in earnest, but we wanted to check in with Scott and find out where things stand.

So has life as the Pac-10 commissioner slowed down a bit or are things still as busy as this summer?

Larry Scott: The summer is generally a slower time, but we've been very busy with preparations for the expanded conference. We've been actively working on divisional structure, looking at our revenue sharing arrangements, planning for a football championship game and continuing our preparatory work for our upcoming media negotiations. Those are the top priorities we've been focused on, as well as the regular business of getting ready for this season.

It has been some weeks between the aspirations for a Pac-16 and the deal falling apart: Any perspective or lessons learned from that?

LS: Nothing specifically. We feel good about the process. We got a lot of positive from it. We are thrilled with where we wound up. We're excited about where the Pac 10 is going as the Pac-12. There's been no looking back. Just excited about our future and our prospects. No real additional perspectives on it.

What are the chances the Pac-12 will revisit expansion in the coming years?

LS: It's pretty impossible to predict what the timing could be around possible super-conferences discussions. I've said and believe that there will come a time when those conversations are picked up again, because the underlying fundamentals behind our vision and the plan we articulated had a lot of positive reaction and got a lot of traction. It came very close for good reasons. So if and when those conversations happen again, the Pac-12 will be very well-placed, and I'm sure will be in the mix. I couldn't begin to predict what the timing of that might be, because it depends on factors outside our control.

The biggest bit of intrigue on the table is how the Pac-12 will divide itself. Update us on that process: What is going on between now and the meetings in October?

LS: We have a working group of athletic directors for football and senior women administrators for other sports looking at sports schedules on a sport-by-sport basis. So we are analyzing different models, talking about pros and cons, looking at different scenarios. And on a parallel track we are also discussing our revenue sharing arrangements, because how you divide divisions could have an impact based on our current model, which is appearance-based revenue sharing for football. We are very much on track against the timetable I laid out, where we've got several more rounds of discussions with our athletic directors. Ultimately the decision will be made by our board, which are our presidents and chancellors, at the end of October. I would describe the conversations as spirited and robust. I think there is a very healthy balance between institutions looking at the issues from an individual perspective, but I've been very impressed with the big-picture view the leadership of our schools is taking toward what is in the best interests of the conference long-term. I think there is a common view that that which is good for the conference will be best for each of the individual institutions long-term.

We hear lots of talk about a North-South split or a zipper plan: Does one or the other have more momentum in your mind?

LS: Not at this point in time. I'd say we're looking at both of those models, and frankly hybrids of those models on parallel tracks. There are very clear pros and cons in different ways you could cut the geographic divisions or zipper models. There is no front runner at the moment.

How does this not become a conflict between the Northwest schools and the California schools?

LS: I don't see it being that. As I said with geographic structure, there are models where the California schools would stay together and there are models where Northern California and Southern California schools split. So discussing north-south doesn't necessarily have to mean the Northwest schools are separated from California. With a zipper, there's obviously, by definition of the zipper, the Northwest schools would each have one Northern California [and] one Southern California school in their division. That is an issue that is on the table that is being discussed, but is not a foregone conclusion at all that going with the geographic structure has to separate the Northwest schools from California.

Fair to say no matter how the divisions go, the nine-game conference schedule will remain?

LS: No definitive decision has been taken on that, but there is a strong bias to maintain the nine-game conference schedule for several reasons, including that I think the Pac-10 prides itself on having a tough schedule, both within the conference and out of conference, placing a priority on producing a good product for fans and other stakeholders. We feel we're doing it the right way. A good way for everyone. And I think over time you'll see more conferences doing that, playing a nine-game conference schedule for the reasons I laid out.

First, is a conference title game a sure thing? And, if so, which plan -- home game, neutral site -- leads among the conference and athletic directors?

LS: We are right smack in the middle of those discussions. In fact, I had a discussion on that very topic [Tuesday] with a group of five athletic directors in San Francisco. We are almost surely going to have a football championship game. And we are planning on it for 2012. What's unknown at the moment is whether if Colorado were to come in for 2011, if we'd know early enough whether we could have a football championship game in 2011. We are currently analyzing both models -- the NFL style playoff home-field versus the fixed site, the neutral site.

If you were guessing, will Colorado join the conference in 2011 with Utah, or in 2012, per the original agreement?

LS: All indications at the moment are that it will be per the original plan, that they'll come in 2012. But I think the door is not completely shut. From what I understand there is still, I believe, there still may be conversations that are going on. But all indications thus far are that the Big 12 [and] Colorado will not work out the deal for Colorado to come until 2012.

Even bigger than setting up the future logistics of the Pac-12 is the negotiations for a new TV, media package: Where does that stand?

LS: We are on track with the schedule we anticipated. We always envisioned wanting to decide what we're going to do in terms of expansion before the end of this year. Obviously we are well in advance of that timetable. Our exclusive negotiating periods with our incumbent partners ESPN-ABC on the one hand, and Fox on the other hand, start in early 2011. So we're in the midst of doing a lot of strategy work, planning and our due-diligence. We are also, as I've said before, in the midst of building a business plan for a Pac 12 network. It's on course for it [the negotiating] all to start in early 2011.

Obviously, a Pac-12 Network is an option: What do you know about how that potentially could look at this point?

LS: We are working very closely with our outside media advisers from Creative Arts Agency, which has a vast experience in developing business plans for networks and operating networks. There are different combinations and permutations for how you might program it, and what the structure of it might be, and what the economics of it might be. There are just lots of different scenarios. Some of that would obviously be influenced by our partner that we might work with. We're not having discussions with potential partners yet. But we're developing various scenarios that would be feasible.

ESPN The Magazine polled 135 college football players to break down the upcoming season from both a national and a conference perspective.

The results for the Pac-10 were interesting.

First, the players not only picked Stanford to win the Pac-10 championship -- 44.4 percent -- they also named Jim Harbaugh as the best coach (44.4 percent). Said one player: "They were terrible when I first got here. That's all Harbaugh -- he's brought in a completely different level of player."

Best player was Washington QB Jake Locker (33 percent).

But this question -- and answer -- struck me:

1. Is your school in the right conference? YES: 66.7 percent | NO: 33.3 percent.

What?

Which conference do one third of the Pac-10 players polled want to be in?

It's notable that players from the Big East (100 percent), SEC (100 percent), Big Ten (93.8 percent) and ACC (93.3) were overwhelming happy in their conference. As for the Big 12, 25 percent said they were not in the right conference.

Judging from the offseason news about commissioner Larry Scott raiding the Big 12 in order to build the Pac-16, perhaps the Big 12 players want to join the Pac-10.

Or do the Pac-10 players want to join the Big 12? Confusing? Yes.

Wait. There's more!

Turning to a national perspective, guess whose uniforms rate No. 1.

This was an Oregon landslide (53.7 percent). One Big Ten star was particularly blown away. "I don't even have to think about that one," he says. "I almost wanted to transfer there just for those uniforms." As for worst unis, winner Wyoming's brown-and-yellow jerseys elicited 18.9 percent. Wonders one player: "The worst colors ever? What is that, piss and poop?"

Ah, the generation gap. Traditionalists make fun of Oregon's uniforms. But players love them.

As for best coach, that's Alabama's Nick Saban, which I'd second, though Florida's Urban Meyer has to be 1B. But a Pac-10 coach did get mentioned.

As for the last coach you'd ever want to play for, players aren't rooting for USC's Lane Kiffin (29.6 percent). "He's an awesome football coach," says one O-lineman. "But he took a program for one year, talked a lot, then left them out to dry."

But guess what: The first part of that statement will be what matters going forward -- and by that I mean whether it proves true or not.

And, again, sorry to disappoint the folks who constantly pipe the tired "Jake Locker hasn't done anything" but the reality is the players see the same things that NFL draft experts do. To the question of the nation's best player:

Shocker! Reigning Heisman winner Mark Ingram won with 51.1 percent of the vote. But No. 2 was a real surprise. Forget Terrelle Pryor. The dual-threat QB players love is Washington's Jake Locker (14.1 percent). They're in awe of the senior's talent (4.39 40, drafted by MLB) and understand why both Mel Kiper and Todd McShay project him as a possible No. 1 NFL pick in 2011. "Best QB in the country. Best prospect, too," says a fellow top draft prospect.

Finally, you can read what players think about a potential playoff here.

Under Pete Carroll, USC won consecutive national titles and just missed a third. It became the premier college football program in the country, a Heisman Trophy and NFL pipeline where you were liable to run into Snoop Dogg or Will Ferrell on the sidelines. USC was where the cool kids went. You know -- all those prep All-Americans.

The program was a colossus standing astride college football, sporting a smirk that infuriated its rivals (though, let's be honest, both Oregon and Stanford busted the Trojans in the chops last year in blowout victories as they staggered to a 9-4 finish and Pete Carroll ran off to the Seattle Seahawks).

It certainly didn't happen overnight -- it took four years, actually -- but the NCAA cut the Trojans off at the knees Thursday, citing the program for the dreaded lack of institutional control and sanctioning it with a two-year bowl ban and a loss of 30 scholarships -- 10 per recruiting class -- over the next three years.

USC will appeal. It believes the infractions committee didn't give its defense a fair shake. We'll see. A completely different committee will review any appeal, so maybe a new set of eyes will see things differently. Of course, a lengthy process -- a final ruling on an appeal wouldn't come until the spring of 2011 and might take much longer considering the complexity of the case -- could just prolong the embarrassing notoriety and delay any righting of the program under first-year coach Lane Kiffin.

Yes, USC will right itself. Eventually, no doubt. The right coach at USC, which may or may not be Kiffin, will win, just like the right coach at Alabama or Ohio State or Florida or Texas will win.

Just know that these sanctions have teeth. A loss of 10 scholarships from the next three recruiting classes will significantly damage overall depth. And, as Tom Luginbill points out, the margin for error in recruiting will become razor thin. A couple of busts and the program could find itself with gaping holes heading into the 2013 and 2014 seasons.

But it's not just about the loss of 10 scholarships per class, it's also about the remaining 15. Kiffin will be challenged to convince elite prospects who have no emotional ties to the program to sign. The bowl ban won't matter that much. Even with the 2011 class, you're talking about an incoming freshman only missing one postseason (though an appeal would mean the Trojans could play in a bowl after this season but not the next two). No, the recruiting challenge will emerge from USC not being in the national title hunt in the near future. A recruit who signs this February or the next one or the next one probably can't count on being a member of a national contender.

And, you may have noticed, national contenders seem to do well in recruiting .

Will USC's 2011 recruiting class, which is off to a fast start, hold together? And will the Trojans see a number of players transfer? We shall see.

We will also see if another Pac-10 team can take advantage of USC being knocked to the canvas. Obviously, there will be more hotshot southern California prospects available and more reasons for them to look elsewhere.

The first beneficiary could be UCLA. Bruins coach Rick Neuheisel already has made big recruiting inroads, even beating USC for a couple of elite prospects in February. Football monopoly? The Trojans just lost their hotels on Park Place and Boardwalk.

Oregon appears on the cusp of moving up from a top-25 program to something more elite, and the Ducks seem like the team most likely to get the first shot at taking the Trojans perch. They now are the favorites to win a second consecutive Pac-10 title. You might recall that winning consecutive conference championships wasn't easy before Carroll arrived at USC and did it seven times.

But the Pac-10's overall depth is as good as it's ever been. The conference, in the short term, could revert to its old, unpredictable self, pre-Carroll. Rose Bowls from 1995 to 2003 featured seven different Pac-10 teams, including Washington State twice and the mighty Trojans just once.

Then there's this little expansion issue. When USC's bowl ban is over heading into the 2012 season, the conference might look very different. Texas over in the Pac-16 Western Division might have already tried to extend its powerful recruiting tentacles into Trojans territory. That could get interesting.

Alabama got hit hard by NCAA sanctions in 2002, losing 21 scholarships over three years. The Crimson Tide appears to be in fine shape today.

No reason USC can't recover as quickly.

But the NCAA, without question, has changed the near-term trajectory of the Trojans program, which means the Pac-10 heads into 2010 feeling much different than it has in recent years.

Here's the headline from last year's Pac-10 meetings: "Cost Containment Proposals Highlight Pac-10 Meetings."

Things are a bit more interesting this year.

A report that the Pac-10 is now looking to expand to 16 teams, with the new six all coming from the Big 12 -- Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado -- sent shockwaves through college football on Thursday.

The Pac-10, according to the reports, would then split into two divisions, with Arizona and Arizona State joining the Big 12 six and the old Pac-8 forming the other division.

(One of my first thoughts was I know two guys who hate the idea: The Stoops brothers, Oklahoma's Bob and Arizona's Mike, who would suddenly be playing not only in the same conference but also in the same division, which means playing every year. Mike Stoops has repeatedly told me he has no interest in playing a game against brother Bob.)

Two immediate questions arise: 1. Is this about to happen? 2. And if it is not imminent, is this still the most likely endgame?

I do not know the answer to either, but my feeling is: 1. No; 2. I'm not sold. Yet.

Before all of this hullabaloo started, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott told me that nothing of significant news value would happen this weekend. Yes, he said, expansion was on the agenda and a variety of scenarios would be discussed. Yes, he said, the conference is looking into creating its own network but that can't come into fruition until it first negotiates with its present contracted broadcast partners.

In a lighter moment, he told me he didn't want me to end up like other reporters who wrote about imminent blockbuster expansion scenarios that turned out to not be that imminent after all.

After all of this hullabaloo started, Scott still told other reporters the exact same thing: No invitations have been extended. Nothing has been decided.

Is the "Pac-16" a possibility? Absolutely. Will that scenario be discussed this weekend during the Pac-10 meetings in San Francisco? Without a doubt. And it already has been discussed, according to a source. But so have other scenarios.

Expect expansion to play out over the next few months like a coaching search. Conference presidents and commissioners are working behind the scenes, looking for tango partners. They also are aware of how the media works, so there will be a considerable effort to create plausible deniability. Such as:

Reporter: Has Conference X contacted University of Z?

Commissioner: No.

But, of course, there has been some contact through some sort of back channels using representatives with some sort of authority to represent their organization.

Consider this interesting story on the Big Ten side of things from the Columbus Dispatch. If the Pac-10 has "contacted" Texas -- despite denials -- well, it's not alone. From the Dispatch: "Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee sent an e-mail to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany on April 20 saying that he had spoken with Texas President William Powers."

You can read Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg's amusing explication of the story and the e-mails here, but know that the Big Ten's Jim Delany has maintained -- much like Scott -- that the conference hasn't made official contact with any other university.

What should you take away from all this as of Friday, June 4?

Know how Scott has repeatedly said -- to me at least 20 times -- that everything is on the table.

It is. And the endgame options range from no change (still not completely unrealistic) to huge change (more realistic now than it was 24 hours ago).

And now, our expansion links!

• Jon Wilner gives a very reasonable take. Wilner is going to a family wedding on the East Coast this weekend, so he won't be providing on-the-scene updates when things conclude on Sunday. Drat.
• All reports at this point are still speculative.
• Here's a good destination for you expansion-obsessed folks.
• Ray Ratto considers the Pac-10 "meet market."
• Texas, the key to everything, can save the Big 12.
• The Pac-10 and Big 12 were talking alliances. Now they are adversaries.
• Why Texas Tech and not Kansas?
• Colorado doesn't know it's going to be invited to join the Pac-10 (it may just think that it will).
• Does the Big 12's silence speak volumes?
• The Pac-10 pros and cons for Oklahoma and the same for Oklahoma State. (Doesn't that sound strange?) Conclusion: It's a good thing.