From the Trojan Wire/USA TODAY. The following articles are probably 2 of an 8 part evaluation of B12 schools as expansion consideration by the PAC12.
BAYLOR
Earlier this week, Trojans Wire offered a general overview of what the Pac-12 faces as it considers expansion and realignment. Let’s now dive into specific schools with specific characteristics and see whether they would be good fits for the Pac-12.
Let’s start with a school which should create the easiest, least stressful, and clearest decision for the Pac-12: Baylor.
Some will say this is the defending national champion in men’s college basketball, with an excellent women’s basketball program as well. The football program has a coach, Dave Aranda, who is respected in the profession. Baylor came one defensive stop or one touchdown and 2-point conversion from making the College Football Playoff in 2019.
If we were talking only about the on-field product, sure, Baylor would be a great fit for the Pac-12… but that’s not how these decisions go, nor should it be.
Baylor is the program of Art Briles and former athletic director Ian McCaw, who ran a wayward, poisoned, toxic football shop. NCAA violations such as what USC endured with Reggie Bush, or what Ohio State dealt with under Jim Tressel, or what other programs have absorbed related to paying players or inappropriate benefits/compensation, are now generally acceptable due to NIL reforms. That said, those kinds of violations (improper benefits) were always far less severe than what happened at Penn State and Baylor this past decade.
Loss of institutional control — the violation to trump all other violations — was plainly made manifest at Penn State and Baylor. If any two football programs deserved to be drummed out of the Power Five (Autonomy 5) conferences (at the very least), and maybe out of the Football Bowl Subdivision altogether, those were the ones.
Of all the Big 12 schools which might soon become football refugees, stranded and looking for a new home, Baylor is the one school which cannot be allowed to fail upward. This is the time for college football justice to be delivered.
Delayed, yes, but not denied.
This is the time for Baylor football to be relegated to the Group of Five, either in the AAC or in a rebranded Southwest Conference which replaces the Big 12.
The Pac-12 cannot and must not reward Baylor with what would essentially be a life raft.
Several schools considered for expansion might not be natural cultural fits for the Pac-12, but Baylor is in a separate league. If the Pac-12 allows Baylor inside its gates, the other schools which haven’t been able to get in the door for various purported reasons (academics, culture, values, logistics) would have every right to be furious. The Pac-12 would lose a ton of credibility… and with Larry Scott having absolutely nothing to do with it, either.
The answer to Baylor is simple: No. No way. Stop. Access denied. Go somewhere else.
TEXAS TECH
When we consider the possibility of adding the Texas Tech Red Raiders, the value attached to such an addition comes in subtle forms rather than in an overt way.
Let’s explain: Texas Tech, by itself, doesn’t bring a lot to the table. No offense to the Red Raiders or their fans; what I mean is that the Pac-12 isn’t looking at Texas Tech and thinking, “YES! THIS IS THE ANSWER WHICH CHANGES EVERYTHING!” No one would view Texas Tech that way.
This isn’t an implied criticism of the school, which has a very good basketball program, a decent football program, and a generally respectable athletic profile. The point is that Texas Tech, by itself, won’t cause Pac-12 football media rights deals to become a lot more lucrative. Texas Tech, by itself, won’t change national perceptions about the Pac-12 on the gridiron. (Maybe hoops.) Texas Tech, by itself, won’t make Pac-12 football coaches or players excited to travel to Lubbock.
If Texas Tech makes sense for the Pac-12 — which is open to debate — it does so because it has fewer negatives than other expansion candidates.
It doesn’t have Baylor’s soiled track record. It doesn’t have the religious affiliation which has soured the conference in the past on other institutions such as BYU.
Lubbock isn’t as geographically removed from the Pac-12 as Oklahoma State is, in Stillwater. It would represent a third Southwestern university along with the Arizona schools.
Texas Tech doesn’t necessarily add lots of incredible, spectacular new features to the Pac-12, but it would create fewer headaches than most other options. That’s not insignificant. It might not be enough to recommend Pac-12 expansion into Lubbock, but it’s not unimportant.
Ultimately, the biggest point of uncertainty surrounding Texas Tech, relative to any possible union with the Pac-12, would focus on the school’s identity, and whether it would lead other possible invitees to give the Pac another examination.
Would Houston, for instance, have fresh interest in the Pac-12 if George Kliavkoff said Texas Tech was coming along for the ride as part of a Pac-14? Having an in-state conference game every year — two in basketball — and being able to move up from the Group of Five might be all Houston needs to jump from the AAC to the Pac-12.
I wouldn’t say that Texas Tech in the Pac-12 is a great fit, or that it is an ideal marriage. I will say that the Red Raiders would be a lot less likely to cause problems as a conference member and would feel like less of a threat to other schools interested in joining the Pac-12, should that process develop
BAYLOR
Pac-12 expansion evaluation: Baylor
- By Matt Zemek | 8:51 am PT
Earlier this week, Trojans Wire offered a general overview of what the Pac-12 faces as it considers expansion and realignment. Let’s now dive into specific schools with specific characteristics and see whether they would be good fits for the Pac-12.
Let’s start with a school which should create the easiest, least stressful, and clearest decision for the Pac-12: Baylor.
Some will say this is the defending national champion in men’s college basketball, with an excellent women’s basketball program as well. The football program has a coach, Dave Aranda, who is respected in the profession. Baylor came one defensive stop or one touchdown and 2-point conversion from making the College Football Playoff in 2019.
If we were talking only about the on-field product, sure, Baylor would be a great fit for the Pac-12… but that’s not how these decisions go, nor should it be.
Baylor is the program of Art Briles and former athletic director Ian McCaw, who ran a wayward, poisoned, toxic football shop. NCAA violations such as what USC endured with Reggie Bush, or what Ohio State dealt with under Jim Tressel, or what other programs have absorbed related to paying players or inappropriate benefits/compensation, are now generally acceptable due to NIL reforms. That said, those kinds of violations (improper benefits) were always far less severe than what happened at Penn State and Baylor this past decade.
Loss of institutional control — the violation to trump all other violations — was plainly made manifest at Penn State and Baylor. If any two football programs deserved to be drummed out of the Power Five (Autonomy 5) conferences (at the very least), and maybe out of the Football Bowl Subdivision altogether, those were the ones.
Of all the Big 12 schools which might soon become football refugees, stranded and looking for a new home, Baylor is the one school which cannot be allowed to fail upward. This is the time for college football justice to be delivered.
Delayed, yes, but not denied.
This is the time for Baylor football to be relegated to the Group of Five, either in the AAC or in a rebranded Southwest Conference which replaces the Big 12.
The Pac-12 cannot and must not reward Baylor with what would essentially be a life raft.
Several schools considered for expansion might not be natural cultural fits for the Pac-12, but Baylor is in a separate league. If the Pac-12 allows Baylor inside its gates, the other schools which haven’t been able to get in the door for various purported reasons (academics, culture, values, logistics) would have every right to be furious. The Pac-12 would lose a ton of credibility… and with Larry Scott having absolutely nothing to do with it, either.
The answer to Baylor is simple: No. No way. Stop. Access denied. Go somewhere else.
TEXAS TECH
Pac-12 expansion evaluation: Texas Tech
- By Matt Zemek | 9:23 am PT
When we consider the possibility of adding the Texas Tech Red Raiders, the value attached to such an addition comes in subtle forms rather than in an overt way.
Let’s explain: Texas Tech, by itself, doesn’t bring a lot to the table. No offense to the Red Raiders or their fans; what I mean is that the Pac-12 isn’t looking at Texas Tech and thinking, “YES! THIS IS THE ANSWER WHICH CHANGES EVERYTHING!” No one would view Texas Tech that way.
This isn’t an implied criticism of the school, which has a very good basketball program, a decent football program, and a generally respectable athletic profile. The point is that Texas Tech, by itself, won’t cause Pac-12 football media rights deals to become a lot more lucrative. Texas Tech, by itself, won’t change national perceptions about the Pac-12 on the gridiron. (Maybe hoops.) Texas Tech, by itself, won’t make Pac-12 football coaches or players excited to travel to Lubbock.
If Texas Tech makes sense for the Pac-12 — which is open to debate — it does so because it has fewer negatives than other expansion candidates.
It doesn’t have Baylor’s soiled track record. It doesn’t have the religious affiliation which has soured the conference in the past on other institutions such as BYU.
Lubbock isn’t as geographically removed from the Pac-12 as Oklahoma State is, in Stillwater. It would represent a third Southwestern university along with the Arizona schools.
Texas Tech doesn’t necessarily add lots of incredible, spectacular new features to the Pac-12, but it would create fewer headaches than most other options. That’s not insignificant. It might not be enough to recommend Pac-12 expansion into Lubbock, but it’s not unimportant.
Ultimately, the biggest point of uncertainty surrounding Texas Tech, relative to any possible union with the Pac-12, would focus on the school’s identity, and whether it would lead other possible invitees to give the Pac another examination.
Would Houston, for instance, have fresh interest in the Pac-12 if George Kliavkoff said Texas Tech was coming along for the ride as part of a Pac-14? Having an in-state conference game every year — two in basketball — and being able to move up from the Group of Five might be all Houston needs to jump from the AAC to the Pac-12.
I wouldn’t say that Texas Tech in the Pac-12 is a great fit, or that it is an ideal marriage. I will say that the Red Raiders would be a lot less likely to cause problems as a conference member and would feel like less of a threat to other schools interested in joining the Pac-12, should that process develop
