Wow, Boise State has no business in that conference. If he had real balls, he'd invite Texas and let it keep LHN.
Wow, Boise State has no business in that conference. If he had real balls, he'd invite Texas and let it keep LHN.
San Diego State and UNLV make sense for athletics, but realistically every quality D1 school in the west is already in the Pac12. They need to go East into Texas for the schools for best expansion. I'd take Texas, Tech, Rice and probably Houston before Boise and SDSU. Maybe not Houston over SDSU...
UNLV, Rice, and Houston aren't even worth mentioning because they're garbage at the only college sport that really matters, football....
Tbh, could it be that the reason they're looking at BSU and SDSU is that the Big 12 is going to add FSU and Clemson, thereby making the Texas and Oklahoma schools satisfied?
Pac-12 has other stipulations beyond football supremacy. They need to be non-religious, and need to be a research-1 level academic ins ution. I doubt Boise qualifies as the latter.
And San Diego State has as much potential in the right conference as Boise has of sustaining this once CP is gone.
To be fair, Boise should prove that they can win the Mountain West outright before being allowed to go to a BCS conference.
man what you mean? when you have to play powerhouses like San Diego State, Fresno State, Nevada, Wyoming, and Air Force year in and year out ... you're legit.
True dat. No wonder they're not able to dominate like they did in the WHACK conference.
Son, what happened to your LaTech Bulldogs? I thought they were gonna be better than LSU?![]()
And when you play on a blue field with jerseys that match the color of the field. That's something you see legit teams do all the time that doesn't scream gimmick at all.
If the PAC-12 had to add two college football teams, they should add SDSU and Fresno St. tbh
I'd rather them just keep things where they're at as oppose to adding two more ty teams. Quite frankly the Pac-10 where everyone played everyone was much better than the Pac-12 that added two doormats that don't do to improve the conference's prestige.
The only expansion option that makes any sense for the Pac would be adding Texas and it's tag-alongs.
Damn, the haters are salty as right now...![]()
Pretty much, and OU would have to be one of the tag-alongs. Getting UT under the stipulation we'd also have to take Tech, Baylor and TCU isn't worth it imo. Getting UT, Tech, OU and OK-State is still the only expansion they should consider. The reason I say Tech is because Lubbock makes a lot more geographic sense for the Pac-12 than either Waco or DFW.
Clipper Nation AKA overnight fan of the following teams -
- Los Angeles Clippers
- Los Angeles Kings (how convenient you like everyone else in Cali never spoke of them until they won the cup)
- Boise State (where did this one come from son? at least jump on the USC, UCLA, Stanford, or Oregon bandwagon to stay consistent to your area of teams)
Tbh, judging from what Larry Scott says, the PAC-12 doeswike us
![]()
![]()
So a potato eating fatass BSU homer tweeted that Larry Scott said he'd keep an eye on BSU supposedly means a great deal.
Keep telling yourself that![]()
Btw, what is your connection to BSU? Did you go there?
I don't know if this is possible, but is there a way to kick teams out of your conference?![]()
son I've been preaching to kick the Mississippi schools out of the SEC for years now as they are usually both absolutely pathetic. Vandy too in past years, but the SEC needs Vandy in the conference to keep grade point averages up.
The PAC will never take Baylor or TCU for the same reasons they turned down BYU... They do not want religious, non-research-1 ins utions. NAU has a better shot than either of them.
I agree about expansion... Texas and its scrub tag alongside and Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and maybe Kansas ultimately.
lmao Rice.
Every other Pac fan with common sense would fling their at Larry Scott if he were to even utter the word rice.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)