Expansion is certainly something the Pac-12 should consider. Keeping options open and not closing the door to various possibilities is a survival tactic. Limiting avenues is not smart. We can readily understand this.
However, expansion for the sake of expansion — we lost two schools, so we have to replace them — should also not be viewed as the right path.
What really matters: making sure any expansion candidates add considerable value.
Jon Wilner explored this point in a recent Pac-12 column in which he weighed the merits of staying at 10 schools versus bringing in expansion candidates:
Let’s call it the Stand-on-10 option.
First, we apologize if you were told there would be no math, because this discussion is all about the math. It’s a back-of-the-envelope look at the dollars and sense that come with hunkering down.
For help, we turned to a trusted source in the sports media industry, someone with experience on the deal-making side.
“I’d consider not adding any schools — split up whatever money fewer ways,” the source said. “There’s not a lot to be gained by combining with others. Sure, it’s possible. But I think the Pac-12 will do better on a per-school basis (by not adding). “Even if they can’t do better and the money is even, I’d still prefer that option and being with like-minded institutions, making rules that are in our best interests.”
Click Here to Read the Full Original Article at Football | Trojans Wire…