THE CHEAP SEATS with STEVE CAMERON: You've got Pac-12 questions, we've got answers

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

—George Orwell

Since we have a bright, thoughtful, well-read and exceptionally literate readership, I probably shouldn’t even bother with saying that quote refers to the bigs in Orwell’s iconic novel, “Animal Farm.”

You knew that, of course.

In fact, you probably thought of that same sentence when you heard that USC and UCLA had decided they were more equal than their equal partners in the Pac-12 Conference.

And so off they went, squealing with delight as they joined the Big Ten, joining a rich farmyard full of greedy pigs like themselves.

Because USC and UCLA did not care what would become of their former “equal partners,” they likely didn’t give a thought to all the questions they’ve left behind in their curly-tailed wakes.

Such questions might be different for each of the 10 programs remaining back at the barn, but there are a bundle of them to go around.

Let’s try to grasp just a few, eh?

QUESTION: Would Washington look to join the Big Ten or Big 12, but leave Washington State stuck on its own?

ANSWER: There are all kinds of layers to this one, starting with all the states (Washington, Arizona, Oregon) that have more than one remaining Pac-12 school.

Individual legislatures could intervene in situations where one school wants to depart alone — or they could simply let it happen.

Years ago, the legislature in Iowa mandated that there must be a football game between Iowa State and Iowa, but lawmakers in Kansas have (so far) not forced KU to play a basketball game against Wichita State.

So …

We simply don’t know how it might play out in each state.

There is a further complication with Ana Mari Cauce, president of the University of Washington, having just taken over as chair of the Pac-12 executive committee.

If UW were negotiating behind the scenes to leave a conference, while its president was theoretically working with her peers for the good of the whole group, well …

Not only would the optics stink, it would be a conflict of interest beyond imagining.

QUESTION: If the Pac-12 survivors stick together and presumably negotiate a media rights package with ESPN, would it make sense to expand back to 12 members?

ANSWER: Yes, in terms of scheduling, but they wouldn’t want to divide a smaller revenue pie — maybe half the Big Ten’s haul — just for the sake of numbers.

Expansion only makes sense if there are two (or more) schools with football brands that appeal to the media outlet paying the bills.

It would be interesting to know what ESPN thinks programs like Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State or even Air Force could bring to the party.

In terms of national branding, Boise State and Fresno have far more football name recognition than anyone else in the region.

But, again … now that geography seems meaningless, where would a school like SMU fit in the picture?

Or could FCS powerhouse North Dakota State be wooed into making the jump to Division I — and joining the new Pac-12?

QUESTION: Just a year ago, wasn’t the Big 12 desperate when Oklahoma and Texas bailed out? Is that conference a possible partner for the Pac-12?

ANSWER: The irony of this situation is almost laughable.

The Big 12 was indeed in trouble — and suggested a merger with the Pac-12.

The offer was rebuffed by then-commissioner Larry Scott, the last of his many awful decisions.

Now the situation is reversed, the Big 12 has added four teams, it’s sitting pretty — and would only think of adding more schools if (once again) the revenue figures were more than the extra number of payouts.

No doubt a few Pac-12 programs are scrambling to get in touch with the Big 12, trying to jump in front of their current partners.

In a statement after the USC-UCLA news, the Pac-12 universities said they would go forward together.

However, in the words of Jon Wilner, the reporter who broke this bombshell in the first place: “They are committed to each other. Until they aren’t.”

QUESTION: Isn’t it obvious that Washington and Oregon are the two powerhouse football brands that another conference would want to poach?

ANSWER: Is it?

Washington has history, but hasn’t done much lately — and if you go by recent memories, the Huskies were dreadful.

Oregon is a relative newcomer to the elite level of college football, and even though people in the West always mention Nike boss Phil Knight …

Um, he’s 84 now, and how many people in New Jersey know him, anyhow?

The fact is that if you polled a thousand fans east of the Rockies, the Pac-12’s best-known remaining program could well be Stanford.

Oregon and U-Dub are not quite perceived as the national giants that their loyalists tend to believe.

On the flip side, Washington State has more name value than you might imagine.

The Cougs aren’t exactly Notre Dame, but a lot of national news seems to pop up in Pullman — not all great, I agree, but do we know for sure that it matters?

And keep in mind, when working out how various chips could fall, it isn’t geography, or stadium size, or attendance.

In short, do people around the country know who in the hell you are?

QUESTION: Are there more critical pieces to putting this puzzle together?

ANSWER: Absolutely.

Just too many to cover in one day.

Email: [email protected]

Steve Cameron’s “Cheap Seats” columns appear in The Press three times each week. He also writes Zags Tracker, a commentary on Gonzaga basketball which is published monthly during the offseason, and weekly beginning in October.

Steve suggests you take his opinions in the spirit of a Jimmy Buffett song: “Breathe In, Breathe Out, Move On.”